11 réponses à ce sujet

[The Antagonist]

Please don't put boss fights in the game. Specifically those where I have spend hours spamming the same tedious attack pattern because this particular opponent apparently has a higher threshold for pain than the others just like like him/her/it.

If you guys choose to include bosses, make sure it makes sense in  and don't make it run away to where I can't attack it. Some of us don't want to stay in the same place for too long, YOLO. So yeah boss fights are a completely unnecessary tradition that needs to die asap.

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

What I miss are when you're fighting a whole party of enemies who are about as tough as your guys. Dragon Age doesn't seem to do that very often - the boss fights always seem to be Huge Bag of Hitpoints + mook adds.

Agreed!

[Allan Schumacher]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I thought the Saren boss fight made perfect sense. Didn't really make sense how killing Saren deactivated Sovereign's shields, exactly... but the fight itself made a lot of sense.

I disliked that, after talking Saren down and having Saren shoot himself (which felt amazingly super awesome and badass), I still had some weird "round 2... fight!"

I have little issue with fighting Saren if you're not able to persuade/intimidate him, but I didn't like that I epically talked him down only for the game to then come back and go "NOPE!"

Two of my favourite RPGs ever are games where I successfully defeated the "final boss" by "winning the conversation" rather than winning in combat.

(And yes, I think DA would be better served if you can "lose" the odd conversation here and there - as by counterpoint it allows you to win it).

Arguably, you can lump the Arishok battle into this as well, since the
one-on-one duel gave absolutely zero way to defeat him unless you either
A) had a specifc build - Rock Armor and cold spells for a mage, archery
and using decoys for a rogue and the Reaver spec with a warrior... and
also using poisons or other specialized potions, somethign that is never
needed for any of the other gameplay segments, nor hinted at during any
of the gameplay.

Sadly, I found out that you can, in fact, beat him with a standard two-handed weapon warrior....
(During certification, I was doing a playthrough on the PS3 which was having some odd crash issues, and decided to fight the Arishok solo in a duel.  I *really* wish I had known this existed before hand, as that fight was mega tedious.  Slowly wearing him down was fine, until he decided to pop the odd healing potion.  Fortunately he did eventually run out......)

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 avril 2013 - 03:16 .

[Allan Schumacher]

In the words of Ash: "You have my sympathies"

[Allan Schumacher]

Eh, regarding the video gamey, I can understand where it's coming from.

I remember pretending to be soldiers and the like when in elementary school (basically "playing imaginary guns" or something), and I remember a friend of mine that was a part of the group would always concoct situations for us to solve that were clearly "video gamey" as in, we had to focus fire the specific aspect of the boss, and it'd take several hits to drop the guy. Whereas I never cared much for that, and preferred situations where, if we were able to shoot a guy (and presumably he was a human), he was typically neutralized.

I remember a situation where, playing Metal Gear Solid on the PSX, I was in the smelting area, and I was hiding against a wall and a soldier was patrolling on a metal plank (so I couldn't sneak up behind him). As he got to me, he turned, around, so I immediately popped out from the cover with my pistol out, lined him up in the back, and shot him. He then blinked 3 times (he's invincible during that time!) then turned around and started shooting at me, and the full alarm was sounded. It was certainly "video gamey" and not in a positive way.


We all have certain levels of disbelief we accept while playing games, and guys having HP and us slowly wearing them down (rather than instant mortal wounds) is something we tend to be okay with. I don't even think twice about it, which I think is important. If an encounter makes me consciously realize "Oh right, this is a video game" then I don't consider that a good thing.


I actually enjoy endgames that aren't just a boss battle (if for no other reason than it's somewhat unique), but I had no problem with it in DAO. I didn't like either of the boss fights in ME1/2 either, however. DA2 I can tolerate Meredith, but wasn't a fan of Orsino (especially since I had been siding with the mages).

I realize that I'm always playing a video game, but it's never really a conscious recognition. I go about my business in the game because I am finding it enjoyable or whatever. Usually when I realize I am playing a video game, it's because something unpleasant has happened (whether in the controls, the story, or whatever). So in that sense, I find that is what it means to be "video gamey" even in a video game.

JMO

[Allan Schumacher]

Nightdragon8 wrote...

so you want 1 hit fights with both enamies and boss fights.... quite frankly it doesn't really work too well.. even the most "realistic" game Mount&Blade still use hitpoints. because quite frankly getting 1 shotted over and over agian sucks.

