What have gamers got against regenerating health?

[DustyDrB]

It has not a single thing to do with realism.

It makes for boring, samey fights. It takes away real consequences for messing up. Personally, I'd be fine with games that have neither health regen nor health packs. Think of your health as a resource you must manage. Take away that aspect and you take away the thrill in many encounters.

 

[Vrach]

There's little to no intensity to it, you just duck behind cover or whatever thing the game has you doing for a bit and then bam, it's all fine again. No intensity, no consequences.

Used to be in my day if you did shitty in a fight you had to pay for it, forcing you to play better in the next few and to, as a result, become better at the game. Oh sure it could be frustrating if you walked into a big unexpected fight with two health and a peashooter, but on the other hand if and when you actually won that fight it just felt amazing as a result. You accomplished something awesome (Insofar as anything you do in a videogame can be considered an accomplishment) and felt great as a result. Classic risk vs. reward.

Just imagine System Shock 2 or Half-Life with regenerating health, it wouldn't work. There would be no worry about those annoying headcrabs hiding in the air ducks, who cares if they nick you a bit when standing still a few seconds mends it all up? And what's the worry about scavenging and conserving?

Which isn't to say that health packs were perfect or that regenerating health is always bad. Depends on the game. But it's also easy to see why many, myself included, prefer one over the other.

In singleplayer, maybe, in multiplayer, it definitely works. You do shitty in a fight (but survive), you either take a 10 second break, which in most shooters, is as bad as dying or you get killed soon after - often both. That said, I also enjoyed the old Battlefield where a medic would have to patch you up, that worked too, perhaps even better, but I'm not totally opposed to the current implementation either.

Getting back to singleplayer, it also depends on the game. In a game like Half Life, sure, health packs work a billion times better. In a game like CoD or Battlefield (not that they're great singleplayers, but just naming them for the type), regenerating health also means you die faster if you're not careful. Some hate cover type shooters with regenerating health, I gotta say, I mostly like them. They're not realistic in the sense of "your limbs grow right back on the battlefield", but they are realistic in the sense of "if you're on a battlefield, you're gonna be sticking to cover". Also, I choose to look at regenerating heatlh as simply being wounded and having the breath taken out of you by one or more shots to the armor, which to be fair, is realistic to a point, no less so than taking pain killers or whatever.

As you said, it depends on the game and some games can do fine with both. There's not really a one-size-fits-all, but that exactly is why people hate the regenerating health system, because it's often used as such.

 

[lord.jeff]

It's a game mechanic it's not good or bad, it just gets used wrong. I think the main problem is it gets coupled it with cover mechanics to often and that just ends up being a sit a wait game to many times, pairing with a game that encourages a more aggressive playstyle would work better in my opinion because then the player can play as aggressively as they want without worrying about what comes next.

 

[Quakester]

I don't have a personal problem with regenerating help but it does take some of the difficulty out of the game. Older games with health packs are much more difficult. Any finite resource that you have to manage makes games that are high in action far more difficult. Now you aren't just managing ammo and weapons but also watching your health like a hawk and weighing the cost of using the med pack now against the possibility of needing it later.

Back in the old days, games made you get better at the game or simply risk never finishing it. Hell, Mega Man 1 gave you a certain number of lives to finish the game. If you didn't, that was a shame.

 

[JediMB]

In general? It just feels a bit lazy. Regenerating health can be a useful addition to some games (I actually can't imagine Call of Duty or Battlefield being designed without them)

I can imagine Battlefield 1942. It was a pretty awesome game.

But I guess no one wants to play the Medic class anymore, so they give everyone regenerating health instead?

 

[Callate]

Actually, regenerating health also plays into encounter design. Without regenerating health, a developer has no clue how much health a player is going to have going into any given encounter but the first for each level.

With regenerating health, a developer knows that all players will go into every encounter with full health, thus removing a variable, and therefore making it easier to tune each encounter's difficulty.

Actually, with a moment's thought, I revised my original comment to add that factor- but you ninja'd my revision.

