@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.
Log in to comment