Should a head-shot always be a one-shot-kill?

[MHR]

I don't get what the problem is. The game would be boring if everything died in one shot. What are you robbed of, your realism? Realism doesn't always mean good game mechanics.

If you died to one single headshot, you'd be calling the game unfair. "NPC scrub-grunts get lucky Tec-9 spread all day, Ass/10 worst game 2016. -IGN"

I don't get the obsession. Would you feel better if everyone had Halo/borderlands shields? Big armor, and the one final shot you have to plant in their head kills them? What's changed then besides adding some particles and a contrived suspension of disbelief?

That Totalbiscuit youtuber had the same problem, and then goes on to elaborate it for a freakin half hour like he always does. He says it ruins the immersion of the game for him that enemies can soak up bullets. He then goes on to admit that in a game like Doom with fake weapons and ridiculous enemies, he has no problems with how much damage the weapons do. There's hardly a practical difference. The stupid setting your in shouldn't matter.

If it makes you feel better, maybe next time they can make Borderlands; the MMO.

I find it hard to believe that that's the big complaint some people have with the game. Nevermind that it's generic, nevermind that the PvP is riddled with hackers, repetitive missions and enemies, no flushed-out side-content to speak of. The bosses eat too many bullets though, got to stay focused on what's important.

 

[Zaeseled]

In my opinion, a headshot on a helmet-less human enemy should always result in either instant death or at the very least a critical strike, maybe do 150% or 200% damage.
Scoring a headshot is always harder than scoring a bodyshot. And if your game punishes skill and rewards mediocrity then I hope it crashes and burns.

 

[Senare]

...
More usefully, if it's not done already, why don't they make hitboxes like...a mesh, so that it's completely based on the 3D model. I think they might already do that.

Well you certainly can use more complex "hit detection geometry" for actors (players and NPCs) and I suspect that some games do. But I will still try to answer the "why not" part. It comes down to that using meshes for hit detection is very expensive performance-wise in comparison to using boxes. You can use much more simplified mathematical methods and shortcuts when using certain types of geometry, like circles and boxes.

As a thought experiment, let's say that checking if a line (like a bullet) intersects with a box takes 12 mathematical operations in all cases. Let's also say that it takes 6 math operations to check if a point is on either side of a plane. In the case of a "convex mesh", you would have to do this "plane check" one time for each triangle (which forms its own plane) to check if the point is inside the mesh. A low-poly face may still have a few hundred trianges, meaning it takes over a thousand operations to see if a bullet has hit. And if the mesh is concave (meaning it can have valleys and holes in it; concave="with caves") you have to do even more checks. Then these checks have to be done constantly against nearby objects, each update frame (typically at least 30 times per second). Not just bullets need to be checked against, but walls and roofs and floors and grenades and players. For each and every object with this "hit mesh", these checks have to be repeated. So you can imagine how it can quickly spiral out of control.

Modern physics engines use a lot of mathematical shortcuts to simplify this so they have to do the least amount of checks possible. Using a mesh that conforms to the model is not a impossible idea in and of itself. It's more a case of that it is extremely expensive, so you are better off making a very rough model for the invisible physics "hit mesh" instead of a perfect copy of the in-game model. It may also be better to just use a load of boxes. And for most games, perfect hit detection is often unnecessary.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I find it incredibly immersion breaking if I have to shoot a human target five or six times in the head with a .50 Cal before they keel over. While this isn't an issue with FPS games, it does mean that in RPG games like Fallout I have to lower the difficulty in order to achieve a 'one-to-the-head kill', but this has the equally immersion breaking effect of turning the player into an absolute damage sponge.

I'd maybe like to see some kind of (optional, entirely optional) adjustment to the already pre-existing RPG rule that states that a headshot deals double damage - perhaps a tweak to the Survival mode in Fallout 4 or the Hardcore mode in New Vegas that sees a headshot go up from x2 to x4 damage.

