What are some of the most effective yet enjoyable attacks NPCs have used against you in games? It's easy to make an NPCs with godly power, but that's not necessarily fun to fight. The best fight is probably the one where you feel evenly matched with the enemy yet can still be surprised by their tactics or abilities. I think for me ranged weapon attacks-- particularly grenades-- are some of the most effective yet enjoyable attacks I've endured in games. It may be my background in game testing (or because I'm a cheapass coward) but I tend to engage enemies at range and seem to be a master at exploiting pathfinding loopholes. So when an enemy like the Spec Ops soldiers in Half-Life can land a grenade right next to my snug and cozy rooftop sniping position, I don't curse them (at least not after I stop screaming like a schoolgirl). I instead have respect for them and even replay the same section of the game from a save point because I like the experience so much. What about you?

I know a few times playing through the Super Smash Bros series I've had fights against some NPC's and done what I thought was a clever combo only to have them see it coming and counter it. Learning from their tactics is how I got so pro ^^ or cheap...

In Supreme Commander, the AI would gather troops from it's factories at an assembly area, and then send the war party out to hunt me. It was a refreshing change from the usual dribble of cannon fodder lining up single file from factory assembly lines and throwing themselves at my defenses.

In Command & Conquer 3, the AI would select from several different overall strategies. It might rush, or it might turtle. It might spend a fortune on airplanes and AA, or it might forgo air to build a stronger ground combat. Playing against the AI required good use of scouting.

In Galactic Civilizations the many enemy races would team up and gang bang the player if he became a superpower by comparison. It became interesting to keep resources under the table, a wolf in sheep's clothing. Just one of the guys. And then suddenly crank out an armada.

I remember I always lost against an AI, and after taking a look at it's code I noticed the following: If I built air units, they built AA units. If i build infantry, they built anti-infantry. If I built vehicle they built armor penetrating units. If I built too many buildings, they built units that easily destroys buildings. Then they continued building those units. :)

the most significant enemy attack in any game for me is 'knife' performed by master tonberry in FF7.

you know the attack is coming and you know it will finish your character.
you just have to kill the little blighter before he can get near you.

Any opinions on status effects? I find enemies that perform them can really change how I play a game. If a monster/enemy can paralyze, blind or slow my attacks they become far more deadly than an enemy that performs does conventional damage.

Enemies that have the ability to degrade resources or stats I depend on are especially nasty. A monster that rusts my weapons in an RPG or a robot that does EMP damage, draining my laser rifle's power really mix up combat in that they become high priority targets.

The thread kind of sidetracked from the stated subject into "what is enjoyable enemy behavior?" before the original post was over.

Anyway, I think the truly enjoyable enemies largely fall into two groups.

The first one is what you'd call "opponents". Humans, and human-like AIs. (They might be a NPC or an invisible guiding hand like in a RTS game.) In this case, the more humanlike the AI enemies get, the more fun they are. They can have a large assortment of available actions, and even when some of them are quite similar, they can often be used to great effect for mindgames and subtle strategies.

The other is the exact opposite: unapologetically mechanical enemies operating on transparent logic, generally limited to a low amount of possible actions, but these actions should be bold, distinct, sometimes dramatic and sometimes visceral.

I'll illustrate this thinking with some aspects of World of Warcraft. The game's NPCs are dumb as rocks, and individually, boring as hell. Yet, it's precisely their predictable behavior that enables activities such as "AoE grinding" - effectively playing an action puzzle game that involves maximizing your enemy kill rate by exploiting their simple AI and lack of options to the fullest - which can be sort of fun.

OTOH, when you duel a human opponent (roughly equal skill, gear, yadayada), you have a measure of strategic fun. Obviously, the game could introduce individual elite mobs which have a sophisticated strategic AI and play like a human player of that class, and that would also be fun.

But if you half-ass it, and just make the stupid mobs more unpredictable, they will remain hideously boring, but the fun of pushing your limits by mass-killing them is stripped away - you can't really push your limits as long as randomness can come up behind you and shove you over the edge. Instead you grind slower, more conservative, no risk. Lose-lose.

(Disclaimer: I don't think WoW actually fits either of these "good" enemy types that well, but the comparison is what's important here.)

WOW mobs don't have very interesting behavior until dungeons. Then there is a fair amount of variety and players have to learn how to deal with the mobs. A good amount are still tank and spank but not all.

Sometimes I find the most fun I've had with enemy (or my own) attacks is when there's an element of randomness involved. Take King of Fighters 2002 UM: say you're playing as or fighting Orochi Shermie and she uses her final attack. If it connects, there's a chance the enemy will be struck by lightning for 50% of their total life, or she will be struck and die instantly (since she has to have 25% or less health in order to use the attack). The time period between her initiating the attack and the final blow is some of the most exhilarating seconds I've experienced in a game - particularly when you're playing competitively!

The game mechanic is changed from tactical to purely chance-based, and it is an incredibly thrilling experience to hand over the control of your destiny for a few seconds in the heat of a battle where you typically have control over every aspect of your character. It is also equally satisfying to play against someone using this mechanic since it is well balanced and they are taking an immense risk simply using the attack.

Quote:

Original post by Wavinator Any opinions on status effects? I find enemies that perform them can really change how I play a game. If a monster/enemy can paralyze, blind or slow my attacks they become far more deadly than an enemy that performs does conventional damage. Enemies that have the ability to degrade resources or stats I depend on are especially nasty. A monster that rusts my weapons in an RPG or a robot that does EMP damage, draining my laser rifle's power really mix up combat in that they become high priority targets.

I completely understand this. I think it's possible to push the concept further with a paper-rock-scissors approach, which what I'm doing (see an explanation here). The reason the special abilities are interesting is because they force you to think about how and when you're going to attack a particular enemy, so if each enemy has some complimentary ability, you're forced to always be thinking.

For example, in my game there are standard issue fire darts. They work great against big, slow enemies because those guys can't get close to hit you, but they fail utterly again enemies that can absorb the small amount of damage you're doing per hit. When you use your own absorb attack, and change into a "fire person," you'll do a lot of damage to that same absorb enemy who can't take all the damage at once. But a big slow enemy? He'll just knock you on your ass, out of damage range.

So it forces you to think about which attacks will be effective against enemies. The difference is that most games have 90% "normal" enemies that you can just mash buttons against, so I'm hoping my take will mean more interesting combat.

[Edited by - Pete Michaud on September 24, 2009 10:31:16 AM]