In almost every video game, there is some sort of "health" or hitpoints, but almost always, each game has a unique and interesting way that they express this, and the way the game interacts with the health. So today I am going to take a few case examples and talk about each of them, and note the similarities and differences, and which one is the best. I'd like to talk about Call of Duty, Team Fortress 2, The Legend of Zelda, and Super Smash Brothers.
First up, Call of Duty. Call of Duty uses a very standard health system for FPS games, with a health bar that depletes when you take damage, and will regenerate after a few seconds if you are not hit with any more damage. While it may not seem this way on the surface, this system is based off of numbers. You have a number of hitpoints, and each attack takes a set amount of damage off of this number until you reach 0. Just because the representation of the health is not a number, doesn't mean that a number isn't associated with that bar.
So moving on to Team Fortress 2, which is similar but at the same time different. In Tf2, health is a number, not a bar, and each attack deals a set amount of damage, much like Call of Duty. However, in Tf2, the way to regenerate health is to pick up a health pack, which heals a set amount of health instantly. This encourages a completely different play style from Call of Duty. In COD, when you are low on health, your best option is to hide and wait until you are at full, where as in Tf2, when you are low on health, sometimes your best option is actually to run towards the enemies and run over some health. Also numbers in Tf2 are a huge deal. If you are under 150 health, you have the danger of getting one shot killed by a sniper, but at 151 health, a headshot will not kill you. So which to I like better? While both are good, I like Tf2's system better, as it encourages being aggressive, staying in the fight, and being strategic, where as in COD, the health encourages hiding, and no real strategy. But this isn't a dig at COD, that will come later, trust me.
So moving on to the completely different idea that Nintendo uses in the Zelda games. Here you health is in hearts, and collecting heart containers increasing the amount of hearts you can have at maximum. And yes, I cannot compare Zelda to FPS games in the same way, as they are drastically different, but I still would like to talk about it. In Zelda, the hearts are taken away by attacks from enemies, usually in half heart increments. The way you regenerate hearts is by collecting hearts from dead enemies, pots, and much more. The way the life is set up encourages exploring, and pushing forward, as usually there will be more hearts on the horizon. You can go back to find a place where you can get hearts, but that takes time, and going forward is better, and sometimes works out. Also, the penalty for dying in Zelda is not that bad. You start at the beginning of the area you were in, and u get three hearts to start out with, which is about 6 hits before you die again. This also encourages just moving forward, as even if you fail, there isn't much of a consequence. So, do I like this style? I do, however in any other game but Zelda, it couldn't work very well, especially FPS games. Now, Super Smash Bros. is basically taking what I've said so far, and doing something so utterly different, that it is hard to comprehend. In Super Smash Bros., the damage you take from other players increases your "Percent" which as it gets higher, just makes you fly around more when attacked. The only way to kill someone is Smash is to send them flying out of the arena, and damage just makes them easier to send flying. There is really no way to lose percent, except by dying, making any damage you take matter. So again, is this idea good? It's different. I like the way it's set up, but much like Zelda, this mechanic wouldn't work in other games. So overall, each game is different, and there is no right way to express health, but what I'd like you to take away from this is that there are so many ways to express health, that almost any way is viable and good. So think about games you love, and their health systems, because you may like the game a little less if you do. (I'm looking at you COD)
I don't have any video games, and have only played them once or twice in my life, but I often think about things like this. People try to make these games as realistic as possible (I guess?), but the "lives" thing in itself is unrealistic. Without it (again, this is just an assumption), the player would constantly lose relatively quickly.
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely right, by creating a "real life situation" where you can be shot multiple times and by ducking behind cover or running over a item makes you fine again is dumb. If you are going for a "real" game, make it really stupidly dumb by making you have 1 life and any sort of damage kill you.
Delete