137 réponses à ce sujet

[Mark of the Dragon]

So I just want to say I really hope DA3 has a final boss fight in it. I am well aware both DAO and DA2 did which made me happy. I think it is important to have that final boss as the last obstacle in a hero’s journey.
For me I really hope DA3 has an over arching antagonist for the story as well but that’s another topic.
That said, DA is good a presenting a decent number of challenging fights especially at the end of the bigger quests. These fights range from high dragons, Varterral, and even Crazy Templar Ladies. The one thing I never liked however were how all the fights were the same. You just beat up on the bad guy til it died.
For me I would really like to see more out of the box fights like Coripheus. I liked the different style and it kept the fight fun and fresh. Meredith in DA2 was even decently fun since you got all your companions to help you fight her giant statues and such.
Either way what do you guys think? Would people like the same old style fights or would you like some more variety in your big fights as well?
 

[caradoc2000]

The problem with creating something overtly complex is likely to create more problems than they are worth - an example would be companion pathfinding in the Corypheus fight that many people complained about.

[State_Of_Danile]

man the meredith fight had so much potential. Just think about it from a designing perspective of what you had to work with and it could have been so great!
A) Meredith is all magic-roided up to the point that she can fly and shoot death beams (sort of). You could use that in a number of ways.
She summons THREE different enemy types! If they had taken time to give them more sophisticated tactis than "KILL ALL THE THINGS" each one of those enemy types could have been unique and required specific tactics NOT to mention interwining tactics from multiple enemy types
c) You had more people show up to the fight so you essential had a bigger party. but you don't have control over them. and they don't do anything special. they just kind of poke at the bad guys. depending on your choices through the game certain people should come and bring special abilities to the game(for example, feynriel could return and cast some healing spells or something if you save him) Now i dont like comparing ME3 to DA2 or DA:o because i understand they're different games. But the idea that the people you save help you at the end could have been implemented in a really cool way at the end.

[Allan Schumacher]

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

[Vilegrim]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

Peace talks?  A battle? Something of that order, yes.

[Pzykozis]

caradoc2000 wrote...

The problem with creating something overtly complex is likely to create more problems than they are worth - an example would be companion pathfinding in the Corypheus fight that many people complained about.

Yeah... luckily Cory isn't great against nature and gets stunned like crazy otherwise i'd have been crying in that fight everyone 'cept Hawke would go down like a chump from the pathfinding being crazy. Bad times were had.

I'm not sure and I hate to bring it to the party but I did really love Witcher 2's oh you can just let him go if you want attitude. I'm not sure that a final battle is always needed aslong as it makes sense within the story and closure is somehwat given for the topic at hand.

[philippe willaume]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

i don't think you need a boss fight per se, But  how quck we an grease the draw bridge chain so that you can raise it in time is not going to cut it either.

The Witcher 2 last enounter  was quite good because you could either fight or talk.  So may having the challenge you mention as the  alternative to fighting, is the best of both world.

Phil

[QueenPurpleScrap]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

It's got to be big, to be major. With DAO you have to defeat the Archdemon. No other ending really makes sense. In DA2 maybe the final climax could have been getting somebody from both sides to the mediation table. Some of the steps to be completed before the final sit down:

• Once that was agreed to Anders would have confessed to you what he did and then you would have to stop the bomb.
• Get that mind-bending red lyrium sword away from Meredith
• Have a viable candidate (possibly yourself) ready to step in as Viscount

Any failure of these steps could have resulted in what was the final boss battle. Nor does it mean that lack of a battle couldn't still spark trouble with the other Circles. Rumors start about what almost happened, the red lyrium sword is stolen before it can be destroyed, etc. We already have hints of some force manipulating events, that force would just have to work harder if Kirkwall doesn't explode.

That said, I do agree boss battles should be interesting and different from the regular battles. I actually liked the Corypheus boss battle because it was so different. It really mattered who you took with you. Definitely it was more tedious if you had the wrong people with you (and sometimes my LI was so not the right person). I would be willing to have fewer boss battles if they were more intricate, interesting, difficult, greatly affected by your party members.

[Fast Jimmy]

I think a possible way to end DA2 would have been to try and curry peace by calling in favors from all over Kirkwall. Suddenly, angering that Magister or aggravating that Dwarven merchant wasn't so smart, now was it?

