New Page — Shoot the Backpack

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Duffyside (890 posts) -

Need help adding games to this list. Concept is Shoot the Backpack; shooters wherein a typically large enemy, usually spewing fire, is wearing a backpack to fuel its weapon. And yo, you need to shoot that shit to bring him down.

Just submitted Killzone 2, Vanquish and Bulletstorm. I know there's more.

#2 Edited by Slaker117 (4842 posts) -

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

#3 Posted by Duffyside (890 posts) -

Thanks for your help, kind sir.

#4 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

Added one game. At first I thought this was a pretty common concept, but I'm having trouble thinking of games with this.

#5 Posted by pornstorestiffi (4915 posts) -

Added Resistance 3.

#6 Posted by Duffyside (890 posts) -

@pornstorestiffi said:

Added Resistance 3.

Hm, interesting. I assume you're just talking about the standard Chimeran enemies? I'm waffling back and forth on whether this counts. Certainly there are weak spots on their back, but is it a backpack? It isn't part of their anatomy, it is a device on their back... but it isn't there to empower them, and it isn't almost necessary to shoot the back to take them down. However, it is much easier to take them down...

Man, editing pages is hard. I should've stayed watching and commenting on Quick Looks.

#7 Edited by SaturdayNightSpecials (2387 posts) -

@Duffyside said:

@pornstorestiffi said:

Added Resistance 3.

Hm, interesting. I assume you're just talking about the standard Chimeran enemies? I'm waffling back and forth on whether this counts. Certainly there are weak spots on their back, but is it a backpack? It isn't part of their anatomy, it is a device on their back... but it isn't there to empower them, and it isn't almost necessary to shoot the back to take them down. However, it is much easier to take them down...

Man, editing pages is hard. I should've stayed watching and commenting on Quick Looks.

I posit that the backpack should explode when shot.

Also I submitted Fear 2.

#8 Edited by ApertureSilence (1156 posts) -

The new Dead to Rights needs to be on this list. I just finished it, and there was backpack-shooting to be had.

#9 Posted by Soviet666 (291 posts) -

What if you don't necessary have to, but can shoot the backpack?

#10 Posted by A_Dog (744 posts) -

My first thought, for some reason, was Dingodile but you don't shoot his backpack....

#11 Posted by EuanDewar (4938 posts) -

@Slaker117 said:

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Yo, Halo buddy. Am I wrong or do the Brute's in Halo 3 with the jetpacks totally fit here?

#12 Posted by bhaigh (6 posts) -

Added Army of Two: The 40th Day.

#13 Posted by UnderWing (30 posts) -

What about Bane from Arkham Asylum? He definitely has a backpack, but you're not so much shooting it as... ripping it's connections off of him. And it doesn't explode, either.

#14 Posted by solidwolf52 (300 posts) -

Gears of War 2 and 3. You can shoot the backs of the guys with scorchers and they'll blow up.

#15 Posted by BigBossCB (20 posts) -

Hmm, would you count the giant claw enemies from Resident Evil 4 as a backpack? Technically it's a parasite and not a backpack...

#16 Posted by MrJared (398 posts) -

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

#17 Edited by Lokno (386 posts) -

@MrJared said:

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

Jinx! We'll see who gets the credit, you may have beat me to it.

Update: Looks like I got to it first, sorry.

#18 Posted by Hamst3r (4484 posts) -

Jetpacks count as backpacks, right? In SiN Episodes: Emergence, there were jetpack troopers who would fly all over the place then explode if you shot the jetpack.

#19 Posted by Sign (292 posts) -

@SaturdayNightSpecials said:

@Duffyside said:

@pornstorestiffi said:

Added Resistance 3.

Hm, interesting. I assume you're just talking about the standard Chimeran enemies? I'm waffling back and forth on whether this counts. Certainly there are weak spots on their back, but is it a backpack? It isn't part of their anatomy, it is a device on their back... but it isn't there to empower them, and it isn't almost necessary to shoot the back to take them down. However, it is much easier to take them down...

Man, editing pages is hard. I should've stayed watching and commenting on Quick Looks.

I posit that the backpack should explode when shot.

Also I submitted Fear 2.

I second this motion. I would say it isn't mandatory to shoot the backpack but shooting the backpack should be the far easier way to kill them (ie they are a bullet sponge otherwise, or they are very dangerous) and it should explode and kill them.