Another game that doesn't really use hp as much would be the Arma series. Playing that on "hard" aka realistic its seriously hard. and its not like the computer cheats either

No, I think you're misrepresenting my perspective.  I also wouldn't equate Mount and Blade as being "the most Realistic game."  Having said that, I do think it's combat system is really well done and I love the way they incorporate physics into it.

My issue is NOT in terms of having final conflicts with an antagonist.  The two games I alluded to earlier were Fallout and Planescape: Torment.  IMO the most satisfying endings in both of those games were the ones where my character didn't have to fight the final boss.  In fact, in Planescape: Torment fighting the final boss comes at a cost for the character.

I liked both of those because I found them so interesting and a really well done, and creative divergence from what I see in a lot of other games.  It left me pleasantly surprised.

I've already stated I have no issue with the Archdemon fight, nor do I even want "one hit kills" in the game.  I want something that is fun and enjoyable, and for example, I found the fight against Saren (after convincing him to stand down) to be something that was not particularly fun, and in fact diminished the enjoyment I had just received moments earlier by successfully convincing him that his perspective was wrong.  That part was epic win and a great conclusion to the narrative.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 19 avril 2013 - 05:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

@Foolsfolly

In general I really liked the original MGS, but it definitely had some "legacy" from older school game design. It was more a realization that I shouldn't treat it as a "realistic" game (which is easy to do, given the content). The idea of not just being run and gun was definitely fun. It more just made me alter my perception of the game, and to play it within its scope. It's still one of my favourite games on the PSX, although upon replays I realize it's a bit too... "educational" haha.

Alpha Protocol sort of suffered a bit by the perception of realism to some, I think, because of its setting. Very early on I realized that the game wasn't really intended to be realistic (stealth makes you actually invisible), so I quickly considered it just an abstraction to demonstrate that Mike was able to do pretty phenomenal things.

It didn't alter my enjoyment in the slightest (one of my all time favs), but I know it did for some.

[Allan Schumacher]

Wulfram wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Ugh, no... Not a fan. There was no sense of accomplishment at all. The last wave wasn't even difficult, or anything we hadn't seen a dozen times before. Not to say a boss battle would have made anything better or worse, but the entire encounter design from the second Priority Earth started was poor at best, terrible at worst. 

The last wave is a fair bit more than we've faced in SP before and has a Reaper shooting at us in addition.  Overall I'm not keen on Priority Earth at all, but I think the bit where you're defending the artillery is fine.  Aside from some story based quibbles about "Thanix Missiles", anyway.

Stuff in the higher levels of MP makes it seem like rather small beer, but I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

I found that fight to be pretty intense myself actually, and when I was starting to get overwhelmed but realized I could use the Reaper's beam against the Banshee's it added to the scene.

For me it was an "Alamo" type of scene, which I often enjoy (one of my favourites is Pavlov's House in the first Call of Duty).

[Allan Schumacher]

I know it's a different genre with different gameplay elements, but The Walking Dead is probably one of my favourite, if not THE best, ending I have ever had the pleasure of experiencing in a video game.

I don't know, if we were able to deliver something very similar, the lack of a boss fight wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

[Allan Schumacher]

Well, I suppose I do need to qualify that it's unlikely that a lack of boss fight actually would bother me in the slightest, since I've already been pretty clear that I don't need a boss fight to conclude my game.

And not every game is for every person, so it's too bad that The Walking Dead didn't appeal to you beyond the first episode. For myself, the ending (of the series, obviously, not the first episode) was one of the most emotionally poignant moments I have had in gaming.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Walking Dead Spoilers to follow:

Lee dies no matter what. And for a while, I was convinced Clemintine died no matter what. She says that the building they were in was surrounded by 'thousands' of zombies.

If the character must survive no matter what, I think we're at a crossroads for what is required for a good ending. I have no issues with the character surviving, but The Walking Dead showed me I can appreciate the ending of an excellent narrative even if the main character dies, because it's so well done.

I haven't played beyond episode 1, but I'm sure the rest of the game has a huge focus on protecting her and keeping her alive. So I'm stewing in thinking what was the point of all that?

The point is that it's a fantastic, emotional narrative that really makes you empathize with the characters. For me "winning" the game is simply the culmination of the whole experience. I don't need to say "I survived and beat all the bad guys." I play games for the experiences they provide, not just some challenge put forth in front of me for complete like some skinner box put in front of me.

