Koki on 7/6/2011 at 11:35
The infamous commentator apparently doesn't realize just how much easier designing a game with a health regen is. And sending a player on search for health items is all fine and dandy until there aren't any. What to do then, just keep dying or reload a save?
catbarf on 7/6/2011 at 15:02
Quote Posted by Koki
The infamous commentator apparently doesn't realize just how much easier designing a game with a health regen is.
This. As much as I dislike regenerating health, as a game design student I recognize that it's a hell of a lot easier to count on the player being fully healed between fights than to guess-and-check through focus testing to make sure it's fair. I think the original Halo did it best by using both regenerating shields and non-regenerating health. You could always regenerate your shields before a fight, so you'd never be at the '1 health 0 armor' state that always seems to happen in health-based games, but you'd still be weaker than if at full health.
Thirith on 7/6/2011 at 16:01
I definitely think that some sort of health regen tends to lead to better paced gameplay; in most cases, if you'd barely survive a shoot-out with a couple of health points left, you'd reload your quicksave. However, I think that ideally regenerating health is implemented as in Escape from Butcher Bay or Farcry 2, where you'd have several 'blocks' of health, and once one of them is gone it won't regenerate - only the partly depleted blocks would regenerate.
CCCToad on 7/6/2011 at 19:00
Thats not a system I object to. Either that or Prey's regen to 1/4 of your max. Either of those systems prevents the player from getting in a no-win situation while still punishing reckless players.
To paraphrase the other comments: Regenerating health is good because it allows developers to get lazy instead of taking the time and effort to make a properly balanced games.
Sulphur on 7/6/2011 at 20:15
Halo's regenerating health system was exactly like Riddick's -- except for the extra shield layer. Once your shield was down, every bit of punishment you took took a block off your health until you copped it. It worked just fine as a compromise for the anti-quicksave generation.
But what, exactly, is so bad about conserving health packs as a gameplay mechanic? As long as checkpointing is a little generous, even if you get stuck in a bad situation you just revert to an earlier checkpoint. We were fine with that for more than a decade.
lost_soul on 8/6/2011 at 00:05
At some point games are just getting too easy though. I remember what it was like in the 80s when games had no ability to save, and failing to reach a certain point with your three lives meant you had to go back and do a whole section (or the WHOLE GAME) over again!
I'm all for saving and I think it is a good thing, but they're just making these games too easy when your health regenerates automatically if you hide in a corner for a couple of minutes. "Oh gee, I don't think I can complete this level, so I'll just leave the controller here and run to the bathroom and return when my health is restored."
As for not having the gamer get stuck in an un-completable situation with low health, that can be solved with one if statement.
if $player_health =<5
IgnoreCheckpoint
This is another area where Duke3D was perfect. You could restore your health in most places by drinking either toilet or hydrant water. This was a SLOW process: the game didn't do it for you.
june gloom on 8/6/2011 at 01:37
I remember what it was like before you became a regular poster.
CCCToad on 8/6/2011 at 03:37
same here.
Koki on 8/6/2011 at 06:36
Quote Posted by Sulphur
As long as checkpointing is a little generous, even if you get stuck in a bad situation you just revert to an earlier checkpoint. We were fine with that for more than a decade.
A generous checkpoint system is just like health regen
Think about it maaaan
june gloom on 8/6/2011 at 06:41
don't tell other people to think until you start doing it yourself
