Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
It is just me, or are there less boss battles in games these days? Less good ones? Were there ever?
I mean, boss battles are pretty neat as long as they exist for gameplay, plot and/or characterisation reasons. They're opportunities to take mechanics to their logical extremes, teach players new applications for existing mechanics and have a throwdown with a special, characterful adversary. Games are choc full of violence to the extent that it often becomes a case of same-old, so a good boss battle really gives the impression of something meaningful. If you were to compare video games to films, the boss battles in video games are equivalent to the actual fight scenes in cinema. Even an action movie only has so many instances of combat in 90 minutes, so every one of those has to be relevant and memorable in its own right. A game's boss battles should ideally fill the same role, being the instances of physical conflict that can change character relationships or the conditions of the plot.
One game I thought did this really well was Dragon's Dogma. The division between a true boss battle and a "random" big monster encounter in the wild isn't always absolutely clear, as the first boss battles are essentially introducing you to what you can expect to face out in the open world. Later on, though, such climactic conflicts become increasingly relevant to plot progression, culminating in the multipart gloryfest that is the dragon itself. This is a battle that moves, both in terms of its technical components and in terms of plot -- and even in terms of you, the player, depending on how you handle certain elements. The dragon isn't just a fantastic boss, nor just a character, but a force of the game's narrative intentions wholesale. He isn't, technically speaking, the absolute end point of the game, but he is the end of the conventional gameplay experience.
There are so few bosses like this, even in classic games. Many good bosses are imposing, mechanically fun to fight, have excellent visual design and so on and so forth. Few really illicit an emotional reaction or thinking realisation, though. I replayed Metal Gear Solid 4 recently and despite my continuing criticisms of how it handles some of its narrative elements, I very much appreciated the final fight with Liquid, which was an amazing summary of a character relationship, both characters as individuals and the whole post-modern nature of the series. It's simply difficult to find this kind of climax in a video game when compared to how such things are handled in literature or film -- the final confrontation, which happens physically only as a matter of expression, being a facade of some other struggle.
I suppose other mediums have the advantage of non-interactivity. Luke Skywalker resolves his conflict by rejecting its physical expression -- something notoriously difficult to pull off in a video game. Princess Mononoke ends with reconciliation rather than triumph over an enemy. The Evangelion TV series has no action-packed climax, but an analysis of its characters, their motivations and their fears. Even many games that almost get it right fall short. Dragon Age is a good example here, with two antagonistic forces; the political usurper Loghain and the Darkspawn, who are semi-demons invading from the depths of the earth. What become a perfectly good story drops off its plateau when Loghain's part is resolved near the end, because he's a human villain with personality and motivations -- enough to be understood and loathed. The Darkspawn are simply disembodied, abstract, indiscriminate evil. When Loghain is done with, there's little more interest to be had because now you're just fighting the bad guys from Power Rangers rather than someone you can have some kind of feelings about.
What I'm saying is that even the first Castlevania had Dracula. We all know that Dracula is one of the baddest dudes out of bad dudes, so that game has the advantage of requiring small explanation for why we're fighting him. But even in that 8-bit era, having a confrontation with an actual bad guy that meant something, if only a little, made all the difference. And I think most of you will find that it has made the difference in every game with a well-defined villain, be they as silly as Bowser or as threatening as Kefka. We didn't just having someone to fight, but some kind of underlying concept to fight against as explained through their characterisation, be that the concept of it being okay to kidnap princesses or the concept of chaos as a tool of nihilistic intention.
Besides, one would think that boss battles would be one of the most fun and rewarding stages of games development. It's gotta be like the guitar solo on a metal track. Your opportunity to strut your stuff and lay everything on the table. To show it how it is.
Comments
I think a lot of it is that vidya seems to be trying to aim to be less vidya-like. At least, in terms of the AAA games, anyway.
Well...the most popular genre right now is about killing massive hordes of nameless goons from across a room, and occasionally watching pretty lights. Not much room for bosses there.
