• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Why is full-on health regen systems still a thing?

As you see from the video, the ugly head of full-on regen rears itself by devolving the gameplay to short bursts of attack followed by running; hiding and waiting to get your health back up.

As opposed to short bursts of attack followed by running away and then searching for health or using a health pack?
A persons play style is what is, health systems don't really effect that.
 
A persons play style is what is, health systems don't really effect that.
They really do.

In a game with limited health you try not to get hit at all - that means smart use of cover, getting the drop on enemies, and not shifting position across active enemy fields of fire. In a game with regenerating health or shields you have a window of damage absorption where you can pull off crazy aggro moves, shrug off some hits and then retreat to safety.

The health system absolutely plays into a game's tactics.
 
Isn't regenerating health mostly a Western developer thing? I can't think of many Japanese games I've played that have it. Anyway, what's the alternative? Everything seems silly no matter what way you do it. If you get shot in real life you won't regenerate from a bullet wound in a few seconds, but at the same time a health pack won't cure you either. There's that one scene in FF that basically everyone knows about where the character dies, yet you have Phoenix downs. From a story and gameplay perspective healing just doesn't make any sense so let's just forget about it.
 
Delsin has a healing factor. I don't have any beef with regenerating health either. Not every game needs it, but I can't think of a time where I complained about it.
 
As opposed to short bursts of attack followed by running away and then searching for health or using a health pack?
A persons play style is what is, health systems don't really effect that.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to play in a far different way if I have to be seriously cautious about taking hits on a long term basis, especially if there's limited healing, compared to a game that lets me take risks constantly because lol regen health.

And games with full on regen health always make the "hard" mode so weirdly paced because the only way things can be fair and challenging is if enemies kill you pretty fast. Full regen health limits what the devs can do, imo. Enemies that do small amounts of damage borderline don't function in games like that because getting hit by them basically means nothing.

Might as well fuckin say you'll play a tanky character exactly the same way you'd play a really low health glass cannon. It makes no sense. You're making a straw man by implying that a game that uses a health pack system constantly lets you search for health packs during combat and also ignoring the fact that in the example you're giving us, the player essentially has to choose when he heals and has a limited supply of it, as opposed to being able to regen over and over forever without making progress. Two completely different things.
 
its a matter of different gameplay goals. There's a reason that games that employ full health regeneration have enemies that can kill you in a matter of seconds.

I can get shredded into pieces within seconds by enemies in Souls games. But I think they don't feature "full health regeneration". I think they don't feature health regeneration at all (except for that ring in Demon's Souls, and it was extremely slow, so slow that it forced the player to learn how to play instead of waiting in a corner for 5 minutes).
 
I think besides it being used and abused, the major drawback is how poorly thought out some of the encounter designs feel because of regenerating health. It kind of allows a studio to make a lot of basic straight forward stuff with the knowledge that you can just hide, and get all your health back.

Building health system around health packs probably requires more effort in figuring out how to pace the game, how many different answers the player has to the current situation, and how he can avoid being in a lock jam requiring him to backtrack for more health. Also in general they have to be spaced accordingly to not feel too easy, but also not to be ridiculous that certain segments just become slogs to get through.
 
I can get shredded into pieces within seconds by enemies in Souls games. But I think they don't feature "full health regeneration". I think they don't feature health regeneration at all (except for that ring in Demon's Souls, and it was extremely slow, so slow that it forced the player to learn how to play instead of waiting in a corner for 5 minutes).

Demons Souls had passive regenerating builds. The faith enchant had health regen, and the strength of healing scaled with the stat. With a HP regen ring, Shield of The Adjudicator, and a Faith weapon, I was healing QUICK. Had lots of fun with that build.
 
Demons Souls had passive regenerating builds. The faith enchant had health regen, and the strength of healing scaled with the stat. With a HP regen ring, Shield of The Adjudicator, and a Faith weapon, I was healing QUICK. Had lots of fun with that one.

Haven't played it for years, so I didn't remember that properly. Still that's one build out of hundreds. The point still stands.

And if an action-RPG doesn't count, let's just use the good old DOOM. No regen health at all. Enemies were able to kill within seconds on higher difficulties.

The whole "enemies can kill within seconds" argument is pretty strange anyway. When the enemies are hitscan, then I would consider "killing the player within seconds (just because having a line of sight)" to be pretty bad game design.

There's a very simple way to make full health regen work: give enemies the same ability.

It would be pretty funny, when a player is hiding behind cover for a few seconds to refill his health, then shoot an enemy and the enemy AI would then hide behind cover as well to refill theirs. Rinse and repeat.
 
Haven't played it for years, so I didn't remember that properly. Still that's one build out of hundreds. The point still stands.

