I love both soulslikes and metroidvanias for their exploration but a large part of the fanbase is obsessed with boss fights and plays those games just for the bosses.The bosses were the worst part of Dark Souls.
I love both soulslikes and metroidvanias for their exploration but a large part of the fanbase is obsessed with boss fights and plays those games just for the bosses.The bosses were the worst part of Dark Souls.
This whole boss obsession is ruining genres that have great other aspects.
I really love Max Payne 1-2, but they have bossfghts, the first game even have a really shitty HP-bloated one. I like the oroginal Tomb Raider for the levels, puzzles and platforming, but the shooting gameplay isn't goodMax Payne, MDK, Tomb Raider, Legacy of Kain - there were the real third-person action games
Shut the fuck up fake Grog, Real RPGs as Gary Gygax envisioned them don't even have builds.I love both soulslikes and metroidvanias for their exploration but a large part of the fanbase is obsessed with boss fights and plays those games just for the bosses.The bosses were the worst part of Dark Souls.
This whole boss obsession is ruining genres that have great other aspects.
I rarely agree with dorky on anything, but this stupid coin-op mentality cannot die and be buried with extreme prejudice soon enough. Especially in any game that claims to be an RPG in any shape or form. "Pattern memorization" my ass. 1980s called, they want their brand of microtransactions back. In an RPG, your job is to build the kind of party the "bosses" will bounce off and die on their own, not to "memorize patterns".
Shut the fuck up fake Grog, Real RPGs as Gary Gygax envisioned them don't even have builds.
Real RPGs are wargames.
There is a whole cult of gamers who think Dark Souls, Sekiro, Elden Ring, and similar games like Nioh represent the height of video game combat or action RPG combat. I will now proceed to explain to you why they are wrong.
1. It is a legacy of video game history. Arcade games were some of the earliest popular offerings in the industry, so it seems natural for other games to borrow some of their elements, including a procession of bosses increasing in difficulty.
2. It is one of the easiest and laziest ways to structure a video game or an RPG: at key points of the game progression, have the player face some "boss" with arbitrarily more powerful abilities/stats, make them beat it to progress, test their skills, etc. Almost any other way to structure a game into segments would involve more effort: e.g. you would have to design a world with multiple segments thematically/structurally/narratively... Much easier to just take some NPC, increase their model size, change hitpoint variable by a thousand times, and give them a few OP abilities.
The problem with boss combat is that it is guaranteed to be shit.
Given the massive disparity in health, damage, abilities and so on, no combat system can be devised for one of these to fight the other, so they have to fall back on some cheesy shit. That cheese shit might work once in a movie, but in a video where you have to do it many times, it quickly becomes a waste of time.
Instead, they have all the initiative, and the only thing you can do is "figure them out". Mostly, boss combat reminds me of you (the player) jumping through hoops for developers, like a nice dog. Which should be the opposite of fun for most normal people.
Games with combat based on general principles, on the other hand, can be absolutely fantastic (for example Kingdom Come: Deliverance, once you remove master strike, or Mount & Blade games). There are no bosses in these games, they have characters who are stronger and more important antagonists in the story, but they are sure as hell aren't "bosses", and play by the same rules as you do.
It's time for developers to stop using the shitty boss trope, and instead introduce general principle combat, ideally based on RL fighting arts to some degree.
Semi-random based on stat rolls.Shut the fuck up fake Grog, Real RPGs as Gary Gygax envisioned them don't even have builds.
I said "build the party", idiot.
Possibly random depending on ref's call, gained through achieving the goal of the game but offering no actual choice save picking spells(depends on ref's call), random or ref's callI reckon real RPGs as Gary Gygax envisioned them had spells, levels and magic items, innit?
Entirely dependant on the game's mechanicsIt should be pretty obvious that no kind of elegant or interesting combat is possible when one combatant is a human (or close to it), and another is Godzilla or King Kong or Superman.
