Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

No PC Halo 4 Because It's "Designed Specifically for Xbox 360"

The PA Report has confirmation from Microsoft Game Studios that Halo 4 is not coming to the PC, which isn't too surprising considering Halo 3 was never ported to the PC either. What's a little odd is the explanation, as a spokesperson tells them: "Halo 4 was designed specifically for Xbox 360, and while we’re always exploring new ways to expand the franchise and share the Halo experience with as many fans as possible, we do not currently have any plans to port Halo 4 to PC."

View
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >

101. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 9, 2012, 16:14 Beamer
 
descender wrote on Nov 9, 2012, 14:58:
I have to agree, regenerating health and/or ammo is just lazy game design. There is no tension, no fear... just lazily blasting your way through a shooting gallery.

One of my favorite "video game memories" was from HalfLife 1... where I was careless during one point of the game (i believe it was blast pit) and wasted a ton of ammo... then had to go through almost 3 levels with barely a clip in any particular gun and considerably low health. I will never forget the sheer terror crawling around those corridors.

Ok, but how many times did you die, or use too many bullets in a firefight, so you decided to quick-load? How many fights did you do 4-10 times?

The worst instance of this, for me, was that sequence in Far Cry where you had a big firefight then had to run out into a field full of 15-20 fat mutants with rocket launchers. We're talking 20-30 reloads, at least.

Regenerating health (never seen regenerating ammo, outside of Borderlands, which has requires you to make a sacrifice to get) doesn't diminish challenge. It doesn't diminish threat or urgency. When your screen is flashing, everything is blinking, you still get that need to perform. People act like any time your health is low you can just hide - it often doesn't work like that because, if you're near a place to hide, you aren't near a firefight. If you're in a firefight there's nowhere to hide.

I really don't trust the "it's so much more intense to not have it" opinion if the people spouting it use quicksaves and quickreloads. Those, to me, can be worse. I remember parts of some games where I'd quicksave every 30 seconds during a boss fight. Get a nice volley in without taking damage? Quicksave!
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
100. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 9, 2012, 14:58 descender
 
I have to agree, regenerating health and/or ammo is just lazy game design. There is no tension, no fear... just lazily blasting your way through a shooting gallery.

One of my favorite "video game memories" was from HalfLife 1... where I was careless during one point of the game (i believe it was blast pit) and wasted a ton of ammo... then had to go through almost 3 levels with barely a clip in any particular gun and considerably low health. I will never forget the sheer terror crawling around those corridors.

Compare that to say... hiding behind a box and waiting for everything to regenerate.

I don't think it's exactly what Verno says, "rushing through to the end" but more of a "getting through it" to the end... everyone has to be able to beat any game now, no matter how inept and stupid they are... and all game design suffers because of it.

Someone below (prez?) noted the "convenience" and time-saving aspects of these features... not having to reload from messing up and what-not... to which I say you are playing the game for the wrong reasons. YOu are more worried about being at the end of the game quickly than the experience of getting there (ie. playing the game or playing through the game). You can quicksave a game to death, that alone won't ruin it. What actually ruins the game is quickLOADING when you have perceived some flaw in the way you handled something in the game.

Regenerating health and Ammo just eliminates all past mistakes between rooms. There is no consequence, no challenge, no immersion.

Yahtzee (zero punctuation) had some great articles about this.
Why Regenerating Health Sucks
Save Scummer

What I, and presumably Verno would prefer... is to choose how I wish to ruin my own game and make it easier. Don't ruin it by design. Then there is no choice.
 
Avatar 56185
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
99. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 9, 2012, 10:21 Verno
 
Prez wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 23:57:
Be that as it may I get little enjoyment out of watching someone else play a game, yet I've sunk ~200 hours into Borderlands 2 now. Clearly it's a little more compelling than you describe even with it's health/shields system

Fair enough. I guess I don't see the correlation, I played thousands of hours of WoW but the game had many flaws and not all of those hours were pure entertainment. I don't think BL2 was a bad game or something but I feel that it lacked in several areas and I can't say I cared for their health system which was literally a bit of everything. To retain some modicum of challenge with that they were forced to either inundate you with enemies or have absurd attack damage. I didn't really get much in between personally. Ammo had a greater impact on challenge than paying attention to shields/health did for me since I could just use second wind or get revived. A bit ironic because it wasn't the case until they got rid of most sources of ammo regen in the second game.

