This week, Adam sits down with a topic we're all familiar with; bosses. Not the guy who wears short sleeved shirts and scolds you for spelling errors. No, we're talking about the larger than life characters you fight at the end of a level, or to be more specific, the huge guy at the very end of the game. The Sess has a bone to pick with final bosses, because they always seem to be a bit removed from the rest of the game, requiring simple memorization or trial and error to defeat them, rather than usage of the skills you've acquired throughout the entire game.
This is where you guys come in. Leave a comment below outlining how you think game developers could improve final boss battles. Just try to be civil, expressive, and creative. But first, press play and find out what Adam has to say on the subject.
Subscribe to G4's Sessler's Soapbox Podcast by clicking your preferred service:
Comments
Displaying 1–20 of 259
12345678910…12132
chizzace ShowHide(3 Replies)
To win, you lose, get it? There's no really way to win the game because in the end your character was meant to die. Its like a twist, ya know?
Why dint you think of that? dumbdumb
mike_tha_hero
I always liked boss battes that had multiple battles..within that one battle. Chnaging the gameplay and controls helps too.
Polynomial
Does a game even need a final boss battle? Look at Braid. That game was entirely satisfying and just had a final level, not a boss. The narrative alone carried the game and the final scene alone was The Godfather of video game endings. It could be said a huge out of place boss battle is only a device for a weak narrative.
jkat1
i see what adam means in this soapbox many times epic games i played once i put off playing again because of the final boss battle. however there are some games where the final boss has to be respected and in turn helps u enjoy the story more. the first example that i can think of is raam in gears 1. i could never beat him by myself. for this reason i grew to respect that game and the story. then there was the boss in one of the earlier mgs where he could read ur mind and predict your attack unless u plugged in another controller and used that to beat him. for that matter pretty much all mgs bosses are amazing imo. then theres the masterhand in super smash bros 64. then theres al mualim at the end of assasins creed. those are all fb's that i really liked playing against. other than that the rest kinda suck.
DeuceDeus
I would recommend doing what the 1st Halo did or MGS. Change the style of gameplay (from FPS to Race against time). If it's an FPS, try integrating an actual puzzle game using the 1P view.
-Deuce.Rok
Gameboxed
Well boss battles are my favorite part of the game, so when it isn't as exciting and memorable as it is, it's really disappointing. the last great boss battle that I faced was Tales of the Abyss, which it required every ounce of knowledge to take him down. So what makes a great boss battle?
First off, The story. You'll really want to get to know the bosses. Whether is to piss you off or scare the living hell out of you to make you not want to go against him/her. We don't want to fight someone who's purpose is so vague and stupid that it'll make you stop playing the game
Second, If you are going to make a boss, don't over dress or under dress their character. All we need is for them to stand out that's it.
And Third, the battle itself. We need it to be difficult. It will require all your knowledge of the game to figure out how to fight this boss. I'm tired of battling bosses by sections. It just makes it easier. I also don't want any weak points. Maybe a few here and there but not enough to kill him completely by just stunning them by hitting them in the head.
In the end, I really think that boss battles are just ok, but that's just it, they are just "ok" we need something that will wow it's audience and make you swear at your television. Once completed we will feel relieve, satisfied and scarred by the grand battle that just took place.
Yatzee1000
I have often wondered what the origin of the term Boss in video games was. Does anyone know?
ccruse1112
I think the problem with Boss Battles is that games now a days just dont work well with them. Most games now a days are FPSs with real life machanics, or other types of games that try to throw you into real worlds situations (like GTA series), and bosses just dont work in those.
Thats why you have final moments. Also game makers focus so much on making the gameplay, pacing and enemies feel right that its really hard for them to go in and add a boss, and if they do it will probably just be a letdown compared to the rest of the game (like most 80s actions movies that had all these great action scenes leading up to a lame climax and a cheesy line).
Think about the original Matrix movie, it was so good that there was no way you could feel satisfied with Neo Killing Smith in the end. The ending was satisfying because of Neos becoming the 1 (which only lasted 5 minutes) not because of the fight with Smith. If you compare that with the last Star Wars film were it wasnt really action packed and awesome until the final scene, and you understand the dilemma game makers have. They can make a great game through and though that doesnt have a great ending (Gears of War) or they can make one that is ok until that special moment (Resident Evil 5).
