295 réponses à ce sujet

[philippe willaume]

Bosses are gamy when they are just there for a boss fight sake.
Basically like the Grosse family in Wolfenstein.

act two in DA:2 worked well, at least in that respect because, because the boss fight made sense with where the story was at.

in ME:3 the Thanix mission could indeed have been a better designed but i think it more an implemetation issue rather than a concept issue.

of course we don't need a boss fight and we don't necessarily need combat, Modrin and the geneophage is a good template for a non combat resolution.

Phil

[Kel Riever]

Boss fight or no boss fight, your ending shouldn't suck.

And if it does, I don't think whether you had a boss fight or not will make any difference.

[philippe willaume]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Boss fight or no boss fight, your ending shouldn't suck.

And if it does, I don't think whether you had a boss fight or not will make any difference.

That's completely irrelevant (and subjective) to this discussion, really.

no not really.
the ending bit is confuising, but his point is that if regardless what your ar ending be it an act  or  the full game.
whatever way you end it up with need to work with the strory and gameplay.

you can end with a  series of conversation and an eventual murder knife (à la geneophage) or  series of conversation that decides the size of the fight or just a big fight. 
BW has done that befor very sucessfully and it did not feel "gamey" because it worked well with where the game was at.

phil

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Twitch mechanics, no protagonist, almost no roleplaying?

What does any of that have to do with a boss encounter design? Plus lol @ DS having no protagonist.

[Fishy]

Nothing against ''boss'' fight..  What I do find lame is boss fight always happenning  at the end of the tunnel. Or any objective always inside the last ''room'' you can unlock. I find it lame,tunneling and linear.

I understand that dev don't want to create stuff that most player won't see or use. Like fighting a boss very soon inside  a cavern with the item you actually need and just going back without looking at what the dev created after the boss in the same area. That would make their game less tunnelling and more exploring. The next Dark Souls is going to try this. Making it possible to fight boss sooner in the area.

In DA:O it's a good exemple. In the deep road there's place for exploration, but your objective is at the end of the tunnel and once you have reached it you can only go back.. It's like the whole ''world'' stopped right there because you get what you needed. Video game do this. Able only to open door where you need to go and not where you can go. Great game make you open more than 1 type of door.

I hope I see some dev exploring more into this in the next generation. Graphics are nice, but sometime innovation come from idea that does not seem that great at first glance.


Like casting fire spell that actually burn stuff. Body that don't dissapear and enemy that don't seem just to be waiting for you . Wall you can destroy and level that do not feel like a tunnel.

Modifié par Suprez30, 19 avril 2013 - 06:07 .

[AlanC9]

EntropicAngel wrote...
I think you're misunderstanding the ME team, Jimmy: they didn't eschew a final boss fight because they didn't want a boss fight, period, but because the character with whom there would have been a boss fight--TIM--would have been inaccurately represented in such a fight.

One might argue that they could have found another way to put one in--say with Harbinger--and I'd agree, but they didn't and I personally don't feel the story suffers for it.

So it's "videogamey" to put a boss fight in if your only reason for having the boss fight is that videogames are supposed to have boss fights? But if you just feel like doing one it's OK.

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

I was responding to his statement that DA should be more like Dark Souls.

Read II Divo's post again as he/she specifically mentions the Boss fights at the end of the post.

II Divo wrote...

What I've taken from this thread is that we need more games like Dark Souls. Some great boss fights there.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Boss fights. This is why I wander around with a bazillion health potions. Loghain was a boss fight that made sense. The Arishok? I spent over an hour running away, spamming arrows, drinking health potions, running and hiding and conjuring my dog, and only attacking him when he was occupied with my dog. Then running away some more. It was ridiculous. All over a stupid assed book?

[Giant ambush beetle]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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!

I remember Baldur's Gate 2 had a handful of battles where we were fighting another group of adventurers with equal equipment, armor and spells than the players party (Temple district - sewers, temple district guarded compound, Windspeer hills dungeon to name a few encounters. )
Those were by far the most challenging and entertaining battles in the whole game, even better than fighting dragons and I really missed them in Dragon Age Origins & II .

And the loot....  

Modifié par The Woldan , 19 avril 2013 - 06:46 .

[9TailsFox]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Boss fights. This is why I wander around with a bazillion health potions. Loghain was a boss fight that made sense. The Arishok? I spent over an hour running away, spamming arrows, drinking health potions, running and hiding and conjuring my dog, and only attacking him when he was occupied with my dog. Then running away some more. It was ridiculous. All over a stupid assed book?

fight vs Arishok was amazing
And fights in general are too videogamey so remove fights:bandit:

[MassStorm]

I love a good boss fight but the problem is that developers are lazy and to make these special fights difficult are simply giving to the boss a bazillion of HP. This is simply lame. I would like to be able to outsmart an enemy, to adopt some strategies to take advantage of a weakness. I want something like The Witcher (studying the enemy, putting specific traps, using weaknesses..)

