Gamespot: when did regenerating health become realistic?

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
Nothing convinced you? So you ignored that he was starting to get really heated about the issue and seemed pissed that McShea wasn't even attempting to give the game a chance? It was getting to the point where someone had to step in and stop them from going any further. That says a lot.

Maybe in your mind, from my perspective all I saw was someone who has been drinking kool aid for far too long and is unable to tolerate constructive criticisms.
 

Q-BZ

Fully [H]
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
19,496
Having strong passion and strong beliefs hardly guarantees good results.

Wow...how many topics does that loaded statement cover?
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,875
Because he believed what he was doing the first time and the game still turned out shit, so why should we give him any credit for his beliefs or passion if, judging by history, that is not going to actually translate into a worthwhile product?

.......I DO NOT GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT THE GAME! I can't make it any more clear than that. Please stop talking like I give a shit whether Warfighter is good or MOH was good. I don't. My entire thing here focuses simply on that it is nice to see people from both sides actually giving a damn because we don't see it very often. It has nothing to all to do with the quality of the product or even the developers.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,875
Oh he definitely seemed pissed that a gaming publication was trashing his game months before release instead of towing the line.

This isn't the first time McShea has done editorials like that. For the most part developers and publishers ignore it because people will forget about it in a few days. I doubt this interview or McShea's editorial will effect people's opinions one way or the other on the game.
 

Maplehamwich

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,539
I finished Black Ops on Veteran difficulty, in fact I tend to play all FPS games on the hardest difficulty because regen health undermines the challenge ;)
The principle play method remains the same, take some damage, hide behind a log until you are healed to 100%, then continue with rambo assault. No tactics, no health management, no consequences from stupid decisions.

Not to defend bad play style, but it would seem to me that taking damage, then going for cover until you are healed, is health management. It may not be try to avoid damage at all costs, or strategically taking damage when health packs are available, but it is managing the health system none the less. No health management would mean no health, you just continually take damage and never feel the consequences. Health regeneration and planning to use it after you've taken damage is a tactic though.
 

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
Haha....better go pop a valium Derangel before you suffer a brain aneurism! ;)

The only thing he gave a damn about was the fact that someone dared to question the quality of his game before release. But, hey if all you admire passion that much, I suggest you hang around Derek Smart's or Peter Molyneux's forums/blogs/twitter accounts.....they are as passionate as you get, too bad all their games suck pretty hard.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,875
Haha....better go pop a valium Derangel before you suffer a brain aneurism! ;)

The only thing he gave a damn about was the fact that someone dared to question the quality of his game before release. But, hey if all you admire passion that much, I suggest you hang around Derek Smart's or Peter Molyneux's forums/blogs/twitter accounts.....they are as passionate as you get, too bad all their games suck pretty hard.

I'll have to look up who Darek Smart is, as for Molyneux. He's got passion alright. Too bad he can't temper it a bit. Though I think after Fable 3 he kind of lost some of that level of passion. Then again I'm not sure if anyone can feel passionate about that Fable Kinect game.
 

Stiler

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
10,538
To me there's a more then one side to this whole thing.

When I was a kid games did not usually have regen health, you had to pick up health packs an dthings. Which in of itself is NOT realistic either. The only game that did wounding/health good and realistic was Operation Flashpoint. Int hat game if you got a bullet to the leg you could be crippled and were forced to crawl on the ground. Getting hit a single time could be it.

Doom, Half life, all those "classic" shooters that the guy in the article is probably referring to were NOT REALISTIC EITHER.

I wish in real life you could pop a health pack, painkillers, or other stupid "game'ism" to regen health, but you can't. A simple pack of health won't stop a bullet wound, it takes a medic/surgeon to heal most battle wounds in real life.

Regardless of "realism" when I was a kid I enjoyed those games, sure it added to how tactical you had to be, but it also added to the save/reload mentality. Where you would play a lv over and over and over because it was hard/you'd die, or you got stuck with a save between a huge boss fight and no health packs anywhere around.

I was a kid, I had time for that and I didn't play them because I "enjoyed" reloading them, I played them because I enjoyed the actual gameplay.

These days I find myself preferring regen health, not because it makes the game "easier" or the "difficulty" (Play CoD on the hardest and tell me it's "easy" because of the health regen) but because it stops you from the save/reload mentality that we used to have a lot of. Constantly quicksaving in places , or reloaoding a save because you "lost too much health" in a fight and redoing it.


I think the main problem isn't health regen or not, it's the AI and how th edevelopers balanc ethe game.

