Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Is this YouTuber full of shit? (Health regen)

Ezekiel

Arcane
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
5,503
I think the Max Payne games did what Vanquish does better. You can run out in the open. If you do that in Vanquish, you're quickly gonna get your health drained. You have to slide, and you can only slide for a few short seconds. The only thing I really liked about Vanquish was some of the giant bosses. Some of them. Well, that's not true... It had a few good shoot 'em up sections with lesser enemies.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 18, 2017
Messages
79
I think the Max Payne games did what Vanquish does better. You can run out in the open. If you do that in Vanquish, you're quickly gonna get your health drained. You have to slide, and you can only slide for a few short seconds. The only thing I really liked about Vanquish was some of the giant bosses. Some of them. Well, that's not true... It had a few good shoot 'em up sections with lesser enemies.

That's cause both are completely different games.
Vanquish requires you to manage stamina while fighting enemies, while Max Payne(except 3) requires you to manage enemy control and painkillers. Basically, one is cover shooter dark souls while the other is 3rd person Doom. No need to try making people dislike a game you hate.
 

Ezekiel

Arcane
Joined
May 3, 2017
Messages
5,503
while Max Payne (except 3) requires you to manage enemy control and painkillers.
What?

Basically, one is cover shooter dark souls
People keep implying Vanquish is the antithesis of a cover shooter.

Another thing to note is that you take damage rather quickly in Vanquish and don't have a lot of HP. A medkit restoring only 50% HP in this case would be pointless
That's hardly a compelling argument in favor of regenerating health. Most games with regenerating health have fragile protagonists, because at some point the developers realize that with the absence of health management, it's the only way to introduce some modicum of challenge (albeit not a very interesting kind of challenge). Adam Jensen for example instantly dies from a 3-foot fall without the Icarus landing augmentation. Vanquish doesn't have regenerating health because the player character is fragile, they made the player character fragile to justify the use of regenerating health.
The player is made fragile because you have no business walking around being able to tank bullets when you should be sliding away from bullets instead, hence why you die so fast. Especially because like I said before, Vanquish doesn't play the long-term game, and with medkits you'd be in a critical state for longer than need be as you're desperately trying to find your way back to a piece of cover which has a medkit behind it, slowing the game down as you're trying to heal yourself. There's not a whole lot health management would add to Vanquish, and more it would diminish. If you had more health, then you could bruteforce your way through more by tanking damage and playing the popamole game. Whereas with less you'll be forced back into cover more often, and if you want to go fast without receiving critical damage you'll have to think outside the box.

Having to twiddle thumbs around health management would slow the game down, which is exactly the very opposite Vanquish is going for. It'd make things more 'tactical', but this is not that kind of game. It's about going fast in the here and now without having to worry what happens in the future. If you want to make a better case for why health management would improve Vanquish, you should explain how it would improve what Vanquish is going for. If the incorporation of health management would break several existing elements and would have to involve changing several key aspects of the game to the point where it can't be called the same game anymore, it isn't necessarily improved, but just changed.
I maintain that a hack and slash health system like Devil May Cry's would be more appropriate for a supposedly aggressive shooter like Vanquish. You would get health for delivering lots of damage. This way, the pace wouldn't constantly slow into that of a standard bogged down cover shooter.

Since we're already on the topic of Mark Brown:

That explains why I'm cold towards their games. They're made to be easy for newbs and hard to master, using scores to encourage them to get better, but I don't care about scores and just find their easiness (Breezing through most of Bayonetta's normal difficulty using the same few combos, constantly healing with Rising's ridiculous harvesting system and playing Vanquish with a lot of cover because I didn't have the skill level to stay in the open throughout.) boring. Rising is the only one I felt like replaying (but I've had it longer).

Also, some of the things he talks about with Vanquish sound like exploits. Like quickly switching from slide to roll to slide so that you don't use stamina. That's not a good thing, I don't think.
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom