512 réponses à ce sujet

[WhiteKnyght]

You already fought a mutated thrall as the final boss in ME1. Saren. Rehashing it with the Illusive Man is pointless.

You already fought an actual Reaper in ME2. And three times in ME3.

ME3's final boss, the Illusive Man, is original. You fight with your wits instead of your weapons.

So I say. Get over it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I think a particular boss fight with TIM as a big monstrosity would have been too videogamey and wouldn't have made sense in keeping with the character. Here is what they could have done. Cronos -- no fight with Kai Leng. To the Beam: no blast from Harbinger takes out Shepard, but Shepard gets up there alone. Here's where Shepard takes on Kai Leng (and he's tough) in a full blown boss fight one on one. Larger area, you defeat Kai Leng, then you have your conversation with TIM who has Anderson, then you open the arms, Anderson dies, the crucible docks, you get picked up, the crucible fires. You're done. This would be in keeping with TIM. TIM has others do his dirty work.

How complete the Crucible is determines how much collateral damage is done.

However, the red, green, and blue ending was too much of a facepalm and a WTF, and depressing note on which to end the game. You get up to the end of the game. This kid says "Okay you win, but you have to die. Choose how you want to die, and choose what state you want to leave the galaxy, oh and no matter what you choose it's going to suck." -- March 2012.

Nice. Real nice. Five years I waited... for that? That is called the FY ending.

[Dragoonlordz]

someguy1231 wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I don't think they should of used the words "too video gamey" because I actually agree with their mindset towards it. If it doesn't feel right to include it in their story (like Diana Allers, oh wait), then their would be no need to include it, but their is nothing wrong with boss fights because they can be done in varying ways, which can unique to the context of the story at hand.

This. Arkham City is a good example. 

There's the "Punch them to death" bosses, and on occasion there's the "If you try to punch them to death they will proceed to manhandle you" bosses. Mr. Freeze was always my favorite boss fight in that game, because of the latter.

Agreed. Mr. Freeze was one of the best boss fights I've ever seen, on par with The End and The Boss in MGS3.

In fact, anyone who thinks bossfights are "too videogamey" or should be phased out of video games needs to play through those games. I'd like to see them say that then.

There is a major difference between thinking all games should have no boss fights and some games not having such. I have been reading your replies lately in here and you seem to think all games should have them. When you said "If they removed something you like from games wouldn't you kick up a stink" or something like and your recent posts too. You seemed to be coming from the direction of there being a sort of trend to removing the thing you like from gaming in general which is fallacy. There is nothing wrong with some games having boss fights and some not. Having a boss fight for the sake of a boss fight is more damaging to to any game.

[someguy1231]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I don't think they should of used the words "too video gamey" because I actually agree with their mindset towards it. If it doesn't feel right to include it in their story (like Diana Allers, oh wait), then their would be no need to include it, but their is nothing wrong with boss fights because they can be done in varying ways, which can unique to the context of the story at hand.

This. Arkham City is a good example. 

There's the "Punch them to death" bosses, and on occasion there's the "If you try to punch them to death they will proceed to manhandle you" bosses. Mr. Freeze was always my favorite boss fight in that game, because of the latter.

Agreed. Mr. Freeze was one of the best boss fights I've ever seen, on par with The End and The Boss in MGS3.

In fact, anyone who thinks bossfights are "too videogamey" or should be phased out of video games needs to play through those games. I'd like to see them say that then.

There is a major difference between thinking all games should have no boss fights and some games not having such. I have been reading your replies lately in here and you seem to think all games should have them. When you said "If they removed something you like from games wouldn't you kick up a stink" or something like and your recent posts too. You seemed to be coming from the direction of there being a sort of trend to removing the thing you like from gaming in general which is fallacy. There is nothing wrong with some games having boss fights and some not. Having a boss fight for the sake of a boss fight is more damaging to to any game.

I was referring to those who were speaking of bossfights in general, not bossfights specifically in ME3. Many here have said they don't like bossfights at all in any game and they'd like to see them gone. It's one thing to argue for that from a strictly gameplay point of view, but what really pisses me off is when someone claims that bossfights need to go in order for the video game medium to "grow up" or "be taken seriously" or "to become a true form of art". The implication is that bossfights are somehow inherently holding back video gaming as a storytelling medium and it's not possible for a game to tell a serious, excellent story if it has bossfights.

