Bosses

[nomask7]

Filler combat and then that one encounter that is challenging? Then the pattern repeats. Makes sense if you play to be bored and then annoyed, then bored then annoyed.

What bosses do to game design.

A sort of braindead way of organising and structuring gameplay and difficulty meant to deprive you of all surprise or any interest you might have had for the supposed adventure. The challenge peak always where you expect it to be, and can't be avoided. No realism, either. No sense of dangerous exploration unless you happen to stumble on a high-level area, then the exploration there is uniformly dangerous if not impossible. Crappy game design is crappy. (Night of the Raven being an exception, as usual.)

Bosses, what's not to hate?

And some of them are annyoing, even game stoppers for me. I've never played Diablo 2 fully partly because of the bosses. In Neverwinter Nights, I had to stop for several months because of a boss I couldn't beat with my single fighter-character, and it didn't occur to me to cheat.

In games like this, bosses aren't challenges, they're ways of telling the player to grind more, hey grind some more, and some more now. Maybe it's my gaming style where I often want to advance as fast as I can, but they basically ruin these games for me. In NWN it's relatively easy to cheat when you need to, but there are many other games where it's either not possible at all or requires extraordinary effort unless you want to cheat through the whole game. (By the way, not sure if anybody's noticed but NWN with the latest version patch is now unbeatable in single player without cheats thanks to the more advanced enemy AI especially for enemy spell casters. Good job, Bioware.)

In some games bosses are not necessarily difficult, just kind of dumb cliches that break the flow of the game. I'd rather search for some artifact in a dungeon where threat may lurk behind any corner like in Arena than advance through a fairly straightforward path of filler combat to the level boss to beat a dungeon.

Sure, there should be some scary monsters in the game, but why do they have to just happen to be blocking your path every time instead of being mostly optional like the shadow dragon in BG2 or something that shocks you to death like the shadow beast in NotR while being avoidable in principle?

Points for the Baldur's Gate series for good combat memories, but maybe there could have been a bit *more* freedom and flexibility when it came to combat encounters.

 

[Night Goat]

 

[Ranselknulf]

Filler combat and then that one encounter that is challenging? Then the pattern repeats. Makes sense if you play to be bored and then annoyed, then bored then annoyed.

What bosses do to game design.

A sort of braindead way of organising and structuring gameplay and difficulty meant to deprive you of all surprise or any interest you might have had for the supposed adventure. The challenge peak always where you expect it to be, and can't be avoided. No realism, either. No sense of dangerous exploration unless you happen to stumble on a high-level area, then the exploration there is uniformly dangerous if not impossible. Crappy game design is crappy. (Night of the Raven being an exception, as usual.)

Bosses, what's not to hate?

And some of them are annyoing, even game stoppers for me. I've never played Diablo 2 fully partly because of the bosses. In Neverwinter Nights, I had to stop for several months because of a boss I couldn't beat with my single fighter-character, and it didn't occur to me to cheat.

In games like this, bosses aren't challenges, they're ways of telling the player to grind more, hey grind some more, and some more now. Maybe it's my gaming style where I often want to advance as fast as I can, but they basically ruin these games for me. In NWN it's relatively easy to cheat when you need to, but there are many other games where it's either not possible at all or requires extraordinary effort unless you want to cheat through the whole game. (By the way, not sure if anybody's noticed but NWN with the latest version patch is now unbeatable in single player without cheats thanks to the more advanced enemy AI especially for enemy spell casters. Good job, Bioware.)

In some games bosses are not necessarily difficult, just kind of dumb cliches that break the flow of the game. I'd rather search for some artifact in a dungeon where threat may lurk behind any corner like in Arena than advance through a fairly straightforward path of filler combat to the level boss to beat a dungeon.

Sure, there should be some scary monsters in the game, but why do they have to just happen to be blocking your path every time instead of being mostly optional like the shadow dragon in BG2 or something that shocks you to death like the shadow beast in NotR while being avoidable in principle?

