61 réponses à ce sujet

[Arthur Cousland]

For those who don't like kiting the Arishok, just refuse his challenge and do the party fight.

There were no battles in DA2 that took an hour to complete. If it takes that long to kill something, then the player hasn't properly leveled their squad or set up tactics well. Against the Arishok on hard difficulty, I usually take out all of the other Qunari before I finish off the Arishok and no one ever dies and no kiting is needed. I've also had some quick fights against the high dragon with my archer Hawkes. If anyone thought that the DA2 boss fights took too long/too much effort, just take a look at any of the character build guides on that forum.

It would be nice to see more boss fights like the Ancient Rock Wraith and Duke Prosper where the fight takes place in parts, and the boss has a variety of attacks at their disposal.

Against Branka, if you let the fight drag out, eventually she will run to a lyrim vein and clone herself, and also make rocks fall from the ceiling. As I'm usually around lv 20 by this point, I find it more fun to simply go after the golems first and let Branka use her full arsenal before finishing her off.

If a boss fight is over quick (less than 5-10 minutes), then what's the point?  A good boss fight should actually require some thought and planning from the player.  If someone wants a quick fight, then play on casual difficulty.  Most of the time in Origins+Awakening, I felt that if I was actually doing more than auto-attacking, then it was overkill.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:10 .

[sharkboy421]

deatharmonic wrote...

relhart wrote...

Rip off Dragons Dogma. Seriously.....rip off Dragons Dogma. No, shut up. Listen to me. Rip off Dragons Dogma.

I stopped playing the game after that battle with the Arishock actually, it highlights a lot of things I just did not like about DA2 combat.

Lol, I did quite enjoy the combat mechanics for DD, especially for bosses, being able to jump on them added another dynamic to fights. Though I doubt Bioware would overhaul combat to that extent.

I would love to see them employ boss fights like they are in DD.  They actually felt intense and exciting.  But as several people have pointed out, it would requirea complete change to the combat style and mechanics.  I am personally hoping that is what they do but I highly doubt it.

[h0neanias]

The system sadly conspires against the player here. When I compare BG2 with the Bone Pit dragon, I get sad, but I don't see how it can be remedied without a massive overhaul, which at this stage is a patently bad idea.

[Dutchess]

I hated the boss fights in DA2. A huge health bar and those annoying stages in which the boss becomes undamagable.... Ugh. They also took way too long. When you die somewhere in the last stage you just lost about ten minutes and have to do it all over. That's not fun.

[AlexJK]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

For those who don't like kiting the Arishok, just refuse his challenge and do the party fight.

A valid option, but it would be nice if there were some other factors in play (say environmental aids to deal extra damage or disable him in some way) to make it viable for a sub-optimal single character to beat him. I'm not suggesting that a 1 on 1 duel with a healer mage player character should ever be a good idea of course...

If anyone thought that the DA2 boss fights took too long/too much effort, just take a look at any of the character build guides on that forum.

Or turn the difficulty down. But the issue isn't usually how long it takes to deplete the boss's HP, it's that doing so can be a pretty dull experience.

It would be nice to see more boss fights like the Ancient Rock Wraith and Duke Prosper where the fight takes place in parts, and the boss has a variety of attacks at their disposal.

Yep!

If a boss fight is over quick (less than 5-10 minutes), then what's the point?  A good boss fight should actually require some thought and planning from the player. If someone wants a quick fight, then play on casual difficulty.

As long as the boss fight is interesting, challenging and above all fun, sure! But just adding HP to make the fight longer - not good.

[aesir05]

Final Fantasy 8 final boss battle
took me 1.5 hour to get that done, fingers were numb at the end
FF 7 boss battle is also a good 30 mins dunno why just thought I'd mention those two

I would like fatalites in DA3 where a troll would pick up a party member and bite their head off and that party member cannot 'revive' until after the boss fight
would be cool if it got past the 'how can that be possible' area

[Rawgrim]

aesir05 wrote...

Final Fantasy 8 final boss battle
took me 1.5 hour to get that done, fingers were numb at the end
FF 7 boss battle is also a good 30 mins dunno why just thought I'd mention those two

I would like fatalites in DA3 where a troll would pick up a party member and bite their head off and that party member cannot 'revive' until after the boss fight
would be cool if it got past the 'how can that be possible' area

Having a companion being decapitated, and just magically being alive after the fights wouldn`t be at all immersion breaking to you?

[deatharmonic]

deuce985 wrote...

I'd argue that DAO had boss encounters but they were over so quick, most people didn't really see them as bosses.

Mark of the Assassin is the only boss fight I really enjoyed. Legacy would've been awesome if positioning wasn't such a major problem with companions. But still, even those two boss fights fall into the old endurance fight tank'n'spank with endless HP. DAO fights are over too quick and DA2 boss fights are too long with handicaps against the player. Arishok is a ******* nightmare on a warrior but a joke on a mage. You can kite him all day on a mage and blast him.

Boss fights not having save points is also a bad design decision, IMO. Especially if you design fights built on endurance+phases(Legacy/MOTA). Legacy made me want to pull my hair out getting to the last phase and my silly companion wanted to stand around as the fire destroyed her...

Somebody mentioned Dragon's Dogma as a good example of boss fights. I agree. That game has really good boss design. They also end up with multiple weaknesses that they allow you to find and exploit. I liked that mechanic too. Boss fights are fluid and fast in that game. You don't grind them out for a hour. It beats that tank'n'spank formula they used in DA2 because you could approach bosses in different ways. I'm not sure DD's boss fights would work in DA3 though. DD is far more action oriented than DA2.

Ideally, I'd like to see fights over quicker than DA2. That's too long. Unless you put a checkpoint system in the boss fights...

I didn't play MOTA, how was the boss fight constructed there? And yes, they do seem to drag on which is a consequence of mammoth health bar syndrome. I wouldn't mind bosses having a little bit more health but mainly being more lethal. Of the top of my head, I would've changed the whole Arishok 1v1, In fact I'd would have like to given each profession a different way of dealing with him. 

First of all I wouldn't give the Arishok so much health, I'd make him absolutely lethal at close range but very slow when up against quicker opponents. In terms of immunites I would not make him (or any boss) immune to immobilizing spells, but I would shorten the length of time they stay immobilized and as their health lowers that time increases due to fatigue.

For a warrior: They should be the only proffession able to go face to face and survive, actually giving him a run for his money in terms of sword play and brute strength. A high level of strength should give the warrior more chances of automatically blocking an attack (though I think DA2 did this?)

For a rogue: I would make speed the Arishok's weakness making him susceptible to backstabs, so rogues have the oportunity to capitolize on that. Get in, backstab, get out, set traps, lure him. Really give them the oportunity to play with him by utilising stealth and subterfuge tactics. Again, with a high level of dexterity dictating how many attacks are automatically dodged.

For a mage: If they came face to face with the Arishok I think they should be cleaved in twain, period. They shouldn't be able to take the same hit as a warrior and survive. I'm aware that we see mage hawke fighting the Arishok in the trailer but lets face it, combat in game doesn't really mirror whats possbile in that trailer does it? I'd like to give them the ability to utilise spells which immobilize the enemy to good effect. Briefly stopping the Arishok in his tracks and giving the mage a chace to let loose. What I would also like to see is if the mage gets the Arishok down to say 10% health then crushing prism behaves the same way it does in the trailer.

For the overall fight I would also make both the player and boss show visible signs of fatigue in their attacks and movement the lower their health gets. 

Again I agree with your sentiments about DD, Its a shame DA is so limited in what you can actually achieve in terms of combat and how free you can be to take bosses down in different ways.

Modifié par deatharmonic, 11 octobre 2012 - 10:43 .

[AlbinaTekla]

I agree I dislike boss battles that have the boss with like 50 times more health than my characters put together. Not too mention the health potion cool down. There are instances where the game can be unbeatable.

[h0neanias]

What made Baldur's Gate fights so entertaining for me was that first, they were fast and dramatic, second, the dice throws made them suspenseful, and third, they were constructed as puzzles -- with so many spells and abilities around, there was always a bunch of tactics to figure out which efectively solved the fight. The second point is out of DA, of course, but the first and third could be achieved. You could argue that puzzle-fights can make bosses cheap, but I'd say only if done bad. I'd rather do something clever and win easily than slog through half-an-hour borefest.

Modifié par h0neanias, 11 octobre 2012 - 11:22 .

[deatharmonic]

Arthur Cousland wrote...

For those who don't like kiting the Arishok, just refuse his challenge and do the party fight.

There were no battles in DA2 that took an hour to complete. If it takes that long to kill something, then the player hasn't properly leveled their squad or set up tactics well. Against the Arishok on hard difficulty, I usually take out all of the other Qunari before I finish off the Arishok and no one ever dies and no kiting is needed. I've also had some quick fights against the high dragon with my archer Hawkes. If anyone thought that the DA2 boss fights took too long/too much effort, just take a look at any of the character build guides on that forum.

It would be nice to see more boss fights like the Ancient Rock Wraith and Duke Prosper where the fight takes place in parts, and the boss has a variety of attacks at their disposal.

Against Branka, if you let the fight drag out, eventually she will run to a lyrim vein and clone herself, and also make rocks fall from the ceiling. As I'm usually around lv 20 by this point, I find it more fun to simply go after the golems first and let Branka use her full arsenal before finishing her off.

If a boss fight is over quick (less than 5-10 minutes), then what's the point?  A good boss fight should actually require some thought and planning from the player.  If someone wants a quick fight, then play on casual difficulty.  Most of the time in Origins+Awakening, I felt that if I was actually doing more than auto-attacking, then it was overkill.

I see what you mean. Though I think bosses can be made bosses without the need for killer amounts of health. I quite liked the idea of a 1v1 to settle the score, but I think it should've been done better. This is why I'd like bosses to be given their own weaknesses (which aren't necessarily obvious) and maybe the ability to utilise elements in the environment, so the fight has more variation, can take different paths and perhaps make me think on my feet more. Though I acknowledge this is made all the more difficult because of the way combat is in DA.

Also I didn't know the fight with Branka had that, and I've played through DAO at least 8 times lol.

[Rawgrim]

h0neanias wrote...

What made Baldur's Gate fights so entertaining for me was that first, they were fast and dramatic, second, the dice throws made them suspenseful, and third, they were constructed as puzzles -- with so many spells and abilities around, there was always a bunch of tactics to figure out which efectively solved the fight. The second point is out of DA, of course, but the first and third could be achieved. You could argue that puzzle-fights can make bosses cheap, but I'd say only if done bad. I'd rather do something clever and win easily than slog through half-an-hour borefest.

This. Just because a character is a boss of someone else, doesn`t mean the person should take 2 hours to chop down.

[Iakus]

 One thing that bugs me about boss fights is how often they degenerate into "hokey pokey" fights (You put your left foot in.  You take your left foot out.  You put your left foot in and you shake it all about)..."

The fight becomes less about fighting or casting spells and more about following patterns.  In this phase the monster puts up an impenetrable force field and we fight the minions he summons!  Now we run around in a circle to avoid the fire!  Now we touch all the statues in the room!  Now we aim for the area marked "weak spot"!

Don't forget to not stand in the fire! 

I wouldn't mind bosses having a big pile of hit points if the fight was more dynamic.  

[h0neanias]

Arthur Cousland wrote...
If a boss fight is over quick (less than 5-10 minutes), then what's the point?  A good boss fight should actually require some thought and planning from the player.  If someone wants a quick fight, then play on casual difficulty.  Most of the time in Origins+Awakening, I felt that if I was actually doing more than auto-attacking, then it was overkill.

I have great trouble with your conflating length with difficulty. Why should it be so? This is my main complain about the DA combat system. A difficult fight is not a long one, on the contrary -- "difficult" means you run into a room and get slaughtered in 10 seconds. Then you know it's time to get planning.

iakus wrote...

 One thing that bugs me about boss fights is how often they degenerate into "hokey pokey" fights (You put your left foot in.  You take your left foot out.  You put your left foot in and you shake it all about)..."

The fight becomes less about fighting or casting spells and more about following patterns.  In this phase the monster puts up an impenetrable force field and we fight the minions he summons!  Now we run around in a circle to avoid the fire!  Now we touch all the statues in the room!  Now we aim for the area marked "weak spot"!

I agree with this. Yes, a solution to HP-slogfests can be done poorly. If overdone, it makes the fight look like a civil defence exercise. In that case, I'd rather just hack and slash, thank you very much.

Modifié par h0neanias, 11 octobre 2012 - 06:57 .