And if an action-RPG doesn't count, let's just use the good old DOOM. No regen health at all. Enemies were able to kill within seconds on higher difficulties.
The Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind were, but they were boss characters.
 
How is this seen as casualizing, catering, or - everyone's favorite - lazy?

Its enough that the enemies usually sport a support conduit, who features regenerative armor, that blocks most of your attacks towards him and others; making you waste them to go find a source for power eventually. And this can be seen as crucial since some spots during missions have limited sources.

Then, when you do try to escape once you noticed that you have taken too much damage, its not even guaranteed you get away to restore your health or find a source for it since enemies will hop onto buildings to get shots off on you, spam grenades whenever you are behind cover, or just give chase. Traversal powers do no good with evasiveness other than climbing since they can still pick you off and if you are surrounded while in a pinch, you're pretty much dead.

Comparing this to linear shooters or other genres and trying to claim how its cheap in those games does not work at all. They all have different design philosophies and layouts. Even GTA or GTA5's regen system can't be compared because they don't have enemies that will attack you once seen; they have to be provoked first. Barring San Andreas where rival gangs will kill you.

The design choice can be seen as compensation since power sources can be limited in some missions and to keep you doing more fighting than scouting for the nearest health source. The inconvenience of running into DUP's vehicles or strongholds and your health is chipped away as you try to make it to your objective could be another reason.

Its anything but something that was just thrown in. Its been there since the first game, but AI has been adjusted to counter hit and runs that can be done in the other two games.
 
Because it allows the devs to be lazy. They don't have to spend much time balancing enemy DPS, enemy awareness, enemy response and accuracy, health drops, and game mechanics that allow player skill to avoid damage. MGS had enemies with cones of vision, movement patterns, attack patterns, avoidable and dodge-able attacks. Games of this ilk allow you to beat the game without ever taking damage if you are good enough.

Now with health regen they can just make it so the enemies always know where you are (no complicated AI detection procedure needed), have perfect aim (no complicated enemy skill calculations), and shoot you the instant you reveal yourself to start doing damage to you. But it doesn't break the game because you can just hide and heal anywhere. Lazy design.

The argument is that it keeps the player engaged in the battle by keeping them pushing forward rather than looking for health pickups. In practice, it means lazy levels, with lazy simplistic enemy AI, with lazy design that requires health regen because it is impossible to not take damage.

This is pretty much the correct answer. Reminds me of yesterday's topic about the poor gains in enemy AI in the last 10 years.
 
The Cyberdemon and Spider Mastermind were, but they were boss characters.

The only enemies who were able to kill within seconds?
It seems you never played Doom on Nightmare.

See that was the great thing about DOOM. So many enemies with projectile attacks. Which means the developers were able to turn up the damage and speed of those to insane levels and the game was still playable. The player just had to make sure, that he doesn't get hit.
 
I wish more games would do berserker health as I call it and you get health back when you kill an enemy. Duke nukem forever was gonna do that, would've been way better. It's not great in a lot of games that have it but was awesome in WH40K Space Marine.

I love this. Kreig from Borderlands 2 has a topper skill that invokes this system, and using it was one of the most innately satisfying things i've ever done in a video game. Another somewhat-similar example would be preforming a Zandatsu on an enemy in Revengeance; I absolutely loved this mechanic because it somehow managed to reward the player for his skill and provide a satisfying (and the most effective) form of health regeneration at the same time.

I feel like an unlimited berserker-health system would make the game just as easy as a game with full health regen. There needs to be some limits. To use the same examples, Kreig's skill is only active for a relatively short amount of time, and the Zandatsu requires the player to preform complicated inputs before being rewarded with health, and a satisfying spine-crush animation.
 
The only enemies who were able to kill within seconds?
It seems you never played Doom on Nightmare.

See that was the great thing about DOOM. So many enemies with projectile attacks. Which means the developers were able to turn up the damage and speed of those to insane levels and the game was still playable. The player just had to make sure, that he doesn't get hit.
You're really going to use Nightmare mode, a mode in which enemies endlessly respawn, as an example?
 
I liked how GTA V did the regen, fall below 50% and you recover back upto 50%. Pretty sure R:FoM did the same but every 25%?
 
Why do they still exist? Because they work, and they are fairly easy to implement. All making a non-regen system/partial regen system does is force a dev to balance their game so that you can always proceed with the lowest possible value, or at the very least make some save system that is very forgiving.

And let's face facts, neither system is in the least realistic. Putting a bandaid on a sucking chest wound isn't going to magically get you back to perfect shape. Realism isn't really all that fun, and unsurprisingly, most games don't choose to be very realistic.
 
Reading more into this thread, it seems people didn't play SS and only seen videos.

Its easy to make a case against this when the video publisher probably played it on a easier difficulty where you can see enemy locations and take on loads of rounds before you're even in peril.
 
