Boss Battles

[Aoyagi]

What? What do you want, heroic combats full of fire, explosions, magic and acrobacy like in Devil May Cry? For all I care, "bosses" can only be slightly different from the rest of the group, unless it's some large lone demon, in which case standard "throw at them everything we have!" applies. Stages are something I find extremely annoying unless it happens once or twice during the gameplay and unless it's logical. You either want large, powerful and monstrous boss with no/few minions or you want a boss with 'army and its general' paradigm. I don't know why would you want to mix these two or how would you make it work. Lastly, from my point of view, the boss him-/her-/itself doesn't need to be challenging. Only the way to him should, be it traps, his minions, decisions, whatever.

What you want is something very Diablo-like. I'm not sure I'd like that.

[BasaltineBadger]

Where is the option of getting rid of the concept entirely? It may have been fun on the arcade machines of old, where you had to insert another coin, but you would think they could come up with something else since the days of Defender and Galaxians.

 

At least you didn't have to fight TNO in PS:T, but could solve the "encounter" in alternative ways.

 

I'm not following entirely. The concept of Boss Battles that you need to dodge and move to the side and stuff like that or....?

 

Just reflecting on the point that "boss battles" are a gimmick dating back to the early arcade machines where you end a wave of opponents with a "boss" battle. It's as kliche and formulaic as QTE's and minigames. Like something that climbs up on a pedestal and in a booming voice, that shatters glass, pronounces: "I AM A GAME, STOP BEING SO IMMERSED AND SNAP OUT OF IT!". It would be nice to see at least a bit of deviation of game Standard Template Construct #1147 and do something other than encounter with above average opponents as part of the "chapter closure" process.

 

Just because it's old it doesn't mean it's not good. And it's natural that when you are trying to stop someone's plans he's going to defend with all his might. What was Sarevok supposed to do at the end of BG? Feel bad about himself and go cry in the corner?

 

@Aoyagi

I don't really get what RPG bosses have to do with DMC and acrobatic.

Edited October 28, 2012 by BasaltineBadger

[Ignatius]

I don't care what the boss does, so long as this plays when I fight him:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJeAYcaWKus

 

The issue I've always had with the "boss battles" in games like BG2 and even FONV, is that the fun is pretty much over when you hit that last boss. There's no more wandering or open-ended exploring, the game is telling you it's clearly over and there's only one direction left to go. Even having a speech check or some such doesn't really help matters, because it's still an obligatory moment/fight and compared to the freedom you had before those final events it just feels less interesting. Of course, you can't have a game without an end. And there's the matter of an end to a great story, and that's the pay off I suppose.

 

Anyway, I agree with Hellfell, the last battle should occur at a bar where you and the villain talk it all over and party amicably or there is an all out bar fight.

 

To me, it is the journey that matters - not the destination.

 

I think this is what I meant to say. In a well made RPG, the "last boss" is more a wrapping up of all the threads in a very satisfying way, not so much a pinnacle of the power creep. Besides, there's level 15 of the dungeon to serve that purpose.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Ignatius

[Jaesun]

If I remember correctly, you could also finish Fallout without a "boss fight" (you still had to face the Master, but you didn't have to fight him).

 

You do NOT ever have to talk to him. Just FYI.

 

Just reflecting on the point that "boss battles" are a gimmick dating back to the early arcade machines where you end a wave of opponents with a "boss" battle. It's as kliche and formulaic as QTE's and minigames. Like something that climbs up on a pedestal and in a booming voice, that shatters glass, pronounces: "I AM A GAME, STOP BEING SO IMMERSED AND SNAP OUT OF IT!". It would be nice to see at least a bit of deviation of game Standard Template Construct #1147 and do something other than encounter with above average opponents as part of the "chapter closure" process.

 

This. One hundred million times.

[Badmojo]

Another annoying thing is that sometimes you do not have an option to join the bad/other side. There have been a few games where the "bad" side looked more logical and/or appealing than the "good" side, but there is no way to switch sides. You were forced down a particular road. It would be nice to have that darth vador moment where the bad/other side offers you a chance to join them...and you DO(or take it over instead of destroying them)! Having other options outside of combat makes games more fun.

[GhostofAnakin]

I also agree with those that are hoping for alternatives to having to fight the final "boss". Perhaps rather than simply stat related (ie. if you have X charisma, you can convince him), it could be tied with a bunch of things you did over the course of the game. Intelligence gathering (to shake the bad guy's beliefs that he's doing the right thing), quests (perhaps weakening his hold on the world and convincing him his end is inevitable), or any such cumulative thing that enables you to avoid having to fight him.

 

An example of this *almost* happening is in Dragon Age: Origins, in your fight with Logain. You could convince him during the fight that he was wrong (thus getting him to join your party). Of course in this case you had to fight him first, but my idea would be the same convincing thing but before the fight took place.

[Soranor]

I like the idea of diplomatic avoidance of fights, though from a story-telling perspective some villains should be near impossible to pacify. I don't mind having to fight my way through encounters, but I'd like them to follow a few rules.

 

1. I can understand some NPCs (and PCs) having out of the ordinary powers, like the Baalspawns with their special abilities. If I meet an antagonist that is strangely mutated, half-dragon or whatever, then give him something to surprise your party. While you're at it, add some abilities like these to the PC character creation or to be obtainable list through quests.

