Certain games (not all) should have a realistic health system like internet only games (like runescape)and others , but certain games should not. The new upcoming Assasin's Creed coming to PS3 and XBOX360 has a realistic health system, this makes games hard, especially this one, when the guy did the demonstration at X06 he did everything right and then he made one mistake and chunks of health came out of the meter from the slings romans threw at the character and then he got stabbed twice and game over. Realistic health systems are alright, but don't make them to realistic (i don't mind hard games, but some people hate them)like if you shot in the head take a chunk of health ,but as for any other part take away only a bit (like the equivalent of a 1/2 cm block)and thats that. (this is a pointless post but i had to put it up)

Hard games are awesome. Go play Ninja Gaiden if you don't believe me.

Rich
Hard games are awesome. Go play Ninja Gaiden if you don't believe me.

what site

It's on Xbox. It shouldn't cost you no more than $20 at most.

oh, i haven't got an xbox.

I do like a good challenge from games and typically most games are a little easier than I want... but there is such a thing as too hard. I think Trauma Center: Under the Knife is too hard. That has nothing to do with a realistic health meter, though.

I think it depends on what the game is - a realistic health system in a fantasy world where people shoot fire at eachother, would be completely bogus - but fro what you're describing, the game is based on real people, in a real world era. It makes the game hard, but also makes the player have to think before they act, and plan ahead.
..Of course /I/ won't be playing this game, I can already see many a broken controller in front of me, but that doesn't mean it messes up games.
Besides, nothing, and I mean nothing, could ever be as hard as Ninja Gaiden (or Ninja Gaidnen Black) I have seen grown men cry because of it.


On the note of Trauma , when I get frustrated I just laser and cut the hell out of the pateint. That'll teach them to get cancer.

shot in head = -30%
shot in torso = -10%
shot in lims = -5%

this is what getting shot in games health depletion should be like (this is for a handgun)

hitman hasn't got a realistic health meter and you have to think (this game gets 9/10 in mags) assasins creed is an obvious rip off done well, but the health system ruins it (the guy at the demonstration could'nt complete the 5 min level that he did)

Jillers
Besides, nothing, and I mean nothing, could ever be as hard as Ninja Gaiden (or Ninja Gaidnen Black) I have seen grown men cry because of it.

Ninja Gaiden isn't THAT hard! In fact, the normal mode is one of the easiest things I've ever played.

I played a game called Enclave once that was ridiculously hard. After barely getting through the first two levels I stormed over to the computer and looked up cheats for it. Even in God Mode, I still got a game over screen a bunch of times.

Enclave was cheap as hell. It'd take and have a cannon shoot you from a mile away without you having any warning. And let's not even get into the damn AI...

Yes, now every game must have a dude who's health mysteriously regenerates so they can be like Halo 2. I want life to go back to the simple Duke3d style inventories and health packs damnit!

Tater Salad
Splinter Cell: Double Agent went to that shit.

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Hawk
I do like a good challenge from games and typically most games are a little easier than I want... but there is such a thing as too hard. I think Trauma Center: Under the Knife is too hard. That has nothing to do with a realistic health meter, though.

I hate when they are talking at you and you're trying to operate. I know I have to use the suction, shut up, I'm trying to work here, stop making me click things to make you shut up!

While reading this thread, all I could think of was Mark Hammond leaning against a wall.

It worked well in The Getaway.

Tater Salad
Too bad the second game sucked.

I've heard that the first one sucked too, just not as bad as the second.

Terminal
While reading this thread, all I could think of was Mark Hammond leaning against a wall.

It worked well in The Getaway.

the getaways one wasn't like assasins creed's one, compared to it, the getaways one is highly unrealistic.

Rich
I've heard that the first one sucked too, just not as bad as the second.

the 1st one didn't suck, the 2nd one didn't that much, but since you don't like gta you probably wouldn't like it.

But I like Mafia, and it used a lot of the details of GTA in it's game. Hell, you oughta track down Mafia if you want a REAL gangster game (Only the PC version though. The console versions are terrible).

But the thing about GTA that always pissed me off was the lack of stuff to do. To put it bluntly, the worlds in GTA are as big as the ocean but only as deep as a puddle.

I could see realistic damage models working much better when AI and physics improve in games. If computer AI weren't based on the computer instantaneously aiming exactly at your head, then it wouldn't be so difficult.

isukun
I could see realistic damage models working much better when AI and physics improve in games. If computer AI weren't based on the computer instantaneously aiming exactly at your head, then it wouldn't be so difficult.

That's a good point. That's why multiplayer is so much more fun than singleplayer in games. Game AI's just usually aren't very well designed.
It's not much fun to be a sniper in singleplayer Battlefield 2 because as soon as you shoot a bot, every single one of them knows exactly where you are! -not that it makes things harder, it's just that the fun of playing a sniper is that you're concealed and no one knows you're there... They have to track you down. Plus if you stay in the same place for 5 minutes it bombards you with artillary. Completely inefective and Bloody moronic!

-though mostly the ai in BF2 is piss-easy, even on 'expert'.

What I would like to see more is realistic health/damage systems for vehicles. Seriously, if I shoot a car enough, it will catch fire and explode? What is that? What about Gran Turismo, drive 130 mph head-on into a wall, and the only thing that happens is that your car bounces back. I want consequences for my actions. I would love to see broken or worn out engines, chassis, and things like that.

Again, The Getaway did a pretty good job with that. (play mechanics need work though.)

Rich
But the thing about GTA that always pissed me off was the lack of stuff to do. To put it bluntly, the worlds in GTA are as big as the ocean but only as deep as a puddle.

Lack of stuff, are you kidding theres about 30 hours of mini games, but i don't want to get back into this, we've already established the fact that you don't like it and that i do (lets not open another can of worms).

the funny thing was that the health system and ai was so tough that the people that made it , that was doing the demonstration, couldn't complete one shortest levels ive ever seen

Then there's Indigo Prophecy and Sim Tower, which both had realistic health systems.

What I would like to see more is realistic health/damage systems for vehicles. Seriously, if I shoot a car enough, it will catch fire and explode? What is that? What about Gran Turismo, drive 130 mph head-on into a wall, and the only thing that happens is that your car bounces back. I want consequences for my actions. I would love to see broken or worn out engines, chassis, and things like that.

For realistic car damage to occur, each car has to have a fairly complex design that allows for either some heavy duty physics routines or a ton of damage zones with varying effects on the car. Gran Turismo doesn't do it because the game focused on being a driving simulation. The other factors of driving the car took priority and the system couldn't handle realistic damage models. Plus the amount of time required to program and playtest it was too great. They are talking about the possibility of adding it o a fture version for the PS3, though. For action games, it's pretty much the same thing. The game engine running in the background eats up too many system resources to worry about realistic damage models.

I wouldn't say most games that have cars which take damage are all that realistic, though. They sacrifice realism for game balance. Cars are far more fragile than videogames make them out to be.

I like my games easy and fun, so yeah, realistic health systems suck.

isukun
Gran Turismo doesn't do it because the game focused on being a driving simulation.

Wikipedia says...

Someone
Although Gran Turismo is widely considered the best driving simulation available for the PlayStation or PlayStation 2, it is not without its drawbacks. For example, the game contains no damage-modeling—partly due to licensing agreements prohibiting car damage and partly due to the fact that many collisions during common gameplay would destroy the cars involved. This lack of damage modeling has prompted many players to quip, "Who needs brakes? That's what my opponents are for!" Indeed, using the AI cars as impromptu barriers is a time-honored Gran Turismo tactic.

Up until the third game that was believed to be and was most likely the case. After that, manufacturers started to change their tone based on the success of games that included damage models. Manufacturers have always worried that realistic damage models in games would have an adverse effect on sales, but recent games haven't hurt their sales any. The developers for Gt stated they would like ot add ralistic damage to the cars in the game, but that the physics and AI were their priority going into the next generation. For a while, it was rumors GTHD might add a damage model, but the developers didn't have time to get it working and add it in. There is still the possibility of there being a damage model in 5, but it's more likely we won't see anything until 6.