Why do all non tactical FPS games have bullet sponge enemies?

>>>/gay/

Because increasing difficulty through measures other than increasing the numbers on shit the ai gets is a lost art.

Old games had it worse tbh.

And even when developed by the same devs this shit still happens. For example, 2K developed both Mafia and Hidden and Dangerous 2. In H&D 2, you can 1 hit kill with a pistol if the shot placement is correct. In Mafia, one guy can take half a tommygun mag before going down.

fug. It doesn't surprise me that lenny is in the hospital but I didn't know it already happened

Good games have tanky enemies because they have a large variety of enemies and bullet sponges that are properly placed and have other enemies supporting them makes for good design. Shit games do it because it's one of the simplest ways to make something more difficult.

2K has a lot of development teams, are you sure those were actually made by the same people?

Like FEAR, I know. Still, the standard enemies in FEAR are also bullet spongy. Compare that to a tactical game made by the same company, SWAT 4.

Both are developed by 2K Czech. That's for sure.

F.E.A.R was made by Monolith who also made Blood and Shogo and are currently stuck making Shadow of War. SWAT 4 was made Irrational, who worked on System Shock 2 and the first and third Bioshock games.

nah you're just bad at video games.

Jesus christ are you seriously this retarded?

I didn't realize that SWAT 4 isn't a monolith game. The graphics look similar to and both are published by vivendi, I always suspected that the dev company was the same. Alright then.

They're objectively more bullet spongy than say, Rainbow Six, though.

I think you are.

nah you're just bad at video games.
wrap your brains around using different weapons for different enemies and maybe you wouldn't be so braindead.

A retard's thoughts aren't really all that concrete.

Why are you so salty? It's factually true that enemies in Rainbow Six take less bullets before dying.

Also, Mafia and HD2 are developed by 2K Czech.

Because low time to kill is a bitch that makes combat unsatisfying. You either die fast or you kill fast so the combat never lasts long enough and you can win\lose with lucky shots.
By inflating health, you reduce the luck factor and make fights take some more effort to finish.

Still, it's mostly up to the number of enemies and things like Vermintide or Left4Dead included a whole bunch of enemies with low health that you could kill but were still a danger in great numbers.
However, those games also have bullet sponge enemies (Rat Ogre and Tank) to make for prolonged struggles against them, which works quite well because it breaks the pace.

I personnaly prefer huge amounts of weak enemies to kill instead of a handfull of strong enemies that don't do much differently than normal zombie AI, but a small group of sofisticated AI NPC's can be interesting too.

Because people can't program enemies with good AI so they make up for it by having enemies that soak bullets instead.

Most human-sized enemies go down in 1 rocket or one super shotgun blast, bigger enemies can go down easily in three or five quick rockets, and nothing can withstand a cannonball. What the fuck are you on about here?

They can go down in the fraction of a second if you know what you are doing, where killing fast and going fast while taking barely any damage is the result of having skill. Blood featured low TTK for you and the enemies, most of which were cultists which died in one double shotgun blast or a short burst of the tommygun, but in order to compensate for the difficulty and the simple AI, Monolith had to place them in tricky places and corners where you're bound to get shredded due to their hitscan nature, which usually resulted in levels you'd either savescum through or have to memorize entirely before having a single chance of survival.

Developers only see guns from goolag search "scary loud black phallic object which kills" and once they pass dick pics of simon mol, they find a stock photo of a weapon they then trace and tack on useless trash to pass it as original design, see nu-wolfenstein or nudoom
Not to mention, every competent programmers stays away from video games because it pays like shit and is infinitely more stressful compared to other IT jobs.
Games are mass product made by people not interested in whatever they're making.
The last dev I recall going to a range to get weapon sounds, feel and "stats" was Sawyer for New Vegas, impressive considering he's personally a nogunz libcuck.

I think Hotline Miami is pretty satisfying. It's just a matter of how the combat mechanics and levels are designed.

In real life, people get crippled or even killed by a single rifle round. Enemies in tactical shooters like SWAT 4 are like this. Why can't action games do that?

New Vegas has horrible gunplay though. The gun handling is only slightly better than Fallout 3, but the AI appears to be even dumber and and the level design is somehow even worse. Also, it's pretty bullet spongey.

