176 réponses à ce sujet

[deatharmonic]

What would be the point? As some posts have already mentioned, boss designs like that can work if it's integral to the plot a la silent hill 2. However, making a boss unkillable for the sake of not being predictable? That just lazy. I would much rather have a ser cauthrien situation where losing progresses the plot as well as winning, but that's much harder to do so.

[happy_daiz]

No thanks.

I'd be fine with fighting an enemy that you can't beat the first time you see them (but can later): ala the main quest-related Griffin in Dragon's Dogma, where you fight him in one place, then he flies to another location, where you have to fight him again.

If you're a higher-level character, or are doing NG+, you can certainly kill him the first time around. But if it's your first time, good luck. It's a bit of a challenge.

This idea of not being able to kill an enemy in a game is kind of silly, tbh. What would be the point? If you're that bored with a game, play something else. Logic.

[RedArmyShogun]

Lol No. Just No.

[Navasha]

Yep, any game designer wants to leave their customers with a feeling of being broken and defeated. That is always a great way to sell games.

Do I actually need the sarcasm flag on this one?

[Taleroth]

In Exile wrote...

It would just be lame to make the boss indestructible and it would amount to a pathfinding battle against the companion AI to run away.

Just fought Corypheus. Never want to do that again. It was great to win, but companions getting hung up on a rock and going the wrong direction was obnoxious and just made the entire thing tedious.

The protagonist is the one saving the world. Protagonist-centric is inherent in both the narrative and the genre.

[Bionuts]

As long as the enemy is not a mere mortal. If it's a strong demon, yes.

Anything else? No.

[Phate Phoenix]

If there were a virtually unbeatable boss, perhaps it could a one-on-one fight? Or just the Inquisitor against a group? Make it akin the Cauthrien battle, where victory it hard but possible, and, if you lose, you get locked up. Or you could simply flee, which would be easier to do without AI pathfinding to slow you down.

In the PAX demo, they spoke of influence in areas. Perhaps the encounter could have an effect on that? Outright victory has a much greater influence boost, whereas breaking out is a smaller increase, and fleeing doesn't get you much of anything.

Assuming influence works like this, of course.

[Beerfish]

For the love of god if I am not going to be able to beat an opponent in combat come up with a way for them to avoid combat in the 1st place. These forced defeats, especially multiple ones. (Kai Leng) do nothing at all to prime one for the real fight and should be avoided.

[In Exile]

simfamSP wrote...
Corypheus is probably one of the best bosses BioWare have come up with. But yeah, the AI pathing did make it a whole lot tedious. That's why I had to turn the AI off.

You can't turn the AI off. At least on PC, the pathfinding for characters will always turn on your point and clicking meaning you're either repeatedly pausing and desperately struggling to lead them forward one more inch, or they've stumbled, run into a wall and are now dead.

[Reofeir]

simfamSP wrote...

Taleroth wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It would just be lame to make the boss indestructible and it would amount to a pathfinding battle against the companion AI to run away.

Just fought Corypheus. Never want to do that again. It was great to win, but companions getting hung up on a rock and going the wrong direction was obnoxious and just made the entire thing tedious.

The protagonist is the one saving the world. Protagonist-centric is inherent in both the narrative and the genre.

Corypheus is probably one of the best bosses BioWare have come up with. But yeah, the AI pathing did make it a whole lot tedious. That's why I had to turn the AI off.

The third part of that fight is a pain in the ass to do. Such a ****** off if ya lose. 

[mupp3tz]

Phate Phoenix wrote...

If there were a virtually unbeatable boss, perhaps it could a one-on-one fight? Or just the Inquisitor against a group? Make it akin the Cauthrien battle, where victory it hard but possible, and, if you lose, you get locked up. Or you could simply flee, which would be easier to do without AI pathfinding to slow you down.

I would really like to see more Cauthrien scenarios. One where it's possible to defeat an adversary, but also where it's possible to lose without an automatic reload screen. It makes the experience more entertaining and gives more roleplaying fodder. Of course, I'm sure most people will either reload anyway until they win but different outcomes is always great.

[DarthLaxian]

Taleroth wrote...

In Exile wrote...

It would just be lame to make the boss indestructible and it would amount to a pathfinding battle against the companion AI to run away.

Just fought Corypheus. Never want to do that again. It was great to win, but companions getting hung up on a rock and going the wrong direction was obnoxious and just made the entire thing tedious.

The protagonist is the one saving the world. Protagonist-centric is inherent in both the narrative and the genre.

indeed (note: i fought that guy alone (!) because the party kept dying on me - it took me 15 minutes (or more) to blast down his HP...that was tedious indeed!)

greetings LAX
ps: lame? - good word, it is LAME! (tought encounters are ok, encounters you can't win are not IMHO (well, except if it's like say Ostagar in DA:O where, even if your warden and Alistair had joined the main fight, you would not have been able to win (without the traitor Loghain's troops - and maybe, just maybe, not even then))

[Seival]

Beerfish wrote...

For the love of god if I am not going to be able to beat an opponent in combat come up with a way for them to avoid combat in the 1st place. These forced defeats, especially multiple ones. (Kai Leng) do nothing at all to prime one for the real fight and should be avoided.

Kai Leng was not a good example because after losing to him twice you eventually defeat him too easily. It would be quite better if eventually you had to escape him, unable to defeat him even with help of your squad. Someone always has to be stronger than protagonist... You can't win, but you can achieve a goal much more important than winning a local fight. This is what really matters.

[Eveangaline]

If you're gonna do this, why not just make it a natural disaster like an earthquake instead of a boss?

[crimzontearz]

Seival wrote...

Beerfish wrote...

For the love of god if I am not going to be able to beat an opponent in combat come up with a way for them to avoid combat in the 1st place. These forced defeats, especially multiple ones. (Kai Leng) do nothing at all to prime one for the real fight and should be avoided.

Kai Leng was not a good example because after losing to him twice you eventually defeat him too easily. It would be quite better if eventually you had to escape him, unable to defeat him even with help of your squad. Someone always has to be stronger than protagonist... You can't win, but you can achieve a goal much more important than winning a local fight. This is what really matters.

and most people do not like that...at all

got a problem with that?

are your tastes somehow "objectively better" than those of other people?

I for one hope Bioware completely ignores this

[Zu Long]

No.

[Fast Jimmy]

Eveangaline wrote...

If you're gonna do this, why not just make it a natural disaster like an earthquake instead of a boss?

Why have it be an earthquake, when it can be a boss that uses the earthquake, firestorm and storm of the century spells?

[Bionuts]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Eveangaline wrote...

If you're gonna do this, why not just make it a natural disaster like an earthquake instead of a boss?

Why have it be an earthquake, when it can be a boss that uses the earthquake, firestorm and storm of the century spells?

This is not Dragon's Dogma.

[Lotion Soronarr]

mikeymoonshine wrote...

Why not go a step farther and have your character crushed by an ogre five minutes in, that could just be the end of the game. XD

This would dispel all those awful unrealistic power fantasies.

Nice strawman.

How about we immediatley get a sword that does 1 bajjilion damage and at the end of the game we murder the planet.

A RPG is abut the journey and immersion.
And a world in which a normal human can kill gods is not interesting to me at all.

The player being powerfull - yes. But within reason. Any other human being? Yes. Humanoid creatures? Yes.

Have enemeis that cannot be defeated conventionally. You have to plan, make a trap/ambush or have specific tools (for example: a dragon - you need a ballista or something. Because by any stretch of logic, a dragon should murerstomrape you if oyu jsut try to hack at it untill it dies)

[Lotion Soronarr]

Plaintiff wrote...

Lotion Soronnar wrote...

If the designer/writer sez you can't win, then you cna't win. Period.

I know someone people adore a power fantasy and feel like they are being c***blocked if they can't kill anything in their path (including gods and gigantic dragons and monsters) with pure,. direct physical force.

Ya know..because that 500-tonn dragon is going to be hurting soooOOOoooo much from your piddy arrows...

I'm all for b***smacking the player and putting him in his place ocasionaly. De-power the hero. Break him. Humiliate him.
Destroy and grind player arrogance to dust.

Yes, it's so arrogant that someone would pick up a game about killing dragons and think that they might actually get to do what the game advertises.

Designing scenarios where fighting doesn't work won't fix the imaginary problem of 'player arrogance' you've concocted in your head. If the solution to an encounter is to run away, then running away means you've won. It's not a 'loss', if it's what you were supposed to do all along.

People will just say 'Oh, I guess that's how you contnue the story', and get on with their lives. And if the players are truly arrogant, they'll just brag about how long they're able to survive, or how quickly they were able to escape.

The problem isn't immaginary. Players often have a massively bloated ego and a huge sense of entiltement.
And it's not helped by a game that constantly tells them how wonderfull they are.

Kill dragons? Why not? But not by plinking at it with arrows.
Enemies you cannto kil? Why not? It's a fatasy world, there are creatures out there that are truly monstrous.

Also, runnign away IS a valid strategy and a valid solution. Find a better spot to fight. Fight another day.
If you say and fight you loose. If oyu run away you "win". Not much different than fighting and winnign or loosing. You still have to sucesfully escape.

I guess it come partially down to personal prefference and mine is heavily against God-Mode Sue protagonists that alone acomplish what entire armies can't.

[Lotion Soronarr]

happy_daiz wrote...
This idea of not being able to kill an enemy in a game is kind of silly, tbh. What would be the point? If you're that bored with a game, play something else. Logic.

Objection.

That is a utterly stupid claim.

You postulate that the sole purpose of games is that they exist for the player to kill all things.
As many games have shown, that is not correct.
Killing in itself is not the point or purpose.

And if killing is what you want, then why are you fine with not being able to kill anyone at any time (as in Meredith the second you get into Kirkwall, or little kids in the street and such)?

The point of the game is to play the game. In case of a RPG, to experience the story. To immerse oneself.
Killing everying =/= immersion or story experience
I can't kill this guy THEREFORE, the game is boring?
What you say is no logic. There isn't even a kernel of it to be found.