Also, the fact that boss encounters are traditionally straight-up battles with single opponents is, I think, handicapping how game designers think. Look at Human Revolution, for example, wherein the "boss battles" do not serve the traditional purpose of a boss battle.
Though you're mostly talking about bosses in the story sense rather than the gameplay sense. I think those are two separate things that happen to work well together, though they function fine separately.
^^ Well, that could be good in some ways. Video games have never had characterisation as a strong point, apart from a handful of limited examples, so being less vidya in that respect might be pretty good as long as progression in that area doesn't compromise existing positive qualities. One thing that I think needs to happen for boss battles to become better (or as good as they were?) is to embrace good or simply better characterisation and bring some relevance back to these engagements.
In fact, boss battles might be one of the strongest potential tools in games development for that reason. They're an opportunity to focus a section of the game, even if it's just a small one, around a conflict with a developed character rather than faceless mooks.
^ True, there's story bias in my above post, although my criticisms hold true in a gameplay sense, too. It's just that the gameplay aspect doesn't seem to have suffered as much as the storytelling aspect. Although, like I said, I just replayed MGS4 (and some other MGS games) and these are more or less war games that fall outside the standard FPS template. Three of the four main games have a highly memorable sniper boss battle, which I think is a fantastic way to put a boss battle in a projectile-oriented experience.
I was mostly thinking of stuff like Bioshock where there were no boss battles except for Fontaine (Which everyone would agree is the low point of the game all things considered) and Rockstar's recent sandbox games, where there are no bosses but just really difficult and annoying missions. I think it's simply because bosses are an inherently video-gamey idea that does tend to take you out of the game.
Of course, I think that there's nothing really wrong with this in a narrative level overall but I can see why people aim for video games to be less based on video game conventions, if only because video games don't need to be based on them at the end of the day.
I was about to argue this point, but then I realized that my game library isn't a representative sample.
Well, yeah, but the standard modern military shooter is...well, it's not about fighting a particular opponent. It's about slaughtering people with foreign accents like ants.
t. respected videogame developer
Bioshock is an interesting example of having the narrative aspect of boss battles without the mechanical aspect. The enemies you face are very strongly characterized. Just not through gameplay.
^^^^ In the long run, though, that just ends up replacing old video game conventions with new ones, equally as video-gamey in the eyes of the audience. I mean, sure, boss battles probably aren't appropriate in a conventional sense for a "realistic" shooter, but such military games are self-limiting because of their focus on high-damage, high speed projectile combat while ignoring the possibilities hand-to-hand combat brings. The Metal Gear series did well by working with similar militaristic scenarios while also including more limitations on weapons fire and incentive for hand-to-hand combat.
The irony here is that even though the Metal Gear series is more "video gamey", it's more politically and characterfully real, more believable in terms of the overall product because it conforms to essential elements of human experience. So while I see your point, and how it comes from the intentions of developers, I think it misses the essentials of what makes an experience relevant and meaningful in the long run.
I would like to see a boss battle that is easy gameplay-wise, but feels very wrong. As in, you're killing a character who is easy to kill but whose death is very tragic, and you feel very bad about killing that character when you're done.
Also, I would like to see a boss that is frustrating yet whose frustration factor is entirely justified in-game, with a corresponding reason to keep on fighting that boss and keep on trying.
Finally, Bowser is not a boss that defines his role. Bowser is, if anything, defined by his role. It is expected that there's an evil baddie with horns and fire breath and general ugliness who has kidnapped the beautiful princess. He exists pretty much to fill that role. He lampshades this fact in later games.
Unsurprising, given that MGS was essentially about just how screwed-up the standard videogame/action movie cast would have to be.
That's been done. I think one of the MGS games I haven't finished has one.
The encounter with Andrew Ryan in Bioshock could be argued to be another example.
I do love me some good bosses.
I think Bastion is an interesting case, as the game has no real "final confrontation", and the story is better off because of it.
I'd say it counts. The game sets you up to think that you're about to have an epic confrontation boss battle with the main antagonist who's been built up throughout the game by sending the usual video game signs - the whole area before you face him is completely enemy free, there's unusually high amounts of supplies and ammo everywhere... and then the game sucker punches you with the whole "A man chooses" thing. It's certainly got the whole narrative and thematic climax things going.
This kind of distinction isn't the point, though. What I'm saying is that there's something there beyond mechanics, even if it isn't very deep. The princess has been kidnapped; kidnapping princesses is wrong; fight the dude who kidnaps princesses. There's a clear link between character motives, gameplay and your essential goal.
There can...only be one Snake...and one Boss...
Closest thing I could think of is Claus.
If you're willing to really, really stretch the terms I guess you could count Larson in Tomb Raider Anniversary. It was hamfisted, but got the point across that repeatedly shooting a minor mook in the chest just for being in your way probably wasn't too hot an idea, even if he was a sleazeball.
Gym leaders?Brother Patriarch in The Void might fit the role GMH described.
Also that one flying Sandworm Colossus.
Too many recent games of the action-adventure genre have become 60% QTE slugfests, 10% attacking it from a mount/ride, 10% Shadow of the Colossus rip-off, 10% deflecting its attacks back, 10% hitting a weak point with your most recent weapon. Darksiders, Castlevania, God of War, to name but a few. For a game that sells on its boss encounters, they do fuck all to enhance it mechanics-wise.
I think Capcom is usually a pretty strong contender for boss battles. Say what you will about RE's storytelling, but the boss battles are always fun, unique, and framed properly so that they feel like a big deal. Same with the Devil May Cry series. Beating Vergil really feels like you're saving the world. This context was something I found lacking in Ninja Gaiden among other things. God Hand is another example where pretty much all the story build-up was to cool boss set pieces, making it feel more dramatic and cool.
A good boss needs some solid narrative context I think, which games are sort of not big on, or rather not in melding it into gameplay. A lot of boss fights lately are strung-together cutscenes of getting from point A to point B, because it's more cinematic that way.
I mean I love boss fights and I'm definitely missing them. They don't belong in every game, but that fact that we've got so many games where they don't belong (and still almost all games being action) is worrisome.
For a "that felt wrong" boss, I was actually thinking a certain boss in Cave Story whose name begins with a T. Notably, after you finish the battle, there is no victory fanfare.
Can't think of a good example yet for a "frustrating but justified" boss, though.
I always thought that was a bug. Never liked her anyways.
What Malk said. Bayonetta had great bosses. This was mostly because of the art though.
I think this is the crux of the matter insofar as non-gameplay considerations are relevant. Fighting Gannondorf is always pretty boss because he's both contextualised within his own appearances, but also contextualised by our previous experiences of him as a villain. It also helps that his boss fights, while varying from game to game, also have consistent elements. Reflecting magical attacks back at him is a classic one, for instance, although the conditions of that mechanic change. This is a good example of a mechanical element also being narrative, since it's consistent between appearances and has meaning to us, even if that meaning is only "magic attacks hurt, but if I'm ready to hit them back..." and so on.
Even if a boss isn't that hugely relevant to the plot or characters, having it framed in proper context helps one hell of a lot when it comes to caring. It could be as simple as fighting the AI Core in a robotics facility run amok, thereby deactivating all the robots.
^^^ You heartless bastard.
I think its just you Alex.
I think you play a lot of sandboxy games that by default dont really do bosses.
Her only notable achievement is hitting you with a stick, so I didn't feel much sympathy for her. I felt sorry for her brother's Number 2, though. Just a bit: that game's characters weren't fleshed out enough for me to form an emotional connection with them.
^^ I quite like (J and W) RPGs, too, although I don't play as many as I'd like. These kinds of games are possibly the best for climactic bosses strong in both narrative context and mechanical design, but that potential isn't always taken advantage of. Even Dark Souls, which kept the bosses coming regularly, lacked effective context for many of them.
Recently played boss fight done right(from a demo of a game that will probably never see completion, skip to the middle of the vid)-multiple phases, introduces a new mechanic will still using all your skills so far, neat design, etc.: