Poll: Healthpacks vs. Regenerating Health
- Thread starter ColeusRattus
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I think Just Cause 2 had it right. You can regenerate up to 20% of your health, but take more damage than that and you will only regenerate part of it, some will be permanently lost until you get a health pack.
Means you are never disastrously low on health and heal up a bit during combat, but stops health packs from being useless.
Means you are never disastrously low on health and heal up a bit during combat, but stops health packs from being useless.
I like the way Singularity did it where your health didn't regenerate but the character held a number of first aid kits for an instant healing effect that took about three seconds to apply and left you very vulnerable. Bioshock did something similar but the healing was instant with no penalty so you essentially had 9 health bars in the first and 5 in the second.
The thing I don't like about health resource systems is that you can be in that situation where you have three HP left but the health pack is right next to the boss you have to face. I've been thinking that regenerating health systems should at least put you at 50% health by default with first aid kits putting you back at full.
The thing I don't like about health resource systems is that you can be in that situation where you have three HP left but the health pack is right next to the boss you have to face. I've been thinking that regenerating health systems should at least put you at 50% health by default with first aid kits putting you back at full.
Both have their up and down-sides - what regenerating health's unwittingly led us to is the 30 second bubble of fun that gets repeated over ten hours or however long a AAA FPS lasts these days. The healthpack system was more instant action, but yeah, backtracking to find that stimpack by the blue door so you've a chance of butchering that cacklebastard inside the chapel broke the flow like sledgehammers to a riverdance. I liked Borderland's trick of having health-packs, but regenerating armour, that was damn nice (And actually would make sense if they started trying that for space marine based games)
Shit. I put "I Don't Care" because I forgot about the health system in Far Cry 2. I would also like to point out that Halo Reach has a similar hybrid system where your health would regenerate only to a certain degree depending on the damage and requires you to get a health pack to fill it up completely.
I prefer games where you die in one shot. Really.
But, if that's not the case, then I prefer the health pack system, or a hybrid system. Let's say I get into a big firefight with someone, and almost kill them before running out of ammo and having to fall back a bit to pick up a fallen teammates gun. In the 10 seconds it takes to do that, I don't want them to have regenerated and be back at full health. Ducking around a corner for 5 seconds and coming back out with 20 less bullet holes in you just doesn't work for me.
But, if that's not the case, then I prefer the health pack system, or a hybrid system. Let's say I get into a big firefight with someone, and almost kill them before running out of ammo and having to fall back a bit to pick up a fallen teammates gun. In the 10 seconds it takes to do that, I don't want them to have regenerated and be back at full health. Ducking around a corner for 5 seconds and coming back out with 20 less bullet holes in you just doesn't work for me.
Regenarating-health does nothing but reduce all the strategy down to sitting behind a bit of wall for a minute-or-so.
But, in a game where you get incapitated in only a few hits and have to franticaly turn-every-rock for a health-kick, that's not tense, or scary, or contributing to anything: That's just annoying.
I'm in the middle. But, I really liked Far Cry 2's hybrid HP; so I guess I'm going for that.
Or, maybe you could have 2 health bars - one regenrating; one health-pack-based. If the regenerating one goes down, you're pack-based one'll take the damage, and if you're pack based one goes down, you die.
Like the Sheild-system from Mass Effect.
Either way: As long as it's not completely regenaration-based, I'm happy.
But, in a game where you get incapitated in only a few hits and have to franticaly turn-every-rock for a health-kick, that's not tense, or scary, or contributing to anything: That's just annoying.
I'm in the middle. But, I really liked Far Cry 2's hybrid HP; so I guess I'm going for that.
Or, maybe you could have 2 health bars - one regenrating; one health-pack-based. If the regenerating one goes down, you're pack-based one'll take the damage, and if you're pack based one goes down, you die.
Like the Sheild-system from Mass Effect.
Either way: As long as it's not completely regenaration-based, I'm happy.
I myself have almost always been playing games with regenerating health. I can only remember 2 games where there was no common regenerating health system. MOH Frontline and Resistance.
I prefer regenerating health because it is easier and avoids a good bit of frustration for me.
I prefer regenerating health because it is easier and avoids a good bit of frustration for me.
