The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There are lots of things we take for granted in computer games these days, such as pause buttons, ammo and the certain way out of a difficult situation. Another thing we take we for granted is ělivesî, and more importantly the ěhealth barî.
This feature is most prominent in beat ëem ups, but in almost all games you get some sort if ěhealthî. What really got me thinking about this was watching Band of Brothers and noticing how easily the people get disabled or killed. One shot from those really rather pathetic weapons either kills them or sends them to the ground with shouts of ěMEDIC!î and thatís it; theyíre out of the war. However, even in games like Counter-Strike, it always takes more than one shot to take someone down, even with an M16. Another thing Iíve noticed is if you shoot someone in the leg or footÖ they just keep walking! Surely that canít be right.
Almost all games involving violence go down this way, even in these days of ultra-realism. OK, there are obvious reasons for this of course. I mean, GTA3 just wouldnít be fun if one shot from those pesky Cartel brought your criminal career to an abrupt halt (but now I have my bullet-proof Patriot I care not for such matters :-D). However, games can still be realistic in this way and be fun as well, take Bushido Blade. This (then) groundbreaking title featured possibly the fist true battle system ever. You had a sword, if you hit their legs, they were hobbled, if you hit their arms, they couldnít fight. If you hit their head, they died instantly. It reminds me of somethingÖ oh yeah! Real life! As I remember, it didnít go down very well with the general public, but it was one of me and my friendís favourite games. Battles were unusually long, basically because you have to be quite defensive, waiting for your chance to strike. In games like Tekken, you have to get stuck right in there, otherwise the gameís no fun. Itís more of a case of killing them quicker than they kill you, as opposed to Bushido Blade where you ACTIVELY try and stop yourself being killed. The difference is subtle but enormous.
Of course, the reason why almost all games opt for the ěhealth barî approach is the game just wouldnít be fun if it was realistic. Some games are half and half; in GTA3, if you shoot an opponentís leg it comes off, but yours never does. Itís all a matter of keeping the right balance of realism to keep the game fun. Thatís why we always see totally unrealistic features in ěrealisticî games, such as the health bar, health pickups, ělivesî, continues, etcÖ Even possibly the most realistic game on the Internet, Counter-Strike, still falls here. However, anyone whoís played the game will certainly agree that the amount of ěhealthî you have is much lower than other games, but still if you shoot someone in the leg with the magnum, the just keep running, whereas in reality it would just blow it clean off.
Maybe games will forever be like this, maybe not. With the sophistication of the next-gen consoles and the next-next-gen consoles, proper hit detection will be widespread, but then on the other hand developers might not employ it because games just would not be fun anymore. But then, realistic games might not ever be realistic. However, we know games like Bushido Blade can be very life-like, and possibly stealth ëem ups like MGS would benefit from the Bushido Blade treatment.
In my opinion, first person shooters can never me realistic. I think we all agree that even Counter-Strike with proper hit detection would be no fun. However, some games are well suited to this, particularly games not involving guns/projectiles and stealth sims like MGS/Siphon Filter.
This feature is most prominent in beat ëem ups, but in almost all games you get some sort if ěhealthî. What really got me thinking about this was watching Band of Brothers and noticing how easily the people get disabled or killed. One shot from those really rather pathetic weapons either kills them or sends them to the ground with shouts of ěMEDIC!î and thatís it; theyíre out of the war. However, even in games like Counter-Strike, it always takes more than one shot to take someone down, even with an M16. Another thing Iíve noticed is if you shoot someone in the leg or footÖ they just keep walking! Surely that canít be right.
