1. Regenerative Health is Killing First-Person Shooters – By Chris Hartnup.
Then read this…
- By Alex Shaw
By David Merrett
Regenerative health is alarmingly popular these days, pretty much every shooter that comes out uses some form of regenerative health system. Some think that the mechanic is intrinsically worse that other health systems in games, while I personally think that while the system is brilliant, the fact that it has become the standard for almost all shooters is problematic.
The most significant problem thrown at regenerative health is Realism. Firstly, no shooter, bar an incredibly small minority, has a “realistic” way of handling health. A single bullet can end a career or a life. No amount of hiding behind a car or walking over a box with a cross on it is going to repair the damage that a bullet does. At least not in such a way as to mean that one can get straight back into the action, as happens in games. All methods of health regeneration in games are an abstraction, even the idea that health can be reduced to something measurable along one plane is pure fantasy. The problem isn’t realism per se.
The problem is a lack of permanence which, for some, destroys tension. If, in a fire fight one can just take a breather behind cover then an exchange where the player kills an enemy but takes significant damage is stripped of its consequence. This is a problem, but it is more complex than it seems.
It would seemingly be much more interesting from a player perspective if the damage dealt in that exchange was permanent (at least until one found a health pack) so the player had to deal with the consequences of the fight and push onwards. Possibly, but a system with health packs saps tension in its own way and creates other problems.
A player at full health in a game with health packs can absorb a ridiculous amount of damage before dying when compared to the amount of health one can absorb before dying in a shooter with regenerative health. Games without regenerative health have to give you an inflated health bar because it is an inevitability that the player will take a lot of damage cumulatively between each health pack. This however can lead to awkward and unrealistic moments where the player, at full health can stand in front of a group of enemies and unload without the need to utilise cover, consider positioning or move around. Or, it can lead to frustration if a player suffers a lot of damage or missed a medkit and has to struggle onwards through an area. Sometimes it’s impossible to survive through certain areas on low health, necessitating a restart from a previous save or checkpoint.
A regenerative system negates these problems as health always comes back. It isn’t simply easier though as the players max health is generally never particularly high and is usually lower than full health in a game without regenerative health. So although one can take cover to get their health back, the player is permanently quite close to death. Moment to moment, it is a more realistic and fairer health system.
A player who is standing near health packs, or knows they are nearby will suffer the exact same loss of tension as one cowering behind cover regenerating their health. Further, one of the requirements of regenerative health is that it only comes back if the player is not getting shot. Most of the time this is not true of shooters with health packs. So a player in certain situations can actually gain health while being shot; both a loss of tension and unrealistic.
With regards single player, health systems are a means of controlling the pacing, tension and difficulty. No system is perfect, but what regenerative health guarantees is that the designers know exactly how much health a player has when going into an encounter. Games with health packs walk a much finer line than those with regenerative health between frustration and boredom to give the player a well paced, interesting challenge.
Multiplayer has its own set of issues. Regenerative health creates the problem that if ones shoots but doesn’t quite kill someone then it seems unfair that they get their health back. Especially if they proceed to kill the person whom just shot them. This point is debatable though. For the player who shoots but doesn’t quite kill someone in multiplayer, they have still created a significant advantage for themselves. It is up to them to press it home. For the player who has just been shot, even if they are close to death, there is a reason for them to keep fighting, because they may be able to turn the situation around whereas if they had a health bar which didn’t regenerate, there’d be virtually no point in going on.
Non regenerative health can also be unfair. If one player has just come from a fight and is on half health with no chance of getting it back, there is no challenge in killing that person. Upon seeing them one could spray bullets, miss most of the time but still come out of the fight on top. These systems are often prone to the “he who shoots first, wins” rule.
The regenerative system can be very exciting. It usually takes several seconds for health to come back, where it can be truly gripping to know someone is approaching. Regenerative health, in my opinion leads to interesting fights which ebb and flow, rather than wars of attrition based solely on reflexes.
However, much as I like Halo and some of the other games which use regenerative health systems I do not think it should not be the standard for all shooters. For some games it makes no sense mechanically or thematically. A gritty game, or one that espouses military realism shouldn’t have regenerative health. It doesn’t fit within the context. Also, mechanically speaking health should be handled in a variety ways as it enables different play styles and can hopefully make each game feel unique. In some games the role of medic comes from the relative fragility the player. This leads to interesting game play for both the medic and those being healed and fosters cooperative team play. All of which would be lost with a regenerative health system.
Regenerative health is not killing First Person Shooters, but its nearly ubiquitous presence could leave the genre feeling staid. It is overused, possibly because it makes a level designer’s job easier. With a regenerative health system, designers do not have to consider where they place health packs, or necessarily the length and size of fire fights. However, regenerative health is not an excuse for bad pacing or design. Regenerative health is a brilliant tool, but it does not fix lazily designed games; it is those that would kill First Person Shooters.
Dave,
Excellent counter argument. Really enjoyed reading that one. Top stuff!
Thank you!
As was mentioned in the original argument, I think you can find a good compromise in the Far Cry 2 system (health bar split into segments).
Personally, I have no real beef with regenerative health as ultimately if I play a game like COD or Uncharted or whatever, I’m doing it for the ride, not the realism.
If game designers were really serious about realism in FPS then they would simply find a new mechanic to interact with the world other than simply shooting countless goons in the head.
Although I cannot claim to be an expert on military matters (in fact I actively dislike such things), I believe that modern day war is fought more with technology than man power. I can’t imagine horde after horde of enemy infantry moving in waves against your guarded position, just waiting to be skull capped by a bullet from my AK.
What my point is, that if you want to push the realism factor in shooters then find new and interesting ways of allowing the player to be absorbed into the game world rather than limiting them to shooting strangers and admiring the odd vista….
There’s my two cents anyway…