Enemies always attack
Author
Has anyone ever considered the difference between when, how, and why enemies attack in real life versus a video game?
In the real world, it may be possible to walk right by your sworn enemy, and have him just be too tired or occupied to attack you. You may stroll right next to a predatory critter that already has a full stomach. Or have a gang that usually tries to mug you just ignore you in some particular situation.
I've noticed this is rarely ever true in games. Your enemies are life and death, sworn to kill, and attack you on sight, regardless of unseen variables. I'm wondering if adding more complexity to it could enhance or disturb the gameplay? If some hostiles aren't always hostile, would it cause the player to think more before starting wars?
If you were to offer your enemy a chocolate chip cookie, when things were not yet hairy, why would they attack? I mean the pavlovian response would be to say- "this guy is awesome. He gave me a friggin CCC!"
It depends on the genre, I guess.
Most FPS's are based on "shoot anything that moves" game-play, and having an enemy stop to eat his lunch instead of try to kill you would seem quite strange in these games.
Enemies in turn-based-strategy (and RTS) games on the other hand will usually wait for an opportune moment before attacking.
For example, one of my most memorable moments in Rome:Total War came during a game as Greece where I had particularly tenuous 'cease-fire' with the Macedonians. I had millitary and economic superiority over them, but I had stolen their land thus we were sworn enemies. Eventually I convinced them to ally with me, but as soon as I shifted away my armies to defend against Rome, they started raiding my borders everywhere.
In this case, the complexity of their decisions enhanced the gameplay a lot.
Most FPS's are based on "shoot anything that moves" game-play, and having an enemy stop to eat his lunch instead of try to kill you would seem quite strange in these games.
Enemies in turn-based-strategy (and RTS) games on the other hand will usually wait for an opportune moment before attacking.
For example, one of my most memorable moments in Rome:Total War came during a game as Greece where I had particularly tenuous 'cease-fire' with the Macedonians. I had millitary and economic superiority over them, but I had stolen their land thus we were sworn enemies. Eventually I convinced them to ally with me, but as soon as I shifted away my armies to defend against Rome, they started raiding my borders everywhere.
In this case, the complexity of their decisions enhanced the gameplay a lot.
If you were to offer your enemy a chocolate chip cookie, when things were not yet hairy, why would they attack? I mean the pavlovian response would be to say- "this guy is awesome. He gave me a friggin CCC!"
[the preceding was doubleposted,but i'm keeping it]
[the preceding was doubleposted,but i'm keeping it]
The answer to your question depends entirely upon the specific setting of your game.
In a game like Doom 3, or any other game where it is you versus the entire world and the sole purpose of the game is to make it out the other end, having enemies that don't always attack doesn't make very much sense.
On the other hand, in a game more like GTA or something where you have a large world, and your goal isn't quite so linear, it does make sense to have enemies that don't necessarily attack you all the time.
In short, it's completely your decision, and both paths are completely legitimate, in my opinion. It just depends on what you're trying to do. If you were doing a game based around gang wars or something, having times of relatively low amounts of hostility between certain gangs could be a fairly powerful plot motivator.
In a game like Doom 3, or any other game where it is you versus the entire world and the sole purpose of the game is to make it out the other end, having enemies that don't always attack doesn't make very much sense.
On the other hand, in a game more like GTA or something where you have a large world, and your goal isn't quite so linear, it does make sense to have enemies that don't necessarily attack you all the time.
In short, it's completely your decision, and both paths are completely legitimate, in my opinion. It just depends on what you're trying to do. If you were doing a game based around gang wars or something, having times of relatively low amounts of hostility between certain gangs could be a fairly powerful plot motivator.
Come to think of it, rememeber the Neutral Zones in Bionic Commando? If you shoot, they shoot. Awesome game! Also, the chickens in Zelda games. If you attack those SOBs they go after you squarely. Yeah.
Quote:I've noticed this is rarely ever true in games. Your enemies are life and death, sworn to kill, and attack you on sight, regardless of unseen variables.
I've noticed this too in alot of FPS's, but truthfully the sole purpose of those games is to kill things (or at least thats what were lead to believe).
Its when this kind of thing strays more into FPS RPG's like Morrowind, Oblivion, and Arx Fatalis that it really starts to seem down right wierd. I can't count the number of times were some stray rat/cliff-rider/beast would incessantly come bounding out of nowhere with the sole purpose of attacking me, it all seemed downright cheap, i mean why would nature hate me so? Oblivion wasn't much better, what with the only "tame" creature in the whole game being deer. Xp
I think though that if the player were given the opportunity to not always have a violent encounter he might see those moments more as opportunities to "srike first" rather than to walk by without a fight, unless he's given some other incentives not to do so.
Author
I was generally speaking of enemies not attacking when it would make sense. If you were fighting a war or facing opponents with ranged weapons, they're not likely to trust you within killing range. But if a human-human battle won't result in death, or a critter doesn't know it could result in death, it seems more likely to happen.
If a hostile creature is threatened by your presence, it would be different. But I've seen giant lions turn and walk away from single humans out in the open wild. It looked like humans just made them nervous, but obviously not always enough to make them retreat quickly or attack to defend. It seems as though creatures in games are never this complex. Either all of a certain type always attack on sight, or they never do. I can't say this is bad, really. But it seems robotic at best.
If a hostile creature is threatened by your presence, it would be different. But I've seen giant lions turn and walk away from single humans out in the open wild. It looked like humans just made them nervous, but obviously not always enough to make them retreat quickly or attack to defend. It seems as though creatures in games are never this complex. Either all of a certain type always attack on sight, or they never do. I can't say this is bad, really. But it seems robotic at best.
Realism doesn't necessarily make it more fun though, in my opinion.
Completely agree with Dragon88
Completely agree with Dragon88
Author
Quote:Original post by frus
Realism doesn't necessarily make it more fun though, in my opinion.
Indeed. But this isn't about realism. It's about complexity.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
