Well, I still read what you posted originally, and I still don't understand how you can possibly say that it's impossible for a player to become emotionally invested in his own character. A player becomes attached to whatever and whoever he wants or is compelled to be attached to even if that something is just a bunch of stats huddled together.

 

Yeah, the player can be attached to whatever he wants. But that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

I can't be attached to my 'character', because he's really an avatar there so that I can play as him. Do I really care if I have to butcher Kreia, a character I like? No, because in the end, that is what the game wants me to do. And Tale brings up a good point: Consquences are meaningless if the game ends, as you don't have to deal with them.

 

Besides, I hate people trying to get me to "like" an NPC. It only drives me away from that NPC. I see NPCs as tools, and I should, as that is how the game tells me to, and that is how they really are.

 

I like multiple endings, but obivously, I always reload to see them all, and I never have to make the choice of deciding what consquence I want as, you know, the game ends.

 

Here's some ideas:

1) MORALLY ambigious! If you want us to make a choice, then don't give us a choice between uber-good and uber-evil. Give us two grey choices, for crying out loud, have a real moral delimma.

2) Have the player make the all-important choice of what to do at the begining of the game, not the end. That way, you get the terrible consquence of your actions, and then you have to deal with them. Make the choice of being a pacifist, and you'll upset, well, the militaristic folks, who'll refuse to assist you (as they believe what you are doing is stupid). And, when the bad guys come in, will your diplomatic skills save the day?

3) In any sequel, have the player decide what ending in the first game should carry over. Then, have that ending have real effects in the second game, affecting the fate of various factions and so forth.

Edited December 8, 200718 yr by SilentScope001

Your central point:

...ending bosses are trite as hell...

I wholeheartedly agree with, both as 'end of chapter' and 'end of game' devices. 'End of chapter' bosses are so often terribly artificial, only there because the convention requires them to be there. I think that the end of a chapter should indeed be some significant event or accomplishment, but more variety would definitely be a good thing.

 

They can work. The 3-headed snake boss in Dungeon Siege 2 actually worked in some ways. Why? Because it wasn't an arbitrary boss you had to face to advance. It was a product of your own actions (using the blue flame to expel all the shard souls... forcing them ALL into the nearest living creature and creating a mega mutant). That was OK, but I bet Obsidian could go one better.

Is it a tactical combat game (like JA2)? is it a first/third person perspective action rpg game? Should it even have "chapters" or should it be more like Fallout, you have a beginning and an end, but the main game is the middle part? All things that for me determines what would be appropriate to give a sense of accomplishment. A superhard puzzle at the end of puzzle game

 

I remember Josh stated somewhere that Aliens is likely to use a successful quest/plot format based on an immortal game: Fallout

Yeah, everything so far would indicate it's going to have many of the successful elements of Fallout. And Fallout had bosses, whatever way you spin it. Every game does and to say "I don't want bosses" is a bit short-sighted.

Every game does and to say "I don't want bosses" is a bit short-sighted.

 

Halo 1 didn't.

Every game does and to say "I don't want bosses" is a bit short-sighted.

 

Halo 1 didn't.

 

Yes it did. I recall at least one. Remember those invisible guys with swords that one-hit killed you? I think they turned out to be non-unique, but the way the game dealt with their introduction was as section bosses. HL2 Ep 1 had an end boss of a strider in a similar way. Seamless integration of bosses like this is what I think games should aim for. Bosses and unique fights (like the library run in Halo) heighten tension.

 

I agree that randomly placing a big unique monster before at critical points in the game is shallow and forced.

Krezeck, I don't usually see the invisible guys with swords as being boss fights becuase the invisible guys with swords are just that, invisible. If you shoot bullet all over the spot and aim at the invisible guy, they still got the exact same HP as before, so they die just as quickly. The fact that they are invisible and with Force Swords doesn't change the fact that they are just as easy/hard to kill as any other Elite. So, I don't see them as bosses.

 

But yes, aim for those type of situations. We'll be happy either way.

I see nothing wrong with boss fights. I'd hate to play an Aliens game where I don't run into an Alien Queen.

It's possible not to have boss fights of course, but I don't see something inherently broken with the mechanic. I enjoy boss fights generally because combat is often too easy in RPGs now and it gives you something challenging and special. What I don't like is boss fights that are more of puzzles where you have to jump through silly hoops (i.e. final battle in NWN1 with touching those pillars, or platformer bosses where you always seem to need to jump on to six different coloured bases or something before they're vulnerable). Bosses like the Five in TOB are okay, I think.

