COD WW2 doesnot have Regen health

[B-Cell_v1legacy]

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...erything-we-know-about-call-of-duty-wwii.aspx

Players do not recover health or ammo passively. You cannot simply get hit, hide behind some cover, and heal up. You need to call upon your squadmates to get health packs, ammunition, or even covering fire. This makes getting hit carry a significantly more weight than other Call of Duty titles, as taking a bullet has consequences every time.

this was unexpected. I never thought a day when a regen health removed from a COD game..

Well i would say thanks to success of Doom that even COD developer are ditching some of terrible modern design. last gen COD4 ruined FPS genre. this gen Doom re invented it and open door for other games.

 

[Hawki]

Lack of regenerating health?

Oh goodie, that changes my entire perspective on the game! Everything has changed! First day pre-order! Nachos for all!

In seriousness, I think that's a good move, but it's a drop in the bucket right now.

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

If they do not seriously fix the style of the encounters then this will lead to more frustration than anything. I had not realized it until watching a few of Super Bunnyhop's videos on the more recent CODs, but the encounter design, NEEDS that regenerating health.

Personally I hope they go for bullet physics. A bit of delay between shot and damage will allow for so much more even if they do not change up the structure that much. Though I can already hear the back lash from its MP community when they realize their old tricks no longer work.

 

[IceForce]

OP, I'm not sure why you're so against regenerating health. It's a legitimate gameplay design decision.

The idea is that getting out of enemy fire (ie: behind cover) is supposed to replace the traditional floating spinning healthpacks that you would normally find in an 'oldschool' fps game.

Certainly it could be argued that hiding somewhere and wiping away the blood from your vision (which magically heals your bullet wounds after a few seconds) is not exactly very realistic, but hovering floating spinning healthpacks everywhere was never realistic either.

Pick your poison.

 

[baddude1337]

OP, I'm not sure why you're so against regenerating health. It's a legitimate gameplay design decision.

The idea is that getting out of enemy fire (ie: behind cover) is supposed to replace the traditional floating spinning healthpacks that you would normally find in an 'oldschool' fps game.

Certainly it could be argued that hiding somewhere and wiping away the blood from your vision (which magically heals your bullet wounds after a few seconds) is not exactly very realistic, but hovering floating spinning healthpacks everywhere was never realistic either.

Pick your poison.

Back when B-Cell and I were on GameTrailers, there was a gun fanatic who said health regen was originally supposed to present how vulnerable you are to gunfire. He said that the more you expose yourself, the more likely you are to get shot. As you take cover, the health regenerates, representing that you're out of harm's way. He said that the blood splatter effects from newer games have it wrong and that there are better ways to present your vulnerability. Basically, you only get shot once, by the bullet that kills you. I find that concept cool.

I'm pretty sure that's actually what the Brothers In Arms games do actually. Shame no other game tries to explain it that way, and instead gives you strawberry jam eyes.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

You don't need health packs or regen health. MGO2 doesn't have either and it's arguably the greatest online shooter.

 

[sageoftruth]

OP, I'm not sure why you're so against regenerating health. It's a legitimate gameplay design decision.

The idea is that getting out of enemy fire (ie: behind cover) is supposed to replace the traditional floating spinning healthpacks that you would normally find in an 'oldschool' fps game.

Certainly it could be argued that hiding somewhere and wiping away the blood from your vision (which magically heals your bullet wounds after a few seconds) is not exactly very realistic, but hovering floating spinning healthpacks everywhere was never realistic either.

Pick your poison.

I don't think realism is the main draw of health packs. Instead, as B-Cell said, it makes every hit you take carry more weight, since you can't just regenerate it, unless you find more health. It encourages you to respond to damage with pro-activity, rather than passivity. If you're low on health, you must take the risk of finding more health either through exploration, or aggression, if enemies can drop health. It forces you to put yourself in danger to get out being in the red zone and that can be a far more thrilling experience than passively waiting behind cover to regenerate your health.

