What have gamers got against regenerating health? Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
I don't dislike it per-say but I do think it should be optional and the player should choose between it and med kits... | |
Hiding behind a wall to regenerate your limbs breaks the flow. Far Cry 2 is a perfect example of how health bars in games should be handled. | |
I'm not against regenerating health in itself. It's a great way to ensure that you don't ever enter a hard confrontation with close to zero health, which means you might have to reload an old save and play through the level again to make sure your health is higher at that confrontation. The problem is when it's handled completely wrong(i.e. most games), because it tends to make the game ridiculously easy when you can regenerate any damage you if you just hide behind a box for five seconds. It also removes most of the incentive you have to explore levels for secrets, because more armor, ammo and health can be acquired that way. There are also games that realize that this actually makes the game easy and tries to balance it by making confrontations confusing and frustrating, forcing you to hide in a box while your immortal squadmates kill everything for you(hello MW2), which is even worse. However, the "you won't ever have zero health at the start of a confrontation"-part of regenerating health is a good thing. You just need to make sure you can't fully regenerate health by hiding behind a wall. Space Marine and Deus Ex: Human Revolution are examples of games doing it right: SM only regenerated your shields passively and required strategic use of execution kills or fury mode to regenerate damage done to the health bar. DE:HR had a max health of 200, but only regenerated health back to 100 without consumables, and it regenerated very slowly so that it couldn't be abused as easily. | |
It just occurred to me that you're right. Regenerating health has gotten rid of all those nuisance critters that plagued video games for years. No more going into tunnels and having to shotgun rats... although Battlefield 3 did turn a rat battle into a QTE. I knew there was something about regenerating health I liked :) On a more serious note, regenerating health should always be thought of as an option when developing a video game and not a requirement. It works well in some games, not at all in others. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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? | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. 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. | |
It's overused and removes a strategic part of the game wich in the long term dumbs the game down. But the main fact of annoyance is likely that fact that...EVERY FUCKING GAME USES IT. Gets old fast. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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. | |
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... | |
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. | |
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. | |
Please, do tell. | |
In Riddick, you had a segmented health bar. Your health would only recharge in segments, ie, if you lost the top two chunks of your health bar, you wouldn't get them back until you found a medic station. It was a pretty nifty mechanic. OT: Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with regenerating health as long as the game in question is designed well. Too many criticisms of regenerating health operate under the assumption that the games in question will be poorly designed, when in fact a well designed shooter will take all those criticisms into consideration. "It makes the game too easy, as you can absorb loads of bullets without any negative effect". Actually, not really. Any well designed shooter that uses RH will trade-off the positives by also reducing the amount of total damage you can take before dying. Look at a game like Modern Warfare. As much as it is seen as an arcadey run-and-gun, it actually doesn't take many shots at all to kill your character. No more than 4 or 5, which is easy enough to do when an enemy is using automatic or burst fire. Multiplayer is even harsher, where 2 or 3 shots to the torso is enough to have you out for the count. Compare this to a healthbar system, where it can take anything between 5 and 10 shots to the torso in an average shooter to whittle your healthbar down all the way to the bottom, and it becomes clear that RH actually tends to allow, and often require more tactical thought and strategy. Sure, your health may recharge, but when it only takes a few shots to take you down, you want to make damn sure that you rely on that as little as possible. "All you have to do is hide behind cover for ten seconds, and you're right as rain again" In a game where enemies are stationary, braindead buffoons, then yes, this is true. If the developers have done their work, however, and programmed enemy AI that makes effective use of suppressing fire, flanking and similar such tactics, then running and hiding for ten seconds is akin to showing the enemy your weakspot and saying "Shoot me there repeatedly!" Running and hiding behind cover when your health is low is a movement of retreat, albeit a brief one. Good enemy AI will capitalise on such a moment of retreat, and move to press home their offensive and get you while you're weak. In a good shooter, while you're crouched behind a crate waiting for your health to recharge, the enemy should be laying down suppressing fire to prevent you from popping your head up, and moving their troopers forward to surround you and attack you from multiple vantage points. In short, hiding behind cover should not be an instant win move. It should be a double edged sword that allows you to regain your health at the expense of giving ground to the enemy AI. If a game is allowing you to crouch and regain lost health without the enemy AI capitalising on your retreat in any manner, that doesn't speak poorly of the RH mechanic, it simply shows that the game's designers were crap. "Games should be punished for playing poorly, and regenerating health takes away from that." FPS games already punish the gamer for playing poorly. It's called dying. If a gamer plays a section of a shooter poorly, then the consequence should be that they are shot and killed by the enemy, and any good designer will reinforce that. However, gamers are not machines, and they should not be unfairly punished simply for one slip or mistake that costs them half their health. Having your chances in a firefight reduced to buggerall because you made a mistake in the last firefight, or even a firefight twenty minutes ago, is not a fair way to treat the player. Sure, for some types of ultra-realistic shooter it works well, but for most FPS games, players should be allowed to engage each firefight on its own terms. Having the game send an enemy tank your way is challenge enough. Being forced to face a tank while also being penalised because you didn't spot a far-off window sniper five minutes ago, and are now missing most of your health, is just sadism. If a player plays badly, the game should punish them with a Game Over screen. What games shouldn't do, however, is add each mistake made by the player to be yet another albatross weighing on their neck. By allowing players to engage in each fight on its own terms, you encourage them to experiment in their gameplay style, take risks, and generally have more fun with the game's mechanics. Punishing them for each and every slight mistake simply reinforces conservative play, and encourages tactics which exploit the game's mechanics, rather than using them as they were intended to be used. | |
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.
