The Sins of Gaming: Regenerating health (self posted) - General

[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwetqUVPga4&feature=youtu.be[/media] If you have any criticisms please tell. I want to know how I can improve. I decided to make this because while I have seen people make fun of gooey eyes in modern FPS I don't think I have seen anyone give an analysis for why the Call of Duty style of health is harming shooters. I am also happy that some newer shooters coming out are abandoning this system.

I haven't finished watching it yet, what your saying is perfectly sound. My main criticism however is how you say it, like the volume of speaking goes up and down a bit and the cuts are very obvious moreover sometimes it sounds a bit like you're mumbling which makes it a little bit hard to hear. But overall I think it was a very solid video.

I agree with Hazza, the points are solid but the voice feels very muffled and hard to understand at times. Practice speaking clearly more if you plan on making this sort of content a thing.

[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;50592990]I haven't finished watching it yet, what your saying is perfectly sound. My main criticism however is how you say it, like the volume of speaking goes up and down a bit and the cuts are very obvious moreover sometimes it sounds a bit like you're mumbling which makes it a little bit hard to hear. But overall I think it was a very solid video.[/QUOTE] I agree. The video itself is good but you need better audio. It sounds like you got into an argument with a guy in a game of CSGO and explained your position to everyone over the mic. It sounds like you have a really good script but you need to rehearse it more and speak a little slower and a lot clearer if you're not going to be using a better mic because your method of speaking only works if the audio quality is better. Yahtzee speaks faster than you do but with him it's easier to understand because of the higher production value

[QUOTE=HazzaHardie;50592990] what your saying is perfectly sound. My main criticism however is how you say it, like the volume of speaking goes up and down a bit and the cuts are very obvious moreover sometimes[/QUOTE] I was recording audio inbetween preparing for finals. It probably wasn't the best decision because I couldn't give my complete attention recording lines. It's probably pretty clear that I read from a script while talking. I don't know how others do it but I have been trying to sound more natural while reading a script. I just don't know how I would go about doing that.

The whole point of the regenerating health system is pacing. Games like CoD are fast paced, no break action. It's about getting into the fray and staying there longer, more time playing. I'm not saying it's a great system, but i understand why it is this way. Spending time going for more health, or hiding more because you are low on health really puts a damper on how fast the match plays. CoD prides itself on being a game easy to pick up, play a bit, and put down.

regenerating health is awful when you make your entire game all about the cover system you know you fucked up

[QUOTE=Demolitions2;50593161]The whole point of the regenerating health system is pacing. Games like CoD are fast paced, no break action. It's about getting into the fray and staying there longer, more time playing. [/QUOTE] I see your point but this pacing is completely destroyed when you suddenly have to stop what you are doing to put your head down for the next 5 to 10 seconds. While it definitely isn't realistic (but hey, either is regenerating health) a system similar to the new Doom might work because you don't have to stop to look for health and instead get health by killing enemies around you. In this way you actually become more violent when your health is low rather than less.

also when you don't even need to play the game to beat it you REALLY know you fucked up only uncreative and terrible devs make an entire game exclusively around cover systems combined with regen health

It really does become a game of peakaboo when you're under heavy fire. I've only ever really played through COD MW and AW and I remember staying hidden behind cover for a very long time while I wait for health regen. It just makes the game frustrating. On the highest difficulties of Crysis, you go down just as fast(but at least health and armor regen makes sense here) but you have more options to get out of that situation such as sneaking out, speeding out, waiting it out, or punching a hole in the shack and getting out through there, and that's just with suit abilities.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50593207]also when you don't even need to play the game to beat it you REALLY know you fucked up only uncreative and terrible devs make an entire game exclusively around cover systems combined with regen health[/QUOTE] cover mechanics are a godsend though. GTA 3-SA are a nightmare difficulty wise because you are always in the open and you cant take cover when being shot at. ive beaten all 3 but fuck me was it a relief when it was introduced in 4.

