Enemies.

[Ivan Brogstog]

This may well have been said before, but when it comes to enemies - I find that the start of a game always includes a small number of weak enemies to kill in a tutorial. Some game designers choose to then gradually upgrade these enemies into characters who eventually wear armour twice their size, use flamthrowers and have electrical fields surounding them and you find yourself having to defeat three of them in a small room with only four pathetic coloums for cover.

I believe that this tactic is a cheap way to increase a game's difficulty... I personally prefer the same, consistant enemy - but just lots more of them. I find that there's nothing more satisfying than rushing through a horde of troops, hacking away at them with a melee weapon.
That said, a game like that would have to include puzzles and different ways to deafeat such enemies; to prevent boredom.

Does anyone agree with me, or am I just talking rubbish?

 

[megapenguinx]

I think you're just talking rubbish. I'd rather the enemies themselves get harder instead of just multitudes of them swarming. Them getting upgraded actually makes the game harder, whereas having lots and lots of the same enemy would just make gameplay repetitive and annoying. The way you suggest it, it would just become a mindless hack and slash where you can kill them with the environment. There is no challenge in that.

 

[Insanum]

Personal tastes.

I personally prefer varied enemies.

Welcome to the escapist.

 

[j0z]

I much prefer my enemies getting harder than just swarming hordes of enemies.
I want MORE types of enemies, not less and more of the same time.

 

[Sable Gear]

Personal tastes.

I personally prefer varied enemies.

Welcome to the escapist.

Thus. It really depends on the game though, sometimes it doesn't make sense to keep the same few enemies constantly (eg. changing environments); likewise, sometimes it doesn't make sense to have many varieties over a single area. "What's better" is a matter of taste, what occurs is up to the developers.

 

[hopeneverdies]

I don't really fighting what eventually becomes cannon fodder in action games. It's not as impressive if the reason you died was just plain attrition. Also bringing out hordes of weak enemies is just a waste of ammo. I like enemies to be a challenge

 

[RollForInitiative]

Does anyone agree with me, or am I just talking rubbish?

I'm going to go with the latter, for reasons already stated. Fighting the same thing over and over again causes gameplay to grow stagnant. In no way does it necessitate any real change in tactics or cause players to think of new ways to approach the enemy. It's the same thing they've been fighting all along.

 

[scnj]

Enemy variety is better for the most part. Sorry.

 

[Amethyst Wind]

Just having more enemies is the Dynasty Warriors approach, and do you know what happens?

You rack up ridiculous killscores and the only challenge comes from the generals. Hack 'n' slash is fine, but you still need variation or else you might as well tape down the basic attack button and wait until only the boss is left.

 

[Davey Woo]

No, I disagree. That's generally how things go. You get 's little grunts/minions/scouts/ generally useless fuckers when you start, but as you become a bigger threat, starts to throw their bigger and better things at you.

That said, if you want a game with consistent enemies, one I could think of is Fallout 3. No teeming hordes there though.

 

[rickthetrick]

Ya know I've always wondered about this. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the weaklings closer till they got stronger, and send the toughest mobs out to be closer to teh enemy territory? I mean I wouldnt send mall cops to Iraq and keep delta force here to watch the malls. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

 

[BadgeMan]

Most games would have the player character receive upgrades as the game progresses so having hordes of a base enemy while the player character is uber powerful makes no sense

 

[TaborMallory]

Upgrading enemies works sometimes. Take Metroid, for example.

There are certainly varied enemies, but there are many types of space pirates, ranging from holy-shit-kill-it-with-fire.

I'd take upgrading space pirates to a single type of one any day.

 

[FightThePower]

I disagree. Having to fight the same enemies over and over is boring as hell. I actually find it cheap for developers just to do that instead, saves them designing newer enemies requring some tactics to defeat.

However, it is nearly as cheap just to take enemy A then simply give it a fire based attack and now you have enemy B. I remember elemental enemies is one of the 'videogame cliches' in The Simpsons Game...how true.

 

[Julianking93]

how about if they just get harder as youre character gets stronger

 

[Ivan Brogstog]

I did say that the game would have to introduce puzzles and various ways of defeating these enemies to prevent boredom...

Though now I agree with what you guys are saying - [Almost] Any Star Wars game where you just hack and slash with a lightsabre gets very repetitive, and I guess I was simply thinking of how they just roll out supa, mega, three-times-the-size, stromtroopers as a way of making the game harder, even though you just simply upgrade force lightning and zap them or something.)

But i'll propose a new thought:

Take most FPSs for example, as you collect more guns and more amunition, the opposing troops begin to carry more armour, firepower, etc. It's fine if there's a new way to defeat them, say: aim for the head, or collapse a building on top of them - but when your only option is to continuosly pummel them with everything you've got is rather uninspiring.

That said, I only like shooters so I can just sit back, blast some suckers and follow a storyline... Sure, a boss fight is fun, but when both parties have ridiculously high levels of health, I feel it's pretty unrealistic. I prefer if it's as easy to kill as it is to get shot yourself [Yes, that does mean that I prefer stealth games... but most of them are FPSs (or have FPS elements) now anyway]

 

[Straitjacketeering]

Ya know I've always wondered about this. Wouldn't it make more sense to keep the weaklings closer till they got stronger, and send the toughest mobs out to be closer to teh enemy territory? I mean I wouldnt send mall cops to Iraq and keep delta force here to watch the malls. Am I the only one who thinks this way?

That makes a suprising amount of sense.