next »

[JLJac]

Don Andy, what regenerates in halo is an energy sheild, not the health of the player.

Also, the regenerating isn't only for making you take cover. It's also a multiplayer feature that makes you face every new opponent on equal odds, making the outcome of the match depend more on player skill and less on how many shots you have taken a few minutes ago, or your skill in knowing where all the healthpacks on the map are. Actually a normal healthbar is an inverted catch up system, the more hits you have taken the harder it gets, making multiplayer almost impossible for beginners. If you acomplish to get away from an enemy or even defeat him, your health bar is low and it will be even harder the next time.

And yeah, kYn, a high four maybe?

[Lucaz]

Regenerating health works very well in more realistic games, and is a lot more adequate than medkits. And the bazooka in the face, is only a problem in some games. In CoD,  recovering from the bazooka doesn't happen, as it's hard to survive any kind of explosion and flamethrowers are one hit kill, and a headshot is usually a frag. Playing in medium.

[Gnarf]

It's also a multiplayer feature that makes you face every new opponent on equal odds, making the outcome of the match depend more on player skill and less on how many shots you have taken a few minutes ago, or your skill in knowing where all the healthpacks on the map are.

Goes both ways. Your skill in knowing where the healthpacks on the map are is also player skill. How many shots you took a few minutes ago is also dependant on player skill.

Actually a normal healthbar is an inverted catch up system, the more hits you have taken the harder it gets, making multiplayer almost impossible for beginners.

Anything that makes the game more dependant on player skill makes it easier for good (skillful) players to beat bad players. Games where bad players are constantly raped by good ones (like, say, QuakeWorld) are more dependant on player skill than games where bad players stand a chance. The player skill has a larger effect on the outcome. A catch up system makes the game less dependant on player skill; a "reverse catch up system" does the, uh, reverse of that.

And I don't think regenerating health is something inherently good or bad.

[Valter]

And I don't think regenerating health is something inherently good or bad.

It would probably be best if there were games with standard health, and games with health regeneration. Halo set off a wave of copycats, though, so it'll probably be a while before developers really go back to standard health systems.

[JLJac]

It's also a multiplayer feature that makes you face every new opponent on equal odds, making the outcome of the match depend more on player skill and less on how many shots you have taken a few minutes ago, or your skill in knowing where all the healthpacks on the map are.

Goes both ways. Your skill in knowing where the healthpacks on the map are is also player skill. How many shots you took a few minutes ago is also dependant on player skill.

Actually a normal healthbar is an inverted catch up system, the more hits you have taken the harder it gets, making multiplayer almost impossible for beginners.

Anything that makes the game more dependant on player skill makes it easier for good (skillful) players to beat bad players. Games where bad players are constantly raped by good ones (like, say, QuakeWorld) are more dependant on player skill than games where bad players stand a chance. The player skill has a larger effect on the outcome. A catch up system makes the game less dependant on player skill; a "reverse catch up system" does the, uh, reverse of that.

And I don't think regenerating health is something inherently good or bad.

What is your argument? I think catch up systems are good, bacause they make the matches more fun to play If bad players stand a bit of a chance it's not so hopelessly hopeless for them in the beginning, but the good players of course tend to win more often either way, if it starts going bad for them the catch up system kicks in for them too. I agree that a game maybe becomes more skill based if bad players are punished all the way to hell, but that doesn't make it any more fun.

I totally agree that regenerating health isn't always good or bad. In a game like halo I think it's great, because halo is a bit arcady and very "right here right now" in it's action, you make up very quick plans and immediately execute them. In games that are supposed to be realistic, like for example ww2 games, I think it's bad. There's no way of explaining it or even exuse it, and it makes taking a bullet feel a lot less serious than it should in those kind of games.

[kyn]

And yeah, kYn, a high four maybe?

A high four's cool
POW!

[Gnarf]

What is your argument? I think catch up systems are good, bacause they make the matches more fun to play If bad players stand a bit of a chance it's not so hopelessly hopeless for them in the beginning, but the good players of course tend to win more often either way, if it starts going bad for them the catch up system kicks in for them too. I agree that a game maybe becomes more skill based if bad players are punished all the way to hell, but that doesn't make it any more fun.

What bugged me was that you argued that health regeneration made something more dependant on player skill and then argued that the alternative was an inverted catch up system, which would make the game more dependant on player skill. If health regeneration made the game more dependant on player skill then it would make it more hopeless for bad players.

It wasn't really about whether catch up systems or dependence on player skill would be good/bad, just about the relation between the two.

[JLJac]

touché, that was a bit inconsistent. What I tried to say was that I liked it because you meet every new enemy on equal odds, which makes the outcome of the fight depend more on fast action skill. Also I like it because it doesn't punish beginners as much as the health pack searching system. I think it's a great health system for a multiplayer shooter, simply

[Türbo Bröther]

More games need a Rocket Arena styled multiplayer mode. That's how you keep things on an equal footing.

[Gnarf]

touché, that was a bit inconsistent. What I tried to say was that I liked it because you meet every new enemy on equal odds, which makes the outcome of the fight depend more on fast action skill.

What NWOGBBV said, but yeah. Map knowledge and running into someone when you've run out of ammo and such certainly still plays a part, but as a general thing the odds are closer to even in each little encounter, sure. Which, also as a general thing, makes how good you did in the last encounter less important (whether or not you took a few hits before defeating your enemy is often irrelevant).

