Boss Fights

[JayDub147]

I really enjoy all these references to Deus Ex, but I have to say that it didn't always give you multiple options. For example, on the return trip to New York, after talking to that Illuminati guy in the burned out Osgood & Sons, you get ambushed by MJ12 troops. In most situations you could either incapacitate them, lethally or nonlethally, or you could sneak past them. Unfortunately, the game is programmed so that these guys in particular always know where you are, even if you turn invisible, jump into a sewer, and emerge on the opposite side of the district. So if you were playing a stealth-based character who hadn't chosen the speed aug, the ballistic protection aug, or the armor (which sounds like a lot of options, but if you were a pure stealth player you would need none of these things), you were completely fucked.

However, I wholeheartedly agree that more games should be like Deus Ex.

 

[L34dP1LL]

I think that Halo managed this issue perfectly on the 1st and 3rd installment, the boss fight with the big bad monkey on halo 2 was just annoying.

 

[Z(ombie)fan]

Jokes on you, Im not even wearing a shirt. So there.

Replace your skin then

 

[GodKlown]

I am reminded of one of the oddestly set final boss battles I've ever experienced while gaming, and it was in The Matrix: Path of Neo. Once I got to the end and fought my ass off, I figured that hmmm that was a disappointing ending with just a mass battle. Then the cinematic came up featuring digital versions of the Wachowski brothers arguing about how to end the game before pitting you against a giant scrap-metal version of Agent Smith. The battle itself was a little ridiculous since you spent all of it just throwing his poop back at him like some sort of giant monkey fight, but it was led in by an interesting introspective of the creative process about how to best end a game like this.
As much as I've wanted to at least try Alpha Protocol, my local Blockbuster seems very reluctant to get this game in stock at all, and after being there today to check to see if perhaps they finally got it in, I found that they severely restricted their stock of any video games. The Xbox 360 section used to run about six shelves, and they have brought it down in half... even a couple of games that they just got in last week and now missing from those three shelves, so short of investing in buying Alpha Protocol, I'm screwed from seeing how either good or bad that game is. Damn GameFly anyway!

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Half Life 2 isn't exactly a good example for game designers to follow.

Okay Souplex we get it: you don't like Half Life. That's fine but your word is not law. I didn't think much of HL2 when I first started playing it mmyself but as I continued playing it I realised what all the hype was about. Some parts of it may have benn generic but overall I found the story very interesting and the different ways of dealing with enemies a lot of fun and at the end of the day that's what playing games is all about: having fun. You may think HL2 is terrible, I think it's great. Neither of us is right because at the end of the day it's our opinion which apparently you have trouble grasping. At the end of the day you just THINK that HL2 is not a good example for developers to follow and I just THINK that it's a much better example than Halo or Call of Duty.

 

[RvLeshrac]

Boy, he's gonna keep beating the "RPGs should be about universal choice for the player, about giving him unlimited options and letting him affect the world however he like" drum until people start marching, won't he?

In this case, though, it's bullshit.

Some skills are legitimately less useful than others. Some fights are unavoidable, and sometimes you have to use gunplay rather than stealth skills. If part of the "awesome-life simulation" aspect of an RPG is that you can make your character however you like, there's some realism in that if you chose to devote your energy to learning useless skills, you get bum-raped.

That's what I'm gonna call realism. If I decide to spend my time learning to be an expert in WoW playing, rather than an expert in Shotokan, those times when the latter would be useful, I'm getting my ass kicked. The irony of the Yahtzee-style RPG player (who wants to be able to do whatever he wants, and let his inner id run wild) is that they don't want any responsibility for what happens. Sure, they want the "this is so badassed" responsibility, but not the real "I pissed off all of my allies, and now I'm fucked" responsibility, or the "I faffed around for too long, and now the evil empire has won" responsibility, or even the "I decided to specialize in stealth, so I can't fight encounters where I have to fight straight-up". If RPGs are meant to be anything other than a simple succession of times when the player gets to feel awesome beating a boss only slightly more wimpy than he is, that's fine. But if RPGs are meant to actually be about role-playing, then there are going to be times when the suave, effete, faceman isn't going to be able to win in a shootout.

It's like how in most games the big bruiser with the massive guns, and even bigger firearms, isn't going to be able to pull off good social interaction.

Would it be nice if there were similar social "bosses" in such games, where you have to really work ten-times as hard at winning if you put your skills exclusively into gunplay? Absolutely, but no game should exist wherein you can "win" using any given "build", because that's not how life (even awesome, sci-fi, life) works.

I've got to completely agree with this. There are some skills that are going to be useless in any given situation. I think it's be more immersion breaking to be prepared for every single boss than if you had some that you had to defeat with different tactics than you're used to.

Let me use Demon's Souls as a prime example. Sure you can build your character any way you want but all those points you put into melee that took out the Phalanx boss aren't going to work on the physically resistant Flamelurker boss 3 stages from now.

A truly immersive game and a series of immersive boss fights will mirror life IMO. Some challenges are easier to tackle with your unique set of skills than others. I think gamers should just accept that these kinds of fights will happen and try to find a way to deal with them instead of just bitching about a short spike in difficulty.

But would it be fun?

Wait, wait, I know this one!

"No."

Seriously, if you want realism, DON'T PLAY A GOD-DAMNED FANTASY OR SCI-FI GAME. RPGs like Alpha Protocol posit themselves as "choose-your-own-ability" titles, when they're actually "choose-these-specific-abilities-or-we're-going-to-punish-you" titles. This would be perfectly acceptable if they made it clear that they expected you to, say, shoot everyone in the face. That, however, is not the case.

The game was advertised as providing the player with a number of options, all of which were equivalent methods by which you could finish the game. Instead, we have a game where direct, violent confrontation is the most effective course of action, while all other methods require that you make specific decisions demanded by the developers.

*edit*

Oh, and the problem with a line of thought that demands all builds be unequal is that it ignores the single longest-lasting bastion of modern gaming: (A)D&D. The DMG makes it clear that the DM should have a way for every single character class in the campaign to contribute to an event or encounter, and that's one of the primary *reasons* the system has passed through decades of competing rule systems nearly unscathed.

 

[auronvi]

I like this shirt... it was $5.

Anyway, I like a big boss fight as much as the next guy but you are right in where they seem to be there just for the sake of being there and not much else.

 

[Musclepunch]

I think bosses are boring and predictable, even with a backstory, I mean eventually you will beat them and if you lose it will have no effect on the narrative on the story

 

[ProtoChimp]

FUCK YOU MY CLOTHES ARE NIC- I probably got ninja'd 20,000 times before this post didn't I, oh well. I understand what he's saying and while games don't always need final bosses, I just like it when they do.

 

[Arisato-kun]

Boy, he's gonna keep beating the "RPGs should be about universal choice for the player, about giving him unlimited options and letting him affect the world however he like" drum until people start marching, won't he?

In this case, though, it's bullshit.

Some skills are legitimately less useful than others. Some fights are unavoidable, and sometimes you have to use gunplay rather than stealth skills. If part of the "awesome-life simulation" aspect of an RPG is that you can make your character however you like, there's some realism in that if you chose to devote your energy to learning useless skills, you get bum-raped.

That's what I'm gonna call realism. If I decide to spend my time learning to be an expert in WoW playing, rather than an expert in Shotokan, those times when the latter would be useful, I'm getting my ass kicked. The irony of the Yahtzee-style RPG player (who wants to be able to do whatever he wants, and let his inner id run wild) is that they don't want any responsibility for what happens. Sure, they want the "this is so badassed" responsibility, but not the real "I pissed off all of my allies, and now I'm fucked" responsibility, or the "I faffed around for too long, and now the evil empire has won" responsibility, or even the "I decided to specialize in stealth, so I can't fight encounters where I have to fight straight-up". If RPGs are meant to be anything other than a simple succession of times when the player gets to feel awesome beating a boss only slightly more wimpy than he is, that's fine. But if RPGs are meant to actually be about role-playing, then there are going to be times when the suave, effete, faceman isn't going to be able to win in a shootout.

It's like how in most games the big bruiser with the massive guns, and even bigger firearms, isn't going to be able to pull off good social interaction.

Would it be nice if there were similar social "bosses" in such games, where you have to really work ten-times as hard at winning if you put your skills exclusively into gunplay? Absolutely, but no game should exist wherein you can "win" using any given "build", because that's not how life (even awesome, sci-fi, life) works.

I've got to completely agree with this. There are some skills that are going to be useless in any given situation. I think it's be more immersion breaking to be prepared for every single boss than if you had some that you had to defeat with different tactics than you're used to.

Let me use Demon's Souls as a prime example. Sure you can build your character any way you want but all those points you put into melee that took out the Phalanx boss aren't going to work on the physically resistant Flamelurker boss 3 stages from now.

A truly immersive game and a series of immersive boss fights will mirror life IMO. Some challenges are easier to tackle with your unique set of skills than others. I think gamers should just accept that these kinds of fights will happen and try to find a way to deal with them instead of just bitching about a short spike in difficulty.

But would it be fun?

Depends upon your own definitions. I find conquering the soul crushing difficulties of Mass Effect 2, Demon's Souls and Persona on Hard to be quite enjoyable. Sure I die a lot but the feeling of conquering these near impossible challenges far outweighs any sense of anger or frustration I had before. Gamers are getting complacent with easier games and I find that kind of sad. There are few that would even attempt to conquer games as difficult as Super Ghouls and Ghosts in this day and age. I think developers should go in the direction of From Software. make difficulty a draw like they did with Demon's Souls. Victory is always sweeter when it's harder to achieve.

 

[Racthoh]

MMOs contain the absolute worst boss encounters. They'll always contain mechanics that if you don't follow, you wipe. Plain and simple. Then there will be different phases with other mechanics that you need to follow... or you wipe. Worst part is not having any sort of idea what you'll need to watch out for unless you check up strategies online. It's just horrible game design. I don't understand why the encounters have to be so all or nothing.

 

[Arisato-kun]

Boy, he's gonna keep beating the "RPGs should be about universal choice for the player, about giving him unlimited options and letting him affect the world however he like" drum until people start marching, won't he?

In this case, though, it's bullshit.

Some skills are legitimately less useful than others. Some fights are unavoidable, and sometimes you have to use gunplay rather than stealth skills. If part of the "awesome-life simulation" aspect of an RPG is that you can make your character however you like, there's some realism in that if you chose to devote your energy to learning useless skills, you get bum-raped.

That's what I'm gonna call realism. If I decide to spend my time learning to be an expert in WoW playing, rather than an expert in Shotokan, those times when the latter would be useful, I'm getting my ass kicked. The irony of the Yahtzee-style RPG player (who wants to be able to do whatever he wants, and let his inner id run wild) is that they don't want any responsibility for what happens. Sure, they want the "this is so badassed" responsibility, but not the real "I pissed off all of my allies, and now I'm fucked" responsibility, or the "I faffed around for too long, and now the evil empire has won" responsibility, or even the "I decided to specialize in stealth, so I can't fight encounters where I have to fight straight-up". If RPGs are meant to be anything other than a simple succession of times when the player gets to feel awesome beating a boss only slightly more wimpy than he is, that's fine. But if RPGs are meant to actually be about role-playing, then there are going to be times when the suave, effete, faceman isn't going to be able to win in a shootout.

It's like how in most games the big bruiser with the massive guns, and even bigger firearms, isn't going to be able to pull off good social interaction.

Would it be nice if there were similar social "bosses" in such games, where you have to really work ten-times as hard at winning if you put your skills exclusively into gunplay? Absolutely, but no game should exist wherein you can "win" using any given "build", because that's not how life (even awesome, sci-fi, life) works.

I've got to completely agree with this. There are some skills that are going to be useless in any given situation. I think it's be more immersion breaking to be prepared for every single boss than if you had some that you had to defeat with different tactics than you're used to.

Let me use Demon's Souls as a prime example. Sure you can build your character any way you want but all those points you put into melee that took out the Phalanx boss aren't going to work on the physically resistant Flamelurker boss 3 stages from now.

A truly immersive game and a series of immersive boss fights will mirror life IMO. Some challenges are easier to tackle with your unique set of skills than others. I think gamers should just accept that these kinds of fights will happen and try to find a way to deal with them instead of just bitching about a short spike in difficulty.

But would it be fun?

Wait, wait, I know this one!

"No."

Seriously, if you want realism, DON'T PLAY A GOD-DAMNED FANTASY OR SCI-FI GAME. RPGs like Alpha Protocol posit themselves as "choose-your-own-ability" titles, when they're actually "choose-these-specific-abilities-or-we're-going-to-punish-you" titles. This would be perfectly acceptable if they made it clear that they expected you to, say, shoot everyone in the face. That, however, is not the case.

The game was advertised as providing the player with a number of options, all of which were equivalent methods by which you could finish the game. Instead, we have a game where direct, violent confrontation is the most effective course of action, while all other methods require that you make specific decisions demanded by the developers.

*edit*

Oh, and the problem with a line of thought that demands all builds be unequal is that it ignores the single longest-lasting bastion of modern gaming: (A)D&D. The DMG makes it clear that the DM should have a way for every single character class in the campaign to contribute to an event or encounter, and that's one of the primary *reasons* the system has passed through decades of competing rule systems nearly unscathed.

