游戏邦在:
杂志专栏:
gamerboom.com订阅到鲜果订阅到抓虾google reader订阅到有道订阅到QQ邮箱订阅到帮看

阐述再生系统的优劣及其适用范围

发布时间:2012-10-03 08:11:58 Tags:,,,,

作者:Eric Schwarz

《光晕》在原Xbox平台亮相时为游戏行业带来了许多变化。它是除了任天堂64上的《黄金眼007》和《Perfect Dark》软件之外,主机游戏领域最为成功的第一人称射击游戏之一。它充分利用了微软硬件(包括控制器以及处理性能)的优势,为玩家呈现了无以伦比的游戏体验。虽然它除了控制方式之外鲜有创新,但它普及了开放式单人关卡、双枪转换机制、“扔手榴弹”按钮等功能。Bungie充分了解当时主机硬件及控制器的局限性,创造了一款其机制与控制方式能与设备手柄输入方式互补的出色游戏。

《光晕》最受争议的一个设计决策就是植入了再生盾牌。当时第一人称射击游戏中的命值或护甲再生系统是人们闻所未闻的概念。Bungie当然是为了扩大用户群体,为弥补模拟摇杆控制方式在移动、瞄准和转变速度上的不足而制定了这个设计决策。许多玩家当时表示,这种再生系统让游戏显得过于容易,这些玩家多半是《雷神之锤3》、《虚幻竞技场》、原版《使命召唤》和《半条命》等PC游戏的铁杆粉丝。

Halo-multiplayer(from gamasutra)

Halo-multiplayer(from gamasutra)

(虽然《光晕》并非首款呈现再生系统的游戏,但却是过去十多年动作游戏的一大设计趋势的起源)。

Bungie在《光晕2》中不但植入了再生盾牌,还添加了再生命值。这从根本上改变了游戏的动态。《光晕2》不再是一款主要强调长期消耗和耐力的游戏,而变成了要求玩家掌握特定战役和挑战要领的游戏。游戏的节奏也随之变化,而为了突出游戏更为线性化的体验,它还移除了原作中的许多探索元素。开发者无需再考虑玩家从一个房间转入另一房间的命值,玩家也不再需要四处寻找提高命值的东西以及掩护之处。

到动视《使命召唤2》问世时,命值再生系统已经成为第一人称射击游戏中的普遍现象,它至今仍是该类游戏的一个标准元素。《使命召唤2》比其原作更为线性化,虽然它是一款不错的射击游戏,但同《光晕》一样当时也有一些硬核玩家不满其中植入的命值再生系统(这一系统对休闲玩家更有吸引力)。无论如何,再生系统已经在游戏领域站稳脚跟,从平台游戏,动作冒险游戏,再到老式RPG游戏,我们都可以见到再生系统的身影。

数年前我也曾是那些因命值再生系统而不满的玩家之一。虽然我玩过并且也喜欢一些采用该机制的游戏,但我还是不待见这个机制。我玩过《使命召唤4》、《战争机器》等许多完全基于命值再生系统的游戏,多数时候我觉得这些游戏都很不错。但只有重温旧游戏时,我才会发现当代游戏的缺失。我将在本文讨论为何添加便利的命值再生系统并不一定能制作出更出色的游戏。

为何添加命值再生系统?

我在开篇时已经谈到这个话题,但觉得还是有必要详细展开:为何开发者要在游戏中植入再生系统?它有何优势?既然它这么受欢迎,那么它一定存在一些优于传统命值系统的公认优势。

开发者采用命值再生系统有多方面的原因,在此我们只谈其中最明显的几点。这些原因不只是对战斗机制影响深远,对任何一个层面的游戏体验都存在影响。

1.命值再生系统简化了资源管理方式。在此之前,射击游戏中的最大“问题”之一就是玩家得密切关注自己的健康条,不但要时时考虑如何攻打敌人,还得想法最小化自己的损伤。而命值再生系统出现后,玩家就不会再有这种顾虑了。

2.简化了遭遇战设计。如果玩家的命值是可再生的,那么他们无论处于哪场战斗都会有一定的命值。遇到一个颇具挑战性的boss敌人?完整的命值。一群普通敌人?一些奇特,从未见过的怪物?别担心,你总会有活路的。无论是遇上哪种敌人,玩家都不会濒临那种虚弱得不堪一击的险境。