Almost all games involving violence go down this way, even in these days of ultra-realism. OK, there are obvious reasons for this of course. I mean, GTA3 just wouldnít be fun if one shot from those pesky Cartel brought your criminal career to an abrupt halt (but now I have my bullet-proof Patriot I care not for such matters :-D). However, games can still be realistic in this way and be fun as well, take Bushido Blade. This (then) groundbreaking title featured possibly the fist true battle system ever. You had a sword, if you hit their legs, they were hobbled, if you hit their arms, they couldnít fight. If you hit their head, they died instantly. It reminds me of somethingÖ oh yeah! Real life! As I remember, it didnít go down very well with the general public, but it was one of me and my friendís favourite games. Battles were unusually long, basically because you have to be quite defensive, waiting for your chance to strike. In games like Tekken, you have to get stuck right in there, otherwise the gameís no fun. Itís more of a case of killing them quicker than they kill you, as opposed to Bushido Blade where you ACTIVELY try and stop yourself being killed. The difference is subtle but enormous.
Of course, the reason why almost all games opt for the ěhealth barî approach is the game just wouldnít be fun if it was realistic. Some games are half and half; in GTA3, if you shoot an opponentís leg it comes off, but yours never does. Itís all a matter of keeping the right balance of realism to keep the game fun. Thatís why we always see totally unrealistic features in ěrealisticî games, such as the health bar, health pickups, ělivesî, continues, etcÖ Even possibly the most realistic game on the Internet, Counter-Strike, still falls here. However, anyone whoís played the game will certainly agree that the amount of ěhealthî you have is much lower than other games, but still if you shoot someone in the leg with the magnum, the just keep running, whereas in reality it would just blow it clean off.
Maybe games will forever be like this, maybe not. With the sophistication of the next-gen consoles and the next-next-gen consoles, proper hit detection will be widespread, but then on the other hand developers might not employ it because games just would not be fun anymore. But then, realistic games might not ever be realistic. However, we know games like Bushido Blade can be very life-like, and possibly stealth ëem ups like MGS would benefit from the Bushido Blade treatment.
In my opinion, first person shooters can never me realistic. I think we all agree that even Counter-Strike with proper hit detection would be no fun. However, some games are well suited to this, particularly games not involving guns/projectiles and stealth sims like MGS/Siphon Filter.
An excellent post, by the way Turbonutter. As GasMask was saying, any security guard, who is armed with an M16, armour and actual soldier skills can be killed in 2 shots maxium, whilst you can take up to 10 shots + to kill and you have no M16 (unless you stole it off a guard, which gets back to the irony), no armour (unless you stole it off a guard, which gets back to the irony) and normally, no training at all.
Games such as Max Payne can be slated as "The most realistic experience of your life" as much as they want, but is it really true? Well, not really. When you're shot, can you limp, from different legs? Can your shoulder hang it it's been shot? Does blood freely pour? They need to take all this into account in next-generatino games.
As GasMask was also saying, games such as Rainbow 6 and Swat 3 have taken realism one step further, by implementing the "One-Shot Kill" system. However, if you are shot in the leg, will you really die? The only possibility is lead poisoning, which has been put to good effect in Operation Flashpoint. In future games, there should be parts of the body that can bleed profusely, hang and break etc. For instance, if you badly beaten by a gang in GTA3, you should have a broken arm or leg. If you jump out infront of a train in Max Payne, your mangled body should be visible, but a little toned down. Such as no beheddings etc. Unfortunatley, this would still make the game an 18+ rating, preventing the younger gamers among us to enjoy these great games.
Thanks for reading.
Gaming Guy.
Games such as Max Payne can be slated as "The most realistic experience of your life" as much as they want, but is it really true? Well, not really. When you're shot, can you limp, from different legs? Can your shoulder hang it it's been shot? Does blood freely pour? They need to take all this into account in next-generatino games.
As GasMask was also saying, games such as Rainbow 6 and Swat 3 have taken realism one step further, by implementing the "One-Shot Kill" system. However, if you are shot in the leg, will you really die? The only possibility is lead poisoning, which has been put to good effect in Operation Flashpoint. In future games, there should be parts of the body that can bleed profusely, hang and break etc. For instance, if you badly beaten by a gang in GTA3, you should have a broken arm or leg. If you jump out infront of a train in Max Payne, your mangled body should be visible, but a little toned down. Such as no beheddings etc. Unfortunatley, this would still make the game an 18+ rating, preventing the younger gamers among us to enjoy these great games.