But what's choice without consequence? I'm not for complete realism in games but if I can make a choice I'd like it to really mean something. I'm not saying make it so it's impossible to finish the game but at least make it so our encounters are different because of it. If I was able to kill a dragon easily with ice magic on my first playthrough of a game it should be far more difficult to take down next time if I opted for a melee class. perhaps instead of nuking it with magic I need to fire balistas like in Dragon Age.

It's not that we want every boss to punish the player for their specific choices but some bosses should be easier and some should be more difficult based on choices as well.

Sure like you said, DnD has it so all classes can contribute but isn't one class going to contribute more to a given situation than others? That should translate to video games as well.

 

[PureChaos]

boss battles are fine but they don't seem to be as challenging as they used to be

 

[ItsAPaul]

I wasn't wearing a shirt when I was reading this =P

I generally don't play rpgs where you'd expect to level up only stealth or something and be good. Even though thats my class in Oblivion, it still makes sure to give you Marksman to fight with, and I believe it mentions that you should keep a melee weapon handy. If the point of the game is to defeat the bad guys, I'm not expecting to do it solely with Alchemy or something.

 

[Arisato-kun]

I've got to completely agree with this. There are some skills that are going to be useless in any given situation. I think it's be more immersion breaking to be prepared for every single boss than if you had some that you had to defeat with different tactics than you're used to.

Let me use Demon's Souls as a prime example. Sure you can build your character any way you want but all those points you put into melee that took out the Phalanx boss aren't going to work on the physically resistant Flamelurker boss 3 stages from now.

A truly immersive game and a series of immersive boss fights will mirror life IMO. Some challenges are easier to tackle with your unique set of skills than others. I think gamers should just accept that these kinds of fights will happen and try to find a way to deal with them instead of just bitching about a short spike in difficulty.

I'm even fine with saying there are some fights you simply cannot win. It'd take a massively more complicated game, but there are simply some battles you cannot be victorious in with your given set of skills. From my own life, I've spent more time learning the study of law than karate, so I lose to anyone who has trained for a solid decade. If I'm forced to fight someone like that, I'll lose plain and simple.

Same thing with any kind of complex computer repair. It wouldn't just be difficult, it'd be damned near impossible, and I might fail. I think failure should be possible in games which purport to be RPGs, both in the sense of failure which changes the game, and failure in the sense of "you screwed up, you can't win, you have to start over".

A really good RPG would be one in which I can do anything, but in which the consequences can fuck me over royal. If I'm a douche to my companions, and they leave, I'm now stuck unable to finish the game. If I put all my points into stealth and it turns out that there's a pitched gun-battle, I get hosed. That's how life works. I think we've been coddled too long, and so we mistake "choice" for "realism", and "just do whatever" for "roleplaying"

I wouldn't say unable to finish as a result but I see your point. Perhaps our failure opens up a different path to the story or requires another party member to take charge and win for us.

Sure it can be fun being the hero and killing everything yourself but I'd like to see a little more application of your party members and your own inherent character's build in boss fights in RPGs.

 

[Shiro No Uma]

I don't read any of your work with cloths on.

 

[DeathByTheSword]

I finished System Shock 2 without cheating!!!! It was easy once you figured out how to kill everyone with melee.
Some other games that use what Yahtzee said are Planescape Torment and the first two Fallout games. That further proves my point that the game industry has been getting worse and worse while under some stupid illusion that games are getting better. I mean, how retarded must you be to think that today's games are getting better?

 

[haaxist]

Hmmm.. Funny, I'm wearing and escapist shirt right now...

Anyways, I don't mind boss fights, unless they're excruciatingly difficult, but i agree with Yahtzee, boss fights in a spy game is just not right. And forced combat should never be employed as a game mechanic.

 

[ThisWasAWaste]

I don't read any of your work with cloths on.

This is, hands down, the best reference to the shirt comment in the article. +1 Would read again.

 

[Dectilon]

I was disappointed with the bosses in AP for the most part, because I'd initially expected something like a rooftop chase, a boxing match or a sniper fight (all depending on what skills you'd specialized in of course). The fight with Brayko was awesome though. It's ridiculous, but the whole game is ridiculous so it fits. I couldn't stop smiling, even though I died several times to him before I figured out a good strategy.

As for the end of HL2... I didn't need a final battle, but if they were going to have one anyway, why not make it a bit challenging and dynamic? It was a boss fight, and it was a bad boss fight. That's what bothers me.