Because then you'd had to trade either performance or eyecandy for it to make it run on every platform.

Sure, but that's not an actual shooter, and it's designed specifically for low TTK. Superhot excusing the shitty pretentious story was mostly the same way too, and a lot of platformers are also low TTK but that's up to how the game is designed.

If you make a shooter with health pickups for instance, low TTK makes health kits seem redundant if the difference between 3 health and 98 health are just fractions of seconds you'll be alive.

In real life, people don't run around without their head holding 2 huge comic bombs in their hands, nor are there giant robots that shoot lasers at you nor can you carry a minigun, a rocket launcher and several other weapons beneath a t-shirt.

Not every game goes for a realistic aproach.

It's not that simple. It depends on the relation between enemy attributes and the general philosophy of the level design. Doom had a lot of simple enemies in decently spaced rooms with enough room to dodge attacks, whereas Quake had much tighter and narrower rooms and corridors with less enemies with more HP, placing the focus less on crowd control, but more on dodging individual attacks in very narrow situations where you can't simply circlestrafe your way to victory. It's not necessarily a case of shit AI, if an enemy fulfills its intended role and purpose (moving towards the player and attack him), then it's functional no matter how simple the function, anything above that is not really necessary unless the gameplay itself is more reliant on outsmarting enemy behaviour.

In Doom's and Quake's case the act of fighting an enemy on its own isn't something unique every time because of how simple their behaviour is, especially in Doom where enemies are rather slow compared to your speed. And to compensate for that simplicity, the variables of enemy encounters in those games is always changed up through the enemy placement and level design which feature something different every time. Enemies in those games don't need some fancy AI because the level design itself plays a large part in mixing things up and providing the challenge.

If you were to compare this to nuDoom, this relation is the complete opposite. The levels themselves are arenas with platforms to hop towards and from in order to avoid enemy attacks, but they barely play a part in the challenge of the game themselves because platforming is easy as sin in this game and environmental hazards are almost non-existent here. In nuDoom, there's much more involved when fighting even a simple enemy. They can dodge your attacks, they try to avoid your crosshair, they can traverse the environment in more efficient ways, they have multiple attacks for a variety of situations, and they don't always try to charge you head on. The idea is that you're playing a game of Monkey Cage inside the arena with enemies running around all over the place. The arena itself won't provide much variety since it doesn't mess with the variables involved in the main gameplay loop all that much, instead it has to rely on the AI for it to take advantage of the arena much like the player can and pull off some cool shit each time. It is in this area that nuDoom's AI is simply insufficient, but that's another story for another time.

Weapon balance would be a massive joke or need an entirely different direction if anything could die in one or two shots. Hitscan weapons would be king and projectile weapons get the boot. That is why hitscan weapons in other games like Q3A have some big cons compared to others that make all weapons worth equally using depending on the situation.

Just use more loading screens and hubs like stalker 1 does.

I liked Superhot. The graphics is shit though, too stylized.

Give the player more health or body armor then, and make the enemies seem more clumsy. Guys in SWAT have better reaction time and better resistance to bullet than the enemies. Or make health kit useful for healing crippled bodyparts just like in Fallout. Portable health kit is also a solution.

I don't want full blown realism, I just want to play a game that feels like Die Hard. Intense fast paced action without bullet sponges. No tactical or action FPS games delivered anything like quite like it.

Player could make a choice between spray and pray submachine guns and sawn off shotguns with large spread. Who cares about weapon balance in a traditional sense when it's fun? Also, if there was a difference between crippled enemies and dead enemies, weapon damage would still be significant. Shooting people in the legs should cripple them, not kill them, unless it's something really powerful that's capable of severing them off.

If you like real life tactics so much why dont you become an IRL tacticool operator?

Because it does very much matter in multiplayer, and a basic semblance of balance is needed in singleplayer to make each weapon worthwhile using in at least some situations, not whenever you just feel like it.
The game you seem to be looking for would be Max Payne 3.

The point is I don't, that's why I talk about it here.

Screw MP.

Yeah, that's the point of crippling mechanics I was talking about.

I might try it I guess. I don't like unskippable cutscense though, hence I haven't played.