Thanks for reading.
Gaming Guy.
In perfect dark, they hobble around for a few seconds, then promptly make a full recovery - movement wise, anyhow.
It wouldn't be that hard to give the player a 'limping' motion, really. Move up and down movement as they walk, and slower movement. Simulate an arm would with less accurate and less rapid shooting and reloading.
Why hasn't this been done yet!
It wouldn't be that hard to give the player a 'limping' motion, really. Move up and down movement as they walk, and slower movement. Simulate an arm would with less accurate and less rapid shooting and reloading.
Why hasn't this been done yet!
Good post TBN. I have thought this too. In Perfect Dark if you shoot them in the leg they hobble around but if they shoot you, oh no. No hobbling for you. That is probably because the game is set in the future and when you pick up armour its actually a shield that covers your whole body. So PD you are forgiven. But Goldeneye.. Hell don't even get me started :P
But. If that happened you would be dead at the start of the level.
So if games take to this "type" of health the game would either be to hard of to easy, so a lot of tinkering needs to be done.
Rainbow 6, this game is a "One shot kills" type of game and I think it works well because it keeps you on your toes. I would like to see a few more companies have a go at these types of games because I find them challenging.
But, you could still pick up body armour and take a few shots. So, maybe we need to find a new type of "health"?
But. If that happened you would be dead at the start of the level.
So if games take to this "type" of health the game would either be to hard of to easy, so a lot of tinkering needs to be done.
Rainbow 6, this game is a "One shot kills" type of game and I think it works well because it keeps you on your toes. I would like to see a few more companies have a go at these types of games because I find them challenging.
But, you could still pick up body armour and take a few shots. So, maybe we need to find a new type of "health"?
There are lots of things we take for granted in computer games these days, such as pause buttons, ammo and the certain way out of a difficult situation. Another thing we take we for granted is ělivesî, and more importantly the ěhealth barî.
This feature is most prominent in beat ëem ups, but in almost all games you get some sort if ěhealthî. What really got me thinking about this was watching Band of Brothers and noticing how easily the people get disabled or killed. One shot from those really rather pathetic weapons either kills them or sends them to the ground with shouts of ěMEDIC!î and thatís it; theyíre out of the war. However, even in games like Counter-Strike, it always takes more than one shot to take someone down, even with an M16. Another thing Iíve noticed is if you shoot someone in the leg or footÖ they just keep walking! Surely that canít be right.
Almost all games involving violence go down this way, even in these days of ultra-realism. OK, there are obvious reasons for this of course. I mean, GTA3 just wouldnít be fun if one shot from those pesky Cartel brought your criminal career to an abrupt halt (but now I have my bullet-proof Patriot I care not for such matters :-D). However, games can still be realistic in this way and be fun as well, take Bushido Blade. This (then) groundbreaking title featured possibly the fist true battle system ever. You had a sword, if you hit their legs, they were hobbled, if you hit their arms, they couldnít fight. If you hit their head, they died instantly. It reminds me of somethingÖ oh yeah! Real life! As I remember, it didnít go down very well with the general public, but it was one of me and my friendís favourite games. Battles were unusually long, basically because you have to be quite defensive, waiting for your chance to strike. In games like Tekken, you have to get stuck right in there, otherwise the gameís no fun. Itís more of a case of killing them quicker than they kill you, as opposed to Bushido Blade where you ACTIVELY try and stop yourself being killed. The difference is subtle but enormous.