If you could take CoD's waves of enemies and AI (who all seem to focus YOU, the player, while your AI team mates do shit dmg and help nothing, which makes it feel absurd and not realistic at all) and give it a doom style health system, it would probably be harder then doom was, simply for fact that theere are a ton of more enoemies firing at you then in Doom plus the fact they have much better aim.

To me the bigger problem in games, when speaking of "realism" isn't about health regening or not, it's about how realistic the AI behaves, both friendly and not friendly, and how realistic the situations are. I mean in a real war I doubt about 90% of what you see in a CoD has, or will ever happen.

I don't like CoD, I was a die hard Rainbow 6/Swat/Opflash guy, THOSE were good games not because of their health system but because the games were geared toward realism in terms of the situations, gameplay, AI, and other things.
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
12,341
http://au.gamespot.com/features/when-did-regenerating-health-become-realistic-6380781/

I fucking hate regenerating health with a passion, not because of lack of realism, but because it is an unnecessary crutch used by developers to counter the need for patience, tactics and skill.

It is Medal of Honor, an action game. There are no tactics and little to no skill required for such a game. I'd rather have regenerating health than finding conveniently placed, immersion breaking medical kits scattered around the environment.

Now for realistic tactical shooters, yes, regenerating health and health packs should not be in the game. But as mentioned, MoH is an action game series. Always has, and will probably always be.

I'm looking forward to Ground Branch and ArmA 3 for my realistic shooter needs.
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,875
To me there's a more then one side to this whole thing.

When I was a kid games did not usually have regen health, you had to pick up health packs an dthings. Which in of itself is NOT realistic either. The only game that did wounding/health good and realistic was Operation Flashpoint. Int hat game if you got a bullet to the leg you could be crippled and were forced to crawl on the ground. Getting hit a single time could be it.

Doom, Half life, all those "classic" shooters that the guy in the article is probably referring to were NOT REALISTIC EITHER.

I wish in real life you could pop a health pack, painkillers, or other stupid "game'ism" to regen health, but you can't. A simple pack of health won't stop a bullet wound, it takes a medic/surgeon to heal most battle wounds in real life.

Regardless of "realism" when I was a kid I enjoyed those games, sure it added to how tactical you had to be, but it also added to the save/reload mentality. Where you would play a lv over and over and over because it was hard/you'd die, or you got stuck with a save between a huge boss fight and no health packs anywhere around.

I was a kid, I had time for that and I didn't play them because I "enjoyed" reloading them, I played them because I enjoyed the actual gameplay.

These days I find myself preferring regen health, not because it makes the game "easier" or the "difficulty" (Play CoD on the hardest and tell me it's "easy" because of the health regen) but because it stops you from the save/reload mentality that we used to have a lot of. Constantly quicksaving in places , or reloaoding a save because you "lost too much health" in a fight and redoing it.


I think the main problem isn't health regen or not, it's the AI and how th edevelopers balanc ethe game.

If you could take CoD's waves of enemies and AI (who all seem to focus YOU, the player, while your AI team mates do shit dmg and help nothing, which makes it feel absurd and not realistic at all) and give it a doom style health system, it would probably be harder then doom was, simply for fact that theere are a ton of more enoemies firing at you then in Doom plus the fact they have much better aim.

To me the bigger problem in games, when speaking of "realism" isn't about health regening or not, it's about how realistic the AI behaves, both friendly and not friendly, and how realistic the situations are. I mean in a real war I doubt about 90% of what you see in a CoD has, or will ever happen.

I don't like CoD, I was a die hard Rainbow 6/Swat/Opflash guy, THOSE were good games not because of their health system but because the games were geared toward realism in terms of the situations, gameplay, AI, and other things.

Awesome post man. I agree on the AI thing. AI advancement is pretty shit these days. It's pretty sad when I can play the original Halo and the enemy AI in that game still stands up to modern titles. They ally AI isn't much worse than modern games either.
 

AmberClad

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2005
Messages
1,062
And holding a first aid kit out and shaking it a bit, magically causing your teammate to be healed to full health is realistic? After they got shot by a sniper rifle bullet? Which didn't kill them in one hit or even slow them down?

:rolleyes:
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
If there is a story reason or it seems reasonable to assume the character has regenerating health it's fine. However for the most part I hate it in shooters. Health kits aren't any more realistic though. The whole "Realism" debate on this stuff is stupid no matter how you look at it. Unless we invent a Holodeck games will never be realistic.

Stalker did it right. Bandages to stop bleeding, first aid kits to heal it up.
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
And holding a first aid kit out and shaking it a bit, magically causing your teammate to be healed to full health is realistic? After they got shot by a sniper rifle bullet? Which didn't kill them in one hit or even slow them down?