[QUOTE=codemaster85;50593232]cover mechanics are a godsend though. GTA 3-SA are a nightmare difficulty wise because you are always in the open and you cant take cover when being shot at. ive beaten all 3 but fuck me was it a relief when it was introduced in 4.[/QUOTE] Cover systems are good when done right. See GTA4/5 and Wolfenstein you could easily beat it without using the cover system but its there if and when you need it then you get COD where all you do is play hide and fuck off and you win the game

[QUOTE=codemaster85;50593232]cover mechanics are a godsend though. GTA 3-SA are a nightmare difficulty wise because you are always in the open and you cant take cover when being shot at. ive beaten all 3 but fuck me was it a relief when it was introduced in 4.[/QUOTE] GTA always had weird health system. I remember in 4 half your health regened and the other half you had to eat a hotdog to get it back.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;50593363]GTA always had weird health system. I remember in 4 half your health regened and the other half you had to eat a hotdog to get it back.[/QUOTE] That's V, IV has no health regen.

I am happy regenerating health didn't become popular in RPGs. Imagine how that would have ruined stocking up on health potions, food and make healers near useless.

Cover systems were great when GoW and R6V first did them(I know Killswitch did it first, and possibly time crisis before if you want to count that too) because it was a completely new way to play the game but now it just feels generic. What I really miss is being able to lean in FPSs. It made STALKER such a unique experience because you had to keep running to and from different types of cover and closing the distance so your piece of shit pistol and AK could hit your enemy, but it also made you an easier target and any engagement could go either way.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;50593474]What I really miss is being able to lean in FPSs.[/QUOTE] FEAR also had lean and it felt like a great natural way to make a cover system. Instead of having characters literally stick to walls like some sort of magnet the player could easily run in and out of cover in a split second to get a better position on the enemy.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;50593627]STALKER also had lean and it felt like a great natural way to make a cover system. Instead of having characters literally stick to walls like some sort of magnet the player could easily run in and out of cover in a split second to get a better position on the enemy.[/QUOTE] The "stick to walls cover" system is garbage especially in fps games. I remember playing fear 3 that has this, and it was awful.

[QUOTE=Dr.C;50593474]Cover systems were great when GoW and R6V first did them(I know Killswitch did it first, and possibly time crisis before if you want to count that too) because it was a completely new way to play the game but now it just feels generic. What I really miss is being able to lean in FPSs. It made STALKER such a unique experience because you had to keep running to and from different types of cover and closing the distance so your piece of shit pistol and AK could hit your enemy, but it also made you an easier target and any engagement could go either way.[/QUOTE] After I played Killzone 3 I think almost every cover based FPS should have leaning It's pretty useful (plus it looks cool)

I think the Fallout 4 style cover system works way better than just having a lean button. If you're at a corner or you're crouching behind something and you aim down the sights, it'll automatically slightly move you so that you're aiming around the cover you're behind. That way you don't get sticky cover and you can look around corners much quicker and easier than using lean. Though I guess having both systems would probably be the best solution.

[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;50593651]The "stick to walls cover" system is garbage especially in fps games. I remember playing fear 3 that has this, and it was awful.[/QUOTE] Which is sad because it's such a downgrade from the first FEARs cover system. I wonder what they were thinking. Probably "Well we have to do it this way because other FPS are doing it"