Slow but full health regeneration, and large health pools, so combat becomes about minimizing damage taken so you can survive the fight, the regen would mostly help between fights to eliminate the need to scavage constantly. Obviously this would only work for combat oriented shooters or RPG's/adventure games and the like, as far as survival horror goes, the non regen health pack method just lends itself too well to the genre.
Alternatively I would go for the halo 1/Borderlands system, a static health bar that requires items to heal, with a weaker but infinitely regenerating shield on top of that health bar, so damage is only permanent if you take too much of it.
This mostly only applies to shooters for me, as far as RPG's go i prefer static healthbars, but with alot of means to regain health on the side, class specific heals, health regen on gear, life drains, pretty much anything that makes that bar go up.
Alternatively I would go for the halo 1/Borderlands system, a static health bar that requires items to heal, with a weaker but infinitely regenerating shield on top of that health bar, so damage is only permanent if you take too much of it.
This mostly only applies to shooters for me, as far as RPG's go i prefer static healthbars, but with alot of means to regain health on the side, class specific heals, health regen on gear, life drains, pretty much anything that makes that bar go up.
Health is, in the most basic form, another resource the player has to manage.
When done properly this can increase the level of challenge and fun of a game. It creates a lot of opportunities.
For example, you're never short on resources in Call of Duty games. I played them at the highest difficulty level and never had to deal with lack of X. This limits the options a game designer has. Can you lure a player with a cache of medkits, armor and ammo?
In a classic FPS, Half-Life style, yes. In CoD, no.
Apart from that this resource management determines the player's playing style. A player short on resources will have to change his tactics - take off enemies at a distance, change tactics, perhaps even avoid enemies altogether.
Can this be implemented in a CoD game? Sure, but it has to be intentionally scripted. Which means the change of tactics doesn't come from the player's incentive but is rather forced upon by a designer.
This takes a lot of fun and challenge out of a game.
---
I personally would favor a two-tier system. Soft and hard health. Soft meaning easily replenishable, potentially auto-regenerating - once it's down the player takes damage to the hard health, which is much harder or impossible to replenish, has negative side-effects.
The idea behind this is that there are two separate forces here.
First, getting shot in FPS games is inevitable. As much as I'd love to see a game where getting shot means, if you're lucky, pulling out a tourniquet, it wouldn't sell well. The player will get shot and there has to be a mechanism that allows the player to continue playing despite taking damage.
Second the player needs to be incentivized to avoid taking damage in the first place. The classic health-meter is a simple and efficient implementation of this, because the penalty for taking damage is making the rest of the game/level/encounter harder, prompting a change of tactics. Of course this requires the player to revise his/her strategy and that could prove discouraging to the braindead people - and hey, their brains may be dead but their money is as good as any. So this feature is the first to be cut if you're looking to make the game accessible to freaking everybody.
An example of an implementation of a two-tier system would be a shield and armor in a sci-fi setting. The player can absorb say 30% damage via an auto-regenerating shield but anything beyond that cripples the armor, induces negative effects, disrupts aim, decreases visibility and so on.
Interestingly, this also answers the issue presented time and time again by the regen-health junkies - "Oh and what if a player starts a segment with 1 health point and can't physically finish it?"
When done properly this can increase the level of challenge and fun of a game. It creates a lot of opportunities.
For example, you're never short on resources in Call of Duty games. I played them at the highest difficulty level and never had to deal with lack of X. This limits the options a game designer has. Can you lure a player with a cache of medkits, armor and ammo?
In a classic FPS, Half-Life style, yes. In CoD, no.
Apart from that this resource management determines the player's playing style. A player short on resources will have to change his tactics - take off enemies at a distance, change tactics, perhaps even avoid enemies altogether.
Can this be implemented in a CoD game? Sure, but it has to be intentionally scripted. Which means the change of tactics doesn't come from the player's incentive but is rather forced upon by a designer.
This takes a lot of fun and challenge out of a game.
---
I personally would favor a two-tier system. Soft and hard health. Soft meaning easily replenishable, potentially auto-regenerating - once it's down the player takes damage to the hard health, which is much harder or impossible to replenish, has negative side-effects.
