More monsters vs Stronger monsters

Hey.

The general banter board has been pretty dead lately and seeing as I was thinking about this for a while today, I'd like to know what you think.

Say for example, in Half-life 2. Currently on the hard difficulty the monsters are stronger, and your weapons are weaker. But what if your weapons and the monsters where the same, but there where just x times the amount of enemies.

Say for example, at encounter A. We could have 10 medium combine, or 5 hard combine. All up in the end, the encounter would be balanced so that regardless of the enemies (5 hard, 10 medium) the amount of ammo and time required to take down the enemies was roughly the same, the amount of damage inflicted by the enemies was roughly the same etc etc. The only difference being of course the way you take your foes down, because the dynamics are different when there are more enemies vs stronger enemies.

Which encounter would you prefer, 5 hard monsters or 10 medium monsters. I would prefer the doom style encounter, that being 10 medium monsters, but what about you?

---

Aaron's Stuff

I think I'd like to see smarter, faster enemies for a change.

Anyway, you can't really say that these two options will have the same result, as some players are pretty good at switching targets, while others are better against fewer enemies. Depends on the weaponry you're using, too: combine balls beat most tough enemies just as easy. Also depends on the environment: you'll find cover more easily against fewer enemies, which then more or less negates their toughness. The comparison is just not that straight-forward I suppose.

Both approaches feel a bit artificial to me anyway, but I think I prefer more enemies in the end. Gives you more stuff to do. :wink:

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

I prefer smarter enemies over either option, but if I had to choose I'd pick more enemies over tougher enemies. It really depends on the mechanics of the individual games though. More enemies is better for a game like Doom, while tougher enemies work better in HL1. HL2 is so f**king easy that it needs both

Yeah, what you say is true and there are many variables like weapon you use, type of monster, players skill and such.

But I mean, I hate the idea of just standing there pumping an enemy full of ammo. It would be cool if enemies had smarter AI and stuff on harder difficulties but that stuff requires more effort to program in. So its usually a combination of weaker player weapons, stronger monster weapons, more monster health and improved accuracy for the monsters or more monsters.

---

Aaron's Stuff

More original enemies. Strong enemies, weak enemies, who cares if they're as interesting as cardboard-targets, like in many parts of HL2?

What I'd like to see are more 3-party fights between combines, aliens and humans all hating each other. I miss that from HL1. Also in HL2 you mostly fight 3 near-identical types of soldiers/zombies/headcrabs which gets old pretty soon as well...

tbh, counting enemies or just thinking of how many shotgun hits they can take doesn't sound very exciting. Balance is important, yes, but it's just just sugar coating compared to coming up with truly new ideas for enemies/weapons etc.

---

Why snark works.

Interesting point there, reaper47. Enemy types based on difficulty. In other words, you're not going to see a Combine Shock-trooper on easy or medium, but on hard you'll have to take it on against a squad of these instead of normal soldiers. Where some shock troopers use hallucination grenade launchers to back-up the others who storm forwards with their assault rifles + energy bayonets.

Or something like that. But basically, it's rewarding the hardcore players with new content.

Of course, that does mean it's a waste of developers time for the people that don't play on hard...

---

Create-ivity - a game development blog

I can go either way. If you think about it, most games have a mix. Even DOOM, with its legions of weaker enemies, still had you fight bosses that were much stronger but either alone or in smaller numbers.

I think it all depends on the dynamics of the game. Smaller numbers of smarter or stronger enemies are okay IF the game dynamics are complex enough to justify it, to make fighting them a more strategic challenge (think HL, Goldeneye, etc). Hoards of enemies a-la Doom and Serious Sam create strategic difficulties of a different kind.

Doom 3 is an example of FAIL in these respects. It didn't feel like Doom at all because of the small number of enemies at a time. That might have been okay except that the game mechanics were so simple and generic that there wasn't much excitement to be had just fighting a few enemies at a time. The gameplay felt very flat.

Another thing worth bringing up since this is a mapping site- the game level needs to compliment the type and number of monsters. Cover, choke points, resupply points, hiding places, etc. all effect the fight and the difficulty. For example, you don't put the player against a small number of intelligent, deadly, sharp-shooter enemies in a big open room. You give them somewhere with cover, and maybe a chance to sneak up on them. With hordes like DOOM, Painkiller, etc. on the other hand, you may have larger spaces for mowing them down along with choke points etc. as you look at the monsters like a 'flow' directed at the player.

blah blah blah lol.

---

Action Half-Life - <A HREF="http://distraction-mod.com" TARGET="_blank">Distrac

When I make my single-player maps, I try to set it up so that the player has to use more of his brain than ammo. I usually don't provide tons of ammo, so that every shot counts, and using wit is part of the gameplay.

---

"The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return." -- Toulouse-Lautre, Moulin Rouge

I think it's best to have a mix of the two. Anyone notice how much harder it got when you had to fight the combine soldiers and the hunters at the same time?

---

Reality has become a commodity.

Before I even read the posts I said to myself... neither, I would just like smarter enemies to give me a challenge. Add in what satchmo said and I think you'll have a winner.

