I hate bullet sponges in FPS especially. Really makes your guns feel stupid when you shoot someone a dozen times in the head and it doesn't do much.
I remember playing Max Payne. There was some battle in a bar against a guy with a shotgun. If you timed it right between reloads you could run up to the guy, stand on the bar so your guns were exactly level with his face and empty two Uzi clips point blank into his face before he could reload.
Then you would run out of ammo and he would one shot kill you.
This plus constantly running out of ammo because apparently the inside of every enemy skull is just hammerspace for more ammunition than the US military budget could ever afford. God forbid a stray shot hits your porcelain character, Thanos snapping you to dust at so much as a stubbed toe.
The old RainbowSix games (pre-Vegas) were absolutely brutal in difficulty. Enemies died in one or two shots, depending on what part you hit. Even a non-mortal wound would cripple them permanently. But the same rules applied to you.
the only real R6 games. when everyone was raving about Vegas i was excited to play it and... the intro mission was just a shooter level... i thought ok this is the intro to basic combat... then there was the next mission and no planning section there either. i was puzzled. i closed the game and went on some forum i don't remember and asked whether i did something that made the game skip the one thing that set the series apart... nope. it doesn't exist!
from the people who made a heroes game without the town screen, introducing a rainbow six game without planning! i cannot believe reviews i saw weren't screaming that about the game.
fuck Ubisoft so much. who needs AI in games when we have Ubisoft the ultimate slop machine.
I love this game because it feels like the game is actually playing by rules
Yeah you can cripple someone by shooting their legs, reduce accuracy by shooting arms, or go for a good ol headshot. You can really feel like a tactical badass. Oh by the way same goes for you
It just makes me really happy seeing that
Ofc in practice I am horrible so that sometimes undoes all my excitement
I remember the hype around the division, it looked so cool and tactical. Then the game came out and every enemy was a bullet sponge. Instantly killed any interest I had in it.
Minus the pre release hype, this was how I felt about shadow warrior 2. The first one was so good with the retro updated FPS feel, and even made your starting sword relevant throughout the game. Then 2 came out and it was a bullet spongey, bad craft system crapfest. I didn't even make it a couple hours after the dozens I spent in the first.
IMO what it should do is:
A) Increase damage falloff. For precision guns that means non precision shots do less. For short range weapons that means the penalty for working outside the effective range is higher.
B) Add more enemies. Especially if there's any stealth element, you close windows and change how you approach encounters.
C) Depending on the game, increase the range enemies respond at. If that's sound based, they have better hearing. If it's enemies calling for help when alerted, they get assistance/raise alert levels from longer range.
Perfect play should be comparable. Mistakes should be punished harder.
Fallout 4 is the worst with this. I never found nished the game because of that. Multiple nukes square in the face of a supermutant and he's just at half health? I ain't got time for that.
Meanwhile i finished FO4 on hardest difficulty with just the Deliverer. 2 or 3 shots to the dome in VATS gets shit done. But i agree the difficulty is weird in that game. God Of War is pretty bad for this too.
The only game that did the difficulty right was doom eternal
Metro also comes to mind. The highest difficulty level made both you and the enemies squishier, while also making ammo (which doubled as currency) much rarer. It played so much better that the community even recommended that difficulty level to complete newcomers.
... And then they made the Ranger difficulty a paid DLC in the sequel...
Borderlands 3 (don't know about the others) had a brutal postgame of this. Even though new difficulty stuff was added, the real challenge seemed to be collecting enough ammo to actually finish fights. At some point, the sponginess was too much for me to care about continuing.
The BL series just got worse and worse for sponginess as it continued.
big disappointment with cyberpunk because of this.
fallout games comes to mind too.
Everything about Cyberpunk was a big disappointment. The entire game is a glorified tech demo to show off your $1800 GPU. Which is ironic because it somehow manages to still have mediocre graphics, despite using all the latest path tracing tech to its fullest. RDR 2 looks more realistic than Cyberpunk, and it doesn't use RT at all!
The problem with difficulties is that it's much more difficult to design an AI system which you can tweak and make it smarter or dumber as opposed to just increasing damage and health values, so devs will just implement the best AI they can and leave difficulties as afterthought.
