Just had the same thought. Actually limiting the status of objects, enemies and NPCs "remembered" by the game to the stuff on the current sector (that's what I call the regions Fenixp refers to in Far Cry 2) is pretty darn weird and sounds like one of those odd things only console games would do (really desperate console games). I mean, normally you'd use the distance to the player and maybe time to determine what gets stored/reset. It's pretty weird to use static pre-defined areas for something like that since this means that places like outposts would always have to be placed in the middle of the map, else stuff might get reset after walking just a few meters and generally the game might behave in a weird way and... well, that *does* sound like Far Cry 2 alright. :D

Curious, I might check it out myself eventually. I guess it has to be a little bit more sophisticated than that, though, else enemies you're currently fighting might disappear mid-fight and that hasn't happened to me.

I played it on 360 so that may be why there didnt seem to be a problem with respawns, with limited memory/resources in the console.

I just hate respawning. Firewine Runis in BG was the only location I gave up because of those kobold commandos shooting fire arrows at my party's back from the place I left clear just a sec ago.

Yep. I couldn't play more of Dragon Quest VIII because of that. And I couldn't finish FFX because of that.
Some games tries to address that, like using some kind of item that reduces the encounter rate... but until you find the freaking item you're already insane, and when you use it, soon you'll find that you are underpowered.

Too bad, it definitely is a game mechanic, then :(

Like F4LL0UT, this became really tiresome after a while. I had the same issue in a different way with Oblivion. At high levels bandits would spawn with armour and weapons forged by the Nine themselves, making every random encounter an epic battle. It was almost like a punishment for not using fast travel.

I generally hate respawning, especially when they happen in places that you can logically clean out, such as buildings, etc. The logic of enemies respawning from a dead end annoys me, but it's not only that. Even when games such as half-life or star trek away team (ab)use teleportation, thus restoring the logic, it cancels the tactical aspect of clearing rooms and keeping your back to the secured points. Which is an aspect I like.

But I had no problem with Far Cry 2. It's a crowded area, I could easily imagine a checkpoint not staying unoccupied for long. Far Cry 1's respawn system annoyed me much more. Because enemies didn't respawn, except when they did. I spent hours checking a fight through binoculars, deciding to stay in cover not intervene until there was a defeat to exploit... before realising that I was witnessing an eternal war between infinitely respawning opponents.

So, okay, respawns can get wonky even in logical settings such as Stalker, etc. But, to me, the worst offenders are the games that are unclear about their respawn policies, or even misleadingly incoherent about them.

And I had no problem with SS2, as I had played it with respawns disabled or turned to minimum (a .ini tweak if I remember well). I'm much more fond of "empty corridor" anxiety than of "yet another expected monster popping up" insecurity... In my opinion SS2 suits more the cerebral suspense of progressing in silents and tactically checking your back, than the visceral suspense of keping enough ammo/reflex in front of endless swarms...

It's good though, it means to level you have to solve quests and really explore, not just kill a ton of stuff. In contrast in Fallout: New Vegas I get 50xp for every enemy I kill so I gain levels stupid fast just from walking around.

Use of respawning enemies is one of my biggest bug bears, it's often used simply for arbitrary, cheap reasons.

The only place I think it works is in, say, an area where you are intentionally overwhelmed and infinitely spawning enemies are a (hopefully transparent) way of the developers saying "You cannot win here, get out of there".

Even then most devs tend to botch it, where bad conveyance leads you to sit there wasting ammo and health.

Silent Hill!

EDIT: Didn't I mention this already yesterday? Or then Firefox crashed while I was writing it? Now using IE. So, as far as I can tell, in Silent Hill some monsters respawn, while others don't. Maybe it is only the monsters outdoors that respawn, or only the flying creatures, or those and some of the dogs, not sure. Anyway, since ammo is so scarce in the game and the ammo doesn't respawn, it would be nice if the game was clearer which are the respawning monsters to which you shouldn't waste your precious ammo.