I'm less than certain this is a positive development, however. If- as not infrequently seems to be the case- your game's bad guys AI tactics include "hide behind cover, pop up periodically to fire off a few rounds, duck back down" but not, say, "wait until they're reloading, attempt to flank their cover position", adding ten bad guys to a room can mean it takes an extra ten minutes to clear the room but doesn't otherwise have a significant effect on the game other than possibly trying the player's patience.

Obviously, this doesn't have to be the case, but I'm leery of developments that make it easier to foster lazy game design.

 

[Britisheagle]

In arcade like games such as CoD or other similar games it isn't that much of a big deal.

But games that actually want to grab your imaginaion and more importantly keep atmosphere tense should never have regenerating health. Dead Space and the original RE's are prime examples. Imagine the anti climax of going into a fight you are not yet ready for, but everything is fine because there is a chest high wall just in reach. It just doesn't work.

I'm gonna come out and say that I think the Halo/ Mass Effect 3 ways of doing health e.g. a regenerating shield that protects you before eating into your valuable health, is by far the best way. This way you are protected momentarily if you are caught off guard but being too cocky will cost you the game.

 

[Elamdri]

Actually, regenerating health also plays into encounter design. Without regenerating health, a developer has no clue how much health a player is going to have going into any given encounter but the first for each level.

With regenerating health, a developer knows that all players will go into every encounter with full health, thus removing a variable, and therefore making it easier to tune each encounter's difficulty.

Actually, with a moment's thought, I revised my original comment to add that factor- but you ninja'd my revision.

I'm less than certain this is a positive development, however. If- as not infrequently seems to be the case- your game's bad guys AI tactics include "hide behind cover, pop up periodically to fire off a few rounds, duck back down" but not, say, "wait until they're reloading, attempt to flank their cover position", adding ten bad guys to a room can mean it takes an extra ten minutes to clear the room but doesn't otherwise have a significant effect on the game other than possibly trying the player's patience.

Obviously, this doesn't have to be the case, but I'm leery of developments that make it easier to foster lazy game design.

Here is my thoughts about it.

If you are going to have regenerating health in a game, it is fine. But you need to design enemies around that concept. I think that the problem stems from developers who want to build encounters around regenerating health but don't design enemy behavior around it.

Think this way:

Problem: The game isn't challenging because all I have to do is hide in a corner.
Solution: Don't let you hide in a corner.

I mentioned it in another post, but what these games need to do is focus enemy behavior around making sure that the player cannot stay in one place too long. They need to utilize flanking maneuvers, grenades, cover buster enemies and other factors like that to make sure players cannot hide.

Furthermore, they must make it so that if a player decides to retreat from a fight that the enemies will see superior position on him (Admittedly probably hard to program).

But that's really the issue. Not the regenerating health.

 

[Callate]

I fail to see how non-regenerating health would make me cower behind cover less. I would think quite the opposite.

The health regen system isn't the determining factor in how much time you spend behind cover. It might be one of them, but it's not hard to run through levels of Halo on an easy difficulty without ever using cover.

If my going from 17 health (in imminent danger of death) to 100 (fully healed) is a matter of spending 60 seconds out of the line of fire, I'm going to find a way to spend 60 seconds out of line of fire. Preventing me from getting those 60 seconds requires either a moderately sophisticated enemy AI that does things like flanking my position or pursuing intelligently over varying terrain, or an enemy that does things like lob grenades (which, depending on how they're implemented, often make for the kind of gameplay players tend to describe as "cheap"- a group of twenty mooks is a reasonable challenge for an "action hero" type; a group of twenty mooks who can all throw grenades is an entirely different kettle of fish.)

If going from 17 health to 100 requires my continued forward progress (say, getting to the next supply drop or first aid center), if my staying behind cover gains me only time to think and perhaps causes my enemies to move to a less advantageous position, I'm not going to spend as much time behind cover, because my status doesn't depend on waiting, it depends on action and progress.