Points for the Baldur's Gate series for good combat memories, but maybe there could have been a bit *more* freedom and flexibility when it came to combat encounters.

At first I was like


Then I realized he was just trolling me...

 

[Karmapowered]

Provided this is not a troll :

Bosses because there is Hollywood.

Bosses because AI in cRPGs is teh hard for game developpers (or say I am told on this forum).

Bosses because it makes it easier for game designers (they can write games like a book, by chapters) and for players (by giving the game identifiable structure : as you said, you know how much you need to "grind" before proceeding).

Bosses make no sense in RL of course, which is why PNP (with human AIs on "both" sides) > cRPGs.

Play JA2.

 

[nomask7]

It's not a troll, and while some of your observations are probably valid, the idea that the cliche structure is needed for telling players how much to grind isn't one of them, since many games have level-scaling anyway and even then level scaling and bosses are systems that can (and should) be scrapped in favor of making combat more avoidable and hiding the most difficult encounters in bonus areas (or making them otherwise avoidable).

You don't need level scaling or grinding when you don't need to battle difficult enemies to begin with, or you have special means of disposing of the few that you must defeat (like the demon scrolls in NotR).

 

[Ranselknulf]

It's like you are having an internal struggle coming to grips with your desire to ditch stupid AI and play pvp (or pnp) games.

keep on soul searching bro

 

[DragoFireheart]

Bosses: Another game design elment that is but a tool. When used correctly, it works well and helps create memorable game moments.

 

[nomask7]

This has nothing to do with AI, and everything to do with how games are structured around combat and grinding, when they should be structured around adventuring, exploration, and a story with C&C.

Even combat would be more interesting in CRPGs if the world were more realistic and you could stumble on a challenging battle somewhere outside of an unavoidable boss encounter or one or two bonus fights.

And this isn't internal. I make it public because I want game developers to stop being brainless morons.

If this were about something utopian, then I wouldn't be able to cite excellent examples like Night of the Raven.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Once you realize that bosses were made because of dumb AI all will be clear.

It will take time but you have to come to this conclusion on your own.


#TooDeep4U

 

[nomask7]

Let me reshuffle parts of my previous message for you.

If this were about AI, I wouldn't be able to cite real games that do this well, such as Night of the Raven.

Even games like Baldur's Gate 2 have all the ingredients, they're just not used as well as they could be.

It's. Not. About. AI.

Or what do you imagine most monsters would do in a real world? They're mainly low IQ and they'd just bite until you hacked their heads off or they'd beat you until you killed them.

It's not about any fucking AI. It's about world design, and doing it from a new paradigm.

 

[Ranselknulf]

Why would you want an entire world filled with stupid npc gankers for your exploration / adventure game?

Low IQ doesn't necessarily mean they suck at killing either. Even retards can become good at a specific set of physical tasks.



*Lights Some Incense*

Ok clear your mind.

Let the great truth flow through you. Become one with space and time.

Open your mind to the possibilities.

Let the knowledge of the ages seep into your essence (new world designs will do nothing to change the underlying problem with adventure and exploration which is dumb AI encounters)

*A Flash of Light Fills the Room and is gone in an Instant*


#FaceofGod

 

[nomask7]

Have you played through Two Worlds? That was rather well done and didn't have a single boss encounter except right at the end, at least any unavoidable one. Combat in general was pretty much 100% avoidable as far as specific encounters went, and there were harder areas and easier areas, all accessible right at the start. You probably wanted to slaughter some monsters now and then but it wasn't necessary except as prep for the boss battle at the end.

The only problem was that running by monsters was usually so easy the game didn't really have much of a sense of danger except in a few dungeons, most notably the one with the Serpents inside the Temple of the water element. That dungeon was the highlight of the game. Wonderful stuff, especially on iron man (it's where my longest iron man game ended as I was already starting to escape with the artifact; good times).

But yeah, it's not about AI. Even fucking Diablo got this shit right: it's actually lots of fun to see how much grinding you can skip before you have to take a few steps back and grind a little. But then Diablo 2 went full retard with unavoidable boss battles.

