Enemy Numbers

[Zannah]

In a recent article about movie adaptations, Mr. Steve Butts raised the point, that in games, low numbers of enemies would not work - and since I find that to be one of the most painful misconceptions in modern gaming, and because I honestly don't get why, I thought I'd start a thread about it -

Would it have hurt the Call of Juarez experience, if you fought like a dozen memorable gunslingers per level, cleverly using the environment and perhaps your brother, to give cover, flank etc, rather then killing the equivalent of a major city in every single mission?

Would it have hurt Dragon Age, if there'd been fewer stunning abilities, and say... a reasonable enemy number? By the time I finished the second dwarf 'loyalty mission' I had killed more dwarfs then are ever seen again, for the rest of the game, alltogether, so I presumeably extinguished more then half the dwarven race in that cellar - it sure felt like it.

So why are developers constantly being lazy, and instead of preparing memorable fightscenes just swarm us with hordes, or give the enemies ridiculous amounts of health?

 

[Fallen-Angel Risen-Demon]

Because good AI is hard and expensive to make compared to making a bunch of weak enemies. Personally, I prefer fighting loads of weak enemies over fighting a small group of strong enemies. It appeals to my sense of superiority.

 

[Zannah]

I just couldn't imagine something like Diablo, or even Dragon Age, which you mentioned yourself, having 10 times less enemies. It just diminishes the fun, turning every single battle into a game of chess (which Dragon Age already was, turning it into an even more strategic game would've seriously hurt the fun factor) for the sake of misplaced need for realism. Imagine Bioshock with a total of 20 enemies throughout the game. How fun does that sound?

If each of those enemies had a personality, a distinct look, and a memorable encounter, while the rest of the time I got to enjoy a genuine atmospheric rapture, then that sound a whole lot more fun, then slaying 325346 Splicers on every other step.

 

[Wing Dairu]

I do prefer smaller groups of enemies and the occasional one-on-one to hordes. There's no emotion except "ohcrapohcrapohcrap!" in a horde, where a well-executed fight with a smaller group of slightly tougher enemies can evoke fear, determination, awesomeness, and even give a sense of a choreographed ballet in some cases.
Let's take Left 4 Dead.
Common Infected: One shot. Pbbt. Dead. Next one. Even the headshots and dismemberments are just kinda there.
Special Infected: Let's say a Tank shows up. You and your team immediately switch from shooting half-aimlessly to focusing on a priority target, and performing acts such as laying traps or throwing strategic molotovs to impede its progress.

 

[Eggsnham]

In a recent article about movie adaptations, Mr. Steve Butts raised the point, that in games, low numbers of enemies would not work - and since I find that to be one of the most painful misconceptions in modern gaming, and because I honestly don't get why, I thought I'd start a thread about it -

Would it have hurt the Call of Juarez experience, if you fought like a dozen memorable gunslingers per level, cleverly using the environment and perhaps your brother, to give cover, flank etc, rather then killing the equivalent of a major city in every single mission?

Would it have hurt Dragon Age, if there'd been fewer stunning abilities, and say... a reasonable enemy number? By the time I finished the second dwarf 'loyalty mission' I had killed more dwarfs then are ever seen again, for the rest of the game, alltogether, so I presumeably extinguished more then half the dwarven race in that cellar - it sure felt like it.

So why are developers constantly being lazy, and instead of preparing memorable fightscenes just swarm us with hordes, or give the enemies ridiculous amounts of health?

Because fighting small amounts of enemies isn't quite as satisfying as blowing the shit out of thousands of weak, stupid enemies. It's also apparently difficult to create good AI, as some of the better AI in games are usually just aimbotting you instead of actually using strategy and their full equipment.

 

[Toasty Virus]

Prince of Persia '08 tried that I guess, the problem with that was the combat was pretty crap, but I see what it was trying to do.

 

[x0ny]

I've never played Shadow of the Colossus, but how many enemies did that game have? My gut feeling is just fighting one boss after another.