Of course, the reason why almost all games opt for the ěhealth barî approach is the game just wouldnít be fun if it was realistic. Some games are half and half; in GTA3, if you shoot an opponentís leg it comes off, but yours never does. Itís all a matter of keeping the right balance of realism to keep the game fun. Thatís why we always see totally unrealistic features in ěrealisticî games, such as the health bar, health pickups, ělivesî, continues, etcÖ Even possibly the most realistic game on the Internet, Counter-Strike, still falls here. However, anyone whoís played the game will certainly agree that the amount of ěhealthî you have is much lower than other games, but still if you shoot someone in the leg with the magnum, the just keep running, whereas in reality it would just blow it clean off.
Maybe games will forever be like this, maybe not. With the sophistication of the next-gen consoles and the next-next-gen consoles, proper hit detection will be widespread, but then on the other hand developers might not employ it because games just would not be fun anymore. But then, realistic games might not ever be realistic. However, we know games like Bushido Blade can be very life-like, and possibly stealth ëem ups like MGS would benefit from the Bushido Blade treatment.
In my opinion, first person shooters can never me realistic. I think we all agree that even Counter-Strike with proper hit detection would be no fun. However, some games are well suited to this, particularly games not involving guns/projectiles and stealth sims like MGS/Siphon Filter.
This feature is most prominent in beat ëem ups, but in almost all games you get some sort if ěhealthî. What really got me thinking about this was watching Band of Brothers and noticing how easily the people get disabled or killed. One shot from those really rather pathetic weapons either kills them or sends them to the ground with shouts of ěMEDIC!î and thatís it; theyíre out of the war. However, even in games like Counter-Strike, it always takes more than one shot to take someone down, even with an M16. Another thing Iíve noticed is if you shoot someone in the leg or footÖ they just keep walking! Surely that canít be right.
Almost all games involving violence go down this way, even in these days of ultra-realism. OK, there are obvious reasons for this of course. I mean, GTA3 just wouldnít be fun if one shot from those pesky Cartel brought your criminal career to an abrupt halt (but now I have my bullet-proof Patriot I care not for such matters :-D). However, games can still be realistic in this way and be fun as well, take Bushido Blade. This (then) groundbreaking title featured possibly the fist true battle system ever. You had a sword, if you hit their legs, they were hobbled, if you hit their arms, they couldnít fight. If you hit their head, they died instantly. It reminds me of somethingÖ oh yeah! Real life! As I remember, it didnít go down very well with the general public, but it was one of me and my friendís favourite games. Battles were unusually long, basically because you have to be quite defensive, waiting for your chance to strike. In games like Tekken, you have to get stuck right in there, otherwise the gameís no fun. Itís more of a case of killing them quicker than they kill you, as opposed to Bushido Blade where you ACTIVELY try and stop yourself being killed. The difference is subtle but enormous.
Of course, the reason why almost all games opt for the ěhealth barî approach is the game just wouldnít be fun if it was realistic. Some games are half and half; in GTA3, if you shoot an opponentís leg it comes off, but yours never does. Itís all a matter of keeping the right balance of realism to keep the game fun. Thatís why we always see totally unrealistic features in ěrealisticî games, such as the health bar, health pickups, ělivesî, continues, etcÖ Even possibly the most realistic game on the Internet, Counter-Strike, still falls here. However, anyone whoís played the game will certainly agree that the amount of ěhealthî you have is much lower than other games, but still if you shoot someone in the leg with the magnum, the just keep running, whereas in reality it would just blow it clean off.
Maybe games will forever be like this, maybe not. With the sophistication of the next-gen consoles and the next-next-gen consoles, proper hit detection will be widespread, but then on the other hand developers might not employ it because games just would not be fun anymore. But then, realistic games might not ever be realistic. However, we know games like Bushido Blade can be very life-like, and possibly stealth ëem ups like MGS would benefit from the Bushido Blade treatment.
In my opinion, first person shooters can never me realistic. I think we all agree that even Counter-Strike with proper hit detection would be no fun. However, some games are well suited to this, particularly games not involving guns/projectiles and stealth sims like MGS/Siphon Filter.