262: Stop Killing the Foozle!

NascentAscent

New member
Dec 5, 2009
4
0
0
Might be interesting to look at subversions of the 'Kill the Foozle' stereotype as well. Two good examples pop to mind: Fable 2 and Chrono Cross.

Fable 2 is quite interesting. The 'Foozle', a "big bad" named Lord Lucien Fairfax, is a fairly well built up and established villain. The main character goes through his / her entire life with the goal of revenge against this man and, in classical fashion, he appears as the "final boss" of the game. What's unusual, however, is that instead of ungodly endgame powers and a health meter from here to Australia, Lucien is... well, distinctly human. The player can kill him with a single attack, ANY single attack, and if they opt to simply stand and listen to Lucien ramble on about his scheme for world domination long enough one of the support characters will simply draw a pistol and kill him outright. In my opinion its a brilliant gameplay twist that doubles as critique on the whole Foozle concept.

And then there was Chrono Cross... where if you kill the Foozle you actually doom the world. Really. Instead you have to literally create a "song" of elements to free the princess trapped inside the Time Devourer from her own despair, and the beast basically melts off into the void afterwards. Violence is the wrong solution to this final boss -- instead, to succeed the players must complete a story of heartbreak and reconciliation.

Both of these, I'd say, are brilliant twists and exposes of the traditional Foozle role. Should you ever decide to do a follow-up to this article, maybe such "anti-Foozles" would be a subject of interest?
 

DannibalG36

New member
Mar 29, 2010
347
0
0
Apparently, Kaiser missed the Halo train. I would like to posit that Halo: Combat Evolved, one of the most significant shooters ever made (if not THE most significant) did not have a final boss. Yet, the ending is still thrilling as all get out.

For the unenlightened, the last section of Halo: CE was a timed vehicle race. The race was immaculately timed; it took real effort to finish within the time limit, and the sense of accomplishment at the end of the race was palpable. Halo managed to accomplish what other games had previously done through boss battles (which, may I remark, are a dime a dozen). Now that is good game design.

Kaiser, where have you been hiding for the past ten years?

P.S. No, you Valve fans, Halo was not my first FPS (that would be Unreal). I even went so far as to play Half-Life before I played Halo. Gasp. And I still consider Halo to be the better and more important FPS. Why? I'll reserve that for an entire thread, if there's interest.
 

Formica Archonis

Anonymous Source
Nov 13, 2009
2,312
0
0
92Sierra said:
And please stop saying "foozle". Nobody calls them that. I just Googled the word and all that comes up are dictionary results for what the word means. Nobody uses that word anymore.
Perhaps not, but back in the golden age of Computer Gaming World, Scorpia (and sometimes others) often did. Since the article is wondering why gaming went so far away from the ideas set forth in those days by the second Ultima trilogy, it is appropriate.
 

coldfrog

Can you feel around inside?
Dec 22, 2008
1,320
0
0
Yet, as most MMOG players can tell you, there's not much sense of relaxation. There's always something you should be doing - a daily quest, a grind for better items or more gold, or a raid you can't miss - and there's always someone telling you that you could be doing it better. Those anxiety-inducing interactions and also the psychological tricks of "grinding" aren't particularly welcome in single-player RPGs, and they offer a very different experience from the comfortable exploration of single-player RPGs like the Ultima series.
This is a mechanic used in some single player games too, most notably the rather successful "Animal Crossing" series from from Nintendo. Every day that goes by is a day that you've fallen behind in your tasks or neglected your friends, and the drive to come back is solely driven by your responsibility to your community and that silly raccoon and his strip-mall building desires. The problem with this, though, is that the drive to play is less the fun of the game than the desire to not later have to slog away at busy work before doing what you want, and can be a big downfall if you just don't feel like playing it for a while.
 

Rowan Kaiser

New member
Dec 31, 1969
33
0
0
@Dannibal - there is a distinction between a Foozle and a final boss. The Foozle is the primary antagonist, regardless of whether you fight him/her/it at the end or not. Halo has Guilty Spark, who is a pretty effective Foozle, although as you mention, not a final boss.
 

rapa-nui

New member
Jun 5, 2007
9
0
0
Not one mention of Deus Ex?????!??!?! Blasphemy.

Sure, you *could* consider Bob Page the foozle, but you can actually completely ignore him in the end-game.
 

NascentAscent

New member
Dec 5, 2009
4
0
0
@ DannibalG36

While I agree with you that Halo 1's handling of the final big action sequence (with which bosses / Fozzles are oft associated) that "race" itself reveals that the Halo games do, in fact, have a Foozle. A very big one, in fact... so big that its right in the title.

Yup. The Halo rings.

Consider: the first game begins with the ring in sight; introduction of the Foozle. Capt. Keyes later reveals that the big bad aliens (Covenant) *want* the Foozle for their war against humanity. This creates an association that the Foozle, Halo, is evil (or, at least, capable of incredible evil). This association is further cemented by the introduction of the Flood as an aspect of the Foozle (or, some might argue, a Foozle all to themselves). In that final sequence you are LITERALLY running away from an exploding Foozle.

Master Chief killed the Foozle. You gotta admit that one.
 

Grahav

New member
Mar 13, 2009
1,129
0
0
I do like foozles to kill. But the Ultima concept is interesting, I`d play a non-foozled game.
 

Rowan Kaiser

New member
Dec 31, 1969
33
0
0
@rapa-nui As with many of the others, Deus Ex has a Foozle. He's still the primary antagonist, and you thwart his goals somehow or some way, depending on the path you choose.
 

BobisOnlyBob

is Only Bob
Nov 29, 2007
657
0
0
Braid was also Foozle-free, when it had honestly cribbed most of its stylings from existing time-rewinding games (Prince of Persia for example) and Mario (definitely a foozly series). Although the final stage is "boss-like" in its behaviour and difficulty, there is no singular antagonist. There is even a playable epilogue that follows it.

Foozle-free games are interesting. Mother/Earthbound has unconventional Foozles, that you defeat in unexpected or unusual ways, yet utterly relevant to the core plot and thematics of each game. I would like to see more games like that. I would also like to see more games like a number of the Metroid series' games: Those that have a Foozle, but don't simply end with it. There's more than just destroying the monster to save the day. Fusion is a great example of this, with the final bosses being more obstacles to try and stop you surviving, as opposed to great enemies you have to destroy the save the day. The day is already saved; whether you get out alive or not is another issue! Utterly removes the idea of the enemy as a "foozle".

On reflection, Resident Evil had this too. Frequently, the "final boss" was just a really big, nasty monster, usually one that had been stalking you for a time, but was not actually the key to saving the day. Usually that was already in your possession - again, the monster was just a climactic obstacle to overcome, not the goal in and of itself. I feel that's a better model for the majority of games. Sure, have the heroes Talk the Monster to Death [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TalkingTheMonsterToDeath], but make sure there's a big bad angry beastie for the player to overcome too, otherwise - even though the narrative has climax - the gameplay does not.

TL;DR: Foozles provide gameplay climax. You do not need a foozle to provide narrative climax.
 

RandV80

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,507
0
0
MNRA said:
And to give an example of yet another Foozle-less game: Total annihilation - Kingdoms.

While is wasn't the best game ever, and could've been much better with the implementation of just a few simple extra controls and balances, it certainly did away with the normal campaign mode that we still see today. There was only a single campaign/story available, but each mission gave you control of one of the four (five with the expansion) fractions to further the story. It was -in essence- a WC3-style campaing with side switches after almost every single mission. You could be assaulting the island state of Verona in one mission, and be sailing to the rescue in the next. Even though it was a bit jarring sometimes (But I WANT to play the OTHER side of the story) it still told a much more compelling and good story this way. The original game did have a large battle at the end, the fall of a king etc, but it wasn't a Fozzle per sè, there were already loose ends that hinted at a bigger picture as well as the expansion taking off where the original game ended.