 

[The Enquirer]

As many people have stated, no, depending on the type of game. RPG shooters like Mass Effect, The Division etc or class based shooters like TF2 or Overwatch also have exceptions to those rules. But more realistic shooters (stretching the meaning of the word realistic here) like Call of Duty, or Battlefield wherein everyone has the same or similar health and is based around running and gunning or quick gunfights, yes.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

[quote="MHR"

 

[yamy]

I don't get what the problem is. The game would be boring if everything died in one shot. What are you robbed of, your realism? Realism doesn't always mean good game mechanics.

If you died to one single headshot, you'd be calling the game unfair. "NPC scrub-grunts get lucky Tec-9 spread all day, Ass/10 worst game 2016. -IGN"

I concur that there are games where the mechanics demands suspension of belief. Realism indeed does not good game mechanics, but good game mechanics can aid realism.

Regarding the reverse problem of players getting headshot-ed, I admit that different rules may apply in multiplayer games for the sake of balance. However, many multiplayer games handle this aspect well. I point to examples such as Counter Strike or Call of Duty, where people die quickly enough to bullet damage that suspension of belief is usually sustained.

But in general, for 1st person games at least the player receiving damage beyond what would be considered realistic is not as much of a problem as the player do not witness the damage being done physical inflicted. You can imagine that you were grazed, or your amour preserved you. It is more of a problem when you see a 50cal sniper round enter someone's head and nothing happens.

 

[veloper]

Meh. Stat-based RPG-shooters tend to be too clunky to play well anyway.

Fallout 3 and 4 would have been much better if the devs borrowed pure FPS gameplay from their buddies at ID as a basis for their game and then slapped on some RPG-elements like dialogue menus.
Then gate off more areas and fill up those areas with progressively more impressive baddies and let the players one-shot punks if they can aim for the head, as there may be dozens coming at the player from multiple sides for challenge.

Item progression is something normal FPS already had since before Doom in the early days, so there's no problems with numerical progression perse. It's stat-bloat and in particular HP-bloat, that is the real problem, as in turn-based RPGs it merely serves as a crude abstraction for increasing character skill, which in an action game with player reflexes and fast-moving AI bots, becomes superfluous.

 

[MHR]

I find it incredibly immersion breaking if I have to shoot a human target five or six times in the head with a .50 Cal before they keel over. While this isn't an issue with FPS games, it does mean that in RPG games like Fallout I have to lower the difficulty in order to achieve a 'one-to-the-head kill', but this has the equally immersion breaking effect of turning the player into an absolute damage sponge.

I'd maybe like to see some kind of (optional, entirely optional) adjustment to the already pre-existing RPG rule that states that a headshot deals double damage - perhaps a tweak to the Survival mode in Fallout 4 or the Hardcore mode in New Vegas that sees a headshot go up from x2 to x4 damage.

They're already going to improve Fallout 4 survival difficulty within the coming weeks. Both you and enemies will do increased damage, and you can stack more damage bonuses with the adrenaline mechanic which increases the damage you do for enemies killed since last you slept.

As well as a bunch of other shit. No fast travel, disease, ammo weight, no saves unless you sleep, and some other stuff I forget. Personally I can't wait to have it. Might even opt-in for the beta coming in April, and I usually never do betas.

With a Huge rifle properly modded, sniping with sneak attack bonus for headshots is going to seriously screw over whatever you hit, pretty much guaranteed. That might be the only thing though, so much at stake might make everyone play a sniper build. Oh well, that's what I do anyway!

 

[Neonsilver]

In a game that is more or less set in our world at the current time, it should be always a one shot kill. I know being shot anywhere else would probably put down most humans as well, at least temporally, but in those cases I can imagine bulletproof vests or adrenaline allowing them to go on.
In science fiction settings I can imagine shields or better helmet materials to allow multiple headshots, in other words with an increasing distance to today it's easier to suspend disbelief about this.

 

[Grouchy Imp_v1legacy]

I find it incredibly immersion breaking if I have to shoot a human target five or six times in the head with a .50 Cal before they keel over. While this isn't an issue with FPS games, it does mean that in RPG games like Fallout I have to lower the difficulty in order to achieve a 'one-to-the-head kill', but this has the equally immersion breaking effect of turning the player into an absolute damage sponge.