The idea behind this is that there are two separate forces here.
First, getting shot in FPS games is inevitable. As much as I'd love to see a game where getting shot means, if you're lucky, pulling out a tourniquet, it wouldn't sell well. The player will get shot and there has to be a mechanism that allows the player to continue playing despite taking damage.
Second the player needs to be incentivized to avoid taking damage in the first place. The classic health-meter is a simple and efficient implementation of this, because the penalty for taking damage is making the rest of the game/level/encounter harder, prompting a change of tactics. Of course this requires the player to revise his/her strategy and that could prove discouraging to the braindead people - and hey, their brains may be dead but their money is as good as any. So this feature is the first to be cut if you're looking to make the game accessible to freaking everybody.
An example of an implementation of a two-tier system would be a shield and armor in a sci-fi setting. The player can absorb say 30% damage via an auto-regenerating shield but anything beyond that cripples the armor, induces negative effects, disrupts aim, decreases visibility and so on.
Interestingly, this also answers the issue presented time and time again by the regen-health junkies - "Oh and what if a player starts a segment with 1 health point and can't physically finish it?"
Health Packs - I love the little trick that Serious Sam add to some of its health packs / armour by setting them as triggers for baddies to spawn. It adds a bit of strategy into the game where I might be low on health and see a medikit all on its own meanibg its probably a trigger. So I ask myself do I pick it up and risk loosing even more health or risk ignoring it and trying to get past the next section with what health im at.
Regenerating health is ok for cover based games, imo it fits Mass Effect very well.
Thats why I was so pissed when I saw DNF used this system as its not supposed to be a cover based game (or atleast thats what the marketing has been saying)
Regenerating health is ok for cover based games, imo it fits Mass Effect very well.
Thats why I was so pissed when I saw DNF used this system as its not supposed to be a cover based game (or atleast thats what the marketing has been saying)
basically this, if you have pure health packs, i probably will be annoyed by your game, especially in multiplayer if its pure healthpacks, that will annoy the shit out of meZhukov said:
a good 1/3 of your health should be regenerated, the others is a loss unless you do pick up a healthpack, and then half of your overall "health" should be a shield, which can be regenerated fully, (alot like reach basically) is roughly the best combination i have found out there for fun and balance in the health department.
Well then how can you judge it if you're too pig-headed to even try it? I love Painkiller, but it would suck with regenerating hate. I love CoD, but it would suck with healthpacks. It depends on the individual game and if you're going to insult peoples intelligence and skill because of a game mechanic when they get the hell off this forum, because a lot of people won't welcome you here. Also, how is getting shot making a mistake in a fucking FPS? You're going to get shot. Face it. It's part of the fucking game. That's like saying if someone attacks you in a hack'n'slash that you've made a mistake. Sorry we can't kill everything before it can react, lest the game be too challenging.Nightvalien said:
I'm going to deviate a bit from the regular reasoning:
I like health packs because they let the player screw up.
With regenerating health it's akin to "Oh no poor baby did you take too much damage in that last fight? Here let mommy kiss it better! Okay, be on your way now!" With health packs we get more of a "Oh, you took too much damage and now you can't find a health pack? Well I guess you shouldn't have fucked up so badly, dumb ass. Be more careful and maybe you'll live."
As a personal preference, I enjoy my games indifferent to my suffering.
I like health packs because they let the player screw up.
With regenerating health it's akin to "Oh no poor baby did you take too much damage in that last fight? Here let mommy kiss it better! Okay, be on your way now!" With health packs we get more of a "Oh, you took too much damage and now you can't find a health pack? Well I guess you shouldn't have fucked up so badly, dumb ass. Be more careful and maybe you'll live."
As a personal preference, I enjoy my games indifferent to my suffering.
you would think so but in reality people are lazy and impatient you can argue with me if you like but everything I design as a webdesigner is with that in mind and without it people wouldnt even bother looking at my sites, and because people are lazy and impatient most wont sit there and wait for there health to come back maybe for it to go up a little in a tight situation but for the most part they will get impatient n get back out there anyways besides if the game is well designed it wouldnt let you just simply run away and hide till your health comes back the enimy should follow youTrevHead said: