|
Post by mstreepsucks on Nov 1, 2019 16:43:00 GMT
In every game after you kill them enemies, they reappear if you go back to where they were killed. What side scrolling games are they still dead and do not come back? I guess they had to because of technical limitation? I got no fuckin clue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2019 3:07:40 GMT
In every game after you kill them enemies, they reappear if you go back to where they were killed. What side scrolling games are they still dead and do not come back? I guess they had to because of technical limitation? I got no fuckin clue. There were a few back in the NES era but it's hard to recall them all. One I can remember off-hand is River City Ransom, though that was more of a brawler. Even that would respawn enemies if you returned to a previous screen but that was because there would be no game otherwise. I'm sure there are better examples. It wasn't necessarily a technical limitation. If a programmer back then wanted to, they could keep a counter to see how far you had progressed rightwards on the map and if you went back to the left, they could run a check to see if an enemy should spawn. That is to say, if the map is 200 tiles long and the player starts at tile 0 and works towards tile 200, and you have enemies spawn on tiles 10, 20, 35, 50, and 75, then if the player gets to tile 100 and turns around, any spawn point on a tile with a value less than 100 would not activate. (This assumes your bog-standard side-scroller with not much verticality or backtracking.) However, it wasn't really deemed important. You were supposed to be moving forward and if the enemies respawned because you backtracked, well, that's on you, chum. There's no sense for extra code and memory use for something so insignificant. I suppose it was also just considered the norm at the time. Video games were still new and it wasn't really something people complained about or that felt like a bug. Many games would even incorporate it into gameplay to ease frustration. A good, semi-early example of this is Super Mario Bros 3. Early in the first stage, there's a ? box on the ground which contains a leaf (a valuable power-up) and to get it, you need to stomp a Koopa and toss his shell at it. If you somehow missed the shot, you could run ahead a bit and come back to respawn the Koopa to get another chance. Others would make enemies drop power-ups which allowed you the opportunity to farm. Games like Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden, on the other hand, could get downright obnoxious about it. They were the Donny Don'ts of enemy respawning. There was no gameplay advantage to the respawns and they had such relentless enemy placement and patterns that even a few steps back could screw you.
|
|
gw
Junior Member
@gw
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 556
|
Post by gw on Nov 10, 2019 6:35:06 GMT
The Commander Keen games don't seem to have enemies that respawn like that. I haven't played them in a while so I'm not entirely sure. But that was a computer game rather than a console game so there was probably more memory.
|
|
|
Post by mstreepsucks on Nov 30, 2019 10:21:47 GMT
In every game after you kill them enemies, they reappear if you go back to where they were killed. What side scrolling games are they still dead and do not come back? I guess they had to because of technical limitation? I got no fuckin clue. There were a few back in the NES era but it's hard to recall them all. One I can remember off-hand is River City Ransom, though that was more of a brawler. Even that would respawn enemies if you returned to a previous screen but that was because there would be no game otherwise. I'm sure there are better examples. It wasn't necessarily a technical limitation. If a programmer back then wanted to, they could keep a counter to see how far you had progressed rightwards on the map and if you went back to the left, they could run a check to see if an enemy should spawn. That is to say, if the map is 200 tiles long and the player starts at tile 0 and works towards tile 200, and you have enemies spawn on tiles 10, 20, 35, 50, and 75, then if the player gets to tile 100 and turns around, any spawn point on a tile with a value less than 100 would not activate. (This assumes your bog-standard side-scroller with not much verticality or backtracking.) However, it wasn't really deemed important. You were supposed to be moving forward and if the enemies respawned because you backtracked, well, that's on you, chum. There's no sense for extra code and memory use for something so insignificant. I suppose it was also just considered the norm at the time. Video games were still new and it wasn't really something people complained about or that felt like a bug. Many games would even incorporate it into gameplay to ease frustration. A good, semi-early example of this is Super Mario Bros 3. Early in the first stage, there's a ? box on the ground which contains a leaf (a valuable power-up) and to get it, you need to stomp a Koopa and toss his shell at it. If you somehow missed the shot, you could run ahead a bit and come back to respawn the Koopa to get another chance. Others would make enemies drop power-ups which allowed you the opportunity to farm. Games like Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden, on the other hand, could get downright obnoxious about it. They were the Donny Don'ts of enemy respawning. There was no gameplay advantage to the respawns and they had such relentless enemy placement and patterns that even a few steps back could screw you. Good points. Sorry, just gotta bring up one thing. .. even though this topic I started was lame lol.