 

[Saelune]

Will they tone down "Veteran" difficulty? Cause they always have a "Beat the game on Veteran" achievement, and even with regenerating health doing that is a real pain. (Especially on the parts with...infinite enemies...FUCK YOU BLACK OPS 1!)

Edit: I liked the Halo games that had both. Shields as regenerating health, and then actual health that is vulnerable when out of shields. I believe 1 and Reach (the best Halos) did that. Though obviously having the power armor as an excuse isnt viable in WW2... (Though I guess EA disagrees...)

 

[I can't enter my old name]

Back when B-Cell and I were on GameTrailers, there was a gun fanatic who said health regen was originally supposed to present how vulnerable you are to gunfire. He said that the more you expose yourself, the more likely you are to get shot. As you take cover, the health regenerates, representing that you're out of harm's way. He said that the blood splatter effects from newer games have it wrong and that there are better ways to present your vulnerability. Basically, you only get shot once, by the bullet that kills you. I find that concept cool.

Wouldn't it be easier to make the game one shot, one kill? This heath regenerate/vulnerability system abstraction sounds more fit for a turned based game. Couldn't this be more easily represented by suppression system that a lot of shooters already have?

I think this system is more realistic, and realism is kind of necessary to prevent this game from being another shooting gallery. You would go to a medic who stops the bleeding and administers morphine, rather than you regenerating your body like a T-1000. Historical shooters that only do shooting are better off sticking more to realism, I'd say.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

I fail to understand what everyone is so excited about.

I'm not just saying this to be a downer or to shit on something people are happy for.

How exactly do people plan on this being different from any other Call of Duty other than setting? The lack of regen health? Great. So you get the exact same firefights, except instead of waiting behind a wall for a few seconds so you can continue at least some of appropriate pace, you have to backtrack to a deadzone you've already been through to find a health pack, and run all the way back only to continue shooting some more.

And is this...going to change online at all? Obviously there isn't going to be any wall running, but I thought that actually ADDED to the fun of CoD online. Now what? We're going back to basic ground combat with everyone camping corners and scrambling for sniper positions? Yay...

I just don't see this going well. How much can you really pick out of WWII? Yes, I'm sure there were plenty of battles left untouched by games, but isn't there a reason for that?

And even if they could make the most uninteresting of battles interesting, it would either piss off the people who complain about realism or historical authenticity (in which case, why are looking for a video game to do that?), or piss off the people who will complain that it's still not interesting enough.

 

[DeliveryGodNoah_v1legacy]

I fail to understand what everyone is so excited about.

I'm not just saying this to be a downer or to shit on something people are happy for.

How exactly do people plan on this being different from any other Call of Duty other than setting? The lack of regen health? Great. So you get the exact same firefights, except instead of waiting behind a wall for a few seconds so you can continue at least some of appropriate pace, you have to backtrack to a deadzone you've already been through to find a health pack, and run all the way back only to continue shooting some more.

And is this...going to change online at all? Obviously there isn't going to be any wall running, but I thought that actually ADDED to the fun of CoD online. Now what? We're going back to basic ground combat with everyone camping corners and scrambling for sniper positions? Yay...

I just don't see this going well. How much can you really pick out of WWII? Yes, I'm sure there were plenty of battles left untouched by games, but isn't there a reason for that?

And even if they could make the most uninteresting of battles interesting, it would either piss off the people who complain about realism or historical authenticity (in which case, why are looking for a video game to do that?), or piss off the people who will complain that it's still not interesting enough.

Who's excited? Anyone in this thread?

I'm not even gonna play it. I just like talking about it briefly. WWII is still overdone and I would honestly prefer more alternate timelines, fantasy shooters, futuristic shooters and non-military shooters.

I didn't exactly say "what everyone HERE is excited for".

But going by what some of the people I have on social media and judging from any of those countless youtube videos and trailers for the game, I'd say there's a lot of people excited. "Back to their roots" I see. "Good to see they are going back to when they were good" I see.

