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

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I tend to say "no", especially in games where such effects can target the player. I think at the least there should be a way to avoid a one-headshot-death (a perfectly plausible one exists in real life; it's called a helmet.) I still haven't forgiven "Gun", an otherwise fairly good game, for teaching the player all game that headshots were the way to go and then having a boss who was immune to headshots... because he was wearing a breastplate. (Seriously.)

It's all well and good for headshots to do extra damage, especially when the game's mechanics make it difficult to get one. But unless the intent is for sniping to be the be-all and end-all of the game, it's poor design to make the player try to make every shot in every fight a slug to the cranium. If nothing else, it's well to consider that a shot to the heart is every bit as likely to be lethal, and an untreated shot to the abdomen is quite likely to be lethal as well. But most of us don't tend to enjoy games where being shot in 60% of the body is incapacitating and potentially lethal, especially when the same rules apply to our own characters.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
Dr. McD said:
Odbarc said:
Borderlands doesn't have the #1 excuse and all it's weapons are high tech killing machines. I like how Borderlands handles headshots in that usually, it's a critical hit. Though no one ever starts to limp with knee shots as far as I know.
The thing is in Borderlands there's also the matter of the people themselves having been altered genetically or cybernetically given the easy availability. Even the average bandit probably has some basic enhancements for manual labour that aren't shown externally. And just look at the Goliaths.
The problem there is that this isn't true in cutscenes, so bandits tanking headshots is entirely a gameplay mechanic, the genetic manipulation done to bandits doesn't really give most of them superpowers, it's just an explanation for their insanity, weird proportions, and propensity for killing anything that moves, there's no evidence that they get significant upgrades, even goliaths are mostly just crazy mutants. Bandits get one-shotted by bullets in story scenes all the time, so while we can say that genetic mods make sense, its mostly just an excuse to preserve suspension of disbelief.

By that same level of stretching you can justify The Division's damage with their magic healing grenades, medkits that make your bullets do more damage, aid stations that teleport ammo, or backpacks that can carry 60 guns.

On-topic: I'll go with what seems to be the majority answer and say it depends on the game, games like the Division would not work with one shotting enemies, especially on PC: challenge, gear, and abilities would be thrown out the window in favor of just maximizing number of headshots.

The idea of stats effecting accuracy is something Bethesda did with Elder scrolls and Fallout 3. In Morrowind a low stat meant you missed most of your shots, which lead to dumb scenarios where you could swing a sword through an enemy and spend 10 minutes missing every swing because your skill isn't high enough. In Fallout it mostly resulted in people just spending most of their time in VATS rather than actually shooting if their small guns skill wasnt high enough.

This doesn't strike me as any more realistic than enemies tanking multiple headshots, it's still a stretch on suspension of disbelief, and has the added irritation of causing low stat skills to feel actively worthless rather than just ineffective. People definitely complained about the "realism" of missing hits in Morrowind, so while its a viable way to do things, you still end up with people complaining about their suspension of disbelief being broken.

Personally, I don't find it to be a big deal, whether destinies aliens, The Division's factions, Mass Effect's enemies, or Borderlands Bandits, the idea of unarmored enemies tanking headshots makes about as much sense as any other video game logic. I dont find it any harder to buy than Geralt sticking his sword through unarmored bandits multiple times, shops charging a government agent for equipment, hiding behind a wall to regenerate health after eating a grenade at point blank, carrying an arsenal of weapons without even wearing a backpack, having your sword pass harmlessly through an enemy because your skill level is low, and peasants in rags eating fireballs to the face.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
I kinda do, yeah. An anti-armor sniper round should reduce the health of even a high-level raider to nothing if he doesn't even have a helmet. (Raider Veterans in Fallout 4 will survive a good headshot, even some criticals.) A challenge is a challenge, but the challenger for headshots is hitting them, in my opinion.
 

Chaos Isaac

New member
Jun 27, 2013
609
0
0
In a Tom Clancy game, yes.

In general... no. Well, no in the thought that there are a lot of different shooters with different things that stop headshots from being instant kills. Rather from armor or shields or aliens with multiple heads. Or insane over the top world. Whatever.
 

MHR

New member
Apr 3, 2010
939
0
0
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

New member
May 17, 2011
169
0
0
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

New member
Aug 6, 2010
160
0
0
Corey Schaff said:
...
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.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
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

New member
Apr 10, 2013
1,007
0
0
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.
 

yamy

Slayer of Hot Dogs
Aug 2, 2010
225
0
0
MHR said:
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

New member
Jan 20, 2009
4,597
0
0
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

New member
Apr 3, 2010
939
0
0
Grouchy Imp said:
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

New member
Aug 11, 2009
289
0
0
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.
 
Mar 30, 2010
3,785
0
0
MHR said:
Grouchy Imp said:
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

New member
Sep 19, 2014
137
0
0
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

New member
Sep 1, 2011
830
0
0
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

War does change
Jan 10, 2009
236
0
0
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.