As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
[Auto-regenerating health] care is for communists
RichardTauber
KvltRegistered User regular
KvltRegistered User regular
I really like auto-regenerating health in games. The lack of running around looking for health makes games more enjoyable for me. I can certainly see how different approaches is appropriate for different games, a survival horror game with auto-regenerating health would perhaps be less scary. But fuck it. Running around shooting left and right and murdering the last bad guy with one percent health left is a whole fucking lot more fun when it doesn't mean using up the last medkit.
0
Posts
Just Cause 2 would have been improved immensely if healthpacks weren't a thing
I had no problem with medpacks in F.E.A.R. or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. or various other games who's names are also acronyms.
Didn't mind 'em in Bioshock or Metro 2033 either. They were pretty boss in Left 4 Dead.
I actually freakin' miss 'em in Borderlands 2.
So, I'm not strictly opposed to any sort of system at its face value. It all depends on the other systems present in the game and inherent / varying difficulties. I like to think that health regeneration or recuperation are things the industry have nailed down so well that it's hard to fuck up. Like it's one of the few things that doesn't get fucked up. Which is saying a lot, because sometimes shit like title screens get fucked up. I'm sure there exists examples, but I cannot remember anyone discussing any games in the last decade where health and how you recover has been a thing.
Oblivion had an annoying regeneration flaw. Health recovery worked via immediate application or regeneration. For the life of me though, I could never figure out whatever benefit there was meant to be had with the game's regen-over-time effects. It was literally shit like 1 hit point per second recovered, and the spells capped at, what, a minute if you custom-made one? In that minute of time, you could cast an instant-heal for more and recover the mana spent. I guess there's one goofy thing done wrong, but it was easily avoided and alternatives supplied.
Another system fuckup is games where you can equip an item and heal by standing still. I understand they want to balance that shit out to prevent people from healing too fast in a boss fight, but is it really all that hard to program the item to heal faster the longer you're standing still? Some games give such reliance on these items that it's like, well, time to walk away from the game for five minutes while I stand still with nothing happening. They know people are going to do that, so you may as well not waste their time. At 15 and 30 seconds straight of standing still, ramp that shit up again and again-again.
Okay I lied, regening health has fuck ups in the industry afterall. The princess is in another castle. The end.
Dead Rising.
MMO's I like strong out of health regen similar to how SWTOR was at launch, so I don't have to stop between packs to heal unless it was a hard fight, keeps the game flowing better that way.
Shooters I've always liked semi-regenerating health, because I feel the feeling of 'low health' urgency is a good one to have in your games, but having it so the game can save with 5% HP is not because at that point it's a fucking joke.
I loved EverQuest. I think it took like 30-60 minutes to regen your entire mana bar as a Wizard, at least at launch. Then they introduced the Enchanter skill Clarity which made mana regen much quicker "a breeze flows swiftly through your mind" or some such. So you spent a lot of time as a non-enchanter just looking for an enchanter to buff you with Clarity. In the end, you probably ended up spending the same fucking amount of time you would have if you just plopped down and went to go get lunch or something.
Um, no. It's the most realistic. For instance, the last time someone bit me I just ate a pizza and the bite immediately healed. Very realistic.
On the flip-side, regenerating health does have a tendency to reduce the cohesiveness of a game, in the sense that each of these setpieces then become essentially unrelated. A player can't construct a narrative of their gameplay through a level, because Setpiece 1 is wholly unrelated to Setpiece 2. If your health didn't regenerate, it may be "I fucked up at the start, but cautious play saw me claw my way back to full health by the end of the level". Obviously, the negatives of healthpack-hunting are also present, and generally a game like this should also strive to restrict backtracking, to maintain the flow of the game. Additionally, without regenerating health, it's important for a game to be possible in the 1hp situation: all damage should be avoidable with reasonable effort.
Off the top of my head, a theoretical example of how I feel non-regenating health would work well: in a game similar to Deus Ex, provide healing upon performing stealth kills. Because stealth kills would require you to be undetected and thus not shot, you can recover from a 1hp situation by being sneaky in the next encounter. Because there are no health packs sitting around, backtracking is discouraged (though leaving some meatsacks walking around to regenerate health on is a potential issue).
Overall, I'd say that a well-crafted non-regenerating health system would provide for a superior experience. However, regenerating health is much easier to not fuck up, so when it comes to your Calls of Duties, they're probably preferable.
Halo (at least up to Halo 3) was not a game that concerned itself even remotely with realism.
Assassin's Creed 1 handled it best I think. Health regenerates slooowly during a fight, and regenerates to full instantly upon escaping or winning a battle. If you fail a fight, it's because you're inexperienced with the combat, not because the game made a mistake.
Visually, you do not see swords chop Altair in half, poke through his spine, or gallons of blood spew into to air every time he is hit. Taking 'damage' is represented only by his armor taking glancing blows or getting punched or thrown. It's only the final attack that "kills" you by getting past your guard.
Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
PM Me if you add me!
I got a little excited when I saw your ship.
Registered just for the Mass Effect threads | Steam: click ^^^ | Origin: curlyhairedboy
I do this regardless of what the game wants. I don't even have to lose any health first, if I'm not sure what's happening.
Most actually fall on the ground and yell for a medic or near death.
My "modern military shooter guy" being to take a rocket to the face, hide behind some cover, and regenerate his upper-torso is pretty much the only tactic to employ... and no closer to realistic than having 10 health, under heavy fire and having to scrounge around for a health pack or bottle to gain back "X Life Number".
I do have to say that I enjoy games(First Person Shooters that is.) that tell me "No, sitting on your ass is not going to bring you from the brink of death. Learn to not take my missiles to your face." more than health-regen.
I still don't know whether I prefer this or just having one health meter that empties and recharges. I've never given it a lot of thought. You're right that it adds a bit of weight to the combat, but it can be a pain in the ass to struggle through a fight because you passed a checkpoint with one blip of health.
steam | xbox live: IGNORANT HARLOT | psn: MadRoll | nintendo network: spinach
3ds: 1504-5717-8252
This, basically this. Best way to do it. Health represents your character's "luck". Assassin's Creed has done a good job, I hear 3 takes health to a different area though.
I also love 'gated' health bars, where your health has different sections which regenerate until that section is empty. Seen in Far Cry 2, Red Faction 2, and some others I can't remember.
Having limited health makes it more valuable and creates more tension, having regenerating health is fun because you can get as hit as much as you want as long as you know when to stop an rest a little.
One thing that I haven't seen done much or well (other than in roguelikes where there is dismemberment), would be low health taking a heavy toll on your character, and not just bloodied screen and heavy breathing but having to crawl around because you've had your nerves severed.
Like in real life, once you go below 5% it shouldn't make a big difference whether if its 3% of 0%. Having a dude at 1% walking around like nothing, and getting killed by a fly or magically resuscitating after getting a health pack is something I dont enjoy
That's a system that goes very wrong very easily. My most recent experience with it is actually revisiting Vagrant Story last month. Simply put, damaging bodyparts of enemies doesn't kick in fast enough to matter. In fact, same goes with the character you play as, despite it affecting you more quickly than enemies.
It's something in Fallout 3 as well but I can't remember how it worked there.
Having parts of your body be damaged has to be quickly applicable, but something avoidable with skill. It has to matter if it happens, but it can't spell automatic doom.
I think there were soldiers in Valkyria Chronicles who started sucking if they were injured, too.
I think there's a lot to like about this approach. Mixing the systems together really kept the action moving in FEAR and being able to carry all those kits encouraged me to play very aggressively while maintaining a focus on precise execution. So you can get those intense, high pressure moments in big set piece fights, but never get stuck with a save that leaves you with 3HP.