 

[Timedraven 117]

I'm actually disappointed with this decision. I consider pure healthbars in shooters a very bad idea, and only the new DOOM, Halo Combat Evolved, and Reach did it right, but that was doom (and the halo hybrid system I found good). and I don't think you can be a marine on the beaches of Okinawa and bunny hop with bazookas and glory kill a japanese officer with his own katana.

Barring that, I HAVE played most of the Call of Dutys and I considered 1, United Offensive, and Finest Hour (All had health bars) to have the weakest gunplay of them all ( I love Finest Hour's combat and environments, but the health bar significantly detracts from it, especially with the fact the Germans in later levels can fire their Kars twice before cycling the bolt... I shit you not.). United Offensive especially as it was either play on easy or grind your way though levels of infinitely re spawning enemies scournging every last bit of health I can find just to survive the mission. It quickly changed from "Cool" to "Frustrating" to "Fuck this I'm done playing" very very quickly.

 

[Prime_Hunter_H01]

Wouldn't it be easier to make the game one shot, one kill? This heath regenerate/vulnerability system abstraction sounds more fit for a turned based game. Couldn't this be more easily represented by suppression system that a lot of shooters already have?

Like others said while the jam on screen goes against this interpretation, it actually is a representation of suppression that is more friendly for an arcade experience. You want health, but you want the skin of realism. IF they did not have the blood on screen as others said, then the idea that a predicable suppression holds merit as a skin over health. And this skin justifies the mechanics of this health, why it regens fast without medicine.

Like the shields in Halo 2 - 3 (from memory the ones without health packs and the second bar), its a recursive system justifies skin, skin justifies system.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I fail to understand what everyone is so excited about.

I'm not just saying this to be a downer or to shit on something people are happy for.

How exactly do people plan on this being different from any other Call of Duty other than setting? The lack of regen health? Great. So you get the exact same firefights, except instead of waiting behind a wall for a few seconds so you can continue at least some of appropriate pace, you have to backtrack to a deadzone you've already been through to find a health pack, and run all the way back only to continue shooting some more.

And is this...going to change online at all? Obviously there isn't going to be any wall running, but I thought that actually ADDED to the fun of CoD online. Now what? We're going back to basic ground combat with everyone camping corners and scrambling for sniper positions? Yay...

I just don't see this going well. How much can you really pick out of WWII? Yes, I'm sure there were plenty of battles left untouched by games, but isn't there a reason for that?

And even if they could make the most uninteresting of battles interesting, it would either piss off the people who complain about realism or historical authenticity (in which case, why are looking for a video game to do that?), or piss off the people who will complain that it's still not interesting enough.

Pretty much my exact thoughts on the subject.

I liked the direction the newer COD games were going. I liked the increased mobility and speed, and how it prevented camping. I like my high speed arcadey action.

This new game doesn't excite me at all.

 

[darkrage6]

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/featu...erything-we-know-about-call-of-duty-wwii.aspx

Players do not recover health or ammo passively. You cannot simply get hit, hide behind some cover, and heal up. You need to call upon your squadmates to get health packs, ammunition, or even covering fire. This makes getting hit carry a significantly more weight than other Call of Duty titles, as taking a bullet has consequences every time.

this was unexpected. I never thought a day when a regen health removed from a COD game..

Well i would say thanks to success of Doom that even COD developer are ditching some of terrible modern design. last gen COD4 ruined FPS genre. this gen Doom re invented it and open door for other games.

I don't think it's "terrible modern design" at all, I don't see anything wrong with regen health.

 

[Elijin]

GG to everyone who cant read between the lines.

You cannot simply get hit, hide behind some cover, and heal up. You need to call upon your squadmates to get health packs, ammunition, or even covering fire

This is going to be an interaction system. You ask for ammo or health and your ai buddy comes to you (or you go to him) and hold down a button initiating a short animation where things are traded or you're patched up. This is where my money is. So, its not going to be meaningful. Trading 'Sit in cover for x seconds' with 'find somewhere you can play this animation for x seconds'.

