One of the ideas I've been tossing around doing for a while now is one where I present a given topic or mechanic in game design, get designers (professional or aspiring) to talk about it for a week or two, and then I would put together a conclusions article with aggregated responses and thoughts on all sides of the discussion. This is my attempt to do that. This attempt was also written entirely between compile and execution times (and lunch!) while at work, so if I left anything out forgive me, mention it, and if this goes well it'll be included in future discussions. Guidelines Here are some of the rules/guidelines it would be nice to have people adhere to (or read and then willingly ignore):

• What I write as part of the topic description is not intended to be an argument for or against a given mechanic, nor does what I write necessarily reflect my full thoughts on an issue. It's mere intended to be an introduction to the topic that, hopefully, more people will expound on.
• The goal here is to talk intelligently about the topic at hand, as such, any responses would hopefully attempt to make some sort of argument.
• An argument does not have to be lengthy to be well-constructed or well-written.
• Don't just toss in buzz words for the sake of using buzz words; the idea here is to discuss the mechanics at hand for the purpose of determining why they are good or bad and to convince other people of your own perspectives. Tossing in buzz words "just because" does more to segregate a discussion than promote it.
• This post will actually be closed when the deadline is up as to keep the discussion fairly self-contained. The closing date for these is up in the air at the moment; this thread will be closed either a week from today or two weeks from today (depending on the number and quality of responses received).

Suggested Reading The most important and relevant work which relates to this discussion was actually written about ten years ago by Doug Church: "Formal Abstract Design Tools". It's a great read for any designer. Round Table Topic -- Regenerative Health Regenerative health systems are actually a pretty simple one that have radically changed the way that first-person shooters and a number of third-person action games are played. The idea behind regenerative health is that players can take a finite amount of damage in a short span of time before they are sent into a "dying state" -- which is typically indicated by a pulsating red screen -- and if they take more damage beyond that then they will die. If a player does not take any more damage when they are in a dying state, though, and instead seek cover and avoid enemy confrontation and fire, they will slowly return back to their normal state. The concept of player health is now entirely dynamic and up to player interpretation via some sort of interface cue, red tinge, or other full-screen indicator. The effect of this mechanic is that it abstracts the older method of requiring players to manage their health and pick-ups, something that most players inherently understand (mortality), into a very streamlined and intuitive experience. Giantbomb has the first occurrence of regenerative health in Wolverine Adamantium Rage (Genesis, SNES; 1994). The mechanic's first mainstream appearance, though, was in its devolved form in Halo (Xbox; 2001) which had fully rechargeable shields which absorbed most of the player's damage. Once the shields were out of energy, though, Halo still relied on a more traditional health system which included requiring players to find health pick-ups. Halo 2 took this concept a step further with a fully regenerative health system, tasking the player with only managing the ammo and type of his/her weapons. The net result of the widespread adoption (in games like Resistance 2, Killzone 2, Call of Duty 2-4, and so on) of this mechanic into modern action games of all types is that players are no longer thinking of their health some arbitrary number or percentage in the middle of a heated combat encounter. Does this mechanic simplify action games in a good way? Is the reduction in manageable resources a boon or detriment to players? Are the hit-and-run (to cover) tactics that regenerative health systems not only encourage but often demand beneficial to most of the games that this mechanic is employed in? [Update] This topic will be closed tonight around 12:00am US Eastern Time. The resulting piece should be posted in a separate thread for further discussion on Tuesday or Wednesday this week.[Edited by - mittens on April 13, 2009 12:51:34 PM]

It seems to me that these systems almost necessarily cause gameplay to be sliced up into reasonably short, controlled encounters of at least some minimum intensity. A regenerative health system basically gives the player a damage threshold: get through an encounter under this threshold, you live and can move on to the next encounter. Otherwise you die. Killing the player is accomplished by overloading this threshold in a short period of time, which means you can't build suspense in the player via prolonged needling little encounters that keep them at low health (I guess you could if you were very careful and played very closely to the limits of your system, but it seems much harder).