#20 Posted by bitprophet (1 posts) -

Does it have to be a shooter (sort of echoing the Batman:AA question above) and does the backpack-shooting have to be a core staple of gameplay?

If "no" and "no" then I would submit the WoW:Cataclysm quest where you have to zap some orc flamethrower backpacks to take out otherwise difficult enemies. Only lasts for one quest, but does fit the concept!

#21 Posted by Vincenzo (140 posts) -

Did we cover Brumaks in Gears 3?

#22 Posted by EchoEcho (827 posts) -

@Sign said:

I would say it isn't mandatory to shoot the backpack but shooting the backpack should be the far easier way to kill them (ie they are a bullet sponge otherwise, or they are very dangerous) and it should explode and kill them.

So would that rule out my intention to add Halo: Reach? You can shoot the Grunts in their methane tank to cause an explosive death, but considering you can also shoot them in the face for a one-shot kill, it isn't necessarily the fastest way to kill them, unless they're either far enough away that their head is a tiny target, or they're in the process of running away from you.

#23 Posted by HHAP (214 posts) -

added Transfomers: War for Cybertron for those brute/berserk looking enemies whose weak point is their back and I also believe there is an achievement tied to it.

#24 Posted by Sign (292 posts) -

@EchoEcho said:

@Sign said:

I would say it isn't mandatory to shoot the backpack but shooting the backpack should be the far easier way to kill them (ie they are a bullet sponge otherwise, or they are very dangerous) and it should explode and kill them.

So would that rule out my intention to add Halo: Reach? You can shoot the Grunts in their methane tank to cause an explosive death, but considering you can also shoot them in the face for a one-shot kill, it isn't necessarily the fastest way to kill them, unless they're either far enough away that their head is a tiny target, or they're in the process of running away from you.

I am not sure, that is a good point. I was simply throwing criteria out there for discussion amongst the community. Personally I would say they would qualify and that the "easiest way to kill them" clause is more of a guideline than a hard and fast requirement.

#25 Posted by SgtGrumbles (1024 posts) -

There's definitely some backpack bustin' in Mass Effect 2.

#26 Posted by EchoEcho (827 posts) -

@Sign: I went ahead and added it -- it seems to fit enough of the spirit of the idea, I think. On higher difficulty levels especially, it can be the best way to take them out when a headshot opportunity isn't presenting itself.

#27 Posted by OwlPen0r (25 posts) -

My only contribution to this thread is that I can't believe this wasn't on the site before. Great job Jeremy.

#28 Posted by Battle_BroCast (9 posts) -

For sure on it acting as a guideline, but not the rule. With that in mind, is the focus entirely on the weak, explosive spot being on the back? As mentioned, the Gears series has the typical fire-spewing enemy with an explosive backpack. Highly dangerous enemy in close-quarters, as his scorcher will melt your shit. You take out his fuel backpack, and he explodes. Nice, easy, from a distance. At the same time, Gears 3 has Lambent running around, all of them with big, yellow pustules on their bodies. Gunkers shot in the bulbous area die in an explosive fashion, very quickly, if you go for the weak point. Is the focus of the page the immediacy of the kill targetting a weak point permits, or the actual explosion of the backpack, even if it's relatively superfluous (as with Halo's Grunts)?

#29 Posted by mrfluke (5160 posts) -

someone go add gears 2 and gears 3 and halo 3 and halo reach, im wiki banned (never had a staff followed up with me on it)

#30 Posted by ajamafalous (11999 posts) -

I can't remember; do those big gatling enemies in RE5 die if you shoot their backpack?

#31 Posted by faustyn (615 posts) -

There was a guy with something explosive on his back in Borderlands, right? Or am I thinking of the zombies throwing barrels at you? hm...

#32 Posted by WholeFunShow (360 posts) -

Are the individual units being linked to the concept aswell? I think they should be and'll have a look when I'm at a computer.

#33 Posted by EkajArmstro (389 posts) -
#34 Posted by YoungFrey (1321 posts) -

I'd say this should more be attached to characters than games.  But I don't think the database is set up that way. 
#35 Posted by steelknight2000 (447 posts) -

In Warhammer: Space Marine, the orks in the flying sequence have rockets on their backs which you can shoot to blow up. That count?

#36 Posted by giziant (5 posts) -

Borderlands, the elite Crimson Lance dudes...

#37 Posted by JuMP (87 posts) -

Added MGS3 for the boss fight with "The Fury".

