-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
A headshot should always be an instant kill...
- Thread starter Malverde
- Start date
I could be wrong but doesn't RE2 kinda scale the difficulty based on how well your doing?
Like if you have a lot of ammo and health zombies are harder to kill.
Like if you have a lot of ammo and health zombies are harder to kill.
They're already dead. An instant "kill" on a RE zombie is usually outright destroying the head entirely.
I'm pretty sure the journal in RE1 shows that it's a human whose mind deteriorates, as can be seen by the scientist's journal.
Playing Re2 now but in easy cause i suck at dual sticks but aren't you suppose to stagger zombies at the beginning to just survive?
I agree 100%
I never played RE2 but that would be a dealbreaker for me.
That video up above just makes it seem frustrating.
I had the same feeling playing the Uncharted games, its insane how many shots those guys take
I never played RE2 but that would be a dealbreaker for me.
That video up above just makes it seem frustrating.
I had the same feeling playing the Uncharted games, its insane how many shots those guys take
You're limiting a lot of interesting design space in games with guns if every headshot on a humanoid enemy has to be a one-hit kill. It creates a very straightforward optimal strategy.
Resident Evil 4, for instance, is a significantly more interesting game because enemies don't go down with a single bullet to the head. The player hitting a smaller target is rewarded with both additional damage and the opportunity for an invincible melee follow-up that clears out surrounding foes. Then the game adds additional wrinkles that discourage headshots with certain enemy types and force players to try out other tactics.
My understanding is that the whole point of RE2's zombie damage model is to make it so you can't know how quickly or easily you'll be able to take a zombie down, which means slow-moving zombies that would otherwise be unthreatening can become unpredictable, and the choice to fight can eat up more ammo than you'd expect.
Resident Evil 4, for instance, is a significantly more interesting game because enemies don't go down with a single bullet to the head. The player hitting a smaller target is rewarded with both additional damage and the opportunity for an invincible melee follow-up that clears out surrounding foes. Then the game adds additional wrinkles that discourage headshots with certain enemy types and force players to try out other tactics.
My understanding is that the whole point of RE2's zombie damage model is to make it so you can't know how quickly or easily you'll be able to take a zombie down, which means slow-moving zombies that would otherwise be unthreatening can become unpredictable, and the choice to fight can eat up more ammo than you'd expect.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/35499290/Screen_Shot_2014-07-11_at_5.38.57_PM.0.png)
The very moment you try to apply real life logic to video game mechanics, you fail Game Design 101. This is the same argument as "shotguns in real life are accurate outside of ten feet, but in video games it's like shooting confetti heh heh heh". The game would either 1.) be boring as hell if you could ice everything with one headshot or 2.) be completely reworked so that headshots were more difficult to pull off.
To quote Jeffy G:
"Headshots are ruining games. Think about the arsenal they give you in Splinter Cell Think about the remote camera, the sticky mines, the grenades, and EMPs, and all this other stuff, shotguns and assault rifles…and you went through the entire game using the default pistol and then the upgraded version of the default pistol, 'cause it's silenced and you can shoot guys in the head with it really well…all of the spots where you are not being seen by anyone the right answer every single time is shoot that guy in the head…it is ruining games." – Jeff Gerstmann
"Headshots are ruining games. Think about the arsenal they give you in Splinter Cell Think about the remote camera, the sticky mines, the grenades, and EMPs, and all this other stuff, shotguns and assault rifles…and you went through the entire game using the default pistol and then the upgraded version of the default pistol, 'cause it's silenced and you can shoot guys in the head with it really well…all of the spots where you are not being seen by anyone the right answer every single time is shoot that guy in the head…it is ruining games." – Jeff Gerstmann
As much as I liked Resident Evil 2 (2019), i'll admit i didn't really like the headshot lottery system. If you need zombies to be a threat make them move at you quickly and directly with them also being invulnerable to everything but a headshot.
Same.
It works in some games, like a Max Payne 3, I think, but I sort of hate the "Bullet sponge!" complaints I hear about countless shooters.