Certainly it can be a more forgiving mechanic, especially if the player is not forced to move on after an encounter and can wait until they recharge. This can help appeal to the more casual players, and adding other elements to the gameplay -- something as simple as a time-based rewards or scoring system -- can help provide incentive for the more hardcore players to not wait around and/or to encourage not relying the 'damage threshold' and to consider more classical 'my health is sacred' tactics.

I think it works pretty well contextually in most of the games I've seen it in -- "war" games, where it feels natural that combat might be divided up like this. But if you look at Halo and then look at Marathon, both Bungie games, I don't think Halo's health system would have worked in Marathon, for example.

I suppose I would caution designers from looking at changes in certain game mechanics over time as some sort of "advancement" in design. Game mechanics to me are like ingredients in a pantry where the careful preparation, combination, and organization of some can make a delicious dish. Diced tomatoes may be great for marinara pizza sauce but not all pizza sauce has to be tomato based.

I suppose there's no stopping the "me too" stampede when Major Publisher A introduces a mechanic that speeds up gameplay and Major Publisher B decides they need to implement a copy cat feature because the faster gameplay is deemed more addictive. I think the trend in mainstream gaming is a disturbingly cynical one that is turning the industry into what the big boys always wanted... Hollywood. So like it or not, say hello to mindless, frenzied gameplay for the people who are addicted to shows like "24."

Sorry for going somewhat off topic. I guess the original point I wanted to make is that the new fad mechanic doesn't mean the old mechanic is obsolete. Even bell bottoms came back into style. And that's what we're really talking about wrt game design anyway, styles.

I don't really like the current approach (regeneration) as it drastically slows down the pacing of the game. The idea behind it though is quite good: take away the old arcade system of lifes and turn it into something more analogue, realistic. The 'hiding behind cover' part also feels more realistic than charging at the opponents while shouting. But then again, what's realistic about jumping on moving mushrooms while traveling through pipes? Games fun first, realism (if any) second.

Slicing the game into manageable pieces... well, it does make the game more accessible, obviously, but I feel it steals quite a bit of story consistency and forces 'ambush' gameplay (ie, you move and whenever you stop that means you'll be ambushed, will have to kill everybody to move to the next location).

Example solution: give the player ability to replenish health by attacking -player switches to bit weaker weapon with which he's more agile and hitting opponent sucks the health down. It would keep the game pace fast and even accelerate it in periods of danger, which I think is better than slowing it down to 'kill one enemy, hide, regenerate, rinse, repeat'.

Whether it simplifies games in a good way is entirely dependent upon the design of that game.
Regenerating health has the effect that can make the game more casual friendly while also getting players to take more risks since they know their health will regenerate. This can lead to the run to cover tactic, though, as the player will seek safety for their health to regenerate. However, non-regenerating health can lead to the same tactic as the player is trying to avoid taking any damage and if health is in short supply the player is more likely to take cover and exploit weakness’ in the game’s AI to get ahead. I think it’s less that the player’s health is regenerating that leads them to run and cover tactics but more that the game designers tend to have enemies hit harder to be a threat to the player (they can no longer whittle the players health down, little by little).

In the case of a very action focused game (such as COD), I think the regenerating health is a definite boon. It allows the player to focus more on the action at hand and less about managing their supplies leading to more intense action. However, in a game were resource management is part of the experience, I believe regenerating health would be a detriment. Imagine if Left 4 Dead used the health generating mechanic. Most likely the zombies and special infected would have to hit much harder to be any threat to the players. So, rather than experiencing maps where the players literally limp across the finish line, pleased with the way they managed to pull through as a group, most maps would be either the players getting shredded by the infected or flying through the map with no problem.

In general I like regenerative health as a gameplay dynamic. As with most things whether it is fun or not depends on details of implementation and context of other gameplay elements. So I'll describe the ideal health system in context, as well as some bad versions.

Ideal regenerative health system:

- Player has one stat for total health, a separate stat for speed of regeneration, and these stats are separately controlled by allocation of points. Spending points on high regen should be beneficial to a player who prefers a frugal, constantly-fighting-monsters playstyle, while spending points on high health should be beneficial to a player who prefers epic PVP and boss combat and is willing to spend game currency on health-restoration items.

- Players should have an ability to convert mana (or energy) to health and health to mana, adding some economic strategy to the situation. Health and mana could also be convertable to a burst of speed, a burst of attack power, or action points if the game has these.

Bad dynamics to be avoided:

- The player should NEVER be sitting around for more than 30 seconds waiting for health and/or mana meters to fill. This is the most common problem of health regen systems. It is especially a problem in games where all characters have the same regen rate but higher level characters have way more health to regen. It is also a problem in any system where it is possible to have a low regen rate for whatever reason. To avoid this problem, here are some approaches:

1. either the base should be no regen and the first purchasable or earnable level of regen should be a high one

2. or the base should be a high level of regen which players are encouraged to sacrifice in trade for some other ability

3. or regen rates should multiply when the player has been out of combat (or is sitting/kneeling) for a few seconds, then multiply again if they continue this for a few more seconds

4. or all players should regen quickly when not in combat and the actual regen stat should only apply during combat

5. or healing foods should be available very plentifully in the game but unable to be eaten during combat

6. or all players should get a full-heal ability which cannot be performed during combat, takes 5-10 seconds to execute, and basically replaces the boredom of 'resting' with something more interesting like a rain dance emote.

I, personally, don't like the current overuse of regenerating health. Though I think it is more because regeneration time are quite quick that allow this situation:

You're in the middle of a skirmish with a group of enemies. You are blasting away at them as they quickly bring your down to the 'dying' stage. You dive for cover and a few moments are back to full health. You now return to the blasting away part and them subsequently returning you to near death. This cycle continues until either all of the enemy are dead or a lucky shot from the enemy drops you to 0. There isn't much suspense unless you willingly run into the midst of the enemy.

For me, if a game designer wants to implement a regenerating health bar, it should a a large chunk of time to fully recharge. Using a slow health regen, enemies are more likely to start hunting you down rather than just using suppression fire, which would increase the pressure for the player to do more than just pop in and out of a hiding place.

When I design combat I use regenerative health on the ENEMY. This forces the player to actually fight, be it melee combat, shooting, or space shooting. In space shooting, the regenerative part of the health is actually a shield. As long as the reactor is not damaged, the shield could recharge even if the physical body of the ship is damaged.

This mechanism requires the fight to be above certain intensity for it to count. The player cannot bring down an enemy by repeating n papercut attacks. If the player cannot hurt the enemy enough during a fight, the player needs to think of a different way to fight, or to go a different path.

The player character can also regenerate health. The reason is that I want the player to pick their fights, then fight. When the player could not defeat an enemy an fled, then I let both side regenerate. So fleeing is a reset switch, not a tactic. Suppose there are two enemies in a room and I want the player to figure out how to defeat both enemies, and the player loaded up on one enemy and fled, then I would respawn the defeated one because the challenge I give the player is to defeat them both, not one at a time.

I think the initial question is asking for a general response on a topic where the discussion should not be general. The context and the design goals matter.

Quote:

Does this mechanic simplify action games in a good way? Is the reduction in manageable resources a boon or detriment to players? Are the hit-and-run (to cover) tactics that regenerative health systems not only encourage but often demand beneficial to most of the games that this mechanic is employed in?

You could talk about whether a gameplay mechanism supports a design goal well. But you need to define what the goals are. In general, you cannot assume that games from the same genre have the same design goals. But that is what the questioned seemed to be implying.

If argument is what this thread wants (instead of just a list of opinions and experiences), then someone needs to define one set of goals (ideally also a context), and ask the pros and cons of regenerative health with respect to that goal. Ideally, once the arguments are made (pros and cons), a test game could be coded and people vote or see for themselves whether their assumptions match their expectation. (Do they really like what they think they like?)

Otherwise, I think you would get a collection of experiences from different contexts designed under different goals for different audience that don't necessarily mesh well into one meaningful argument perspective.

For instance:

Design goal: Let player feel the danger of each fight in a sequence of fights. During each fight, the player should worrying about dying NOW, not whether there is enough HP to do the last fight.

In this case, regenerative health is one way to do it, but the design goal suggests that the rate of regeneration should match the duration of one fight. This simply means that for each fight, the enemy must have the ability to kill the player. A way where a designer would violate this goal, is to give the PC must more HP than necessary for one fight. In that implementation, the player would not feel sufficiently threated by the immediate enemies.

If you want to retain the tradition HP, then you would balance the combat such that each fight has the possibility to take out all of the HP of the PC. But after each fight, the HP of the PC recharges (PC is allowed to drink at a foutain). For this goal alone, the two implementation are equivalent.


Design goal: If the player can defeat an enemy, I want the player to have hope to continue and fight the next enemy, even though the PC had not done well. I want the player to feel the emotion to keep going, keep risking, and not to give up until it actually ends.

Directly, this goal suggests that the combat (each fight) should be designed such that it is possible for the player to defeat an enemy without a single injury. So that on one hand, there is some notion that the PC is battered, something is injured, on the other hand, there is some buffer that allows the PC to believe that there is a chance to win if he continues. This situation does not need regenerative health to achieve, but suppose you want to use regenerative health, then you would intuitively balance it like this:

Each fight on average would destroy the shield of the PC, but after each fight, the shield would recharge. When the PC is not doing well in a fight, the enemy would hit the actual body of the PC, and that would deduct a non-regenerative health. That non-regenerative health is the player's emotional prompt of accumulated danger. Everytime the player completes one fight, the shield regens, the HP of the PC might decrease. But the player would still think that "if I do well in the next fight, the enemy will only take out my shield, I need to be more careful, but I am still ok." In this design, the HP of a PC is not a tactical resource to be managed. It is a presentation tool to prompt the player to situation his emotion at a certain state. In this implementation, the combat ability of the PC does not decrease.

For this design goal alone, a normal HP bar (with no heal) would do the same. But the balance of the combat would be done such that it is possible for the player to win each fight without getting a single hit. For this goal, the two implementations would be equivalent.


Suppose you want to achieve both goals in your design, then you would balance the combats so that in each combat, it is possible to win perfectly and also to die. Either mechanisms (with regenerative shield, or with traditional HP), would work. For a game with a minimum damage received by the PC per fight, the traditional HP bar would not work, because the design would not satisfy the second design goal.

[Edited by - Wai on April 7, 2009 9:38:45 PM]

I think FPSs should have more than one form of health to begin with. Someone gets shot in the arm they aren't dead, but they may lose the use of that arm... get shot on the torso or legs it makes you travel slower and makes you lose blood. Lose all your blood, which can regenerate you die...shot in the head you die. Its more realistic and fun in my opinion if FPSs were built that way rather than have one life bar for the whole of a character.

RPGs that use the regenerating health mechanic are quite a bit easier that those that don't and it can be abused in most of the games as they allow you to modify it to the point where you are practically invincible usually.

so I think, like someone else said, that you need to analyze what is already there and determine whether it's a good idea to put it in one way or another, rather than saying it's the in thing to have so it needs to be there.

Regen health is a system that came about because people were getting tired of those funky little health bars at the bottom of the screen and because the idea of fair had to be there because players wouldnt react well to being killed outright... i say "phoooey".

If I get shot by a gun i should not simply have to sit in one place for 10 seconds not being hit to be back to full health... it creates the superman effect. Where you take on a large group of guys bit by bit, get hurt a lot, run away and hide while you 'dehurtifiy', and come back and try it all again. It removes a lot of the challenge, it somewhat slaps you in the face for not timing your runs and limits somewhat the 'strategic importance' of watching your 'health'

Give me some bandages and make me sit down and bandage my self up, or have the medic come over... have the screen slowly fade out to indicate approaching unconsciousness... get a leg hit and for the rest of that 'life' you cant run as fast... an arm hit, less accurate... Head shot... game over.

well theres my 2c well and truely spent...