:rolleyes:

Depends on the context :p If you're a Space Marine from 40k with extra backup organs, a few hundred kilos worth of enhanced muscle and bone and you can use a spray to instantly cover wounds, yeah, probably, it's "realistic". ;)
 

Simmonz

2[H]4U
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
2,506
I actually liked the Far Cry 2 model of health where one bar will regen not the entire health and you have to find med kits to regen further. I would still prefer no regen health at all but I would settle for the far cry 2 method.
 

LeninGHOLA

Vladimir Hayt
Joined
Aug 26, 2009
Messages
18,416
Anything that can keep me in the game, get me to the win button fastest, and make me never have to feel like a loser is good IMO.

Think of what it did to kids who grew up in the 80's, knowing they probably couldn't beat their favorite game the first try. I bet those idiots are all in therapy because they had to deal with the fact that they may have to learn a system or game mechanics.

I actually pat myself on the back 10x a day, or I get depressed.
 

jamesrb

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 29, 2004
Messages
1,051
I feel that regen health is necessary for games using auto-save checkpoints. It would simply be too easy to hit a checkpoint with 1 health left and not be able to proceed. While I may dislike regenerating health, I much more dislike games where death causes me to have to repeat 15 minutes of game play.

I think the Left 4 Dead series got the health part right and would like to see it adapted to a larger game and less linear game. Healing is not infinite or instantaneous. When to heal is an important tactical decision. Thinking about it, a health pack won't take you back to 100%. When your health gets lower, you move slower. It is always exhilerating to make it to the safe room on a versus match, bleeding out with 10 health left.
 

spine

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
2,679
IMHO the Delta Force games got it right:

Ultra dumb enemies, but if they shot you even once - that's it, you're dead - restart entire mission.

No health packs or health regeneration. :cool:
 

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,518
I think regen health makes a lot of sense when the game is about the story and not about avoiding shots.
Then could you explain to me why most shooters which have virtually zero story have such a big focus on regenerating health

:eek:
 

Serpent

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 19, 2011
Messages
2,106

bigdogchris

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2008
Messages
18,518
Upcoming games like The Last of Us which does actually put a focus on conserving health and supplies, and overall putting such great emphasis on the 'survival' aspect, is going to be much more memorable than Call of Duty <insert random number here> is going to be.
 

Plague_Injected

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
6,621
Anything that can keep me in the game, get me to the win button fastest, and make me never have to feel like a loser is good IMO.

Think of what it did to kids who grew up in the 80's, knowing they probably couldn't beat their favorite game the first try. I bet those idiots are all in therapy because they had to deal with the fact that they may have to learn a system or game mechanics.

I actually pat myself on the back 10x a day, or I get depressed.

Press X to prevent depression.
 

Jagger100

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
7,696
Regenerative health became important due to lack of game saves. Yeah people abused game saves to inch through a challenge. Now they just duck and recover to inch through. I'd prefer game saves because it leaves the challenge level to the player.

I also say the alternative, instant health packs, are equally silly as regenerative health.
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
It is a game enjoy it. Play Russian roulette if you want realism.
 

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
Regenerative health became important due to lack of game saves. Yeah people abused game saves to inch through a challenge. Now they just duck and recover to inch through. I'd prefer game saves because it leaves the challenge level to the player.

I also say the alternative, instant health packs, are equally silly as regenerative health.

Lack of game saves was more of a characteristic of console games (space constraints obviously limits the ability for people to make hundreds to thousands of saves) which has carried over to PC as a result of straight up porting.

And I really don't think it has anything to do with check point save systems, all console games prior to the advent of Halo and CoD used a conventional health/first aid kit system.

I honestly think it boils down to developers:

(a) wanting to appeal to a broader audience that may not necessarily appreciate the learning curve associated with games where the user is punished for stupid decisions;

(b) not wanting to balance levels, AI and health drops.

The perfect compromise would be to create dual systems in games so that way the pansies can play with regen health whereas the core vets can play using a conventional health system. Unfortunately that is unlikely to ever eventuate because of the amount of work that would entail.

In terms of the silliness of health packs, I don't think anyone will dispute that the concept has very little basis in reality. My beef with regen health as opposed to a med pack system is that it undermines the fun and challenge of the game by making it stupidly easy, even on the hardest difficulties.
 

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
Health kits and health potions piss me off. I rarely use them, and they are absurd if used in the middle of a battle. Regenerating health is no worse. One thing regenerating health has over potions, is that people who memorize item spawns can't whore health kits. And if it's a single player game, you spend less time loading a save, because you got hurt too much.