 

2. Boss battles are nice, and as long as these bosses are supernatural, like dragons, they might have supernatural strength, agility etc., but in this case, please be reasonable. This is a thing most games don't do. A dragon should be slow moving, but if he steps on you, you are squished. I remember seeing the teaser video of Dragon Age's Ogre battle before the game was released. The ogre's signature move is to grab one of your characters, shake him in his huge fist and then throw him down again. It does a lot of damage, but by the looks of it, a frail mage in robes should have just been squashed with no hope of surviving. Then again, a "grab and shake" attack is a very bad combat move, so the ogres shouldn't have this attack at all, because it would be highly ineffective. So please: slow attacks with lots of damage, but quite easily avoidable.

 

3. Humanoid NPCs should have abilities that are pretty close to the PCs. No triple HP of your best fighter and no magic immunity or spells of mass destruction that your best mage can't match. Give them great items, but most of all, give them lots of allies if you want an encounter equal to a typical boss fight. I'd love to fight my way into a castle that is filled with soldiers, traps and maybe even siege weapons in tactical positions to reach the final boss, who won't fight you in a duel but with his bodyguards and what is left of his army. A lot of the bigger fights in BG did that very well. They were challenging, sometimes very challenging, but it didn't feel like the AI cheats.

 

4. Cutscenes can be nice if well done. Not well done is a cutscene that lets your whole party stumble onto a trapdoor, fall down into poisoned spikes that are surrounded by a horde of monsters squeezed into a small room with a locked door. This is just a cheesy dungeon design that no dungeon architect would ever devise. I don't like the feeling of acting like a dumbass as the skill checks I should have had are ignored.

 

While I'm at it, how about making the 15 levels of dungeon a home to a cult of some kind, so that every floor serves a logical purpose and the closer you get to the bottom the higher the ranks of the cultists get? I can image gameplay imitating the action in the "Die Hard" movies with cultists reacting to your moving and moving between levels, mostly upwards and towards your party.

Edited October 28, 2012 by Soranor

[AgentOrange]

My favorite "boss battles" in an IE game were the opposing adventurer parties and mercenaries in Baldur's Gate 1. A group of humanoid characters with the same spells as mine own at their disposal. It was a chance to make use of every spell in the book, because like you they could be affected by just about every spell and would be casting their own buffs and such.

[kabaliero]

My favorite "boss battles" in an IE game were the opposing adventurer parties and mercenaries in Baldur's Gate 1. A group of humanoid characters with the same spells as mine own at their disposal. It was a chance to make use of every spell in the book, because like you they could be affected by just about every spell and would be casting their own buffs and such.

 

Though the opposing parties never had a chance to fireball or cloudkill u

while your party was still covered with the Fog of War and couldn't see it coming.

Edited October 28, 2012 by kabaliero

[Utukka]

My favorite "boss battles" in an IE game were the opposing adventurer parties and mercenaries in Baldur's Gate 1. A group of humanoid characters with the same spells as mine own at their disposal. It was a chance to make use of every spell in the book, because like you they could be affected by just about every spell and would be casting their own buffs and such.

 

Though the opposing parties never had a chance to fireball or cloudkill u

while your party was still covered with the Fog of War and couldn't see it coming.

 

Don't forget how they would just stand in it as well as if nothing was happening.

[Hassat Hunter]

Not a big fan of "boss" based fights either.

I also agree with those that are hoping for alternatives to having to fight the final "boss". Perhaps rather than simply stat related (ie. if you have X charisma, you can convince him), it could be tied with a bunch of things you did over the course of the game. Intelligence gathering (to shake the bad guy's beliefs that he's doing the right thing), quests (perhaps weakening his hold on the world and convincing him his end is inevitable), or any such cumulative thing that enables you to avoid having to fight him.

I love it. Only being able to talk your way out if you actually paid attention and did effort to get there (so not just simply loading till you get the right option/roll).

Does work well with an end which is based on the actions you did throughout the game. Everything you did might actually not lead to the fight at all, even if you wanted it. While doing entirelly different things? Multiple people ready to try and kill you. Or if you really screwed up, you will die there...

[Gambler]

The only boss battles I truly enjoyed were the ones in Torment. Mostly because they were tightly interwoven with the story, had a great buildup and didn't require some special set of character skills to get through enemies' immunities. Also, it's the only D&D game I played where PC wizards weren't ridiculous wimps, having to run in circles around party's tank character.

 

The battle against bear god in MotB was quite good as well, because you were fighting a whole army of critters. Again, because of the buildup it felt quite special*.

 

But overall, I don't like boss fights. They feel too much like a remnant from Sega arcade games. Especially if it comes down you your entire party fighting some overpowered monster with immunities or ridiculous amounts of HPs. Party vs party battles (like the ones people mentioned above) are far more interesting. Even more interesting is when you act as a part of larger scale conflict, with many AI-driven allies, plenty of enemies, dynamic situations and an objective that goes beyond killing everything that moves. Imagine fighting through a maze of castle rooms with your allies retreating and advacing, with large-sclae things happening at the same time and wih some kind of story behind it all. That's what I would vert much like to see.

 

If the spell system is diverse and complex enough, mage-vs-mage duels could be very interesting-- But then there is a need to create equivalent gameplay for other classes, and I'm not sure how that can be done.

Edited November 3, 2012 by Gambler