 

[bjj hero]

I don't think realism is the main draw of health packs. Instead, as B-Cell said, it makes every hit you take carry more weight, since you can't just regenerate it, unless you find more health. It encourages you to respond to damage with pro-activity, rather than passivity. If you're low on health, you must take the risk of finding more health either through exploration, or aggression, if enemies can drop health. It forces you to put yourself in danger to get out being in the red zone and that can be a far more thrilling experience than passively waiting behind cover to regenerate your health.

Or you can spend 6 minutes back tracking through empty areas to search for more health packs. I dont miss that.

 

[Hawki]

http://www.polygon.com/2017/4/26/15438184/call-of-duty-wwii-trailer-reveal-diversity

You know what? Fuck it. Yes, this is coming from the person who honestly had no problem with black/Indian soldiers in Battlefield 1, but after reading this, I'm not going to complain about "muh diversity" in the near future. And this is from someone who actually sees diversity as a plus, if only for variety.

Anyway, now that I've got that off my chest, and glad that British and French characters will be playable to at least some extent, time to comment:

I don't think realism is the main draw of health packs. Instead, as B-Cell said, it makes every hit you take carry more weight, since you can't just regenerate it, unless you find more health. It encourages you to respond to damage with pro-activity, rather than passivity. If you're low on health, you must take the risk of finding more health either through exploration, or aggression, if enemies can drop health. It forces you to put yourself in danger to get out being in the red zone and that can be a far more thrilling experience than passively waiting behind cover to regenerate your health.

It depends on the scenario.

I played two Medal of Honour games this year (go figure), namely Rising Sun and Vanguard. The former had health packs, the latter had regenerating health. The former had you operating by your lonesome for a lot of the time, or at best, with only a few fellow soldiers. The latter had you as a grunt for the entirety of the campaign, with you by yourself only periodically at the last part of the game. The former had enemies that would miss a lot. The latter had enemies that were quite accurate. The former didn't have a cover system, the latter made use of one.

You seeing my point here? Even within the confines of WWII games, which system is better depends a lot on the scenario. In a game where a significant part is spent infiltrating enemy lines as an OSS agent, a fixed health system makes sense. In a scenario that tries to capture the 'bullet hell' of war, emphasizing cover and squad-based movement, regenerating health makes sense, because otherwise, you're going to die. A lot. And not in a way that allows you to learn from mistakes easily.

A lot also depends on pacing. For instance, also played BioShock, where regenerating health would sink the game, because the game emphasizes resource management and survival - you want health, you need to spend money or loot it. In contrast, scrounging for health packs doesn't quite work in the context of being a grunt in an army - keep moving forward and all that.

 

[DeadProxy]

This isn't going to change much at all really. You die incredibly fast no matter what, so what's the incentive to just die and hope a checkpoint saves you the hassle of finding your invincible ai buddies to save your ass.

Doubly so if this applies to the multiplayer, cause 90% of your deaths are from instant bursts that kill you before even reddening your screen, and if there are healing stations, how many people are going to just camp those for easy kills? Unless they increase the base health to be able to allow someone to get hit, understand that they're in trouble, and choose either fight or flight, instead of the usual turning a corner and dropping dead immediately from a single squeeze of a trigger.

 

[sageoftruth]

I don't think realism is the main draw of health packs. Instead, as B-Cell said, it makes every hit you take carry more weight, since you can't just regenerate it, unless you find more health. It encourages you to respond to damage with pro-activity, rather than passivity. If you're low on health, you must take the risk of finding more health either through exploration, or aggression, if enemies can drop health. It forces you to put yourself in danger to get out being in the red zone and that can be a far more thrilling experience than passively waiting behind cover to regenerate your health.

Or you can spend 6 minutes back tracking through empty areas to search for more health packs. I dont miss that.

Yeah, I forgot about that. That would definitely be a downside, unless it helps you roleplay as a super-resourceful hero, but that's not something everyone's looking for.

Best case scenario, if the challenge is balanced just right with your skill level, you won't have many health packs to backtrack towards and it'll be a constant fight to keep your health up as enemies knock it down.