Do all FPS games have regenerating health now?

[Calax]

Normal mode is exactly that NORMAL! I seriously doubt that getting shot three times in the head on normal should let you live. Also I don't think that in Call of Duties normal mode you should be surviving 6 hits in quick succession. Or be able to dive behind a desk and feel normal...

[LoneWolf16]

Normal mode should be well normal.  It should be how things within the rules structure of the game should act.  If the game is a FPS then real world physics should apply.  Games with projectile weapons should do damage to the player or opponent as they would in real life.  A grazing shot from a 9mm will hurt but not kill, an energy blast from a laser will do damage base on the joules of energy released.  Games that have an established rules set such as the d20 System should refer the base game mechanics which gauges normal and go from there.  Normal should be at this level of difficulty.

 

Once Normal is gauge in this way then easier or harder settings can be applied by decreasing or increasing damage values, power level of characters, and the intelligence of the AI programming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I wanted that, I'd buy a gun myself and go out for a night on the town.

 

What you're saying seems a bit excessive, but works well for certain games, within the context of said game...like Rainbow Six 3. It wouldn't really work in a game like Halo, considering the shield and full body armor.

Edited December 15, 2005 by LoneWolf16

[Calax]

Normal mode should be well normal.  It should be how things within the rules structure of the game should act.  If the game is a FPS then real world physics should apply.  Games with projectile weapons should do damage to the player or opponent as they would in real life.  A grazing shot from a 9mm will hurt but not kill, an energy blast from a laser will do damage base on the joules of energy released.  Games that have an established rules set such as the d20 System should refer the base game mechanics which gauges normal and go from there.  Normal should be at this level of difficulty.

 

Once Normal is gauge in this way then easier or harder settings can be applied by decreasing or increasing damage values, power level of characters, and the intelligence of the AI programming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I wanted that, I'd buy a gun myself and go out for a night on the town.

 

What you're saying seems a bit excessive, but works well for certain games, within the context of said game...like Rainbow Six 3. It wouldn't really work in a game like Halo, considering the shield and full body armor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you realize of course that this should be how it is in Call of duty two right? But it's not...

Edited December 15, 2005 by Calax

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well, games based on an established rules systems such as NWN and KotOR, normal should be within the base frame work of the rules set.  Such as Normal mode the starting Sith Soldier should have a stat block such as:

 

Sith Soldier;  Class:  Soldier; Level: 1; Hit Points: 12; Base Attack: +1; Blaster Rifle:  +3 Att, 2d8 Damage; Vibrosword: +3, 1d8+2 Damage; Str 14, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 10, Chr 10; Defense 16 (+2 Dex, +4 Armor).  CR 1

 

Instead of having 2 hit points, a -2 Base Attack, nerfed weapons, single digit stats, and a defense of 6. 

 

Same thing in NWN 1 with the weak goblins.  Goblins that can take on the students and teachers of an academy of adventurers should have class levels in fighter and rogue.  A baseline Goblin in that affair should have had 1 level of rogue while tough goblins should have 1 level of rogue and 1 level of fighter.  Again, Bioware decides to nerf them beyond the limits of the rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm sure people would be just overjoyed to die 100 times on the first enemy.

 

NwN isnt by the rules anyway. The rules dont have solo play as a basis, or even a character and a henchmen for that matter. Sure a full party of six could face those sorts of creatures and have a hope, but a single first level character cant. The game would be nothing more crossing your fingers and hoping they roll low and you dont.

 

Ditto with KOTOR, if you actually started the game with a party like the IE games, then your wouldnt need that type of fodder. This is more a design than a difficulty issue.

[LoneWolf16]

Normal mode should be well normal.  It should be how things within the rules structure of the game should act.  If the game is a FPS then real world physics should apply.  Games with projectile weapons should do damage to the player or opponent as they would in real life.  A grazing shot from a 9mm will hurt but not kill, an energy blast from a laser will do damage base on the joules of energy released.  Games that have an established rules set such as the d20 System should refer the base game mechanics which gauges normal and go from there.  Normal should be at this level of difficulty.

