Fighting the "Boss" (A Poll)

[Sazerac]

I'm curious to find out among our regular posters. Who enjoys fighting a huge, tough, final "boss" in a game? Are there other endings to RPG's you'd like better, or is the defeat of a very tough "boss" a exhilirating experience in and of itself?

So far, I've found mixed responses from reviewers of CRPG's. Scorpia, prior reviewer for CGW, used to dislike games that relied on fighting the final "boss" (she referred to the boss as a "foozle", if memory serves), yet others I've read tend to like it.

So what's your take on it? Personally, if the "boss" is really tough and gives high-level characters a run for their money (unlike SOMEONE we know!), I'm fine with it.

Also, if you DON'T like fighting a boss, what ending would you like to see instead? If you DO like fighting a boss, what would make the endgame far more enjoyable in the fight?

Cheers!
-Sazerac

[Scronan]

Hi Saz

I have always enjoyed fighting "bosses", in any type of video game. I do believe it is one of the underlying foundations that makes a game great. Especially if it is a one on one with you and the final bad guy. I do dislike some games where the final baddie has minions and other little annyoing flying things that attack you while fighting them. This doesnt make them tougher in my book. A game needs to have a good challenge, but balanced so the frustration level is not too high.

I noticed that with Alice...it was a cool looking game, but once I finished it I never wanted to see it again, since it was a constant save and reload game. Dungeon Master II, was a great game, but the ending with all of the flying drones, the clouds dropping away while fighting a very tough boss was more annoying than challenging.

I did think that Cet was very, very underpowered. I've also wondered about a game where the final boss has power proportionate to your partys level, but I dont think I have seen that.

But the final boss needs to be tough, so tough that they are essentially stronger than all other creatures in the game.

I am highly disappointed if I find a game, espeically an RPG where there is no final boss. But more than just the fight, there is usually a final caste or crypt, some hard as nails level that is challenging, mysterious and keeps you on your toes. The final boss needs to be there, and they need to be tough.

On that note, there needs to be a good ending, something that makes you feel rewarded for your efforts.

I remember Ultima 2, where at the end I became the "Avatar"...and I kept wondering where the big fight was. In Ultima 6, I dont recall there being a boss, but making peace with the Garogoyles. To me, that was a pretty good ending, for finally being able to understand them was a lot of fun.

But yes, the final boss is a necessity in my book, without it, the game seems only half decent to me.

I suppose that's why I love fighting games, they are nothing but one on one battles, no tricks, traps or pitfalls, just good ol fashion FIGHTIN'!

Great thread!

Scronan

[catzenpewters]

In one sense, yes I do like to have one bad guy to hate throughout the game, and then have the chance to defeat him at or near the end of the game. I agree that it should be challenging, but not frustrating. You want to be able to wipe your brow when you defeat him. On the other hand, I don't see how beating the big boss has to be the VERY end of game. Beating a boss could open up the way to some final dungeon with some tricky things to figure out to set the world right. For example, after defeating Cet you may have to stop some final evil he's put in motion. You know, the old "you may have defeated me but the world is still lost" thing. I also like to have a nice little movie at the end saying the usual well done you've saved the world and you get to see the results of your actions type of thing. Little things like that are great DURING game too. Could have used one of those when you found the Mavin, when you freed D'Soto, that sort of thing.

[Throg]

Although I usually do get a kick out of Beatin' Up Baddies, ending a game with nothing more than that is a bit disappointing. I like lots of puzzle-solving in a game and wish end-games had more of that aspect. Although I love Wiz&War, I find it a bit lacking in puzzle problems. Pulling chains and levers and dropping coins just doesn't do it for me (although I enjoyed the elevator puzzle, since it required some thinking and analysis). My favorite puzzle solving game EVER was "The Fool's Errand" - did anyone elso here play that one, and know of any similar game?

====
Throg
====

[Scronan]

Hmm, to relate to what Catzenpewters said, I do like to see lots of "mini bosses" throughout a game. There is just something about going after some big nasty creature that is Lord of some tribe of misfits, then taking them all out!

I do like puzzles, but if there are too many, I feel it subtracts from character building, which is the main challenge and fun of RPG's.

In my opinion at least!

Scronan

[Sazerac]

I, too, like some puzzle-playing, especially if 1) it relates to the game and the storyline, and 2) if it is fairly intuitive. Although I did enjoy the game The Elder Scrolls: Arena (1993-94), (and talk about a tough boss at the end of that one, if you didn't decide on the "cowards" way out!) I did not enjoy the gratuitous, unrelated riddles scattered throughout the game, which had little or no relativity to the storyline and (most) were blatantly obvious to anyone who had read "The Hobbit: Riddles in the Dark".

Catzenpewters: I think you're referring to "cut sequences", when you complete a major task in the game and a video plays showing the resolution of that quest. Daggerfall had this, as did Might and Magic 6 and 7. (MM7 was good about having several cut sequences, like after you free the King, then you get to see the video of him and the queen exiling his wicked brother.) I would like to see more games like that.

-Sazerac

[catzenpewters]

Yes, it was the Might & Magic series I was thinking of. It's like a nice little reward after you've done something significant. And it's neat to see some of the characters in the game momentarily brought to life like that.

I like some puzzles within a game, but agree they should fairly intuitive and there shouldn't be TOO many of them. I like something I can figure out, but don't want to spend two years trying to do it. For example, those dang switches and bridges in, where was that, skull castle? Without the walkthrough I would have become so frustrated I'd have probably quit then and there. I could have figured it out, but I don't want to spend a huge amount of time doing so, when I could be progressing in the game and having more fun experiences. I also agree that it should be related to the plot.

[Fulant]

I would MUCH rather play a game where becoming the boss is the goal! I would like to build a castle and control an undead army to destroy neighboring states. And champions and heros are always trying to kill me.

[realbinky]

I don't depend on the boss to make the game. One of 2 things usually happens, though. I can whoop anything in the game, but the final boss is insanely hard, which makes sense, as he's usually been ithe boss for a while, and I've been wandering about for a few months and now I expect to take him out? But that's not fun, I try a few times, but if I can't do it, I usually baill, having enmjoye the game itself. The other way it goes is that the end boss is just one more bad guy and easy to beat. One of my favorite games was Anvil of Dawn by New World Computing. You never fought the boss, thought there was one. You had to construct a magic box, then steal this crystal or something that was the source of his power, seal it in the box, and throw it in a volcano. Then the boss died/lost his power, but you never actually fought him. The other thing that may be fun is uncovering a mystery or exposing a boss to other, more powerful forces of good.

[Sazerac]

Fulant: your description is probably more along the lines of a Strategy/Conquest game like HoMM or MoM. Those were good games in their particular line, but more detail is given towards conquest and building armies than actual character development. Balor of the Evil Eye was like that, too; you had to play one of the heros of ancient Ireland, unite the various tribes under one kingship or queenship (yours), and then go fight the boss (Balor) at the end. It was more about strategy, diplomacy, and conquest than exploration and character development. Still, it was fun.

I also like games in which it gives you the option of fighting the "boss" or exposing him/her: again, Daggerfall was like this, in which the evil lord that had assassinated the good King is taken down either in direct combat or by exposing his plot to the other royal powers (by finding his personal diary). Either way, the undead king is avenged and finds peace in the end.

-Saz