3.简化了关卡设计。《毁灭战士》等旧式游戏的标志之一就是让玩家寻找武器、弹药、命值装备、秘密等。有些游戏中的超级能量道具能够让玩家获得极大提升的盔甲和命值。但超过了100这个“最大值”,其数值就会逐渐下滑,这会刺激玩家尽快完成关卡。而有了命值再生系统,玩家就无需急着寻找秘密,也不需要开放式关卡,不需要探索,因为他们可以用一种更有指向性,可预见性的方式完成关卡。

4.加快了游戏节奏。众所皆知,今天到了一定年龄的玩家已经没有充裕的时间玩游戏,他们要养家,工作并处理其他事务。如果没有命值再生系统,他们就得花更多时间训练射击敌人的技巧,那就不会有太多时间可以探索游戏世界。

5.改变了武器的平衡性。在今天的游戏行业中,现代射击游戏仍在孜孜不倦地追求“现实主义”风格。这类游戏的最大吸引力之一就在于其所提供的枪支,并且它允许玩家使用超级武器。问题就在于,玩家对这些带有现实主义色彩的武器杀伤力也有一定的期望。他们会抱怨为何游戏中的水兵中了100弹还不死。因此命值再生系统虽然短期内会让玩家对杀伤力有所不满,但却可以长期解决“我被五个导弹轰炸后还怎么活命”这种问题。

6.让掩护机制派上了用场。当你命值很低,你的角色很可能随时毙命时,就很需要使用掩体来防止自己中枪。换句话说,命值再生系统实际上是最近几年不时涌现的掩体射击游戏中的一个机制促进剂。不过它也降低了个体遭遇战中的作战节奏,尽管关卡本身的整个流程进展很快。

7.给予玩家更多机会。这一点对单人模式的游戏来讲可能没有那么重要,但今天的多人模式游戏却从这一系统中受益无穷。有一种情况在多人游戏中很常见,即将玩家在交战时,其中一方若已经身负重伤,并且弹药等道具即将耗尽时,而敌人重新刷出,那么重伤的一方势必落于下风。但有了命值再生系统,这就不再是个问题了。

8.命值再生系统比较简单。现在玩家无需再操心资源损耗的问题,他们只需要考虑即将在数秒内发生的遭遇战。省去了管理命值一事,玩家就不会再遇到放下控制器之后再重返游戏,却忘了命值包储存在哪里的情况。命值再生系统(以及重生点)意味着玩家死亡的概率极小,除非他们真的做了一些极蠢的事情,而即便如此,他们也不会在游戏中受阻。总之,这个系统为玩家节省了不少精力。

值得注意的是,尽管这一系统有诸多存在理由,但从提供更有趣、复杂或吸引力的游戏体验这一点上看,没有一个对玩家具有真正的好处。上述列表中几乎每一点都只能说明,“再生系统让游戏更简短、容易和简单”——但这一点似乎主要是便利了开发者。虽然我无意攻击这一系统,但我还是认为这一看似简单的资源管理层面只是极大减轻了开发者身上的担子。

game scenario(from gamasutra)

game scenario(from gamasutra)

但它对玩家而言是正确的选择吗?

我承认本文的这部分内容主要基于个人经历和角度,只能代表个人的游戏观点。下面我将以相同的格式,列出反驳上述理由的原因:

1.简化资源管理虽然并不是什么坏事,但它总让游戏变得更无趣。我过去几年玩的许多射击游戏含有一些有趣的机制和玩法,但它们通常在一两个小时后就变得乏味,而今天许多射击游戏的平均时长是4-8小时。资源管理系统的缺失(游戏邦注:虽然它在理论上简化了游戏,使之更具易用性),可能也是当前极少玩家通关玩完游戏的一大原因。需注意的是,这些玩家中还包括这类游戏欲吸引的对象,例如多数休闲玩家,他们原本就不太可能玩完任何一款游戏。

