Only registered users may post messages
Want to register ?
Re(2):Things Take Too Many Hits To Kill!
forgot your password ?
or view all icons
I've been tooting my horn about this for a long time, but probably not here. It's actually only in a few particular genre games that this is really evident, but the cases of it stick out so sharply in my mind that I've come to think that it's a more prevalent thing than it really is. For instance, one of my biggest complaints about MW and the like is that none of the guns in single player feel very powerful because everything dies in a single burst/headshot no matter what gun it is you are using. But the "everything is too durable" issue is particularly evident in all the games that have been inspired by RE4/Gears, though. Trying to enumerate all of the things inside Gears that make it what it is and how it differentiated itself from the FPS games that preceded it is a whole other discussion, though I think a few key parts of its feel include making all of your actions including movement very deliberate (in stark contrast to the 90s-era PC FPS games where you frequently had to be constantly moving for the sake of being constantly moving), and giving the game a chunkiness and slowness that fit the console control scheme (as opposed to the lightning-fast uber-precision of the mouse/keyboard). Part of that involved making everything more durable. If you look at Mass Effect 2 and RE5, both contain systems that count how many consecutive shots/headshots you have fired and hit and how many times you've been hit/how much damage you have recently taken and scales enemy durability accordingly. In both games, it's not at all uncommon for headshots to NOT kill normal enemies, and for it to stay that way as the player does well. It's kind of fun that this system is really quite hidden from the player... I remember back when Zanac touted this sort of dynamic game difficulty adaptation as a central selling point of the game! The worst problem of Gears which also manifests itself in ME2 is the weak hit reaction enemies have to being shot. I've had this sort of video game upbringing that goes from just around 8-bit-era where I was used to the notion that getting hit equates to knockback/invuln/something substantial, to SF2 where getting hit was AMAZING, to the early PC FPS games where getting hit had no gameplay effect on the player unless it was a rocket, back to fighting (IN THE 90s!) games where hit effects were tremendous, and.... eventually to now. I'm of the opinion that when an enemy gets hit and doesn't react to it in some significant way, that should be something special rather than something commonplace; that should be Gold Armor War Machine or Juggernaut, not ordinary Gears grunt #12364532164 just going on his way while you riddle him with Lancer bullets. Or it's a shoot'em up, in which case the rules go out the window. I'm not sure if it feels even more laborious when a game actually manages to even somewhat decently sell impacts, but still makes the enemies tremendously durable. I do know that the last few levels of God Hand were by far the ones I enjoyed the least because the grunt enemies were so durable, though.
Delete? To delete this post, check this box.
Delete subthread too ? To delete all replies to your message, check this box (currently disabled)
include your profile signature.
in this post.