BL2 aside, I don't think either health system works universally but I generally do prefer fixed health drops to regenerating health. Thankfully many games let you turn it off but unfortunately it affects design and balance significantly.

 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Infamous Second Son
Watching: Midsomer Murders, Dominion, The Knick
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
98. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 8, 2012, 23:57 Prez
 
I'm not sure gaming could be any easier or more time efficient than it is without people just watching others do it.

Be that as it may I get little enjoyment out of watching someone else play a game, yet I've sunk ~200 hours into Borderlands 2 now. Clearly it's a little more compelling than you describe even with it's health/shields system. That would also indicate, I think, that I am not one of your aforementioned "hurry up and finish the game in the most efficient way possible to move onto the next one" crowd.

The Second Wind system is perfect to me because it clearly illustrates that your tactics need to change to complete the challenge while giving you a chance to avoid being taken out of the game to reload and slog through the same crap you just did. Maybe it's because I tend to die a lot in games - I get really tired of the "reload last save and do it all over again" dance.

But you do recognize why other people would find a more challenging, finite health system more rewarding, right?

Sure, but being a fan of the way things are now I certainly am not going to join in with pining for the old days of medpacks and reloads. Screw that noise.

This comment was edited on Nov 9, 2012, 00:12.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
97. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 8, 2012, 08:55 Verno
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 23:44:
Like I said, it's a personal preference thing; I as a long time gamer have still come to prefer the health systems in newer games. I particularly like how Borderlands 2. With the right relic your shields AND health regenerate (SACRILEGE!) and you never have to die because of the brilliant second wind system. Easier, harder... I don't care. It makes the game far more enjoyable to me. Enough said.

I thought Borderlands (both games) had a terrible health/shield system, the only way they can really make you feel endangered is to knock both off so quickly that you end up frustrated and hang out behind cover to snipe or relying on special abilities. The second wind system is another thing I didn't like, it wasn't terribly well implemented and removes a lot of consequence from play when it did work. Sure I guess it's no different than having lives in a Mario game but you didn't have the benefits of constant check pointing, game saves and so on. There are already a ton of convenience features for modern gamers, I'm not sure gaming could be any easier or more time efficient than it is without people just watching others do it.

I guess I just don't get the "time" thing. I don't like my time wasted either but I don't view learning the game or being forced to deal with the consequences of my choices as a waste of time. Regenerating health, overused cover and similar systems seem to reinforce the rush rush rush gameplay mentality that seems to permeate gaming culture today, as if the world will end if we don't hurry up and finish the game in the most efficient way possible to move onto the next one. Games are way more fun when you're challenged IMHO.

Anyways getting back to health systems, I've rarely seen regenerating health well implemented. I'd much prefer out of combat healing if people want to go the regenerating health route. It removes some strategic planning in terms of using your resources over an entire level but at least if health items are dropped sparingly then it retains some combat tension. I have no sense of urgency in games with regenerating health, it's more like a theme park ride because I know I can just find the abundantly placed waist high cover for a few seconds.

Halo was probably the first to bring a truly cinematic experience intertwined with tactical gameplay in a way that was leaps and bounds over anything else that preceded it.

If you only look at consoles maybe but Half-Life was really the big game changer in the FPS space.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2012, 09:09.
 
Avatar 51617
 
Playing: Infamous Second Son
Watching: Midsomer Murders, Dominion, The Knick
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
96. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 8, 2012, 07:55 Beamer
 
Hump wrote on Nov 8, 2012, 00:23:
Maybe some people have forgotten or there are alot a kids posting here.

I don't believe there really are.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
95. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 8, 2012, 03:57 Jerykk
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 23:44:
As a result, you could only take a finite number of hits before being screwed for the rest of the level.

And then what? Quit and never play again? Of course you would just reload a save and try again. In the end it is the same exact thing with regenerating health except with regenerating health I'm not taken out of the experience to a load screen, which I actually prefer greatly to constantly seeing a load screen.

Like I said, it's a personal preference thing; I as a long time gamer have still come to prefer the health systems in newer games. I particularly like how Borderlands 2. With the right relic your shields AND health regenerate (SACRILEGE!) and you never have to die because of the brilliant second wind system. Easier, harder... I don't care. It makes the game far more enjoyable to me. Enough said.