#38 Posted by wrathofconn (1463 posts) -

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

#39 Posted by EmuLeader (558 posts) -

@EuanDewar said:

@Slaker117 said:

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Yo, Halo buddy. Am I wrong or do the Brute's in Halo 3 with the jetpacks totally fit here?

I don't think that counts, or all grunts would also count. You can kill them without ever hitting their back. This concept seems more like you HAVE to shoot their backpack in order to kill them.

#40 Posted by wrathofconn (1463 posts) -

@EmuLeader said:

@EuanDewar said:

@Slaker117 said:

Added three that immediately came to mind, but there have got to be tons more.

Yo, Halo buddy. Am I wrong or do the Brute's in Halo 3 with the jetpacks totally fit here?

I don't think that counts, or all grunts would also count. You can kill them without ever hitting their back. This concept seems more like you HAVE to shoot their backpack in order to kill them.

@wrathofconn said:

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

#41 Posted by EmuLeader (558 posts) -

@wrathofconn said:

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

That's why I believe it should be based around enemies whose sole way of death by being shot in their backpack. I think this is a little more specific.

#42 Posted by Blackout62 (1342 posts) -

Republic Commando, shoot a trandoshan in the backpack and it jetpacks him the hell out of there.

#43 Posted by ViciousAnchovy (746 posts) -

@MrJared said:

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

@Lokno said:

@MrJared said:

Added Beyond Good & Evil. Not only do you get to shoot the backpack, but you send the poor guy flying into the air until he explodes into currency.

Jinx! We'll see who gets the credit, you may have beat me to it.

Update: Looks like I got to it first, sorry.

I'm glad other people thought of Beyond Good & Evil, too. I don't feel like adding stuff myself right now, and I wasn't sure whether or not to include it because BG&E isn't a shooter. You eventually get some ranged attack that can burst backpacks though, don't you?

#44 Edited by wrathofconn (1463 posts) -

@EmuLeader said:

@wrathofconn said:

I think this is a fairly weak concept if we're including enemies where it's not necessarily the easiest way to kill them. (ME2, Halo Grunts.) And even then, there are probably numerous extant concepts about things that explode; what makes this essentially different than shooting an exploding barrel?

That's why I believe it should be based around enemies whose sole way of death by being shot in their backpack. I think this is a little more specific.

You can't kill El Gigante in RE4 without climbing up on his back and cutting him in a specific spot with your knife, and if the explosive part is the only thing that makes that not fit this concept, I think it's too specific. Maybe there should be a concept about enemies that need to be shot in a specific place and a concept about enemies you can blow up (whether or not the explosives are part of the enemy) but I don't think this deserves more than a section on either/both of those pages. We may not get an official ruling though, so carry on.

#45 Posted by nick_verissimo (1385 posts) -

@Duffyside: what about a koopa's shell? Would that count...I'm sure things could be packed in there?

#46 Edited by rjayb89 (7722 posts) -

I added Renegade Ops awhile ago. There are tanks in the game that pops their trunks (their weak point) that allows you to damage it massively.

#47 Posted by Duffyside (890 posts) -

@Battle_BroCast said:

For sure on it acting as a guideline, but not the rule. With that in mind, is the focus entirely on the weak, explosive spot being on the back? As mentioned, the Gears series has the typical fire-spewing enemy with an explosive backpack. Highly dangerous enemy in close-quarters, as his scorcher will melt your shit. You take out his fuel backpack, and he explodes. Nice, easy, from a distance. At the same time, Gears 3 has Lambent running around, all of them with big, yellow pustules on their bodies. Gunkers shot in the bulbous area die in an explosive fashion, very quickly, if you go for the weak point. Is the focus of the page the immediacy of the kill targetting a weak point permits, or the actual explosion of the backpack, even if it's relatively superfluous (as with Halo's Grunts)?

Lots of people raising awesome questions, so only quoting this one at them moment as it brings up many things, but here's my take on everything brought up that I can remember.

I think we could change the page to "Hit the Backpack" instead of "Shoot the Backpack" to accommodate melee/weapon-based action games. However, in something like Arkham, if I remember correctly, as the player you're not actively aiming for Bane's backpack to take him down. You're waiting for an opening to press a button at which point a cutscene shows up, where maybe you have to mash a button, to yank out a cord or something. If it were Batman placing explosive gel on the back to take him out, I could see it counting. Or Dante in DMC slicing at the pack with his sword—the player actively aiming for the spot—then yes. But as I remember Arkham, I say no.

