Skip to main content
Main Content

Remove or change the word "enemy" in battle encounters

Posted 2021-08-09 12:08:22
#504365
No support. This seems overly nitpicky though I do understand the thought process behind this. Enemies aren't exclusive to humans for the reasons stated by Carnal. Even then it's hard to see some interspecies relationships as not being true enemies. Just look at lions and hyenas or dolphins and sharks. Heck, tigers are vengeful creatures too and seem to premeditate attacks on those who harmed or seek to harm them. It's not too difficult to believe wolves are capable of enemies in the way you think of the word as well, after all wolves are intelligent enough to form extremely strong interspecies friendships (humans, ravens/crows, baboons) so why not similarly strong rivalries in the form of enemies?
Phantom
#44024
Posted 2021-08-09 16:43:54 (edited)
#504486
Support.

This isn't make or break for me and definitely low priority,  but I appreciate immersion in games like these and enemy does feel a little odd considering the circumstances  /  context of the encounters.
🌿 「 Robin 」
#47005
Posted 2021-08-09 18:02:25 (edited)
#504503
I don't support.

Enemy means 'actively opposed or hostile to someone or something.' It does state 'person' since definitions tend to assume the words are being used for people, but that doesn't mean it doesn't apply to animals.

When you encounter an enemy in explore, it's your enemy because it's hostile to you. Even if it tries running and you attack it first, (which makes you its enemy,) it ends up attacking you, which makes it your enemy. Enemies are those who are trying to hurt or hinder you, no matter why they're doing it.

And since the realism argument is being brought up, enemy can easily be used in realistic situations too. It is by no means unrealistic to call two animals enemies -  it's a very common word used for anything that are at odds with each other. Again, no matter the reason for the hostility, it still applies.

I'm semi-leaning towards neutral just because I really don't care if the terminology is changed or not, but it works just fine as is. There's absolutely no logical reason for it to change and I agree with those who say this seems more nitpicky than anything.
Whirligig (Hiatus)
#11137
Posted 2021-08-10 07:19:15
#504676
Not to mention, there have been cases of enemy rivalry in the wild. For example, elephants are really big and don't really have any natural predators, however their calves are vulnerable to lions and other animals. Not only that, but elephants not only have such an incredible memory, but they are also believed to be the most emotionally in tune animals probably on the planet. I watched a documentary once where this elephant held a grudge towards lions, and would go out of their way to chase one down if seen because it most likely remembered when a lion hunted down one of its calves, or something of that sort. And that's just one example of animals having enemies. They may not be stabbing each other with spears or throwing heavy weaponry at each other, and they may not even be personal vendettas all the time, but something simple as survival, but they are still enemies of one another, maybe just in a different form than it is for humans. I don't support, not just because I think it's nitpicky, but also that the term enemy is being used in the right context within the game! Now it's not the biggest deal, if the devs change it they change it and my love for this game won't change, but for both my arguments stated, and others, that's why I don't support. It's just feels unnecessary.
Gringe
#3594
Posted 2021-08-11 16:57:40
#505298
Support! I never thought about it, but this also seems like a good way to convey enemy (ha ha) type. Ex. a coyote or wolf becomes a competitor, a moose becomes dangerous prey, a bear becomes a dangerous animal (or whatever.) As of right now prey animals like whitetail deer are chase-able whereas bears, walruses etc (i'm thinking all the "fearless" un-chaseables would be the "dangerous animal" category) aren't. So it would be a way to convey information to the player that's ofter overlooked without reading a guide, as well as increasing immersion. I like it!
unsknown
#21142
Posted 2021-08-28 13:23:01 (edited)
#513508
I support.

"Enemy" sounds too game-y imo.

"Aggressive" sounds more neutral and more descriptive. To me, calling something "enemy" is like saying "kill it", while calling it dangerous leaves more agency to the player, saying instead: "careful. What are you gonna do?".
I also agree with unsknown's proposition: using different qualifiers depending on the best tactic to use would be nice for those of us who didn't read the battle guide and don't know you can hover over the dice image to get additional info (or play on mobile where afaik this doesn"t work).

(also how much of an asshole are you that you have so many enemies?)
Fal - semi hiatus
#43456
Posted 2021-08-28 16:19:10
#513606
We do kinda kill it and its more of a natural thing so if you think nature is a asshole good for you
xofrnk [INACTIVE]
#10923
Posted 2021-08-28 17:16:05 (edited)
#513661
I didn't mean to upset anyone with the "asshole" comment; it was just a hypothetical pixel wolf "you", not you personally.

I think what bothers me most is not the word "enemy" per se, but the way it's used. You can say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", or "they were sworn enemies" without it sounding game-related. But the expression "an enemy X", to me, is strongly correlated to video games (mostly fps/tps, rts, or rpgs), and not to my experience of real life. And if it's related to real life, then it's to war, where there are several distinct factions, and not to wildlife or even any non-war setting.

(I mostly flee explore encounters so I don't kill very many animals XD also the quest snake (I think?) says we incapacitate the enemy wolves, we don't kill them)

PS:
I think the "realism" argument is kinda useless (not because of the purple wolves but because of game design), but for the sake of arguement: fighting, in nature, is usually not energy-conservation-efficient, so any wolf that would fight anything that moves like players here tend to do would die very quickly, especially in harsh environments like the glacier.

Also, since we are always the ones who decide whether to attack or not, and we're always successful when retreating (they don't chase us) one might argue that the "One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes another; a foe." definition doesn't apply to self-defense and so those animals aren't enemies; we are.
Fal - semi hiatus
#43456
Posted 2021-08-28 17:26:57
#513673
Its fine! xD
xofrnk [INACTIVE]
#10923
Posted 2021-08-29 01:30:41
#513856
I mean, it could be argued that this game is supposed to be an RPG. The 'R' part isn't really around yet, but once events get going and we get some storylines, it'll hopefully feel a lot more like one.

If it is meant to be an RPG, then the label 'enemy' makes even more sense. Because, well, this IS a game, after all. Not real life. (And I'd said before that enemy fits real life situations anyway.) It might not feel like a game because it's largely a breeding pet sim, but the turn-based battles still make it a game. It's hard to argue against that when there's random encounters in the world, battling, questing, HP, XP, levelling, and stat increase. These are all very typical to an RPG.

I do agree that there should be more indicators on how to fight enemies, since the dice roll thing makes absolutely no sense to me, but changing the labels isn't the best way to go about that imo.
Whirligig (Hiatus)
#11137
Search Topic