291 réponses à ce sujet

[AresKeith]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

It's trying to be more than a videogame. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially not when Bioware bossfights usually sucks ass.

because they didn't play the DE:HR boss battles enough to get it right

[Conniving_Eagle]

AresKeith wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

It's trying to be more than a videogame. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially not when Bioware bossfights usually sucks ass.

because they didn't play the DE:HR boss battles enough to get it right

I thought Macky and Casey said it was their favorite game.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

AresKeith wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

It's trying to be more than a videogame. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially not when Bioware bossfights usually sucks ass.

because they didn't play the DE:HR boss battles enough to get it right

Wait what... You're not saying the bosses in that game were good, are you?

[thefallen2far]

For those that don't understand the concept of the "boss fight", I'll break it down for you. Basically, a game is set up like most stories. Rising action, minor conflict, major conflict climax and resolution. Most videogames and stories follow this pattern [those that don't need to compensate with greatness, more later]. It gives the story a sense of direction, and when you get there and look back on the story as a whole, you have a sense of accomplishment and completion. If any of this is lacking or missing, you get a feeling of "missing something" or regret for wasting your time. Now,

Video games have a similar criteria. Rising action is you controling the character through the space of the game. The sense is that you're advancing in the story, if a gae or a story mianders and you don't feel like you're advancing, it gets boring quickly. It's usually seperated into sections whereas books have chapters, games have levels. Minor conflict is like minions in games. Mushrooms with eyes and turtles that fling hammers for Mario, Brutes and Banshees for Shepard, or [as an example] ebineezer Scrooge seening another example of the misery he caused someone in his life. It's primarily to flesh out the action. This could become abundant, but I needs to be broken up with Major conflict. This is when an apex of minor action acumulates to a point. Too much minor conflict becomes redundent, and you need to continue the sense of accomplishment. The major conflictis usually a very memorable moment. When you think of your favorite stories, the major conflict is usually the event you think "that was awesome". That's the major conflict in a story, it's a boss fight in games. Okay, a climax is everything in the game accumulating to a point. It builds the major conflict together to make you fel "this is it, this is he moment of truth". It's like a major conflict on steroids... many times, the protagonist fails against it, but that's usually to show how tragically flawed the character is as evidenced throughout the narritive. Like with Red Dead Redemption. He died at the end, but the whole game, he was self-disparaging and flawed, so his death came across as truly tragic. If the protagonist is flawless to the end and then in the climax fails, it's really to reflect how ultimately wretched the protagonist is. As an example, let's say at the end of DKR, Batman dies and Bane wins, then Batman would look like a failure who rolled over and died... you know.... pathetic. Without the climax, you get responses like "did I miss something?" Or "what? That's it? What a ripoff!" Usualy the term is "anti-climactic. The resolution is the feedback that let's you know what the efect of the story did. Usually, it's as simple as mario kissing the princess in games, but some games have a whole other level dedicated to the resolution. As is the case with Red Dead Redemption, where his son gets revenge.

Now, Mass Effect was brilliant at rising action, minor conflict, major conflict, but they wanted to be artistic with the climax and resolution. It could be argued they all out ignored it. It's one of the reasons people first shot the kid. They thought he was the climax [on a side note, fighting the Catalyst... that would have been awesome.] He arbitrarily presents you with a random choice and you choose and the end. With this game failing with the climax and resolution, it felt like they ran out of budget to do a real ending the average person would be comfortable with or that they were lazy. I don't personally think they were lazy, but I do think the idea of the climax was effectively[it couldn't have taken longer than 10 minutes to think up the idea. I know some people think it's brilliant, but i literally can't for the life of me think of a way the concept of the ending could have been more lazy] and then was backed up with a lot of work by others to make it look nice.

So in the end, the game lacked climax and resolution, but then you can download the resolution, but the lack of true climax still gives the sense that the whole thing was a wase of time and that the character rolled over and died. A fnal boss may seem clichee, but it would have given people a sense of accomplishment and feel like they "took back earth" rather than "was permitted to partake in a multiple choice". Say what you will about the human Reaper at the end of 2, it didn't distract from the rest of the game like the non-ending of 3. [Unless people love defending the ending. I never knew anyone to enjoy saying it's not crap, in wich case, you're welcome]

[Conniving_Eagle]

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

[D24O]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Pokemon.

[PrimeOfValor]

From what I 've heard from Guild Wars 2 boss fights are VERY satisfisying when they looked pretty basic from my point of view. It would made more sense to direct the destiny ascension to go face to face with harbinger or a fleet of Alliance ships to agianst harbinger (if u sacrifice the council).

Modifié par bigmass41, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:06 .