FEAR 2 firefights felt so much less dynamic with the removal of lean also STALKER has one of the best implementations of leaning for cover i think, the AI accuracy seems to change based on how exposed you are so if you simply use lean you go from being hit a lot to seeing bullets punch into your cover in front of you. It makes your character feel less like a box

imo you sound pretty bored throughout most of the video. Which isn't to say that you need to forcefully inject a different attitude into the video, but every speech pattern comes with a certain melody. News presenters for example usually present their content very stoically, but they have a characteristic melody in their voice that many people will naturally imitate when they try to speak like a typical news presenter. I'm no expert on the topic tho, so I don't have any more specific pointers to give, sorry. I think the closest comparison I could give for reference would be MrBTongue, who also analyzes fiction (mostly video games) and has a "low energy voice", but keeps lines interesting by carefully emphasizing important words and stressing certain syllables unconventionally. For example, "Hello everyone." read normally would have your voice go down with the end of the sentence. But [url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIx7Ot5Mq2Q"]he decided[/url] to have his voice go up at the end, which not only makes the standalone sentence more interesting to listen to, but also fits the sentence's role as an introduction, since we're left hanging on a high note and naturally waiting for the follow-up sentence to properly bring us down again. Again, just my personal impression, which is no more qualified than anyone else's.

What you are saying is 100% great How you are saying it is not. It's boring, it felt like a chore to sit through even though what you were saying was interesting

[QUOTE=Demolitions2;50593161]The whole point of the regenerating health system is pacing. Games like CoD are fast paced, no break action. It's about getting into the fray and staying there longer, more time playing. I'm not saying it's a great system, but i understand why it is this way. Spending time going for more health, or hiding more because you are low on health really puts a damper on how fast the match plays. CoD prides itself on being a game easy to pick up, play a bit, and put down.[/QUOTE] It's also a design decision around fairness on a micro level rather than macro. Every time you run into a new enemy you're more likely to be at full health - and so are they. So the majority of encounters during a single MP game are against players who have the same health, instead of one having the upper hand because the other has been worn down earlier. Like anything in a gameplay designer's toolbox, there are places where it works amazingly well and probably should be used, and places where it doesn't.

TBH it felt like a very basic look at things. You didn't address why regenerating health exists or how it could work, you just complained that developers are lazy for using it. At the same time you didn't really talk about the benefits of non-regenerating health beyond "good level design". I also would have liked to hear what you thought about hybrid systems, the ones where either a limited amount of your HP regens or the ones where your health is divided into regenerating sections. The end also felt very rushed. Given all the complaining about how cover systems reward the player for not playing I'm surprised you didn't mention how DOOM does the opposite by rewarding the player for being aggressive, by having enemies drop health for glory kills and ammo for chainsaw kills. [editline]25th June 2016[/editline] Another thing is your examples of why regenerating health in multiplayer games were very bad. Battlefield and Call of Duty have always had low TTKs because they're modern shooters, games like Quake or Unreal or modern games like Overwatch have higher TTKs because they aren't trying to be somewhat realistic.

[QUOTE=Janus Vesta;50594091] At the same time you didn't really talk about the benefits of non-regenerating health beyond "good level design".[/QUOTE] Did you watch the half-life part where I talked about enemy design and damage over time?