I too am not a fan of how headshots are handled in REmake 2. They are not very satisfying and there is no melee/staggering like in 4 to offset that.
Zombies being bullet sponges is what makes them scary, and is why ammo conservation is important and why there are only ever 1-3 in every room.
If they go easy you get Left 4 Dead or Dead Rising where you have to throw a ton of them at you at once to do anything
Also shooting something in the head isn't a guaranteed kill for something that's still alive IRL, much less something that's already dead and doesn't need all that brain.
In RE0-Code Veronica a headshot with a handgun is not strong enough to cause a 1 shot death. A point-blank shotgun blast to the face however is.
If they go easy you get Left 4 Dead or Dead Rising where you have to throw a ton of them at you at once to do anything
Also shooting something in the head isn't a guaranteed kill for something that's still alive IRL, much less something that's already dead and doesn't need all that brain.
Those were living people in RE4. Full of creepy giant parasites, but alive.
In RE0-Code Veronica a headshot with a handgun is not strong enough to cause a 1 shot death. A point-blank shotgun blast to the face however is.
Bullet sponge enemies in general just annoy me. Uncharted was ridiculous for this. Maybe not a perfect headshot, but I could shoot a guy three times in the chest and besides a split second reaction animation he would just carry on coming at me and shooting. Wearing a shirt or something, not a bulletproof vest. I just dislike for all sorts of reason, but mostly immersion.
Yeah but showing Marvin in RE2 you clearly rot when you succumb as well, and you don't have to be alive
Besides, a bullet sponge to me is an enemy who has 0 reaction to damage. You can blow zombies' limbs off and it will change how they come after you, and if you use a gun stronger than the handgun to do it, your headshots can 1 shot them. Enemies in RE4 stagger because OW YOU SHOT ME IN THE FUCKIN' EYE
No to mention the fact Zombies were as durable in Remake 1, if not moresoe because of the Crimson Head mechanic
I think RE2's zombies are perfect for the type of survival horror they're designed for. Zombies are dangerous for two reasons: they lurch and stumble at unexpected times to throw off your aim, and when they rush you, they don't stagger easily. This isn't RE4 where headshots open up your opponents for a knockdown via roundhouse kick. It's not even RE3 where you can tap a dodge button to avoid being grabbed at the last moment. In REmake 2, a zombie within arms-reach is at its deadliest, your only advantage being whatever defense weapon you're willing to spend to escape the situation. And everything that zombies can do in the game -- from their unpredictable movements to their high health values and "super armour" -- are deliberately designed to help them close the gap.
And you can answer their tools in several ways. Fall back if they get too close or if you have trouble aiming. Shoot off their ankles so they are forced to crawl, which is slower, makes it easier to target their head, and lets you easily skip past them entirely. The point of the headshot isn't to just, as the OP puts it, "do shit" to a zombie. It can be a means of knocking them back long enough for you to run past it, because maybe the zombie is in a room you intend to visit only once. That video the OP shows? You never need to revisit that room ever again. The question isn't "why does it take so many headshots to kill a zombie" -- it's "why are you killing the zombie".
Because ultimately the zombie's apparent damage resistance is a calculated design choice to signal their general toughness to the player. Given that survival horror is ultimately a test of resource management -- and both ammo and health are considered resources --, it'll always be up to you to decide if it's worth the amount of bullets needed to put down a zombie or if you simply want to just grab what you need and run.
(PS: And even though this game indeed isn't RE4, knocking a zombie down and killing it with repeated Combat Knife slashes still works wonderfully well)
And you can answer their tools in several ways. Fall back if they get too close or if you have trouble aiming. Shoot off their ankles so they are forced to crawl, which is slower, makes it easier to target their head, and lets you easily skip past them entirely. The point of the headshot isn't to just, as the OP puts it, "do shit" to a zombie. It can be a means of knocking them back long enough for you to run past it, because maybe the zombie is in a room you intend to visit only once. That video the OP shows? You never need to revisit that room ever again. The question isn't "why does it take so many headshots to kill a zombie" -- it's "why are you killing the zombie".