After playing a lot of games that don't even have difficulty settings, I've started to believe in the idea that difficulty selection is just outdated game design and that having a single difficulty but optional areas/content that is more difficult is the way to do it. OSRS is one of my favorite examples - everyone plays the same game and going through levelling or whatever isn't mechanically demanding. However, there are bosses and challenges (like Theatre of Blood which is an end-game raid or Inferno which is an end-game challenge) that are incredibly challenging and require weeks if not months of attempts to master and finally beat, but also are perfectly skippable and most casual players don't even bother with them.
Larian had to dumb the AI down to make normal mode for dos2.
That's not at all surprising. PvE game design is almost always about making the computer less competent in fun and/or believable ways. If you've got a computer that can simulate every item and skill in an enemy team's arsenal and game out the best combination in milliseconds, the player is going to be dead by Turn 1 or stun-locked and dead by Turn 2.
but there's so many other ways to change difficulty.
change number of enemies and where they spawn change gear and abilities, the Witcher did that one with how the stamina system worked. it didn't drain on the lower difficulties. horizon zero dawn made everything in the shops more expensive and made the enemies drop less money. honestly, that one also sucked. only served to make the game grindier.
point is, there's other options.
I had fun with Zero Dawn but came out with a list of minor improvements that would make the game significantly better. Forbidden West had almost all the same problems, and added several more besides. The game really started to lose me when I was trying to upgrade a particular piece of equipment and just had to keep doing laps up and down a goddamn mountain with no nearby quick travel location, hoping that an elite version of an enemy would spawn, then laboriously killing it in the hopes that a particular resource would drop, only to get disappointed by the RNG and have to repeat the process, because that was the only place where that resource could be got, and that was the only place where that enemy would spawn.
The grind was appalling, and it took what was a moderately interesting fight the first couple of times and turned it into a monotonous chore.
Also the upgrade barely turned out to be worth the effort.
I finished the game more out of spite than anything else, and I did not purchase the DLC, nor do I have any plans of getting any sequels. Damn shame, because there's an awful lot about both games to like.
Aggressiveness and pathing are trivial.
I’d like more games to be like FromSoft games. The difficulty is adjusted by what gear you have and what spells you use. None of that turning bosses into bullet sponges nonsense.
Just going to ignore the hundreds of levels most players need to accumulate?
Sekiro was the only one that actually respected players time. Players bitched endlessly it was too hard.
If fromsoft actually gave a shit they'd add in adjustable parry windows and iframes and that works cover 90% of the people who weren't good enough from sekiro. They won't because they love to be gatekeepers.
Yeah, Sekiro has a pretty adaptive way of making the game harder, if you start a replay and get rid of the charm item, you can't almost parry, it has to be precise, and if you ring the demon bell everything gets higher life and damage, but drops much better loot.
I hate bullet sponges, but I do think this joke gets too reductive for my taste. There are many games where enemies die so fast on easy mode that you don't get to experience whatever mechanics they have. By increasing health it can have the impact of revealing those mechanics that already existed.
It has to be a reasonable increase that doesn't turn into a slog though.
That can be fixed by changing the factors that affect difficulty. Instead of giving the enemies less health or making your attacks stronger, give the player more health or weaken the attacks of enemies on easier modes. This would result in each combat experience being roughly equal in length and intensity, but allowing a more novice player to make mistakes and soak attacks that would be fatal in higher difficulties. You would still be able to experience an enemy's special mechanics.
This scales well in the other direction as well - say an enemy has a powerful attack that you need to dodge. On easy, you can maybe tank 3 of them from full health, medium is 2, hard is 1, and nightmare is a one-shot kill.
Another scaling option is the speed of enemies either movement speed or the time it takes for them to land hits, attack animation timing, etc.
I think having multiple things change with difficulty is good just as you say. I was focusing only on raising health because that was the joke in the comic.
The only thing i really dislike is that there is often no middle ground. Easy is super easy, normal is still easy, and hard is annoying. I like games that tell you what difficulty the game is made for. Doom for example, the game is geared towards "nightmare" (i think) and the game really is best played on that harder difficulty.
Going from expert to expert+ in beat saber was jarring. Songs that we getting easy on expert still seemed impossible on expert+.
Until I realized the modifiers on the side weren't just a cheat board, but a way to smooth the curve. And that no fail was essentially free (doesn't affect score if you pass, reduces score by 50% if you fail).
So you use difficulty increasers on the expert songs and difficulty reducers on the expert+ and the transition is way smoother. I've gotten to the point where some of them are fun again at expert+.
Middle Earth: Shadow of War got it right with one of its later updates. They added a final difficulty that increases enemy aggression, attack power, and perception. It also increased player attack power. As long as you're not fighting a massively overleveled enemy, fights are hard, quick, and fairly bullshit free.
Such a great, fun as hell game.
You have to beat the game first to unlock it but I love the realism mode in jedi survivor. Lightsabers actually kill like in the movies, but get shot maybe 2x and you're dead.
This is how harder difficulties should be. You have lower HP, but so does the enemy, forcing both parties to think things through before running in guns a'blazing. If you have to make enemies bullet sponges in order to increase the difficulty, then your AI programming is bad and you should feel bad.
Modern fallout games do difficulty badly. Walked up to one of those boomer guys in fo:NV , he gave me some shit, so I shot him in the face with a revolver. He didn't fall over dead.
I got a bunch of mods to make everyone a lot more of a glass cannon, but made power armor very effective (and other armor somewhat so). Was a lot more fun. But also there was a lot more reloading because, like, sometimes a baddie would get the drop on me and I'd be dead from two shots.
Still more fun than sponges everywhere
When the game is:
Normal mode - made for the absolute lowest common denominator, every challenge is overcome in seconds before you understand what the intended solution was
And
Hard mode - the intented challenge to normal happens 1 pico second in, you now have to solve 20 combinations of different challenges. Not because it's difficult, because the developers want you to die over and over and over until you understand all combinations enough.
monster_hp=selected_game_difficulty * base_hp
I mean this can work if you also give the player the option to unlock stronger gear by grinding a bit. But yeah i agree its often done really badly.
I think I will have to disagree somewhat. Difficultly should change how you play, not how long. Needing to Grind better gear is not respecting the players time.
That said there are games I did enjoy the grind, "the world ends with you" is one of them, but that is a case of earning new ways to play in most cases.
After I had gotten the hang of Hellblade's combat on the adaptive difficulty I turned it to easy by the end because killing enemies had become just a slog. Funnily enough it coincided with her getting the new ultimate sword and made the game feel much more epic.
BTW, Baldur's Gate 3 does difficulty very well. Enemies get better abilities and use the good ones more frequently.
I did this in persona 5 on the last boss, even if you know all the weaknesses it was still RNG and after 3 tries I said fuck it I have other shit to do
Surprisingly, in COD (at least bo2 & 3) enemies get more and more "abilities" the higher you set the difficulty (this means, grenades, better accuracy, use of special equipment, higher burst rates)
My friend hosted a valheim server on idk hard or very hard. The parry mechanic didn't work since it would let a percentage of damage through. So even with the current highest obtainable shield enemies we were not able to use parries (or blocking lol) at all and had to dodge everything. At boss 4 or so I BEGGED him to lower the difficulty, since the lingering damage would almost one-shot us and we just kept respawning over and over for an hour.
I was just about to comment exactly this. Complete with finally changing the difficulty back to normal while fighting Moder.
We also found that Moder's health was so high that the fight was not doable in a day, leaving us fighting packs of wolves (which could two shot us while blocking) during the night as well.
Moder was so painful. Queen and Yagluth were so much easier in comparison.
Working our way through the Ashlands now and well, what a frustrating area as well. Had to campfire like crazy a kilometer out just to be able to breathe for two seconds without being swarmed. We ended up going kamikaze to siege a fortress for a base and suddenly I can actually play for more than 5 seconds without being attacked.
A lot of Valheim bosses are only difficult because of the massive amounts of health. Without the crazy high amounts of health, none of them seem to have difficult mechanics.
Funny. The custom mob difficulty mod that let's you make 4* mobs adds strong sponges but also gives you more drops so it's a nice trade off.
I enjoyed the challenge personally.
Metro did this right, both you and your enemies can be killed in one to two shots, making combat tense and rewarding.
Yea I remember this being one of the suggestions for the stalker series. if the enemies are too hard, turn the difficulty up so they die faster.
It's pretty hard to make levels of difficulty that actually change things enough outside of either giving the enemies more damage and HP or simply adding more enemies, or in scored games having higher score thresholds for higher ranks (these can be anything from an actual score to the speed you finished and everything in between that's basically just a number that you can compare to another number).
It certainly can be done, though. I can't help but think about the bots in counter-strike. They range from braindead drooling moving targets to Terminator machines that can 1 tap you with a pistol from across the map. They actually have a difficulty scale that's more than simply being tougher to kill and hurting you more. It affects how they move around, the speed they begin shooting, their accuracy, etc. I don't know why these kind of bots do not extend to pretty much any game with enemies. Just give them 3 sets of behavior that makes them easier or harder to deal with.
