The "Sony Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
I certainly don’t know what games characters are constructed out of, but what ever it is I can assure you that I wouldn’t mind being made out of it. It would be great! You could run through mine fields, get shot about five times, and even get a rocket launcher shoved in your face knowing that your safe providing you find a box with a red cross on pretty quickly. The point I’m trying to get across is that in games it is so unrealistic the way you can get shot or whatever so many times before you even have to worry about death.
Obviously we’re talking about a game play issue here. It would be very annoying if your character died every time they got shot. If this was the case in shooting games, pretty soon the gamer would get annoyed and the game would get shoved at the bottom of the shelf were it belonged. However; now games are clearly getting more realistic isn’t it time developers thought of a better way to represent health in games? After all, racing games like TOCA and Grand Prix 4 are evolving car damage to keep up with the realism.
Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent. Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life let alone being able to survive one headshot after another. This was the case for most games like GTA3 where you could practically sit on a bazooka while it fired and still survive and also Quake 3 where you could use the rocket launcher to propel yourself into the air! Surely there is a better way to portray health than this!?
Hideo Kojima’s way of doing health in MGS2 was more acceptable. Super Human Snake and Herculean Raiden (heh) still managed to withstand several bullets to the torso but a nice ‘bleeding’ feature meant more realism was chucked into the mixer. Bandages could be used to block up wounds and any wounds not blocked up or healed could lead to a decrease in health. Much better! The new Soldier Of Fortune must also be credited. If your character is hit in the head then that’s it, he dies. This has been proved a little frustrating, but with time it could be tweaked.
Basically I think this has to be sorted out good and proper if producers want their games to be very realistic. Even if it’s only a ‘checkpoint’ feature like in Crash Bandicoot, something must be done that’s not frustrating yet is believable to the gamer. What would you prefer?
Thanks for reading,
Nath
P.s. I had 30 heart attacks during the creation of this post.
Obviously we’re talking about a game play issue here. It would be very annoying if your character died every time they got shot. If this was the case in shooting games, pretty soon the gamer would get annoyed and the game would get shoved at the bottom of the shelf were it belonged. However; now games are clearly getting more realistic isn’t it time developers thought of a better way to represent health in games? After all, racing games like TOCA and Grand Prix 4 are evolving car damage to keep up with the realism.
Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent. Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life let alone being able to survive one headshot after another. This was the case for most games like GTA3 where you could practically sit on a bazooka while it fired and still survive and also Quake 3 where you could use the rocket launcher to propel yourself into the air! Surely there is a better way to portray health than this!?
Hideo Kojima’s way of doing health in MGS2 was more acceptable. Super Human Snake and Herculean Raiden (heh) still managed to withstand several bullets to the torso but a nice ‘bleeding’ feature meant more realism was chucked into the mixer. Bandages could be used to block up wounds and any wounds not blocked up or healed could lead to a decrease in health. Much better! The new Soldier Of Fortune must also be credited. If your character is hit in the head then that’s it, he dies. This has been proved a little frustrating, but with time it could be tweaked.
Basically I think this has to be sorted out good and proper if producers want their games to be very realistic. Even if it’s only a ‘checkpoint’ feature like in Crash Bandicoot, something must be done that’s not frustrating yet is believable to the gamer. What would you prefer?
Thanks for reading,
Nath
P.s. I had 30 heart attacks during the creation of this post.
I certainly don’t know what games characters are constructed out of, but what ever it is I can assure you that I wouldn’t mind being made out of it. It would be great! You could run through mine fields, get shot about five times, and even get a rocket launcher shoved in your face knowing that your safe providing you find a box with a red cross on pretty quickly. The point I’m trying to get across is that in games it is so unrealistic the way you can get shot or whatever so many times before you even have to worry about death.
Obviously we’re talking about a game play issue here. It would be very annoying if your character died every time they got shot. If this was the case in shooting games, pretty soon the gamer would get annoyed and the game would get shoved at the bottom of the shelf were it belonged. However; now games are clearly getting more realistic isn’t it time developers thought of a better way to represent health in games? After all, racing games like TOCA and Grand Prix 4 are evolving car damage to keep up with the realism.
Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent. Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life let alone being able to survive one headshot after another. This was the case for most games like GTA3 where you could practically sit on a bazooka while it fired and still survive and also Quake 3 where you could use the rocket launcher to propel yourself into the air! Surely there is a better way to portray health than this!?
Hideo Kojima’s way of doing health in MGS2 was more acceptable. Super Human Snake and Herculean Raiden (heh) still managed to withstand several bullets to the torso but a nice ‘bleeding’ feature meant more realism was chucked into the mixer. Bandages could be used to block up wounds and any wounds not blocked up or healed could lead to a decrease in health. Much better! The new Soldier Of Fortune must also be credited. If your character is hit in the head then that’s it, he dies. This has been proved a little frustrating, but with time it could be tweaked.
