I realize now that you started to talk about resources in general already in the second paragraph in the post I quoted and edited. The reason why I stayed with the health resource so long was partially because I wanted to follow your lead (which turned out to be an hallucination on my part), and partially because it's the best example since it's often the most valuable resource (or at least one of them).
Now that we are talking about "resources" directly however, and not talking about them using health as an example, let's try to define them. (I'll still use Unreal Tournament 1v1 Deatmatch to pick examples.) Resources: a subgroup of your avatars stats, they are the limited supply stats that we "invest" and "trade" for other resources in our quest to reach the target amount of the ultimate resource "progress" (which is "closing in on the win condition"). You could invest some health (let yourself be hit by a rocket) for a return of "more position" (a better position) which allows you to trade ammunition for the "damage dealt to your opponent" resource at a better exchange rate (more efficiently, missing less). The "damage dealt" resource in this example is very valuable because it is directly traded for frags, the score, which together with the time resource decide the winner in a death match. ("Damage dealt" is obviously the opponent's loss of health and not something you gain yourself, but as versus games like this are zero sum games they amount to the same thing, which is putting you ahead of him.)
As we start from frags and time and work our way down the hierarchy we first see health (without which you are dead and he gets a frag), then position (which is spent to get more resources, including health) and then weapons and ammunition (which can become "damage dealt", which can become frags). We can try to rank all resources like this but it quickly gets
very complex, and even when we are just one step away from frags and time
it already is, as all trades have risk (missing the shot when trading ammo for "damage dealt", etc.), and the value of resources are relative to what positions you and your opponent have (if he is close then flak cannon is better than sniper rifle and vice versa) and what time it is, as whoever is behind in score has to play increasingly more aggressive, care less about health and more about dealing damage, as time runs short. (It's the same in football, hockey, all "gather score until the time is out" games.)
Aren't we creating something out of nothing here though? What are we trading for position, that we need for all other resources, in the first place? Something that isn't unlimited in games with fuel, but here is. We have an unlimited supply of weak trusts (weak acceleration) which we use to walk around, we have a stronger thrust in the dodge and a vertical thrust in the jump. These "unlimited supply resources" must be exempt from my earlier definition then, but it's impossible to separate them from the rest since they are so deeply intertwined. In every trade between resources where you're not standing still you are using movement speed, which you have gained directly from thrust, and this effects the outcome. If you strafe (run sideways) in the same direction the opponent is running when you have him in your cross hairs to make aiming easier, you're using it. If you're moving when someone is shooting at you to avoid getting hit, you're using it.
If you have unlimited supply of a resource you will try to always pay with it. (And risk turning into an
inverse cripple if it's powerful enough, and a bored self-loathing inverse cripple if using it is boring and makes you feel pathetic.)
But this isn't nearly enough, we also have to consider that each and every human player has different "stats" which changes the success rate of trades. Some are better with the shock rifle than the rocket launcher, some are better at defense than offense, etc., and since resources are more valuable the better someone can make use of them this is a
huge factor. Even if a player isn't great with the shock rifle he might prefer to use it, which will affect his decisions, so we will have to account for his taste (or lack thereof) regardless. A player might try to disrupt the other's focus, to "stun" his whole "chain of resource trades", by doing trades that normally are inefficient (maybe even
stupid) that he knows his opponent finds annoying (this knowledge is another resource). We first have to consider both the players' stats individually (how good someone is at "investing thrust" dramatically changes their whole "economy") and then relative to one another ("Am I fast enough to get to the shield belt before him from this position?") and then their previous interactions, since if they have met before whoever lost is going to (unless he's retarded or the winner has changed his nickname (his alias, which also is a resource)) remember
how, which makes that "first choice strategy" of the winner less efficient since it's expected. (Even outside the battlefield they might be able to tell something about the other's characteristics, his stats.)
Everything changes with knowledge. This goes for everything from current health to current position to weapon preferences to bowel movements to if a pet hamster has recently passed away. The knowledge of the opponent's resources are also resources. Great, now we just fucking
doubled them, and this in turn means that
your knowledge of
his knowledge of
your resources are also, you guessed it,
resources. I could go on, and when we play, we do.
Good games are complex as fuck.
If we want to understand how to best manage all these resources and how to most effectively use them to get ahead in frags within the time limit, then analyzing from a distance just isn't going to cut it. For someone to make sense of all of this, to have
any idea about
what trades to make,
how to make them,
when to make them, and to understand how
the value of the resources fluctuates he has to get in there and play the
fuck out of the game. His (hopefully) complex brain will then subconsciously (conscious efforts are only like a short sprint in a long marathon) gather and process a
gigantic mountain of data, and when he has gathered and processed enough of it he will be rewarded with intuition, which will guide him. This takes
years. Not the kind of "years" that World of Warcraft playtime is measured in (where mere online time counts, mere sitting around chatting, mere
chatter), but
years of being pushed to your utmost limit,
years of blood, sweat and tears,
years of ruthless battle. These games, and the opponents you find in them, doesn't give back more than they are given, so it's all on you. It's impossible to understand from the outside, it's too complex. All that can be seen from the outside is "lol big guns pew pew" and "omg this makes me so dizzy". To understand
anything we have to get our feet wet, we have to step into the water, we have to play.