Because ultimately the zombie's apparent damage resistance is a calculated design choice to signal their general toughness to the player. Given that survival horror is ultimately a test of resource management -- and both ammo and health are considered resources --, it'll always be up to you to decide if it's worth the amount of bullets needed to put down a zombie or if you simply want to just grab what you need and run.
(PS: And even though this game indeed isn't RE4, knocking a zombie down and killing it with repeated Combat Knife slashes still works wonderfully well)
Do you realise you're ina thread talking about zombies infected with a virus that turns corpses into living weapons?
Zombies are meant to be more resistant than a normal human.
Zombies dying with every headshot would suck a lot in the context of the game. It's not something as simple as "add less ammo", every zombie would die with one bullet and goodbye tension.
RE2R handled zombies the best way possible and i don't think any other game comes close at it. It's pretty much the first time, in the series or in general, that i felt real tension being near a zombie in a videogame.
The biggest criticism on "bullet sponge" enemies are due to how it affects pacing and makes the game longer for the sake of it. You have an enormous queue of enemies in a game like Uncharted so the criticism kinda makes sense. In RE2R, zombies aren't meant to be necessarily defeated like a generic shooter, and their placement are thought off for the context of an horror game. Deciding if you're gonna kill the zombie or just pass through it makes complete sense in a exploration game with backtrack and wouldn't made any sense if the enemies were fragile.
Short version: RE2R would be a shitty game if headshots were instant kills, and you're playing the wrong game if you think otherwise.
Lol Is this serious?
Zombies dying with every headshot would suck a lot in the context of the game. It's not something as simple as "add less ammo", every zombie would die with one bullet and goodbye tension.
RE2R handled zombies the best way possible and i don't think any other game comes close at it. It's pretty much the first time, in the series or in general, that i felt real tension being near a zombie in a videogame.
The biggest criticism on "bullet sponge" enemies are due to how it affects pacing and makes the game longer for the sake of it. You have an enormous queue of enemies in a game like Uncharted so the criticism kinda makes sense. In RE2R, zombies aren't meant to be necessarily defeated like a generic shooter, and their placement are thought off for the context of an horror game. Deciding if you're gonna kill the zombie or just pass through it makes complete sense in a exploration game with backtrack and wouldn't made any sense if the enemies were fragile.
Short version: RE2R would be a shitty game if headshots were instant kills, and you're playing the wrong game if you think otherwise.
Lol Is this serious?
Never mind the massive bladed tentacles that burst out of severed heads to make you really think hmmm is it worth doing this headshot at a chance of getting a risky but potentially instant kill as opposed to going for the knee/suplex combo instead?
100% The whole tension of the game comes from not knowing whether the next shot will drop a zombie. If you knew every single headshot was going to kill a zombie it'd be a game where you just pop everything with a handgun shot and move on. Even if you knew every zombie was 3 shots exactly to drop them it's still very different from the final ambiguous game which requires you to gamble whether killing a zombie is really worth it as opposed to avoiding it. Why would you ever bother to drop and leave a zombie to save ammo when you knew you could kill it for sure
Not much of a horror game compared to something where every zombie is a shambling juggernaut
I often hoped i would trigger a critic shot on the head, or planified everything t be able to burn as many of them, and avoided kiling some.The grenade launcher also helped a lot.
Play Siege, one of the few games where a headshot is an instant kill, no matter the gun used or the armour that the target is wearing. Sometimes you will get annoyed because you can get killed from a seemingly random spray but it works both ways as it can work in your favour too.
I'm pretty sure it's canon that zombies created by the T-virus become a lot tougher. Their growth hormones go into overdrive and their musculature and bone density are increased to ridiculous levels. Hence why it took Barry several solid shots from his hand cannon to take down a simple greenshirt, and why a point-blank shotgun blast is needed to mulch a zombie's noggin.
If you're really annoyed by it, there's a mod for RE2 on PC that disables the dynamic difficulty, giving all zombies the same health instead of having it vary based on player performance. Keep in mind though that zombies are made easier when you're doing poorly, so it can bite you in the ass where the original game might cut you some slack.