Basically I think this has to be sorted out good and proper if producers want their games to be very realistic. Even if it’s only a ‘checkpoint’ feature like in Crash Bandicoot, something must be done that’s not frustrating yet is believable to the gamer. What would you prefer?
Thanks for reading,
Nath
P.s. I had 30 heart attacks during the creation of this post.
Obviously we’re talking about a game play issue here. It would be very annoying if your character died every time they got shot. If this was the case in shooting games, pretty soon the gamer would get annoyed and the game would get shoved at the bottom of the shelf were it belonged. However; now games are clearly getting more realistic isn’t it time developers thought of a better way to represent health in games? After all, racing games like TOCA and Grand Prix 4 are evolving car damage to keep up with the realism.
Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent. Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life let alone being able to survive one headshot after another. This was the case for most games like GTA3 where you could practically sit on a bazooka while it fired and still survive and also Quake 3 where you could use the rocket launcher to propel yourself into the air! Surely there is a better way to portray health than this!?
Hideo Kojima’s way of doing health in MGS2 was more acceptable. Super Human Snake and Herculean Raiden (heh) still managed to withstand several bullets to the torso but a nice ‘bleeding’ feature meant more realism was chucked into the mixer. Bandages could be used to block up wounds and any wounds not blocked up or healed could lead to a decrease in health. Much better! The new Soldier Of Fortune must also be credited. If your character is hit in the head then that’s it, he dies. This has been proved a little frustrating, but with time it could be tweaked.
Basically I think this has to be sorted out good and proper if producers want their games to be very realistic. Even if it’s only a ‘checkpoint’ feature like in Crash Bandicoot, something must be done that’s not frustrating yet is believable to the gamer. What would you prefer?
Thanks for reading,
Nath
P.s. I had 30 heart attacks during the creation of this post.
Na†ßu© wrote:
>
> Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can
> give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere
> and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent.
> Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the
> head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then
> as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens
> is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes
> down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life
> let alone being able to survive one headshot after another.
If your after realism, there is a cheat in medal of honor, can't remember it off hand, maybe "urtheman" and you are killed with 1 shot, i lasted to the first man on 1st level.
>
> Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can
> give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere
> and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent.
> Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the
> head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then
> as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens
> is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes
> down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life
> let alone being able to survive one headshot after another.
If your after realism, there is a cheat in medal of honor, can't remember it off hand, maybe "urtheman" and you are killed with 1 shot, i lasted to the first man on 1st level.
Na†ßu© wrote:
>
> Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can
> give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere
> and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent.
> Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the
> head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then
> as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens
> is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes
> down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life
> let alone being able to survive one headshot after another.
If your after realism, there is a cheat in medal of honor, can't remember it off hand, maybe "urtheman" and you are killed with 1 shot, i lasted to the first man on 1st level.
>
> Medal Of Honour: Frontline is a great example of how this aspect can
> give games an artificial feeling. The game has a brilliant atmosphere
> and the gaming world is nothing less than realistically excellent.
> Enemies charge around in a human like manner and shooting them in the
> head or heart will result in instant death. Pretty realistic. But then
> as soon as your character gets slugged on the noggin all that happens
> is a little red indicator appears and a bit of your health bar goes
> down. I don’t even recall having a health bar personally in real life
> let alone being able to survive one headshot after another.
If your after realism, there is a cheat in medal of honor, can't remember it off hand, maybe "urtheman" and you are killed with 1 shot, i lasted to the first man on 1st level.
Thanks, I just tried that but what I meant was they should have 1 or 2 shot kill but make lots of checkpoints so you dont have to start at the start of the level when you die! Especially annoying when you have been playing a level for an hour!! *Waves stick at Docks level* GRRR!!
Na†ßu© wrote:
> Thanks, I just tried that but what I meant was they should have 1 or 2
> shot kill but make lots of checkpoints so you dont have to start at
> the start of the level when you die! Especially annoying when you have
> been playing a level for an hour!! *Waves stick at Docks level* GRRR!!
Yep that's true, once you die and you see how for back you go, it's so annoying that i've never tried again straight after, always turned it off.
I'm even thinking about sellin on this game cos, i do want to play it, but it's too annoying to start right at the begining of a level you've just nearly finished.
A game that sorted this problem well was Hidden & Hangerous, on pc, (not ps1 version). That had the 1 or 2 shot kill, but you had control of 4 men, so if one man got shot, he was left dead, and you had to carry on with the 3 men that was left alive.
Extremely affective on huge levels when 3 men had died and you had to carry on alone rambo style.
> Thanks, I just tried that but what I meant was they should have 1 or 2
> shot kill but make lots of checkpoints so you dont have to start at
> the start of the level when you die! Especially annoying when you have
> been playing a level for an hour!! *Waves stick at Docks level* GRRR!!