I'd maybe like to see some kind of (optional, entirely optional) adjustment to the already pre-existing RPG rule that states that a headshot deals double damage - perhaps a tweak to the Survival mode in Fallout 4 or the Hardcore mode in New Vegas that sees a headshot go up from x2 to x4 damage.

They're already going to improve Fallout 4 survival difficulty within the coming weeks. Both you and enemies will do increased damage, and you can stack more damage bonuses with the adrenaline mechanic which increases the damage you do for enemies killed since last you slept.

As well as a bunch of other shit. No fast travel, disease, ammo weight, no saves unless you sleep, and some other stuff I forget. Personally I can't wait to have it. Might even opt-in for the beta coming in April, and I usually never do betas.

With a Huge rifle properly modded, sniping with sneak attack bonus for headshots is going to seriously screw over whatever you hit, pretty much guaranteed. That might be the only thing though, so much at stake might make everyone play a sniper build. Oh well, that's what I do anyway!

That sounds like an intriguing list of changes, cheers for the heads up!

 

[Gray-Philosophy]

If a game is leaning towards realism, then yes. Headshots that realistically would penetrate the skull should equal an instant death. I know there are cases, albeit rare, of people surviving gunshot wounds to the head. But even if there's an X% chance of not dying from the first shot, a double tap should do the trick in any case.

In the case of realistic games though, they ought to be paired with "realistic" mechanics that makes aiming take skill, where headshots becomes a reward of proper mastery of the games controls.
I rather like the way it works in a game called Insurgency. In short it's your typical Counterstrike-ish military team based shooter, but with a lot of focus on realism. There are no crosshairs, only iron sights. No hud indicators to confirm kills, you have to pay attention to enemy animations and screams, or hope you really did hit the guy hiding behind that wall. Time to kill is extremely short, even with a poor gun on an armored enemy, a few succesful headshots will kill your target.

In the case of RPG or scaling stat based games however, it becomes a completely different scenario. One in which I think allowing aimed headshots might be a little redundant. Like you said about The Division, if you're shooting a guy in the face with a gun and he doesn't die until after you've emptied half a magazine, it just doesn't make sense.

Ideally, something I'd love to see is a hybrid of these systems, a beautiful marriage of skill based gameplay and progressive stat building. Instead of having your damage and health increase depending on your stats, they should depend entirely on the weapon you're using. Where stats instead only affect utilitarian mechanics. It could be things like scope sway for ranged weapons, swing speed or fluency for melee weapons. Stat thresholds to "unlock" progressing tiers of "techniques" with your weapons of choice or some such. Things that affect how the mechanics function rather than just increasing numbers.
Yeah, that'd be swell indeed!

 

[Ishigami]

I'm not a fan of bullet sponges.
So yes a head shoot should kill in one hit.

The most prominent offender I know is Crysis. Not a RPG but a straight on shooter.
They tried to add realism by having bullets ricochet from helmets. That happens from time to time, sure otherwise helmets would be useless. But not the way Crysis portrays it. There it is the rule.
What you left with is that you can empty an entire magazine of an assault rifle on a helmet just because you can't shoot the target right in the face.
That's just wrong. I hate it, made the game horrible.

 

[JaKandDaxter]

Well the two games you mentioned are RPG's. Well at least to some extent with Fallout 4. So the issue here is the player, not the game. The gameplay mechanics are no different in fantasy settings. Heck in the Halo games, it takes 9 perfectly timed battle rifle rounds in the face for someone to go down. And god forbid they get away and regenerate their health.

Funny now that OP brought it up. No one was complaining when they shotgun a mutant to the face in the Fallout games, and the mutant lived eating that shotgun damage with no facial wounds. But The Division is evil and unrealistic because one baddy took 15 shots to go down. Truth be told, TD is still slightly more realistic than some shooters, as humans don't go down that easily. And can still put up a fight with gun shot wounds even if not on drugs. Which is one misconception the public gets angry about when they hear someone was shot 17 times by the police. Like well, the first 8 didn't take him down. And surely 1 bullet wouldn't have done the trick in that scenario.