I believe the infamous "video-gamey" quote is an example of this. I know it was originally referring specifically to the TIM-as-Reaper scrapped idea, but I believe that quote encapsulated many of those types of objections. Can anyone imagine something being removed from a film because it's "too cinematic"? They seem to be holding video games to a double-standard with that kind of idea. Besides, they're also complete hypocrites for calling it "too video-gamey" and yet Kai Leng was just that.

Oh, and I don't think every game should have them. FPS games set in the modern era with a heavy emphasis on realism are one example (ie CoD, Battlefield, Arma).

There's nothing wrong with some games having bosses and some not. But, since ME1, ME2, and most of the DLC for both games did have bossfights, and since ME3 involves a clearly defined antagonist who most of us were expecting to confront (Harbinger), I think I'm perfectly justified in expecting ME3 to have a final bossfight with said antagonist.

By the way, if it's wrong to have a "bossfight for the sake of a bossfight", then it's equally wrong to have no bossfight solely for the sake of a pretentious and misguided belief in "art".

[ZLurps]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I think a particular boss fight with TIM as a big monstrosity would have been too videogamey and wouldn't have made sense in keeping with the character. Here is what they could have done. Cronos -- no fight with Kai Leng. To the Beam: no blast from Harbinger takes out Shepard, but Shepard gets up there alone. Here's where Shepard takes on Kai Leng (and he's tough) in a full blown boss fight one on one. Larger area, you defeat Kai Leng, then you have your conversation with TIM who has Anderson, then you open the arms, Anderson dies, the crucible docks, you get picked up, the crucible fires. You're done. This would be in keeping with TIM. TIM has others do his dirty work.

I have been wondering a bit different kind of scenario.

I thought Leng's story arch would end on Thessia. He get's Prothean beacon to the shuttle (which might be escorted by gunship) and when shuttle and gunship leaves  he stays back to fight Shepard,there he dies. It could be multi stage fight, there might have been couple of Nemesis and few of those female ninja droids in a shuttle which also remain behind and support Leng. To make it real challenge, there might be Reaper destroyer advancing and there would be only so much time to eliminate Leng.

It's just that we needed some of this "characters are stupid because they must be to make this work" stuff like we get on Mars. Shepard's team must be distracted from the most important thing there, the beacon, so Leng can sneak and take it, make run for the gunship or shuttle and toss it there (and again those who play Vanguards would scream in
frustration) but IMO it would be better than what we actually got on Thessia.

TIM's story then, would end on Cronos station. Once he informed the Reapers, there's no reason for him to be on Citadel. Developers even said themself, that they originally planned to end TIM's story on Cronos station, but then moved it on Citadel because it felt more dramatic that way. Personally, I think they might been just desperate to get filler content on Citadel level, because Priority: Earth just... isn't much.

Path to main chamber would be suicide mission style (BW originally planned it that way but dropped it) and it could end like what we now get on Citadel, except Anderson lives because he isn't there to begin with.

Anyway, now we had at least some satisfaction to go with when we start dealing with "Citadel has moved" stuff and so on. IMO, if Priority: Earth were something that made us feel the scale of conflict and have our bigger victories there so we would be rather content when we finally get to the beam.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
How complete the Crucible is determines how much collateral damage is done.

I like this.

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
However, the red, green, and blue ending was too much of a facepalm and a WTF, and depressing note on which to end the game. You get up to the end of the game. This kid says "Okay you win, but you have to die. Choose how you want to die, and choose what state you want to leave the galaxy, oh and no matter what you choose it's going to suck." -- March 2012.

Nice. Real nice. Five years I waited... for that? That is called the FY ending.

Well, we can speculate. Maybe there's some deep wisdom in there, like if you try to take control over something bigger than you, in the process you will be turned so utterly destroyed in the process that you will turn to something unrecognizable. Or maybe there's sort of psychological angle there, right from the kitchen shelf cooking book. See, alruistic people like Paragons really do it only because of masochism and so facing painful death which also makes them martyrs can only be rewarding for them, right?

Personally, I liked if we had more options. Why not stick Catalyst to that green thing there? There might be even Renegade option to stick it there feet first so we could see all the marvelous expression on its face when it start to dissolve.

Seriously: Leaving TIM out from Citadel were left more room to make something more surreal, 2001 esquesh ending where we can try to resolve things without doing something stupid, like let's blow up this tube from 2 meters away so I surely get caught in the explosion, which makes us morons.

Modifié par ZLurps, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:21 .

[ZLurps]

someguy1231 wrote...

..snip...
 Can anyone imagine something being removed from a film because it's "too cinematic"?