My solution would be for games stop taking themselves so seriously. No matter what we say about Japanese games they never take themselves very seriously which allows them to put in these great unrealistic Bosses. Metal Gear is the military stealth game but the bosses are crazy as hell and the best part of the game, you would never see that in Splinter Cell. Japanese games pace themselves for multiple bosses and seem to design the game around the bosses, even adding gameplay mechanics there havent been in the game just for a boss battle (for example fight with Liquid at the end of MGS IV, you didnt use malee in that game like that until that moment) which is why they are the best parts of the games. Western games seem to just put a boss into there already made gameplay mechanic, and it never feels right (inFamous for example was great game with great gameplay but the bosses weren't anything to write home about).
daioushin
Games always end with either a final boss or level or both. There's always some antagonist that you must defeat to finish the game, it's not just in games, movies do it too.
It's just how we like things to end...Epically.
The only games that don't have a final boss are usually puzzle, racing, sports games etc. The ones without any real narration. The game must have a boss battle or it just isn't fulfulling, and if we do find some alternative that actually works, someone will want something different again a few years after its taken over game endings everywhere.
Raurik
One of the things I think a lot of games (like Devil May Cry) fail to do is let you get to know the bosses before you fight them. If bosses are going to sit on an apex of the story then they should be given all the attention that a main character would receive because they ARE main characters at that point. I think Metal Gear Solid did this well in Twin Snakes (the remake for GC). Please refrain from spewing "The PS1 version's voice acting was so much better GC sucks." nonsense. The bosses were main characters and by the end of it you would have favorites. Another thing I think signifies good boss development is whether or not you have a favorite boss from a particular game. Devil May Cry 4 and both Ninja Gaidens are great games. I love them to death, but their bosses are forgettable monsters that, with the exclusion of one or two, have nothing to do with the story. Great fighting mechanics, epic finishes, forgettable bosses. Metal gear solid, horrible, outdated controls, weak combat, memorable bosses. All three are awesome games in their own right, but I think there are lessons that they could all learn from one another.
N8R
I want to point out Fallout 3 (DLC excluded). At the Galaxy News Radio (pretty early on in the game) mission is where we encountered the Behemoth (usually for the first time). I expected THEN the final battle to be the Enclave version of that... but it wasn't. Instead, they relied on the drama which was ever so present in the game to carry it out. I wasn't COMPLETELY disappointed, but I did wish for more of a challenge than the one we faced.
However, fighting that Behemoth at Galaxy News took alot using the mechanics that were present throughout the game. And then you found 4 more of them as more of a bonus than anything else.
But still, Fallout 3 is and was incredible.
Dr_Obey
What Adam wants is an ending to an Action / RPS type game, FPS' like Modern Warfare already have great endings, or like HL2:Ep2 really pent up violent all-out war endings.
For Action and RPG type games we can easily say what doesn't work:
1) Martyrdom
2) That new weapon you got can pinpoint the Boss' weakness!
3) Dodge, strike. Dodge, strike.
Fallout 3 worked really well in that you have a giant robot and lots of explosions and duck-and-cover combat because there's just too many enemies. Maybe replicating that instead of trying to sum up an entire game with the downfall of one figure.
UGoBooMBooM
Having an engaging final boss (and final act) in a game is crucial, and I'm surprised that so many games can turn out to feel so lacking in this department.
Developers really need to learn how important the primacy and recency effect are in video games. When you reflect on your experience with a particular game, you'll more than likely remember either what the first thing was that drew you into that game, or the last triumphant (or not so triumphant) experience that you had within that world. It would take a lot of fond memories of the actual meat of the game to turn your perception of that game to a positive one, if the last thing that you were taken through is a complete and total let down. This is why the final boss battle is so important.
----------
Off the top of my head, after watching this video, these are a few things I would consider to be important to bring to a final boss battle:
I think a nice flow, which is probably the most important aspect to me personally, is essential to building an "epic" sense to an ending battle. There are some games in which the final boss battle just doesn't keep up the pace. Depending on the type of game (not as true for story driven, but very much so for action), the pace and flow really give you an extra kick of adrenaline, which the final boss should provide more of than the rest of the game (again, you want to leave your audience on a high, so they remember the good. Recency effect).
A nice flow can still be accomplished with cut-scenes and other breaks in the fight in the mix. They just have to keep you engaged while they progress the events that are happening. The moment you start to relax, and lose that adrenaline/tension, is the moment you can start to get bored with what is going on.
Something you want to avoid to keep up that flow is repetitiveness. This is one of the most common things that kills a final boss battle. You either have to just find that one spot to bash (like you said in the video), or you have to do a certain combo of moves that was previously laid out to you repeatedly until it's dead. The most recent example I can think of that did this was Batman. Great game (one of those that the meat of the game outweighed the ending), but the final boss battle just didn't do it for me. The story was fine, but the boss was just a repeat of things I had been doing the entire game.
Some less interesting to talk about, but equally important features:
Length and difficulty. Both of these aspects can live in the realms of extremes, and it's hard to find the sweet spots. Too long/hard, too short/easy. You can't very well reach that high point of epicness and adrenaline if you don't find that sweet spot in these categories.
If you have a story driven game, then you'll also need to build up to that final moment. I have to care about what is happening, and I have to feel that the end lives in the realm of possibility. Too many times have I felt like an ending just doesn't make sense, and would never happen that way. Action games need continuity as well, but it's a greater let down if you have spent so much time learning the story of a game, talking to every NPC, finding every hidden nugget of information, only for the end to turn out sour.
----------
I know these ideas aren't the most original, and have surely been discussed in many meetings during a games development. However, it seems to me that they probably need to be rediscussed, because so many titles fall short of meeting these simple notions.
It probably has more to do with losing sight during the long and arduous creative process. Corners were cut, concessions were made, time was lacking (again, like you already said). I'm sure that lots of games (original titles, at least) start as grand and elaborate ideas. I bet it's just hard to bring those ideas into reality after jumping over all the hurdles of the development process.
Of course, I'm just guessing. Not being part of the developer community myself (or gaming press, I suppose), I wouldn't really know. Maybe they are just lazy. :P
GAMER_Civil_War
I'm a 21st century gamer and I think boss battles are have gotten a little weak. I remember back in the day (yeah i said back in the day) watching my older brother play boss battles on the NES,N64,and Sega Genesis.Now those were epic I think they've lost some touch ex:Gears of War 2 incredibly easy final boss.All I did was aim at the sky.completely oblivious to what I'm doing.
Blue_Vortex
I think another reason the final boss battle can be a let down is that once you beat it the game is over and usually you're left wanting more of the game (especially if you had fun with the final boss)
I think a final boss battle should require you to use all the skills you learned in a game to beat it.
steveo3242391
I think one of the most effective processes for final boss battles is the approach of, put as much fire or equivalent on the target and your won. That to me is much more satisfying. Like in RE5, all the boss battles were, hit this x amount of times and he will die. It put some strategy but an example of what boss battles I like, mirrors MGS4's final battle. It was epic, it took me many tries, beat it in the hardest difficulty, and after wards I was satisfied.
guillermo316 ShowHide
can you say this on the next soap " final fantasy 13 FTW!"
ionis
One of us is seriously out of the loop. it's either me or Adam. I haven't played a boss where I exploit his weak spot since SotC which I beat for the first time last week (which Adam oddly mentions as being amazing while dissing this mechanic.) The Prototype bosses didn't have some weak spot to exploit nor did the final boss in the new Wolfenstein. Phase 3 of the Wolfenstein fight was pretty weak, but the first 2 were pretty good. Prototype's final boss was basically, use all the tools you've acquired to kill him. Which is exactly what Adam was saying current final bosses aren't. Kameo's final boss was just as similar. RF:G had an epic final level.
The "final bosses" I tend to find disappointing are JRPG final bosses of the main story. They are "always" (ok not always, there are a few tough ones) absurdly easy.
This gen, I've been more impressed with final bosses than disappointed. I think the gaming industry has actually been improving on final fights a lot.
smpreet
Very good point, a number of games have come out in the past few years that have been great but had terrible endings, Gears 2 and Halo 3 were examples of that.
I think an example of getting it right was MGS4, the whole game was made to be a build up to the final battle with Liquid Ocelot, and, in my opinion at least, the designers pulled it off perfectly. It was the perfect ending to the saga, and had the right about of drama for the story, and the right type of situation for that game and the previous iterations.
But that game was written from start to finish with a goal, and I think that might be the problem that other games have, mechanics for gameplay are thought of, level design and set peaces are thought of, but final bosses aren't really thought out.
I think the designers, writters and everyone else on the team has to make sure that a game like that must have an ending and needs to be appropriate for that game, both for the story and the play style of that game.
R3LF_13
did anyone else not hear anything Adam said because they were watching Portal being played in the background?
Displaying 1–20 of 259
12345678910…12132
Add a Comment