It depends, I like a mix of all 3. Formations of enemies that have strong, medium, and weak types. Stuff you can mow down and enjoy, and stuff that will offer a challenge.
Do you prefer it when the enemy is weaker, stronger or on equal ground with you?
- Thread starter Aerosteam
- Start date
It really does depend on the game. I mean, put in a whole bunch of weaker enemies and you've got an empowerment fantasy. But make them all ridiculously difficult, and you've got a game that has serious challenge, but also means that the player's going to be seeing the game over screen a lot more often.
Personally, I really like the balance in Batman: Arkham City. Henchmen with guns are a menace, and will have you dead in seconds. However, you're well equipped, good at stealth, and in the worst-case scenario, there are ways to disarm them and escape or attack them.
Personally, I really like the balance in Batman: Arkham City. Henchmen with guns are a menace, and will have you dead in seconds. However, you're well equipped, good at stealth, and in the worst-case scenario, there are ways to disarm them and escape or attack them.
Stronger, always. A stronger opponent can teach you with a defeat; crushing a lesser foe teaches nothing. Besides, the harder the fight, the more fruitful the victory.
That's why she's named "Nah".The Wykydtron said:
OT: Roflstomping is fun in a sandbox game, equal footing is good for combat-heavy games, strong enemies are good for atmospheric games.
It really depends on what you want to play.
It depends on the game, the enemy, and the mood I'm in. If I have climbed the highest mountain in all of Skyrim, solved a super long quest, and heard tales of the fearsome beast that now awaits me, I want that enemy to be able to stomp me into the ground if I'm not careful. If it's a hidden boss that is just a whisper in a dark corner of the tavern because people are so terrified of it, you can bet I want it stronger. Way stronger. There's something thrilling about defeating an enemy that much more powerful than you. And (for those who remember) let's not forget the feeling of watching that experience meter fill up like ten times after putting Ruby or Emerald in the ground from Final Fantasy VII.
The Fire Emblem games, I liked my enemies to be slightly stronger than me so that there's a challenge, but no so great that I risk losing characters, like that optional dungeon in The Sacred Stones. The one where the last room has like eight dragons in it, and said dragons can one-hit your characters most of the time, and since there's eight of them, the ones they don't one-hit, the other dragon comes over and finishes them off. Yeah, never beat that dungeon.
When I'm in a bad mood, just want to blow off steam, or I'm farming for loot (Diablo III), I set the game on easy and just go to town. Sometimes it's nice to be the hero from the movies who can stop entire armies on their own.
The Fire Emblem games, I liked my enemies to be slightly stronger than me so that there's a challenge, but no so great that I risk losing characters, like that optional dungeon in The Sacred Stones. The one where the last room has like eight dragons in it, and said dragons can one-hit your characters most of the time, and since there's eight of them, the ones they don't one-hit, the other dragon comes over and finishes them off. Yeah, never beat that dungeon.
When I'm in a bad mood, just want to blow off steam, or I'm farming for loot (Diablo III), I set the game on easy and just go to town. Sometimes it's nice to be the hero from the movies who can stop entire armies on their own.
I want it to be fluctuating. I want the challenge that everyone else wants. I want to feel like I was a bad ass for finishing the enemy that I really shouldn't have been able to, but I outthought or outfought him. I love that feeling.
However.
When I grind, and I'm supposedly 15 levels stronger than I was when I came out of the first area... and the enemies are still as strong or stronger than me... I hate that so much. What the hell is the point of leveling if all you'll do is make the enemy always stronger than me? What's the point of my strength increasing if everyone does the same.
Give me areas that I have to seek out where enemies always level with me, that's fine. I like it in small doses. It makes sure the game doesn't get boring. But if the over all game, every single enemy will always be in pace or stronger than me... you failed in design.
However.
When I grind, and I'm supposedly 15 levels stronger than I was when I came out of the first area... and the enemies are still as strong or stronger than me... I hate that so much. What the hell is the point of leveling if all you'll do is make the enemy always stronger than me? What's the point of my strength increasing if everyone does the same.
Give me areas that I have to seek out where enemies always level with me, that's fine. I like it in small doses. It makes sure the game doesn't get boring. But if the over all game, every single enemy will always be in pace or stronger than me... you failed in design.
I prefer a mix of weak, slightly weak, equal, strong, and very strong enemies.
Also, the stronger the enemy, the better the reward should be.
Also, the stronger the enemy, the better the reward should be.
It really depends on the game and the situation within a game. The challenges should curve along with the game, sometimes sending you weak enemies sometimes strong etc...
But generally I prefer weak or the same. I adore thumping my way through mooks in Arkham Asylum, or tossing up great hordes in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Crippling and humiliating guards in MGS doesn't get old and just generally I'm not much interested in challenge based satisfaction. The combat is often the least interesting part of a lot of RPGs (and other games) and I can't wait to get through it.
There are rarely situations when the enemies are actually stronger than you (and to be honest, I don't believe that many of the examples in this thread that people are thinking of are people that are generally stronger). Most games send 2 or 3 enemies at you at a time and if they were genuinely actually stronger than you then every single encounter should require heaps of reloading or be absolutely touch and go.
Even in Devil May Cry 3, Dante had a lot of advantage over anyone mook. His attacks hit hard, he had far more mobility, range, utility and even the ability to heal (a little bit) that all the mooks lacked. They'd kill you with numbers over time than by having the advantage in a single one on one encounter.