Fair enough. If you're more concerned with saving time than being challenged, then I can understand why you find regenerating health appealing. But you do recognize why other people would find a more challenging, finite health system more rewarding, right? Ultimately, the only real consequence for failure in a videogame is loss of time. The challenge then is to avoid losing time by improving your skills and playing better, reducing the likelihood of failure. Personally, this is what I find most compelling about games. Challenging games force you to develop a better understanding of the game's core mechanics, which in turn leads to a greater appreciation of the game's depth.

Halo was probably the first to bring a truly cinematic experience intertwined with tactical gameplay in a way that was leaps and bounds over anything else that preceded it.

What? Half-Life was the first to bring an immersive and cinematic experience to shooters. As for "tactical gameplay," I'm not really sure how Halo had any of that? You took cover and shot at enemies. Enemies took cover and shot at you. That's pretty much the extent of the game's tactical depth. For what it's worth, No One Lives Forever came out in 2000 and had far more tactical depth than Halo. It also had better writing. Actually, it was just a much better game all around.

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2012, 04:04.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
94. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 8, 2012, 02:32 Flo
 
I bought it yesterday because I was bored. The reviews said they did a better Job of telling a Story in-game, up until now (2 hours into it) I don't see anything of that. I'm pissed because this time they had the chance to finally ditch those little dwarf Clown enemies...
What are the first guys I encounter? Stupid Clown enemies...
It gets better later, but as of now I found Reach to be superior. Of course it's nowhere near as good as the top shooters on the PC. Still waiting on someone actually besting Half Life 2, Deus Ex, System Shock 2, etc.
 
Supporter of the "Chewbacca Defense"
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
93. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 8, 2012, 00:37 ^Drag0n^
 
Sorry, but Halo was kinda sophomoric compared to the PC FPS offerings back then (i.e. Deus Ex and SysShock2).

This comment was edited on Nov 8, 2012, 01:21.
 
Avatar 55075
 
"Never start a fight, but always finish it."
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
92. Re: No PC Halo 4 Because It's Nov 8, 2012, 00:23 Hump
 
Maybe some people have forgotten or there are alot a kids posting here.

Halo was probably the first to bring a truly cinematic experience intertwined with tactical gameplay in a way that was leaps and bounds over anything else that preceded it.

now im NOT calling it the best game ever but Halo was as seminal in advancing video games to the next level as Half-Life had been before it.
 
Avatar 10137
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Both the “left” and the “right” pretend they have the answer, but they are mere flippers on the same thalidomide baby, and the truth is that neither side has a clue."

- Jim Goad
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
91. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 23:44 Prez
 
As a result, you could only take a finite number of hits before being screwed for the rest of the level.

And then what? Quit and never play again? Of course you would just reload a save and try again. In the end it is the same exact thing with regenerating health except with regenerating health I'm not taken out of the experience to a load screen, which I actually prefer greatly to constantly seeing a load screen.

Like I said, it's a personal preference thing; I as a long time gamer have still come to prefer the health systems in newer games. I particularly like how Borderlands 2. With the right relic your shields AND health regenerate (SACRILEGE!) and you never have to die because of the brilliant second wind system. Easier, harder... I don't care. It makes the game far more enjoyable to me. Enough said.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
90. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 23:17 Jerykk
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 17:16:
Simply put, regenerating health undermines the significance of getting hit. You can essentially get hit an infinite number of times.You just have to make sure you have sufficient breaksbetween hits.

I'm still failing to see how that in practice is any different from health packs. You use the same strategy in Doom - take hits, health drains, run and hide. The only difference is that in Doom, you had to tiptoe around until you found a health pack or backtrack to one you found previously but didn't need at the time. The end result was the same, regenning health just gets it done faster. With health packs you can get into a situation where you have too little health to realistically finish the level and have used all of the health packs available meaning you entered what is essentially a fail state and you have to reload a previous save. Again, to my mind regenning health just speeds up the process.

I don't really care which one is used as long as the gameplay is designed well for the health mechanic the developers chose to use. There are different level design considerations with each one.

Doom had a finite number of health packs in any given level so you could only heal a finite amount. As a result, you could only take a finite number of hits before being screwed for the rest of the level. With regenerating health, you can heal an infinite amount so it doesn't matter how many times you get hit. It only matters that you don't get hit when you're about to die. Regenerating health also ensures that you start every fight with full health so you never have to think in the long-term. If you know how much damage an enemy does, you can just run up to his face and shoot him until he dies. How much damage you take in the process is completely irrelevant as long as you don't die.