2.仅使用残余的数点命值与敌人殊死搏斗,这种紧张和焦虑感正是我在一些射击游戏中获得的最大乐趣。我印象最深的射击游戏基本上与出众的视觉效果和脚本序列无关,而是游戏玩法让我产生的情感共鸣。《使命召唤4:现代战争》中从来没有哪一幕能够像在《半条命》中穿过充斥大量刺客的库房这种九死一生的经历一样令我难以忘怀,也不像在《Unreal》中巧妙地躲过Skaarj战士这种侥幸脱险的情景一样让我铭记在心。正是这种紧张感使我沉浸在游戏世界中,并从中获得无穷乐趣。

3.得承认,命值再生系统并非无法与开放式关卡设计相兼容——但我认为新型射击游戏中简化的游戏机制导致了简化的关卡设计趋势。原版《毁灭战士》和《雷神之锤》支持玩家以自己的节奏探索关卡,玩家可以从中寻找和囤积升级道具以加速游戏进程,或者寻找通向生路的捷径。这种可以自己探索和找东西(而非由NPC或提示按钮为玩家指路)的这种感觉,更易让人获得满足感。

4.一方面,我现在已经没有那么多时间玩游戏,所以我确实明白让游戏更易上手的好处。但同时,对于那些真正爱玩游戏的人来说,拥有一定长度,丰富的机制以及合理节奏的游戏体验才是他们的追求,尽管这些玩家也并不一定都会通关玩完游戏。更多时候,是否推出更具长度,更引人入胜的游戏主要由发行商的利益而决定——玩家在游戏世界、角色和玩法中投入的时间越长,他们就越有可能掏钱购买续作和扩展内容,也就越不可能在5个小时的游戏结束之后接触竞争对手的游戏。

5.设计师不应该将现实感视为终极目标。现实感与其他元素一样,只能是设计师创造有趣玩法的一个工具。虽然我不能在许多现代射击游戏中出现的“中两弹你就会死”这种玩法中挑刺,但我认为其中的武器类型和杀伤力所追求的现实感削弱了游戏的创造性和多样性。《使命召唤》中成堆的枪支看起来似乎都大同小异。此外,微小的命值条似乎让玩家技能变得无足轻重,而反应时间,在地图上选择正确的地点扎营倒成了关键要素。

6.我一直不喜欢掩体系统。这只是个人喜好的问题,但原先的倾斜、蜷蹲、跳跌等一系列流线动作现在却简化成了一些预设好的命令按钮,这让我感觉它减少了玩家在战场上的控制权,并且也降低了战斗速度,让每场遭遇战呈现出雷同的感觉——玩家在游戏中的动作就只能躲到墙后,目标出现时就开火。这种操作很简单,但它也很容易令人生腻。玩家代理就是优秀游戏玩法的级极创造者,而掩体系统却因易用性和美观的理由而削弱了这一点。

7.在多人游戏环境中,平衡性是关键-—–这也是命值再生系统易于让技能更高超玩家掌控整个游戏局面的原因。在我玩过的一些多人模式的游戏中,有些人表现超群并不是因为他技能突出,而仅仅是因为他拣到一些特别强大或不平衡的武器、特权组合。如果没有命值再生系统,根本不可能发生这种情况——只要两个其他玩家就能把这种领头者打垮。而如果这个玩家遭遇任何致命伤都能完好如初,那么他很快就可能遥遥领先于其他人。这种平衡性问题在基于组队合作的模式中表现尤为明显,因为这种模式鼓励的是团队合作而非个人成就。

8.简单的游戏更具易用性,销量也更高。玩家并不想失去太多,他们不想受挫,也不喜欢让人觉得他们很失败。但命值再生系统也是个宽泛,以一招应万策的解决方法。与调整节奏、平衡性、挑战及场景不同,添加命值再生系统可有效将每个玩家都送到同样的战场。但并非人人都想要简单的体验,也并非人人都想被一把手操纵——而这却是命值再生系统的所做所为。更重要的是,游戏中因命值再生系统而添加的额外挑战(即使是更低的攻击点数,更多的敌人)也会缺乏说服力,并增加了单调的挑战,以及更高的反应时间要求,而不是更复杂的游戏玩法。

ArmA(from gamasutra)

ArmA(from gamasutra)