 

[hermes]

It's a matter of context. A game that's just about getting from point A to point B as fast as possible, that has almost no emphasis on exploration, has only a few types of enemies, or is a complete sandbox should probably use regenerating health. A slower-paced, linear game with somewhat divergent paths to explore, tons of ambient detail in its environment, and extremely diverse enemy types should probably use a health bar. The problem is that today, a lot of games that are in the latter category are simply slapping on regen health just because that's what Call of Duty did and because it's a lot harder to balance the difficulty in games with health bars (money-grubbing and laziness, basically), and it only serves to make those games less intense and less engaging because it essentially resets you after every encounter and kills any possibility for exploration to be rewarding.

I like your answer the most when it presents it as an alternative instead of "it sucks".

Regenerating health has advantages in that designers can focus on each individual encounter to make it more memorable, instead of the entire level. Its the same basic reason why games without regenerating health would drop a lot of health packs right before a hard section or a boss fight. Without having to worry about item placement, they reduce the focus on the flow to each encounter.

The problem is when designers use regenerating health in games with levels not designed for them.

 

[Woodsey]

It makes everything occur in a bubble, and it encourages incredibly linear level-design. It used to be that you'd do shit in one fight and you'd have to adjust your play-style accordingly for the next one.

Personally, I prefer the Riddick-style health systems.

 

[Callate]

snip

To an extent, I agree, which is why I said that my problem wasn't so much with the mechanic as the kind of gameplay it seems to promote.

But I think many developers aren't doing a very good job of designing gameplay that does a good job of taking it into account. Programmers by their nature hate re-doing work that's already been done; it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many of the routines for enemy behavior have been recycled without significant revision from older games. A lot of "regenerating health" games don't seem to make their gunfights more enjoyable, just longer.

I think it would be simple and reasonable to keep the restoration of health tied into a reward system that rewarded action rather than cowering. If the player kills one of the enemy, it's perfectly reasonable that those that remain would pause to reassess their tactics or retreat in fear, giving the player that extra time they need to regenerate. Likewise, if the player sprays some "covering fire", it might give the enemy a moment's pause, but then the player is risking diminishing their ammunition supply at a moment when they most need it, effectively trading ammo for health. Combined with the kind of tactics you mention, I think devs could make a much better game using a health regen system.

Now if the devs could just get on that...

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

Love this thread!

The consensus seems to be that at best they are missed used at worst its de evolved the over all gaming experience.

I don't mind it really but frankly its hurt more than helped with game play narratives, even more so when the flow of games is getting easier and easier.

 

[Saulkar]

Regenerating health unless it fits the context of the game (Halo, Crysis) I do not "enjoy" it one bit!!! All further points against it have already been made, most of which I fully agree with and have no further comment.

 

[Saulkar]

Personally, I prefer the Riddick-style health systems.

Please, do tell.

 

[ElPatron]

In general? It just feels a bit lazy. Regenerating health can be a useful addition to some games (I actually can't imagine Call of Duty or Battlefield being designed without them)

Battlefield 1942, Vietnam, 2 and 2142 only allowed you to regenerate health if you were near a medkit, "ambulance" (vehicle with medic inside) or a supply drop.

snip

I like the Riddick system (if I am not mistaken it was used in Resistance too... I am unsure because I didn't play a lot) but I disagree with you when it comes to CoD.

If you crank up the difficulty, it only increases the frequency you have to get to cover.

Suppressive fire is exactly what it says. Suppressive. It's supposed to keep enemies down so that you don't let them advance.

Enemies are quite "static" in CoD. They move, but they rarely try to follow you to hiding spots.

When you need to get to cover, it's a matter of sprinting and jumping around. The enemy usually can't hit a player getting to cover more than once (and if it only takes a shot to kill you, hen you're getting to cover at the wrong time).

 

[ShockValue]

Gamers have got something against everything.

 

[hermes]

As anything, it just depends if the game is build with that in mind. In the end, most people hate it because its trendy to hate the new thing...

You can see it when the reasons most people give (lack of realism, lost of tactical dimension, excuse for laziness) are the same reasons why many games don't work well with weapon wheels; but god forbid if someone come to defend dual weapons instead of longing for an excuse to carry 6 weapons of mass destruction in your pocket.