One paragraph earlier:Instead, they have all the initiative, and the only thing you can do is "figure them out". Learn their patterns, and then respond to them.
A boxer keeps throwing out feints, watching his opponent react, then on the basis of this reaction, anticipates where to throw his next punch in advance of the opponent's movement.
Games with combat based on general principles, on the other hand, can be absolutely fantastic (for example Kingdom Come: Deliverance, once you remove master strike, or Mount & Blade games). There are no bosses in these games, they have characters who are stronger and more important antagonists in the story, but they are sure as hell aren't "bosses", and play by the same rules as you do.
You can't make good enough AI for "fair" combat. So it's either PvP or games with well designed bosses.
2. It is one of the easiest and laziest ways to structure a video game or an RPG: at key points of the game progression, have the player face some "boss" with arbitrarily more powerful abilities/stats, make them beat it to progress, test their skills, etc. Almost any other way to structure a game into segments would involve more effort: e.g. you would have to design a world with multiple segments thematically/structurally/narratively... Much easier to just take some NPC, increase their model size, change hitpoint variable by a thousand times, and give them a few OP abilities.
Since you specifically mentioned Dark Souls, Sekiro, and Elden Ring I will use these as context. I haven't played Nioh so I can't speak to it.
You are being incredibly reductionist in your analysis. The souls series typically has a vast tapestry of mythology and backstory to the main bosses the player will face interwoven into the fight itself. Take the twin princes of DS3. This model is unique and not, "copy and pasted" or just recklessly upscaled to fit into a cheap fight.
The problem with boss combat is that it is guaranteed to be shit.
You are just asserting this with no real evidence.
Given the massive disparity in health, damage, abilities and so on, no combat system can be devised for one of these to fight the other, so they have to fall back on some cheesy shit. That cheese shit might work once in a movie, but in a video where you have to do it many times, it quickly becomes a waste of time.
This is factually incorrect and demonstrates to me you either have no idea how to play a soulslike game or have never played one in the first place. Souls bosses typically fall into 4 categories. Standard bosses, puzzle bosses, timed bosses, and gimmick bosses. Every main boss in a soulsgame has a correct and incorrect way of approaching the fight. The difficulty spike is dependent on how the bosses are programmed with their moveset to punish the player for mistakes and or being too greedy on the offense.
No, but I suspect you areWhat are you, turning your brain off or something?
Eh... you didn't get the jab (ba-dum-tsss)These are not contradictory in any way.
And I agree - except the "reality" part, because gameplay doesn't need to conform with reality to be goodMeanwhile in boss combat, you generally have no fucking idea what this particular boss will do, because they are all designed to have dumbass abilities that have nothing to do with reality or general principles. So you go in expecting to die a few times (at best), while learning what it is they are fucking doing.
This difference is what separates good, fun combat from the shit that is boss combat.
You made an argument that bosses are a bad way to structure a game, even for a narrative standpointHow does any of this matter to the argument at hand?
Nigga you made the claimYou know, for a guy named after Socrates, this above is a really shitty statement. Since you proceed to argue with my evidence below. So how can you assert the above before doing so?
No, but I suspect you areWhat are you, turning your brain off or something?
... have mechanics to plausibely accomadote such scenario ...
You talk talk about games where a "regular" human takes on unbelievably powerful beings, but you ignore the fact in those games your human protagonist most of the times also possess some unbelievable capabilities thanks to nonsense like DnD magic or cartoon super science
Meaning those games have mechanics to plausibely accomadote such scenario
Eh... you didn't get the jab (ba-dum-tsss)These are not contradictory in any way.
You complained that in melee combat games the player had to learn the enemies patterns, but one paragraph earlier you literally described how understading the opponents behaviour and patterns was a big part of boxing and how it's like a mental chess game
I'll give you another counter-example, Letho in The Witcher 2
The entire conflict begins because of Letho's killings and Letho himself is caracterised as both a foil to Geralt, as well as someone from Gerealt (yet nebulous) past
It would've made no narrative sense if the plot didn't end with a confrontation with Letho
Nigga you made the claimYou know, for a guy named after Socrates, this above is a really shitty statement. Since you proceed to argue with my evidence below. So how can you assert the above before doing so?
