Health kits or no Health kits?

ergonomics

ergonomics

ergonomics

Associate
Joined
12 Jun 2007
Posts
1,629
Location
East London
so ive noticed this new -ish trend in games now where you no longer have health kits, and now you just recover automatically after time.

What do you people prefer? games like crysis/cod/gow where you can just duck and it be ok in a few moments, or the old school deathmatch classics (and many others that arent, like hl2, far cry etc) where you need to find a health kit.

It will be interesting to see which kind of category people fit into, i personally, prefer health kits, as it seems a bit more tactical in terms of gameplay, as opposed to run out, hide, rinse and repeat tactics of cod.

ignore the blindingly obvious realism issues of simply curing a bullet wound with a health kit, and also recovering from a shotgun blast to the stomach in a few seconds.
 
I like the style of regen, but i still prefer health kits. They are more realistic cause with regen you can technically get hit all you want and just recover yourself.
 
I prefer regen on cover based games that are team last man standing.

But... if its just first to X kills and everyone is running about in the open then get up off your lazy camping ass and go get a med kit.
 
I would appreciate an ultra difficult cannot be hit at all setting in modern combat games. As long as there is a semi plausible reason to be able to regenerate health (Crysis) then I'm not bothered. Playing through CoD4 now, the only real niggle I have with the game is being a healing monk. There isn't a penalty for playing stupid and getting shot as long you can can rest it out for a good 3 to 4 seconds.

If I had my way games like this would be completely unforgiving about being shot, perhaps body armor would mean occasionally you would be knocked to the floor but any penetrable shot would be a critical one.
 
For multiplayer I think health packs are definitely the best way, as it adds a tactical element in terms of the item control required (especially if you have armours and megahealth too). Regen just allows players to be more defensive and static.

The big problem with health packs in singleplayer games is that sometimes you can end up with a situation where you get stuck or have a lot of difficulty because you have taken all the healthpacks available, or have a checkpoint/quicksave in a situation where you are low on health. I think this is one reason why CoD2 brought in regen to try and give players a chance to recover. Typically you will also see game designers put a room full of health/ammo just before a boss fight to try and beef them up a bit and ensure they stand a chance of winning, but that kind of ruins the tension a bit.

This is why I quite like the more balanced 'medkit' approach used by games like Max Payne or FEAR, where you carry them around with you and choose when to use them. This is good because it rewards you for playing well in an earlier section of the game (taking little damage) by letting you stockpile a few medkits to use in a harder section you are having difficulty with. It lets you distribute the health boosts around the game yourself when you need them, rather than relying on finding some conveniently positioned supply crate just round the corner. Additionally by letting players carry medkits around, it helps keep the game flowing; you don't have to waste ages backtracking through the level, going back up a lift just for that +15h pack you left behind 5 minutes earlier. Furthermore it stops health being 'wasted', e.g. if you might not want to use a +25h pack until you health drops to 75 or below, rather than taking it with 87h.
 
I agree completely with Hangtime.

The way CoD4 does the regen, makes me panic, the screen goes red and you know your time is nearly up, i find myself looking around for 'safe' spots as im progressing through the game so i know where the closest refuge is.
 
no one has mentioned how it was done in the original halo whereby you have a recharging shield on top of your standard health bar

that just meant you always have the ability to progress in the game with hiding around a corner, but also rewards tactical play with sparse health kits

out of all games i think fear had the best system
 
I'm still undecided on this. I don't really like how COD does it (ie. no health bar at all, just the screen going really red when you're about to die). I like how Resistance does it with the 4 slots - So eg. You get damaged down to 2 bars and then take another hit, but then that second bar will regen after a few moments of not being hit. But you need health packs to regen the other two bars

Okay that sentence didn't make any sense..
 
the max payne / resident evil style of 'healing' is the best imo

not having a ton of medi kits before a boss keeps you on edge :) and when having low health effects your movement (resident evil), the tension keeps mounting up

one thing i do like in gears of war, is how you have to heal your team mates, by reaching them
 
I think COD4 has it right for MP, although neither is really realistic, I find it makes for a better game.

Wouldn't mind having a go on the realism servers with 1-hit kills when I get a chance.

Red orchestra has this (or some hits disable you slightly, eg: leg shots/ arm shots iirc), and I remember it getting a tad frustrating, although this isn't as frantic as games such as COD2, where I guess the fast respawns would negate the death time.
 
Lyon85 said:
I would appreciate an ultra difficult cannot be hit at all setting in modern combat games. As long as there is a semi plausible reason to be able to regenerate health (Crysis) then I'm not bothered. Playing through CoD4 now, the only real niggle I have with the game is being a healing monk. There isn't a penalty for playing stupid and getting shot as long you can can rest it out for a good 3 to 4 seconds.

If I had my way games like this would be completely unforgiving about being shot, perhaps body armor would mean occasionally you would be knocked to the floor but any penetrable shot would be a critical one.
Click to expand...

/nod
 
my fave atm I think is still MOH: Airborne. think its the same method as someone mentioned above. 4 health boxes that regen in themselves, so yuo get shot down to quater health and it will regen up to half. This keeps you on your toes as well as letting you have a little forgiveness for stupidity.

I also would like though to see more games like flashpoint where its one or two hit kills. I am fed up of stuff where you empty a clip into the enemy and they run away, or visa versa.
 
I think the problem with 1-shot kills is that from a commerical perspective it may alienate more casual gamers. People who aren't FPS gods and go charging in like to be able to have fun and progress in a game, rather than dying 50 times on the first level.