[deatharmonic]

iakus wrote...

 One thing that bugs me about boss fights is how often they degenerate into "hokey pokey" fights (You put your left foot in.  You take your left foot out.  You put your left foot in and you shake it all about)..."

The fight becomes less about fighting or casting spells and more about following patterns.  In this phase the monster puts up an impenetrable force field and we fight the minions he summons!  Now we run around in a circle to avoid the fire!  Now we touch all the statues in the room!  Now we aim for the area marked "weak spot"!

Don't forget to not stand in the fire! 

I wouldn't mind bosses having a big pile of hit points if the fight was more dynamic.  

I agree with this, which is why I didn't really mention the ancient wraith rock, It is a change of pace but I don't personally find it entertaining, or challenging. Once you know what to do its nothing more than a chore.

[philippe willaume]

for me bosses should be much more lethal for the party but be relatively quick.
of course it fine once and a while to throw a boss with lots of hp (but he still be relatively much more lethal than a normal foe.

for boss fight or special monster , we find plenty of books and conversation in the game some of them could give us clues as what vulnerabilities monster and bosses have. (may be even some wrong information).

so we should be able to come up with a tactic for the group to deal with boss/monster i.e. matching the strength of the group to the weakness that we know.

Of course you need the char and companion to be more versatile than in DA:2

[Kail Ashton]

To be fair, the boss fights in the DA2 DLC were done rather well, even if the final boss from the 1st DLC area was abit glitchy

The DLC at least tells me bioware understands how to do boss fights properly, now if they can do so consistantly with DA3 i'll be happy

[deatharmonic]

Kail Ashton wrote...

To be fair, the boss fights in the DA2 DLC were done rather well, even if the final boss from the 1st DLC area was abit glitchy

The DLC at least tells me bioware understands how to do boss fights properly, now if they can do so consistantly with DA3 i'll be happy

How were they done in MOTA? I decided not to buy that.

[Kail Ashton]

Shockingly very well, multi part fight, each section worked well, made use of group positioning to avoid hazards & unique boss mechanics that were also used to temp stun the boss all done very compitently with no glitches to be found, basicly a very good, well planned/executed & compitent final boss fight, i have nothing to complain about it @__@;

[Rawgrim]

deatharmonic wrote...

Kail Ashton wrote...

To be fair, the boss fights in the DA2 DLC were done rather well, even if the final boss from the 1st DLC area was abit glitchy

The DLC at least tells me bioware understands how to do boss fights properly, now if they can do so consistantly with DA3 i'll be happy

How were they done in MOTA? I decided not to buy that.

The only thing I remember from that dlc was Talis, somehow, being able to do a 50 foot backflip from the ground and up onto a wall (from a stand-still position). I guess it was supposed to be "kewl", but it gave me the biggest cringe i have ever experienced when playing a video game.

[InfinitePaths]

MoTa boss fight was a masterpeice

[Arthur Cousland]

Perhaps bosses need resistances rather than a massive health bar, but I hated how in Origins, many fights required little more than auto-attacks, and if I did go all out, the boss could be defeated in around a minute, while doing minimal damage to the party.

I enjoy combat in rpgs and I look forward to the boss encounters. When the boss goes down quickly, it feels anti-climatic. It's usually the boss fights where the stronger abilties come into play, as regular enemies don't usually require more than standard attacks.

As mentioned, Final Fantasy 8 did have some long boss fights. A few of them did take close to an hour to complete which is way too long. Compared to 30-60 minute boss fights, 5-10 minutes isn't that long at all.

Modifié par Arthur Cousland, 12 octobre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Kail Ashton]

Never discuss final fantasy 8, ever, it doesn't exist, it's the devil may cry 2 of the final fantasy series, THERE IS NO ff8, UNDERSTOOD!?!

[Zkyire]

I'm quite happy with the boss fights they had in DA2. They were more enjoyable than DA:O's.

[Fallstar]

HeriocGreyWarden wrote...

MoTa boss fight was a masterpeice

This.

Also: YES, YES AND YES to more boss fights like Malvernis. I absolutely loved how punishingly difficult that fight was, I loved that it was optional, and I loved that for those who did kill it, there were fantastic and actually useful lootations. Massive kudos to whoever worked on him.