The Final Boss

[domicius]

Well, I find bosses are generally anticlimatic. They're only there to give you the last "challenge", and are often embarassingly cheap. In FPS for example, they're immune to grenades, or in RPGs they're immune to magic (look! Half my party can now join the cheerleading section!

I like final levels, more than final bosses. They're often challenging, full of vision, and require the skills you've used before without being too cheap (because the cheapness has all been spent on Mr. Final Boss)

I ain't no hero.

 

[vamp rocks]

meh, i think im a bit of both, i never prefer story over difficulty, or vice versa. i like games that have a story and are kind of easy, but get insane when you crank the difficulty up (i.e. COD4, COD:WAW, etc) i dont mind which way the game takes me as long as it is fun. which sometimes; can be either a 'heroic' or 'skilled' game experience.

 

[Tantalus3D]

I'm definitely a "skilled" player (..uh, that sounds cocky ), but there is a difference between "hard" and "unfair".
One of the bossfights I treasured most is the Omega Pirate in Metroid Prime. I don't know how often I were killed by him, but I never got the feeling that the figth wasn't fair. There was a save point almost in front of the bossroom and if you were skilled enough you could dodge every attack. But he had so much health that the fight itself became really epic. It was very well balanced, in my opinion.

On the contrary, the final mission from GTA IV was just a pain in the ass. You could easyly loose the mission by a single mistake, like taking too long to get this retarted Nico to get on the motorcycle or in the boat, so that the enemy escapes. And having to repeat the whole car chase and fire fight made me biting my controller. At least the ending was therefor compelling... oh, wait... no, it wasn't...

 

[ironfist86]

A challenge that brings you to the brink of frustration but allows you to slide over with skill. That is a tricky proposition, especially since every gamer has their own level of skill. A fight where the boss whips you bad in the beginning but doesn't completely defeat you, allow you the chance to claw and scrape back in true underdog fashion, and deliver an incredibly dramatic final blow. i can't even think of any examples.

 

[hames iii]

i found no more heroes boss's satisfying,
except the last one which left things up in the air, leaving me wanting more

 

[Siris]

I consider myself a Skilled player. I want a fight that will kick my ass hard, but has a sense of accomplishment once said boss is dispatched.

 

[Sennz0r]

I switch between both sides, heroic and skilled. Sometimes I feel like getting immersed and getting connected with different characters and sometimes I just like to torture myself just to prove that I can play through one of the most difficult games I have.
Everything's relative, really. I don't believe anyone is just one of these types. Maybe more of one type than the other, but still.

When I think about it I do enjoy immersion more than playing the same 3 screens from IWBTG for 45 minutes before I make it.

 

[Bete_noir]

First off Shamus, I have to say my unicorn could knock the horn of your unicorn's head.

But to the point. I find myself a bit of both depending on the game. Mass Effect for example I find myself leaning toward the heroic. I'm more than willing to let the game pick my party's points while I only work on Shepard's (It does a good job too). A game like Fallout 3 it depends, I found it both challenging and heroic, in a "Stoic survive the supermutant behemoth by panicking and forgetting the mini-nuke and working very hard to kill him with a shotgun" sense... but that does offer variable difficulty and on very hard I've heard players scoff and say it was too easy (What a bunch of freaks!) They were obviously in it for the challenge.

However, a game like Halo 3 and my heroic sense goes out the window and I just have to kill everything in a haze of lead and plasma and say, "There was a story? No fraking way!"

I find one of the best ways to bring out the challenge beast inside of me, and prehaps others, is to offer extra content and unlockables.

 

[Robel]

I`m definitely Heroic, though I think Sennz0r is right, I can`t rightfully say that I don`t enjoy shooting stuff simply because it`s in my way from time to time.

