92 réponses à ce sujet

[rashie]

Maybe try Dark Souls?

Dark Souls isn't hard in the mechanical sense for the most part, it just asks the player to slow down a bit and actually follow some sort of tactic.

[Fetunche]

Boss fights that go on for too long are just tedious, the car chase in shadow broker was annoying, if I want to play a racing game I'll buy one, the rannoch reaper was rinse repeat dull, I don't like choreographed fights I prefer to defeat an enemy my way.

[shodiswe]

I'm hoping they won't have massive amoutns of HP's making you ask yourself why you havn't got the same gear... Now, if youre fighting a tank or gunship then that makes more sense however. They actually brought a serious credible threat to the fight. Or a persuasive leader throwing grunts at you in an atempt to outmanuver you in a ruthless fashion.

Possibly using the Environment or terrain to their advantage to gain some kind of advantage. And carefully planned traps etz. That ahelps make a enemy respectable, they are actually doing something right rather than simply having superior personal ubermench qualities.

[Rannik]

Boss battles? That's so video gamey.

[Chealec]

I hate bad inescapable Boss Fights - the worst part of the whole ME trilogy for me was the "Defend the Tower" mission on Horizon in ME2... though killing the Human Reaper was fairly poor as well as that amounted to just fending off a wave of baddies until you could shoot the weak spot (ditto shooting the Mass Effect Core on the Reaper IFF mission). Basically anything where you're dropped into a room and there's no alternative but to just fight through it niggles a little, far more if it's a boss fight where you have to watch the attack patterns and utilise a specific "beat this boss" tactic... even moreso if you stick a timer (or QTE) on it as well :\

 

Though, with the Human Reaper, at least that was the end-game boss and there was a build up to it. I guess I'm OK with end-game boss fights.

 

Bad boss fights for me (excluding the above), for example, are:

 

the Tela Vasir fight in ME2

most of ME2 Arrival

the Kai Leng fight in ME3

the Reaper on Rannoch in ME3

the Kayren fight in TW2 (bloody QTEs)

the first Letho fight in TW2 (wins the award for most frustrating)

the Crones and Imlerith fights on Bald Mountain in TW3

the three mid-game boss fights in Deus Ex: HR

 

 

All of those fell into the frustrating/tedious categories, whereas the Shadow Broker fight, which ticks all of the "wrong" boxes for me, I can forgive somewhat as it's basically the end-boss of the DLC and it's pretty much just an interactive cutscene.

 

In short - many boss fights just feel "bad" and/or contrived.

[Sartoz]

BioWare seems unable to do bosses that aren't simple bullet sponges.

                                                                                                 <<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>

 

LOL

Like the Atlas!

 

Bio needs to up their game... starting with computer controlled enemies: writing AI scripts that actually mimic human ingenuity.  I personally hope for better AIs. However, if awesome graphics is their focus, then there will be few CPU cycles left to process good AI routines.

 

In the world of hypotheticals, Bio could write a neural combat simulation algorithm that over time will learn. Then implement this "veteran" code into the game. Alas, this takes away the colourful glitter that seems to be the current fad.

[sjsharp2011]

I will say that I felt that the dragon battles in DA:I felt just about right.   I mean, it is called Dragon Age.  Harder than the ending boss battle?   Meh.  Yeh, with the number of people that don't even have 30% of a game completed, I'm thinking so.

 

 

I agree about the dragon fights because as I said they felt like Boss fights. I was comparing them because hey are the closest thing you have to a boss fight in DAI and I personally found some of the dragons harder as they buff themselves up and take longer to wear down as a result . I don't remember Corypheus doing that at all to be fair. He just dances around the area and makes you chase after him.

[Ahglock]

HP systems are usually supposed to be an abstract reflection of the players and enemies combat skill not your ability to absorb bullets. It's turning hits into near misses and as the fight wears you down eventually the hits get closer and closer till you get a final fatal blow. It thematically works better in table top games as its all head canon. But when your visual on the tv screen is you unloading 15 clips into a dude at point blank range it falls apart. Saren kind of worked as I could accept that his flying surfboard thing may have included a powerful shield generator.

