Game Theory: Defending Call of Duty Regenerating Health

Defending Call of Duty Regenerating Health

Call of Duty gets a lot of hate when it comes to its health system. For as "Modern" as its warfare may be, regenerating health just isn't something that's going to be available on the battlefield...or will it? With CoD: Advanced Warfare, you're fighting a war 40 years in the future. Could regenerating health be possible then? And how does it compare to the science of health packs?

Watch Video

Yet another old video reuploaded as new.

Is it hard to make new content now that you have a more stable/reliable income source?
Are you even really GameTheory?

LucasGrimms:
Yet another old video reuploaded as new.

Is it hard to make new content now that you have a more stable/reliable income source?
Are you even really GameTheory?

What? Pretty much every Game Theory uploaded here has been old. No one on The Escapist is saying it's brand spanking new. Week by week they've been uploading the Game Theory catalog, and they haven't caught up. If you want to see new episodes as they come out, go to his Youtube. He's been uploading there semi-regularly (most recent Game Theory was uploaded a week ago).

Though not sure if it is actually Matt Pat uploading it, but likely not. If I recall correctly, The Escapist got permission to upload the videos. They've been doing this for about a year now.

Ahh. I guess its only been a headliner for the last two weeks due to lack of content here now.

Im sure im not the only one who was confused about this. (Be nice to see a disclaimer...isnt there some war going on about a topic similar to this?)

But why is it even here? These videos are ooolld lol. Any discussions to be had....have been had.

Eh well. Its awkward now so i'll show myself out.

A few years back some college student was working on a real life medi-gel made of polymers. It sounded promising and I even saw it demonstrated. Any word on where that experiment went?

Christ, every time I make the mistake of watching one of these videos (really only the first couple minutes because it's unbearable to carry on), it makes me want to dropkick a small animal.

Look, no one gives a toss about realism in video games. Nor should they. With very few exceptions, the developer should always do what they think is best for gameplay. If for religious reasons you believe it's stupid to have automatic health recovery, just suicide after you take significant damage to remove that crutch.

Second, future iterations of Halo did feature regenerating health in addition to the regenerating shield. The shield was always of infinitely greater importance in any Halo game, and the recharging shield had the same practical effect as recharging health in other games. So the nerd cred you think you earned with that trivial distinction is denied.

Yahtzee has touched on the topic a number of times. Non regenerating health being part of the overall game, more weight to each fights and how your tactics have to match up to how much health you have.

I personally prefer regenerating health since I can be more liberal with my playstyle. I enjoy close quarters high risk high reward combat, which I can more or less stick to with regenerating health. If health was scarce, then its just peekaboo long range potshotting cause you can't afford otherwise.

I generally prefer the middle road. Semi regneration like in Wolfenstein The New Order. Or just slow regeneration like in Deus Ex Human Revolution, where the regeneration doesn't quite help in the middle of combat situations.

Wings012:
Yahtzee has touched on the topic a number of times. Non regenerating health being part of the overall game, more weight to each fights and how your tactics have to match up to how much health you have.

Do you happen to know the article(s) in which he discussed this? I'm curious to read his argument.

For me, there's nothing tactically deep or interesting by playing possum when you're low health. Unless you happen to think camping is good for gameplay. The practical effect of non-recharging health is to slow down the game by giving significant reward to the loser of a battle, i.e., the winner of the battle is often gimped to the point that the enemy will clean them up after respawn. This translates to less weight on each individual fight, not more. I speak from the multiplayer shooter perspective, which Yahtzee mostly dismisses.

StreamerDarkly:

Wings012:
Yahtzee has touched on the topic a number of times. Non regenerating health being part of the overall game, more weight to each fights and how your tactics have to match up to how much health you have.

Do you happen to know the article(s) in which he discussed this? I'm curious to read his argument.

For me, there's nothing tactically deep or interesting by playing possum when you're low health. Unless you happen to think camping is good for gameplay. The practical effect of non-recharging health is to slow down the game by giving significant reward to the loser of a battle, i.e., the winner of the battle is often gimped to the point that the enemy will clean them up after respawn. This translates to less weight on each individual fight, not more. I speak from the multiplayer shooter perspective, which Yahtzee mostly dismisses.

Yahtzee was definitely speaking from a single player perspective. I personally like non-recharging health in multiplayer - cause that means health pickups. And health pickups means tactical maneuvers towards said pickups to gain an edge over opponents. I'd purposefully draw opponents around the map so I can run over lines of health vials in unreal. I'll win via attrition if I'm outskilled.

Anyway I don't remember precisely where Yahtzee spoke on the topic, but it's most likely in one of his many Let's Drown Outs available in his youtube channel. Considering the topic of first person shooters, it's probably either the Quake or Duke Nukem Forever videos.

StreamerDarkly:

Wings012:
Yahtzee has touched on the topic a number of times. Non regenerating health being part of the overall game, more weight to each fights and how your tactics have to match up to how much health you have.

Do you happen to know the article(s) in which he discussed this? I'm curious to read his argument.

For me, there's nothing tactically deep or interesting by playing possum when you're low health. Unless you happen to think camping is good for gameplay. The practical effect of non-recharging health is to slow down the game by giving significant reward to the loser of a battle, i.e., the winner of the battle is often gimped to the point that the enemy will clean them up after respawn. This translates to less weight on each individual fight, not more. I speak from the multiplayer shooter perspective, which Yahtzee mostly dismisses.

Don't forget his Grand Unifying Theory for video game stories. Short version: a substance capable of instant regeneration and even mutation, called "Red", has been part of technological advancements, storage management, conflicts and disasters in every videogame world.

Nobody is questioning it's "realism" it's just bad lazy game design that encourages games to be boring and linear.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here