There are only a handful of game mechanics I'll give a flat "no" to, because in nearly all cases it's down to how the game designer chose to use that mechanic. Having an enemy impervious to certain types of weapons can break up the routine a player might have settled into, using their favorite weapon to deal with all situations, perhaps even defeat a cheesy strategy they might have been using up until that point. It might be used to pressure players to stay on the move.FishyClockwork wrote:How many of you absolutely hate (strongly) dislike enemies which can only be killed by a specific weapon(s) or will only die if you inflict a massive amount of damage in a single blow (eg. Quake's zombies)?
Imagine a zombie-like enemy type infesting an abandoned temple that shrugs off blunt force trauma, blades, and bullets, only reacting to some ancient magical weapon rumored to reside in the core of the temple's underground complex. The acquisition of that weapon becomes the goal, navigating the temple becomes the challenge, and it's all down to deft maneuvering and a constant, perhaps uncomfortable pace as the player negotiates the twists, turns, and pitfalls of the old structure, harassed and pursued the whole way by the as-yet unkillable horde within. The mechanic keeps the player moving toward their goal and doesn't let them relax until they get what they came for. There are dozens of ways you can keep the interplay between that mechanic and the environment interesting. It serves as a vital component of the experience of that level.
It needs to serve a purpose, as most game mechanics must. If semi-invulnerable enemies don't switch up the experience in some way, they probably weren't worth putting in.