 

The bosses do need to fit into the story properly and not artificially: this I think probably is better in an RPG where there aren't clear-cut levels and you can, to a reasonable extent, put them anywhere. The barrier is actually player expectation. If you go three levels deep into a dungeon and beat the boss, you expect everything to be done apart from looting or a couple of discoveries; but if you find there are another two levels to go and there's no other 'bosses' or special encounters left, I think it leaves the players quite deflated, such is their natural expectation of level design now. All dungeons and combat levels have a narrative unto themselves: that means not only might they have a story behind them, their very design and the sequence of combat encounters you go through is a narrative itself. So, we, being used to having climaxes at/near the end, I think won't be able to deal with having the big boss climax in the middle, and be dissatisfied. You might say this allows the proper climax to be a story discovery or a dialogue-based choice: sure, but having a boss at the end doesn't really conflict with that (you could, after all, still fight the Transcendent One in the end).

 

If we speak specifically about an end of game boss, then the argument has a lot more merit. I think FO2's ending might have been better without Frank Horrigan (who, frankly, is the worst kind of RPG boss, made up just to be your boss with hideous amounts of hit points making a long and tedious battle), and instead end with the talk with the President. But of course, as I just talked about how there are narratives of combat and character development as well as narratives of plot, endgame bosses allow you to really reap in on the efforts you've made as a player to develop the combat side. There's a strange satifsaction in meticulously hoarding amazingly valuable items, then dispensing with them with liberative abandon in the final battle (mega-elixir! holy hand grenade! hohoho!) and having your characters, now honed to Godly perfection in the art of combat, dance one final time against a much harder opponent than normal. If the combat is good in your game there is good stuff to come out of an endgame battle, and the concern I think is more of, how should this NOT interfere with having a proper and meaningful story end? Torment of course solved this in a way - you had a meaningful conversation where you wrapped up a lot of things thatw ere unsaid, but if you wanted to you could still fight. And there was the dialogue between the three incarnations just before, and the revelation of the Bronze Sphere. Maybe, especially in an Aliens game concept, the end-game 'battle' doesn't have to be duking it out against one big mother-boss, because I think that could end up quite silly in the setting. What might be more fitting is some sort of last dialogue with whatever faction/villain you've been set against the whole time, then a difficult escape sequence - or some harsh decisions to be made (e.g. Van Buren documents show you have to make a decision about what to do with a nuclear countdown at the end of the game).

Interesting thought of Tiggers, with the President being the end. But then I absolutely loathe and despise boss fights of the 'shoot the glowing weak spot' variety.

Lost Planet Boss fights were fun... but mostly for the awesome creatures. Then again, it was also the "shoot the big orange glowing spot to win" fight... though they managed to make a decent backstory as to why they had a big glowing orange spot.

Edited December 10, 200718 yr by WILL THE ALMIGHTY

Interesting thought of Tiggers, with the President being the end. But then I absolutely loathe and despise boss fights of the 'shoot the glowing weak spot' variety.

I can't believe that we have someone here who loathes Zelda and Metroid. It's like you're anti-fun.

Interesting thought of Tiggers, with the President being the end. But then I absolutely loathe and despise boss fights of the 'shoot the glowing weak spot' variety.

I can't believe that we have someone here who loathes Zelda and Metroid. It's like you're anti-fun.

 

Duhuh. Why do you think they made me a mod?

Interesting thought of Tiggers, with the President being the end. But then I absolutely loathe and despise boss fights of the 'shoot the glowing weak spot' variety.

I can't believe that we have someone here who loathes Zelda and Metroid. It's like you're anti-fun.

You haven't been paying much attention. First party Nintendo games are as sharp as a sack of wet mice, and half as fun. There are two kinds of slack-jawed idiot gamers - Halo fans and Zelda fans. If you put a paper cutout of Link's face on a piece of dog waste someone will buy it, and deny that it has a foul odor.

 

And I'm not anti-fun, I'm anti-fanservice. Really, I'd prefer it if people took sides. You either want your games to try something, or you want them to be comfortable, safe and familiar. You can't appreciate Deus Ex and Phantom Hourglass on the same level. Deus Ex has substance, and has yet to be matched (though they've tried, lord have they tried). Phantom Hourglass is a reiteration of a previous game in all significant ways. If someone seriously equates them we can safely dismiss that person.

Edited December 10, 200718 yr by Pop

Interesting thought of Tiggers, with the President being the end. But then I absolutely loathe and despise boss fights of the 'shoot the glowing weak spot' variety.

I can't believe that we have someone here who loathes Zelda and Metroid. It's like you're anti-fun.

