295 réponses à ce sujet

[Knight of Dane]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

We need more boss fights like loghains and the arishocks, and less video gamey boss fights of "You beat me in my normal form, now I shall transform in a similar fashion of a power rangers villian. RAGGGHHH! FEEL MY WRATH PUNY HUEMAN! NOTHING BUT MY CONVENIENT TO SEE WEAK POINTS CAN STOP ME NOAHHHHHHHHH!"

Weeee

[The Six Path of Pain]

Too videogamey?????You do know it's a f#%king video game right

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

It represents a challenge to test their grasp on gameplay mechanics.

Sometimes it's the standard mechanics, sometimes it's new mecnanics. Honestly, when I think of boss battles I think of the cases with new abilities and defenses that I haven't seen before and won't see again. Maybe because I just class any boss fights that use standard mechanics with the regular combat?

[Face of Evil]

The lack of boss battles work well in some games. Spec Ops: The Line didn't have one and didn't need one either, since the ending of the game was just about coming to terms with the fact that Captain Walker was really the villain of the story.

On the other hand, it felt like kind of a cheat to have the villain of Fable 2 defeated in one blow. Even if the sequence beforehand was about robbing said villain of his power, it was really anti-climactic.

[ManOfSteel]

Mr.House wrote...

Eh boss fights are not needed if it's done good(Half-Life 2, Bioshock Infinite ect) In fact DA2 did suffer because of the "we need boss fights" train of thought which resulted in a really horrible final quest. Only do boss fights that fit and are good.

This.

[Dave of Canada]

Mass Effect 1: "Oh, I hated the Saren boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Mass Effect 2: "Oh, I hated the Terminator boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Dragon Age 2: "Oh, I hated the Orsino/Meredith boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Mass Effect 3: "WHERE'S THE LAST BOSS? "TOO GAMEY"? IT'S A GAME!!!11".

And this is why people on the internet can't be pleased.

[sickpixie]

Dragon Age boss fights have been a mixed bag for me so far. My favorites from II were the five-phase demon fight in the abandoned thaig and Ser Varnell with his fanatics. They felt like wave-based endurance tests done right; the former mixing things up with each wave and the latter overwhelming through sheer numbers. My least favorite bosses were the ancient rock wraith and the high dragon. They both repeated a very simple pattern, resulting in an uninteresting endurance test.

[Wulfram]

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.

Modifié par Wulfram, 18 avril 2013 - 09:32 .

[Solmanian]

I'm playing Dark Souls these days; The boss fights are the only redeemable quality of that game. Boring quests, weak mooks that get quickly swept aside by anyone with a basic understanding of the combat system, a plot that's is not satisfied by being generic but has to lift most of the themes from other games (and not even the best themes of those games); But it makes up for it with boss battles.

[The Teyrn of Whatever]

Too videogamey? Seriously? Dragon Age is a video game series. God the BSN is full of weird, sad people.

Modifié par The Teryn of Whatever, 18 avril 2013 - 09:49 .

[Cirram55]

Enigmatick wrote...
^You do realize this is a troll thread, right? He's parodying an out of context quote from a ME3 dev

Yeah I do, it's hard to take this kind of thread seriously, but troll or non-troll, the topic is quite interesting to me.
Other than devs, there are people that really believe that videogames are too videogamey, and I'm just interested in understanding their viewpoint, since it's alien to me.
What I see people suggesting here is also interesting and totally valid: you don't want to put a boss battle at the end of a quest? Fine, but this doesn't mean that no climax should ever occur, otherwise there would be no challenge nor resolution and the entire quest-line would be left hanging.

[Fast Jimmy]

The Teryn of Whatever wrote...

Too videogamey? Seriously? Dragon Age is a video game series. God the BSN is full of weird, sad people.

It is a quote that Casey Hudson, Producer of the Mass Effect series, said about why there was no boss fight at the end of ME3. 

[jstme]

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mass Effect 1: "Oh, I hated the Saren boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Mass Effect 2: "Oh, I hated the Terminator boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Dragon Age 2: "Oh, I hated the Orsino/Meredith boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Mass Effect 3: "WHERE'S THE LAST BOSS? "TOO GAMEY"? IT'S A GAME!!!11".

And this is why people on the internet can't be pleased.

