Seems like you like shooters, so I'd recommend Counter-Strike -- no bullet sponges there. Also, have you played the Soldier of Fortune games? Raven built some awesome limb-separating tech for that series.

I've not played Soldier of Fortune, I've heard good things though.

In my opinion there are two different types of bullet sponges; the one that react to your bullets and those who don't. The latter are extremely frustrating. I didn't mind Uncharted because if I shot someone they actually stopped and reacted to me shooting them, same thing with Killzone 2 (a lot of bullet sponges there). Halo on the other hand is an example that I really hate, where my bullets don't have any stopping power on certain enemies.

When the bullet sponges get ridiculous I just set the difficulty to casual - usually what that means is enemies need less damage to kill. So I'm ruining the combat 'balance', but in a game like Uncharted (1) the mooks are just there to delay you from getting to the next platforming section, which is really what I'm playing the game for.

Also (sorry for two comments in a row), I'm currently playing Red Ded Revolver and the damage model for that feels spot-on. You can take down most enemies in one shot... sometimes they'll stagger back up, or get swung around if you hit them in the shoulder then swing back and keep shooting - but that seems reasonable. Hit them in the head, instadeath, hit them in the legs and they fall over, hit them in their shootin' arm and they're disarmed. And shoot someone off a horse and the rag dolling is spectacular.

So instead, they send you after lots of enemies (or vice versa), but that is far more fun (and feels much more epic)  than a few enemies who soak up tons of damage.

Oldtaku got it right on. Red Dead Redemption and Revolver employ realistic damage and adjust difficulty by sending more enemies and reducing the effectiveness of auto-aim.

The final boss of the first Gears of War game was a pointless bullet sponge. I know it's been said a thousand times, but that final boss very nearly ruined the whole game for me.

This phenomenon is a deal breaker for me when it comes to many games. It even more annoying in multi player games like MAG and to some extent Bad Company 2. The Halo: Reach beta even seemed to suffer this fate, though I am hopeful some adjustments will be made come November. 

@oldtaku: But I don't want an enemy there just to impede my progress, I want him there for a reason. I also want him to die when I shoot him in the face, instead of reacting like gumby.

I have played through Red Dead Redemption and agree for the most part. I have run into instances where I shoot someone in the face, think they are dead, and am surprised when they pop their heads back over the crates.

How do you feel about player characters that are sponges themselves?

Spongyness of NPCs annoys me too when it's really excessive, but I think most of the time it's integral to creating fun gameplay. Hardcore mode multiplayer in CoD4 was terrible precisely because you'd generally be killed in one shot.

@Nick Dee: I don't like that I am a sponge in most games. While it can get frustrating, that only propels me to get better at the game, and to learn that what I was doing, wasn't the right thing. I really love when a developer can balance not being a bullet sponge, with letting the player try combinations and different strategies to succeed. 

If you don't want enemies to be bullet sponges, the player shouldn't be, either. It works both ways. 

THANK YOU. Finally, some acknowledgement that the combat in Uncharted is awful. Acting and graphics are all fine and dandy but the basic operation of the game (shooting people) is tedious.

I personally think that halo's 'energy shield' excuse for giving players and enemies more durability helps a lot with me buying it from a thematic and immersion standpoint, and the mechanics of the shield and health system are nuanced enough that I think they add to the experience in ways that a casual player wouldn't realize at face value by just hammering an enemy with automatic weapons fire. Still if done poorly, and if used to arbitrarily increase difficulty on higher difficulty levels like halo 2 and 3 do very badly, an enemy having too much health can seriously bog down a game and lead to frustration.

Shooting games are about shooting things and those things falling down. That basic experience should be as streamlined as possible. I disagree with Jason's assertion that you should be on the same level as your enemies in durability, however. In a single player game you usually are up against insanely unbalanced odds, making yourself as fragile as a scarecrow just undermines player freedom and makes the game a chore of trial and error. (see: Bad Company 2's single player.)

@Daniel Feit: I'm glad I am not the only one that thinks Uncharted combat is ridiculous.

@Jeffrey Sandlin: Shooting aliens is different from shooting people in games. If I shoot a human NPC I expect them to go down, so long as they aren't wearing some crazy armor. I have no idea how fast an alien would fall if shot, so I have to allow for the sponge effect on them. But not too much though, again, immersion is the key. If I have to blow through a ton of ammo to bring down an alien, I will call B.S.

So long Corey and I are sharing our hatred for Uncharted, I'm going to link to my article from last year wondering aloud when it's safe to give up on Uncharted 2 because nearly every step of the game drove me crazy: http://www.bitmob.com/articles/losing-patience-with-nathan-drake

(FYI I never finished Chapter 3 because of - you guessed it - the bullet sponges)

I'm not sure I follow the Call of Duty mention as being an example of "bullet-sponging."  I've never seen any  soldier in any CoD game take more than 3 bullets to any body part and still keep walking... unless they're online players with the Juggernaut perk.

