295 réponses à ce sujet

[JiggleBelly]

boss battles done wrong-
DA2, everything cycles through the same simple pattern and just has obscene amounts of health. most of them just feel like extremely watered down MMO dungeon bosses
boss battles done right-
Dark Souls

boss battles should be engaging and challenging. and when i say challenging, i dont mean 'its the exact same boss you fought on easy difficulty but now with 5million HP (hard mode!)

[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.

[David7204]

If the ending is along the same quality as what I saw in the first episode, I hope not...

[AresKeith]

David7204 wrote...

If the ending is along the same quality as what I saw in the first episode, I hope not...

Maybe you should watch it yourself

[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.

[AresKeith]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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.

Many tears and feels happened that day

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Deus Ex Series? No boss fight. The ending was well foreshadowed in the narrative. You were going to end up having to choose one of the factions. Well Halo, Halo 3, and Halo Reach didn't have boss fights to end the games. Halo and Halo 3 had the Vehicle drive from hell, and Halo had the sprint from hell on top of it. The first Black Ops didn't have a boss fight -- It had a hard mission, yes. The Rainbow Six series didn't have crazy boss fights at the end. They had hard missions. TW2 could have ended with a conversation. So a game doesn't have to have a ridiculous boss fight at the end.

It should have something at the end that makes sense with the narrative of the story, however. This is where I felt ME3 fell flat. Starbrat didn't fit with the story narrative.

[David7204]

I watched the ending. And I read about it on Wikipedia and TV tropes.

And I'm frustrated.

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.

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 post-credits scene made me feel slightly better, although I'm still wondering how she escaped wherever the two of them were.

I don't care about Lee. I don't care about Clementine. But I care immensely about the underlying idea.

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 can't help but feel frustrated when one of the writers on a panel talks about the ME 3 'breathe scene' with a smirk, saying that thought Destroy was maybe too dark in the same tone of a cake maybe being too sweet. As if having Shepard's heroism count for nothing is a delightful treat for players they shouldn't be spoiled on, instead of a complete betrayal of the most fundamental theme of the story: The hero, and heroism that matters. And I know that's probably petty of me. It's not like the guy planned to say it. But I have nothing else to go on.

I can't help but feel frustrated when developers talk about the problems with ME 3's ending and focus on a lack of closure and squadmate content, implying it as the core problem. It is no doubt a problem players had, but it's still tangential to the real issue. Adding more squadmate content in an epilogue wouldn't have fixed what's wrong.

I truly hope that that reason is the most obvious thing in the world to the ME 3 writers. That the ending is despised primarily because heroism does not matter. I truly hope they're fudging things when they say that everyone played the ending before release and thought it was great.

I truly hope developers recognize the pattern of ME 3's ending being utterly despised when Shepard's heroism counts for nothing. Of Dragon Age 2's story is widely criticized as inferior to DAO's story when Hawke is essentially helpless, essentially fails at everything s/he attempts. Of moments that epitomize meaningful heroism being the most praised and satisfying - the kiss in the Lair of the Shadow Broker is the ideal example.

But I just don't know.

Modifié par David7204, 23 avril 2013 - 07:12 .

[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.

[wyvvern]

I'm not sure the objection to the ending of Shep's story was /ever/ about him/her dying for most players. This is one of those disconnects that seems to exist between bio and the fans. We keep saying it, and various bio staffers keep not hearing it.

It's the lack of /meaning/ in Shep's death. Objectively, from a purely mechanical perspective, Shep can accomplish what their hero's journey was about (stopping the reapers in one of three ways.) The issue was that all three ways felt so disconnected from anything Shepard actually did throughout the rest of the game and the series (press the magic button and watch the pretty colors) that it lost all narrative power; and it came so out of left field (a deus ex machina on top of an already existing deus ex machina - oy.)

There's nothing particularly satisfying about a hero's journey that ends with a whimper. I don't care if my hero dies. Sure, a happy ending is nice now and again (and would actually be bucking the current trend of gaming, where grimdark is apparently the only way to be taken 'seriously,') but if the walking dead had ended with a never before met or encountered character magically fixing all the problems and incidentally killing the main characters, I doubt you'd have found that as emotionally rewarding.

