10 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?
 

[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?

[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.

[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)

[Allan Schumacher]

I should point out that the original Deus Ex while had plenty of combat at the end, didn't have a "final boss" as such

I wasn't just referring to the ending of the game though. Deus Ex is a game that emphasized various paths to success, so I don't think the comparison applies. Dragon Age games (and BioWare games in general) have always been quite combat heavy IMO.

[Allan Schumacher]

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.

I'm more referring to the notion of, why must we have a boss fight.

In general I am not a fan of boss fights, but there are a lot of people that are. I'm just trying to facilitate discussion to delve deeper. There's an obvious implicit analogue to ME3's ending, which lacked an overt boss fight, and many complained about it.

Now, were they upset simply because there wasn't a "boss fight" (go and fight using the combat gameplay and win against a very powerful last foe?), or was the climax resolution simply not sufficient. They would have preferred something more meaningful, even if it wasn't necessarily direct combat with the game's combat gameplay.

[Allan Schumacher]

ME3 is actually interesting because none of the boss fights are actually "standard." Without going into spoilers, there's 3 "boss fight" situations, and they all utilize some sort of unique component that goes beyond the typical gameplay to achieve.

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

That's just it, though.  the endgame was still combat-heavy.  It just lacked a boss battle.  You still had to fight your way to each of the objectives

I'm just pointing out that game challenges can have combat without having a "boss battle"  In this particular case, fighting your way to several objectives to complete a task.  It's the challenge that makes it special, not the individual boss

How are we defining "fighting your way to each of the objectives?"

Are you referring to the entire Area 51 level?

[Allan Schumacher]

iakus wrote...

How are we defining "fighting your way to each of the objectives?"

Are you referring to the entire Area 51 level?

For the most part, since the stuff needed for the final missions are scattered throughout the complex.  Page's personal defenses to disable.  Or the reactors to overload, or the router to activate for Helios.  There was a wide variety of enemies, and plenty of them, thanks to the Universal Contructors.  There were keys to find, computers to hack, hazards to navigate, shortcuts to find, with NPCs ready to urge you towards their preferred ending.

I remember most of the level, but I was mostly asking because I don't remember having to kill anyone.  It's been a long time since I last played it though.  My friend says he mostly just turned on camo and silent running.  I definitely didn't do that (I tend to lean towards stealthy combatant), but I do remember closing the doors to the UCs.

I remember Spector mentioning he was disappointed that three people had to be considered dead by the game, but I am chatting with some friends on Steam trying to remember who.

I know Anna is one (technically she can be glitched, but the intent of the game was for her to be killed, lest Jacobsen never give you the key to leave UNATCO).  I think the other is Lebedev (narratively his death cannot be avoided.  A friend of mine dragged is tranquilizered body to Manderley but he was still dead.  One things Gunther is, but I thought you could run from Gunther.  I am thinking the third is either Gunther or Page himself, although Page's fate is nebulous during the Helios merge.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 15 décembre 2012 - 05:19 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Stealth as an option would be another example of "using skills you've learned through the game."

The three characters that have to die are Anna, Gunther, and Walton. Though the first two can be killed via their kill phrases and not be fought. at all (Lebedev can be saved, though it's very difficult, gotta kill Anna before she kills him, and you don't have her kill phrase yet) You can escape Walton the first time you face him, but he'll turn up a later on and you have to finish him then.

Simons does not have to die according to my friend :S (I always kill him the first time in the undersea base)

I think the game still treats Lebedev as dead, however, even if you kill Anna. Simply because "off screen" UNATCO eventually offs him.


Although I think we're mostly arguing in agreement here. Yes you can use stealth, but Deus Ex was brought in because of it being combat heavy. Without going back into that discussion, as someone that isn't a fan of boss fights, and typically struggled with the idea of why must our game have a boss fight, I could understand simply because BioWare games are typically very combat heavy, so it could be reasonable to assume that the final conflict resolution would also be combat heavy.


Having said that, to move the conversation a bit away from that: why do people often not consider conversations to be an aspect of the gameplay system?

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

There are some occasions which you shouldn't just be able to fight your way out of.

Like saying "OK , Demon, I'll let you into my mind, sure."  Or telling the Empress in her throne room that she's a poopyhead.

I agree with this.  I'm actually a big supporter of adding more "fail cases" in our games.  THough I think it needs to be done carefully and somewhat selectively.