Fable 3 gave a stab at this. After "beating" the game, you then had to make a series of decisions about who to help and who to ignore in a bid to prepare for a greater threat. Being "nice" to the "good" people didn't always result in the best outcomes in that case, so... "uneasy lies the head that wears the crown" and all of that.


That being said, a game like the DA games which has combat throughout the game and is the solution to almost all problems seems a little weird to NOT have combat at the end. Whether that has to be a Boss or even has to be a hard fight doesn't necessarily need to be the case. You could have a fight where you also need to go around accomplishing objectives or saving people/things at risk while also dealing with enemies, which can tug at the heart strings when you have to sacrifice one thing (during gameplay itself, not through dialogue) in order to preserve another.

Interesting things can be done outside of Boss Fights, for sure. But they need to make sense and not feel forced, which is often the tricky part.

[Pallando]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

You mean... Like choosing a color ? 
Sorry, I was just kidding. 

I think an epic boss fight before the end is often expected. But the final challenge might be something different. I personnally liked the final parts of Metal Gear Solid and MGS2 where you have an epic battle with Giant Robots but the ultimate confrontation was more personnal (it was the same in Tomb Raider 2, but I think the shower scene helped). 

From what I've seen with some recent games, people don't like to be thrown an unexpected last-minute Big Choice at the end to resolve the intrigue. I presume it's partially because they don't want to choose wrong.

But, maybe, if the main quest was not only about bringing down some antagonist but also about finding an answer, the last part could be a "puzzle"/"riddle" or something where you have to decide/find out what is the answer.
It could be killing a character, finding/choosing a powerful artifact, solving an enigma, ...
Something that might have multiple "answers" but these would not be highlighted, just the logical conclusion of your adventure which could be different (or not) depending on your behavior during the game.

Anyway, in a game where you fight a lot, an epic last boss fight where you use all the skills you acquired during the game is mandatory. The question is: should it be against the main antagonist ?

Modifié par Pallando, 15 décembre 2012 - 01:38 .

[Adugan]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

A talking battle is anticlimactic, after the talking it just ENDS. I think an epic fight is necessary for a story like DA's, since its all about knights and mages and dragons.

[wsandista]

The final boss should be Etrigan the Demon.

[thats1evildude]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

It depends on the game, obviously; The Walking Dead needed no boss fights because it didn't have bosses (and the mechanics didn't support it anyway).

In a game where combat is the method through the plot is progressed, it's a lot more difficult. Besides the fact that boss feel like a natural cap to progression, most players anticipate a final boss fight and to not give them one is like pulling the rug from under them. I remember the uproar over Fable 2's ending, where the main villain is defeated with a single bullet. I confess, it was a tad anti-climactic.

I ended another godawful game that I shall not name about a week ago that was building up to a final boss fight … and ended with you delivering some stern words to the main villain. Talk about underwhelming.

(Granted, I think they anticipated a sequel to their awful game, and said villain was likely to be the ongoing Big Bad.)

Modifié par thats1evildude, 15 décembre 2012 - 01:44 .

[Fast Jimmy]

thats1evildude wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

It depends on the game, obviously; The Walking Dead needed no boss fights because it didn't have bosses (and the mechanics didn't support it anyway).

In a game where combat is the method through the plot is progressed, it's a lot more difficult. I remember the uproar over Fable 2's ending, where the main villain is defeated with a single bullet. It was a tad anti-climactic.

I ended another godawful game that I shall not name about a week ago that was building up to a final boss fight … and ended with you delivering some stern words to the Big Bad. Talk about underwhelming.

(Granted, I think they anticipated a sequel to their awful game, and said villain was likely to be the ongoing Big Bad.)

Was it a Twilight video game?



God... a part of me hates that I can even make that reference. 

[thats1evildude]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

God... a part of me hates that I can even make that reference.

How do you think I feel? I actually got that joke! 

Modifié par thats1evildude, 15 décembre 2012 - 01:42 .

[Pallando]

Oh !
It could be a boss fight where your attitude towards the ennemy (spells and talents used during battle) has an impact. If you only defend yourself, they could open up and resolve things peacefully. If the ennemy is a party similar to yours, killing some people might lead the others to surrender/give up. Or you could just kill them.