Modifié par wyvvern, 23 avril 2013 - 09:03 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Skyrim and TES have no end boss fight because there is no ending, we can fight the boss anytime we want by doing the main quest, but many says after finish the main quest they no longer interested to continue the game and in next playthrough they postpone the main quest or not doing it at all

The end boss fight act as climax of a story especially if the premise of the story is about heroism. the player have develop the character to become a hero all the way so the end boss fight is essential as a climax of what the player doing for hours

If the premise of the story is not about heroism then there is no need for end boss fight.

In Halo, Master Chief is not a hero, the story is not about Master Chief becoming a hero, yes he have everything a hero need but the premise of the story is not about making Master Chief a hero...that is why it is fine there is no end boss fight in Halo 1

It is a matter of what the story is about...

Look at LotR, the climax of the story is Mr frodo destroy the ring, not battle, not boss fight, not fighting Sauron...because the story is about "how Mr Frodo want to destroy the ring"

Modifié par Qistina, 23 avril 2013 - 09:15 .

[Bfler]

Filament wrote...
What boss fights provide in addition to optionally making sense narratively, is gameplay satisfaction...

A boss fight is like a match against a top ranked player in a RTS game. At first you have to raise your own rank and pimp your skills but finally when you get a match against such a player you can proof your abilities. And if your are able to win the match, there is pure satisfaction.

[Drone223]

Qistina wrote...

Skyrim and TES have no end boss fight because there is no ending, we can fight the boss anytime we want by doing the main quest, but many says after finish the main quest they no longer interested to continue the game and in next playthrough they postpone the main quest or not doing it at all

The end boss fight act as climax of a story especially if the premise of the story is about heroism. the player have develop the character to become a hero all the way so the end boss fight is essential as a climax of what the player doing for hours

If the premise of the story is not about heroism then there is no need for end boss fight.

In Halo, Master Chief is not a hero, the story is not about Master Chief becoming a hero, yes he have everything a hero need but the premise of the story is not about making Master Chief a hero...that is why it is fine there is no end boss fight in Halo 1

It is a matter of what the story is about...

Halo never had any good boss fights anyway so its not really a big deal if the halo games don't have boss fights (that is for another discussion).

Regarding boss fights, I think it depends on what the character is and how the boss fight itself is handled, because sometimes having no boss fight at all is actually better than having a boss fight if it turns out to be bad one e.g. Human Reaper.

Modifié par Drone223, 23 avril 2013 - 09:24 .

[SeismicGravy]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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."

I can accept that, and like you said had the ending of ME3 been better implemented (No starchild, No red, green and blue endings) then Shepard dying would not have been such a big deal. However, I feel an option for him/her to survive proper instead of having the ambiguous breath scene should have been included for those who wanted it (again depending on your choices in the game) and this is what I think is probably worrying alot of people.

Modifié par SeismicGravy, 23 avril 2013 - 09:23 .

[Boycott Bioware]

Look at past bioware games, it is all about a hero...

in KotOR, the premise is about Revan must to stop Malak and the Sith, either becaue want to save the Republic or because of revenge and become the Dark Lord again

DA:O about the Warden must stop the Blight and Archdemon

The enemy is known even in the introduction phase..."A" is the enemy, he hero must stop/defeat "A" and become a hero, so "A" must become the end boss fight because stopping/defeating "A" is the climax of the story

Look at DA2, the premise is about a Champion...the life of the Champion i guess, but the premise of the story itself is weak...the Champion is the champion of what? Who is his/her enemy? What is he/she fighting for? The whole DA2 premise is a junk i can say...it is a failed experiment. So the boss fight at the end SHOULD NOT be the climax of the story....defeating Meredith should not be the climax, the game should not end there....it must be something else...a journey perhaps? or whatever, show how Hawke going missing, fallen into a hole or something, or being sucked into oblivion by some magic or whatever explanation...that should be the climax of a story about the Champion of Kirkwall

[Little Princess Peach]

codenamesource wrote...

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.

I like the boss fights, after kicking there butts I feel a great scence of achivement, but for those who don't like fighting a tidious fight maybe da3 should have a seperate mode, for example in story mode the boss fights will be weak or non existant while in rpg and other the boss fights remain

[Iraea]

May be we should distinguish between 'boss fight' and 'boss encounter'.
I try to explain what I mean with an example:

Bioshock 1 (Spoilers!)
The big bad guy from the beginning on is obviously Andrew Ryan, the creator of Rapture, the underwater city.
Finally you meet him and in the end he has a golf club in his brain, placed there by you, and he is pretty much dead.
But it's not a boss fight - in principle it's a cutscene, an 'auto-monologue'. That's all.
And it is brilliant, an awesome scene, stuff for nightmares.
That would be a 'boss encounter'.
Then - the game is far from being finished: big plot twist and a new enemy is unmasked.
So you go on and finally you encounter the other bloke, Fontaine - and this time it leads to a fight.
The final exam, as some people called it.
That would be a 'boss fight'.

