Poll: Enemy difficulty in games

[Conza]

I see two ways a game can make enemies more difficult. One, where the difficulty of the enemy is proportional to the player's character/s, keeping them a constant challenge, or, different areas have different enemies with various difficulties, so as you progress in the game, each enemy's difficulty remains fixed.

Which do you think is better and why? Is there some middle ground or alternative I haven't thought of here?

I lean more towards the stepped system, progressive has its merits, but I love spending a bit more time training then fight enemies with less difficulty using more power, dexterity, what have you, rather than having to fight basically the same enemy again and again, and relying purely on weapons to get an advantage.

 

[Conza]

Bump, much... Wow, no one replied? Very hit and miss community, you'll never know what will be taken as good thread bait. Maybe next time I should title this 'Godzilla spotted in Osaka'.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I hate it when enemies scale to you. It feels like there's no point to leveling and getting better equipment if it doesn't affect how easily you can beat an enemy. Enemy scaling just seems like a lazy thing that devs do to keep from having to make up more enemies.

 

[minimacker]

Enemies should scale to a certain extent

I do want to feel like I'm attaining something by levelling up. So later in a game, those goblins that was quite a hassle is nothing but a breeze and the gigantic ogres that were instant run-away monsters you could actually take on.

It would give you a feel that you've evolved out from your environment. You started a peasant and you are growing into a hero.

 

[drivel]

I love beating up on the low-level stuff after I've been through hell in an RPG. Coming back to Onett in Earthbound after getting through Threed was SWEET! Pwning n00bs. Always a good time.

 

[klakkat]

Stepped. I hate when difficulty is based on my abilities; it makes it feel like there is zero point in actually advancing.

Progressive usually ends up being either bland (because the relative difficulty doesn't change) or either too difficult/too easy later on, with an exponential effect.

 

[GodofCider]

I hate it when enemies scale to you. It feels like there's no point to leveling and getting better equipment if it doesn't affect how easily you can beat an enemy. Enemy scaling just seems like a lazy thing that devs do to keep from having to make up more enemies.

Heh, you just reminded me of Oblivion. Level 20 FINALLY, now I can gather the oh so precious Daedric armor...what's this? All of the previous bandits that I encountered are bedecked in this unspeakably powerful armor from beyond our plain? >_> What use is awesome Daedric, if it fills the exact same roll that leather does, in your proportionate level?!

Morrowind's set up where you nearly had to kill yourself, and often ended up doing so, in order to acquire even a sight of this elusive material; and often only a single piece of it; was much better.

So...set world, where enemies don't scale; you rise to meet the challenge.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

See, I just got to the final boss of Record of Agarest War. There had been a few fights in the game that were a challenge, but I was able to get through them. Then I go stomped. HORRIBLY. I was level 86-90 and the boss was level 108. "Okay," I thought, "I'll just go level up." Got everyone up to level 97-101, the for the fun of it I went back and fought him again, seeing if I stood a better chance. Then I noticed something. He was now level 111. I nearly turned the game off right there. I enemies who scale have their place, but BOSSES who scale (especially bosses who can kill your entire party with one attack) is utter bull.

For the record, I finally beat him, and now I find out that there are optional (though not really if I want to get the ending of the game) bosses that are at level 300 right now. Son of a...

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Homeworld 2 could be pretty brutal at times due to the way it managed difficulty. What happens is that the computer analyzes your fleet at the end of the previous mission, it would then use this data to compose an enemy fleet that was both tailored to your weakness and a bit larger. For example got a lot of torpedo frigates have you? Well not after the computer chucks about 10 waves of bombers at you you don't. Think your awesome coz you have two Battle Cruisers? The computer has 7 of the bastards. Thank god that the computer is too dumb to focus fire.

Still i love that game so i guess scaling difficulty it is for me, though it does depend on the game a lot. For some games scaling is good and for others then stepped is best.

 

[Zechnophobe]

I see two ways a game can make enemies more difficult. One, where the difficulty of the enemy is proportional to the player's character/s, keeping them a constant challenge, or, different areas have different enemies with various difficulties, so as you progress in the game, each enemy's difficulty remains fixed.

Which do you think is better and why? Is there some middle ground or alternative I haven't thought of here?

I lean more towards the stepped system, progressive has its merits, but I love spending a bit more time training then fight enemies with less difficulty using more power, dexterity, what have you, rather than having to fight basically the same enemy again and again, and relying purely on weapons to get an advantage.

I keep trying to answer this, but it is just not that simple. Only a few games have EVER used progressive (per your definition) enemies to fight, and the rest aren't exactly groupable into a single banner of style. Do I like Oblivion style progression? Not really.