 

Once Normal is gauge in this way then easier or harder settings can be applied by decreasing or increasing damage values, power level of characters, and the intelligence of the AI programming.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I wanted that, I'd buy a gun myself and go out for a night on the town.

 

What you're saying seems a bit excessive, but works well for certain games, within the context of said game...like Rainbow Six 3. It wouldn't really work in a game like Halo, considering the shield and full body armor.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well you realize of course that this should be how it is in Call of duty two right? But it's not...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. I thought that was included in the "within the context of the game" thing.

[Judge Hades]

In Halo you have the shield which can withstand certain amount of energy before disappating. The amount of energy protecting the character should decrease in the corresponding power or force of the weapon being used against it. It all comes down to how much energy is being used, to protect or kill.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Normal mode is exactly that NORMAL! I seriously doubt that getting shot three times in the head on normal should let you live. Also I don't think that in Call of Duties normal mode you should be surviving 6 hits in quick succession. Or be able to dive behind a desk and feel normal...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In most cases normal does not refer to realistic. Realistic is generally either a seperate setting, or the highest setting.

 

Normal refers to a "normal" person playing the game and with a difficulty factored on that.

 

I've only seen a few games (not FPS) where the hit location is taken into account on the character. Although most FPS games will take into account where the player hits the enemy.

Edited December 15, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[LoneWolf16]

In Halo you have the shield which can withstand certain amount of energy before disappating.  The amount of energy protecting the character should decrease in the corresponding power or force of the weapon being used against it.  It all comes down to how much energy is being used, to protect or kill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's pretty much how it is right now. A plasma rifle round doesn't do as much damage as a fully charged plasma pistol...etc.

 

The shields have a recharge feature though. In Halo 2, a few shots after your shield is gone and you're dead; no health level or anything.

Edited December 15, 2005 by LoneWolf16

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's pretty much how it is right now. A plasma rifle round doesn't do as much damage as a fully charged plasma pistol...etc.

 

The shields have a recharge feature though. In Halo 2, a few shots after your shield is gone and you're dead; no health level or anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A sniper shot can burn through most or all of your shield. Those odd little critters you come across early on, you can stand in the middle of a room and not worry too much.

[Judge Hades]

I'm sure people would be just overjoyed to die 100 times on the first enemy. 

 

NwN isnt by the rules anyway. The rules dont have solo play as a basis, or even a character and a henchmen for that matter. Sure a full party of six could face those sorts of creatures and have a hope, but a single first level character cant. The game would be nothing more crossing your fingers and hoping they roll low and you dont.

 

Ditto with KOTOR, if you actually started the game with a party like the IE games, then your wouldnt need that type of fodder. This is more a design than a difficulty issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey, that is how it should be done. Plain and simple. If Bioware or Obsidian sets up a situation like that where the player is easily killed that is the failure of their design and not the rules of the game. If they don't want to use the rules then they should use them, plain and simple.

 

It will also give way to smarter gameplay. Such as you wouldn't fight the hordes of goblins in the first area of NWN. You would use skirmish attacks and range weapons if you do any of the sort. Hit and fade. If you aren't skilled in combat such as the rogue or bard, you hide, and sneak past. As the wizard, you run away.

 

In KotOR you have a 3rd level soldier with you at the beginning. Bringing the average party level to 2. Easily high enough to take on one or two sith soldiers. More if you have a handy grenade or two and you use strategy in your gameplay.

 

How Bioware did it makes it that Intelligence is not needed to play their games.

[alanschu]

Just to make sure it's clear, normal should not equal realistic.

 

I'm sure people would rather play Call of Duty, rather than reinact a realistic WW2 simulator which has you die 20 seconds into the first mission. To be blunt, I think that "normal = how it should be in real life" is one of the more bogus things I've read here in a long time. People play games to have fun. If you want a more "realistic" WW2 experience, play on a harder difficulty level......or enlist. Furthermore, normal difficulty is never like that, outside of Tom Clancy games which make it their purpose to be realistic. To claim that that is how it should be based on the "ruleset" despite the precedents set by many, many games before it is silly.

 

Besides, it's not possible for it to be "realistic" because there is no way to instill the fear of death. We as game players still stick our heads up to fire a shot at the enemy despite mountains of suppression fire. Our accuracy is completely unhindered in the face of explosions and gunfire whizzing past our head.

 

 

The one thing I like about the regenerating health is that it eliminates the situations where, as I experienced on occassion with the original CoD, I finish a battle with a sliver of health with no medpacks in the vicinity. There's no point in me even continuing on in the mission because I was as good as dead in the next encounter anyways. Especially since I was playing on the hardest difficulty.

 

I remember Pavlov's house was me literally hiding in a corner watching the only two ways into the room I was in because there was no way I was moving out as I was getting my ass shot off. I ignored the tanks because they were killing me too quickly, and just tried to stay out of sight (this situation actually is not historically accurate...Pavlov mounted the anti-tank rifles on the roof of the building so that the tanks could not bring their main guns up to shoot them.....however this would have made those situations less exciting).

 

 

Anyways...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Hey, that is how it should be done.  Plain and simple. If Bioware or Obsidian sets up a situation like that where the player is easily killed that is the failure of their design and not the rules of the game.  If they don't want to use the rules then they should use them, plain and simple.

 

It will also give way to smarter gameplay.  Such as you wouldn't fight the hordes of goblins in the first area of NWN.  You would use skirmish attacks and range weapons if you do any of the sort.  Hit and fade.  If you aren't skilled in combat such as the rogue or bard, you hide, and sneak past.  As the wizard, you run away.

 

In KotOR you have a 3rd level soldier with you at the beginning.  Bringing the average party level to 2.  Easily high enough to take on one or two sith soldiers.  More if you have a handy grenade or two and you use strategy in your gameplay.

 

How Bioware did it makes it that Intelligence is not needed to play their games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nice in theory but dosnt work that way. There will always be limits imposed by the system your working on.

 

A DM will do exactly the same thing when running a game for a small group. It's just more fun to fight lots of things than it is to fight a single thing over and over again till you can level. How dull would NwN be if you had to fight one goblin at a time. This is where the group dynamic is important, because without that you have no choice but to change the design to fit.

 

The reason the defences are set low is again because it leads to more dynamic battles where something happens every round. One of the dullest things I can remember is POR II in the very early game and that had a party. It would be so much worse solo.

 

Thats true of most tutorials and is pretty much the point too. It allows people to absorb the rules without having to reload 50 times.

[Judge Hades]

Then they could place the game at easier settings. I am not saying that is the only way to play but as a basis to measure where Normal is at. You have 5 different settings.

 

1. Newbie

2. Easy

3. Normal

4. Veteran

5. Godlike

 

Normal would be what I described above, thusly making the lower setting you take less damage, the AI is dumber, and more survivability. At the higher settings you take more damage, less chance to get healed, and the enemies are smarter.

 

EDIT: That is why tutorials have no place in the normal game. Tutroials should be separate of the game and story.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Hades_One

[alanschu]

If Normal is realsitic, how do you make it any more difficult? I mean, 1 shot to kill you on normal. What, get breathed on to die at a higher difficulty level?

 

The definition of "normal" is fine, based on the precedent of what "normal" is by other video games. Normal != realistic. Normal = normal.

[Judge Hades]

Its that attitude is attributing to the dumbing down of games. Well, you aren't going to change my mind and obviously you want dumb games. I shall end the argument here.

[alanschu]

Yes, clearly I want "dumb" games.

 

Furthermore, understanding that people don't want "realism = normal difficulty"

 

Realism in games != "smart." But since you took the "high-road" and decided to leave me with an insult, good on you then.....

 

 

 

Besides, how do you make that more difficult.

Edited December 15, 2005 by alanschu

[Judge Hades]

How? I already explained how above in the thread.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Its that attitude is attributing to the dumbing down of games.  Well, you aren't going to change my mind and obviously you want dumb games.  I shall end the argument here. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That makes no sense. It would make sense if normal was the only difficulty, but in most cases it isnt.

 

Anyways I finished Far Cry:Instinct. Last battle wasnt bad but overall the game was very mediocre didnt enjoy it that much. Might give Metriod a spin (never completed it).

 

I agree that tutorials are best if not part of the game. But some people like it because it gives a sense of continuity rather than having a completely different tutorial character (or party) as was the case in BG.

[alanschu]

How?  I already explained how above in the thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

How do you make something more difficult than full on realistic, one shot one kill for the normal, default settings. You just said "oh make it harder, you take more damage and the AI is smarter and stuff." That's a piss poor explanation.

 

 

 

If playing CoD on Normal means one shot one kill, you think that the game will be significantly more difficult if they just "up the AI" a little bit? I guarantee you it would be a lesson in frustration and I doubt that you would even play the game. Imagine trying to play your Halo with one shot one kill. I'm sure you'd have loads of fun. Does this mean that you're a fan of "dumb" gameplay?

 

But hey, I'm a fan of "dumb" gameplay I guess.

[Judge Hades]

You are there to learn the game and not for the story. There is no need for continuity. You are there to seek how the game works, to learn its functionality, and to be completely out of character.

 

Its like teaching someone to role play in a new game system. You teach the player the basics and what is necessary to play the game. You do so out of character and outside the game session if possible so that you don't waste the more experienced game players' time.

 

EDIT: One shot one kill should only apply if it is a solid hit to the torso or head. A grazing hit or a limb hit obviously will not kill you immediate. Certainly damage you so you lose health and need medical attention.

Edited December 15, 2005 by Hades_One

[Fionavar]

Let's try to discuss the topic and not making sweeping and disparaging comments about one another.

[Sarjahurmaaja.]

Where on earth do you folks get the idea every FPS aims, or should aim, for realism?

[mkreku]

EDIT:  One shot one kill should only apply if it is a solid hit to the torso or head.  A grazing hit or a limb hit obviously will not kill you immediate.  Certainly damage you so you lose health and need medical attention.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, a high velocity weapon (in real life) can kill you almost no matter where it hits. How's that for realistic: get shot in the hand and insta-death!!.

[Cantousent]

I'm not suggesting that normal should equal real life. It's a game. One would assume that the point is that a game is not the same as real life. Even a simulator will allow for things outside the realm of reality, such as getting back up after being killed.

 

Where Hades had it right is that the normal difficulty setting should reflect the baseline for the ruleset. Reviews should also reflect the normal setting. I don't want to read a review where the reviewer hiked up the difficulty to max to get any enjoyment out of the game. I want a fair assessment of the game based on the normal setting.

 

Do I changed difficulty levels? Sure I do. Most of the time, I changed difficulty levels based on rewards, which is a terrible reason. Still, that's what I do. Of course, then you have games where changing the difficulty level only chages the... well... difficulty. You get no other reward. I change the difficulty on those also, but usually only for something like FPSs. What I do, or you do, with the difficulty setting doesn't really matter, though. Right?

 

I mean, the game is built around the normal setting. Then, to make it more difficult for the grognards, they tweak things after the fact for other settings. So, while I might be forced to change the setting in order to play the game, it's never optimal. Perhaps our designer in residence can clear this up for me, but how often are as many resources put into developing the game for higher or lower settings as compared to normal?

[BattleCookiee]

Like said before; play PC games. It avoids alot of such "implentations"

 

On 1-shot dead; Bad, bad... What fun would it be if you are supposed to be a soldier, and have to fight 100 enemy soldiers and die if they get one shot on you.

This method only works if there are VERY few enemies, and that is not the case in most FPS.

Play some random online-FPS where the balance sucks so badly that a machinegun takes 8 shots to kill and a sniper shot kills somebody in 1 kill. Fun being a machinegunner then. NO...

 

On Normal; this level should be for the "avarage gamer", not the newbie to the genre. Make it a chalange on alot of points (but not everywhere), but don't make it so

1) Only Fatal1ty can beat it

2) Anybody who appears (every game) in the top 1/3 of a online-FPS shooter can breeze through it...

 

Prefered Med-pack or regen health?;

Why not a NPC-medic that can heal you (or for future games med-bots)? Regen is just plain stupid... med packs only made up long ago as some excuse to throw in 1000 enemies...