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). | |
Gamers have got something against everything. | |
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. | |
im going to assume this is a younger gamer. why have regenerating health? because sometimes its nice to have a challenge | |
Makes the game too easy and boring in my opinion. You can take an infinite amount of damage and not got penalized for it. The typical CoD game for me is basically popping out of cover to kill a few people, then going back in cover waiting for my eyes to stop bleeding. Repeat about 1000 times and you beat the game! | |
It depends on the game really. The main problem with health regen is that you wind up avoiding gameplay (ie: having fun) until your health is replenished. A good example is first person shooters where you sit behind a wall until your health is replenished again. That is, you quit playing the game until your character is back at full health. This is a very poor system, as it breaks the game's momentum. Health regen works in some games however. Shadow of the Colossus uses health regen. However,there aren't really any places to take cover. You're constantly moving and dodging, regardless of what your health is at, due to the immense range and power a lot of the colossus possessed. In Guild Wars, when you were out of combat, your health regenerated at a very rapid rate. This decreased the time between fights, and removed any need for a food/potion system. It allowed players to focus on combat. In Halo, you became extremely vulnerable when your shields were down. While you were still able to just sit in cover until the shield recovered, I found that in multiplayer, those few seconds for shield regen were extremely tense. This kept a constant feeling of suspense during the game (never played single player, so I can't say if it worked there or not). | |
It ruins realism and immersion when you get shot 8 times and somehow spit the bullets out and magically all the bullet wounds and internal bleeding goes away, sure, a med pack is also unrealistic, but it's better than being Wolverine | |
I would like to ask how you know the content of the health kits? I know in HL2 its a questionable green fluid that could (and probably are) be some crazy nano robots that repair tissue. Just because it has a red cross on the outside doesn't mean its a typical first aid kit. | |
I don't hate regenerating health, but I really don't like it much either. When it's used exclusively, it tends to make games ludicrously easy to me. When a shooter comes out now with Regenerating Health, I don't even bother with any of the difficulty levels other than the highest, simply because that's the only one that might offer a challenge from time to time, maybe. Usually it doesn't. And I'm really not even all that great at shooters. | |
The advantage of regenerating health is that the combat can be tuned to be faster and more lethal more easily. You have a reasonable expectation of how long the player can live in a given circumstance, because you can assume they'll be at full health transitioning from fight to fight. The disadvantages include it stifling exploration and reducing the chance of a player fearing for their well-being. Players will just tunnel in on the enemies in an area and progressing to the next area. It also removes the point of other game mechanics, like a combination of health and armor, and generally makes it less interesting to survive, as all you have to do is hide behind a low wall for a few seconds before you go back into the fight gun blazing. You don't have to fundamentally alter your strategy beyond taking short breaks. | |
Borderlands and ME1 pulled it off well though. Health regenerated slowly, but you had more of it. That way combat still flowed well, you still have to be quick enough to get out of the way but you aren't made off tissue like you are in something like COD. So you get the quick-reflexes focus of a more old school shooter, but without having to spend half an hour desperately searching for a first aid kit during low action segments. | |
First aid kits versus auto-healing. Oh, goodie. Honestly, I find this debate to be rather pointless. I don't care how health is regenerated in that sort of context. To me, the problem is the context itself, namely you have to survive in order to make progress. That's the actual problem to me. The fact that you have to survive in order to make progress. That kind of game design draws the player away from things like narrative, thematic messages and aesthetics. Instead, I'd like to see a game that makes progress the only way to survival, it est health can only be regenerated through accomplishing tasks and moving the story forward. In fact, requiring the player to get invested in the story to ensure the survival of his/her avatar, could be an essential component for successfully expressing narratives through gameplay. But then the story actually has to be good and worth investing in, so I can see why not taking this route is the cheaper and safer route for AAA studio. | |
You will note that I said "well designed shooters"... In all seriousness though, much as I enjoy playing the Modern Warfare games, they are designed from the ground up to be glorified set-pieces, not true battle simulators. If you want an example of the type of design I'm thinking of, play any of the Halo games on Legendary. If you follow any of the so-called advice given on this thread about regenerating health, you'll be dead in seconds. Your shields can only take a couple of hits before they're gone. Time to sit still behind a wall, right? Wrong. Enemies, particularly Elites and Brutes, will have no qualms about rooting you out and shooting you while your shields are down, normally while Grunts and Jackals take potshots at your position to keep you from moving. Other games like Killzone 2 also show how unforgiving RH can be when paired against ruthless, intelligent AI. Games like these present the player with a choice. If you shields/health are low, you can A) keep shooting and pray for the best, B)Crouch behind cover and hope you don't get jumped, or C)run from spot to spot in a frantic bid to avoid enemy contact and allow your health time to recharge. What they do not present you with is the oft-portrayed scenario of "Crouch behind wall to win." The majority of the arguments used against RH in this thread are fallacious, and have little to do with the actual design and mechanics of regenerating health as used in well designed games. When used properly, it is a mechanic which forces the player to constantly adapt to the situation at hand, and punishes you for slack behaviour or poor tactics. Sure, when used badly, it becomes a crutch used to prop up badly implemented gameplay and an over reliance on set-pieces. But then, you wouldn't judge traditional health bars based on their use by terrible FPS games, would you? | |
| Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT | |
I've never played Shadow of the Colossus, so I wasn't thinking of that game when replying to this thread.
There are more ways, to have a health system other than it regenerating over time and healthpacks.
I really don't know what the lore/universe of that game is, but I know healthpacks wouldn't belong.
Maybe potions? Maybe praying at a shrine? Maybe each hit to a colossus' weak point will give you a portion of your health back?
All I'm saying is that there are more inventive and interesting ways of healing yourself other than waiting/avoiding getting hit any more.