Danne-Danger
Member
Hcoregamer00 said:
Try Red Orchestra, it's multiplayer only but still.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Health Regeneration in Games :(
- Thread starter D3MO
- Start date
Try Red Orchestra, it's multiplayer only but still.
http://www.redorchestragame.com/Hcoregamer00 said:
That would be what you're looking for! Personally, I find it a little annoying.
Masta_Killah
Member
Imagine having only one health bar with no regen for that sniper level in CoD4. I can just picture the bitter tears here at GAF.
twinturbo2
butthurt Heat fan
As Jules once said, "Hamburgers! A delicious part of any balanced breakfast!" :lolJube3 said:
Oldschoolgamer
The physical form of blasphemy
I don't particularly care about either. As long as the difficulty is adjusted to accustom the type of style, then I'm good.
Game Overs need to stay, and have a bit more thought put into them. Well, the deaths at least. RE4 did it right.
There is something called, "GOD MODE", for those that don't want to die.
Game Overs need to stay, and have a bit more thought put into them. Well, the deaths at least. RE4 did it right.
There is something called, "GOD MODE", for those that don't want to die.
The Uncharted demo was the first game I've ever played with regenerating health, and it took some getting used to; for the first half-hour I was playing sections over and over to avoid taking any damage whatsoever (I normally do this in other games :/). I was getting incredibly frustrated with what seemed like inevitable/unavoidable bullet fire, but eventually I got over the mental barrier of "it's ok to take hits, just don't get overwhelmed at each encounter".
Danne-Danger
Member
ghst said:
Yeah, everyone should experience getting their rifle shot out of their hands or getting shot to a crawl at least once in their (gaming)lifetime.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
mcgarrett said:
Especially my guy who lacks any real cover sense. Hell, even the damned unwashed terrorists know how to use cover properly.
Stoney Mason
Banned
Prefer health packs and a life meter/health bar versus regeneration especially the more realistic the title is in tone but it's not a deal breaker for me.
rollingstart
Banned
Resistance has the best method of health regeneration.
four small health bars that each regenerate unless they are empty, so if you get shot up like crazy and only have a sliver of health left, you dont regain all of it and only get a fourth back. Perfect system to dealing with it.
four small health bars that each regenerate unless they are empty, so if you get shot up like crazy and only have a sliver of health left, you dont regain all of it and only get a fourth back. Perfect system to dealing with it.
underfooter
Banned
It really depends on the game. For something like Halo, I find that it works really well.
It's more believable that a futuristic space marine can regenerate his health over rather than picking up a med-kit and somehow instantaneously apply it to his wounds and healing himself.
It's more believable that a futuristic space marine can regenerate his health over rather than picking up a med-kit and somehow instantaneously apply it to his wounds and healing himself.
Stoney Mason
Banned
I do find it funny that in most of these games, you have regenerating health but whatever you are fighting doesn't...
MWS Natural
Member
/threadfernoca said:
BrokenSymmetry
Member
BobJustBob said:
Completely agreed. In my opinion, the "Game Over" screen is a holdover from arcade days, when your game actually was over. For home-console games however, how can the game say that my "game is over"? Isn't that up to me? Why should games throw you out of the game, if the game developers should want you to keep playing the game?
I've always though that MMO games, out of necessity, have a much more creative approach to "death". Each MMO game has to come up with a creative approach to "death" that does not involve loading a saved game, but something that keeps the player in the game, doing something to redeem their death. I think it's a very good development that single-player games are starting to show the same approach to death, such that the player is never thrown out of their own game. Diablo (and other single-player action-RPG games in the same vein) already did this a long time ago, and now games like Prey and Bioshock are following.
Danne-Danger
Member
D3MO said:
Especially not in the
Chernobyl
beelzebozo
Jealous Bastard
BrokenSymmetry said:
yes. i replayed mario sunshine recently and the game over mechanic in that game is ludicrous and pointless.
ChunderMan
Living in a one-dimensional world...
I don't care at all about justification. If the game's fun, I don't give a fuck about how the health system works.
Stoney Mason
Banned
knee said:
There are others way to handle health regeneration in a multiplayer game such as medics or randomize the location slightly if you just drop them into a map.
When it makes sense, it works. As in Halo, for example; it fits the gameplay and fiction well.
Gears of War? not so much. There's something to be said for an experience like, say, DOOM, where slowing having your healh ground away and making that sprint for a health-pack is exhilarating.
Gears of War? not so much. There's something to be said for an experience like, say, DOOM, where slowing having your healh ground away and making that sprint for a health-pack is exhilarating.
arhra
Member
I'd prefer a cinematic approach, personally - think about it, in a movie, the hero basically never actually gets shot (barring occasional flesh wounds). No matter how many people are shooting at him/her, they never manage to land a hit.
So in a game, have the enemies be the stereotypical stormtrooper-style bad shots, and have them sending a hail of bullets just past your head. The (regenerating) health system then becomes a "danger" system - too long out of cover and eventually even a stormtrooper will manage to land a shot on-target, and have any hits be instantly fatal. Explosions would either be instantly fatal if too close, or leave you concussed and vulnerable if you're on the outskirts. Or something.
Basically it'd be just like Gears/CoD, but with the unrealistic regenerating bullet-sponge player replaced by an equally unrealistic but easier to believe incompetent enemies. Making it work sensibly in multiplayer is left as an exercise for the reader.
So in a game, have the enemies be the stereotypical stormtrooper-style bad shots, and have them sending a hail of bullets just past your head. The (regenerating) health system then becomes a "danger" system - too long out of cover and eventually even a stormtrooper will manage to land a shot on-target, and have any hits be instantly fatal. Explosions would either be instantly fatal if too close, or leave you concussed and vulnerable if you're on the outskirts. Or something.