Luckily both of us have played enough Unreal Tournament, or Quake (which I feel obligated to mention), or other games like them, to have a general idea (I'm far from an expert) of how it all works, which allows us to use it as example. I'll now take another step backwards to get a wider perspective and compare some of its more important mechanics with another genre (where I'm no expert either). In 2D fighters you get the knowledge of your opponent's current position and health for free, you always have them right there on your screen. Is this a good or a bad thing? Somehow fog of war (which is what you're forced to implement if the player's camera shows the whole battlefield but you don't want him to see everything) and no health bars in a 2D fighters sounds incredibly shitty. If you only can see a short distance ahead of yourself you'll probably slowly walk forward until you make contact, as a tactic might be to stand still and punch in the air in hope of the opponent walking into your fist, so the pace of the game would be greatly reduced. Pre-fire in 2D fighters sounds boring. What about health then? If the players doesn't know their own and their opponent's health they wont know who is ahead in score as the timer runs out, so both might think they are winning, which might lead to both of them just standing at a safe distance from each other until the timer runs out (lol). There might be a little hint of charm in that situation, it's sort of a chicken race and whoever is the better at keeping track of the health will win, but really, it mostly just sounds boring. I mean what the fuck, imagine an intense battle in a final at a grand tournament that ends like
that? What an anti-climax! This does take guts and skill, but is this really what anyone wants 2D fighters to be about? If it's not, then let's keep the health bars.
So what
do we want them, and other games, to be about?
What is the ultimate goal of all mechanics? The whole point of the timer, winning on points and showing the players the score in the first place is to force whoever is behind in score to be aggressive, to make something happen, to create action, to create excitement,
to create immersion. It's there for the same reason that you can't back infinitely, it's there for the same reason that there's no healing (or very limited?) in 2D fighters, it's there
to force the players to go towards danger (their opponent) to win, not
away from it. One might argue that whoever is ahead in points deserves to win since he must have been more aggressive so far since he has dealt more damage, and one would be right, but in the end he will still win by running away. The closer they get to the timer running out, the closer they get to the scorching hot moment of victory or defeat, the more of a little bitch the leading player is forced to become if he wants to maximize his chances of winning.
Winning on points isn't worthy of being more than a secondary win condition that forces action towards the
primary win condition. What is this win condition then? What is the road to victory that one can be proud of then? What is a glorious victory? A glorious victory is to head straight into danger and
conquer it, not poking it with a stick and then running away screaming "lololol I won I won!!!". A real victory is the complete defeat of your opponent,
a real victory is attacking until there is nothing left to attack.
Different games and different win conditions require different "trades" that require different "player resources", human qualities, nuances of strength, from the player. I'll go back to the example of UT, and it's a mighty fine example. Its trade system, its economics, its
complex mechanics are beautiful and demanding (two not completely unrelated qualities) and gives great gifts in return, though
you're never given more in return than you yourself give. A player must be intelligent to understand its complexity, tough to endure its blows, sensitive to understand its nuances, and hone many other qualities to be able to fulfill its demands, to understand how to trade, how to play. But there is one quality that, like in many other games, isn't demand of you. It can tolerate some of it, but too much is a serious problem. It's harshly rebuked when you're shown
a road to victory by avoiding danger, by
winning on points, by
running away, a road to victory that
doesn't need you to be brave. Every time you cling to safety by hiding behind your frags as the timer runs out, every time you grind levels instead of venturing onward, every time you set up a safety net by placing a quick save, you become less brave. Every time a game gives you
more resources than you need, every time a game
gives you room for error, every second you spend in safety
that distances you from danger, you become less brave.
So what does one have to do to stay brave when given too much resources? One must throw away everything that isn't needed! And when one has become stronger and braver still? Throw away even more! The reason why regular games are better than sandbox games, and why games that doesn't let us save are better than those that do, is that we are given less things that must be thrown away to start having fun. In a sandbox game you're given so much resources that you're expected to create your own challenge, they are a half-step between games and editors, and in games where you're allowed to save freely you're supposed to create your own mini-levels, but there is no sense of danger in this! Neither is there in grinding until the boss has become suitably easy! Climbing over a hurdle that oneself has created might be challenging, but it can never compare to the real thing. It might be good practice, it might be fun for a while, but to let fighting tame monsters replace fighting wild monsters, and to insist that they are the same thing, one must be a coward.
I will never be seduced by a game that wants me to run from danger. I will never fall for a game that asks me to seek safety. I will only give my heart to a game that not only tolerates, but embraces and demands me to grow more of my finest quality. I will only love a game where the value of bravery doesn't fluctuate.