Why i do not see Dragon age: Origins in this list... Maybe because when boss fight is done right people do not complain,hm?

[xelander]

Video games are both gameplay and story (especially the latter in the case of RPGs). The Climax is a spike in the intensity of the story, it sets up the resolution, the payoff. In the same way, the boss fights are used to evoke a sense of accomplishment, an emotional payoff. If you treat a videogame as an organic blend of story and gameplay, then a spike in the gameplay intensity should bring about even more emotional payoff. That is why I support difficulty spikes or "boss fights".

The problem then becomes in how you achieve this spike in difficulty, and how do you prepare the player for that.

Overcoming the difficulty spike should be due to clever use of your abilities (CCCs in DA2), excellent twitch skills(any shooter), or a combination of both. The Arishok duel for example is a boring slugfest, cause you have no same class combos and twitch is not relevant enough.

Introduce a situation that requires one or both of those things and you get your satisfying "boss fight". It can be Revan vs. Malak, but it can also be the Exile storming the palace, survive ME3 MP Gold/Platinum, shut down the David VI in Project Overlord, save 20 of 20 crates in the ME2 side mission, some capture the flag scenario, or a mix'n'match.

[Fast Jimmy]

jstme wrote...

Dave of Canada wrote...

Mass Effect 1: "Oh, I hated the Saren boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Mass Effect 2: "Oh, I hated the Terminator boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Dragon Age 2: "Oh, I hated the Orsino/Meredith boss. It felt too gamey, I wish they never put it in."
Mass Effect 3: "WHERE'S THE LAST BOSS? "TOO GAMEY"? IT'S A GAME!!!11".

And this is why people on the internet can't be pleased.

Why i do not see Dragon age: Origins in this list... Maybe because when boss fight is done right people do not complain,hm?

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.

[Renmiri1]

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Saying something is too video gamey in a video game is incredibly stupid. That mindset is half the problem with modern video games.

+ 1,000,000,000

[Cainhurst Crow]

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Saying something is too video gamey in a video game is incredibly stupid. That mindset is half the problem with modern video games.

+ 1,000,000,000

Why change tradition when you can just do the same things over and over again? Am I right? Who needs innovation when you can have perfectly safe stagnation.

[Face of Evil]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why change tradition when you can just do the same things over and over again? Am I right? Who needs innovation when you can have perfectly safe stagnation.

It's not "stagnation" when it's a staple of the genre.

By your logic, perhaps we should start writing mysteries that contain no actual mystery to be solved. How avant garde!

Modifié par Face of Evil, 18 avril 2013 - 10:57 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Renmiri1 wrote...

Dabrikishaw wrote...

Saying something is too video gamey in a video game is incredibly stupid. That mindset is half the problem with modern video games.

+ 1,000,000,000

Why change tradition when you can just do the same things over and over again? Am I right? Who needs innovation when you can have perfectly safe stagnation.

I'm going to go ahead and quote myself from just a page ago, just to be a d!(k.

Boss fights are not required.

But what most people are too dense to understand is this - boss battles have been used in countless games in the past. People see dropping boss fight as a "breaking the mold" and avoiding being too "video-gamey." But they forget that the boss fights weren't used because designers love following the same formats, but because the boss fight accomplishes something for the player. 

It represents a challenge to test their grasp on gameplay mechanics. It works as a milestone in the progress of the game. When overcome, it gives a large sense of satisfaction. And, lastly, it can be used to demonstrate unique or new gameplay mechanics. 

Dropping a boss fight is doable... but realize that you need elements that will supplement these feelings. You still need a way for a player to feel like they have been given a challenge and won, showing they have skill in the game's mechanics. You still need a way to break up the game and offer milestones in gameplay. And you need ways to make the gameplay variable, so that it doesn't feel like the same situation across the entire game. 

DA2's boss fights were bad, because while they accomplished some of these things, it did not deliver a sense of accomplishment. And aside from the Rock Wraith, it didn't introduce any new gameplay elements (hiding behind columns/environmental protection, which wasn't used/applied anywhere else). It was the same fight (kite and whittle down HP) but just with bloated enemies. 

So to say "boss fights are so cliche; let's scratch them" is a fine statement, but you would need to recognize the elements that these segments of gameplay accomplish and offer something else to replace them. 