Both are pretty stupid much of the time (though not 100% of the time)
 

Tudz

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 15, 2008
Messages
7,434
Anything that can keep me in the game, get me to the win button fastest, and make me never have to feel like a loser is good IMO.

Think of what it did to kids who grew up in the 80's, knowing they probably couldn't beat their favorite game the first try. I bet those idiots are all in therapy because they had to deal with the fact that they may have to learn a system or game mechanics.

I actually pat myself on the back 10x a day, or I get depressed.

I never finished battletoads back in the day. At most I think I got to level 9. Poor old Pimple never got saved... so sad.

But yeah, I don't really pine for the days of manual saving and health management in action games. Recently I've been playing some old games and in turn swearing at the fucking things when I die and the last manual save I had was 3 big fights ago. Training myself back into the habit of saving after each big fight and refighting the same battles if they cost me too much health/ammo, but really I don't miss those moments playing modern games.

IMO regenerating health isn't the enemy and it has the potential to really add to a game and add to the challenge without being a hassle like searching for medpacks and making sure some random dude with a pea shooter doesn't nail you and make you lose 10% of the health that you vitally needed for the next boss.

It's not regenerating health that's the problem, it's lack of thought in level design and exchanging of actual skill based challenge with cinematic on-rails gameplay where you feel your personal skill level is almost irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

450

Fully [H]
Joined
Feb 19, 2007
Messages
20,978
Man, health packs are just so realistic. In real life, I love how I can walk onto white boxes with red plus signs on them and feel better.
 

Climber

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
5,283
Global positioning games ;) ...think my phone switched it or I fat fingered the g. However I meant fps
 

FreiDOg

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 7, 2001
Messages
4,456
Upcoming games like The Last of Us which does actually put a focus on conserving health and supplies, and overall putting such great emphasis on the 'survival' aspect, is going to be much more memorable than Call of Duty <insert random number here> is going to be.

But that's sort of the point isn't it? COD is not a game about survival, it's a game about action, gunning down wave after wave of endlessly spawning bad guys, and charging forward to trip the invisible trigger to stop them spawning. The big pitched battles wouldn't work at all in COD if you spend all your time crouching behind cover because you're not getting that health bar back.

Regenerating health is neither good nor bad for gaming or the game that's using it, it's a tool to encourage or discourage a certain style of play. In COD, they want the player to keep moving forward, that helps keep the illusion of the grand battle playing out around you as you advance from spawn trigger to spawn trigger. Last of Us want's a much more methodical, careful play-style, so making every health point important is an obvious way of preventing the player from just running around guns blazing.

Either approach can create memorable experiences, they just have to be used correctly. I absolutely agree that regenerating health becomes a crutch for bad level design and pacing or inconsistent difficulty. It becomes easy to drop in an empty room or barricade to rest up in and not have a big glowing health pack spinning around to shout 'this is the heal-up room' at the player.
 

defiant007

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 27, 2006
Messages
3,497
Seriously, I don't know what to say to this thread. You're arguing realism in fantasy and GPS games. It just isn't going to happen.

Please point to any of my posts where I advocate for use of health kits on the basis of realism.
 

Parmenides

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
6,578
Global positioning games ;) ...think my phone switched it or I fat fingered the g. However I meant fps

GPS games, the other feature that is not hardcore player's favorite. It's the quest marker compass and map. :p
 
D

Deleted whining member 223597

Guest
GPS games, the other feature that is not hardcore player's favorite. It's the quest marker compass and map. :p

Well I played morrowind a while ago and all I did there was sit with the guide in my lap and using it as a reference. Kinda reminded me of orienteering with a compass and map :p.

Regenerating health is fine as long as the game is not meant for competition and only fun. Although I think CoD4 twl got rid of the regenerating health.
 

Russ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 14, 2005
Messages
1,875
One day we're going to get a game where you're actually just ALIVE, not at "100 health." Where taking a sword to the thigh is going to make it bitching hard to walk for quite some time, not take away 30 "health."

Throw in magic so that you don't have to beat the entire game without dying, but damn man can we drop the idea that the idea of "health" as it exists in basically ANY video game besides Mario is ideal?
 
Joined
Apr 1, 2008
Messages
2,726
I hate it how they got rid of the health indicator and instead you have to determine how much health do you have by seeing the blood on the screen, heavy breathing and a lame message "You are hurt, get to cover".... lame. I don't mind health regeneration but yeah its not realistic, I mean, if you get short in battle taking cover for a few seconds certainty isn't going to make you recover fast and go back straight to battle.
 
Top