The Gaming Den

I feel that the article is incomplete. Buried deep in the text, it passingly mentions a different paradigm, but that's different from positing alternatives.

That's a really shallow kind of article really. It can be written about absolutely anything and everything.
When he reached the "HP is dehumanizing" point that's when I rolled my eyes.

Chess is Dehumanizing, so are Toy Soldiers. Im sorry people don't watch more arthouse films on the nature of warfare.

I literally couldn’t get past the first paragraph of so on my phone since the format was fucked on my browser and I couldn’t scroll. How hard is it to just put your unformatted text doc online? Why use some shitty loader? But anyway, what I could read sounded stupid.

This author abstracts the concept of hit points so much, to the point where any number that ticks up or down and determines whether you win or lose counts, that claiming that RPGs and old video games invented the concept is off by several orders of magnitude. The ancient greeks played sports with points too I'm sure.

Shrieking Banshee wrote: When he reached the "HP is dehumanizing" point that's when I rolled my eyes.

I beat you! I rolled my eyes at "fatally circumscribed".

If you are telling a story, and the most horrible thing that you can do to a character is to reduce their HP to 0, you are not telling a story about human beings.

So, I'm supposed to be really empathize with the opponent I'm killing?

It's bullshit.

It's bullshit because it fails to recognize the core issue. HP is a means to an end, not an end unto itself. The core issue is that games are competitive.

You can compete against other players, or you can compete against the CPU, but is is ultimately competitive either way. To have a competition, there must be some way of keeping score. Some way to win, and some way to lose. In their place, you need either a compelling narrative or carried and robust non-structured free play to hold player interest.

The issue of walking simulators, and most visual novels, is that they're non-competitive. It isn't just the lack of combat abstractions like HP, it's the lack of win and lose conditions that are at issue.


Creating a good non-structured non-competetive game is really, really difficult, because your toolbox is finite and you're competing with the infinite universe and the power of human imagination. Your game has to provide something that just playing pretend does not, otherwise no one would buy it.


Fuirthermore, at no point am I sure if they're advocating non-competitive games, or hyper-realistic anatomy systems.

Hyper-realistic anatomy systems would be a bitch to implement, but they're at least possible in video games. I wouldn't want to demand players keep track of their characters blood pressure at the tabletop, that would bog the game down severely. In video games, that level of detail would be computationally intensive, but feasible.

I cannot determine if that is a genuine article, or if it's yet another satire of post-modernism. I mean, what's the difference between that manifesto and Peter Molydeux's tweets?

The origin of hitpoints was a civil war boat battle game right?

Arneson claimed that he adapted his own Ironclads rules for hit points to D&D, and I don't think there's any reason to doubt him; but naval wargames (literally, the US Navy's tactical sims) were using recognizable hp in the 20s, so they originated well before that.

I'm not finished, but it appears to be pro-hit points for RPGs, but anti-hit points for computer games.

Article wrote: DMs have to choose between the improv principle of “yes, and” and keeping their settings grounded such that the players can’t do everything all the time with no consequences. HP is a natural solution to this problem that is easy to keep track of with just pencil and paper. It’s a way of putting everything from a magical fireball to a knife wound into the same conceptual space, and so allow a neat and tidy ordering of what kinds of damage you can dish out, and what you can take.

Edit:
But I still disagree with him.

Article wrote: The main method for punishing you is to reduce your HP. The main method for rewarding you is increasing your HP.

I wouldn't consider 'gaining HP' to be a reward on the same level as 'gaining a new ability' or 'gaining a new item' or 'gaining access to a new area'. Gaining HP may allow more play, but if there is no reward FOR PLAYING it doesn't mean anything. In Pinball, gaining a ball is a reward, but the goal is to achieve a higher score. Points are the primary award.

deaddmwalking wrote:I'm not finished, but it appears to be pro-hit points for RPGs, but anti-hit points for computer games.

So, the complaint is we shouldn't be using a number-based hit system in the medium that only measures in numbers, but they're okay in systems where people can make subjective decisions? WTF!?

I had to step away, but I've finished the article. At the end, he claims that 'any meter' is a measure of 'hit points' which is really an unfounded stretch. While considering the part that I had read up to that point, I thought about the Sims. The game doesn't use 'hit points' or 'combat' in any meaningful way. That said, it does use 'meters' for things like how badly you need to use the restroom or how tired you are. Those are automatically easier to empathize with than hit point loss because we have experienced them to some degree - so exactly what he claims he's looking for.

SimAnt didn't even have those types of status bars. Your colony did need food and water - if they were measured in a graph, I don't remember it. Certainly individual ants didn't seem to have hit points - there were no 'lose a life' or 'start a level over' - the game continued until you either won or lost - that is, dominate the playing area or cease to exist. That puts it more like Risk - which also doesn't use hit points and can be played on the computer.

Ultimately, I think HE THINKS that hit points have constrained video games, but they've constrained HIS IMAGINATION of what constitutes a computer game.

Even in fighting games it is possible to have concerns beyond 'status bar'. In Bushido Blade your character can lose the use of limbs unrelated to their overall health. Being forced to fight with only one good arm makes the combat significantly more difficult - avoiding attacks is the focus, not just regaining damage you've taken. But I would still posit that a 'status bar' is one of the best ways to convey to the PLAYER how you're doing - at least if you want incremental erosion of ability to be a thing. In the original King's Quest there were things that automatically killed you (like a wolf, or falling) but none of his criticisms really apply - dying doesn't MAKE you go back to a particular stage - you could save anywhere and anytime - the game is primarily of exploration so hit points or status bars really don't figure into it.