Basically it'd be just like Gears/CoD, but with the unrealistic regenerating bullet-sponge player replaced by an equally unrealistic but easier to believe incompetent enemies. Making it work sensibly in multiplayer is left as an exercise for the reader.
Somehow, it feels more realistic to have healthpack of going somewhere like a clinic or something to regenerate. Even sleeping like in RPGs does feel better than gratuitious regeneration.
I'd say they game designers should be carefull about where their priorities are when they devellop the game. If the game is trying to feel more realistic and immersive i'd say don't trow a fucking regeneration in there.
I'd say they game designers should be carefull about where their priorities are when they devellop the game. If the game is trying to feel more realistic and immersive i'd say don't trow a fucking regeneration in there.
Is anyone actually looking at the design side of this as opposed to just the realisim side? Having regenerating health usually results in more difficult games since developers are free to make each encounter a life or death situation. With health bars, you have to wade through tons of trash to get to the point where you are actually fighting for your life. (Yes, Ninja Gaiden is included) If I had to choose between the two, I'd definitely take the former.
Mammothtank
Member
Isn't Farcry 2 using a field first-aid system? You won't regain health until you take a moment to extract bullets and stitch wounds. It makes sense and I think it'd fit in fine with a COD game.
Get in a fire fight, get hit a few times, fall back and hit your first-aid button. Your character starts treating his wounds and the health meter starts returning to normal...oh, enemy! Hit your fire button and you bring your weapon back up while your condition remains where it was when you stopped.
Get in a fire fight, get hit a few times, fall back and hit your first-aid button. Your character starts treating his wounds and the health meter starts returning to normal...oh, enemy! Hit your fire button and you bring your weapon back up while your condition remains where it was when you stopped.
Schafer said:
Didn't Halo actually first come up with the idea? Granted I've never played Resistance or Riddick but the system sounds very familiar.
As for me I'll have to admit that regeneration is actually more fun for me, I've played some games where you were preocupid with looking for a medkit. after a while that just gets frustrating. Regenerating health bars have never given me that frustrartion. I'm not saying all games without regenerating health is bad. I'm just saying you have a much more likely chance of creating a frustratting gameplay experience if you use medkits over regeneration.
Stoney Mason
Banned
traveler said:
That depends on how you are measuring more difficult. Generally the only reason I die in regenerating health game is because I get lazy. I simply just plow into the combat and then step back and wait and keep repeating. In games with persistent health states I play more cautiously if you will because I don't want to take excess damage because I carry that forward with me.
draggoon01
Member
BrokenSymmetry said:
what are some of the different approaches mmo's use?
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Alphahawk said:
Actually what Riddick does is that instead of one health bar you have a bunch of health blocks. As you take damage one block empties and if it disappears entirely you can't get it back unless you find a health station. However if the block doesn't empty all the way it will refill over time.
Resistance is apparently the same way.
draggoon01 said:
I've yet to see an MMO approach that would actually work with death in any other game but hey let's play along.
Everquest- So you die in the middle of nowhere. You come back but all of your stuff is on your corpse. You can either pay money to get your corpse returned or go to wherever the hell you left your corpse(bottom of a lake? at the bottom of a 30,000 foot drop? Surrounded by monsters?) So you have to brave all that. Or you could just get a party member to revive you(course that basically cripples him or her for awhile). Oh and you can't do that in a singleplayer game..right.
World of Warcraft- You die. You become a ghost, you go back to find your body. Basically it's a checkpoint system but this time you have to walk to where you got sniped in the face..whatever.
Final Fantasy XI- Nevermind this is getting stupid.
Alphahawk said:
They are a little different. In Halo you have a shield that will regenerate but when the shield is down you lose life you regenerate the shield and not the health (you pick up health packs for that). In Resistance/Riddick you have your health bar subdivided into 4 sections once you lose life you will refill to the top of the section (say I had 2 and a half sections I would refill and have 3/4, if I had 3.5 I would refill to full health) then you get health pack to refill empty sections.
Prime crotch
Banned
Well loading a saved game on a MMO would be an impossible concept, and they have their ways of dealing with death a lot more unforgiving than a game over screen. Ultima Online for example, you basicly went back to ground zero again.BrokenSymmetry said:
PjotrStroganov
Member
AtomicShroom said:
Sigh, it has been my holy grail in games. But most devs can't even seem to manage this when it comes to enemies, let alone when it comes to the player.
I absolutely hate the healthpack system. You're always afraid to save your game when you have less than 100% health for fear that a huge firefight is coming up, so you end up backtracking for health so often. Either that or you keep replaying fights and only save when you've received a limited amount of damage. It's a ridiculous system from a gameplay standpoint.. I'm just finishing the original Half Life, so I guess I'll have to deal with the same system in half life 2 
wayward archer
Member
draggoon01 said:
Actually a lot of MMOs (WoW for instance) have a pretty lame death treatment, something like "well the gods have decided it's not your time yet so they are giving you one more chance", which they give over and over and over for no particular reason.
lord of the rings has rangers find your unconscious body and nurse you back to health, so basically monsters, no matter how vicious they are (like orcs or wargs which you would expect to eat your corpse), never actually manage to land a killing blow.
eve-online uses clones which you have to buy and update periodically, so technically each death is a real death but a clone with all your memories carries on in your place.
rollingstart
Banned
Schafer said:
I havent played Riddick in quite some time nor do I ever remember dying or getting seriously hurt in the game, when it is rereleased on next gen consoles I will take more notice of it.