Depends how it works. I dislike the typical Action-game boss (save for Diablo II's unique, which act as boss-like monsters most of times) like for example in Nintendo games, where they repeat THREE FREAKING ATTACK COMBOS OVER AND OVER AND YOU JUST HAVE TO EVADE THEM AND HIT THEM AFTERWARDS FOR 25 MINUTES AND 47 SECONDS ANdddd... /rant
Well, I like boss-fights if they're good, like Baldur's Gate (with SCS) or Angband (not bosses, uniques, like in D2, but hey), but not if they're like those in LoZ or other action games.
I'm actually of the opposite opinion. I love it when a boss battle follows patterns of maneuvers (for the reasons I stated before), as long as those patterns are enjoyable to execute.
...as long as those patterns are enjoyable to execute.
I think this is the primary factor, at least as far as I am concerned (personal/subjective). If it is fun, I can forgive any manner of game development choices. When it becomes rote or is simply so blinkeredly tough that it is down to random chance to win, that's when I have a problem.
It depends on the game but I do enjoy some really challenging end level boss that tests the games mechanics (thinking Devil May Cry, Demon Souls, Metal Gear Solid, Mario 64, Deus Ex, Megaman, Legend of Zelda and many others)
I'd say that Baldur's Gate has it's fair share of memorable 'bosses'. Mulahey, Nimbus, Bandit Camp leaders, Devoreon etc. I would consider all bosses in the sense they are high level encounters that are meant to test you and further push you through the story. Most of these take place at the end of chapters and such and are meant to be the final challenge in the chapter and well...I quite like that and consider it BG version of boss characters.
I'd actually say that in Baldur's Gate, the only real "boss" encounters are the bandit camp leaders, Davaeorn, Mulahey, and the final battle with Sarevok and his lackeys. Each of those encounters offers something new and unique beyond just "This is a difficult enemy". Davaeorn teleports around the area, Mulahey summons minions to help him, the bandit camp leaders are a group of distinct and interesting enemies that all bring something new to the fight, and Sarevok's final encounter takes place in a room filled with traps.
If properly designed and implemented, a boss fight should serve as the culmination of everything you have learned up to that point. It's basically the end-of-unit exam. Using Zelda as an example, King Dodongo forces you to think outside the box with your bombs, Twin Rova does the same with your Mirror Shield, Phantom Ganon challenges your aim with the bow. The execution of those fights can be cumbersome at times (usually owing to the constantly shifting camera angles more than anything else), but at their core each of them is a carefully designed dance that is built to reward the player for paying attention to visual cues.
In contrast, boss fights in games like Diablo or Skyrim tend to be battles of attrition, where the skill you're testing is your ability to avoid being hit while also dealing damage. That's not bad design, but it's also pretty much the design of every video game ever that involves player death as a mechanic. There's a nice simplicity to "Hit it with your sword until it dies", but a more complex affair can often be more rewarding.
In the context of Baldur's Gate, the battle with Mulahey isn't memorable for the fight itself; it's memorable for the milestone of having cleared the Nashkel mine and finishing a chapter in your journey. The battle in the Bandit Camp is similarly memorable only for its context within the larger narrative. Davaeorn is the first fight that really feels memorable, and that's primarily because it's the first time you ever see a powerful mage casting high-level spells. Heck, even Firkraag in BGII is a battle of attrition. It's memorable for the fact that you're fighting a dragon more than for anything that happens within the fight itself.
Yas, might be interesting if you could catch a "boss" outside of its "lair". Like, rather than finding Mulahey in the bottom of the mines playing with belly button lint, you found him doing boss stuff.
also could we get that version of "Doctor Feelgood" from Highlander III to play during some of the boss fights
However, another kind of boss fight which I like is the "I've met my match" type. It can't be done in BG due to Sarevok's excessive level , but if you're smart you can't actually turn Irenicus' fight from an impossible battle to a mage duel.
It also happened to me the last I finished ToB - I cast time stop (and the final boss is immune to it) , so we fought a one-on-one combat for a few rounds. That was awesome!
What about the four warders and the demon knight in durlags tower?
I think the OP is referring to boss fights that are outside of the normal game mechanics, or have their own mechanics entirely devoted to the fights. While I agree that things like this don't belong in CRPGS, I think they can work well with some games. It really depends on the genre. I don't mind bosses if they're done well, so I take it on a game-by-game basis.
Yas, might be interesting if you could catch a "boss" outside of its "lair". Like, rather than finding Mulahey in the bottom of the mines playing with belly button lint, you found him doing boss stuff.
LOL. I've often wondered about why no one doesn't take a "Risk" or "Civilization" style engine and apply it to an RPG style game. What I mean by this is as follows:
First there would be an element of randomness in the placement of bosses, and even just random monsters. You could stumble across an orc going to the loo as for example. But encounters would not be set.
But further and more importantly, within each 'Area', the outcome and how you approached it would impact other and later encounters. So if you slaughtered every last orc in that orc camp, this might impact moral of other surrounding areas. On the other hand, if you let some go or they fled the scene of battle, they might reinforce other areas. And if you managed to let the 'Boss' escape, he might come back later as a much stronger foe.
I played 'Shadow of Mordor' last year and they did 'Some' of this and it was great. But honestly I would hope that they could take that approach on less of a combat fighter and more of an RPG game.
What's more, it might highlight different play styles. If you were a 'Good guy' who was more about non-violent solutions, that could have both positive and negative ramifications. An opponent that got shown mercy might sway others to be less aggressive. Or, if you simply appeared 'Weak' because of it, that might make them more aggressive.
I am not explaining it very well, but I imagined that every time you 'Cleared an area' that the game would reshuffle the available resources and even reinforce certain areas if it looked like that was the way the player was going. Bosses might be chosen based on tactics that were used in one encounter such that if the player used fireballs extensively, a fire resistant boss might be brought in. Or merely if it looked like you were clearing a path towards the enemy that they might re-shuffle to stop you, or take advantage of areas that you weren't attacking to take out villages and assets that you had previously liberated.
Of course, some interesting quests lead to the boss characters. If characterization and boss fight mechanics is well done (like in Souls games), they are one the most memorable element of the game. Confrontations of hidden bosses (like secret lich in bridge district) and figuring out their weaknesses are so fun, enjoyable and rewarding. Every boss who is unique, who has special approach, characterization and motivation is welcomed. If the boss is additionally entangled in plot (and maybe in plot twist) is greeted in the game by players.
I like bosses in simpler games, such as old Megaman on NES etc. There it fíts well having bosses with unique weaknesses which you need to eploit in order to win. In RPG's and similar genres, I never really liked the super-boss cliché. I quite recently played through all DA:O and it's DLC's and for me, the bosses was usually the most boring part of those adventures. Someone above mentioned the hive mother and the bleeding statues as examples of when you needed to execute advanced tactics to win. I disagree, both of those fights was just a larger enemy I needed to whack with my daggers more times to kill. It didn't take any finesse or tactics, just a few more potions and buffs and became tedious and repetetive before the creatures finally fell.
I much more prefer bosses like many in BG. If you meta-game a little, you can sneak in and kill Mulahey directly, before the fight even starts. This proves he's a mortal following the same rules as the charname and this is what I like. The bosses aren't following their own set of rules, like having 2000% of the HP available to the player character or being 10 times as big and you have to climb ladders to start scripted cutscenes of you jumping on to them and sticking a dagger in their eye (even if you normally hold a longsword.. cough DA:O cough) etc.
So, overall I like to have bosses. Like someone said above (I think it was @dee) it should feel like the culmination of a long journey and test the very things you picked up and learnt up to that point. It should also be possible to outsmart the boss and attack from a different angle, possibly ending the battle before a bunch of scripted scenes take place. When a game forces my diplomatic character into battles, like pushing you into a ring with doors closing behind you or similar, thus forcing me to have to spec for battle, I think it takes away from my control of my own character.
