A game with only one enemy.

[Gamerforlife]

Games with one enemy aren't new, but I like the idea behind this. I always imagined that if I was a game designer I would want to create a game that places a heavy emphasis on comraderie. I'm not talking about another typical, every day multi-player game, but an actual single player experience like what JT is talking about here. And no, I don't mean some co-op game pretending to be a single player experience either(Resident Evil 5 I'm looking at you)

My favorite moments in a lot of games involved the player working together with NPCs to overcome a crisis. Freedom Fighters was a great game for this reason. I also loved Peter Jackon's King Kong because that game did a good job of creating the illusion of these NPCs working with you to survive and all of the dialogue in the game actually made me care more about them than the movie did. Michel Ancel is a brilliant designer. He understands the importance of making players care about NPCs. He did this in Beyond Good and Evil really well. Half Life games completely fail at this because Gordon is such a non-character that is makes it hard to get drawn into the games world and feel any real connection with any of the characters

Also, I frequently complain about games not creating a real sense of mortality for either your avatar or the NPCs. What JT is talking about here is a good way to do that. People actually can REALLY die which makes you REALLY try to keep them alive. I think a game like this should have some kind of auto-save process. When you lose someone you can't just reload the game. You live with the consequences. It would be good incentive to replay the game

[Hobie-wan]

Yars Revenge

Hmm, close, but you've got both Qotile and the 'missle' following you around the screen Pepe LePew style.

[J T]

I think a game like this should have some kind of auto-save process. When you lose someone you can't just reload the game. You live with the consequences. It would be good incentive to replay the game

I want the game to force you to move forward despite a death, but I always feel like I missed out on something if I screw up, and I don't want to replay the entire game just to get back to every possible choice point. I think that the game should instead send up a message that tells you that you cannot go back without creating a new game file, but that it will give you an option at the end of the game to see what you missed if you manage to pass it. At the end of the game, it could then show you a tree diagram that displays all of the branching parts of the storyline and allows you to either play the game from any point where the storyline splits, or watch the movie sequences from that point on. That way, I don't feel like I missed out, but I also don't have to repeat a bunch of gameplay just to see what I missed the first time.

[Gamerforlife]

I think a game like this should have some kind of auto-save process. When you lose someone you can't just reload the game. You live with the consequences. It would be good incentive to replay the game

I want the game to force you to move forward despite a death, but I always feel like I missed out on something if I screw up, and I don't want to replay the entire game just to get back to every possible choice point. I think that the game should instead send up a message that tells you that you cannot go back without creating a new game file, but that it will give you an option at the end of the game to see what you missed if you manage to pass it. At the end of the game, it could then show you a tree diagram that displays all of the branching parts of the storyline and allows you to either play the game from any point where the storyline splits, or watch the movie sequences from that point on. That way, I don't feel like I missed out, but I also don't have to repeat a bunch of gameplay just to see what I missed the first time.

That sounds pretty good. I realized after making that last post that I'm actually one of those people who hates missing out on things too. Dead Rising's one save approach really pissed people off too, so this would actually work better

[Haoie]

Hellnight, AKA Dark Messiah.

Get it!

[Erik_Twice]

Wasn't Donkey Kong the only enemy in Donkey Kong?

Nope. There were also those flames running around.

[pepharytheworm]

Wasn't Donkey Kong the only enemy in Donkey Kong?

Nope. There were also those flames running around.

Thats why there can never be truely one enemy. No matter how you look at it, even a game like Jaws has more than one enemy in a since. Storms at sea, the beach council, other shark hunters, basicily the enemies are anything that get in your ways of reaching your goals.

In donkey kong the flames aren't really after you they are just fire and of course if fire touches you it burns. You can't really call fire an enemy in real life. If flames consume your house do you vow revenge against flames? But in videogame land it would be. Most games really only have one real enemy, its just overexaggerated life gets in the way. If I am going to rescue a princess from a single monster I still have to get there somehow even if I have to stomp on birds and spiders on the way, which are only bad because they are in my way. Even in a modern game traffic and traffic signs would be considered enemies, hendering you from your goals. If you don't belive me than Frogger has no enemies.

[Lord_Santa]

Warning Forever:

http://www18.big.or.jp/~hikoza/Prod/index_e.html

albeit he claims that there are several bosses, IMO it's one boss that evolves

[AppleQueso]

the only enemy in Pong is the other paddle

[Erik_Twice]

the only enemy in Pong is the other paddle

Well, the other paddle doesn't kill you so it's more of a rival and less of an enemy =D