You haven't been paying much attention. First party Nintendo games are as sharp as a sack of wet mice, and half as fun. There are two kinds of slack-jawed idiot gamers - Halo fans and Zelda fans. If you put a paper cutout of Link's face on a piece of dog waste someone will buy it, and deny that it has a foul odor.

 

And I'm not anti-fun, I'm anti-fanservice.

No, we already determined you were anti-fun in the other thread.

 

We had a poll and everything. You were voted mostly anti-fun, but the runners up were angsty and witty.

Edited December 10, 200718 yr by Tale

I suppose what it comes down to is that first party Nintendo games aren't interesting at all. I don't care if jumping on things and collecting stars is fun, it's mindless and unadorned, and that's what counts.

 

And if you really consider "shoot the brightly colored area" bosses to be fun, I feel sorry for you.

I feel sorry for everyone who has to try to intellectualize their gaming. Nothing wrong with mindless.

 

It's like an elitism from people who have to find a way to justify something that is considered by many as literally playing with toys. Thought provoking, interesting, exciting, visceral, or simply "fun." Who gives a ****?

 

Hell, for all the praise Deus Ex recieves, its thought provoking aspects could have been written by LaRouche.

Edited December 10, 200718 yr by Tale

It can be elitism, but I don't think it has to be. Some people just can't get into 'mindless' games. Others can. Doesn't necessarily equate them with high and low intelligence. I'd prefer to think that Pop first had a natural aversion to the games (i.e. he just didn't find them fun), and now describe them in this way, not that he 'chose' to dislike them for their 'mindlessness'.

 

Personally, the kind I can't get into are simple games that try to be complex. It depends on where you come from as much as what the game is, but Zelda falls into this category for me - I'm playing it, and eventually, I'd rather play a BIS-style RPG. But I love Mario, Mario Kart, Mario Party, because I can just forget about that stuff. Heh.

 

Back on topic, though, even then I liked Mario for its normal gameplay (in the old 2D era). At least there, you could beat Bowser in 2 seconds. With these new-fangled 3D ones the bosses are more of the "hit them when they're glowing" type and I don't know, I struggle to understand why they are fun; and the big instructions and all don't help immersion. Not really a problem in Mario, but definitely a problem in any RPG or RPGesque game.

It can be elitism, but I don't think it has to be. Some people just can't get into 'mindless' games. Others can. Doesn't necessarily equate them with high and low intelligence. I'd prefer to think that Pop first had a natural aversion to the games (i.e. he just didn't find them fun), and now describe them in this way, not that he 'chose' to dislike them for their 'mindlessness'.

You don't actually read Pop's posts, do you?

Edited December 11, 200718 yr by Tale

I read them, then I put on my rose tinted glasses.

I hate end bosses. They make me want to kill them!

 

I think my hostility towards the concept stems from my (rather subjective) perceiving it as a lack of creativity if game phases are always ended by throwing in a big baddie which either requires limitless patience or figuring out the correct "ritual" to beat. Not that it isn't appropriate for some situations, but each and every time?!?

[/RANT]

Most of the games I have, I enjoy the parts between end boss battles, dreading the time when the fun comes to an end.

I was happy with DX1's ending I guess, where the end boss is essentially Walton Simons... then you've got an entire base after him to fight.

 

It's hard though, because I some games can't pull off no boss. They feel anticlimactic; like something is missing.

I was happy with DX1's ending I guess, where the end boss is essentially Walton Simons... then you've got an entire base after him to fight.

 

It's hard though, because I some games can't pull off no boss. They feel anticlimactic; like something is missing.

 

Not that it isn't appropriate for some situations, but each and every time?!?

 

I think the every time is at the core of my gripe. Like for almost every progress you make in a game. At least, that is what it feels like sometimes. There must be other ways of making players feel a sense of accomplishment than just pitting your pain against your stubbornness and see which one wins out.

 

Or am I just a hopeless idealist?

I hate end bosses. They make me want to kill them!

 

I think my hostility towards the concept stems from my (rather subjective) perceiving it as a lack of creativity if game phases are always ended by throwing in a big baddie which either requires limitless patience or figuring out the correct "ritual" to beat. Not that it isn't appropriate for some situations, but each and every time?!?

 

Look at it this way. You just played 20, 40, 60+ hours just to get to this spot. You probably killed tons of generic enemies using the same exact techniques for 90% of that time. A player has been built up to a point. Sometimes it's the entire point of the adventure. Now that the player is there, does it seem appropriate to throw just one more enemy to be killed the exact same way and call it a conclusion?

Edited December 11, 200718 yr by Tale

I hate end bosses. They make me want to kill them!

That is usually the point.