As for Grunts—this also ties in with the Chimerans from Resistance brought up earlier—after thinking about it for a bit I think that shooting the backpack has to be the easiest way, not one of the easiest ways, to take down an enemy. So, not "well it'd be easy to shoot the backpack, but he's facing me so a headshot is just as good." The backpack has to be the most important feature. The enemy will typically be armored and a bullet sponge, though not necessarily.

Take Vanquish, for instance. Romanovs are a fairly common enemy in the game, and they take a lot of bullets. They are heavily armored. There are four different types of Romanovs, the last of which is the club-wiedling fire-spewing version, with a big tank on its back. You can pound away at its legs and make it immobile, or go for the head to blind it, or just shoot the chest til it eventually dies, but your best bet is to aim carefully over its shoulder to make that fucker explode. And yeah, I think explosions are pretty key to the concept too. If not just explosions, maybe eruptions as well.

As for Lambent, Chimerans, etc, where the "pustules" on their backs are not truly "backpacks" but are organic material, I don't think this counts either. I think that's just a weak spot of the enemy's fictional biology and not an additional accoutrement to the enemy design. There may be a case to be made though if the "pustules" are significantly easier ways of taking down the enemy, more than a headshot or a well-placed grenade. An even better case to be made if there are multiple versions of that enemy type and one of them has these things on its back, and possibly is even somehow stronger because of it.

Koopa shells would count if 1, the turtles were walking on two legs and 2, if the shells exploded. Also, if the shells exploded those games would be fucking awesome.

Anyway, awesome to see this thread sort of take off. Thanks to Dave for tweeting about it. I feel like after 15 years I've finally contributed something non-awful to the internet and I'm now considering quitting while I'm ahead.

#48 Edited by wrathofconn (1463 posts) -

@Duffyside: In Super Mario Land, the 'shells' of the enemies they replaced Koopas with turn into bombs after you jump on them. Also, Koopas have always walked on two legs. So there's that for you.

After reading your last post, I'm now positive that this concept is too specific, like I mentioned before. I like it, but the fact that it applies specifically to backpacks is kind of ridiculous when there are already pages for explosives and for enemies with a weak spot that is the easiest/only way to kill them. I'd like to think that if you'd posted this in Editing & Tools a mod would have happened by and ruled on this by now, but I could be wrong.

EDIT: Looks like people have already added games that don't fit your definition. This should be a paragraph on the 'Weak Point' page.

#49 Posted by Duffyside (890 posts) -

@wrathofconn: First of all, if you actually read my entire post, I'm sorry. So so sorry that you went through that. I couldn't even be bothered to read it all.

Second, agree to disagree. I've seen so many enemies in shooters with heavy armor that have a backpack that I couldn't believe there wasn't a page for it. I don't think it's the same as shoot the weak-point, for if it is then there shouldn't be a headshot page, cuz that's just everyone's weak-point.

But if a mod agrees with you and just wants to delete this item or put it somewhere else, I'm fine with that. Just trying to help make the site more awesome.

On that note, I'll shut up now.

#50 Posted by wrathofconn (1463 posts) -

@Duffyside said:

@wrathofconn: First of all, if you actually read my entire post, I'm sorry. So so sorry that you went through that. I couldn't even be bothered to read it all.

Second, agree to disagree. I've seen so many enemies in shooters with heavy armor that have a backpack that I couldn't believe there wasn't a page for it. I don't think it's the same as shoot the weak-point, for if it is then there shouldn't be a headshot page, cuz that's just everyone's weak-point.

But if a mod agrees with you and just wants to delete this item or put it somewhere else, I'm fine with that. Just trying to help make the site more awesome.

On that note, I'll shut up now.

Hey man, if I was going to disagree with you, I was definitely going to know what your reasoning was! Or you're being sarcastic, in which case I don't think I was making a big deal out of that. And it's definitely nothing personal, I do think it's an interesting thing in games. Part of my point is that I think there's a valid reason for headshots not being a separate page, because I don't think there's one for shooting an enemy in the leg to slow them down. Ideally there would be a standard for how specific concepts should be and whether there should even be a general page for something like weak points if there are going to be specific pages for everything in that category. Sadly, that's not the case and we're left to sort these things out on our own, sometimes with help from mods.

All that said, if this page persists and you end up curating it so there aren't things on it that don't fit your own description (Renegade Ops for example), then I think it will be a quality page.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.