I'm not saying fewer enemies is definitely the way to go or it's totally wrong, but it can and has worked in the past.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

I prefer fighting large hordes of enemies and then giving us some stronger enemies to provide support for the mooks.

 

[monkey_man]

There's been a lot of "weak enemies and lots of them are more fun"
But I personally prefer a few good one's like in a man-to-man battle, you might actually lose, instead of shrug your shoulders and then rip his/her arms of, because you are batteling about 12 more of the same badguys.
This is also why i like bossBattles. Beating One bigass- mutherhubbard in a ten minute fight feels much more rewarding than killing a hunderd petty criminals in the same time.
But sadly i do not own a 1 vs 1-5 game, and i have to do with 1 vs 20-100 games

 

[Amerikhan]

I like fighting hordes provided you're given good/fun tools to fight the hordes with. I'm thinking Dynasty Warriors and Fable here, tbh. The "Area" attacks in Fable: TLC and the general wide-attacks in Dynasty Warriors serve for fun horde fights.

 

[havass]

Because good AI is hard and expensive to make compared to making a bunch of weak enemies. Personally, I prefer fighting loads of weak enemies over fighting a small group of strong enemies. It appeals to my sense of superiority.

He has a point. I rather smash mass weaklings than fight strong enemies. It makes combat tedious if you're up against a small number of strong enemies. One or two more stronger ones in a horde of 10 enemies is more reasonable.

 

[Zannah]

Because fighting small amounts of enemies isn't quite as satisfying as blowing the shit out of thousands of weak, stupid enemies.

By that definition, the inevitable 'minigun sections' that every modern shooter has to have by law, would be the epitome of fun. I mean honestly, is the fleeting notion of being superior to the lowest of mooks really more satisfying, then defeating a tough as nails boss? I'd be hard pressed to remember even a single enemy from ME II, even though I played it again, like a month ago, but I haven't touched DMC 4 in like... 2 years, and still perfectly clearly remember the Dante/ Credo Angelo encounters...

Besides what really gets to me is - there's so much potential here for adapting the formula. You know, making games, that don't consist of 99% mindless violence, where the cutscene story isn't broken up by loosely connected violence, but where the fighting adds to the atmosphere and pushes the story forward. Because I'm sorry, but people being afraid of a few dozen dark spawn, of which I personally slew a thousand of, that's not atmosphere, nor is it immersion.

 

[Byurn]

I get the impression that most of us like to actually switch it up once in a while. Few games can do what Shadow otC does, making boss fight upon boss fight interesting (although to be fair, I guess there's a lot of platforming and not so much fighting, gameplay-wise), at least for me. On the other hand, Tilt to Live is one of my favourite games, and the enemies in that are about as miniscule as they come.
As for in-game up-switching, God of War comes to mind. Or Gears of War. Even Kingdom Hearts. But the ultimate in delivering that fear of realising that "I'm not the threat here" as well as "humans are vermin to be scratched off my back" is definitely King Kong (the one that came out after P. Jackson's movie). You actually get points for humans in the category Vermin when you play as Kong.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get across here, is that variation is good. Also, good games are good.

 

[Byurn]

Also, what Zannah said while I was writing my post. A lot of immersion gets lost when enemies who are supposed to be badass story-wise are pushovers when it comes to actual gameplay. Like Killer Croc in Batman: Arkham Asylum.

He was all "I've got your scent!"
And I was all "I've got an unlimited supply of auto-targeting, long range, mana cost zero, insta-kills that work better against you than regular goombas."
Then he was all "Rawr!"
And I was all "Sigh."

 

[Jonluw]

Personally, I would have loved to have a few more games with fewer enemies. After all, you can't claim that Rayman 2: The great escape wasn't a great game.

Besides what really gets to me is - there's so much potential here for adapting the formula. You know, making games, that don't consist of 99% mindless violence, where the cutscene story isn't broken up by loosely connected violence, but where the fighting adds to the atmosphere and pushes the story forward. Because I'm sorry, but people being afraid of a few dozen dark spawn, of which I personally slew a thousand of, that's not atmosphere, nor is it immersion.

If I remember correctly; Rayman 2 did this very well as well.