Health kits or no Health kits?
- Thread starter ergonomics
- Start date
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
As I recall there's a WW2 'sim' 'in progress' that's intended to be a realistic recreation of D-Day including every soldier in every battle, where you can jump into any one / any battle you want, and when you die you just choose someone else and carry on. You can affect the outcome of the war etc by saving someone and starting off a chain of events.
The main question is whether or not it gets finished and how much of the initial idea is retained cause it is quite ambitious.
Found it:
http://www.1944d-day.com/
ive just got COD2 after loving COD1, been playing it online and i am prefering the re-gen, if people play properly you shouldnt have time to go and hide, plus you move so slowly and cant see anything it doesnt really matter anyway lol
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
again thats completely and utterly unrealistic, the longer you stay still in a battle the easier the target you are and the more of the enemy will have your position located and be waiting for you to move from cover and get you very much more easily than a target that is moving from cover to cover. your entire idea is based on the idea they you can somehow know exactly where every single enemy is, which again is basically ridiculous. in war, any war, with all the technology in the world every battle every faught doesn't have a real time satalite coverage with a normal cam, infrared, heat vision. with also the ability to zoon into buildings and determine which direction people are facing and on which floor behind which door they are. thats called bullcrap film technology.
in war people do the fire and move thing and cover fire. because firing from cover roughly at where the enemy is under cover massively discourages them to stick their heads out to see the few guys that are moving closer or flanking. however that doesn't mean they won't/can't stick their gun out and fire and have a slim chance to shoot you, doesn't mean they can't get lucky stand up, shoot you perfectly and get back down under cover without being hit. war's no where near perfect, all tactics ever designed for big battles take into account predicted losses. people expect and plan for losses in war, from the very first battle to every fight in the most recent wars. every single commander in the world expects, and gets losses in all fights but you want a game where you expect none......
as i said, real war is a massive risk. people get shot just as often by richochet's and stray bullets not actually aimed at them. you can not pre plan battles perfectly, its impossible, always has been, otherwise firstly, you'd be at a stalemate. the only time its possible is in a training ground where the "enemy" don't fire back. you can flash bang a room and breach but that doesn't stop someone putting his finger on a trigger, when that happens anyone can get shot, he might take out half your team and himself.
a game based on playing through a level 50 times dying till you know roughly where everyone is would be entirely boring and completely ignore your requirement for realism.
Last edited:
a reply to Zogger:
as regards that sim I am hoping one day a company or a few will get together and do a full on sim of the way like that. All very realistic, fully open, and in a way that you can be a soldier, pilot, tank crew etc. Just a full on sim that covers every angle and tries to be full on realistic. After that there would be no need to make another WW2 game...
*edit: I see with some reading that thats what the above link is trying to do
as regards that sim I am hoping one day a company or a few will get together and do a full on sim of the way like that. All very realistic, fully open, and in a way that you can be a soldier, pilot, tank crew etc. Just a full on sim that covers every angle and tries to be full on realistic. After that there would be no need to make another WW2 game...
*edit: I see with some reading that thats what the above link is trying to do
Last edited:
Why are all these people eager for a super-sim game not playing Armed Assault? I thought that was the new OFP, and that was one damn realistic game.
As for the original topic (which doesn't really have anything to do with realism), I guess I'm mixed, but I kind of prefer Health Packs. Yes it's harder when you get to parts with low HP and nothing to recharge with, but that adds to the tension so much more. I enjoy the challenge of trying to survive with little left.
As for the original topic (which doesn't really have anything to do with realism), I guess I'm mixed, but I kind of prefer Health Packs. Yes it's harder when you get to parts with low HP and nothing to recharge with, but that adds to the tension so much more. I enjoy the challenge of trying to survive with little left.
Health kits, requires a bit more strategy because every point of health becomes precious.
Stockpiles of healthkits can be annoying, players should be rewarded for searching through levels to find them.
Regen just seem too easy.
I agree that OFP and Armed assault make it hard, but good, if you're shot its tough work to carry on successfully, though there are times when you can heal at a medic.
Stockpiles of healthkits can be annoying, players should be rewarded for searching through levels to find them.
Regen just seem too easy.
I agree that OFP and Armed assault make it hard, but good, if you're shot its tough work to carry on successfully, though there are times when you can heal at a medic.
What are you talking about? I never said anything about satellite imagery or heat vision, I said intelligence. How do you think modern combat works? You stick a marine in the middle of nowhere and shout sick 'em? In a lot of FPS nowadays we are required to attend a training mission where we are taught to flash rooms before entering for example, yet we never have to use these techniques in the actual campaign because it just plain isn't necessary if you can miraculously heal yourself on the move.
If we had a more realistic damage model we would be more inclined to use advanced training. Lets not forget what the argument is here, I'm not talking about creating a perfectly realistic experience, I would just like to play a game that adheres to the laws of this universe.
