The Health Bar is more realistic than Regenerating.

[Gigaguy64]

I can't remember anyone ever claiming that regenerating was more realistic. Just a lot less frustrating.

And really, health bars are no more realistic. At least regenerating health is just a sped-up version of what occurs in real life. The only truly realistic health system would be a combination: only getting a health pack or equivalent lets you slowly regenerate health.

...yeah, I'll stick with the sped-up regeneration.

Agreed.

And i prefer the Regenerating Health in games like CoD just because of how fast paced they can be.
A regenerating Health makes it easier to survive in the long run.

And in games like Halo they are fine because they make sense, though i do love the Shield/Health Bar mix the first Halo and Reach has.

A lot of the time which health mechanic i like best depends on the game i am currently playing.

 

[Last of the Chinchillas]

Ah, but game developers are under the impression that we are all lizard people with regenerative powers and the ability to regrow lost limbs.

You have a point, but neither system is all that realistic. A realistic health system would involve lots of one-hit-kills and would probably just get really frustrating after a while.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

If you mean a slow, slow recovery of health, that's realistic.

Both games had the ability to have fast health regen but I suppose it was in the game fiction. Like in STALKER you had realistic magical artefacts and in Deus Ex you had realistic magical nanobots.

Those don't count, and you know it. They have little to no relevance to the systems the OP was talking about.

Don't deliberately misunderstand, it only causes problems.

What don't I understand? This thread is about realistic health systems and I'm replying to a post about Deus Ex and STALKER being especially good examples of realistic health systems.

 

[migo]

S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Deus Ex had the right ideas, I think. Regeneration was especially painful to watch in Mirror's Edge: "You just caught ten machine-gun bullets to the spine! How'd you run up to the gunner, break his face, and RUN AWAY?!"

This was mainly apparent on easy difficulties. In normal you die much quicker. It was much worse in some ways though; if you're running the set path then the bullets won't kill you - deviate and you die instantly.

 

[Casimir_Effect]

It's about what's fun to play. I hate the medipack system and would prefer regenerating to it if those were the only options (which seems to be what most developers think).

I prefer hybrid system like those found in FarCry 2 and Vietcong - my two favourite systems.

 

[Hosker]

I think it's safe to say that neither are anywhere close to being realistic. These are games after all.

 

[lacktheknack]

If you mean a slow, slow recovery of health, that's realistic.

Both games had the ability to have fast health regen but I suppose it was in the game fiction. Like in STALKER you had realistic magical artefacts and in Deus Ex you had realistic magical nanobots.

Those don't count, and you know it. They have little to no relevance to the systems the OP was talking about.

Don't deliberately misunderstand, it only causes problems.

What don't I understand? This thread is about realistic health systems and I'm replying to a post about Deus Ex and STALKER being especially good examples of realistic health systems.

I made a snarky comment dissing quick-regen, then your first reply was "Oh, so you support quick-regen?"

Clearly, someone misunderstood something.

 

[Schreck157]

I think that a lot of game designers view heath bars as an archaic user interface device, something the crotchety old guys used for their games, and therefore something to be moved away from and changed. Also, the long red bar on top of your HUD seems to clutter up the screen.

I don't agree with any of that, but that's what I think designers were thinking when they came up with the "Oh we'll just flash the screen red for five seconds" instead of a more effective way to track player health.

On a side note, not even heath bars represent player damage in a realistic way. As people get hurt, they become less able to function. In most games, players only have to speeds, fully functional, and dead. A player at 1HP can fight and function just as well as a player at 100%. That is truly unrealistic, but does provide a sense of a more even playing field for all involved. Both health bars and health regeneration don't actually get a bead on realistic damage and the effects of it, it's really just player/designer preference.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Condemned has one of the best systems I've seen in practice. Divide the health bar into chunks, and you can only regenerate up to a certain point. It can alleviate the frustration of being stuck on 5% health and have no possible way to make past a point, but also discourages reckless tactics.

Assassin's creed 2 had a similar thing with its armour where you could replenish half a bar, but not if it's empty. It sadly becomes completely redundant later on when your health bar becomes ginormous, and you can carry a ridiculous amount of potions at once.

To the main point: Neither systems are realistic. I prefer health bar systems myself, from a gameplay perspective.

 

[CoL0sS]

While I think that talking about realism in video games is pointless, I do miss health bars. Yeah maybe it breaks the pace of the game (somewhat), but nothing beats the rush of having to fight 5 enemies with 10HP

 

[No-Superman10]

And not a single shit was given this day.

That was a little unnessacery, i advise you tread lightly if that's how you're going to behave around here of all places.

OT: I think Call Of Cthulu: DCOTE had the right idea with locational damage and wound severity.
EG: Taking a minor hit to the leg will slow down movement, but a major hit to the arm will throughly bugger weapon accuracy.

While i don't see it working in anything other than survival horror it's the most realistic as far as i know.

 

[Baby Tea]

I prefer hybrid system like those found in FarCry 2 and Vietcong - my two favourite systems.

Seconded.
Regen up to a point. Health pack the rest.

If I had to choose, however, I'd pick regenerating hands down.
I'd rather worry about playing the game, then busting every crate open in frustration after a harried fire-fight trying to find some degree of health to make sure I survive the next encounter. Just let me enjoy the game, not force me to scrounge for something as basic as health.

 

[Atmos Duality]

Regeneration is regarding as a more enjoyable experience however.

It's player empowerment; not necessarily better.
Health management is an important part of Left 4 Dead, for example.
The game wouldn't carry any tension if it didn't exist.