My take: this guy had to write a college paper and wanted to vent about something related to computer games. The quotes he chose seem to support an academic paper rather than a personal belief. He ignored too many counterexamples when establishing his position (ie, did not anticipate and respond to potential criticisms. This is somewhere between a C+ and a D, depending on how you care about citing sources.

the example of bioshock was especially bad since the resource involved there wasn't HP, it was a currency used for buying powers

Hit points, Heidegger, Marx... "pain as data, not pain as suffering"...

How many times do you suppose guy took a rip from his bong before writing this?

At the level of abstraction he's talking about, he is basically just complaining about everything where you fail. Even a binary thing like just "alive/dead". Reminds me of that dumb writer who had an existential crisis because he shot some dudes in Far Cry 4.

Hit points are great, especially in something like D&D. This author is dumb.

Cervantes wrote:the example of bioshock was especially bad since the resource involved there wasn't HP, it was a currency used for buying powers

you also search garbage cans for needles to inject yourself with

Super Meat Boy doesn't feature HP. Old Mario games don't feature HP. Most point 'n' click/puzzle games don't feature HP. Tetris and the like doesn't feature HP. Ghouls 'n' ghost and many old shooter/run 'n' gun games don't feature HP. etc. Video games with no HP exist since... the creation of video games (Pong didn't have any HP involved).

And the author can't even make the difference between a HP system and a XP system...

GâtFromKI wrote:Super Meat Boy doesn't feature HP. Old Mario games don't feature HP. Most point 'n' click/puzzle games don't feature HP. Tetris and the like doesn't feature HP. Ghouls 'n' ghost and many old shooter/run 'n' gun games don't feature HP. etc.

As Deaddmwalking pointed out, the author's definition of HP is rather expansive. Anything with a movable meter counts as HP - Mario has two hit points (full size to small size to dead) and also has lives, and Ghouls'n'Ghosts works on the same principle. Point and click puzzle games are specifically called out as victims of HP, having lost all interactivity beyond being a scavenger hunt.

virgil wrote:As Deaddmwalking pointed out, the author's definition of HP is rather expansive. Anything with a movable meter counts as HP - Mario has two hit points (full size to small size to dead) and also has lives, and Ghouls'n'Ghosts works on the same principle. Point and click puzzle games are specifically called out as victims of HP, having lost all interactivity beyond being a scavenger hunt.

The author is just a prick because he doesn't like games having loose-states. Which pretty much doesn't make them games.

He wants more interactive simulators I suppose. Or I guess probably less interactive because you can end up interacting "Wrong".

This is just some nonsense.

Yes. Using an extensive definition of HP, you can prove that everything uses HP - not only video games. If I define HP as "something containing some information", even a glass of water has HP.

Using any reasonable definition of HP, old Mario doesn't have HP. He has several states, and its state changes the gameplay (it's the same in Ghouls 'n' Ghost and many old shooter : being hit makes reduce your power ups). The whole article is even more stupid if you include anything influencing the gameplay into "HP": gameplay constraints our thinking about video games, thank you Captain Obvious.

GâtFromKI wrote: Using any reasonable definition of HP, old Mario doesn't have HP. He has several states, and its state changes the gameplay (it's the same in Ghouls 'n' Ghost and many old shooter : being hit makes reduce your power ups).

Tracking states and HP aren't mutually exclusive, you can do one with the other, in each direction.

When Mario's state changes because he is hit, and the number of hits can be tracked numerically, I think that's absolutely HP.

I like having time/turn/action limits in games. Really enjoying Persona 5 and how I have to balance school life/getting waifus with dungeon crawling.

the boardgame Dead of Winter has you balance personal survival vs colony survival with a time limit.

You could say it's a very abstract form of 'hit points' in the sense you can run out and lose.

RobbyPants wrote:When Mario's state changes because he is hit, and the number of hits can be tracked numerically, I think that's absolutely HP.

Great. In Super Meat Boy (and many old game), when you're hit your state change from "alive" to "dead". It can be tracked numerically. Hence it's totally HP. So the author of the essay doesn't like game where he can die in a predicable way (I guess he has no problem if the game randomly kills him for no reason). Why is he talking about "HP" again ?

That's the whole stupidity the essay : it's not even wrong. It doesn't define "HP" although it doesn't use the word in its usual sense; hence, it says everything and nothing, since everything can be considered as "HP".

GâtFromKI wrote:

RobbyPants wrote:When Mario's state changes because he is hit, and the number of hits can be tracked numerically, I think that's absolutely HP.

Great. In Super Meat Boy (and many old game), when you're hit your state change from "alive" to "dead". It can be tracked numerically. Hence it's totally HP. So the author of the essay doesn't like game where he can die in a predicable way (I guess he has no problem if the game randomly kills him for no reason). Why is he talking about "HP" again ?

That's the whole stupidity the essay : it's not even wrong. It doesn't define "HP" although it doesn't use the word in its usual sense; hence, it says everything and nothing, since everything can be considered as "HP".

Yeah. I agree with you on the rest of that.

OgreBattle wrote: the boardgame Dead of Winter has you balance personal survival vs colony survival with a time limit.

You could say it's a very abstract form of 'hit points' in the sense you can run out and lose.

I wouldn't call "rounds" hit points, that deserves its own separate nomenclature, like a timer.

But very much less abstractly in Dead of Winter the named survivors have 3 hit points (can survive 2 wounds).