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

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;50596727]I'm glad a lot of video games have regenerating health. There have been multiple times in the past where a game I was playing autosaved when I was at very low health in a very difficult area, so I was fucked and had to start over.[/QUOTE] That's more of a problem with the saving system imo. A game based around autosaves should keep the last few saves instead of just one.

[QUOTE=Metist;50595227]Then shoot them before they fire. I never felt Doom or Quake cheap because I could always fire before they shot or if I didn't then I deserve to take damage. This is no different than in a fighting game how once someone does a combo on you you generally have to wait for him to finish it if he is good.[/QUOTE] but that's just boring (and also doesn't really work with high enemy counts)

uh well your intro is factually incorrect for starters because regenerating health became the "in vogue" thing to do as early as Call of Duty 2 and not Call of Duty 4. your voice and intonation is not well suited to an informative video and you sound like you're reading from a script the whole time - obviously you are, but the trick is to avoid coming across that way to your viewers. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] and as many people in this thread have stated before me, this feels like babby's first informational video. you totally ignore the aspect that not everybody wants a hardcore challenge in their video games. this style of play is best suited for games like Dark Souls 3. regenerating health is an incredible game mechanic that paved the way for casual shooters such as Call of Duty and Battlefield, neither of which claim to be the hardcore and serious games you portray them to be EDIT: rewatched just to make sure I didn't miss anything, and you did in fact address that point about the challenge with one sentence. but you only addressed player's "bad choices" and not their intent when playing the game. you more or less completely swept that under the rug.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50598256]but that's just boring (and also doesn't really work with high enemy counts)[/QUOTE] I didn't find it boring in Doom. It's very subjective but I loved walking into a room of 10 zombies all point their shotguns at me and going OH SHIT and having to either blow them all up at once or run in and out of the room to slowly kill them all. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=FFStudios;50598814]regenerating health is an incredible game mechanic that paved the way for casual shooters such as Call of Duty and Battlefield,[/QUOTE] You say that like letting that cancer spread was a good thing. Also there have been casual shooters before regening health. What makes you think a casual shooter needs to have it? Just have more health packs and health stations like the video said. That way the casual player can play it on easy and not have much challenge while a good player can actually have fun and not have to deal with boring single player and multiplayer combat.

[QUOTE=Metist;50598897]I didn't find it boring in Doom. It's very subjective but I loved walking into a room of 10 zombies all point their shotguns at me and going OH SHIT and having to either blow them all up at once or run in and out of the room to slowly kill them all. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] You say that like letting that cancer spread was a good thing. Also there have been casual shooters before regening health. What makes you think a casual shooter needs to have it? Just have more health packs and health stations like the video said. That way the casual player can play it on easy and not have much challenge while a good player can actually have fun and not have to deal with boring single player and multiplayer combat.[/QUOTE] I must reiterate that DOOM did it fine and in fact they're like that by design. But in a modern FPS it's a little anticlimactic to just kill all the enemies before they can let a shot off: Firefights are fun, not shooting galleries.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;50596727]I'm glad a lot of video games have regenerating health. There have been multiple times in the past where a game I was playing autosaved when I was at very low health in a very difficult area, so I was fucked and had to start over.[/QUOTE] That seems like a clear problem of the save game system to me. Have auto saves next to medpacks/stations or allow the player to save the game when he wants himself.

I like Halo 1 and Reach's system, its dual health system, shields that regen, and a healthbar that you need a healthkit for.

[QUOTE=Intoxicated Spy;50599388]I like Halo 1 and Reach's system, its dual health system, shields that regen, and a healthbar that you need a healthkit for.[/QUOTE] I wonder why they took out the health kit system for halo 2 and 3. I actually really liked it. Maybe the designers didn't like having to place health packs across the map but I can't say for sure.

[QUOTE=Kljunas;50597441]That's more of a problem with the saving system imo. A game based around autosaves should keep the last few saves instead of just one.[/QUOTE] I see this in games a lot. They'll just kind of overwrite a single file and nothing else. Dark souls does this and if your data gets corrupted you like, lose hundreds of hours of work, possibly across multiple characters, alternatively you could get hacked by an invader and it'll ruin a character and you'll have to delete your save file. Firewatch did this and the game had a game breaking bug that caused you to be completely unable to finish the game, meaning you either use someone elses save or start from the beginning. it's insanely foolish of devs to do this, because it's so easy for something to go wrong that the one file save system is honestly the biggest annoyance I have with tons of games. thank fuck for auto back up programs though

I've always appreciated the Far Cry manner of health. You have health pips, or segments, which would regenerate within that pip but you needed medpacks to fully heal. I also liked how if you had none, you could still heal, but the process was a long animation to fix whatever injury so it was high risk where you could get gunned down, but high reward in surviving and healing could turn the tide of the firefight.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50600020]I see this in games a lot. They'll just kind of overwrite a single file and nothing else. Dark souls does this and if your data gets corrupted you like, lose hundreds of hours of work, possibly across multiple characters, alternatively you could get hacked by an invader and it'll ruin a character and you'll have to delete your save file. Firewatch did this and the game had a game breaking bug that caused you to be completely unable to finish the game, meaning you either use someone elses save or start from the beginning. it's insanely foolish of devs to do this, because it's so easy for something to go wrong that the one file save system is honestly the biggest annoyance I have with tons of games. thank fuck for auto back up programs though[/QUOTE] Dishonored had the most retarded save system of any game I've ever played. If you randomly went back to play an earlier chapter, you [i]lost the unlock of all subsequent chapters and had to beat the game again to unlock them all.[/i]

[QUOTE=Metist;50595573]I liked how Resistance did it best. You had health packs and everything but it was segmented in 4ths if I remember correctly so once you took damage past a certain point you would still need health packs. I wouldn't mind gaming going back to that system.[/QUOTE] After your infected you regent those fourths and near the end of the game if you wait your whole health will regen which is neat from a storytelling standpoint. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline] At the end of the day health is a game mechanic, it helps fill in a part of the game that affects how you approach and therefore the emotional impact.

[QUOTE=cdr248;50598987]I must reiterate that DOOM did it fine and in fact they're like that by design. But in a modern FPS it's a little anticlimactic to just kill all the enemies before they can let a shot off: Firefights are fun, not shooting galleries.[/QUOTE] You can do like FEAR did and have the enemies still fire at you while you are behind cover but since they don't instantly lock onto your head when it comes out you can still fire at them. This way you are still in a constant fire fight but not unfairly getting attacked. At least that is my idea but i'm not a game dev obviously. I just like spit balling ideas.

[QUOTE=Swilly;50600461]After your infected you regent those fourths and near the end of the game if you wait your whole health will regen which is neat from a storytelling standpoint. [editline]26th June 2016[/editline][/QUOTE] Too bad Resistance 2 took that out. In fact Resistance 2 did a lot to ruin in my and many other R1 fans opinions what made R1 so great. In Resistance 2 you have generic regenerating health. You also have a 2 weapon limit as opposed to the ability to use every weapon like in resistance 1 and they also did a bunch of other things to make it more in line with with modern generic shooters at the time. I hear they went back to the basics with Resistance 3 however but I never played that one. It makes me wonder if sony will ever make a resistance 4.