I know it is a "survival horror game" where you aren't supposed to shoot enemies but mostly run away from them, but it still quite often puts you into situations where you practically have to shoot the monsters to clear the way, even outside. Say, in the beginning of the game when two or three dogs guard the passage to some corridors. If you just try to run through them, you'll get lots of damage.

If it is now so that the checkpoints get repopulated when you drive out of the current map (and it doesn't clearly depend on time, or distance, or completing missions), then it unfortunately sounds like it was not put there thinking: "What would be a good way to trigger repopulating places from the gameplay point of view, so that the player will not have to travel through empty areas?", but rather: "The (console?) memory limitations force us to let the game forget everything you've done in a map area if you leave it, so I guess that's where all the checkpoints and such get repopulated as well in that map area.".

For me it's very dependent on the type of game. Respawning enemies are perfectly fine in platformers and mostly tolerable in RPGs, but it's a lot hairier in action games. Saints Row would be unplayable without respawning enemies, but Far Cry 2 is almost unplayable with them.

I generally only really get mad at waves of faceless mooks during timed missions, where it's usually not reasonable to be fighting legions of dudes all at once... yet they'll just keep spawning and spawning as fast as you can kill them until you achieve some objective, at which point they'll often magically disappear (or at least stop spawning). Even if it's not massively annoying, it still tends to break the immersion.

I still object to that, considering that both are basically GTA-clones where lack of respawns would mean you'll be pretty soon travelling through empty areas with no encounters whatsoever, if enemies didn't respawn.

But now that it seems clearer what it is exactly that triggers respawning in Far Cry 2 (ie. leaving a map), it could have been designed better, because now it seems incoherent that it depends how far from the edge of the map the checkpoint is. If the checkpoint is in the middle of a map, then the respawning will probably trigger less frequently and less visibly to you, than if it is near the edge of the map, and you happen to cross the border.

Still, the boat mission in e.g GTA Vice City was much worse case of respawning, as there you were fighting a constant stream of enemy guards.

That is: I am surprised people use Far Cry 2 as an example of the worst case of respawning, while I find it one of the least irritating ones:

- you were never fighting an endless supply of enemies in one spot (like in e.g. GTA Vice City). You would encounter respawned enemies only if you visited the same area later (after you exit and re-enter that map).

- when the enemies respawn, so does all the ammo and health packs that are located in the same places (so it is not
like e.g. Silent Hill where enemies respawn, but ammo doesn't)

- being a GTA-like game, it was clear it had to have respawning in some form anyway, which can't be said for many other games, like linear level-based FPS games.

- fighting the respawned checkpoint enemies was usually quite optional too. You could usually either just drive through them at full speed (taking little damage to your vehicle, which you can repair yourself after awhile), or avoid most checkpoints altogether by driving off-road.

Because the respawning seemed erratic, like there were no well defined rules to whether or not a location will respawn - sometimes, you could drive around a place and enemies would never come back, other times, you would just go grab a diamond and enemies would be back in all the checkpoints you have just cleared. When players see a constant stream of enemies, they think 'that sucks', but they know what to expect. Far Cry 2, even if there actually is a method to the madness, seems very random in this department.

Interestingly the Wastelands of Fallout are excessively more populated than our wastelands before any sort of apocalypse. So fewer Enemies in Fallout 3 would maybe add to experience, while running the risk of getting boring though.

While the concept used in Risen isn't bad it creates some strange situations, for example I "harvested" xp from duelling with the townsfolk / guardians, not because I hated them but because knocking them over gave very precious XP. Most of the townsfolk wasn't angry afterwards, those who where got charmed by my magic and everything was back to normal.

Haha, no, I meant in-game girlfriend. They were proactive in San Andreas and expected you to keep their satisfaction (kept by dance/dinner/etc dates) above certain level. Otherwise they dumped you. Their plus was perks like no paying for hospital bills or no 5 star cops behind your back.

However dates were mostly boring and they did tend to call at the most inappropriate time, at least in my experience.