I always like it when the game throws an equally matched enemy for a special one on one moment though. There's a lot of fun in the idea of equals dueling off, it's part of what sold Rikku in Kingdom Hearts
But generally I prefer weak or the same. I adore thumping my way through mooks in Arkham Asylum, or tossing up great hordes in Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Crippling and humiliating guards in MGS doesn't get old and just generally I'm not much interested in challenge based satisfaction. The combat is often the least interesting part of a lot of RPGs (and other games) and I can't wait to get through it.
There are rarely situations when the enemies are actually stronger than you (and to be honest, I don't believe that many of the examples in this thread that people are thinking of are people that are generally stronger). Most games send 2 or 3 enemies at you at a time and if they were genuinely actually stronger than you then every single encounter should require heaps of reloading or be absolutely touch and go.
Even in Devil May Cry 3, Dante had a lot of advantage over anyone mook. His attacks hit hard, he had far more mobility, range, utility and even the ability to heal (a little bit) that all the mooks lacked. They'd kill you with numbers over time than by having the advantage in a single one on one encounter.
I always like it when the game throws an equally matched enemy for a special one on one moment though. There's a lot of fun in the idea of equals dueling off, it's part of what sold Rikku in Kingdom Hearts
I think it depends on the experience that is intended for the player to have.
Dynasty Warriors for example. If you're playing as Lu Bu and bulldozing everything, then it benefits the catharsis; but if you flip that to where you're up against Lu Bu, then you want to be pushed to the absolute limit and it's a letdown if it's a wimpy version of him.
Generally I would tend to prefer major enemies being equal/stronger, but I don't mind as long as they're challenging and/or at least that the experience remains continually engaging; I like working against the odds in the cases of cool major bosses especially.
Dynasty Warriors for example. If you're playing as Lu Bu and bulldozing everything, then it benefits the catharsis; but if you flip that to where you're up against Lu Bu, then you want to be pushed to the absolute limit and it's a letdown if it's a wimpy version of him.
Generally I would tend to prefer major enemies being equal/stronger, but I don't mind as long as they're challenging and/or at least that the experience remains continually engaging; I like working against the odds in the cases of cool major bosses especially.
Chaos Difficulty, those Dynasty warriors detractors won't be able to say "you just mow people", when all those people is as strong as Lu Bu, and it doesn't make a significant difference if you're at lvl 99. lolKhanht Cope said:
OT:
It depends on the level of things. I generally enjoy more with a slight progression with fixed levels (example of doing it wrong would be Oblivion). I expect the "earlier" parts of one game to be easier than the "latter" parts.
Equal, or stronger with a clear reason why. An example of this is the REQUIEM mod for Skyrim. If you go around trying to kill people in heavy armor with a bow and arrow, you're in for a bad time. At the same time, you can wear heavy armor and enjoy the same immunity. Basically, everyone is equal in opportunity, but the game still has difficulty due to the variation in armor/weapons.
For me it would be equal or stronger then me but definitely not a weaker foe why should I be threatened by that?
Stronger, but not bullet-sponge stronger. I want them to have awesome and varied firepower that I have to think my way around to deliver a killing blow (while pretty much anything they do can be a killing blow to me. This makes up for shoddy AI in a way that high HP just can't).
Not fond of slugfests.
Not fond of slugfests.
Im always fond of having plentiful enemies that can swarm you in large numbers, but really are just there to die, the occasional stronger enemy types that accompany the weak ones that will give you a challenge, then bosses that are on your level or stronger than your character.
Later on the regular dudes should have a gimmick as well that changes it up, like say in Bioshock how thug splicers became immune to shock so the Lightning/Wrench combo stops being effective
Later on the regular dudes should have a gimmick as well that changes it up, like say in Bioshock how thug splicers became immune to shock so the Lightning/Wrench combo stops being effective
It depends on the kind of game for me. For a hack and slash where you are massively outnumbered(See nearly every hack and slash ever) then most enemies should be weaker. Dynasty warriors for example has you facing armies of easy to kill goons that do near no damage but have much tougher generals who can possibly fight you equally or even be stronger than you.
I loved Dark souls but most of the enemies in it are much weaker than you and only some are actually on par with the player character. One of the ways I usually think about this is imagining myself against another player online except while he is still a normal character I am playing as one of the enemies with all their limited attacks and animations. Assuming the other player is competent then I would be stomped.
One of the games that did this which I loved was Lost planet: Colonies with its Akrid hunter mode. Now that was how you set up an uneven battle and have it be fun and yet still somewhat equal for both sides.
I do love to be completely outgunned sometimes though. When I play STALKER I love how most of the enemies are more well equipped than me early on, there is something so satisfying about surviving in a brutal world where enemies can wreck your day so easily but you can do the same to them. As the game goes on I will be the better equipped one but enemies can still pose a challenge(At least with the difficulty advancing mods I use anyway).
I loved Dark souls but most of the enemies in it are much weaker than you and only some are actually on par with the player character. One of the ways I usually think about this is imagining myself against another player online except while he is still a normal character I am playing as one of the enemies with all their limited attacks and animations. Assuming the other player is competent then I would be stomped.
One of the games that did this which I loved was Lost planet: Colonies with its Akrid hunter mode. Now that was how you set up an uneven battle and have it be fun and yet still somewhat equal for both sides.
I do love to be completely outgunned sometimes though. When I play STALKER I love how most of the enemies are more well equipped than me early on, there is something so satisfying about surviving in a brutal world where enemies can wreck your day so easily but you can do the same to them. As the game goes on I will be the better equipped one but enemies can still pose a challenge(At least with the difficulty advancing mods I use anyway).