(最具现实感的游戏是不会有命值再生系统的,管理有限的资源正是ArmA这种模拟游戏的魅力所在。)

需要说明的是,我知道许多游戏做此设计的原因。我知道今天的玩家期待特定的玩法,而开发者追求更大且更具盈利性的市场这也是无可厚非的做法。

但同时,我很担心游戏玩法会因此而降低水准,也不知道从长远来看,这种迎合大众喜好的做法是否会损害整个行业,因为它会培养出一批不再渴求创新性和挑战性的用户。我知道许多年轻玩家如果没有命值再生系统、任务罗盘、完全线性的关卡,他们就会在游戏中乱了手脚。这种简化的设计现在仍然管用,但这些被自己和开发者所限的玩家,反复看到同样的内容并对游戏彻底失去兴趣时,这种策略还行得通吗?

命值再生系统的保卫战

综上所述,我现在要变谈如何让命值再生系统在特定情境下有效运行。这个系统的问题并非其本身的存在,而是它在多数游戏中的呈现方式。

首先,我认为《光晕》中的再生盾牌是Bungie的一个高明设计。在游戏半开放式的关卡中,许多玩家都会产生强烈的探知欲。提供再生盾牌而非命值,玩家仍有寻找能量道具的动力,并且仍会保持一定的警惕性。它也弥补了游戏手柄在输入速度和准确性上的不足,确保玩家不会被暗算。

鉴于这一情况,我认为对大多数游戏来说,采用受限的命值再生系统可能比不采用这一系统要好得多。游戏的宗旨就是让玩家完成并享受乐趣,如果玩家在进入一个充满怪兽的房间前已经奄奄一息了,这种感觉会让他们非常沮丧——这也是某些经典射击游戏衰败的原因之一。

那么,为玩家当前的命值提供15%或20%的加成,可能是一个更合适的做法。这样玩家就不会觉得自己会因偶然的流弹而削弱命值,而那些侥幸逃命的玩家也会觉得自己至少还能够坚持到下一个健康包出现的时候。有些游戏已经采用了这个做法,例如《Just Cause 2》,其开放世界鼓励玩家进行探索和冒险,但也让玩家更难以找到健康包的供应点——比起简单让玩家死亡,让他们从战斗中脱身去找供应点算是一个较“温和”的惩罚,但仍可发挥同样的效果。

Just Cause 2(from gamasutra)

Just Cause 2(from gamasutra)

(如果没有一点命值再生系统,玩家不可能完成《Just Cause 2》中疯狂的绝技和动作——但它在这一点上的限制足以确保玩家仍可获得乐趣。)

还有一个同样值得借鉴的有趣做法就是“过度补充”命值的理念。这是去年的《杀出重围:人类革命》中的做法,玩家在其中的命值总是可以重新补充到100%,但如果使用易消耗道具,还可以将命值提升至200%。虽然我不认为这个机制充分发挥了作用,因为该游戏主要围绕玩家拥有100%命值而设计,但它的功效与《Just Cause 2》中的机制相似——只是它的默认命值水平为玩家提供了更多自由。

我完全反对特定类型的游戏使用命值再生系统。资源管理是许多角色扮演游戏中的一个重要组成元素,在我看来,许多这类游戏(尤其是那些深受MMO启发的游戏)将资源管理转变为间歇期的设计,导致其机制被简单化,并且缺乏长期的风险和奖励回报,而这一点通常却是RPG游戏(游戏邦注:尤其是那些深受《龙与地下城》模式启发的游戏)的主要特征之一。

命值再生系统对恐怖游戏也不会太管用,因为这类游戏中的紧张和刺激感就是来自那种命悬一线,终于在紧要关头找到健康包的体验。曾有人说过焦虑和恐惧感是恐怖游戏的最大魅力,我也深有同感。

总结

我并不认为命值再生系统足以“摧毁”任何游戏,我也不认为当前所盛行的使用方法都是错的(尤其是针对那些为吸引广大用户的游戏而言)。命值管理系统是电子游戏设计最基本的元素之一,抛弃其长期元素也会损害有趣的潜在游戏玩法,更别说是游戏玩法背后的品牌认知度了。