UNCHARTED ROCKED!!! the shooting was great. It never took more than 2-3 bullets in the right place to kill any enemy. That game has my second favorite shooting mechanic in a console game. I think people don't realize that you miss the enemies very easily because of the way they react and because of the pixel-accurate hit detection (i don't think they use hit boxes like most games). So yeah you can empty a clip at an enemy but you will probably miss with most of the bullets unless you aim very carefully. The way the enemies always react differently to being shot or shot at makes it VERY hard to actually keep hitting them. I loved just traversing and I loved the shooting. I also feel the ending was fine other than the weird mechanic you have to use in the last seconds... NOT BULLET SPONGES!!! is my point, just a very advanced version of this type of shooting mechanic that some people just didn't grok. -Karl

UNCHARTED ROCKED!!! the shooting was great. It never took more than 2-3 bullets in the right place to kill any enemy. That game has my second favorite shooting mechanic in a console game. I think people don't realize that you miss the enemies very easily because of the way they react and because of the pixel-accurate hit detection (i don't think they use hit boxes like most games). So yeah you can empty a clip at an enemy but you will probably miss with most of the bullets unless you aim very carefully. The way the enemies always react differently to being shot or shot at makes it VERY hard to actually keep hitting them. I loved just traversing and I loved the shooting. I also feel the ending was fine other than the weird mechanic you have to use in the last seconds... NOT BULLET SPONGES!!! is my point, just a very advanced version of this type of shooting mechanic that some people just didn't grok. -Karl

UNCHARTED does NOT have bullet sponges! All the enemies can be killed with one or few bullets as long as you actually hit them and hit them in a vulnerable place. The way enemies react to being shot at and the tight hit-detection I think is why some people have problems with the shooting in this game. you will miss a great deal if you are not careful.  I LOVED it. It is so accurate even seemingly down to the pixel. The shooting is second to none on the consoles and that it takes skill is just another reason to like it. This game and Max Payne on the PC are alike in that I love to play scenes over and over again and I just have fun with the mechanics. -Karl

There's a few ways of looking at bullet sponges.  Either an enemy has so much hide (think of a tank from L4D and possibly the locust in Gears) that bullets don't penetrate deeply enough to do significant damage, so you need to wear away at them until enough blood is gone or you weaken it enough to hit something important.  Armor would have the same effect.

The problem with not having bullet sponges, are that you make a game too easy, or too unforgiving.  It's either too easy because just one round kills anything - or it's unforgiving because you send so many enemies after the player to make up for it that the player dies fast.

There's also the double standards issue.  If they only take one or two shots to down, should the player?  Is restarting from a checkpoint every minute because someone shot you ok if you can do the same to them?

I look at how few bullets I can take in COD on Veteran, and it frustrates me to play sometimes.  Sure, make the enemy shoot more accurately, have there be more of them, have them behave more intelligently, but leave me my ability to take damage so that I can actually move around the map.  Make my fights more difficult, but not because I have to restart every 30 seconds due to 2 errant bullets.  This game style forces me to play like I'm a sniper, and, while I enjoy it, I'm not sure everyone wants to play that way and would like to be allowed to run and gun every now and again.

In online competitive multiplayer you have the issue of latency as well.  Someone with an insanely fast connection can get off the one shot long before someone else's screen even says they turned the corner.  I know modern warfare has done this to me a few times where I'm fully behind cover on my screen, or I've emptied 5 rounds into a guy, and then I watch their kill cam and it turns out I wasn't around the corner according to them when they shot at me, or I only shot 1 rounds at them instead of 5.  Bullet sponging decreases the effect of latency since both parties get a chance to react and move and need to maintain accuracy.  It also makes it so the latent player can still do some damage and weaken someone, where they otherwise would have simply died.

Bullet sponging serves some purpose, though, in my opinion, there are better ways of doing things.

@Evan: If an enemy has a hide such as the one you explain, that should be mentioned. Some games do mention it, l4d might be one of them. I am fine with that, so long as it fits in with the character profile and into the fiction.

You mentioned games being easier and double standards. I am all for only getting hit once or twice before I die. As I've said before, it can get frustrating. However, if a developer has done their job they will have balanced it out so that you are able to attack a situation from multiple angles and succeed. Don't just give me one or two routes and pile on the enemy. 

Online MP is a whole different animal. There are way to many variables for me to make an argument. But I know how you feel.

Are bullet sponges less annoying if the game is more cartoony and has a tongue-in-cheek attitude?

@Douglas Scheinberg: That is a good question. I don't play many games like that, but I can see how I would be less annoyed by sponges in games like that. I mean, I'm fairly certain if I'm playing a tongue-in-cheek game I am doing it to kill time.