[AresKeith]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

It's trying to be more than a videogame. I see nothing wrong with that. Especially not when Bioware bossfights usually sucks ass.

because they didn't play the DE:HR boss battles enough to get it right

Wait what... You're not saying the bosses in that game were good, are you?

the best boss battles are from the Metal Gear Solid series, and DE:HR boss battles were better than Deception Kai Leng

[Conniving_Eagle]

thefallen2far wrote...

For those that don't understand the concept of the "boss fight", I'll break it down for you. Basically, a game is set up like most stories. Rising action, minor conflict, major conflict climax and resolution. Most videogames and stories follow this pattern [those that don't need to compensate with greatness, more later]. It gives the story a sense of direction, and when you get there and look back on the story as a whole, you have a sense of accomplishment and completion. If any of this is lacking or missing, you get a feeling of "missing something" or regret for wasting your time. Now,

Video games have a similar criteria. Rising action is you controling the character through the space of the game. The sense is that you're advancing in the story, if a gae or a story mianders and you don't feel like you're advancing, it gets boring quickly. It's usually seperated into sections whereas books have chapters, games have levels. Minor conflict is like minions in games. Mushrooms with eyes and turtles that fling hammers for Mario, Brutes and Banshees for Shepard, or [as an example] ebineezer Scrooge seening another example of the misery he caused someone in his life. It's primarily to flesh out the action. This could become abundant, but I needs to be broken up with Major conflict. This is when an apex of minor action acumulates to a point. Too much minor conflict becomes redundent, and you need to continue the sense of accomplishment. The major conflictis usually a very memorable moment. When you think of your favorite stories, the major conflict is usually the event you think "that was awesome". That's the major conflict in a story, it's a boss fight in games. Okay, a climax is everything in the game accumulating to a point. It builds the major conflict together to make you fel "this is it, this is he moment of truth". It's like a major conflict on steroids... many times, the protagonist fails against it, but that's usually to show how tragically flawed the character is as evidenced throughout the narritive. Like with Red Dead Redemption. He died at the end, but the whole game, he was self-disparaging and flawed, so his death came across as truly tragic. If the protagonist is flawless to the end and then in the climax fails, it's really to reflect how ultimately wretched the protagonist is. As an example, let's say at the end of DKR, Batman dies and Bane wins, then Batman would look like a failure who rolled over and died... you know.... pathetic. Without the climax, you get responses like "did I miss something?" Or "what? That's it? What a ripoff!" Usualy the term is "anti-climactic. The resolution is the feedback that let's you know what the efect of the story did. Usually, it's as simple as mario kissing the princess in games, but some games have a whole other level dedicated to the resolution. As is the case with Red Dead Redemption, where his son gets revenge.

Now, Mass Effect was brilliant at rising action, minor conflict, major conflict, but they wanted to be artistic with the climax and resolution. It could be argued they all out ignored it. It's one of the reasons people first shot the kid. They thought he was the climax [on a side note, fighting the Catalyst... that would have been awesome.] He arbitrarily presents you with a random choice and you choose and the end. With this game failing with the climax and resolution, it felt like they ran out of budget to do a real ending the average person would be comfortable with or that they were lazy. I don't personally think they were lazy, but I do think the idea of the climax was effectively[it couldn't have taken longer than 10 minutes to think up the idea. I know some people think it's brilliant, but i literally can't for the life of me think of a way the concept of the ending could have been more lazy] and then was backed up with a lot of work by others to make it look nice.

So in the end, the game lacked climax and resolution, but then you can download the resolution, but the lack of true climax still gives the sense that the whole thing was a wase of time and that the character rolled over and died. A fnal boss may seem clichee, but it would have given people a sense of accomplishment and feel like they "took back earth" rather than "was permitted to partake in a multiple choice". Say what you will about the human Reaper at the end of 2, it didn't distract from the rest of the game like the non-ending of 3. [Unless people love defending the ending. I never knew anyone to enjoy saying it's not crap, in wich case, you're welcome]

I made this thread for the lulz, but that was a very constructive response, I almost whole-heartedly agree. +1 and a vanilla internet cookie for you, sir.

[Conniving_Eagle]

D24O wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Pokemon.

Touche.

[D24O]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

D24O wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Pokemon.

Touche.

Why don't I get a cookie? 

[GreyLycanTrope]

D24O wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

D24O wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Pokemon.

Touche.

Why don't I get a cookie? 

Made them just for you

[Mavqt]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Darksiders. I Loved the bosses in that game.

[raw6666]

I am more thinking how a boss fight would work against Shepard and the Illusive Man (the original idea before it was cut), since he suppose to transform much like Sarren did in one that looks like a lot like Whiplash from Iorn Man. Especially since Shepard is wounded and armed with only a pistol,

[Blueprotoss]

AresKeith wrote...

the best boss battles are from the Metal Gear Solid series, and DE:HR boss battles were better than Deception Kai Leng

I haven't finished  DE:HR yet but I have no problem on agreeing with MGS. 

mavqt wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Darksiders. I Loved the bosses in that game.