That being said people want boss battles. 2 shots taking out the boss would be anticlimactic. And I really don't see many options outside hps. More goons? Only split second visuals of the boss so you don't have the time to destroy his shields? Better AI won't do it. It helps the overall fighting system but the boss would still drop in a second once he pokes his head out to concentrated fire and power usage.

[Reighto]

Dark Souls isn't hard in the mechanical sense for the most part, it just asks the player to slow down a bit and actually follow some sort of tactic.

I was mostly referring to this sentence :  I like the feeling of "banging my head against the wall," and the reward when I finally defeated the game.

That is a feeling, i most certainly had while playing Dark Souls. Apart from that, i understand what you mean.

[Il Divo]

^Kinda funny because for the most part, I don't like boss fights in my video games, with Dark Souls being a key exception. In general, just an amazing series. 

[Laughing_Man]

The funny thing about the "real" Spectres in the game is that they were all fools that ended up paying for their weakness and getting killed. Saren became an indoctrinated pawn, Nihilus was a moron that decided to go off on in a war zone by himself rather than stay with the group he traveled there with, in which there was a potential Spectre candidate that he was supposed to be observing, and Vasir was an idiot that squandered every opportunity to escape by trying to kill people she didn't really have to, since she had what she needed and could have used the disposable Broker squads as a distraction. Then there's Jondam Bau, a Spectre who is overpowered by some random unarmed jerk who can choke him to death. 

 

That's just Bioware making a liberal use of the idiot-ball and being their usual inconsistent self.

 

By all rights, and according to everything we know about Spectres:

 

A. They are and should be portrayed as the best of the best among special agents and combatants.

(IIRC in one of the Books Anderson describes a Salarian Spectre moving with an amazing speed "like a cat" and taking down a large

group of people without having to resort to anything more than hand-to-hand combat)

 

B. Due to their experience and the fact that at the very least the Turians (and probably the other races as well) have a dedicated

program for the training of Spectre candidates (which are already chosen only from the best), Shepard should have been by all rights

the underdog, not this supposedly amazing (and idiotic) superman.

[Sidney]

HP systems are usually supposed to be an abstract reflection of the players and enemies combat skill not your ability to absorb bullets. It's turning hits into near misses and as the fight wears you down eventually the hits get closer and closer till you get a final fatal blow. It thematically works better in table top games as its all head canon. But when your visual on the tv screen is you unloading 15 clips into a dude at point blank range it falls apart. Saren kind of worked as I could accept that his flying surfboard thing may have included a powerful shield generator.
.

Dragon Age was always funny with actual arrows sticking out of you because my understanding of hit points was exactly what you said. The visuals with arrows sticking out of you and blood splashes makes it hard to go with the turn of the blade effect. Now it appears that for somethings - dragons - it is about their ability to physically take a beating but for most it should reflect their ability to dodge, Slip a strike or whatnot.

SciFi games have an easier road to solve this with shields and someone just having a powerful shield explaining their bullet absorbency.

The thing is why is the boss always tough? If you wanted to whack the head of some terror group or drug cartel the leader guy isn't going to be the big time fight. The fight is getting past all the armed goons in order to get to him.

[Laughing_Man]

The thing is why is the boss always tough? If you wanted to whack the head of some terror group or drug cartel the leader guy isn't going to be the big time fight. The fight is getting past all the armed goons in order to get to him.

 

Depends on the "boss". If the boss is just the brains, you are right, you will probably find him behind a special shield waiting for you in a kill-room full of traps and goons. However, some "Bosses" are very much "hands-on" and therefore will use their resources to arm themselves accordingly with the best they can get their hands on.

[Master Warder Z_]

Depends on the "boss". If the boss is just the brains, you are right, you will probably find him behind a special shield waiting for you in a kill-room full of traps and goons. However, some "Bosses" are very much "hands-on" and therefore will use their resources to arm themselves accordingly with the best they can get their hands on.

A lot of militia and death squad leaders a few decades back were very hands on, hence more often not they just bombed or shelled their positions rather then wading through fifty AK and RPG toting coked up goons plus the fellows themselves who were sitting on a armory.

Just blow up where they are if you can makes any fight easier.

Failing that rapid insertions and ballistic breaching charges are your friend.

[O'Voutie O'Rooney]

Boss battles. Star Destroyer. The Force Unleashed. Noooooooo! Meds. Where are my meds?

[AlanC9]

Depends on the "boss". If the boss is just the brains, you are right, you will probably find him behind a special shield waiting for you in a kill-room full of traps and goons. However, some "Bosses" are very much "hands-on" and therefore will use their resources to arm themselves accordingly with the best they can get their hands on.

But he's still just one guy. His smart move would be to have ten, fifty, or whatever other guys also outfited in the good stuff.

[KaiserShep]

Dragon Age was always funny with actual arrows sticking out of you because my understanding of hit points was exactly what you said. The visuals with arrows sticking out of you and blood splashes makes it hard to go with the turn of the blade effect. Now it appears that for somethings - dragons - it is about their ability to physically take a beating but for most it should reflect their ability to dodge, Slip a strike or whatnot.

SciFi games have an easier road to solve this with shields and someone just having a powerful shield explaining their bullet absorbency.

The thing is why is the boss always tough? If you wanted to whack the head of some terror group or drug cartel the leader guy isn't going to be the big time fight. The fight is getting past all the armed goons in order to get to him.

 

You have to wonder if the mooks ever question the fact that the boss keeps all the best technology to him/herself while they get meager kits that only have the potential to slow the heroes down. 

 

I like the idea of the boss not actually being some ultra-version of his or her underlings. While TIM had a lot of nonsense going on, I liked that he was basically the fiend behind the mooks that, while he'd probably lose hard in a straight up fight, didn't really have to do any actual fighting himself. 

[NKnight7]

Vasir was probably my favorite boss fight of the trilogy. ME3 didn't have that many, although the Clone fight wasn't bad.

[Ahglock]

Vasir was probably my favorite boss fight of the trilogy. ME3 didn't have that many, although the Clone fight wasn't bad.

It was a lot of fun. People who can't separate realism or whatever from fun don't seem to like it and most boss battles. Why doesn't she just run away, why are her shields so strong? I just don't care.

You know how boring pretty much all movies, literature and games would be if we actually kept those standards. Monopoly would be the most exciting game on the block.

[NKnight7]

It was a lot of fun. People who can't separate realism or whatever from fun don't seem to like it and most boss battles. Why doesn't she just run away, why are her shields so strong? I just don't care.

You know how boring pretty much all movies, literature and games would be if we actually kept those standards. Monopoly would be the most exciting game on the block.

 

Her being a Vanguard is what really made the fight fun for me. Seeing her charge and zoom across the field made the fight exciting.

[Aimi]

You know how boring pretty much all movies, literature and games would be if we actually kept those standards. Monopoly would be the most exciting game on the block.

Monopoly is trash both from a realism standpoint and a mechanics/fun standpoint so idk where that came from, you'd probably be looking for one of the hardcore logistics-heavy operational wargames which have high standards already

[Ahglock]

Monopoly is trash both from a realism standpoint and a mechanics/fun standpoint so idk where that came from, you'd probably be looking for one of the hardcore logistics-heavy operational wargames which have high standards already

It was the most boring game I could think of.

[Aimi]

It was the most boring game I could think of.

so you fundamentally don't understand the realism complaint

[Ahglock]

so you fundamentally don't understand the realism complaint

Holy crap it's not that big of a leap.
I was saying ultra realistic would be boring I quickly grabbed a boring game example. This is a game forum not a place to complete your thesis I wasn't about to do research on ultra realistic simulationist games to pull an example. That was the extent of the analogy.

I get the realism argument I just think it would make crappy games and entertainment. I don't want to watch a realistic bond movie.

[Aimi]

Holy crap it's not that big of a leap.
I was saying ultra realistic would be boring I quickly grabbed a boring game example. This is a game forum not a place to complete your thesis I wasn't about to do research on ultra realistic simulationist games to pull an example. That was the extent of the analogy.

I get the realism argument I just think it would make crappy games and entertainment. I don't want to watch a realistic bond movie.

so you fundamentally don't understand the realism complaint

alternatively, this: you believe that nothing exciting has happened in the real world, ever, and that fiction is the only source for interesting things

because that is the apagoge of what you're saying: if it could theoretically have happened, it would make for "crappy entertainment", and only the unrealistic is interesting