Goldeneye and its spiritual sequel Perfect Dark (my favorite game of all time) do this varying AI skill thing along with the mission objectives expanding across difficulties. An argument can be made against it because someone playing on "easy" doesn't really experience the whole game but it's also cool to replay levels on a higher difficulty where the map is larger or you're interacting with more things or you're starting in a different location.
I remember the Command and Conquer games, namely Tiberium Wars and Kane's Wraith. You could set the bot behavior and difficulty. Also, when the difficulty was set to brutal, the bot would have all the limits removed and would start the game with double the money the player had. Even tho this is a rts game, I think it's a good example of how to make bots if devs are given the time and there is an effort for something more.
It depends on the genre of course because of the mechanics in play. Sure, FPS with bots are hard but a lot of genres are as challenging because the mechanics usually surround mostly running and gunning with bots (if you're playing with bots). Making the 'AI better' is going to be extremely difficult, especially when balancing resources out for your minimum requirements.
But for say an 3D action game, enemy ambushes, tougher environmental challenges, harder puzzles, more platforming, increase gear rarity for 'normal' gear and stuff can add a real challenge. Bullet sponges seems like the path of least resistance to development time. Especially if the 3D action game is single player.
Counter-strike specifically is a tough one because what other mechanics can be involved in it? In the original CS:S there were actual environmental concerns like you could shoot off boards on the rope bridge denying that path. When it released, the rope bridge was static and was always there. I'd imagine this was due to resources on the physics vs. 31 other players having to have a reasonable sync with the server and their updates.
Battlefield has done this over the years but instead of making it really dynamic it has been fairly static, even if it changes the map, it always does it the same way. Blow up a building in BF:BC2? The walls will always fall the same way and the destruction will always be the same, so it's like a state on or off update for that location for everyone. BF3 which was newer seemed to have even fewer instances where this could happen as just an example but they also doubled the player count. There have been other games that have done more dynamic updates but every engine, fidelity, language, updates/ticks expectations are all different.
Not every genre or game has to be focused on just your targets. The more mechanics that are offered or can be offered are going to be different but certainly, it seems like many games still do not take advantage of that even though they could.
If a game deals with difficulty with this method, I'll probably end up using cheats in the easiest gaming mode. Hopefully the story won't suck.
In a game where you can dodge attacks 2x damage makes a lot more sense than 2x health. They could also just increase game speed by 10-20% to make everything more chaotic. More enemies + more drops also works pretty well IMO but a sponge just makes everything take sooooo long. RPGs already often have long battles that can take 10 minutes and making the 20 where you use up all consumables, ammo etc is just bad.
It's either this, or they just scale up the damage by some arbitrary factor, that is a quantum leap from what the bad guys were doing originally.
oh? he did 10 damage in vanilla?
lazy, underfunded programer: dmg= base.dmg^2 <<endl;
I think the comic is contextually true. What really irks me are games designed to be quick, fast paced and aggressive, stop you dead in your tracks. An example is the Battle Toads reboot (which is great, play it) has these enemies that have shields or you can't hurt them until after they've done their thing, slows down an otherwise fast and fun beat em up. Another is DOOM Eternal, a game where you're running at Crack addict speed, and then they put in this dude with a shield that reflects your whole way of doing damage. Really jarring to have that speed bump in your experience. It's for sure a great game, but I think a poor design decision to make the enemy work this way.
I think you're hitting on a slightly broader problem. Any game where combat is the major mechanic shouldn't have a situation where you can't do any damage for any extended amount of time. The Yakuza series handles this well, enemies can block, but the moment they do you have attacks that can break the block immediately, and start damaging again. (Or you can skill up to that that attack.) As the game goes on, it gets more intricate, different enemies have different blocks that require different moves to break. The player character also has different fighting styles that have different block breaking moves that you have to keep track of, but if you know what you're doing, you can break almost ANY block with one move.
Far far too many other games decide to arbitrarily create a mechanic where you can't do any damage for a WHILE. It's either the invincible enemy that you just have to spend 3 minutes dodging, which is boring and miserable in both action and even turn based RPG battles. Or they have a shield that you have to do some elaborate and rhythm breaking routine to remove the shield. It's a miserable slog whenever they do that kind of thing. Back in the early 2000s The second game of the Xenosaga trilogy changed the entire combat design and added the thing I hate most, the RPG stagger. You can do no appreciable damage to any thing in the game until you figure out what combination of attacks cause a stagger. It could be a three move sequence involving two characters that has to be done in the right order, or woops! Start all over. If you didn't give one of your characters a specific ability or attack during leveling, screw you, you're basically fucked.