---

Posting And You

Captain P said:
Interesting point there, reaper47. Enemy types based on difficulty. In other words, you're not going to see a Combine Shock-trooper on easy or medium, but on hard you'll have to take it on against a squad of these instead of normal soldiers. Where some shock troopers use hallucination grenade launchers to back-up the others who storm forwards with their assault rifles + energy bayonets.

Or something like that. But basically, it's rewarding the hardcore players with new content.

Of course, that does mean it's a waste of developers time for the people that don't play on hard...

This is an interesting approach reaper47, and I suppose things like this have been done before such as higher ranking monsters on harder difficulties (Like whats done in the Halo games). Also, this approach would mean high replay ability, which is a definite plus. But Captain P, you say a waste of time? So many subtleties are but into games that most players don't even notice, such as easter eggs. But the players that do notice these things and get enjoyment out of them certainly make up for the lack of people that don't notice them.

---

Aaron's Stuff

<DIV>
<DIV>


<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Jinx</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>"the game level needs to compliment the type and number of monsters. Cover, choke points, resupply points, hiding places, etc. all effect the fight and the difficulty. For example, you don't put the player against a small number of intelligent, deadly, sharp-shooter enemies in a big open room. You give them somewhere with cover, and maybe a chance to sneak up on them. With hordes like DOOM, Painkiller, etc. on the other hand, you may have larger spaces for mowing them down along with choke points etc. as you look at the monsters like a 'flow' directed at the player."</DIV></DIV>

I think Jinx hit the nail on the head here.



<DIV class=quote>
<DIV class=quotetitle>? quoting Jinx</DIV>
<DIV class=quotetext>"blah blah blah lol."</DIV></DIV>

I think there is more that can be said. May I pick up from here^ ok? ... Thanx!

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">In direct response to the question you first posted Aaron, The real AI behind the enemies, isn't the awesome programming for the monsters, it's the intelligent and creative design that went into the level creation to take advantage of those monsters' abilities. Today's monsters don't play on an equal footing as the player, meaning, they have different weapons and abilities that the player doesn't have. Ex. Strider vs. Gordon Freeman, not a fair fight, but it can be made fair by building a balanced level. (and positioning appropriate weapons in working spaces). </SPAN>

Of course, your question applies to the theoretical idea of having a blank room with vary difficulties of enemies and asking which would you rather have: more less harder ones, or fewer harder ones? But truth is, it's pointless to think like that, because you're negating the entire level experience. One could be more fun than the other if given the chance to bloom in an awesome space created by a level designer.

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Level design is the real game AI, as it sets the stage for an encounter with any kind of enemy. It's not the difficulty of the monster, it's the difficulty of the level. And guess what! No programming required! You can make a monster WAY more difficult in fewer numbers if given the opportunity to show his stuff in a level. Or you can make many monsters that are equally difficult, by giving them multiple stage entrances to perform from. </SPAN>

I would say that Portal displayed AMAZING difficult game AI without using any 'monsters, ' just simple game mechanics and level design. (of course it's a puzzle-type game, so this is to be expected).

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Verdana">Throwing in monsters won't make a level any more 'fun' by guarantee. It's how you use them in your levels, if at all. So the question whether there should be more less-difficult ones, or less more-difficult ones, is pointless, because it changes from level to level. </SPAN>

I personally don't like using many AI enemies at all if I can help it. I use them as story-telling devices, and ways to help increase action. Although I guess it can be argued that most any action scene in a current game today will have NPC enemies at their heart. I think of them as a cheap way to insert higher amounts of action into a level. IMO, they're icing on the cake; in most other opinions, they're key to a game's development and story.

Use them how you'd like! :smile:

</DIV></DIV>

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

All this adds up to level designers > programmers ;D

Reminds me of an article I read In Dungeon magazine ages ago. It was about how a DM made a dungeon level of nothing but Kobolds (weakest. monsters. ever.). But because of the dungeon layout and the intelligence of the little buggers, it was brutal.

I've never really done any 1 player stuff, other than 1 player versions of my DM maps (kill the grunts/monsters basically). But I do try to pay a lot of attention to these things.

---

Action Half-Life - <A HREF="http://distraction-mod.com" TARGET="_blank">Distrac

Level design is the real game AI, as it sets the stage for an encounter with any kind of enemy. It's not the difficulty of the monster, it's the difficulty of the level. And guess what! No programming required! You can make a monster WAY more difficult in fewer numbers if given the opportunity to show his stuff in a level. Or you can make many monsters that are equally difficult, by giving them multiple stage entrances to perform from.

Interesting. Interesting from the difficulty or balance perspective.

But I wouldn't go as far as calling level design equal to enemy AI for most gameplay aspects.

I would dare to say that there wasn't a battle in HL2 (with the exception of the excellent sentry-fortress scene in Nova Prospect) that truly brought variety to battles against certain enemy types. Valve has some of the best level designers on this planet, but even they struggled, ultimately producing many fights that feel very similar, almost identical to each other.

By combining certain situations and enemy types, you can create unique fights just with clever level design. But there has to be a pool of different enemies with different behaviour and skills to choose from. HL2 lacks in this department.