What I have written is purely in context of ME3, but regarding this example of yours, happens all the time. Making films isn't like making each scene stand out as awesome camera work, but how camera work fits in what is happening in the story. There are exception, usually bad films.

This particular thing is present in ME3 btw. Some "camera" work is awesome and what makes it so great is that people don't even notice it. It works because it doesn't come into way of our experience. Then, there's are also examples of opposite in ME3.

Modifié par ZLurps, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:20 .

[NM_Che56]

le sigh

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Master Che wrote...

le sigh

I'll save that pic for future use on here.

[Iakus]

Master Che wrote...

le sigh

pic snipped

Whining about whining is unproductive.

[Grubas]

lol troll detected.

[nataleighjvr]

The reaper on Rannoch was a boss? - walk in the park ... Kai Leng was my nemesis

Modifié par nataleighjvr, 04 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[dorktainian]

nah star brat was da bad boss.

[TheInquisitor]

All I gotta say is that there better be a huge, epic final boss fight in ME4!

[Grubas]

dorktainian wrote...

nah star brat was da bad boss.

nope, starbrat declares you a winner. After that i shoot him. Dumb liar. If Synthesis is the only solution that solves his problem, why does he offer me 2 other options, that are flawed?

[archangel1996]

Playin card with the Casper(aka the Repers' boss[i take no pleasure in this], you know Harbinger[this hurts you] and Sovereign[you're a worm and i will eradicate you]) would have been good enough for the ending we got now

[liggy002]

someguy1231 wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

someguy1231 wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I don't think they should of used the words "too video gamey" because I actually agree with their mindset towards it. If it doesn't feel right to include it in their story (like Diana Allers, oh wait), then their would be no need to include it, but their is nothing wrong with boss fights because they can be done in varying ways, which can unique to the context of the story at hand.

This. Arkham City is a good example. 

There's the "Punch them to death" bosses, and on occasion there's the "If you try to punch them to death they will proceed to manhandle you" bosses. Mr. Freeze was always my favorite boss fight in that game, because of the latter.

Agreed. Mr. Freeze was one of the best boss fights I've ever seen, on par with The End and The Boss in MGS3.

In fact, anyone who thinks bossfights are "too videogamey" or should be phased out of video games needs to play through those games. I'd like to see them say that then.

There is a major difference between thinking all games should have no boss fights and some games not having such. I have been reading your replies lately in here and you seem to think all games should have them. When you said "If they removed something you like from games wouldn't you kick up a stink" or something like and your recent posts too. You seemed to be coming from the direction of there being a sort of trend to removing the thing you like from gaming in general which is fallacy. There is nothing wrong with some games having boss fights and some not. Having a boss fight for the sake of a boss fight is more damaging to to any game.

I was referring to those who were speaking of bossfights in general, not bossfights specifically in ME3. Many here have said they don't like bossfights at all in any game and they'd like to see them gone. It's one thing to argue for that from a strictly gameplay point of view, but what really pisses me off is when someone claims that bossfights need to go in order for the video game medium to "grow up" or "be taken seriously" or "to become a true form of art". The implication is that bossfights are somehow inherently holding back video gaming as a storytelling medium and it's not possible for a game to tell a serious, excellent story if it has bossfights.

I believe the infamous "video-gamey" quote is an example of this. I know it was originally referring specifically to the TIM-as-Reaper scrapped idea, but I believe that quote encapsulated many of those types of objections. Can anyone imagine something being removed from a film because it's "too cinematic"? They seem to be holding video games to a double-standard with that kind of idea. Besides, they're also complete hypocrites for calling it "too video-gamey" and yet Kai Leng was just that.

Oh, and I don't think every game should have them. FPS games set in the modern era with a heavy emphasis on realism are one example (ie CoD, Battlefield, Arma).

There's nothing wrong with some games having bosses and some not. But, since ME1, ME2, and most of the DLC for both games did have bossfights, and since ME3 involves a clearly defined antagonist who most of us were expecting to confront (Harbinger), I think I'm perfectly justified in expecting ME3 to have a final bossfight with said antagonist.

By the way, if it's wrong to have a "bossfight for the sake of a bossfight", then it's equally wrong to have no bossfight solely for the sake of a pretentious and misguided belief in "art".

I agree someguy.  Pretty much this.  I WANT MY HARBINGER FIGHT AND CONVERSATION!!

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Grubas wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

nah star brat was da bad boss.

nope, starbrat declares you a winner. After that i shoot him. Dumb liar. If Synthesis is the only solution that solves his problem, why does he offer me 2 other options, that are flawed?