You're really going to use Nightmare mode, a mode in which enemies endlessly respawn, as an example?

So?
Is Nightmare a fan-hack? No, it is an official difficulty setting. It's hard as balls, but it is beatable. I guess you ignored Souls games using the same logic. "Game is too hard, doesn't count lol".

There are plenty of regen health shooters out there, where on the lowest difficulty setting you can literally just stand around in the open and you simply won't die because regen will be faster than the enemies shooting at you.

Anyway, I just loaded up DOOM and used "Ultra Violence" without respawning. Right at the start of Episode 3, there are just 2 Imps. Which killed me within 2-3 seconds. Does this example count now? Or is it still an unfair example?

It's silly to argue against it anyway, because in DOOM it is possible to have just 1% health for quite a while. Which means even on the lowest difficulty setting enemies will be a major threat and one hit can kill you in that state.
 
I enjoyed the healing system of F.E.A.R.

You could hold up to 10 medkits but in higher difficulties enemies would kill you very quickly.

As in you couldn't just tank the damage.

Obviously with bullet time you'd rarely get hit while using it, but the intelligent AI and fast paced combat outside of slo-mo meant that you sometimes had a split second to use a medkit before you were killed.
 
I have no issues with regenerating health bits a good way to keep the game concise as opposed to searching for a health pack or not having one around at all.
 
That's sidestepping the issue.

It's not really though.

I don't play games that require health management and avoid hard games in general as I don't play for challenge. But I accept that lots of people love those types of games and that developers should make them.

Now I get that the reverse is more frustrating as the market of more casual gamers like me that prefer easier games with great stories and experiences etc. is larger, so there are more games that cater to that market with things like a lot of handholding to keep players from getting lost, regenerating health etc.

So, outside of indies, there are fewer hardcore gamers like Dark Souls or shooters with no regenerating health/shields etc. these days. Just a consequence of gaming going from a hardcore/niche hobby to a mainstream one. So I do sympathize with the hardcore crowd, despite it being a great time for more casual gamers like myself.
 
I'm fine with Second Son... every game doesn't need to be Dark Souls. Also I'd rather not have to search around for a health kit... that breaks the gameplay more than regen. Also leveling up to the point where nothing is a challenge is not a solution. I don't want to grind an area when I'm ready to move on. Nothing worse than being stuck in an area that you don't enjoy just because you have to grind up your level to beat a boss.
 
In the case of Infamous:
Because it would make the game less fun?

I don't want to constantly have to run into hiding and spend 10 minutes looking for a health pack, I want to get back into the action ASAP and have fun.
I was playing the game on expert and as you advance there are several enemies that can hit you hard. My screen would turn black-white (near death) a lot of times during battles... I don't want to have to run far away every single time that happenes.


Same goes for the damage he can take.
I want a fun superhero sandbox where I take on lots of enemies with my powers in something that looks like the action scenes of expensive movies. I want a challenge but I also want to feel like a badass Smoke/Neon shooting guy.
I don't want to run and be near dead because I took 1 shot to my leg.




I don't think the health regen system works in every game. And I can think of several that I wish had a regular "oldschool" health system.
But in some types of games, like Infamous, I think it's great
 
I think some games are just meant to be played without you ever really dying... but in order to maintain the sense of tension and danger, they have to still make it possible to die... even if it's to the point where you have to go out of your way to try and die sometimes.

I'm ok with that. Some games are all about the adventure and/or the story being told. Some games are all about killing the player whenever possible. More and more games these days seem to be about the former rather than the latter.
A lot of them seem to make up for it though by having multiplayer components where all you do is try to kill each other.
 
I don't want to constantly have to run into hiding and spend 10 minutes looking for a health pack, I want to get back into the action ASAP and have fun.
I was playing the game on expert and as you advance there are several enemies that can hit you hard. My screen would turn black-white (near death) a lot of times during battles... I don't want to have to run far away every single time that happenes.

Wouldn't the solution to this be avoid being damaged in the first place...?
 
Wouldn't the solution to this be avoid being damaged in the first place...?

How can you take on 10 guys with guns and avoid taking damage?:

You can;
- Use Stealth
- Use some sort of cover mechanic
- Use some sort of "shield mechanic"
- Give enemies terrible accuracy


None of those options sound like the kind of game I want Infamous to be
 
Wouldn't the solution to this be avoid being damaged in the first place...?

But not everyone wants to play skill based games.

Again, I know it sucks for you hardcores that your hobby went mainstream and not as many games are made that cater to you.

But there's a bigger market of people who just want to relax with relatively easy games and play for the story, experience, vegging out in a virtual world for a while. Not to practice and build skills and challenge themselves.