Either way it's still fucking awesome in DOOM when you're all frantic, running about on real low health while trying to survive and to get to a health pack. People still really like fighting for map control in multiplayer in various Quake games. I also really like some stuff that can be done with regenerating health. And I find it far more interesting how the mechanic changes the game than which way is best. Like, if you have a particular game in mind that you want to create, I think knowing how to make the different design decisions in order to create that game is more useful than knowing that some very different game is some kind of better.

[JLJac]

And I find it far more interesting how the mechanic changes the game than which way is best. Like, if you have a particular game in mind that you want to create, I think knowing how to make the different design decisions in order to create that game is more useful than knowing that some very different game is some kind of better.

This are the words of a wise man. You're right.

In Halo I think it's good, in other games other systems might work better.

NWOGBBV?

[Türbo Bröther]

NWOGBBV?

link.

[JLJac]

  Rocket arena? ?

I don't get it

[Inanimate]

Okay, correct me if I am wrong, But I think I know the current subject, so I will bite.

Regeneration only works in certain styles of games, as stated. However, to me, regeneration will always feel awkward. It doesn't work, for some games. And yeah, Gnarf, what you said is VERY interesting, and could lead to other topics. What people do, is they always use what is best. And in some cases, they don't understand it is a different kind of best. Using a mechanic, or a plot element, in your game where it won't fit at all, yes, that's usually NEVER good. But, using that mechanic correctly, for instance in some of the other situations written here, is fine and dandy. So, there is no right and wrong about this specific mechanic. It is neither good, nor bad. It depends on the context you put it in. Regeneration CAN be a good mechanic, but only in the right situations. It can also be a BAD one.

[squishy]

 I feel Cave story is one of the best games ever for what it represents at the time it was released. There is alot of polish put in it for the time. It was made with no money and designed without the intention of making money, but to make a game and nothing else, the idea of indie games come from CS and ED, great games made for love not money, I love that. I've seen what has been going on in the indie communities for a little over two years and people are slowly getting away from those ideals and it disturbs me, It's like when Nirvana first came out and they were a band of normal pissed off dudes and then they got HUGE and contemporaries started creating garbage music and pissed off fans. I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish you were there when it was cool.

[Valter]

I guess what I'm trying to say is I wish you were there when it was cool.

Uh, it was cool back in 1993. The golden age of the 2D run-and-gun platformer was commenced by Sega through the Sega Genesis. Earthworm Jim, Gunstar Heroes, Ghouls and Ghosts, Rocket Knight Adventures... That ship sailed about 5 years before Cave Story came out.

That's my main problem with Cave Story. It's really cool, but I just can't compare it seriously with any run-n-gun that came out for the Sega Genesis.

[squishy]

That's my main problem with Cave Story. It's really cool, but I just can't compare it seriously with any run-n-gun that came out for the Sega Genesis.
[/quote]

That's not my point, junior. What cave story represents as a piece in this artistic medium is people saw Cave Story as a gateway into game design, 'if he can do it so can I' kind of thing. Alot of what I like is it's not pretentious as most of the games advertised in these forums.

[Valter]

junior

Cave Story may have been the game that sparked the entire "indie movement", and it definitely deserves a place in the indie hall of fame for that. But I'd really rather recognize a game for its own merits, not for the merits of the movement it produced. And Cave Story was really good. I played it, loved it, beat it... but then forgot about it and went back to playing Gunstar Heroes. It was excellent, but I can't ever think about it on a "best game ever" basis.

[Valter]

Many "movments" were already technically underway when someone sparked them off. There were Civil Rights Activists before Martin Luther King. He was just the one who brought serious public attention to Civil Rights, just as Cave Story was the game that brought indie gaming to the internet (and rest of the world's) attention.

[eto.ethome.sk]

Hi,

this is my first post here so don't bite me. I've read through all the pages and decided to post. I personally think that Cave Story is very high quality and deserves the surrounding hype. I just found it relatively recently, and finished it several times, with all the endings besides the best one (I've seen that one too, but after weeks of trying to beat the Ballos I just hacked my HP to 30 000 by hexeditor, so it doesn't really count).

I agree with opinion, that part of the CS hype is caused by it's animuish look, which makes it easy for lot of animuh obsessed doujin people to generate lot of fanart content to hype the game even more. Fortunately I was totally unaware of this hype before I found it, and although it is annoying I am grateful that it exists, to expose even more players to this little marvel.

But I think the major reason it appeals to so many players is it's "physical" mechanics. It's just really, intuitive, fun and SMOOTH to just move in this game. Although the game is "retro", the movement is relatively "modern". I think that's the real reason many players consider this game subconsciously so good, although they never finish it. It's just like driving a car. First you are overwhelmed by sensory input but as you become more experienced you can actually enjoy the trip. Almost everybody likes to drive a car.

Maybe I am naturally slow or just picked up wrong titles from Metroid, Castlevania or Megaman (or others I got recommended) series but I think that those games do really suck for me. The movement there seems to me usually totally tile based and the character instead of really moving, is more like replaying some kind of weird movement macros. So whole thing just boils down to "press arrow, arrow, A, C, B, X, circle, triangle" fest I hated so much on fighting games like Mortal Combat.
 
I believe post 2k players are so spoiled by fluidity of FPS or racing "steering" and many indie games I tried do utterly fail at this. It is not like it's something new or it wasn't done in the past or it's not done anymore. I loved old Prehistork 2, Super Mario 3, Eternal Daugher (althoug after Three Riders this game gets insane) or Nifflas work: Knytt, Knytt Stories and Within the deep forest; They all have very fluid polished and interactive movement model to build on top of, but I believe it very rarely done correctly.

So now I am downloading La Mulana and Iji to see what they got. Do you know about more with Cave Story-ish physics?