在过去几年中,越来越多开发者开始摒弃常用的命值再生系统,因而我们有望看到这种这一趋势在下一代游戏中的终结。我只是希望开发者及发行商牢记复杂机制的益处,不要因为为追求最简单最快速的方法而将其彻底抛弃。(本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译,拒绝任何不保留版权的转载,如需转载请联系:游戏邦

Seeing Red: The Pitfalls of Regenerating Health

by Eric Schwarz

The release of Halo on the original Xbox brought many, many things to the games industry.  It was, apart from Goldeneye 007 and Perfect Dark on the Nintendo 64, one of the first truly successful console-developed first-person shooters, and took full advantage of Microsoft’s hardware, both the controller and the processing power itself, to deliver an experience unlike any other.  While its own innovations outside of controls were few, Halo popularized open-ended single-player levels, vehicle sequences, the two-weapon switching mechanic, the “throw grenade” button, and more.  By understanding the limitations of the console hardware and controller, Bungie were able to build a game whose mechanics and controls compensated for many of the flaws inherent in less precise gamepad input and turned them into strengths.

One of Halo’s most-debated design choices was to include regenerating shields.  Up until then, the idea of any health or armor regeneration in a first-person game was nearly unheard of.  Bungie’s decision, no doubt, was made in order both to appeal to wider audiences, and to make up for the slower movement, aiming and turning speed inherent in analogue stick control.  Many gamers at the time, however, claimed that the game was made too easy for its regeneration – usually the old guard of PC gamers who were still riding high on games like Quake 3, Unreal Tournament, the original Call of Duty, Half-Life, and others.

Though not the first game to feature health regeneration, Halo birthed a trend that would define action games for over a decade longer.

With Halo 2, Bungie chose to take things one step farther, and implemented not just regenerating shields, but regenerating health as well.  With this decision, the dynamic of the game changed in a fundamental way.  Halo 2 was no longer based so much on long-term attrition and perseverance, but on mastery of the combat mechanics within specific encounters and challenges.  The pace of the game changed, and much of the exploration inherent in the original title was stripped away in favor of a more focused and linear experience; the developers no longer had to think about the player’s health levels one room to the next, thus hunting around for health and shields became less important.

By Activision’s Call of Duty 2, health regeneration became entrenched in first-person shooters, where it has remained as standard to this day.  Call of Duty 2 was even more tightly focused and straightforward than the first game, and while a fine shooter, at the time there was, like with Halo, some outcry amongst hardcore gamers, who felt that the decision to include regenerating health had been made to appeal to more casual console audiences.  Whatever the reasons, though, health regeneration was here to stay, and has since appeared in everything from platformers, to action-adventures, to “old-school” RPGs.

I was one of those gamers who was upset at the rise of regenerating health years ago.  While I have certainly played and enjoyed many games featuring the mechanic, it’s never something I’ve been happy with, but the real answer for that has always eluded me.  After all, I’ve played Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, and more, all titles which are based entirely around their regenerating health mechanics, and I enjoyed them plenty at the time.  It was only after going back to earlier games again, that I found myself realizing what modern games were missing.  In this piece, I’d like to get to the heart of the matter, and discuss why the added convenience of regenerating health doesn’t always make for a better game.

Why Regenerating Health?

I already touched on this in the introduction, but it’s worth discussing in more detail: why do developers include regenerating health in games?  What are its advantages?  Since it has become so popular, surely there must be some kind of consensus as to what makes it superior to traditional health systems.

The reasons for including regenerating health in a game are actually manifold, and extend beyond just the obvious ones.  The implications are far-reaching and have a profound effect not just on the dynamic of combat, but on nearly every facet of the gameplay experience.

1.Regenerating health simplifies resource management.  One of the biggest “problems” in shooters before regenerating health was that the player had to keep a close eye on the health bar, and had to constantly consider how to play not just in a way that would defeat the enemies, but would also minimize damage taken.  This issue is completely absent when regenerating health is present.

2.Regenerating health simplifies encounter design.  If the player’s health regenerates, then the player will always be at a set level of health when he/she gets to any given battle.  A challenging boss enemy?  Full health.  A group of standard mooks?  Square one.  Some strange, never-before-seen creature?  Don’t worry, you’re good to go.  No matter what, there’s no danger of the player being too injured to fight (and defeat) the cool X or Y you have designed.