[Il Divo]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Hierophant wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

I was responding to his statement that DA should be more like Dark Souls.

Read II Divo's post again as he/she specifically mentions the Boss fights at the end of the post.

II Divo wrote...

What I've taken from this thread is that we need more games like Dark Souls. Some great boss fights there.

You'll notice that he has two statements:

1. We need more games like Dark Souls.

2. Dark Souls has great boss fights.

I was disputing his first statement.

In which case, I'd argue you're reaching. The context of my post would indicate that we need more games like Dark Souls, with respect to boss fights. Pointing out "no protagonist" or "little role-playing" is irrelevant in that regard.

[Zarathiel]

EntropicAngel wrote...

The Woldan wrote...

I remember Baldur's Gate 2 had a handful of battles where we were fighting another group of adventurers with equal equipment, armor and spells than the players party (Temple district - sewers, temple district guarded compound, Windspeer hills dungeon to name a few encounters. )
Those were by far the most challenging and entertaining battles in the whole game, even better than fighting dragons and I really missed them in Dragon Age Origins & II .

And the loot....  

You mean like when you fight your double(s) in DA:O at the Urn of Sacred Ashes?

There's also that group of adventurers you run into during one of the Mage Collective quests. You don't have to fight them, and they aren't really a boss fight, though.

Modifié par Zarathiel, 19 avril 2013 - 06:55 .

[The Hierophant]

EntropicAngel wrote...

You'll notice that he has two statements:

1. We need more games like Dark Souls.

2. Dark Souls has great boss fights.

I was disputing his first statement.

The second sentence is more specific to the topic and it clarifies the first sentence as it's too broad in terms of DS's gameplay features.

Of course i could be wrong as II Divo might be fanboying hard but i doubt it given Divo's style, and post history.

on topic - On top of less boss encounters or more dynamic boss fights, I'd like to see human enemies be bound by the same rules as the pc like using the same leveling system, more usage of weapon &class specific Talents, and them wearing armor/weapons that alter their stats like the pc.

[Kel Riever]

philippe willaume wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Boss fight or no boss fight, your ending shouldn't suck.

And if it does, I don't think whether you had a boss fight or not will make any difference.

That's completely irrelevant (and subjective) to this discussion, really.

no not really.
the ending bit is confuising, but his point is that if regardless what your ar ending be it an act  or  the full game.
whatever way you end it up with need to work with the strory and gameplay.

you can end with a  series of conversation and an eventual murder knife (à la geneophage) or  series of conversation that decides the size of the fight or just a big fight. 
BW has done that befor very sucessfully and it did not feel "gamey" because it worked well with where the game was at.

phil

Yep.  I'd even argue Dragon Age: Origins ending was great, and it wasn't because of its Boss fight, even though there was one and I thought it was great.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 19 avril 2013 - 07:04 .

[ObserverStatus]

Darth Brotarian wrote...
You do realize the quote about something being too video gamey was talking about the illusive man right? And how they didn't want him to turn into this thing when you killed him.

I would call turning the illusive man into that just because you needed to uphold a stupid boss fight tradition very video gamey and unnessicary.

Am I the only one likes this design? If the game ended with a sequence in which a not-catalyst VI explains how the catalyst can be used to destroy the reapers, Shepard protects the core of the crucible from this thing until it gets fully charged, and then proceeds to a MEHEM style ending, and a series of slides explaining how Shepard's actions will affect the post-Reaper galaxy, I would have been fully satisfied. As far as boss designs go, that one actually looks pretty boss.  At least it's not another one of those "protagonist on a giant floating table being pounded on by a disembodied torso" boss fights like you had in ME2, Diablo 3, etc...

Modifié par bobobo878, 19 avril 2013 - 07:05 .

[Wulfram]

The arishok fight works OK if you dodge a little bit to the side/behind, rather than doing the running away thing. And you've got enough hit points that you won't be one shotted by his impale thingy. But it's not very intuitive that this is what you're supposed to do.

[Kel Riever]

@bobobo878. Again, adding the Illusive man hulk thing (whatever you want to call it), imo, wouldn't have saved the end of ME3 in any way. They could have put it in and it would be no better.

As it pertains to Dragon AGe, the important thing is boss fight or no, make the ending good, which doesn't necessarily mean 'happy.' It means consistent with the rest of the story, and if you are going to offer choices, make the choices actually matter. And if you have a boss fight, make it entertaining and have a point.

Modifié par Kel Riever, 19 avril 2013 - 07:11 .