"however that doesn't mean they won't/can't stick their gun out and fire and have a slim chance to shoot you
So what's your point? The tone of your argument suggest you don't agree with me, yet you are pretty much confirming techniques we don't use in most games actually do work! You say suppressing fire does keep the enemy pinned down, and there is a one in a million chance they could stand up dodge bullets and skull love someone. Well, yeah...
Try to understand I'm not talking about a game you have to re try 50 times, I'm talking about a game where you are forced to play with a little bit of consideration and intelligence, and if you do so you are rewarded. It's really not that hard to envision an experience where you have the advantage over the enemy in terms of equipment or intelligence, yet are bound to the same laws of science as the enemy.
Associate
- Joined
- 26 Jan 2005
- Posts
- 826
Have to admit i am a fan of the health pack, it sort of meant you had to manage your style of play depending on your health.
I do refer to have health that recharges and armour you manage, best of both worlds.
Also Far Cry 2 looks to have an interesting take on the health idea, you have to literal pull the bullets out if you get hit to many times. Adds to the realism and depth of the game i think. This is one of the reasons I am really looking forward to Far Cry 2.
I do refer to have health that recharges and armour you manage, best of both worlds.
Also Far Cry 2 looks to have an interesting take on the health idea, you have to literal pull the bullets out if you get hit to many times. Adds to the realism and depth of the game i think. This is one of the reasons I am really looking forward to Far Cry 2.
What, the infinitely better two weapons at a time system ? That was one of the aspects of Halo that elevated it above the standard 12-guns-in-your-back-pocket shooters at the time. Those lacked serious thought. Big time.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
but my whole point is, you have more inteligence, you keep saying, but that tells you what. the only way you could truly have a chance in a semi realistic way to not be shot is simply to know where every enemy is before you go in anywhere. that in and of itself is completely unrealistic and for most people would lead to a completely boring game. if you don't know where enemy's are and you'll die in one shot, it will lead to a game you have to do a level 50 times over before you advance. unless you do a tactical deployment situation where you play multiple soldiers and choose which kind you want for different parts of the battlefield.
basically the last sentence you wrote is for me, the opposite, its incredibly hard to imagine a game where you can somehow come up with a plan to not get shot at all without knowing where the guys are before you even start. i mean, rainbow six, from a long time ago played on making missions on mostly/all hostage situations where you know where everyone is within a particular warehouse, airport or whatever with at least a realistic view on how you'd have that inteligence, and in game you could see on maps which way guys are facing, attacking them from behind as they walk the other way on their patrol and so on. war is simply not like that, it worked in rainbow six games because it was say a hostage situation in a town the guys work in and they know the layout and have all their equipment at hand to get cams into rooms and airvents. thats realistic and that game relies quite heavily on dying on revising your attack plan. none of that is available where you're fighting on the other guys turf with none of that equipment on a battlefield and not a single building.
i think the best way to implement a kind of realistic game would be, if you took band of brothers as an example, you play as the head of the unit, play some missions where you play some small missions where you half plan the battle or have a plan ahead of time and spawn into the battle as part of the unit but not the character that you follow through the story with. then you get promoted to company commander and so on and command more soldiers and play in bigger battles, but your character is the commander who doesn't die so there can be a story, but realistic feel to the battles.
Last edited:
Maybe there is an opening for a game where there is no healing. Armour takes damage, and can be replaced, but health cannot without intensive medical treatment 
. Instead of healing you get a small team to control and if you lose one, switch to another team mate.
Mind you I hated GRAW....
. Instead of healing you get a small team to control and if you lose one, switch to another team mate.Mind you I hated GRAW....
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 29,640
- Location
- Chelmsford
I like the idea of searching for limited health kits.. it makes you explore the maps more and brings an additional element to the game.
What would be the point of having such a beautifully crafted outdoor map (like in Cysus or STALKER) only to quickly run through it without noticing any of the finer detail.
What would be the point of having such a beautifully crafted outdoor map (like in Cysus or STALKER) only to quickly run through it without noticing any of the finer detail.
No, not the "two weapons at a time" system. I don't have an issue with that concept, if only it was actually thought out and implemented well. It works fine in Far Cry for example (except with 4 rather than 2 weapons).
What I found incredibly frustrating, however, was that with plasma weapons having their own discrete ammo count, after every big fight I had to spent a couple of minutes running round the room, picking up each plasma rifle in turn, seeing if it had more ammo than the one I'm currently holding, if it had less then swap it back again, then on to to the next weapon etc. If my second weapon was a plasma pistol, then I had to repeat the process. They managed to make the process of deciding what weapons to take forward into a chore, and I dread to think how much time I spent throughout the course of the game doing this - probably at least half an hour in total.
Whether or not this is more realistic or not, I don't care. It was just plain irritating since if you wanted to maximise your chances of success, you had to do it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 2,826
- Location
- London
Heh u only had to play through each mission on rvs because your teammates were retards and often got themselves killed / cocked up the mission
maybe if they ever make a proper r6 game again they will have advanced the ai enough that they will actually do what they are supposed to do
As for health i do feel the regen in games like gow is a bit too forgiving although i spose thats what difficulty settings are for.. healthpacks are an outdated concept these days