Do you target big ones or little ones first?

[McAster]

The most dangerous threat at the time.

If I'm low on health and a single hit from dying, well then take care of the puny things that can run up and kill you quickly.
If I'm not low on health and can deal with small attacks for a bit and there is a large enemy who is far more dangerous, I'll take that out.
If it's a diaper wearing man-baby with bombs for limbs running at me, then I'm playing Serious Sam and it doesn't really matter.

 

[Pezzer]

I kill them all at once!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

 

[OniSuika]

Whichever has the least health, so usually the little ones. Then there's less things attacking me.

 

[KaiRai]

I go for the big guy with a powerful weapon then just spray random ammo at the rest

 

[j1-2themax]

Whichever one has the potential to kill me the fastest. I usually go by threat order rather than size order. (Although, both being of the same threat level, I'll usually take out the little guy(s) first.)

 

[fix-the-spade]

I'm opportunistic. I'll take a shot at whichever enemy presents the easiest target, not necessarily the nearest.

BUT.
If I've got the drop on the enemy I will always take out the biggest threat first, even if it means passing up lots of easy shots on weak enemies.

eg: In Halo:CE if there is a group of Elites/Grunts/Jackals and co, the Gold one dies first.
Or in BF2 Tanks take priority, in DoD the MG goes first.

 

[Outamyhead]

Big ones normally take a while to charge an attack, depends on how the games characters work really, the little ones can be annoying if they have ranged attacks, as well as the bigger ones.

 

[Laura.]

Depends a lot on the game.
In L4D I try to kill all the common infected before shooting the tank, because they will slow you down and get you killed, but in games like Half Life 2 I prefer to throw all I've got at a gunship and then kill the combine soldiers.

 

[Mad Maniac with axe-firing chainsaw]

Depends who's easiest to take down. Can I guarantee the little guys won't be a pain as I take down their chief? If yes, I go after the big guy, decapitating their team before they even get a chance to deploy their full strength. If the little guys are supporting the big guy a bit too well, then I'll take out the little guys, leaving me to duel with the big guy in peace and quiet.

For example, Halo 3 and Streets of rage 2 (ok, not a shoot-em up, but the same principle applies.) If on easy or normal in both games, the big enemies are very, very dangerous, but the little guys aren't quite as difficult to ignore. So logic tells me that if I quickly disable the tough guy, the little annoyances are going to fall faster than a lead weight falling from the empire state with a powerful magnet drawing it down. (don't think too closely about that analogy...) However, ramp the difficulty up and suddenly those pathetic little galsia's and grunts start to look a bit more threatening. A lot more threatening actually, especially in larger numbers... and also, the big guys are now just too tough to quickly get rid of. In this case, I'm faced with a situation where I can't neutralise the big guys fast enough to avoid the little guys dealing me some serious pain. So I have to go after the little guys first, otherwise I'll never get a chance to get close enough to the big guy.

 

[jimduckie]

well if ya take out a big one down they would crush some of the little ones but as a general rule it's the little ones first

 

[Sevre]

The one that is the most danger to me. Headcrabs must die!

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Small ones if they get too close.

 

[goatzilla8463]

Whichever one looks at me gets it first.

 

[Shoqiyqa]

Usually I go for maximal threat-reduction. If they're all equally dangerous but some are tougher than others, I thin out their numbers quickly by knocking off the easy kills at the start. If they're all equally tough but some are very dangerous, I hit the dangerous ones first. If it's a case of hammering on one boss for a few minutes to get it down, it depends whether my back-up can afford to ignore the boss's back-up. If not, I clean around the job first. If they can, I go for the big kill. It's a bit like low branches on a tree you're felling. You can get them before or after you drop it, depending on whether they're in your way.

There are always special cases, though, like the enemy that turns into three smaller ones when you hit it, which is probably best left until the end, and the motherflood in Halo that blow up and chain-react unclaimed grenades in the area when you kill them, making them best killed just in front of lots of flood mutants in an area of grenades and from a distance.

There's also the sniper scenario, in which you just hit whatever you can and slowly worm your way around the cover to get access to more targets. Return To Castle Wolfenstein (or Uulvunstein, if you're reading in German) was particularly generous with idiots by the truckload to entertain snipers.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

I usually take out the small guys first. They usually die easier. Then the big one falls.

 

[Mr Fatherland]

I will always go for the bigger enemies first, probably 'cos they deal the most damage.

 

[Rhysevans2]

well i usally tend to kill things that tend to walk infront of me....ie big daddy's, they never seem to learn that electric shotgun shells tend to hurt and stun at the same time.

the most common method i use is to throw a grenade at the big guy, and that takes out him and most of the mob; soooo theres really no point in choosing

 

[FinalHeart95]

Depends on the game. Sometimes the little ones deal little damage and can be taken care of later. Other times, the little ones throw lots of grenades that kill you instantly... I'm looking at you Halo.

Generally I take out the little guys first though.

 

[Scrythe]

Whoever has the biggest gun. The only exception is if I'm swarmed with hundreds of people at a time, then whoever is closer in proximity to the business end of my rifle.

 

[edtroll]

Whoever is closest or is the biggest threat.