3.Regenerating health simplifies level design.  One of the trademarks of older games like Doom was in hunting down weapons, ammo, health kits, secrets, and so on.  Some of the game’s most-desired power-ups gave the player a huge boost of armor and health, well past the “maximum” of 100, that would gradually decrease, giving incentive to then complete the level quickly.  Without regenerating health, there is no real gameplay need for secrets, for open-ended levels, for exploration, etc., and as such levels can be made in a much smaller and more directed, predictable way.

4.Regenerating health increases the pace of the game.  It’s well-known that today’s aging gamers have less time for videogames as they grow up, raise families, and have jobs and other responsibilities to attend to.  Without health management, there’s more time spent in the action shooting enemies up, and less time spent exploring the nooks and crannies of the game world.

“Downtime” is considered a four-letter word by some developers, and is more time where the player could be fighting enemies or witnessing some cool scripted sequence.

5.Regenerating health changes weapon balance.  In today’s industry, the quest for “realism” in modern shooters is still ongoing.  One of the biggest draws of today’s shooters is in the gun porn they provide, and in allowing players to use extremely high-powered weaponry.  The problem is that these realistic weapons also carry expectations of lethality, and players complain when their grizzled marine can take 1,000 bullets to the face and still live.  Thus, regenerating health allows for a lower tolerance for damage in the short term, but a higher tolerance in the long term – getting rid of the “how did I survive five rockets?” question.

6.Regenerating health allows for cover-based mechanics.  When your health bar is smaller, and your character can be killed with only a few shots, the need to use cover to avoid being attacked entirely becomes even more critical.  In other words, regenerating health is effectively the mechanical enabler behind the mole-popping cover-based shooters that have become popular in recent years.  Generally speaking, though, it also slows the pace of individual combat encounters, even if the overall flow of the level itself is quicker.

7.Regenerating health gives players a second chance.  While not quite as important in a single-player context, today’s focus on multiplayer gameplay benefits quite a bit from regenerating health.

It’s common in multiplayer games, especially now that the power-up is dying out on account of “realism”, that when players fight each other, one is left severely wounded, effectively meaning that once the other respawns, he/she will be easy prey.  With regenerating health, this is no longer a concern.

8.Regenerating health is easy.  This might be obvious, but it’s true.  Without attrition to worry about, the concerns of the player only ever have to extend into the immediate few seconds a typical encounter takes place in.  Without health management, there is no chance of putting the game down, coming back later, and getting stuck because the player can’t remember where the health kits are stored.  Regenerating health (combined with checkpointing) means that players will rarely die unless they do something very, very wrong, and usually when they do, they will only be slightly inconvenienced by it.  All told, it’s simpler and requires less effort to understand and deal with on the whole.

Look alive, soldier!  Regenerating health makes it easier for developers to build scenarios and ensure game balance – but at what cost?

It is worth pointing out, that out of all of these justifications, none of them really work to the advantage of the player, in terms of actually providing them with more interesting, complicated, or engaging experiences.  Virtually every single point on this list is a way of saying “regenerating health makes games shorter, easier, and simpler” – both for players and, more importantly, developers.  While the intent isn’t necessarily malicious, and I’d argue the rise of health regeneration can be pinned more on trend-hopping than anything else, the fact is: not having to take this layer of resource management into account beyond the simple 30-second gameplay loop that makes up every single combat encounter in the game takes a substantial load off of a developer’s shoulders.

But is it Right for Gamers?

I admit that this part of the article is going to get into some things which depend a lot more on personal experience and opinion.  I realize that this is just my own perspective on gaming, and the particular reason why I choose to play certain types of games over others.  In the same format, I’d now like to offer refutations of every one of the justifications for regenerating health that I listed above.

1.Simplified resource management isn’t always a bad thing, but it often makes games less interesting to play.  Many, many shooters that I have played over the last few years contain interesting mechanics and gameplay – however, they also usually run out of ideas only an hour or two in, despite the fact that many shooters today are between four and eight hours long on average.  The lack of resource management, which theoretically makes games easier to get into, also ironically may be responsible for so few players finishing them – and those players that it attracts, i.e. the most casual of fans, might not even be the types to typically finish any of their games in the first place.

