This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Let's discuss the nature of healthbars/lifebars/restoringhealth in FPS campaigns

#1GuillermoGagePosted 7/26/2013 6:33:13 AM
Like, in your opinion, what are the best mechanics for the difficulty curve and actual challenge of playing a game where the enemies are shooting you with guns, similar to how you shoot them with guns? I understand that not all FPS games have the enemies do much shooting, but most do.

The thing is, getting shot can kill a person rather quickly, and in a lot of FPSes, like many video games, you can get hit many times before dying, but the enemies die after only a few hits.

My point is, how often do you personally get Game Overs in FPS or TPS campaigns?

Are you supposed to make it thru these levels basically by eventually getting a Game Over due to not knowing exactly where the enemies will be positioned the first time around and having too many moments where they shoot you a few times before you notice them, and, even tho you'll kill individual enemies quickly, that all of this damage upon you accumulates?

What is your take on regenerating health meters? Do they make a game too easy, or are they a better and less tedious system than having a lifebar or number and discovering red cross healthpacks just sitting there in crates scattered around the game world, unguarded in enemy territory, at convenient times, that instantly heal you and remind you heavily that you are playing a video game?

My point is, it makes sense to go many levels without getting a game over in some Super Mario game. You die after a few hits in those games, so you are extra careful, and most enemies have to physically touch you in those games or throw slow projectiles. In FPSes, and certain games like (at least the 2D) Metroid games, you are given lots of health and are expected to get hit many times just to make it thru. Its just that there are many enemies and hazards.

Yeah, let's discuss.
#2SunDevil77Posted 7/26/2013 6:42:46 AM
Max Payne 3 has the most realistic shooting on consoles.

Each shot does a significant amount of damage, you have to strategically plan out each shooting section, painkillers are sort of hard to come by, the shooting is smooth, bullet time doesn't make you OP.
---
Justice...is what I seek, Kemosabe.
3DS FC: 0748 2141 3539
#3kat_14_Posted 7/26/2013 6:50:00 AM
SunDevil77 posted...
Max Payne 3 has the most realistic shooting on consoles.

Each shot does a significant amount of damage, you have to strategically plan out each shooting section, painkillers are sort of hard to come by, the shooting is smooth, bullet time doesn't make you OP.


I was basically ready to post this, and then I saw that you said it all for me. Haha
#4GuillermoGage(Topic Creator)Posted 7/26/2013 6:55:43 AM
SunDevil77 posted...
Max Payne 3 has the most realistic shooting on consoles.

Each shot does a significant amount of damage, you have to strategically plan out each shooting section, painkillers are sort of hard to come by, the shooting is smooth, bullet time doesn't make you OP.


Does this basically mean that you are guaranteed to get a game over the first time you play thru a level, from a long series of enemies shooting you before you can eliminate or get past them all? Unless you just get really lucky and see them before they see you, among other factors?

And that the way to beat the game is to start a level over and memorize where enemies are located, and figure out, when among groups of enemies, what order to shoot them in to minimize the risk/amount of times getting damaged?
#5epictetus1216Posted 7/26/2013 6:59:26 AM
Regenerating health games are the easiest because all you have to do is take cover for a few seconds to regain health. I don't find there's much trial and error in a shooter. You simply die more if you lack skill, and less if you have skill. Some games are more difficult than others though, and some games don't have very good mechanics which makes aiming more difficult, and thus increases your chances of dying.
#6theshovellerPosted 7/26/2013 7:10:12 AM
I think the game itself - and the technology used in the game - should affect how the player's health is dealt with, restored, and all that jazz. With an obviously more sci-fi game, where someone could be wearing a suit of armor or something, you could get away more with a regenerating health system - chalk it up to a shield like in Halo, the suit having nanites or built-in "medical systems" like in Timeshift or Crysis, and other stuff like that. Of course, you can also go a route like Half-Life, which has both "energy" or "armor" and a separate "health" system, both of which are only restored by battery / charging stations and first aid kits / medical stations.

With something that's meant to be more modern-day, or even something that's "historically accurate fiction," I see no real way that "regeneration" would work, unless the person themselves had some sort of augmentation to them - mutant genes, magic spells, or drawing energy from the city's power grid. Without those, then health kits / reagents and the like would be best. For added realism, even make them have to sit down and "bandage" themselves, like in Left For Dead or Alone in the Dark (though maybe without spraying away a wound and spraying on more clothing.)

With stuff like Heretic or Hexen, either system could work again, as any sort of regenerating health could easily be chalked up to magic or supernatural powers.
---
Stupid, stupid rat creatures!!!
#7SaikredPosted 7/26/2013 7:10:39 AM
Operation Flashpoint, if it were done correctly, would be great.

You die just as quick as the enemy, it's all about "realism".

Too bad the xbox versions suck
---
Once more into the fray, into the last good fight I'll ever know.
Live or die on this day... Live or die on this day
#8Dragon NexusPosted 7/26/2013 7:47:22 AM
epictetus1216 posted...
Regenerating health games are the easiest because all you have to do is take cover for a few seconds to regain health. I don't find there's much trial and error in a shooter. You simply die more if you lack skill, and less if you have skill. Some games are more difficult than others though, and some games don't have very good mechanics which makes aiming more difficult, and thus increases your chances of dying.


I find the "Just take cover" thing is only really in bad FPS games. Or FPS games where the enemies aren't accurate or smart enough.

In some games I've played it really isn't that simple, you need to keep moving or the enemy flanks you and shoots you some more, or throws grenades at you etc.
Gears of War tended to have the walls of non-hurtiness. Crouch behind one and you were generally gaurenteed to survive just fine, which is why they'd throw in things like enemies you had to kill quicker, forcing you to stand up and shoot instead of hide like a girl. It was still kinda easy though.
---
"Everything popular is wrong." - Oscar Wilde
#9pothocketPosted 7/26/2013 7:55:20 AM
I think Crysis 2 handled regenerating health very well -spoilers-







They made it part of the narrative. It's the dirty little secret of the nano-suits that it's not "healing" the user, rather just stabilizing them. This is evident in the scene where you hook up to the "cradle" and the tech is all like, "holy ****, look at all the broken bones and ballistic trauma!"
---
well I am not like your dad. I worked as a chef at TGIF-Mattson
#10cifer520Posted 7/26/2013 8:03:34 AM
Shooters need these mechanics because nobody wants to play mil sims all the time. Nothing wrong with mil sims but if that was the only choice for shooter fans it would be a far less popular genre.

In regenerating health games I've noticed that, if you play on the higher difficulties, enemies will swarm you hard and sometimes taking cover is simply not an option, even though you're damaged. So there is still a skill element in these games.