 

[Ranselknulf]

You make my brain hurt, I'm going back to drinking.

#BungaBunga

 

[Destroid]

I tend not to play the kinds of games that typically feature bosses. But I found the recurring 'boss' of sorts in the MoO series, the Orion Guardian (and the minibosses like space monsters) to be interesting to play and really add something to the game. In this case it was a choice to optimise your fleet for fighting such bosses in order to reap the rewards (delicious planets and or tech), at the expense of short term ability to fight other empires.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Why would you want an entire world filled with stupid npc gankers for your exploration / adventure game?

Low IQ doesn't necessarily mean they suck at killing either. Even retards can become good at a specific set of physical tasks.

How many retarded good at martial arts do you know?

 

[Ranselknulf]

Why would you want an entire world filled with stupid npc gankers for your exploration / adventure game?

Low IQ doesn't necessarily mean they suck at killing either. Even retards can become good at a specific set of physical tasks.

How many retarded good at martial arts do you know?

They don't have to be good if they outnumber you, hence the intelligent AI aspect.


Why do you think America had such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan.. I mean we are the #best fighting force in the world but we have a hard time taking out a bunch of disorganized / and ill equipped gangs of thugs?


#WERENUMBERONE

 

[Terpsichore]

What I dislike is that the final boss is usually easy since you are meant to finish the story without much effort while optional bosses (if there are any) tend to be harder.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Bosses make no sense in RL of course, which is why PNP (with human AIs on "both" sides) > cRPGs.

A rich fighter trained since childhood wearing a mail panoply commanding a group of dozens of soldiers wearing textile armour. Sounds like a boss to me.

They don't have to be good if they outnumber you, hence the intelligent AI aspect.


Why do you think America had such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan.. I mean we are the #best fighting force in the world but we have a hard time taking out a bunch of disorganized / and ill equipped gangs of thugs?

Didn't America have a hard time mainly because the enemy used the traps skill extensively?

 

[Ranselknulf]

Precisely, and an "Intelligent AI" can create a non-formulaic ambush and change tactics when the "players" become too good at counteracting the current strategy.


#ChickenBaconRanch

 

[Turjan]

[Why do you think America had such a hard time in Iraq and Afghanistan.. I mean we are the #best fighting force in the world but we have a hard time taking out a bunch of disorganized / and ill equipped gangs of thugs?

The main reason for this is that bombing a whole country to rubble and/or nailing 10% of the population to roadside crosses as deterrence went out of fashion.

But yeah, regarding boss fights, I'm most of the time not a big fan as they happen to be terribly contrived. The first time someone respawned three times in a possibly more powerful form, it may have been a surprise, but nowadays I consider this to be a nuisance.

 

[Absalom]

Who let nomask out of his cage?

 

[Karmapowered]

A rich fighter trained since childhood wearing a mail panoply commanding a group of dozens of soldiers wearing textile armour. Sounds like a boss to me.

"Bosses" can be assimilated to leaders in RL : Kings/Nobles (in Medieval times) or Officers (in modern times).

Provided they had/have a modicum of intelligence and survival instinct, neither had/has interest in over-exposing themselves in deadly one-to-one confrontations. Even less in battles that had/has them fight, on their own, against a whole squad of trained mercenaries hero-wannabees.

That's Hollywood that wants that, not reality/history.

If a King decided to engage in a real battle, they did so knowing that they had good chances at winning. If the odds somehow decided not to favor them, they absolutely had to make sure that they'd be captured alive by their opponents, and ransomed, instead of being killed. In such times, a leader was the guarantee to preserve the morale among the troops unwashed masses, the authority and financial assets to command and pay them. Their abilities as skilled fighters were completely secondary.

Contrary to what video-games convey, leaders have no interest in keeping the best gear for themselves. They have grunts to fight (and die) for them. Any half-decent commander will tell you that it's their soldiers that should have the real deal in hand, not them. Leaders are to supervise the battle-field, centralize and process intelligence, give orders from a safe location, keeping their pew-pew's for the worst cases and maybe their expensive (but probably ineffective) armor to prance about in parades.

Even if one considers a-typical cases, like thug leaders, who indeed need the best kevlar to survive assassination attempts happening in their back, they'll rarely directly jump in the fray. Mafia godfathers are crippled 70+ years old fags that don't want to discredit themselves in society by wielding peasant tools, like Uzis. They'll of course be surrounded by lackeys/bodyguards in numbers to do that for them. Their role is to be the "brain", not the "muscle".

That leads me back to the predicament explained above.

Since most cRPGs still come with AI of laughable quality, it's impossible for them to simulate that reality of our world. Leaders cannot "lead" in video-games, since they lack a "brain". Therefore, the game industry makes killing machines with inhuman powers out of them, to somewhat differentiate them from other NPCs, and offer the false impression of a challenge to the player. It's simple to do so, the least expensive, and customers don't seem to expect more of their games.

Let me take an example I like to repeat on these forums to conclude.

If video-games had capable AIs, you wouldn't need dozens of vampires to instill true fear in a player. A single one would suffice, since such creatures are supposed to come with super-natural intelligence (and aren't particularly gregarious to start with, but that's another debate). It'd be a cunnining and deceiving beast, plotting from within the shadows, commanding to ruthless and ever-increasing numbers of minions. If it decides to strike, you can be damn sure that it will have chosen to do so viciously, when the player is the most weakened, or maybe in several attempts to weaken them even further each time, forcing them to a true and epic battle for mere survival on the long run. It would not stand like a dumbfunded idiot in the middle of a basement room, as an open target to a couple of fireballs of some level 5 peons passing by.

I had the chance to fight against such an "intelligent boss" with my fellow PNP mates. I wish I could find something similar in cRPGs. If one leaves a decent AI out of the cRPG equation, one is bound to ALWAYS return to the "mountain of HPs resisting everything boss" pattern, so I am not too optimistic for the time being.

 

[abnaxus]

Have you ever charmed a female boss?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

"Bosses" can be assimilated to leaders in RL : Kings/Nobles (in Medieval times) or Officers (in modern times).

Provided they had/have a modicum of intelligence and survival instinct, neither had/has interest in over-exposing themselves in deadly one-to-one confrontations. Even less in battles that had/has them fight, on their own, against a whole squad of trained mercenaries hero-wannabees.

That's Hollywood that wants that, not reality/history.

If a King decided to engage in a real battle, they did so knowing that they had good chances at winning. If the odds somehow decided not to favor them, they absolutely had to make sure that they'd be captured alive by their opponents, and ransomed, instead of being killed. In such times, a leader was the guarantee to preserve the morale among the troops unwashed masses, the authority and financial assets to command and pay them. Their abilities as skilled fighters were completely secondary.

I meant more someone like a knight that still does the fighting and earns money mostly on being a powerful dude with a heavy armour and great combat skills. Let's remember that these guys trained since they were kids and wore armour costing 2,5 years of labourer's wages which makes them a perfect boss material.

 

[JarlFrank]

"Bosses" can be assimilated to leaders in RL : Kings/Nobles (in Medieval times) or Officers (in modern times).

Provided they had/have a modicum of intelligence and survival instinct, neither had/has interest in over-exposing themselves in deadly one-to-one confrontations. Even less in battles that had/has them fight, on their own, against a whole squad of trained mercenaries hero-wannabees.

There was one battle between Muslims and Byzantines where the Muslim leader won despite having a less experienced and smaller army... by challenging the general of the Byzantine army to single combat and killing him. Then challenging the next in command. And then his next in command. Until all the experienced leadership of the Byzantine army was dead.
And none of the officers refused his challenge to single combat because being directly challenged and refusing would be a coward's way and a stain on your honour.
So they let themselves be slaughtered by a better fighter but worse leader, who then proceeded to defeat the leader-less army of the Byzantines...

Yeah, it's not *that* unrealistic.