The players, rightfully, rejected that crap then and they got rid of it for the third game. Now, it's everywhere. Every RPG I've played recently has that crap. I finally just put down FFVII Rebirth half way through and said, screw this, because it was so exhausting and miserable. Every battle becomes the equivalent of getting on a non-working escalator and your body still jerks because you think you're going to start moving. I hate this trend and it's everywhere as developers think, "this battle isn't bossy enough." "Add a stagger mechanic to make it last longer" "Brilliant old chap."
I don't know what disease is moving through the game development community that boss battles, especially, have to be a certain length. Is this a marketing thing? Is this being handed down from the publishing execs? FFXVI had 20-25 minute battles towards the end that were just repetitive dodging and a kaleidoscope of flashing lights. I could have just had a gummy and watched an old screensaver and it would be more memorable and less annoying.
Okay, I'm done complaining, but the long battle for no reason other than to make it feel like a boss, is, I think, an extension of the collect-a-thon, open world, sandbox mentality that just adds superfluous crap so they can say "This game is 44% larger than the last game we made, and will take you 215 hours to complete!" Who cares if it sucks?
Well said, although I haven't played Yakuza, I think having enemy depth through their mechanics, while giving the player space to solve the challenge, is good gameplay. This is different from "well they're invincible for now and you just need to deal with it." Some games this is appropriate, maybe like Fear and Hunger, but definitely not when the positive experience centers around dealing damage.
Totally resonate with the FF rebirth experience. Although I think the game altogether as one piece is good and I finished it, I have a laundry list of complaints. I generally like the combat system but the challenge fights towards the end are just nonsense. You spent time investing in your teams abilities, but it boils down to enemies that don't take damage, or get staggered (even from your ATB abilities) and then one shot your team mates just because you weren't in control of them. Don't even get me started on the Odin fight. It also feels really bad to slash at something as Cloud, and his sword just bounces off and he's useless for 3 seconds.
As an aside, XVI seems to be well reviewed and liked by people but I just didn't find it all that satisfying, I have yet to finish it even though I'm at the last act.
I kinda disagree with your DOOM statement. I assume you're talking about the Carcass or the shield zombies. They may stop your momentum when you first encounter them, but the game (for me) is all about recognizing each enemy in a flash and quickly dispatching them. It's not like the shield is super hard to bust for the zombies, just a few plasma rifle shots and they blow up the nearby zombies too. For the carcass, a quick blood punch will one-shot them. Once you're able to recognize the enemies and their weaknesses at a glance, they become part of your momentum, instead of stopping it.
I appreciate the advice, but I'm talking about the Marauder. I think tankier enemies in doom make it more interesting but the Marauder just has this "no, it's my turn and you will wait for me to do my thing" energy. Just kind of stops you, when you should be continuing to have fun. I think you can balance powerful enemies while maintaining player agency.
Another is DOOM Eternal, a game where you’re running at Crack addict speed, and then they put in this dude with a shield that reflects your whole way of doing damage.
Marauders? I actually kind of like them, they provide a new kind of threat that you can't just run over by unloading your weapons and quick swapping the gauss rifle. That said, fighting more than one at a time really does suck.
Alternative punchline: "we think we're dark souls and you'll die to random shit thrown at you off screen".
That's what I like about raid bosses in Star Wars: The Old Republic where the difficulty changes most of the boss mechanics
That would be great for me since what I hate about raiding in MMOs is precisely that bosses feel more like a puzzle than a skill check with various moments of instakill if you didn't figure out what to do in under 30 seconds.
Castle crashers was my first experience with this. Atleast they added some new boss mechanics though
I like XCOM for that. They designed the game around the hard mode and made it easier for the other modes.
I totally agree. It's one thing to just decrease the enemy health, but you can decrease their damage or aim like stormtroopers. On top of that, research, recovery, and build times can be decreased or resource costs and income adjusted. There are so many ways to make the game easier or harder.
Ghost of Tsushima on Lethal is perfect
call of duty flashbacks incoming!
Differences in Scale vs Differences in Kind - Keeping Players Interested - Extra Credits
This was an old but good breakdown of this.