Even the best HL2 custom campaigns impressed me with atmosphere or fun story bits, but almost never with interesting battles! I respect some of them for having good balance and difficulty for enemy encounters. But the fights themselves... meh.

I'd say I agree that difficulty balance can be achieved with level design alone, and changing the health or power of enemies probably unnecessary. But if you want some truly unique battles, I'm afraid you have to go beyond health values. Think super-soldiers fighting rebellious combine police. Equipped solely with slightly less powerful handgrenades. Man-hacks working for you.

Things like that. Allow new strategies to fight. Enemy health alone is so Quake1.

---

Why snark works.

I agree with the fact that level design certainly influences gameplay (difficulty), but I don't think its right to rely on the level design more than a monsters AI for gameplay. I mean, a monsters AI is one of the keys to replayability in a level, and its great when a monster does one thing (All out attack), than you die, go back to that encounter, and it acts totally different (flanks the player), than for some reason you die again and the monster hides and waits for the player to pass before attacking him again. It feels like your in a huge sandbox with endless possibilities and it can be played over many times.

Its no good if you put so much effort into the level design, and craft a good and creative encounter, only to find it plays the exact same, or very similar every single time (one of the things I found with Half-life 2 and episode 1) and the prospect of replaying the game on a harder difficulty suddenly becomes dull and less exciting.

Certainly a combination of the two (good AI with good level design) is the way to go.

This is why I think that generally assuming there is good AI, more enemies (same type or different) is better than stronger enemies. The possibilities are more, the dynamics and the way you play are different, and I think its more enjoyable in 65% of cases than versing a foe that feels to powerful than what they should be, and I mean its an exaggeration but having to empty a whole clip of ammo on a monster is quite a crazy concept, obviously there are situations where stronger enemies would be the better choice.

---

Aaron's Stuff

Good topic Aaron

I think it's illustrated nicely by the fact that hl1>hl2 big time with regards to enemies and related level design imo.

That said I've wondered since day 1 why there were no packs of feral dogs in hl2...they could be made cunning enough to not get killed, that would keep animal activists merely grumbling...

I totally agree with the general point behind the original message- that is that it's more fun to have more monsters than FPS games currently have. Since after Doom 2, there's been a trend towards increasing the complexity of individual monsters, meaning that there can be less of them on screen at once. Personally I think it sucks to have it like this all the time, and I would sometimes rather have hordes of less detailed ones.

Don't get me wrong, small numbers of highly-detailed monsters can be cool. An extreme example of this is the Resident Evil series of games. I just think that sometimes it's cool to have masses of enemies on-screen at once, like in that level The Courtyard in Doom 2.

Stronger enemies are weaker than more enemies:more enemies can atack from everywhere,but the sronger enemies cant.

---

Never think about bad things!
TNKqwe:The New Killer qwe
[img]http://images.quiz.wegame.com/production/personalities/22/badge.jpg[/img]
I am Engineer - Play Free Online Games
[img]http://media.moddb.com/images/global/moddb_88x31_v12.png[/img]
Citizen Arms

I much prefer more enemies, when you see about 10 + enemies you think "bollocks, wtf am I supposed to do about this lot?!", bu when you see less enemies,you tend to think, "hmm, this should be easier...time to pwn".

More enemies is defiantly more nerve racking as they tend to corner you much more than harder enemies and you are more likely to believe yuo might run out of ammo.

More like "Doom3 vs. Painkiller"

But seriously. I choose option 'D' ... smarter enemies.

Dark Tree said:
But seriously. I choose option 'D' ... smarter enemies.

I suppose then you should vote for '"Stronger Enemies", as this refers to enemies with more health, enemies that inflict more damage and any enimies with their AI altered to make them more intelligent/harder/faster....

But seriously, rare is the game where the monsters AI is smarter on the harder difficulties, it would be too much hassle I guess. I mean, there is usually small AI changes like the enemies may take cover more on easy, where as on hard they are much more aggressive, but this is really just tweaking values and not really altering AI.

---

Aaron's Stuff

I
chose "don't mind" because it really depends on the situation. If I was
attacked by 30 enemies at once in Doom3, I would probably be
annoyed.... if I was attacked by 2 guys every 2 minutes in Doom2, I
would be annoyed. It depends on the game. As long as it is executed
well, its all good.

RedWood said:

I think it's best to have a mix of the two. Anyone notice how much harder it got when you had to fight the combine soldiers and the hunters at the same time?

This is a good idea.
Dark Tree said:

I chose "don't mind" because it really depends on the situation. If I was attacked by 30 enemies at once in Doom3, I would probably be annoyed.... if I was attacked by 2 guys every 2 minutes in Doom2, I would be annoyed. It depends on the game. As long as it is executed well, its all good.

Thats right,Dark Tree.
But wait!If the many enemies are close together,they will be eazy to kill with something exploding,but if they are everywhere...you know what will hapen.

---

Never think about bad things!
TNKqwe:The New Killer qwe
[img]http://images.quiz.wegame.com/production/personalities/22/badge.jpg[/img]
I am Engineer - Play Free Online Games
[img]http://media.moddb.com/images/global/moddb_88x31_v12.png[/img]
Citizen Arms