Agreed!  Damn that Tiamat.

raw6666 wrote...

I am more thinking how a boss fight would work against Shepard and the Illusive Man (the original idea before it was cut), since he suppose to transform much like Sarren did in one that looks like a lot like Whiplash from Iorn Man. Especially since Shepard is wounded and armed with only a pistol,

TIM is more of a mental enemy and his chat at the end felt like a vocal "boss battle".

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:19 .

[Mavqt]

raw6666 wrote...

I am more thinking how a boss fight would work against Shepard and the Illusive Man (the original idea before it was cut), since he suppose to transform much like Sarren did in one that looks like a lot like Whiplash from Iorn Man. Especially since Shepard is wounded and armed with only a pistol,

Maybe TIM was originally supposed to wound Shep, before it was cut.

Modifié par mavqt, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:17 .

[D24O]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Made them just for you

Yay! 

[raw6666]

mavqt wrote...

raw6666 wrote...

I am more thinking how a boss fight would work against Shepard and the Illusive Man (the original idea before it was cut), since he suppose to transform much like Sarren did in one that looks like a lot like Whiplash from Iorn Man. Especially since Shepard is wounded and armed with only a pistol,

Maybe TIM was originally supposed to wound Shep, before it was cut.

That would be better, as shepard and anderson slipped past Harbinger and face the Illusive man. Illusive man takes out Anderson when he lose 20% of his health. Then the fight continues with every 20% takes a chunk out of Shepard until we have a slow motion that Shepard had to take the Ilussive Man's last health. The illusive man is still alive and hold wounded Anderson hostage, you must chose to sacrifice Anderson or charm/itimadate the Illusive man to kill himself.

[Mavqt]

Blueprotoss wrote...

mavqt wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Darksiders. I Loved the bosses in that game.

Agreed!  Damn that Tiamat.

I thought the Spider boss was harder.

[Blueprotoss]

mavqt wrote...

I thought the Spider boss was harder.

She was also a pain while I still had the most trouble with Tiamat.

[atalair]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

What exactly do you consider a game with good bosses?

Dark Souls,Shadow of the colossus,Guild wars 2 bosses are pretty epic as well

[Conniving_Eagle]

Still waiting for an answer from the recipient.

[Hydralysk]

Blueprotoss wrote...
TIM is more of a mental enemy and his chat at the end felt like a vocal "boss battle".

I didn't mind the confrontation with TIM, but it didn't feel like a boss battle, you pick one side of a conversation wheel and if you had always done that before you can get him to kill himself. Saren's dialogue was much the same and I enjoyed that, but that's because there was a boss fight (regardless of how stupid) afterwards, the dialogue just helped me advance towards it. Even if the boss was silly I wouldn't of felt as good at the end of ME1 if Saren just shot himself and then the fleets killed Sovereign alone.

If you're going to make a verbal battle it can't just be picking one side of the wheel repeatedly. If they wanted to make it interesting they should've done what DE:HR did, you use your knowledge of the person in question to predict the best option to convince the opponent that you are right. Mass Effect could even use your choices and experiences as examples to prove your point.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:33 .

[MKfighter89]

I think the ran into problems or were rushed by EA and thats their excuse, Cause I hope they didn't think a boss fight in a video game was to gamey???

[Blueprotoss]

Hydralysk wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...
TIM is more of a mental enemy and his chat at the end felt like a vocal "boss battle".

I didn't mind the confrontation with TIM, but it didn't feel like a boss battle, you pick one side of a conversation wheel and if you had always done that before you can get him to kill himself. Saren's dialogue was much the same and I enjoyed that, but that's because there was a boss fight (regardless of how stupid) afterwards, the dialogue just helped me advance towards it. Even if the boss was silly I wouldn't of felt as good at the end of ME1 if Saren just shot himself and then the fleets killed Sovereign alone.

If you're going to make a verbal battle it can't just be picking one side of the wheel repeatedly. If they wanted to make it interesting they should've done what DE:HR did, you use your knowledge of the person in question to predict the best option to convince the opponent that you are right. Mass Effect could even use your choices and experiences as examples to prove your point.

You're not a stuck with one side of the conversation wheel with TIM and you still fight for your survival.  Either way TIM isn't a physical enemy hence why he sent Kai Lang after Shepard to be his/her physical threat.

The verbal battle was actually great between Shepard and TIM while if you want some of the best verbal battles then you should look at MGS.  Another example while its physical and verbal is the Krauser knife battle in RE4.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 septembre 2012 - 01:43 .