Here, I enjoyed the encounter much more than the fight.
If anybody liked the final fight, fine - but for me it kind of ruined the game because it didn't fit: Fontaine gulps a lot of steroids and becomes Donkey Kong.
That's something I might call 'too videogamey'. A fight 'just because it is a FPS style game'.

Back to Bioware:
DAO was different. It was about slaying the archdemon. While I didn't like the final fight very much it 'felt right' and not 'videogamey'.

DAO-A: interesting.
It had an encounter with The Architect that could end in a fight - or not.
Meeting The Mother: always a fight.
DA2: weird. 
Arishok: encounter with several possible outcomes and a possible fight.
Orsino felt like ... nothing. He never was introduced or built up.
Meredith: a railroaded enconter into a fight.

ME1, final confrontation with Saren:
First, it is an encounter. You talk and you can convince him to end it himself.
(Btw - question, I never tried that: can you right out start a fight with him?)
Then: 'Tali, Liara - look if he is dead!' - 'Oh, he is dead, Shepard!'.
Massive facepalm - and, right: the bad, dead bogeyman jump-starts and here we go ... what a surprise (snore) ...
If you liked the fight: fine.

ME2: no encounter, just fight.

Finally, KOTOR: also interesting. There you have the encounter within the regular arc. Before you get to the final fight you have to solve two more acts / planets.

Altogether, I think there is no general rule which way is the best. Another important aspect is the way a fight is presented.Negative example: The Arishok. Great character, well written, good and reasonable encounter (even with some hidden mechanics behind) - and then terrible fight mechanics.

And of course in the end it also depends on your personal preferences, what kind of games you like, etc.

[ScotGaymer]

I haven't read the whole thread.

But honestly when people say this about video games, I want to punch them in the face.

Mostly because they don't understand the fricking point of a boss battle.

Which is to challenge the player and provide a sense of accomplishment.

Saren in ME1 was a GREAT end boss battle. Saren goes on about his faltering will and how Sovvy did some work on him to bolster him, and how its made him a better turian and better servant for Sov. Then we can talk Saren into offing himself (or we can fight him) and then Sovereign Assumes Direct Control of Saren's dead body, evolving it into a space hobber huskified version and its a fun challenge to get rid of.
Beating him temporarily paralyzes the actual Sovvy, long enough for the Citadel Fleet to kill him.
It was challenging, fun, and rewarding when you finally beat him and you realise what happened (that Sovvy had put too much of himself into Husk-Saren and into trying to beat Shepard).

The Space Terminator Reaper Baby however was a horrible boss battle. It was out of place (didn't really fit with the game or what was going on), was obviously only there to check of the "epic boss battle" check box, the boss itself made no damn sense with the ME lore, the battle itself was not telegraphed to the player at all, the battle itself was arduous and difficult in an artificial sense.
All together it results in a really crap boss that didn't serve the point of a boss battle.

Don't get me wrong, not every game needs a boss battle. I reckon ME2 woulda been just fine without one, or maybe one with the Collector General himself, instead of the Terminator Baby. ME3 does not suffer for not having one (lack of a boss isn't why the ending sucked, and is only barely passable post EC).
Fable 2 I thought was an awesome game in spite of its lack of boss battle. Actually I loved that it didn't have one in the traditional sense because it didn't have a traditional baddie in the game. Although I would have liked it to have Hammer that lost patience and brained Lucien instead of Reaper, if the protagonist dilly dallied too long.

It all goes back to one simple thing that developers seem to forget these days...

"Does this add to the gaming experience?"

If you put in a boss battle that makes sense, challenges the player, provides a sense of accomplishment, and does indeed add to the game then batter in. Put in as big and flashy a boss as you please, as long as it does what its supposed to.
If you are sticking in a boss because thats the formula, or because you want an EPIC BOSS BATTEL, or because you think that a video games got to be flashy and in your face at all times. Then you really shouldn't. It's going to take away from the game, it will break immersion. Do not do it.



[Inappropriate comments removed.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 23 avril 2013 - 05:08 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Boss fights: What I hate about them. Typically they are there for the sake of being there. They are gimmicky. You usually fight some big tentacly monster that has a particular way you have to beat it. Any variance of that way and you're dead. They're usually extremely over powered, and if you're not equipped exactly right it's game over. You die, sometimes you even respawn with your ammo used, and in a s*** of a spot, but the boss is fully healed. Some games I've seen set up where you can't even change your difficulty without completely starting over. With the checkpoint system without allowing the player to make their own saves like about 99% of game companies are using today it's on to either on to multiplayer or it's trade in time, or if you're on PC it's trash bin. I absolutely hate these types of boss fights.

The final mission: Sure, make it difficult. Fine. I can go for that. Make the player use strategy. The Suicide Mission in ME2 was nearly perfect. Shoot down the proto-reaper. Then blow the base. That actually was sufficient. Then one final assault by the collectors. Having the proto-reaper get up and have to fight it? Gimmicky. It's an old tired trick used over and over and over again. It's been overdone in Hollywood. I guess that's why they felt obligated to do it.

ME3? Quite honestly there's enough grim and dark in the world. It may just be that I'm an older generation where heroes mattered. In this generation people like to build other people to hero status then watch them crash and burn. It's a national past time. Heroes don't matter anymore. It's all about their faults and the entertainment of watching them fall. The story had set the tone of triumph against odds. Did we need a face off against Harbinger? No. But that tacked on ending just made no sense at all.

What would have worked better without the starkid and the infodump. They should have done something more generic in ME2 and saved the Suicide Mission for ME3. It would have made more sense. Crucible does one thing: destroys the reapers. Low EMS: Shepard and two team mates have to stay and protect the terminal from being reset. They succeed but don't make it. Med: Shepard stays and dies. High EMS: All evac. All survive. But then like I said. I'm an older generation where heroes did matter.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 23 avril 2013 - 10:29 .

[Fast Jimmy]

David7204 wrote...

I can't help but feel frustrated when developers talk about the problems with ME 3's ending and focus on a lack of closure and squadmate content, implying it as the core problem. It is no doubt a problem players had, but it's still tangential to the real issue. Adding more squadmate content in an epilogue wouldn't have fixed what's wrong.

Lack of closure IS what was is wrong with ME3.

But not "I didn't get to say goodbye to my LI enough times" or "I wish I could have given Garrus a bro-fist as we walked away." I agree that more squadmate content wouldn't have cleaned up the endings at all.

More closure was needed in showing the consequences of the actions taken throughout the entire series. Did Eve die because we destroyed Maleon's data? Did killing Wrex on Virmire mean that Wreav was ruling the planet? Did we allow the Geth to upload Reaper code into themselves? Did many of our squadmates die in the ME2 Suicide Mission? 

None of these choices felt like they mattered because the ending, even the EC, practically ignored them. Sure, we got a slide of Zaeed sipping on a cocktail if he lived, or Jacob giving instructions to other humans, or a picture of the Krogan holding a random baby... so what? Those are all ambiguous as ambiguous gets. Without the details of how the galaxy was different based on the choices made across three full games, then we are left to assume that things are the exact same, with the only differences seen depending on our final choice (Red, Blue, Green). 

Closure is not a romantic scene goodbye as the ship flies away... closure is having the feeling that your choices made a difference; an impact that can be seen and felt. As is, we will never know the outcomes of our decisions in the ME universe. Perhaps the writers thought that would have been good to just let the players headcanon this impact, or mayeb they even thought they'd leave it ambiguous to create further content out of (they did a similar thing with DA2's ending, which was similarly criticized as falling flat and offering no choice/consequence). Point being, you have to give the player something. Something they can say that acknowledges the struggles and choices in the game they have played. 

While some may easily say "other games don't do this, why are Bioware games expected to?" the answer is simple - choices breeds a desire for consequence and resolution. The more choices you have and the bigger those choices appear in the context of the game world, the greater the inherent desire is to see more variation.


Getting back on the topic of boss fights, I would say a boss fight isn't neccessarily one where you have to directly engage the boss in combat. The dialogue boss fights of Alpha Protocol are a good example of this. The discussions with TIM and the Catalyst could have been structured less as linear, data dump conversations and more fights for the definition of your character. Instead, the Catalyst dialogue was used to tell your character nearly everything they had beleived and struggled for was wrong and misunderstood. Shepherd never had the ability to convince anyone of anything. Which was a lost opportunity.

[Dutchess]

*Edit: nvm, mistake.

Modifié par renjility, 23 avril 2013 - 12:38 .