tbh when games moved over to enemies being almost entirely hitscan based that's when people started to realize the problem with non-regenerating healing systems health or lives were basically an allowance of mistakes you could make during gameplay, the biggest mistake being not dodging an enemy attack. That's why FPS games typically roll with regenerating health and fighting/character action games (where you are encouraged to dodge and block attacks) still use non-regenerating health when the enemies all have undodgable attacks (ie hitscanning guns) you can start losing health without you making a mistake. You could easily lose chunks of health because of a random roll of the dice when you pop out of cover or because you just couldn't compete with the lightning fast reflexes of CPU enemies. Some games solved this by making the enemies brain-dead and others solved this by including regenerating health. Others did neither of those things and as a result they were relentlessly brutal. And unfortunately games started doing both things later on, not out balance but just for the purpose of making the games easy as balls. But regardless of health systems you're going to be sitting in cover playing peekaboo no matter what, in fact I'd probably say that the conservative playstyles that non-regenerating health brings out is going to make combat more peekaboo-y because of the fact that you'll be bidding your time waiting for the perfect moment when everyone else stops shooting. But honestly Chest-high cover systems and regenerating health are two different mechanics and are not mutually exclusive to one another and depending on the game I'd actually argue that regenerating/on-demand recovery health systems promote more aggressive playstyles, not conservative ones. Also the comment on camping in multiplayer doesnt take into account the other mechanics of those games that do or don't facilitate camping. Arena shooters feature wider more open maps and more flexible movement, that's why camping doesn't work, there's just nowhere to set up camp and have the hunkered down advantage. Modern shooters like COD have slower movement speeds and tighter CQC focused areas where you can hunker down and is not solely because of the health system. Games like Insurgency, Rainbow Six Siege, CSGO, and Red Orchestra 2 all have these kinds of areas where defensive and campy strategies just work even though the games don't have regenerating health systems. It's honestly not the best solution to the hitscan problem but to call it a sin of gaming is some /v/ tier poo poo complaining about how games ain't like they used to be. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into these videos and I commend that, but in both this and your Fallout 4 video you haven't brought anything particularly new to the table. In fact I'm pretty sure I've heard this exact same piece on regenerating health before in like a 8 year old Gamesradar article. Even if you don't agree with everything I've said on regenerating health I do hope that as you improve the technical side of your videos, you also improve on making some more new and interesting content as opposed to what might essentially be copy and pasting a post from r/gaming. [editline]25th June 2016[/editline] funny enough actually I think an interesting video to do is actually something I saw on r/gaming a while ago that was basically an argument on how to avoid bulletsponges in RPGs and they started talking about the various pros and cons to both high TTK games and low TTK games, which is a topic I just don't see around very often

[QUOTE=cdr248;50594242]health or lives were basically an allowance of mistakes you could make during gameplay, the biggest mistake being not dodging an enemy attack. That's why FPS games typically roll with regenerating health and fighting/character action games (where you are encouraged to dodge and block attacks) still use non-regenerating health[/QUOTE] There are ways to have hit scan weapons that don't instantly fire and many good shooters use this. For example in Doom Zombie solders have a hit scan gun but because there is a start up time before they shoot the player has time to find cover or shoot the enemy before they shoot them. In real life officers are taught to shoot when they see someone reaching for a gun because they have the advantage by already having their owns pointed at the person. I see many modern games have enemies instantly lock on and shoot at a target. In fact Black mesa was criticized for having their space marine soldiers shoot too suddenly. Giving enemies an attack delay would allow for taking hits to be a failure on the players part while at the same time being a bit more realistic though I don't think realism by itself is necessarily a good reason.

[QUOTE=imasillypiggy;50594305]There are ways to have hit scan weapons that don't instantly fire and many good shooters use this. For example in Doom Zombie solders have a hit scan gun but because there is a start up time before they shoot the player has time to find cover or shoot the enemy before they shoot them. In real life officers are taught to shoot when they see someone reaching for a gun because they have the advantage by already having their owns pointed at the person. I see many modern games have enemies instantly lock on and shoot at a target. In fact Black mesa was criticized for having their space marine soldiers shoot too suddenly. Giving enemies an attack delay would allow for taking hits to be a failure on the players part while at the same time being a bit more realistic though I don't think realism by itself is necessarily a good reason.[/QUOTE] That's what I mentioned with brain dead enemies, games often do have these attack delays and slow enemy reactions but that doesn't stop the fact that there's nothing you can do to dodge it when they do fire. Look at call of duty or far cry where you can walk up to enemies and they'll just stand and look at you, slowly letting off a burst... and then another. Doom gets away with it because those delays are telegraphs (not to mention they're zombies), but in other games where you're fighting other humans-- it just looks awkward. Obviously there are some exceptions like FEAR where enemies are made smart enough to change up their attack styles and rates, but in FEAR's case you have the slow-mo to make up for the enemy's reaction times. And of course the hitscan problem of undodgable attacks mostly came to fruition with games that didn't even think about attack delays like with Blood 2 or many other shitty Doom clones.