Overall I think most games do a good job and I thouroughly enjoyed ie Witcher 2 and the ME series, which were mentioned above, even though it in some ways incorporated sections of boss-fighting I do not prefer. It comes down to context as well of course. Even scripted events can feel epic if it's well made and in the correct context.
The ToB fights, especially with the SCS and the Ascension, against Sendai, the Ravager and Amellyssan, are good examples of "boss fights" in IE games. And they're hard battles.
ToB is probably the least popular part of the BG saga, and mostly because it's more battle-heavy, a lot less open in terms of exploration.
So, I'm sure that a good RPG game can wonderfully live and prosper without the "boss fights". They can be included, but only if this RPG is already a game with a lot of exploration and freedom.
A good example of a fun boss fight in the IE games would be the fight with Sion, Koshi, Ketta, Stalman, Olaf Rasmussen, and Maferan. It's a diverse mix of opponents with a broad range of abilities and defenses, and it's always a good question which enemy you should try to bring down next. There are enough traps for a thief to play a big role, but not so many traps that it restricts your movement for the whole battle. The room before it gives an ominous warning, the battle itself is flashy, and the loot is colorful and cool.
A good example of a bad boss fight in the IE games would be the final boss in IWD. The room is covered with un-disarmable dispel magic traps, restricting your movement for the entire battle, and forcing you to cling to the walls--not very epic, really. Belhifet is immune to everything. He's immune to all spells--all spells--all disablers, elemental damage, and any weapon without an extremely high enchantment. He is only vulnerable to melee weapons. Absolutely nothing else works. It's an entirely one-dimensional battle.
Also, Belhifet is the most doofy-looking enemy in the IE games. He looks like Satan from South Park.
Comments
I'd say that Baldur's Gate has it's fair share of memorable 'bosses'. Mulahey, Nimbus, Bandit Camp leaders, Devoreon etc. I would consider all bosses in the sense they are high level encounters that are meant to test you and further push you through the story. Most of these take place at the end of chapters and such and are meant to be the final challenge in the chapter and well...I quite like that and consider it BG version of boss characters.
If properly designed and implemented, a boss fight should serve as the culmination of everything you have learned up to that point. It's basically the end-of-unit exam. Using Zelda as an example, King Dodongo forces you to think outside the box with your bombs, Twin Rova does the same with your Mirror Shield, Phantom Ganon challenges your aim with the bow. The execution of those fights can be cumbersome at times (usually owing to the constantly shifting camera angles more than anything else), but at their core each of them is a carefully designed dance that is built to reward the player for paying attention to visual cues.
In contrast, boss fights in games like Diablo or Skyrim tend to be battles of attrition, where the skill you're testing is your ability to avoid being hit while also dealing damage. That's not bad design, but it's also pretty much the design of every video game ever that involves player death as a mechanic. There's a nice simplicity to "Hit it with your sword until it dies", but a more complex affair can often be more rewarding.
In the context of Baldur's Gate, the battle with Mulahey isn't memorable for the fight itself; it's memorable for the milestone of having cleared the Nashkel mine and finishing a chapter in your journey. The battle in the Bandit Camp is similarly memorable only for its context within the larger narrative. Davaeorn is the first fight that really feels memorable, and that's primarily because it's the first time you ever see a powerful mage casting high-level spells. Heck, even Firkraag in BGII is a battle of attrition. It's memorable for the fact that you're fighting a dragon more than for anything that happens within the fight itself.
also could we get that version of "Doctor Feelgood" from Highlander III to play during some of the boss fights
However, another kind of boss fight which I like is the "I've met my match" type. It can't be done in BG due to Sarevok's excessive level , but if you're smart you can't actually turn Irenicus' fight from an impossible battle to a mage duel.
It also happened to me the last I finished ToB - I cast time stop (and the final boss is immune to it) , so we fought a one-on-one combat for a few rounds. That was awesome!
I think the OP is referring to boss fights that are outside of the normal game mechanics, or have their own mechanics entirely devoted to the fights. While I agree that things like this don't belong in CRPGS, I think they can work well with some games. It really depends on the genre. I don't mind bosses if they're done well, so I take it on a game-by-game basis.
First there would be an element of randomness in the placement of bosses, and even just random monsters. You could stumble across an orc going to the loo as for example. But encounters would not be set.
But further and more importantly, within each 'Area', the outcome and how you approached it would impact other and later encounters. So if you slaughtered every last orc in that orc camp, this might impact moral of other surrounding areas. On the other hand, if you let some go or they fled the scene of battle, they might reinforce other areas. And if you managed to let the 'Boss' escape, he might come back later as a much stronger foe.
I played 'Shadow of Mordor' last year and they did 'Some' of this and it was great. But honestly I would hope that they could take that approach on less of a combat fighter and more of an RPG game.
What's more, it might highlight different play styles. If you were a 'Good guy' who was more about non-violent solutions, that could have both positive and negative ramifications. An opponent that got shown mercy might sway others to be less aggressive. Or, if you simply appeared 'Weak' because of it, that might make them more aggressive.
I am not explaining it very well, but I imagined that every time you 'Cleared an area' that the game would reshuffle the available resources and even reinforce certain areas if it looked like that was the way the player was going. Bosses might be chosen based on tactics that were used in one encounter such that if the player used fireballs extensively, a fire resistant boss might be brought in. Or merely if it looked like you were clearing a path towards the enemy that they might re-shuffle to stop you, or take advantage of areas that you weren't attacking to take out villages and assets that you had previously liberated.
It's just an idea.
Confrontations of hidden bosses (like secret lich in bridge district) and figuring out their weaknesses are so fun, enjoyable and rewarding.
Every boss who is unique, who has special approach, characterization and motivation is welcomed. If the boss is additionally entangled in plot (and maybe in plot twist) is greeted in the game by players.
I much more prefer bosses like many in BG. If you meta-game a little, you can sneak in and kill Mulahey directly, before the fight even starts. This proves he's a mortal following the same rules as the charname and this is what I like. The bosses aren't following their own set of rules, like having 2000% of the HP available to the player character or being 10 times as big and you have to climb ladders to start scripted cutscenes of you jumping on to them and sticking a dagger in their eye (even if you normally hold a longsword.. cough DA:O cough) etc.
So, overall I like to have bosses. Like someone said above (I think it was @dee) it should feel like the culmination of a long journey and test the very things you picked up and learnt up to that point. It should also be possible to outsmart the boss and attack from a different angle, possibly ending the battle before a bunch of scripted scenes take place. When a game forces my diplomatic character into battles, like pushing you into a ring with doors closing behind you or similar, thus forcing me to have to spec for battle, I think it takes away from my control of my own character.
Overall I think most games do a good job and I thouroughly enjoyed ie Witcher 2 and the ME series, which were mentioned above, even though it in some ways incorporated sections of boss-fighting I do not prefer. It comes down to context as well of course. Even scripted events can feel epic if it's well made and in the correct context.
ToB is probably the least popular part of the BG saga, and mostly because it's more battle-heavy, a lot less open in terms of exploration.
So, I'm sure that a good RPG game can wonderfully live and prosper without the "boss fights". They can be included, but only if this RPG is already a game with a lot of exploration and freedom.
A good example of a bad boss fight in the IE games would be the final boss in IWD. The room is covered with un-disarmable dispel magic traps, restricting your movement for the entire battle, and forcing you to cling to the walls--not very epic, really. Belhifet is immune to everything. He's immune to all spells--all spells--all disablers, elemental damage, and any weapon without an extremely high enchantment. He is only vulnerable to melee weapons. Absolutely nothing else works. It's an entirely one-dimensional battle.
Also, Belhifet is the most doofy-looking enemy in the IE games. He looks like Satan from South Park.