I mean, that still works for a lot of games, and there's a lot of games I play and love where there's a clearly defined "win" mechanic. It's just not the sole requirement for what makes an interesting game mechanic.

I can't help but feel frustrated at how eager writers are to throw the actions of the hero and the choices of the character away. This is lauded as a pinnacle of choices that matter? A game where you die no matter what? Where, by the looks of it, pretty much everyone else is dead no matter what?

I'd argue that, if the only reason to make choices is so that they work out the best for you in the end, then that's not really about making choices but more about solving problems (see Extra Credits episode regarding choices vs problems). I like to make choices in my game, because it helps create a greater sense of investment and a degree of control over a narrative that I don't get in any sort of narrative. I love it when there's significant divergent gameplay as a result of my choice, but I think most here will agree that on some level, simply having a choice is still important. Which is why someone saving Carley and another saving Doug can still be interesting. I have had discussions with people on this very board about whether or not to save Ben. A cynic will point out that "eh, he's going to die anyways," but that's a metagame critique and overlooks the aspect of how it defines Lee's character. It also overlooks some of the fantastic character development that happens with other characters, that can only be seen dependent on how many of the choices play out.

The Walking Dead is a game about relationships, and playing up the game in a way that fosters the parent-child relationship between Clem and Lee is what the writers did SO well. Here's a child character that isn't just annoying, or a chore, who is basically a human being like the others, but without the wisdom and experience life has given her. Sometimes she makes good points, and sometimes she's very resourceful and helpful, despite her vulnerability and innocence.


I've never been a big believer in the notion of "it's a video game, so it must be played to be won." It all depends on what one's definition of winning is (many feel they won ME3, myself included).

Stating that it all means nothing because you died and didn't accomplish everything you wanted means that you see gaming exclusively as a form of escapism. I don't. Escapism has its place, but I enjoy interpretive gaming as well. I enjoy the bittersweet ending of siding with the Kuei-Jin in Bloodlines, because it makes so much thematic sense and it's refreshing to know that by making decisions that really have a good chance of backfiring, then on some level I like it when the game gives me what's coming.


For myself, the journey is as important as the ultimate conclusion, which is also the way I see life itself (since the conclusion is already known to me. It's the details that aren't). As a result, it's probably a large reason why I can see the ending of Mass Effect 3 and mostly go "This is why people were so upset??" when I first played it. After talking with many fans I was able to get their impressions and understand their perspectives, I can see where many of them are coming from. I do think the ME3 ending, executed better but with the same themes, could have still been a game ending that resonated VERY powerfully with the fanbase. The reaction to the ME3 ending showed me how much people cared about the characters and the settings involved. If people didn't care that much, the ending wouldn't have bothered them so much.

Mandating that there be boss fights and a surefire way of Shepard surviving to enjoy the spoils of his heroism may have been a requirement for some people, but I don't think it's as necessary as some people feel. I think that for many people, because all they have is the ME3 ending as it is, and they really don't like that, it's easy to conclude "It's just not possible to have an ending with these themes and make me satisfied."

But then, it seems like people look to get very different things out of their gaming. My favourite gaming experiences tend to be the ones that make me think and resonate with me emotionally. But then, we're starting to focus more specifically on what Allan Schumacher would like to see in more games, so you can take some solace in knowing I'm just a tech QA guy and not someone driving most of those big decisions. To be honest, a lot of what I would love to see in a game, narratively, is probably better suited for indie style games where there's a whole lot less risk involved.

[Allan Schumacher]

The Sin wrote...

Video games are meant to be played. & as far as I know Dragon Age is a video game franchise..

Boss battles should not be scrapped at all. Just because they messed up some in DA2 does not mean it is crap.

I bet the trolls who want it scrapped are the noobs who cannot play the game.

Boss fights are in games for a reason. One of them is to test the players' skill. If you can't win that means find another way to beat it. Stop being a whining noob.

This post is inappropriate.

In all honesty, I'm about at the point where someone going "It's a videogame, duh" more just doesn't understand the specifics nor context of how it was applied.  It's an unproductive position at this point, and is only serving to derail the thread.  Discuss the value of having bossfights, and why you think they should (or should not) be vital/essential/whatever to the game.

Definitely do not call the people that don't feel they are vital a troll, however.  Continuing to take hostile actions like this will result in infractions.


EDIT: Seeing the way this thread has continued, I'm closing this thread down.

Modifié par Allan Schumacher, 25 avril 2013 - 04:33 .