If you are a gaming enthusiast who isn't scared by "dated" games and wants to try out what a Foozle-like RTS is like. Try it out. It should be dirt cheap on GOG or something.
When Warcraft 3 was mentioned in the article I immediately thought of TA: Kingdoms as well. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the very last level, after the massive climatic battles, a basic stealth naval mission for the evil side whisking away the remains of their defeated king so he could be resurected to fight again another day? It was a great campaign though how you'd switch back and forth between the 4 factions, in one level you'd establish an outpost on a beach with the naval faction, a few levels later you were driving them out with the best faction.

I also like how it took a unique spin on faction balance. Ususally you either get the simple way of making them mirrors where you had the same units with different skins, or the more standard different play mechanics but finely tuned balance, TA:K created different strengths & weaknesses among the units in land, magic, sea, and air. Depending on who you were using you had to utilize the map to your advantage. It was also a game where you could quickly build strong defenses, so good for us tower whores out there!

For the article, no mention of the ultimate boss game, Shadow of the Colossus? While the main point of the game was to fight bosses, there was no actual foozie there, and ended in an absolutely amazing and unique climax.

Suikoden II also got a shout out here in recognition of it's great and underated bad guy, Luca Blight, but acoiding any spoilers (since you can buy it on the PSN network now I believe) handled him in a very unique and memorial way.
 

SteveZim1017

New member
Jan 14, 2009
137
0
0
MMO's shouldn't be considered in the foozle discusion. The whole purpose of those games to to be never-ending, and if there is no end then there cannot be a final boss fight. there will always be something after.

thats like lumping tetris (or heaven forbid farmville) into the catagory as well. After all, if there is no progressing story then there cant be a final boss fight right?

while we are at it, does a foozle have to be a sentient antagonist, or do forces of nature count as well?
 

p3t3r

New member
Apr 16, 2009
1,413
0
0
hello katamri damacy your just cleaning up a mess really nothing to kill to beat the game
 

Andy_Panthro

Man of Science
May 3, 2009
514
0
0
The Ultima games were my first foray into RPGs (some might be able to tell from my Avatar), and have shaped what I consider an RPG to this day.

I started with U4 of course, although I never quite got the hang of becoming the Avatar.
 

SandroTheMaster

New member
Apr 2, 2009
166
0
0
Argh. And I thought you'd mention Might and Magic or Heroes of Might and Magic.

Before Starcraft or Warcraft Heroes of Might and Magic allowed you to play either as the villain or the good guy. And in either case you had the chance to change sides halfway through.

The Might and Magic games never had bosses, or at least never had real bosses that're supposed to challenge you in the end in a big fight.

The first Might and Magic had an antagonist who was simply an alien that was trying to return home (like ET), but the process would destroy the world he was in (unlike ET... we assume). But even then, you didn't know that. You go through most of the game having no idea there's a big baddie at the end. The quest is to find the "Inner Sanctum", and you only discover Shelten (the alien) once you get there. And you don't fight him, just stop him and then follow him to another world.

In Might and Magic VII you could, like in Heroes 2, decide to either side with the bad guys or the good guys halfway through the game. But they'd not give you a boss. If you join the good guys you'd be facing the bad guys, obviously, but there's not a boss to target and defeat. In the end you'd either go trekking in a super-hard dungeon that's actually a spaceship for a McGuffin to the good guys or the bad guys, which in the hands of the good guys is used to make a portal to try and reach some benevolent old race that build all the worlds you play in through each Might and Magic, in the hands of the bad guys they use it to mass-produce blasters and unify (conquer) the medieval world of Colony (or at least the continent of Erathia).

And then in Heroes 3 and Heroes 4 you have some of the most excellent narratives ever done in strategy games. In Heroes 3 you play the campaigns alternating through bad guys and good guys (because both sides are heroes, so I can't really say villains) seeing the motivations in each faction as you progress. Then in Heroes 4 most campaigns don't even start with villains to defeat, but just with your singular hero trying to get by in the new world. Though all would eventually develop villains for you to face one way or another, but they weren't the premise at all.