 

[hermes]

In an RPG (or games defined by RPG mechanics), I am fine with enemies resisting hundreds of bullets to the head, the same way I am fine with enemies resisting hundreds of slices of a sword that is larger than them, or dozens of magic spells that look like nothing short of atomic bombs... In games where player accuracy is a thing, it should be computed and at least be bonus damage, but still determined by stats. That is the difference between games like Fallout 3 to Borderlands and The Division (and yes, I do consider the Division a shooter with strong RPG elements).

 

[SpiralLegacy]

Yes. And depending on the power of the weapon, the appropriate bonus damage should be applied. Headshots with long range sniper rifles with higher caliber bullets should obviously kill quicker than automatic weapons with lower caliber bullets.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

I'm not gonna be original here and say: depends. But generally, if we're talking about semi-realistic, human-like enemies then yes, head trauma should pretty much guarantee their immediate elimination. Personally, it's mostly because a mook taking bullet after bullet on the forehead just reeks "bullet sponge" to me, and that's what i very much would like to avoid in my shooters.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

People need to just respect what a game is. A lot of people complaining about this in The Division and I'm like "its an RPG..."

In RPGs, no. Should be bonus damage if your own ability to aim is a factor, but otherwise if its down to stats and HP, heads should not be one shot. Realism shooters, yes it should be. Though people complaining about realism, then being shot once ANYwhere should leave you heavily debilitated.

pretty much this. most of these games that people complain about are rpg's first, shooters or whatever else second, I remember the same complaints cropping up around alpha protocol..

what the fuck do you think happens when you level up your accuracy/gun skill? just treat guns like another fantasy weapon if that's the case.

Plus it would outright suck in an rpg to build up your stats crazy high to be hit by a pee shooter in the face and die when you're rocking god alpha demon tank mc tank heavy world breaking armor.

 

[Lindale FF]

That depends on what you are shooting. For any bullet-based gun, the answer is obvious. That will get through a skull with no problem. That said, real-world snipers never aim or the Hollywood-style head shots. Real-world snipers aim for....

1: Centre mass, the chest. Even at a mile away, a .50 calibre round impacts with the same kinetic force as a 9mm at point blank. Anther factor is the temporary wound cavity, which stretches the impact area. That is why the reverse side will always be larger than the impact side. A 7.62x39mm round is capable of inflicting a temporary wound cavity larger than the body itself. So, no matter how much everyone in Team Fortress 2 WILL complain about your body shots, that is where a sniper is supposed to aim.

2: Or a sniper will aim for the "fatal T," which is where the spinal cord meets the skull.

3: There is a factor called "cranial evacuation." This is an extension of the factor that causes temporary wound cavities. Basically, the skull acts much like a watermelon. If you shoot it with even a .45, the kinetic force will cause it to explode. But, instead of being some fleshy mass, the head is encased by a hard skull that cannot stretch or flex. So, that means the skull simply remains in that fractured state.

Needless to say, any of these will result in instant death.




Now for much less-powerful ammunition.

An arrowhead works best when it is wider than the shaft of the arrow. That will not only cause a temporary wound cavity, but it will also allow open air into the wound once the cavity collapses. For maximum effect, the best place to aim is the heart, but the lungs will also work if you don't mind waiting for your victim to suffocate from a collapsed lung, or drowning from blood filling into the lung. Aiming for the head is not a realistic option at all, but it could work, if you have a bow powerful enough to get through a skull.

Metal Gear 2 had that tranquillizer gun, which worked faster if you scored a head shot. That never added up for me. If you are shooting some sort of toxin, then shooting that at a solid bone would never do the trick. For a toxin to work correctly, it needs to be in the blood stream. But, you obviously do not want to hit an artery if you are simply looking to poison.


So, where you need to aim all depends on the ammunition, and what you plan to do.

 

[kilenem]

Technically COD's online component is a rpg but for the most part head shots kill.