Some games handle this quite well with the difficulty system, for example Far Cry or Deus Ex on Realistic. That gives the option for players that want it, but also provides more forgiving settings for other players.
 
1 shot kills is pointless really. in complete reality one shot doesn't always kill you, its as simple as that. the other thing would be, in real war, it doesn't matter a single bit how good a soldier is, if he's the best shot, best sniper, best at hiding, stray shots kill people. in real war you can't follow one guy throughout as theres no way to know who will die. when basing a story around following one guy through, and he's the first guy through most doors and doing most of the main tasks then realistically, that guy would be the first to die. would make for a boring story though , first level, go breach that door on that terrorist bunker......... crap he's dead, send another one in.

If you went to a more realistic damage model you would have to kill most respawning and have set numbers of people, AI would need to reload more and have more breaks in firing and the AI would need better less kamikaze tactics because all those things, which are a staple of most fps's, would mean a realistic damage model = stray bullets mean you simply can't get through a game.

Or go with a story where you are part of a massive company , maybe go along the lines of being able to slightly increase stats of a few players, but each new mission you would start off playing as the "replacement" type soldiers, you kill some people but play as kinda cannon fodder, and respawn when you die, where you can choose to be replacements who aren't as good, or higher level guys with more health, better weapons, but if you lose them you lose stat points you've point into them and so on. that would give a fairly decent way to balance real damage with tactics + better gameplay and not complete frustration.
 
drunkenmaster said:
1 shot kills is pointless really. in complete reality one shot doesn't always kill you, its as simple as that. the other thing would be, in real war, it doesn't matter a single bit how good a soldier is, if he's the best shot, best sniper, best at hiding, stray shots kill people. in real war you can't follow one guy throughout as theres no way to know who will die. when basing a story around following one guy through, and he's the first guy through most doors and doing most of the main tasks then realistically, that guy would be the first to die. would make for a boring story though , first level, go breach that door on that terrorist bunker......... crap he's dead, send another one in.

If you went to a more realistic damage model you would have to kill most respawning and have set numbers of people, AI would need to reload more and have more breaks in firing and the AI would need better less kamikaze tactics because all those things, which are a staple of most fps's, would mean a realistic damage model = stray bullets mean you simply can't get through a game.

Or go with a story where you are part of a massive company , maybe go along the lines of being able to slightly increase stats of a few players, but each new mission you would start off playing as the "replacement" type soldiers, you kill some people but play as kinda cannon fodder, and respawn when you die, where you can choose to be replacements who aren't as good, or higher level guys with more health, better weapons, but if you lose them you lose stat points you've point into them and so on. that would give a fairly decent way to balance real damage with tactics + better gameplay and not complete frustration.
Click to expand...
What do you imagine getting shot feels like? I will tell you sonny Jim that being shot would most likely be detrimental to whatever mission you're involved in, it's as simple as that.

It's not a matter of whether it kills you or not, it's a case of if you have been shot, you have done something very wrong. It would not be difficult to create a game around this principle, it would be slower yes but imagine what it would do to the player without the need for much training. You would use cover 100% of the time, you would have to move strategically, you would actually have to plan in advance your every offence. Imagine the tense atmosphere in such a game, it would offer other interesting opportunities as well, like more realistic character relationships.

You also mention "the guy in front most likely dies". No. If your knowledge of war is based exclusively on games and movies remember this is part of the problem! The guy in front does not die, the attack is choreographed so no one dies.

Perhaps I'm in a niche group but I can imagine a pretty good game based around these ideas. It wouldn't be your run of the mill FPS, but aren't FPS in dire need of diversity? I'm just getting sick of being a bullet dodging Yankee saving the world while your comrades endlessly wait for you to do something just so they can run in front of your fire or generally be terrible soldiers.

I mean, imagine having to describe first person shooters to someone who doesn't play them but is quite interested. You have to answer honestly and you can either say you generally assess the situation by seeing how many bullets you absorb when you enter a room and then go and rest it off (the natural cure for bullet wounds) for a few moments. Or you have to use whatever intelligence is available to you and take care of the situation in an efficient and impressive manner without ever having any of your organs compromised.
 
Lyon85 said:
Or you have to use whatever intelligence is available to you and take care of the situation in an efficient and impressive manner without ever having any of your organs compromised.
Click to expand...


Problem is id your first man in through a breached door, in a one hit kill game, its very easy for the designers/ai/other player to set up a way to kill you as soon as the door opens, with you having no knowledge of he room on the the other side and so no chance.

How ever in games like css or other where you play the same level repeatedly 1 hp matches become incredibly fun and tense as you "know" where people may hide and can pre aim and fire, and vis versa, but with them too only having 1hp rushes can work with enough people and the right timing or multiple entrances, just its very hard to do first time in a story game.
 
See a review put it well to me, on MOH: Airborne the reviewer at irst thought once yuo died its a new soldier jumping out another plane somewhere nearby and you take on his role, but then realised its the same soldier and a checkpoint ago. Now since then I have kept thinking how fantastic it would be if they did do something like that, so when yuo die thats it, and yuo control a different soldier.

Also ofcourse it would be great fi yuo had a finite number of people in each area and you could chose form a map of europe where you wanrted to invade and have the whole war from start mapped out and controlled by yuor choices (and some other commanders ofcourse) but hey, thats another idea :p
 
theo said:
no one has mentioned how it was done in the original halo whereby you have a recharging shield on top of your standard health bar

that just meant you always have the ability to progress in the game with hiding around a corner, but also rewards tactical play with sparse health kits

out of all games i think fear had the best system
Click to expand...

Just about to say about Halo. Excellent for multiplayer, especially compared to Halo 2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom