Duke Nukem Forever

stevenmu

Anything which allows you rapidly recover full capacity, be it regenerating health or medikits, ruins immersion. Loosing health and recovering health just becomes a game mechanic.

While regenerating health is (very) far from perfect, at least it means you don't have to spend 5 minutes going backwards in a level to find health after every battle. Maybe I'm just less patient than I use to be, or maybe it's because I've spent so much time doing it in so many games, but I really don't want to do it in games any more, and regenerating health is a welcome reprieve.

It probably does need to be toned down a lot though, In COD for e.g. you can use it to become almost invulnerable if you time it right: run through a hail of bullets, duck behind a wall for two seconds, run through another hail of bullets, duck etc. etc.
edit: obviously higher difficulty levels do improve the situation somewhat

Professey Chin

I liked the way it was in the 1st Resistance game. 4 sections of health, whichever you were in could recharge on its own so if you had about 40% health you could only rechage to 50% without health packs

Mr E

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

I liked the way it was in the 1st Resistance game. 4 sections of health, whichever you were in could recharge on its own so if you had about 40% health you could only rechage to 50% without health packs

Sounds like Duke has copied that somewhat, then - according to the preview on Eurogamer.

Duke's health system has evolved, though. On finding myself down to my last sliver of health, I seek out a spot to recoup and watch it recharge to the mid-point. It's a happy medium between the mollycoddling rechargeable health of today and the more archaic health packs of yesteryear.

NeoKubrick

Game mechanics don't ruin immersion. Inconsistency interrupts immersion: a game breaking its own established rules. If a game establishes that water is dangerous to my character, that is a rule to the game. If the game suddenly breaks that rule for no valid reason, it ruins the immersion. Games create and establish rules from which players play by; players become detached from a game that breaks its own rules rather than the rules of actual life of which a game is apart.

When a player searches a level for health an excessive amount of time in order to have a chance of surviving the next battle, that stops the 'flow' of the game and that is a design flaw. It has no relevancy to immersion.

Regenerating health prevents this situation, and it is a very good solution. However, it is a mechanic and is subject to misuse as any other. Modern Warfare's use of it was flawed. From a design and play perspective, the usefulness of regenerating health in Halo is that it encourages players to not turtle (i.e. peek, shoot, hide repeat) in fear of losing their precious health. In Modern Warfare, the more damage you take, the less you can see, shoot and play, which cancels part of the usefulness of regenerating health.

the_syco

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well a normal soldier taking about 50 bullets to the head and recovering by sitting behind some cover for 5 seconds isn't exactly immersive either. Medikits are fine in games when used right.

BFBC2: A normal soldier taking about 50 bullets to the head runs at you and stabs you in the face instantly killing you and then recovers his health by sitting in a corner.

Ultimate Chin wrote: »

I know which version I prefer.TITTIES!!!

Hope they do a good job with the ladies

weiland79

I actually don't care about this (there i said it)

I vaguely remember playing DN 3d a long time ago, but it didn't have the effect on me that it seems to have had on many others.

So why is it so cool guy's?
Was it one of the first games with boobies and swearing in it?
Was it ultra violent?

Frankly Duke looks like a bit of a dick!

Azza

NeoKubrick wrote:

When a player searches a level for health an excessive amount of time in order to have a chance of surviving the next battle, that stops the 'flow' of the game and that is a design flaw. It has no relevancy to immersion.

Regenerating health prevents this situation, and it is a very good solution. However, it is a mechanic and is subject to misuse as any other. Modern Warfare's use of it was flawed. From a design and play perspective, the usefulness of regenerating health in Halo is that it encourages players to not turtle (i.e. peek, shoot, hide repeat) in fear of losing their precious health. In Modern Warfare, the more damage you take, the less you can see, shoot and play, which cancels part of the usefulness of regenerating health.

How is there a difference between those 2 games. In both games and in any game with regenerating health all I ever did was peek, shoot and hide.

the_syco

weiland79 wrote: »

So why is it so cool guy's?
Was it one of the first games with boobies and swearing in it?
Was it ultra violent?

It was the humour in the game, as well as the violence. The storyline wasn't bad either.

gizmo

the_syco wrote: »

It was the humour in the game, as well as the violence. The storyline wasn't bad either.

The level of interactivity with the environment was great too. That and the weapons. And the enemies. And some of the levels were sweet too.

Sarky

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAUY1J8KizU

tbh

Retr0gamer

the_syco wrote: »

The storyline wasn't bad either.

There was a story?

the_syco

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was a story?

Aye.

TomCo

gizmo wrote: »

And some of the levels were sweet too.

Always disliked the second episode though. Duke was best where the levels tried to convey the freedom of a cityscape.

Sticky_Fingers

weiland79 wrote: »

I actually don't care about this (there i said it)

I vaguely remember playing DN 3d a long time ago, but it didn't have the effect on me that it seems to have had on many others.

So why is it so cool guy's?
Was it one of the first games with boobies and swearing in it?
Was it ultra violent?

Frankly Duke looks like a bit of a dick!

For the time it was genre defining, while it didn't have the same effect that HL had it still set a whole new standard in FPS gaming. The interactivivty was mind boggling at the time, you could turn lights on and off, use the toilet, destroy scenery, break props and best of all see Duke in a mirror:eek:. This may sound like pretty tame stuff now but at the time it was awe inspiring.

The humour was also very good, as lad of 13 I thought it was the funniest thing ever, some of the hidden jokes were excellent. The locations and level design was topnotch as were the weapons, shrinking an enemy down and squishing them never got old.

Around the time there was a big Blur Vs Oasis like debate going on as to whether Duke 3D or Quake was the better game. For me Duke wins hands down in nearly every department and I doubt that a new Quake game (if it had such a hard time like DNF has getting made) would generate the same excitement or buzz.

ProjectColossus

Retr0gamer wrote: »

There was a story?

Alien bastards shoot up Dukes ride, and he makes them pay. He meets many interesting NPC strippers along the way.

The Don

Its great news that this game is actually going to be made now. I'd given up hope that it would be any good and then that it would ever get made.

From the videos it looks good and I think that they are doing the right thing in taking the piss out of themselves and how long it's taken to make. Duke is a great character and Sticky_Fingers points out why the game was revolutionary back in the day.

I love Dukes humour and one liners (some stolen from Ash of Evil Dead) and the sheer mayhem of running into enemies guns blazing and kicking ass still makes me smile

I hope DNF will be good enough to bring back that old feeling.

Time to break out and replay my old copy I think.

Retr0gamer

I always thought Shadow Warrior was way better and funnier. The level design was top notch throughout unlike duke were it went downhill after the shareware episodes.

TomCo

Retr0gamer wrote: »

I always thought Shadow Warrior was way better and funnier. The level design was top notch throughout unlike duke were it went downhill after the shareware episodes.

I thought the same way about Blood.
There's just something special about Duke 3D though, I don't think the other build games had anything near the same level of support from the community. The selection of mods and maps available for duke 3d was amazing.

NeoKubrick

Azza wrote: »

How is there a difference between those 2 games. In both games and in any game with regenerating health all I ever did was peek, shoot and hide.

If, in a game, you decide to stand in one place and refuse to finish a level, would that mean that the developer didn't design the game to enable you to finish the level?

The difference is the implementation and the effect of it. How Modern Warfare signifies the health of a player is by the clarity of the HUD: clear means full health and full bloodshot means near-death. This implementation has the effect of discouraging movement, because you can't perform optimally when your sight is impaired. Halo's signifier is an alarm sound when your shield has depleted, which does not impair your performance.

Halo has a clear indicator of the amount of shield left, and players can safely assume that they are in trouble only when the shield is fully depleted. This means that they can use the shield as a resource. In Modern Warfare, there is no clear indicator: just that full bloodshot equals near-death and less bloodshot equals less near-death. Players cannot assume how many hits of what types they can sustain; therefore, it encourages players to seek cover any time they are bloodshot.

These are subtle differences, but differences in health, which is the crux of most game mechanics, have a massive effect of how players play the game. Still haven't played Halo on Legendary, yet? I'm sure if it was any good, you'd have remembered, right?

Sandvich

All the build games were amazing and had great atmosphere.

I'd rank the big 3 like this:

Duke 3D -> Blood -> Shadow Warrior

Blood and Shadow Warrior were graphically better and felt a bit more solid over all though. But there was something about Duke that made it generally scary at times, despite it being an over the top shooter.

Sandvich

stevenmu wrote: »

Anything which allows you rapidly recover full capacity, be it regenerating health or medikits, ruins immersion. Loosing health and recovering health just becomes a game mechanic.

I hate people going on about "immersion" and "realism" in games like this.

If you want realistic, then let's make it so when you get die from being shot, you don't just drop down, you roll around screaming in pain for an hour before dying from shock and blood loss.

Realism heads also neglect to consider positive realism too. In a "realistic" game mostly all you can do is run around, crouch, shoot stuff, and maybe climb "ladders". Most games won't let you for example, disarm someone from behind(Mirror's edge was quite nifty like this) even though there are people in real life that could do that. You can't grab a guy and use him as a meat shield. You can't pull out some liquorice and stand around chewing it for no apparent reason.

Realismheads want to be sadists, but also aren't quite badass enough to take the really horrible ****. What they want is "that" kind of realism, you know like Call of Duty and stuff.

Retr0gamer

Operation Flashpoint ftw! (not the ****ty ****ty sequel).

dreamers75

Sandvich wrote: »

I hate people going on about "immersion" and "realism" in games like this.

If you want realistic, then let's make it so when you get die from being shot, you don't just drop down, you roll around screaming in pain for an hour before dying from shock and blood loss.

Realism heads also neglect to consider positive realism too. In a "realistic" game mostly all you can do is run around, crouch, shoot stuff, and maybe climb "ladders". Most games won't let you for example, disarm someone from behind(Mirror's edge was quite nifty like this) even though there are people in real life that could do that. You can't grab a guy and use him as a meat shield. You can't pull out some liquorice and stand around chewing it for no apparent reason.

Realismheads want to be sadists, but also aren't quite badass enough to take the really horrible ****. What they want is "that" kind of realism, you know like Call of Duty and stuff.

uhh you equate realism to console games

Realism in shooters is very very simple, you get shot your dead.

Nowadays in games like Arma 2 you get shot in the leg you lmp and cant aim for ****.

I have no idea what you are on about in your post it actually mocks sense by referencing COD

Realism in shooters is for people who are capable of playing a game without 57 respawns and hiding to regain health, you get shot you die and go back to the start.

**** all to do with duke tbh.

Sandvich

I'm telling you that's not real "realism". It's an apparent shallow realism that the PC and Xbox crowd go nuts over.

Realism is over-rated, anyway.

ironictoaster

How I have not heard of Shadow Warrior, looks great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgZYP0w2crI

Retr0gamer

If you liked Duke 3D then it's well worth playing Shadow Warrior. For me it and Blood are the pinnacle of the build engine games and way better than Duke.

stevenmu

Sandvich wrote: »

I hate people going on about "immersion" and "realism" in games like this.

Fair enough, but the actual point was that someone had claimed that regenerating health ruins immersion, I was making the argument that in terms or immersion/realism it's no worse than collecting medikits.

Azza

NeoKubrick wrote:

If, in a game, you decide to stand in one place and refuse to finish a level, would that mean that the developer didn't design the game to enable you to finish the level?

No it doesn't and I don't understand the relevance of that the question.

To me both mechanics serve the exact same purpose.

With Modern Warfare you get a feel for how much more damage you can take when your bloodshot. Comes with experience. You know when you have taken minor damage and can fight on. But once you are heavily bloodyshot and go into cover your not going come out until the screen clears, not because you can't see well but because you know you are within a shot or two of been killed.

Halo once your health is low and your shield is low your going do the same thing. Wait till your shield regenerates. Even with the better visibility your not going to take the risk.

The only time this changes for either game is when a grenade forced me to move from my cover spot.

At least I didn't when I played through both games, unless that somehow counts as playing the games wrong?

NeoKubrick wrote:

These are subtle differences, but differences in health, which is the crux of most game mechanics, have a massive effect of how players play the game.

In my case they made no difference.

Doge

ironictoaster wrote: »

How I have not heard of Shadow Warrior, looks great.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgZYP0w2crI

There definitely was something more timeless about duke3D,

I've played it for light years at this stage, the expansion packs, most of the total conversions, the High Resolution Pack, cannot get enough of it.

I found myself getting bored with Shadow Warrior quickly, i think i only finished the first episode, it felt like it had zero atmosphere in comparison to duke3D.

I didnt like the flow of the game as much, nor did I like the environments.

D3D just felt so unlimited, i remember my first time playing the second level,

blowing up the skyscraper and wondering if i could blow open the manhole cover with a RPG.

And to my complete surprise it did blow up, and i was amazed that there was that much detail in the game.

I'm really hoping DNF will be very mod-friendly also,
so it will offer a few extra years of gameplay.

NeoKubrick

Azza wrote: »

No it doesn't and I don't understand the relevance of that the question.

To me both mechanics serve the exact same purpose.

With Modern Warfare you get a feel for how much more damage you can take when your bloodshot. Comes with experience. You know when you have taken minor damage and can fight on. But once you are heavily bloodyshot and go into cover your not going come out until the screen clears, not because you can't see well but because you know you are within a shot or two of been killed.

Halo once your health is low and your shield is low your going do the same thing. Wait till your shield regenerates. Even with the better visibility your not going to take the risk. [...]

Well, you are disputing the differences in design of two games by claiming that you played both, similarly.

Intuition of non-specific health is less accurate than an on-display-indicator tabulating health. The former is uncertain, which encourages players to search for what is certain, what will lead to a certainty (i.e. cover to recover full health). The latter is specific and the indicator acts as a resource: with the exceptions of a close-proximity blast and in later games a shot from a sniper (irrelevant anyway, as it's a one-shot kill on Legendary), you won't die unless the full shield is depleted. Even so, intuition is universal: if you can get a 'feel' for how much damage you can take in Modern Warfare, you can get the same in Halo or any other game.

That's simply not true that on low shield, I would seek cover every time and would not take the risk. The decision is situation-specific. As I have already stated, with exceptions above, you cannot die unless your shield is depleted. If my shield is low and the enemy shield is low, I'll risk killing him rather than reseting the battle by allowing my shield to recover and his, too. Modern Warfare discourage this by impairing player's view and therefore impairing the player's performance: Infinity Ward actively discouraged the risk option.


I would dispute that they made no difference to you. It's more likely that your memory is faulty rather than an actual similarity in both games of how you played. Since, using the regenerating health mechanic, Bungie consciously discouraged and Infinity Ward encouraged 'boring' tactics, it is much more likely that there would be a difference in how you, consciously or unconsciously, played both games, however small or large.