Vibhor said:
Considering the point of shooters is killing things, I wouldn't consider more enemies being spawned a punishment.
This is something that has me puzzled for a long time. People generally consider more fighting in a game about fighting as punishment.
Why exactly is this thought process prevalent?
Like in serious sam, every single secret you found spawned more enemies. It was essentially finding hidden challenges.
In DMC whenever you failed platforming you ended up fighting more enemies and considering that is the best part of the series, why is it considered punishment?
EDIT: I just realized how old this thread is.
There's some variation from shooter to shooter, but frequently there's a division between pre-determined "staged" fighting and avoidable or "ambush" fighting. The former the player can to some degree anticipate; they know where the bad guys are from the start of the fight, they know where they can retreat to seek cover or minimize risk, and the game itself was planned to give the player compensations and rewards for taking on that fight- ammunition, new weapons, health restoration, and so on.
In the latter, the player is likely
not to be prepared for the fight. The enemy will spring out of previously invisible positions, or, as in the case of DN3D, actually teleport into the fight, even behind the player. Dealing with the new adversaries will almost certainly result in lost health and/or a higher-than-usual consumption of ammunition. As an "unplanned" fight, the player can expect not to recoup the lost ammunition or health, much less to be rewarded with new weapons or powers. Taking on this fight means that the player will engage in future fights with
less ammo,
lower health, and a lower chance of successfully proceeding in the game without failing/dying.
If one views sheer challenge as the reason for playing the game, such random fights might be seen as a reward. If one views progress and the overcoming of obstacles as the reason for playing the game, such fights are a punishment.