If you're really annoyed by it, there's a mod for RE2 on PC that disables the dynamic difficulty, giving all zombies the same health instead of having it vary based on player performance. Keep in mind though that zombies are made easier when you're doing poorly, so it can bite you in the ass where the original game might cut you some slack.
If it is a standard Military FPS sure, Horror games or RPGs no. Doom like games as well should not have instakill headshots.
Last edited:
People keep posting this ideas like letting the player shoot less would somehow be more fun 🤣
I can understand this complaint against regular humans but cutting down RE2 aint it lmao
A zombie who shouldn't even have a functioning brain seeing how it is dead shouldn't have to abide by normal head shot rules. Maybe you have to destroy the brain completely.
Imagine if head shots were one shot kills in RE 2. Only the fast moving dogs and lickers would be a threat, and lickers wouldn't either if you sneak up on them.
Imagine if head shots were one shot kills in RE 2. Only the fast moving dogs and lickers would be a threat, and lickers wouldn't either if you sneak up on them.
Instant kill headshots are terrible for games in which they were not considered for the game balance. Black Ops 4 has a super long time to kill for all weapons except for sniper rifles and shotguns, which can kill instantly with a bodyshot. The "Skullcracker" revolver attachment makes it one-shot headshot enemies as well. In a game where every other weapon takes 4-6 shots to kill over the course of .3-4 seconds (a surprisingly long time for Call of Duty), having a TTK of "instantly" spits in the face of game balance.
It makes even less sense for Resident Evil, where zombies are not only bioweapons that are designed to be tougher against conventional firearms, but also balanced based on your ammo supplies. If you're wasteful with your ammo, you can't defend yourself. By making zombies numerous and ammo limited, you're encouraged to pick your battles and go for non-lethal shots that cost less ammo and pacify zombies by forcing them to crawl or render them unable to grab. By making limited ammo less of a concern because your headshots are lethal, this well-considered balance is ruined.
Sorry, OP. I have to disagree.
It makes even less sense for Resident Evil, where zombies are not only bioweapons that are designed to be tougher against conventional firearms, but also balanced based on your ammo supplies. If you're wasteful with your ammo, you can't defend yourself. By making zombies numerous and ammo limited, you're encouraged to pick your battles and go for non-lethal shots that cost less ammo and pacify zombies by forcing them to crawl or render them unable to grab. By making limited ammo less of a concern because your headshots are lethal, this well-considered balance is ruined.
Sorry, OP. I have to disagree.
It's especially weird that later games got rid of it, but the early SC titles (and other Clancyverse titles, like Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six) discouraged "reflexive headshots" in gameplay by making your accuracy suffer if you weren't standing completely still and not adjusting your aim. Moving your crosshairs a little bit would cause your reticle to bloom without even firing a shot, but moving quickly and adjusting your aim without stopping to "center" yourself would guarantee your shots go wide. By doing this, the early SC games encouraged closing the distance and taking out enemies with non-lethal means or gadgets, since even if you could fire your gun and land a headshot, suppressed gunshots are still very loud, and guards being on your ass is a surefire way to get into a gunfight you absolutely can't win, since the gunplay isn't designed for popping every grunt in the head.
Yup, been trying to learn some counter strike and its one of the most frustrating things to hit someone in the head and not have them die.
If it's for a monster and such i'm less bothered by it. HOWEVER, if it's a Human Enemy I FULLY agree. Really takes you out of the experience if you get a Headshot on a regular human enemy and they just stand there like nothing happened. Operation Raccoon City was NOTORIOUS for this. It was one of the reasons why playing on Easy made the game more fun, since it meant more natural enemy damage.
Haven't we learned making games too realistic is tiresome and boring as fuck.
Weapon degradation anyone ?
Weapon degradation anyone ?
If zombies were one hit headshot kills in RE2R with a standard handgun I would need no other strategy.
/thread
I mean, IRL chickens continue to walk even if their head is cut off.
Makes little sense for Zombies, who are "brain dead" in a human medical sense, to drop to the floor after a bullet creates a small hole in their already dead brain.
With aliens and other fantasy creatures we don't even know where their brain is located, might be in their crotch for all I know.