The two mechanics have their uses, but to claim either as being "realistic" is to defy the point of playing a game (which is a representation of someone's subjective reality); it's patently absurd in any case, barring perhaps a simulation (which are exceedingly rare in gaming as it is).

I will say one thing: Regenerating Health takes more thought to balance the game around than static health.

 

[coolicus]

I think the ideal realism system would be a modelled body along with any protection being modelled so that a hit to a particular hotspot like say a major artery would result in the need of emergency treatment.

I look forward to the day when we have fully modelled human bodies in realistic games personally. Although I would say the regeneration works well for the "Hollywood" style shooters which are about being cinematic and not realistic.

I do agree that as far as "realism" goes it is more realistic to have a bar of some kind although there is something to be said for integrated regen + health bar systems like ME1.

It really depends on what the aim of the game is.

 

[Pandaman1911]

I want health-bar style gameplay back. Give any of the Call of Duty games (aside from the first as it already has one) a health bar, and they could be vastly improved, in multiplayer regards. If you have a health bar, you need to be a bit tougher, because otherwise those numbers are kind of pointless. If you're tougher, you can survive getting shot more than twice, if you can do that, you can determine where you're getting shot from, and if those three planets align, you can actually get to cover, return fire, and all that fun stuff. I find it fun anyway. I don't like how I take two rounds to the torso and die just because I didn't see some fucker's gun barrel poking out between the blinds on the window on the fifth story of the building on the other end of the city. Medal of Honor Allied Assault multiplayer was fun as shit. Intense SMG firefights with peeking in and out of cover, peering around corners, throwing fragmentation grenades TACTICALLY instead of spamming them, and snipers actually needing skill all made for a good game. And to think it was all because of that little green bar of life.

God, I seem to be very verbose today.

 

[TangoOneSix]

The most realistic health system I ever encountered was that in the old Tom Clancy games, Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon. Back when you had mission planning and when one shot could end your life.

You take a hit to center mass from an assault rifle, even if you're wearing body armor, and you'll be having a bad day, if not dead or severely wounded. You take a hit to a limb, you're probably combat ineffective unless it was just a graze wound. Don't even ask about head shots. The difficulty factor was a *****, of course, but the very first FPS I ever played was Rainbow Six: Rogue Spear. Ah, the memories. Shame they let the good games die.

Nowadays I'm so used to the trends that I'll defer to regenerating health for its sheer simplicity of execution. Though the regeneration system in MGS3 was actually pretty good, if a little exaggerated like any game.

 

[Jules57]

I think zero punctuation when over this in the battle field 2 review. modern fps's are not realistic at all for example.

Reloading isn't just loading the mags into the gun, first you have to load the bullets into the clips, being the owner of an actual gun this really jumps out at me. On the reloading subject if you have 3 bullets left and you reload, those three bullets are gone they don't re- enter some kind of bullet bank, unless you keep the clip its gone, and if you do use it you reload and have only 3 bullets in said clip.

Second in no situation does 1 squad go into a enemy what ever and come out in 1 piece, the whole 1 man army thing is ridiculus, 1 vs 100 doesn't work in real life, Did you hear of private Jones single handedly wining ww2, no? neither did I.

Health, probably the worst offender of them all, a bullet would anywhere ends your day. Survivable or not. Bullet to the leg or foot, your not going anywhere fast thus a liability. To the arm unless its a pistol you can't shoot worth shit now. Chest if you survive breathing would be alot harder etc and combat effective soldier is now 90 percent useless, and he won't be battle ready until he heals, the human way none of that COD/ gears of war bs.

So to sum it all up if you want a "Realistic" FPS it would equate to you and a squad engaging about 3 targets to which you probably wouldn't even get to shoot at. GAME and REALISM usually don't get along well games are fun and enjoyable throw in realism and fun tends to disappear and vice versa. So in short if ou want to know what a realistic war senario is like go join up. Too dangerous, well then I suggest you play your game and forget realism, because it will let people like you the ability to get the jist of it will still making it enjoyable.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I liked SWAT 4's wound system...divide the body up into areas, and getting injured in one will have different effects...walk slower hit in the leg, aim worse hit in the arm, and so on. Getting hit in the leg really sucked, as it'd take forever to get through the level.

But most importantly, though, was that most of the time it wouldn't matter. Generally, if you get shot, you're dead straight off, and you can't save until you finish the level.

Then there's the version in at least some Rainbow 6 game...if you get injured, you are worse at everything, but you can swap PoV with any of the 8 agents in the team at will, or when you get killed. I think that tends to balance "being shot sucks" with "still wanting to play the game".

 

[Orcalink]

The S.T.A.L.K.E.R. games are some of my favorite and Deus Ex is in fact my absolute favorite game of all time, and I like the bleeding and radiation effects and how you need to heal them in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and the separate body parts health was refreshing and really drew me in to Deus Ex. However, I'm currently in military training atm and will deployable in around a year, in real life if you get shot anywhere you're pretty much out of the picture, yes you may be lucky etc but if you get shot in the arm, you can't just apply a med pack and get back in the fight, no you get a golden hour of battlefield treatment, then end of which you need to be in the care of a casevac team flying back to Bastion and then home where you'll recover for a number of weeks before you can even think about seeing service again. If however you were to take a few rounds in your body armour (and they didn't break through etc) then you'd be winded and pretty bruised, but you'd get your breath back and get in the fight, which is how I see regen in games like Modern Warfare where you're hit, but you're not dead and you have a few seconds to get out of fire and get your breath back before you can even think of firing again, it's not all that realistic but it solves a gameplay problem because health packs really aren't realistic and it would suck if you took a bullet right at the beginning of the game that gave a you a limp in every subsequent mission etc