On the other hand, when I want to immerse I really want to get into it, but when I do and I reach the final boss it`s mostly disappointing. The fact is that I understand your point of view regarding developers making endings for one of the two groups. But what I don`t understand is why would they make a CRPG which is basically the most Heroic-style computer game, and then throw in a boss that is specifically designed for skilled players. Neverwinter Nights 2 comes to mind right now. Why in the world would they make the final boss so strong, and not only that, some of your companions betray you too, which means that not only you have fewer party members, but the ones that betrayed you will aid him now. That game got me fooled 2 times. One time I thought I finally killed him (took me like two hours, yes I can be obsessive when I really want to finish something, even though it`s plain stupid to keep trying) but he turned into several tiny forms of himself. When I actually killed him (another thirty minutes or more) the game threw it`s last bit of oozing green spit in my face: the cinematic. Turns out I kill him but everyone in my party (including my main character) dies because the whole underground place thingy crumbles and smashes us to pieces. I mean *SERIOUSLY*. The expansion Mask of the Betrayer was quite good though, and I advise everyone that played nwn2 and was disappointed by it and hasn`t tried the expansion to try it.

 

[Mataza]

Now you got me to register, gratulations.
I *really* want my opinion to be heard by ...er people who are talked to by people who make games. Or something. You cath my drift:
You might care more for it than my cat.

I´m somewhere between skilled and heroic. But the fact is I am uppity about it. If I care about a game, think it´s good, then I want BOTH the challenge and the story. That means I crank the difficulty up to the very limit and then try and try again till I beat it.
Latest game of that was CoD4, I beat every level first on veteran no outside help,
except for that epilogue.
Took me eternally and there is really no trick you can abuse or something likely. It´s just skill. After I mastered it, I could beat it anytime I wanted to, just to see if I still was that good.
I read on the CoD Site, that by available statistics only 2% of players have beat the epilogue on veteran. Knowing that is a fantastic feeling.


On another more controversial topic, I find myself betrayed quite often in this my way by RPGs and random encounters(let´s call them REs from now).
Given a game I play at the moment I am not disappointed by the pacing or story or the average difficulty, but by the very problem which are random encounters:
When you explore [location], REs happen inevitable. Then you have 3 choices:
1. You beat them, get exp, get stronger.
2. You flee, you get no exp, you feel bad for skipping the battles.
3. You don´t go explore and follow only the tracks.
This is my dilemma: You CANNOT explore the elaborate dungeon without getting stronger and thereby screwing your beloved difficulty by getting (probably) too strong and destroying later challenges,
OR you have to run away. A lot. So much it feels bad. Like trying to not play the game while playing it.....

I know of a solution though: Final Fantasy 8 and 10 give you a "no encounter" ability.
Another way would be to be able to not get exp unless you want to. FF 8 allows that too(kinda) but then imposes you with forced random encounter where this is not possible.
I really wish more games would allow you not to get stronger unless you want to.

It´s all about the point of making the mainplot challenging enough for me. You can always level up by REs if need be. But you can´t stop it nor skip it. I actually felt happy for being killed by a story boss, because it meant I was actually making something not good enough.

I have gone through that ordeal because I know there is no (optional) mighty boss anywhere in that game.


Also I really hate bosses which don´t live long enough to try every sensible spell against them at least once(every element, every malstatus etc.).
It just sucks if you search for a weak spot, and the characters with less options(hit with sword/use item) killed the boss 1 attack per round before you tried all other options.....


Well, long post. It all really bothers me, though.

So long

 

[brunothepig]

I'm definitely skilled over heroic. If a games narrative draws me in, then I might start feeling at least a little heroic, so I don't want flow breaking difficulty. But that's only when a game is done so well, beating the game becomes secondary to seeing my character advance, or seeing how everything will happen. Doesn't happen often. This did happen on Assassins Creed, which is why ending it on such a huge cliffhanger was such a cock-slap.

 

[Da Ork]

I realize I'm very late to this article (guess who just found the archives)...It depends on the game as to what category I fall into. Something RPG like I'm on the heroic side...FPS I'm more on the skilled side. The thing I hate the most about boss fights is when they introduce something completely different for the final boss fight (think Prototype[suddenly half your abilities become useless and a time limit that has never been a problem in the game before]) as opposed to how portal does it were you use all the skills you've learnt through the game to do something quickly (yes I realize there is a time limit but its a VERY generous time limit).

 

[Daemonate]

I am a mix, so impossible to please.

I love the story, but if the final boss is a pushover, it detracts from the power of the story, as my antagonist was a wuss...then I'm not that heroic, am I?

Incidentally, using Episode 1 in your article as a 'what to do right in a story' was a Bad Example.