2.The tension and suspense of fighting an enemy with just a few points of health left has formed the backbone of some of my favorite shooters ever.  My most vivid memories of shooters all come down not to impressive visuals and scripted sequences, but to the emotional resonance the gameplay had in me.  Nothing about Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare has stuck in my mind as strongly as creeping through a warehouse full of assassins in Half-Life, just narrowly avoiding death, or expertly dodging Skaarj warriors in Unreal as I constantly dodged out of danger.  That tension attaches me to the games, and makes them play better.

3.Admittedly, regenerating health does not rule out open-ended level design – but I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the simplification of game mechanics in newer shooters has also led to a simplification of level design.  The original Doom and Quake let you explore levels at your own pace, either exploring and hoarding power-ups to turtle your way through, or searching for the absolute fastest route to get you through alive.  And the ability to explore and find things for yourself, without an NPC and a button prompt screaming at you to LOOK THIS WAY, SOLDIER, is far more satisfying than any scripted sequence put together over a month by a team of 20 designers.

4.On the one hand, I have less time for gaming than I used to, so I can certainly understand the benefit of quicker games that are easier to jump into.  At the same time, for people who actually enjoy games, usually a lengthy, mechanically rich and well-paced experience is far easier to appreciate, even if not all of those gamers do finish it.  Moreover, it’s in the interests of publishers to put out longer, more engrossing games – the more time your players spend attached to the world, characters and gameplay of your own game, the more likely they are to buy sequels and expansions, and the less likely they are to run to the competition’s games as soon as that five-hour ex
perience is over.

5.Realism should not be treated as an end goal by designers.  Realism, like anything else, is only a tool in a designer’s kit to create interesting gameplay.  While I cannot fault the lethal, “two shots and you’re dead” gameplay found in many modern shooters, the quest for realism in weapon types and damage also saps creativity and variety.  For its dozens upon dozens of guns, Call of Duty’s all tend to look, feel and sound the same outside of very small differences.  What’s more, tiny health meters also tend to reduce combat not to a matter of skill, but reaction times, or camping the right spots in a map – as such, competitive potential of these sorts of shooters is not as high (as much as some people do enjoy playing them that way).

6.I don’t like cover systems – never have.  That’s personal preference, but the streamlining of leaning, crouching, jumping etc. into a set of pre-defined commands mapped to a single button feels like it reduces the control players have over the battlefield, and typically also slows the pace of combat and makes every encounter feel the same – duck behind a wall and shoot the targets as they appear.  This is easy, and it is simple, and it also tends to get boring fast.  Player agency is the ultimate creator of good gameplay, and cover systems reduce that in the name of accessibility and aesthetics.

7.In a multiplayer context, balance is key – which is why regenerating health tends to enable more skilled (or exploitative) players to control the entire game.  I know I’ve played my share of multiplayer matches where one person was head and shoulders above everyone else, and it was rarely a result of pure skill alone, but rather the fact that they had picked some especially deadly or imbalanced combination of weapons and perks.  Without regenerating health, no problem – a couple of players can take that player out and knock him/her down a peg.  When that player can recover from any wound, however, in just a few seconds, it tends to upset the balance of the game and leads to that player running away with a massive lead.  This can be especially an issue in team-based modes, where collective, not individual achievements, should be rewarded.

8.Easy games are more accessible and sell more copies.  Players don’t like losing too much, they don’t like getting frustrated, and they don’t like being made to feel like they suck.  But regenerating health is also a broad, one-size-fits all solution to the problem – rather than working on pacing, balance and fine-tuning challenges and scenarios, regenerating health effectively reduces every player to the exact same playing field.  Not everyone wants an easy experience, and not everyone wants to be held by the hand – yet this is what regenerating health tends to do.

What’s more, the additional challenge imposed in games with regenerating health – even lower hit points, more enemies, etc. – tends to be unconvincing, and adds challenge through tedium and a requirement for ever-higher reaction times, rather than complexity of gameplay.

The most realistic games of all tend to stay far, far away from regenerating health.  Managing finite resources is, in fact, what make a simulation game like ArmA as compelling as it is.

It’s worth qualifying all of this by saying that I understand why many games are built the way they are.  I realize players want and expect a certain kind of gameplay these days, and it is more than legitimate for developers to chase that very large and profitable market.

At the same time, I fear for the ever-lowering standards of gameplay, and have to wonder if in the long run, giving the crowd exactly what it wants will eventually harm the industry by raising an audience that no longer craves novelty or challenge.  I know many younger players, and it can be alarming how many of them are lost when they play games without health regeneration, without quest compasses, without completely linear levels.  The gravy train may still be running along, but how long is it until those gamers, who have limited themselves and been limited by developers, lose interest in gaming entirely when the same old stuff no longer appeals to them?

In Defense of Regenerating Health

All that said, I’d like to take some time to argue that regenerating health can work well, in certain contexts.  As is often the case, the problem with regenerating health is not that it exists, but rather the way in which it is used in the majority of games it appears in.

First off, I think that Halo’s regenerating shield was a master stroke by Bungie.  With the game’s semi-open-ended levels, the desire to explore is strong for many players.  Providing regenerating shields, but not health, still gives the incentive for players to look for power-ups, but also invites a degree of caution that simple regenerating health does not.  It also compensates for the slower and more limited input that gamepads tend to allow versus a keyboard and mouse, and ensures players won’t feel they aren’t whittled down by cheap shots.

With this in mind, I think that limited regenerating health is preferable to a standard non-regenerating health, perhaps not in every single game, but the majority.  Games are made to be finished, and enjoyed, and being stuck with 1 health point left right before fighting a room full of powerful monsters can be incredibly frustrating – this always was and still is the downfall of some of those classic shooters.

As such, providing a 15 or 20 percent regeneration effect on the current amount of health is preferable.  Players no longer feel whittled down by the occasional stray bullet or feel the need to save scum their way through combat situations, while players who just barely scrape by will always have enough health to see them to the next health pack.  Several games already do this, including Just Cause 2, whose open world nature encourages exploration and experimentation, but also makes finding health supplies more difficult – leaving a combat encounter to find a supply point is a “softer” penalty than simple death, but still serves the same effect.

The insane stunts and madcap action of Just Cause 2 arguably wouldn’t be possible without at least a little health regeneration – but its limited nature ensures that players still have reason to play well.

One alternative that poses some interesting implications is the idea of “overcharging” health.  This was seen last year in Deus Ex: Human Revolution, where the player’s health always recharged to 100%, but could be boosted up to 200% using consumable items.  While I don’t think this mechanic was used to full effect, as the game was balanced around the player having 100% health, it functions similarly to Just Cause 2′s mechanic – except that the default health level gives the player a bit more leeway.

That said, I am absolutely opposed to health regeneration in certain games.  Resource management is a critical component of many role-playing games, and in my opinion, the shifting of that resource management over to cooldowns in many of them (especially those inspired by MMOs) leads to mechanical simplicity and a lack of any long-term risk and reward, which traditionally has been a major hallmark of the RPG genre (especially games inspired by the Dungeons & Dragons model).

Similarly, horror games do not benefit much from health regeneration, because the intense feeling of tension that comes from just clinging on by a thread, and the relief in finding health supplies just in the nick of time is one of the key things that keeps the experience engaging.  It’s been said before that the suspense and fear of death is the most compelling aspect of horror, and my experience with horror games certainly agrees with that statement.

Closing Thoughts

As I’ve tried to stress, I don’t think regenerating health is enough to “ruin” any game, and I don’t think that using it in the manner that is currently popular is a bad thing in every single instance, especially when your goal in designing a game is to create something for as wide an audience as possible.  At the same time, health management is one of the most fundamental components of videogame design, and casting away the long-term component of it also saps a lot of interesting gameplay potential, not to mention also tends to sap the brand identity behind gameplay.

More and more developers have begun to deviate from the usual health regeneration over the last few years, so there’s hope that by next generation the trend will have ended, but more than anything I’d simply like developers (and publishers) to keep in mind the benefits of more complex mechanics, and not to simply brush something off because it isn’t the easiest, quickest way.(source:gamasutra


上一篇:

下一篇: