Do all FPS games have regenerating health now?

[LoneWolf16]

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Agreed...save for a few teensy little things.

 

Usually, a sniper gets one or two shots before being killed by the MG guy charging him, and weaving around like a jackass. It takes skill to nail the bastard in those few shots...not to hose his general area and score a lucky headshot.

 

I sort of liked the Regenerating health dealy. As has been said...scampering around after a battle, looking for the odd health pack, or trying to find some idiot medic can be exceedingly tedious. I want to get to the action as quickly as possible, thank you.

[BattleCookiee]

I sort of liked the Regenerating health dealy. As has been said...scampering around after a battle, looking for the odd health pack, or trying to find some idiot medic can be exceedingly tedious. I want to get to the action as quickly as possible, thank you.

 

This is done quite good in several online-FPS games (including the WO II ones)

 

There are always players playing medics. Unless they are completely idiots/n00bs you probably get healed pretty quickly if surrounded by teammates. If you are on the other side of the field scouring through the enemies it will become alot harder to find a medic ofcourse...

If you had regen this "scouring" enemy could probably wipe out entire enemy armies all by themselves; not fun.

 

They can do the same in a SP-game if they just give some more priority to the AI and make such a medic-unit... totally makes medpacks/regen useless...

[Meshugger]

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 agree somewhat, except that a Sith soldier should no way in hell have a wisdom of 10. They might have intelligence, but mostly they're just soldiers acting out their duty, no wisdom needed.

[alanschu]

They can do the same in a SP-game if they just give some more priority to the AI and make such a medic-unit... totally makes medpacks/regen useless...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree with your stance in online gaming, and really enjoy the medic class in BF2 in particular (as it's possible to still do something even when the guy dies....I love running around with the defibrilators! :D).

 

 

However, in single player you still run into the situation where what happens if the medic dies? Or do you just make him invulnerable? And if so, does that really change anything?

[BattleCookiee]

Guess protecting should be an additional dificulty.

 

Fail and you are screwed...

 

(Ofcourse, that needs better AI than the current on the market)

[alanschu]

Need more resources for better AI. Unfortunately they're going towards graphics

 

 

I remember the Electronic Arts representative that spoke at my school mentioned that with the upcoming generation of games they expect, as a percentage of total resources, the amount allocated towards AI to go DOWN. Now this still means an absolute increase, as there's more total resources to go around. But it's still disheartening

[BattleCookiee]

Hopefully more developers go the way of F.E.A.R. and try to add some to the AI.

 

F.E.A.R.'s AI is far from perfect, but ofcourse it is another step forward.

 

 

And most of all hope most devs don't go follow EA's advice, or we all play "FPS/RPG/Sport game/Race Sequel with upgraded graphics 100" instead of good inventive games or games that try to add to a genre/gaming in general...

Edited December 16, 2005 by Battlewookiee

[alanschu]

I've played the demo of FEAR, but that was a while ago. What sort of AI differences existed in that game?

[Hell Kitty]

ot the setting at

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 agree completely with all of this.

 

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.

 

Two different reviewers play the same FPS. One needs to raise the difficulty level to get any enjoyment out of it, and claims it's too easy, the other lowers the difficulty level and claims it's too hard. Which reviewer is right?

 

"Normal" is just the difficulty setting for the "average" player, not the One True Setting at which a game must be judged.

[BattleCookiee]

I've played the demo of FEAR, but that was a while ago.  What sort of AI differences existed in that game?

 

Various teamworking orders to help co-ordinate attacks...

Better use of the terrain for cover than any other FPS ever...

[KEKEKE!]

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...

 

Aa, but what if you miss with the sniper rifle? They're so slow that you can't get another shot in before you're dead, dead, DEAD!

Works for me!

 

KEKEKE!

 

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...

 

Aa, you're saying that normal difficulty should challenge those players who are clearly above average! Where's the sense in that?

 

KEKEKE!

 

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...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Aa, but is it still not silly that brain damage, acute loss of limbs and fatal blood loss can be cured by band-aid, even if someone else applies it?

 

KEKEKE!

Edited December 16, 2005 by KEKEKE!

[Musopticon?]

I love this alt!

[Cantousent]

I dunno, maybe you guys have a point about assessing difficulty levels. I still tend to think that most games are designed around the normal difficulty level. Changing the slider from easy to hard only changes some characteristics but leaves the underlying design at normal. For that reason, I play and virtually always finish a game on normal and then go up from there.

 

On the other hand, a designer, at least one reviewer, and several players all disagree with me. Maybe I'm the one who's wrong. *shrug*

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Normally it will increase the accuracy , how often they will throw grenades, damage taken and recived by the player character. And occasionally add some new enemies or change what they are equipped with.

 

Changing the difficulty in Fire Emblem will change the game completely, what were vaible tactics wont be anymore.