And big budget games are going to go after the bigger market. At least you guys still have indies and some mid tier stuff like Dark Souls.
 
How can you take on 10 guys with guns and avoid taking damage?:

You can;
- Use Stealth
- Use some sort of cover mechanic
- Use some sort of "shield mechanic"
- Give enemies terrible accuracy


None of those options sound like the kind of game I want Infamous to be

I don't see how any of those options are worse than being practically invincible so long as you leave combat every few seconds. That's just flat out bad game design imo, and not at all rewarding to play.
 
So, your point is that health regen is used because of dev laziness and nothing to do with make the game less of a chore?

Both. It is undoubtedly easier to design and makes games easier to cheese through. Playing games with actual health bars or even semi-regenerating health are a breath of fresh air these days.
 
Is like to see some attempt at a hybrid system. Take enough damage and your Max life is lowered until you find a health kit or equiv to heal up. Health can still regen to maximum.
 
Is like to see some attempt at a hybrid system. Take enough damage and your Max life is lowered until you find a health kit or equiv to heal up. Health can still regen to maximum.

A couple of games do that, and it works well. The only ones I can recall at the moment are Resistance 3 (life segmented into 4 bars, if life drops below a full bar it can no longer regen) and Killzone 2 multi (regens to 75% full, health pack to get to 100%). I'm sure there's a bunch more that I can't think of atm.
 
I don't see how any of those options are worse than being practically invincible so long as you leave combat every few seconds. That's just flat out bad game design imo, and not at all rewarding to play.

Then it's just a difference of opinions. That's why we have different types of games


As I said. I want infamous to be about fighting lots of guys with my superpowers while feeling like a badass. I want to fly around and blow things up with my Smoke/Neon powers so I'm perfectly fine with the health system it uses.
I don't want that from Dark Souls so in that game I really like the no autoheal system.

Anyway, I don't see how it's bad game design, no one said it was designed to be realistic or the hardest game ever, it was only supposed to be fun and if you go over to the OT of the game you will see that most people are finding it really enjoyable.
 
Because people are bad at games

yes/no

Its becasue SOME are bad at games and its way easier for designer to lift the weak up then actually tune the experience.

I personally HATE regen health. Makes PVE too easy and PVP unbalanced.
 
So, your point is that health regen is used because of dev laziness and nothing to do with make the game less of a chore?
What you're calling a chore might otherwise be known as challenge, a key ingredient in a game's risk and reward systems.

I'm actually fine with the health system in Infamous, though if I had my druthers I would have tied it directly into the act of absorbing materials - as the disconnect between health and energy has always seemed counter-intuitive to me in these games. Are you hurt? Absorb some stuff - the more you can absorb the more strength returns. Done.

My problems with the prevalence of regenerating health is pretty much aimed squarely at shooters, and especially the real-worldish military ones. And I think the Left 4 Dead system is one of the better ones I've seen lately, and wish a game like Aliens: Colonial Marines would have used it - especially if that game didn't suck.
 
A couple of games do that, and it works well. The only ones I can recall at the moment are Resistance 3 (life segmented into 4 bars, if life drops below a full bar it can no longer regen) and Killzone 2 multi (regens to 75% full, health pack to get to 100%). I'm sure there's a bunch more that I can't think of atm.

Cool, figure d someone must have tried it by now. I don't remember that mechanic in KZ2 multi but that was a while ago now.
 
I don't really see how a partial regen life bar or no regen would help infamous in any way. You would most likely have to use a power source to get health back, and that's something I do anyway to get back health faster rather than just waiting behind a wall.

I don't think the OP should have used infamous to illustrate the point.
 
What you're calling a chore might otherwise be known as challenge, a key ingredient in a game's risk and reward systems.

You say tomato, I say...

The reality is the game feels challenging enough as it is. The whole "people are bad at games" thing the difficulty junkies are trying to force is weird because it's so laughably exclusionary. No, people don't like dying, because that's tantamount to failing. If you're failing a bunch, "most" people would say they aren't having fun. You want a game that a lot of people will want to pick up, play, and say "Hey this is fun" because that means they're more likely to want to buy it.

Whenever I see these analogies I liken it to fans of superhero comics asking for comics to be more impenetrable to casuals. I mean, yeah I can understand them just fine but most people can't, and I want my hobby to live.
 
Both. It is undoubtedly easier to design and makes games easier to cheese through. Playing games with actual health bars or even semi-regenerating health are a breath of fresh air these days.

Maybe it is a breath of fresh air because it's rarer - that does not automatically mean that it's better.
 
I don't see how any of those options are worse than being practically invincible so long as you leave combat every few seconds. That's just flat out bad game design imo, and not at all rewarding to play.

I mean thats cool, I am sure other video games will fufill that for you .
 
Top Bottom