Reason why I brought up this in the first place because this one part in mega man x (although there are probably many more parts in the game where this happens, but I don't know i didn't get very far I hate the game ) where... you have to climb upward, and try to kill some enemies while on platforms but when you fall down if you get hit... and climb back up again … they respawn even though you killed them .
So i'm saying, I guess technically since that's going up...maybe that doesn't count as 'side' scrolling. But scrolling up or whatever. So I am maybe wrong about it. So I am saying in that instance it's not a matter of going back for no reason.
O and then u brought up Mario 3 ok... as far as I know , the first game was better imo (no one will agree). Because in that game you could only move forward and not back. So enemy respawning in that game wasn't an issue. But I could be wrong, because I don't remember that game too well. So basically , I don't like any game where the enemies respawn. Except for like, Metroid...cuz there'd be no game without it so in that one in makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by mrellaguru on Dec 2, 2019 2:04:07 GMT
In every game after you kill them enemies, they reappear if you go back to where they were killed. What side scrolling games are they still dead and do not come back? I guess they had to because of technical limitation? I got no fuckin clue. There were a few back in the NES era but it's hard to recall them all. One I can remember off-hand is River City Ransom, though that was more of a brawler. Even that would respawn enemies if you returned to a previous screen but that was because there would be no game otherwise. I'm sure there are better examples. It wasn't necessarily a technical limitation. If a programmer back then wanted to, they could keep a counter to see how far you had progressed rightwards on the map and if you went back to the left, they could run a check to see if an enemy should spawn. That is to say, if the map is 200 tiles long and the player starts at tile 0 and works towards tile 200, and you have enemies spawn on tiles 10, 20, 35, 50, and 75, then if the player gets to tile 100 and turns around, any spawn point on a tile with a value less than 100 would not activate. (This assumes your bog-standard side-scroller with not much verticality or backtracking.) However, it wasn't really deemed important. You were supposed to be moving forward and if the enemies respawned because you backtracked, well, that's on you, chum. There's no sense for extra code and memory use for something so insignificant. I suppose it was also just considered the norm at the time. Video games were still new and it wasn't really something people complained about or that felt like a bug. Many games would even incorporate it into gameplay to ease frustration. A good, semi-early example of this is Super Mario Bros 3. Early in the first stage, there's a ? box on the ground which contains a leaf (a valuable power-up) and to get it, you need to stomp a Koopa and toss his shell at it. If you somehow missed the shot, you could run ahead a bit and come back to respawn the Koopa to get another chance. Others would make enemies drop power-ups which allowed you the opportunity to farm. Games like Castlevania and Ninja Gaiden, on the other hand, could get downright obnoxious about it. They were the Donny Don'ts of enemy respawning. There was no gameplay advantage to the respawns and they had such relentless enemy placement and patterns that even a few steps back could screw you.
I love Ninja Gaiden. The respawns add to the gameplay in that it adds to the challenge. It forces the player to quickly go forward and not backtrack.
Ninja Gaiden 3 gets rid of the respawns but retains the challenge by increasing the amount of enemies and having them do more damage as well as limited continues. At least this is true of the North American version. The original Japanese NG3 makes the game much easier in general and even includes passwords.
|
|
|
Post by Times Up on Dec 4, 2019 15:09:00 GMT
Enemy respawn can be annoying but it adds to challenge, forces you to keep moving and gives it a more gamey feel. It’s hard to remember but I’m pretty sure the enemies in the palaces in Zelda II stay dead, no respawn there.
|
|