@p3t3r

It's also a game that doesn't qualify the column's definition of Foozle game.
 

Rowan Kaiser

New member
Dec 31, 1969
33
0
0
@SandroTheMaster You're right, those could be good further examples. However, I must plead that both Might and Magic and HOMM are series that I've never really been able to get into, in any of their incarnations. You're right that HOMM 2 (my favorite of any of them) does have a narrative similar to Warcraft 3, but I don't think the characterization is anywhere near as strong.
 

Bojinglez

New member
Feb 13, 2010
17
0
0
But aren't stories supposed to have a climax? I personally think it would be a let down to play the entire way through the game and then end it without killing the bad guy. Well that's just my opinion though.
 

NascentAscent

New member
Dec 5, 2009
4
0
0
@ Bojinglez:

Story climax ≠ Foozle. True, while we typically think of the high point of a story being some big confrontation, our assumptions narrow what form that confrontation can take. If the story is about a hero looking to avenge his family then the story could, indeed, spike with a climactic battle of good vs evil... or, the hero could discover the body of his enemy, dead for years, laying in an old cave, forcing him to struggle within himself regarding the value of vengeance and the direction of his life. Both of these are climaxes; the first is a violent climax, while the second is a psychological climax. Both have story appeal and bring the hero's quest to a conclusion.

Now, in gaming we have the same parallel... only, the psychological climax (or other variations) is much harder to do right. Players could easily feel disappointed that a big buildup left them with a perceived void in gameplay... but how much of this is our own action-oriented assumption about the way things "ought" to be done? From a storytelling standpoint the psych climax is just as satisfying (if not more), reveals greater character depth, and engages both the mind and heart of the player; from a gaming standpoint its a great way to set up a sequel or a "new game +" and does not, in any way, negate the value of the struggle needed to reach the story climax (nor limit the possibility of a final boss style encounter, either earlier or later in the game's story -- there's always "epilogue", y'know).

So, the question remains: why do we assume a final boss?

Is it because we've seen the pattern so many times already? Is it some gamer itch to "conquer the game" by facing the greatest challenge? Maybe both, maybe neither; perhaps the truth is more about the individual gamers' tastes than some universal constant. You'd feel disappointed without a Foozle, but I'd be disappointed by a half-baked or poorly executed story. We all value different things in our games -- thus the many genres, and variances within genres.

Yes, it's just your opinion... and it's valid, for you. But games, like books, or TV, or hobbies, ultimately are just a matter of taste. Yes, all stories have a climax -- or, failing that, an anti-climax -- but that climax needn't be a Foozle.
 

Rowan Kaiser

New member
Dec 31, 1969
33
0
0
@Bojinglez -

In addition to what NascentAscent said, the assumption that story needs climax by a big boss fight assumes that the story has been working up to that boss fight. In Ultima VI, there isn't ever a clear moment where you think "there has to be an antagonist here for the plot to work!" The plot works without it. It changes the kind of feel of the game, as I mentioned in the article, so that the game becomes more about the setting and less about the violent action.
 

Grand_Marquis

New member
Feb 9, 2009
137
0
0
Rarhnor said:
Having no endgame-badguy seems pointless, and bland.
Of course, the endgame-badguy has to have motive (or alike) not to be excessive (looking at Borderlands, Darkvoid, etc).
A view expressed by the industry as well, you have my assurance. And there's nothing wrong with that either. Adventure movies of all stripes have been doing it since the creation of film/the written word, after all.

But then consider - how many written works, out of all the novels and narrative poems and short stories that exist, actually have the climax/resolution involve the death of the antagonist in some way? Not very many at all, I would imagine. And yet...many of them are very interesting - and even exciting. Hell, some don't involve the spilling of even a single drop of blood(!) let alone the antagonist's.

Personally, I don't buy that these types of stories can't be translated to the interactive medium of games. That's just lazy thinking by developers who are comfortable performing the patterns that most easily net them cash. There's nothing wrong with buying their games, but we shouldn't buy into their way of thinking in the process. There's more to this medium than they let on.