It's (YOU), who has to prove it first
What I meant that these are fine examples of great games, but some of them are bad examples, if you are looking for good combat (TR hasn't got it) or bossfights (MP has bad bossfights).I really love Max Payne 1-2, but they have bossfghts, the first game even have a really shitty HP-bloated one. I like the oroginal Tomb Raider for the levels, puzzles and platforming, but the shooting gameplay isn't goodMax Payne, MDK, Tomb Raider, Legacy of Kain - there were the real third-person action games
No one said these games don't have flaws. But they were the third-person action games of their day and each had unique gameplay, unlike DS and its ilk, which are formulaic. Which was the whole point of this thread.
So you're actually arguing from the point of view that realism = good game designThe fact that facing Godzilla/King Kong/Superman would require your hero to have more and more unrealistic "powers" and abilities is exactly why any such combat system is guaranteed to be shit.
NoYou are the one who is not getting it. So I will have to repeat again, I guess: studying your opponent while both of you are playing by the same rules is completely different from dying 20 times to study whatever bullshit abilities your new opponent has.
Witcher games are a terrible example for your side of the argument, because they are relatively light on the kind of bosses we are talking about in this thread.
You made an attemptI did prove it
To understand why this pasta tastes bad, let me tell you about skate boarding. They have nothing in common you can contrast but skate boarding also requires you to use your hands so it's the same thing! Those 3 mediums are so radically different you cannot compare them in any meaningful way.The problem with boss combat is that it is guaranteed to be shit. To understand why, imagine the video game version of "bosses" in a movie or a book (so called more serious and mature entertainment media)
Except for all the Godzilla movies where he loses to a human with a weapon.It should be pretty obvious that no kind of elegant or interesting combat is possible when one combatant is a human (or close to it), and another is Godzilla
I can go outside a punch a child right now. We are in no way any where near the same abilities and it's not going to be a game of chess. What kind of autism is this where you think 'real world combat systems' even exist?To put it another way: actual real world combat systems are fascinating, whether we talk about historical sword fighting, archery, martial arts, boxing or special ops. That's because they involve combatants with roughly similar abilities, and thus become high speed games of chess.
There are plenty of games where bosses are on par with your abilities. From simple Pokemon gym battles to Bushido blade where 1 hit kills.But with "bosses", none of this matters. Since their abilities and stats do not parallel your character's, but are vastly inflated, you cannot engage with them on a level field.
So you're actually arguing from the point of view that realism = good game designThe fact that facing Godzilla/King Kong/Superman would require your hero to have more and more unrealistic "powers" and abilities is exactly why any such combat system is guaranteed to be shit.
Good to know you're one of those mongloids
NoYou are the one who is not getting it. So I will have to repeat again, I guess: studying your opponent while both of you are playing by the same rules is completely different from dying 20 times to study whatever bullshit abilities your new opponent has.
You, are the one who's not getting it
Every good game establishes early on mechanical principles for which all other gameplay considerations must not contrafict
In the case of good figthing games, these rules apply even to NPCs, so that the player can also exert equal influence as they can exert on his PC
You, think otherwise, because you, are ignorant, because you barely played anything in these subgenres, and judging by your comment on Nioh, even from what you played, you didn't get it
Witcher games are a terrible example for your side of the argument, because they are relatively light on the kind of bosses we are talking about in this thread.
- in the argument I quoted you on this point, you were specifically discussing with Socrates that bosses have are unnecessary in a game's narrative and structure - we were not discussing their design quality
- I gave a few examples of games whose campgain needed bosses
- you never specified which kind of bosses we are talking about in this thread, in fact your OP implies that we talking about the concept of "Bosses" in general