Modifié par Pallando, 15 décembre 2012 - 01:45 .

[llandwynwyn]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

It doesn't need to end with a boss fight, but I don't see most players being fine without one.

Saying that, I thought DA (O/A/2) had a lot of cool boss fights. Flemeth, the Mother, Zathrian, Meredith, Corypheus...all memorable.

Modifié par llandwynwyn, 15 décembre 2012 - 01:51 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Vilegrim wrote...

Peace talks?  A battle? Something of that order, yes.

I guess that would depend on how we classify a "battle?"  Is it simply an obstacle to overcome?

By "boss fight" I am making assumptions that there must be some sort of direct confrontation with an antagonist, and typically it must involve the fighting system utilized by the game.

[upsettingshorts]

Deux Ex: Human Revolution had some really fun dialogue boss fights that I'd love to see in a BioWare game as well.

[Iakus]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

No, a "boss" as such isn't necessary, imo.

A final challenge, however, can be a great way to top off a story.  Where everything you've done in the game leads to this moment, and the payoff that comes afterwards.

[Petiertje]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I agree that it's important to have a final challenge (of some sort) as part of a climax to a story.

My question is, must it be a boss fight? Or could it be a challenge presented in a different way?

Maybe a mix of both? I like both ideas:)

I also think that, when your companions join you at the final battle/stage of the game, their effectiveness in said situation depends on your behavior throughout the game. If you made your choices for personal gain, their effectiveness is somewhat low because they feel like their not fighting for the same cause. If you actions are more focused on the well being of others then they should support you more, maybe have more combat skills available and are more supportive in discussions.
Also it would be nice if their able to withdraw before or during a fight if your previous actions are not in line with their view on the world / situation, in that case you have to be careful how you handle situations because it's possible that you end up facing a bunch of thugs on your own instead of with you companions.

Those situations are reflected in the final stage / fight of the game where, depending on the loyalty and support from your companions, it's possible to have companions with full capability's and with just a few, or even just one or nothing. So it should be possible that you'r facing the final battle / situation on your own in the worst case.If that's should be the case, maybe there should be an option to 'surrender' and let the antagonist chose how to resolve the situation instead of making it a 'lesser' confrontation. So the final battle would be a point where the whole game, and not just the skills and companions come together.

[Allan Schumacher]

Anyway, in a game where you fight a lot, an epic last boss fight where you use all the skills you acquired during the game is mandatory. The question is: should it be against the main antagonist?

This is probably the best reasoning for a boss fight actually! (by having a lot of combat, it sets a level of expectation)

[MisterJB]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
I guess that would depend on how we classify a "battle?"  Is it simply an obstacle to overcome?

By "boss fight" I am making assumptions that there must be some sort of direct confrontation with an antagonist, and typically it must involve the fighting system utilized by the game.

Personally, I don't believe the fighting system needs to be necessary. For instance, the final confrontation with TIM in ME3. With Shepard being at the mercy of TIM, he either has to convince him to commit suicide, or he will kill him.
The problem is, of course, that there is really no way to lose that confrontation. The dialogue options that work in our favor are color coded for our covenience and, even if the player didn't acquire enough points, Shepard automatically shoots TIM.
Now, I understand that Bioware can't make a portion of the game unbeatable because of something the player might have done three hours ago. So, the solution is, I believe, to build a series of dialogue trees that the player must navigate through based on the knowledge acquired during the course of the game. The more the players knows about the antagonist; personality, goals; the easier it will be.
But even if the player skipped all conversations and rushed to the ending, it would still be possible, only harder. Or maybe then it would involve a more coventional boss battle.

Modifié par MisterJB, 15 décembre 2012 - 02:26 .

[Red Panda]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Anyway, in a game where you fight a lot, an epic last boss fight where you use all the skills you acquired during the game is mandatory. The question is: should it be against the main antagonist?

This is probably the best reasoning for a boss fight actually! (by having a lot of combat, it sets a level of expectation)

But why rule diplomacy out completely? Why not have an epic battle of words? I mean this is a Bioware game, it's going to have some awesome writing as well as gameplay. Maybe something that tops Mass Effect 3's final persuasion options in terms of how profound and complex it is.

Just my two cents, that's all.