No it really is. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't mean that the millions of other people that actually do are wrong.

I think games with healthpacks aren't as fun as games without (hence not as good as games with regenitive health)

It's bad for single-player as well. What the hell is the point of you getting shot if you can just lay down behind a chest-high wall and heal up? It's there solely because scrubs can't play the game and they need all the help they can get. It also happens to either remove exploration for health at which point level design turns from bearabel to utter linear crap, or the significance of any NPC medic that is present.

Resistance had a good mix of health bar and regeneration. Still getting all shot up and using some health pack doesn't exactly add any realism to the whole thing, and autoheal doesn't do you too many favours when you're surrounded.

It's not about realism. Otherwise every tme you die in the game it should uninstall itself and delete all the files. Also Autoheal does you plenty of favors. You just have to find a good chest-high wall.

False. Things such as level design, game mechanics, depth of story, character development, etc. etc. are objective, which measure gameplay objectively.

Furthermore, the whoel argument "millions of other people like it" is a shit argument. Do you know that in 1969, when The Beatles released Abbey Road, and Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendrix were in their prime, the number one song was "Sugar, Sugar", by The Archies. Just think of how retarded it is to say "yeah millions of others obviously liked  Sugar Sugar therefore The Archies were the best in 1969."

Basically, it served the lowest common denominator. Ehen you serve the lowest common denominator, you get the broadest audience and therefore biggest numbers. However to get that you have to have the blandest and dumbest aspects of the medium. For video games, that aspect is making sure the game is friendly for newbies/noobs/scrubs/chobs/etc. and so regenerative health ( and while I'm at it, third-person viewpoint too)  Therefore your argument of "millions like it too"  is absolutely worthless.

Nope its subjective dude no matter what you say. I don't care if you think health packs make a better game cause I think they don't....and me disagreeing with you just proves its subjective.

Heavy Rain? Doesn't do what you describe, but if a character is dead, they're dead. Valkyria Chronicles did similar, thought the main characters couldn't be killed off. I think a Heavy Rain or VC approach in a FPS would be pretty interesting. Character dies on a mission, you don't get a do over from a checkpoint. Mission ends in failure, game/story takes a particular direction. Character gets badly shot up, but lives, leads to something different. Mission accomplished with naught but a scratch: a few days R&R and that character is back in action.

Arguably, chugging on a health pack actually makes things easier, as long as you have one. And chest high walls are still your best friend when you're down at <20% health. With autoheal you can make a game a lot harder / make enemies a lot harder to kill. I think autoheal and health bar have their own advantages and disadvantages. It's all about how the developer chooses to use their system, and the player's preference.

False. Things such as level design, game mechanics, depth of story, character development, etc. etc. are objective, which measure gameplay objectively.

Furthermore, the whoel argument "millions of other people like it" is a shit argument. Do you know that in 1969, when The Beatles released Abbey Road, and Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Jimi Hendrix were in their prime, the number one song was "Sugar, Sugar", by The Archies. Just think of how retarded it is to say "yeah millions of others obviously liked  Sugar Sugar therefore The Archies were the best in 1969."

Basically, it served the lowest common denominator. Ehen you serve the lowest common denominator, you get the broadest audience and therefore biggest numbers. However to get that you have to have the blandest and dumbest aspects of the medium. For video games, that aspect is making sure the game is friendly for newbies/noobs/scrubs/chobs/etc. and so regenerative health ( and while I'm at it, third-person viewpoint too)  Therefore your argument of "millions like it too"  is absolutely worthless.

Heavy Rain? Doesn't do what you describe, but if a character is dead, they're dead. Valkyria Chronicles did similar, thought the main characters couldn't be killed off. I think a Heavy Rain or VC approach in a FPS would be pretty interesting. Character dies on a mission, you don't get a do over from a checkpoint. Mission ends in failure, game/story takes a particular direction. Character gets badly shot up, but lives, leads to something different. Mission accomplished with naught but a scratch: a few days R&R and that character is back in action.

Arguably, chugging on a health pack actually makes things easier, as long as you have one. And chest high walls are still your best friend when you're down at <20% health. With autoheal you can make a game a lot harder / make enemies a lot harder to kill. I think autoheal and health bar have their own advantages and disadvantages. It's all about how the developer chooses to use their system, and the player's preference.