Yep that's true, once you die and you see how for back you go, it's so annoying that i've never tried again straight after, always turned it off.
I'm even thinking about sellin on this game cos, i do want to play it, but it's too annoying to start right at the begining of a level you've just nearly finished.
A game that sorted this problem well was Hidden & Hangerous, on pc, (not ps1 version). That had the 1 or 2 shot kill, but you had control of 4 men, so if one man got shot, he was left dead, and you had to carry on with the 3 men that was left alive.
Extremely affective on huge levels when 3 men had died and you had to carry on alone rambo style.
oasismark wrote:
> A game that sorted this problem well was Hidden & Hangerous, on
> pc, (not ps1 version). That had the 1 or 2 shot kill, but you had
> control of 4 men, so if one man got shot, he was left dead, and you
> had to carry on with the 3 men that was left alive.
>
> Extremely affective on huge levels when 3 men had died and you had to
> carry on alone rambo style.
That sounds brilliant. AI would need to be top notch but that sounds brill. i think a new PS2 game, SOCOM Navy Seals will be like that :)
> A game that sorted this problem well was Hidden & Hangerous, on
> pc, (not ps1 version). That had the 1 or 2 shot kill, but you had
> control of 4 men, so if one man got shot, he was left dead, and you
> had to carry on with the 3 men that was left alive.
>
> Extremely affective on huge levels when 3 men had died and you had to
> carry on alone rambo style.
That sounds brilliant. AI would need to be top notch but that sounds brill. i think a new PS2 game, SOCOM Navy Seals will be like that :)
You (and everyone else including me) want the best of both worlds, the realism of 1-2 shots killing you, but instant re-incarnation at the point (or a couple of minutes before ) your death.
If it was real life, you'd have to do the entire game with just one life. Games don't have the 'fear of death' that a real person would have in these situations (I imagine a 'peeing yourself due to fear' addon for ps2 for use while playing the Omaha beach mission of MOH wouldn't sell), I guess its replaced by the 'fear of having to re-play the whole of a mission' to progress in the game.
MOH on pc was great, at moments of relative calm, you'd hit the quicksave key, and breath a sigh of relief, PS2 games need this kind of option maybe.
If it was real life, you'd have to do the entire game with just one life. Games don't have the 'fear of death' that a real person would have in these situations (I imagine a 'peeing yourself due to fear' addon for ps2 for use while playing the Omaha beach mission of MOH wouldn't sell), I guess its replaced by the 'fear of having to re-play the whole of a mission' to progress in the game.
MOH on pc was great, at moments of relative calm, you'd hit the quicksave key, and breath a sigh of relief, PS2 games need this kind of option maybe.
blimeyoreilly wrote:
> MOH on pc was great, at moments of relative calm, you'd hit the
> quicksave key, and breath a sigh of relief, PS2 games need this kind
> of option maybe.
Yer, quicksaves worked excellently in MGS2 and MOH would have been a better game if it had included them aswell.
> MOH on pc was great, at moments of relative calm, you'd hit the
> quicksave key, and breath a sigh of relief, PS2 games need this kind
> of option maybe.
Yer, quicksaves worked excellently in MGS2 and MOH would have been a better game if it had included them aswell.
I haven't read anything past the opening 2 paragraphs of the main topic here, and this has probably already been said but I'll give my quick input anyway.
Rainbow Six is pretty realistic in the way that you can take pretty much just the one shot and that's probably my favourite PC game/series of all time.
It certainly doesn't take away from the gameplay. It just makes it better, because you know one man can kill you. It makes it so much more tense.
However, I'd definitely prefer to have that as the minority than have most shooters be that realistic and the odd one be completely ridiculous (Perfecr Dark, Quake, Doom, etc).
Rainbow Six is pretty realistic in the way that you can take pretty much just the one shot and that's probably my favourite PC game/series of all time.
It certainly doesn't take away from the gameplay. It just makes it better, because you know one man can kill you. It makes it so much more tense.
However, I'd definitely prefer to have that as the minority than have most shooters be that realistic and the odd one be completely ridiculous (Perfecr Dark, Quake, Doom, etc).
Yes I liked Rainbow 6. I think the main reason I dont like huge life games is because to counteract it so it isn't too easy you get loads of enemies, unlike Rainbow 6, where there was only a few dotted around. A shooting game in my mind isn't fun if your always having to shoot at people and not be on the look out. Like you say it can be tense when you dont know whats around the corner but if you get this constant barrarge of enemies its obviouse whats around the corner. Thats why I liked Quake 3. Because enemies had free movement and dont stick to a certain spot it adds tension as you dont know where exactly in the level they are. I know this is a different point but they do kinda link together.