It's so you have a choice of how you want to die. By fire? or by electricity? or by death ray?

@Zlurps -- It's not running at the tube and getting caught in that explosion that's the only problem. Look at the larger explosion immediately after. There is no way in hell to survive that even 10 m from ground zero.

Since the original boss fight was supposed to be against a monstrous TIM, and I think that would have been out of character for him, that's why I think a one v one w/ Kai Leng would have been appropriate. TIM isn't there to help him either. Too bad no bullet time. lol. It would have to be in a larger area on the Citadel. Not videogamey. In character.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 04 janvier 2013 - 11:02 .

[RenegonSQ]

iakus wrote...

Master Che wrote...

le sigh

pic snipped

Whining about whining is unproductive.

Best post ever^


As for the topic at hand, I always felt that the too video gamey thing was stupid. Overthinking at it's finest

[Someone With Mass]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...
I'll save that pic for future use on here.

Instead of going through the same boring routine of telling everyone that they're a bunch of whiners (which is only true if you resort to something as ignorant as generalization), how about forming a constructive argument or something constructive in general? It would make you look less of an ass. Just saying.

As for the topic, if the supposed boss fight was considered "too video gamey", then what were the fights with Kai Lame? The guy pretty much ate an Invincibility Star every time his shields went down, didn't even try to run for cover when that happened and he summoned his minions whenever he took damage, the third being very common among video game bosses.

If you're going for a theme, at least stay consistent with it instead of changing it at the last fifteen minutes just for the sake of a rather weak twist.

[David7204]

That is stupid. The lack of a boss fight has utterly nothing to do with the introduction of the Catalyst and whatnot. You're speaking as if BioWare really wanted to put a boss fight in but decided the Catalyst was more important and the two were mutally exclusive for some reason. Nonsense.

Modifié par David7204, 04 janvier 2013 - 11:54 .

[nataleighjvr]

Of course you don't feel like the game is over until you've died umteen times fighting the big boss, but once you get the knack it's satisfying to re-live the moment when you load the last game again in a week or two and squash him first try... That's why the "casper super brat" ME3 ending lacked umph... now Harbinger, that would have been a different matter altogether... the revenge we have been waiting for... Maybe he was hiding in a black hole and we get to fight him in ME4 (wishful thinging perhaps)

[Peranor]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You already fought a mutated thrall as the final boss in ME1. Saren. Rehashing it with the Illusive Man is pointless.

You already fought an actual Reaper in ME2. And three times in ME3.

ME3's final boss, the Illusive Man, is original. You fight with your wits instead of your weapons.

So I say. Get over it.

If there actually was some kind of wit involved in the dialogue choices Bioware might have been on to something. But alas...

While I agree that a mutated Illusive man as a final boss would have been a bit silly. I'm sure that Bioware has enough imagination to come up with something that isn't a clone of the fight with Saren or the human reaper. And I'm sure you have enough imagination as well if you just try.

Modifié par anorling, 05 janvier 2013 - 12:53 .

[Someone With Mass]

J. Reezy wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

You already fought a mutated thrall as the final boss in ME1. Saren. Rehashing it with the Illusive Man is pointless.

You already fought an actual Reaper in ME2. And three times in ME3.

ME3's final boss, the Illusive Man, is original. You fight with your wits instead of your weapons.

So I say. Get over it.

Yeah after picking a few dialogue options and possibly an interrupt ME3 shore duz makes me feelz teh smartis for using my brainz

Not to mention that TIM can be convinced that he's indoctrinated, which leads to him shooting himself.

Gee, I wonder where...right...

Take away Saren's body being controlled by Sovereign through the implants and it's almost the exact same setup.

Also, the Reaper you killed in ME2 was a baby and the only capital Reaper you ever destroyed without the use of the Crucible was Sovereign and in ME3, you were killing the destroyers like it was going out of style. Which it was.

One was even killed with the Cain, FFS.

[ZLurps]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

@Zlurps -- It's not running at the tube and getting caught in that explosion that's the only problem. Look at the larger explosion immediately after. There is no way in hell to survive that even 10 m from ground zero.

Since the original boss fight was supposed to be against a monstrous TIM, and I think that would have been out of character for him, that's why I think a one v one w/ Kai Leng would have been appropriate. TIM isn't there to help him either. Too bad no bullet time. lol. It would have to be in a larger area on the Citadel. Not videogamey. In character.

My bad really, I totally forgot that. I haven't played single player campaign that much because... well, you know.