If anything, regenerating health promotes run and gun gameplay more than health kits because getting hit doesn't have any long-term significance.

It's also important to keep save systems out of the equation. With quicksave and/or frequent checkpoints, death doesn't really mean anything so the health system is largely irrelevant. Health systems need to be considered under the assumption that death actually has a significant consequence.

Quicksaves do far more to destroy tension than a properly implemented checkpoint system and they have been a mainstay of PC gaming for over two decades.

I agree. Thankfully, you don't have to use quicksave. Checkpoints and regenerating health, on the other hand, are automatic.

This comment was edited on Nov 7, 2012, 23:25.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
89. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 18:24 Prez
 
This is a completely off-topic thing, but how did the subject of our posts (the one written in bold at the top) become "RE: More Big Picture Details"? That thread was from over a month ago wasn't it? LOL!  
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
88. Re: Out of the Blue Nov 7, 2012, 18:23 Mordecai Walfish
 
Suppa7 wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 16:23:
Rigs wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 00:36:
I'm not one to usually take issue with people's personal opinions of a game, but statements like this are just bullshit. =-Rigs-=

LOL you must be a console gamer if you thought Halo 2 was amazing, most PC FPS games are greater then every game in the entire halo franchise. Only console gamers who never grew up on FPS games on the PC think Halo is awesome.


Quit trolling with this "console gamer" crap. I played FPS on PC since Wolfenstein & Catacombs3d and can still concede that Halo was a great title.

Even if it's not your preferred platform, Mr. PC Master Race, they still did alot of things right for the time and that is why they were successful.
 
Avatar 56178
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
87. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 18:21 PHJF
 
I didn't realize all these games with regening health had a "turn off health regen" option in them?  
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
86. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 18:11 Smellfinger
 
PHJF wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 17:52:
Regenerating health completely removes risk from the game.

Not if the game is designed around the mechanic like Halo was.

As it is often combined with liberal use of checkpoints, there's absolutely no tension in combat.

Quicksaves do far more to destroy tension than a properly implemented checkpoint system and they have been a mainstay of PC gaming for over two decades.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
85. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 18:07 Prez
 
Smellfinger wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 17:56:
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 17:16:
I'm still failing to see how that in practice is any different from health packs.

It's a frivolous nitpick that has turned into a meme among anal retentive PC diehards.

I am normally one of those myself but I don't get the complaints. I barely notice which system the games I play uses until someone points it out.

Of course their is risk. If you don't retreat to cover you can die. In a game without checkpoints or regenning health, you just retreat and scavenge for health packs or reload and try again. For the life of me it's the same damn thing.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
84. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 17:56 Smellfinger
 
Prez wrote on Nov 7, 2012, 17:16:
I'm still failing to see how that in practice is any different from health packs.

It's a frivolous nitpick that has turned into a meme among anal retentive PC diehards.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
83. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 17:52 PHJF
 

I'm still failing to see how that in practice is any different from health packs.

Regenerating health completely removes risk from the game. As it is often combined with liberal use of checkpoints, there's absolutely no tension in combat. Dying has no penalty whatsoever. This is a fantastic way to utterly wreck a game. A good game will literally make me sweat from a combination of tense gameplay and the kind of superhuman focus it elicits from the user. This experience is exactly what I get from NS2.

It's lazy game design, too.
 
Avatar 17251
 
Steam + PSN: PHJF
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
82. Re: More Big Picture Details Nov 7, 2012, 17:16 Prez
 
Simply put, regenerating health undermines the significance of getting hit. You can essentially get hit an infinite number of times.You just have to make sure you have sufficient breaksbetween hits.

I'm still failing to see how that in practice is any different from health packs. You use the same strategy in Doom - take hits, health drains, run and hide. The only difference is that in Doom, you had to tiptoe around until you found a health pack or backtrack to one you found previously but didn't need at the time. The end result was the same, regenning health just gets it done faster. With health packs you can get into a situation where you have too little health to realistically finish the level and have used all of the health packs available meaning you entered what is essentially a fail state and you have to reload a previous save. Again, to my mind regenning health just speeds up the process.

I don't really care which one is used as long as the gameplay is designed well for the health mechanic the developers chose to use. There are different level design considerations with each one.
 
Avatar 17185
 
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
121 Replies. 7 pages. Viewing page 2.
< Newer [ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo