Boss battles

[frogbeastegg]

Re-running another of my old topics to see what people say this time.

Boss battles. Yay, nay, or something in-between? No poll this time as this one needs explanation along with the choice. It's not enough to say "Yes, give me loads!" Why? What kind of bosses? How frequent? How difficult?




For me, a very qualified yes. I recognise the need for them, and seldom enjoy fighting them.

I don't like lengthy battles. Running around attacking the same weak point for half an hour is boring. I have better things to do with my gaming time.

I hate overly difficult boss battles. Gradual difficulty increases, if you please, not difficulty spikes! If a boss is considerably harder than the areas leading up to him then it's quite obvious he's difficult for the single purpose of slowing the player down. That's not to say I like easy boss battles (usually boring), or hate difficult bosses full stop. As long as the difficulty fits the game.

Cheap bosses? Gah! I can't stand that! Instant kill attacks which wipe out your entire party with no warning, attacks which knock your character over and are spammed so he can't get back up - ugh!

Mini bosses and sub-bosses can stay out of my games, thank you very much, except in the case of RPGs where they can sometimes be managed in a way which feels meaningful. Action games tend to be as regular as clockwork with bosses. Mini boss, proper boss, new level and repeat pattern until the end of the last level whereupon you encounter the final boss.

I don't like frequent boss battles. It's tiresome.

I reserve a special category of dislike for reoccurring bosses. If I can kill boring boss then that's enough for me. I don't want to have to kill boring boss 2, boring boss rebirth, boring boss fusion, boring boss neo fusion, and boring boss ultimate X death angel edition. Final Fantasy, I'm looking at you here! I don't care if boring boss neo fusion casts fire 3 instead of fire and is strapped into some kind of crazy flying battle harness - he's still the same boring boss I've killed before. The alternate form of the returning boss – being made to fight the exact same battle again, usually at the end of the game – is worse still. “You defeated the stupid spider boss at the start of the game. Can you do it again now that you’ve got more powerful weapons, more health, more abilities, and 15 hours of practice under your belt?” Then after the stupid spider boss redux you have the stupid plant boss redux, the stupid flying boss redux, and so on until you’ve defeated every boss twice.

Froggy's golden rules for game structure around boss battles:
Thou shalt provide a proper save point immediately before the boss. A hard save point, not a mere checkpoint which is lost if the game is turned off. Chance to restore health, magic power, ammo etc is appreciated.

Thou shalt not force the player to watch the same cutscene over and over if they die.

Thou shalt offer the player a way to patch up their health after winning the battle so a puny enemy doesn't one-shot them and force them to repeat the battle again.

[Geoffrey S]

Yes - although it's more a general need for set-piece battles which have to break up the regular gameplay. They either have to focus on a specific gameplay mechanic or do something new. The Metroid Prime games are a great example of these elements done well.

I also hate hitpoint battles. Most disagreeable was Skies of Arcadia, where the final (two!) bosses had hugely damaging attacks, lots of hitpoints, but by that point were easy to beat using resurrection and an awful lot of patience.

[Veho Nex]

Boss battles, really only needed in RPGS or RTS games, where its something your building up to/against in the end. For FPS bosses should GTHO my space, cause when you have some games which are pretty realistic like... some ww2 shooters like MOHAA you have some of the older games where you fight a final boss which takes about 500 shots from your most powerful gun.

But in rpgs, when you fight the power boss at the end which you find out slowely through the game attacked your small home village killed every on in it, then slowely prods you through out the game, now those are bosses.

As for mini bosses, I'd just prefer dungeon bosses and party bosses where they are harder to kill but you get good loot from it.

[Zenicetus]

I don't mind a good boss battle in a RPG-type game, but it depends on the context. The ones I like the least, are the "choke point" situations where you've been railroaded down one path in the game, and you HAVE to fight that boss, RIGHT NOW!, and there are no other options... like deciding you're not quite ready, and need to do a few more side quests to level-up, or get better gear. Those are the ones I hate. It just becomes a puzzle game of dying and reloading, dying and reloading, until you figure out the tactics or tricks you're supposed to use to get past him.

In that respect, World of Warcraft actually does a great job with boss encounters (IMO). Every major boss starting at the beginning levels is basically optional, due to the open-ended game design. You take it on when you're ready.

In many cases you get a preview of how scary some of them are, which builds anticipation. For example, you'll be pursuing some random quest appropriate to your current level in the game, and suddenly some uber-powerful creature will show up, moving on its programmed path through the zone. Later on, you'll get a quest to kill it, but seeing it early makes it scary, and you get a strong sense of accomplishment when you can finally take it out when you're stronger. Same thing with the major bosses in instances (dungeons): you don't HAVE to kill the uber boss each time you go in. You learn the strategies for killing the minor stuff and sub-bosses, and you might get a glimpse of the Big Scary Guy, but you can bug out and come back later when you're ready. You're not railroaded into one game track where you have to beat that boss to get any further into the game.

I guess this is basically just an argument for open-ended, exploratory game design, but I've always like those better than linear designs.

[pevergreen]

Something like the mario bosses I enjoy. Metroid Prime 3 boss was annoying.

Bosses that have multiple incarnations, if they change enough, sure. Nothing over 10 minutes.

[woad&fangs]

Has anyone else had this experience?

You get your butt kicked by the same boss 20 times in a row because he has a ridiculously powerful weapon. Then you realize after you beat him that you get his weapon and your like "AWSOME!!!". Then you realize that the weapon is complete **** against enemies. I'm looking at you Return To Castle Wolfenstein, and your first tesla coil wielding UberSoldat. Your final boss sucked too. He was one of those annoying 2 hit KO kind of bosses but with a low probabilaty of his attack hitting. I shouldn't rag on it too much. I did enjoy the game alot and its more powerul regular enemy's were a blast to fight with. The best part was towards the end, a few levels after fighting the first tesla coil wielding Ubersoldat(ginormous powerful zombie basically) in a confined room. You end up having to fight 4 at once in an open courtyard. Unlike the first fight you can get out of the range of their tesla coils but it's was still a challenge to beat them.

[Kekvit Irae]

I like how Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow does their boss battles. Evenly spaced (as to give the player a good opportunity to explore in-between), gives decent challenge, and there's always a save point one or two rooms away.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I like how Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow does their boss battles. Evenly spaced (as to give the player a good opportunity to explore in-between), gives decent challenge, and there's always a save point one or two rooms away.

A warp point as well, in case you need to go back for items.

[Kekvit Irae]

A warp point as well, in case you need to go back for items.

Feh. You don't need to buy items if you've got a Ghoul soul. Just harvest Rotten Food from Ghouls. 200hp worth of health, and it's free. Saves me money, especially when I want that 300,000g soul ring, and I'm stuck farming zombies to synthesize into brass knuckles for gold.

[Papewaio]

Generally dislike boss battles as they have a tendency of just being there 'because'. The because being, uber-drop, speedbump, ego slap down or some other reason that has little to nothing to do with the plot.

Anyhow one game that I really enjoy the boss battles is Marvel... but that is because the bosses are part of the storyline and not just there as some afterthought.

[Fragony]

Lovea good bossfight, and it are the hardest that you remember most fondly. A good boss is borderline cheap(or better appear to be, first impression must holy-mother-of-god), but possible once you learn the patterns.

[TinCow]

Boss battles are fine, as long as the game includes Quicksave. Which every game should. Checkpoint saving is the spawn of the (console) devil.

Hardest boss ever: First assassin in Baldur's Gate, the one at the 'tower' tavern place where you meet Khalid and Jahiera. He is scripted to start the battle with a triple magic missile on the player character. Given that most people were level 1 when they got there, they never had enough hps to survive the spell.

[SwordsMaster]

Ah, bosses. I like boss battles with a good storyline. Also I don't like bosses that are ridiculously out of proportion. My ideal boss is the player's mirror image in terms of level, power, ammo, etc, although perhaps a different class of character. Say the player is a level 20 swordsmaster, and the boss is a level 20 necromancer.

It is ok if they have about 1.5 hps the player has, sometimes even 2x is ok, but it is their AI that should make the difference, not the HPs. I hate it when you keep hitting the damn thing but your hits do 20 damage, out of 70,000. That's just trying to make a hole with a dessert spoon and it's ridiculous.

One of my favourite bosses was Max Payne's Gognitti, or Jack Lupino.

[Pannonian]

Has anyone seen R-Type's level 3?

[frogbeastegg]

Hardest boss ever: First assassin in Baldur's Gate, the one at the 'tower' tavern place where you meet Khalid and Jahiera. He is scripted to start the battle with a triple magic missile on the player character. Given that most people were level 1 when they got there, they never had enough hps to survive the spell.
I remember that one. My poor character exploded into bloody chunks time after time after time. I didn't know anything about AD&D at the time. I'd never played anything like Baldur's Gate before. I'm dyslexic and I - still - have lots of trouble with all the stats and jargon. That assassin was the point where my younger self said "Forget it!" and began cheating.

[Vuk]

Can be good either way. I have played good games with and w/out boss battles and really do not give a flying crap if they include them.

[seireikhaan]

Anyone who's played Shadow of the Colossus cannot possibly say nay. Boss battles at their finest, imo.

[Veho Nex]

Second that man, It is the best.

[OverKnight]

Hardest boss ever: First assassin in Baldur's Gate, the one at the 'tower' tavern place where you meet Khalid and Jahiera. He is scripted to start the battle with a triple magic missile on the player character. Given that most people were level 1 when they got there, they never had enough hps to survive the spell.

I must agree, that almost ruined the game for me. It's the reason I only played tanks in the series, fighters who could soak up damage.

I'm not sure how I got around it, but I think it involved slaying an insane amount of Goblins to get to level 2.

I also have to agree with Lupino from Max Payne, I definitely had some dread going on when that crazy bastard started ranting.

[Papewaio]

Anyone who's played Shadow of the Colossus cannot possibly say nay. Boss battles at their finest, imo.

Technically they are not bosses, they are the base level monster (bigger then anything else I'll warrant) and there is no large power change.

Also although they are deadly they are not cheesy... they do suffer from what makes most bosses bad, a weak spot which is the only way to take them out.

[Vladimir]

No. They're so, pubescent.

[Ramses II CP]

As a general rule I'd say No, I've played a lot more bad, boring, or irritating boss battles than good ones.

Like everything else in gaming, however, there's a right way and a wrong way. I don't like boss battles where you have to play around with the options (Dying and loading over and over again) until you can see the exact pattern you have to repeat 15 times to defeat the boss without being damaged. Someone mentioned the R-Type games, which are a good example of bad, horrible, annoying boss battles IMHO. I also especially remember the bosses in the old Ninja Gaiden games. Pattern repetition is not good gaming, even if it's a very difficult pattern that requires extraordinairy skill to pull off. (If you couldn't guess, I haven't played a console game since 1996)

On the other hand there's Portal, which I keep seeming to come back to as an example of good gaming. The teasing, taunting, one sided dialogue that forms the foundation of the game absolutely needs to come to a conclusion with a boss battle, and the Portal guys managed to create one that was just hard enough to be interesting and provoke thought, but easy enough that if you were quick you could get through it on your first try without much trouble.

My favorite boss battles introduce new elements, or new variations on themes, without breaking the flow of the game or killing the player to teach them a lesson. My least favorite involve the player repeatedly being one shotted within seconds of coming into range of the big bad... until they figure out the pattern, and utterly own the boss without even being damaged.

Overall, I'll stick with my no vote, however, as I think it's easier to make a good, solid game without bosses than it is with them, though I suppose it depends on how you define bosses too.

:egypt:

[Gregoshi]

I'm somewhere inbetween on this one. They could and they should be good but way too often they disappoint in the way a "tough opponent" is implemented. The repetitive pattern of attack and defense is just horrible. Add to that the endless deaths (at least for me) required in order to figure out 1) the pattern and 2) which attacks/defenses work against the boss makes many boss battles just lame.

I was watching my daughter's boyfriend play a couple of the boss battles in God of War II. Here's Kratos, former God of War and all around killing machine, spending 80% of the "battle" running away from the boss's attack sequence, waiting for that 20% opening when the boss is vulnerable so that he can get in three (and no more) swings before starting the "run away, run away" sequence again. Nothing makes me feel more heroic than spending most of my time fleeing. :thumbsup:

Why is there is philosophy that a boss must be x20 tougher than you and that he's able to kill you in just one or two hits? You have to spend 15-20 minutes whittling down the boss, why can't the boss take 2-3 minutes (at least) to whittle you down to death rather than 10-20 seconds? One of the reasons for my fascination with Final Fantasy XII was the protracted battles. Some of the creatures I'd fight 15-20 minutes, but it wasn't running away. It was a toe-to-toe donny brook with a good mix of offense, defense and healing. I felt like the hero I was portraying in the game. How refreshing!

I don't know the cause of the current boss battle fiasco. Maybe it is an AI consideration. Maybe it is lazy developers. Whatever it is, I wish it would change.