In many ways, this is why DA2 failed. It experimented with a lot of things (narrative, combat, player agency, etc.) and put new things in and took old things out, which is fine. But most of it was done without realizing that the previous way of doing things wasn't just popular because it was "the way things were done" but because they were effective. Changing without showing that you understand why the previous way things were done worked isn't innovation, but rather just ignorance and arrogance.

[Dave of Canada]

jstme wrote...

Why i do not see Dragon age: Origins in this list... Maybe because when boss fight is done right people do not complain,hm?

Because Dragon Age: Origins had a "last boss" in the story itself, your goal was to kill the Archdemon and by slaying it, you fulfill the goal which you set out to do and almost everything afterwards is denouement. It has little to do with the fight being "well done" (which it wasn't).

Look at Mass Effect 1/2/3 and Dragon Age 2 on the other hand, you've got a goal (or in the case of Dragon Age 2, none) and that should be the final confrontation right there, not mystical boss of ultimate power.

People hated Reaper-Saren because they felt his suicide was the end of the antagonist, everything after could've been denouement with stopping Sovereign but they shoe-horned a boss fight into it and people hated it.

People hated Reaper-Terminator for the same reason, was there a purpose behind it? It was thrown in for "hey, this is the last boss" and nothing else, it's entire purpose could've been avoided entirely and the plot wouldn't have been lesser for it.

People hated the shoe-horned Meredith/Orsino boss fights for the same reason, you've got the Mage/Templar war presented infront of you and then everyone goes crazy for the sake of boss fights, you're never allowed to truly support the people. You should've seen the reaction in the DA2 forums when it was confirmed Orsino was only made a boss fight for pro-mages because they wanted another boss.

Mass Effect 3 was close to having a boss fight, Reaper-TIM. I can tell you right now everyone would be complaining if he was thrown in because the entire idea behind it is downright ridiculous. It has everything to do with how it ties into the story and how it's presented rather than game-play.

Face of Evil wrote...

It's not "stagnation" when it's a staple of the genre.

A lot of games don't have a final boss, it's like saying levels or lives are a staple because they're common. Hell, last bosses are somewhat of a recent trend in video games.

Modifié par Dave of Canada, 18 avril 2013 - 11:01 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

Face of Evil wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Why change tradition when you can just do the same things over and over again? Am I right? Who needs innovation when you can have perfectly safe stagnation.

It's not "stagnation" when it's a staple of the genre.

By your logic, perhaps we should start writing mysteries that contain no actual mystery to be solved. How avant garde!

I'm arguing that you shouldn't just shove boss fights in a game where they do not belong. If you've been building up a confrontation with a boss like character, than fine, have a boss fight. DAO did this with the archdemon, though I would argue the mechanics of that fight were horribly bad, but that was built up and was a natural part of the fight.

Orsino and the dropped TIM bossfight however, were not. They were forced into the game and ruined the characters by reducing them to a punching bag of hit points and probably some annoying delay mechanic where you can't hit them ofr a certian amount of tim, see meredith for a prime example of that.

By most peoples logic, having characters like orsino or the illusive man turn into horrible monsters for the PC to beat up is a better alternative than having a diferent approach to dealing with them, say like how you could confront saren or the illusive man. Saren however ended up being ruined by turning into a overblow geth hopper just for the sake of giving the player a feasible way to fight soverign...even if it makes no sense and makes your previous encounter pointless.

Fast jimmy's post I actually agree with a lot, you can have a boss fight, but you don't need a boss fight for every single villian.

[Renmiri1]

Marauder Shields died to save you and I from that horrible ending

ME3

Emeraldfern Wrote:
It's as if BW went "Feel sad! I said sad dammit! What do you mean it feels "forced"? It's sad! Feel sad already!"

[Enigmatick]

^This has absolutely everything to do with the thread. Best post on BSN 10/10

[sandalisthemaker]

Last time I checked, Dragon Age was a *video game* series, OP.

[Il Divo]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

I'm arguing that you shouldn't just shove boss fights in a game where they do not belong. If you've been building up a confrontation with a boss like character, than fine, have a boss fight. DAO did this with the archdemon, though I would argue the mechanics of that fight were horribly bad, but that was built up and was a natural part of the fight.

Pretty much this.