Death to Bosses
by Steve Parsons 
{ Jun 24th 2005 at 12:00PM }
No, I'm not calling for a workplace uprising. Not yet anyway. No, this is something far
more
insidious. A gaming evil so awful, that the
mere mention of it can cause frothing at the mouth. (Perhaps I should see a doctor?)
There you are. You've fought through the hordes of evil, and given them a damn good kicking. You're feeling good.
You've made it this far without dying. You feel righteous. Nothing can stop you. You're a hero. A god even.
But wait? What's this? Some new enemy? He looks bigger than the rest. More heads. More legs. More pointy things for
weapons. Oh goodie, it's a boss, here to ruin your gaming day.
The person who invented the end of level boss needs to be taken aside, and forced to play through some of the games
that his creation has tarnished. (I say his because no woman would have ever come up with the idea. No, a woman would
have been far more subtle.) The harder, the better. Put the game on high difficulty, remove the memory card, and then
watch the bastard suffer. For every time he dies at the hand of the beast hes unleashed into the gaming community, he
gets poked with a stick.
Bosses are a tiresome, abused cliche. They serve no real purpose. The justification seems to be that they break up a
level in a game. Well, heres an interesting idea, how about you design the games better, so you dont NEED a boss to
hide your repetition? Ive even seen some developers claim they put bosses in so they can break up the monotony.
Guys, if your game can, in any way, be described as monotonous, you have a real problem that no amount of bosses is
going to fix.
Some bosses arent that bad. One game that nailed them reasonably well was the Sonic the Hedgehog series. Despite
Robotnik being like the Engergizer Bunny, in that he kept going and going, the battles were never that boring. They
were fairly easy to figure out, but still required a fair amount of skill to deal with once youd figured them
out.
Sadly, few games seem to take this route, opting for outright difficulty over actual clever design concepts. Why is it
still considered an acceptable gaming solution where the option is repeatedly dying until you can figure out how to
defeat a boss? Surely the die repeatedly until you know it off by heart design should be long since dead?
Take something like Devil May Cry, or other games of that ilk. Youve just slaughtered your way through the bad guys,
only to reach a boss, whose vulnerability is a 3 pixel wide segment on the left ear. Of course you dont know that.
Youre left to experiment (AKA die) repeatedly until you figure it out. How does that equal anything other than
frustration? Games are supposed to be challenging, sure. However, there is a big difference between challenging and
frustrating. Challenging is something that gives a game that just one more go feeling, until the next thing you know,
the sun is up, and there are divorces papers sitting in the pizza box. Frustrating is what causes controllers to break
as they bounce off the wall you threw them at.
Bosses are thrown in as little more than a bogus method to increase game length. Whats worse is that invariably, if
you die in a boss battle, some game designers think its acceptable tol force you to do the level over again. If youre
lucky, there may have been a save point recently, but there are games, even now, that seem to think its a great design
decision to make you play an entire level again, just so you can fight a boss that youre given no hint on how to
beat.
Do bosses still have a place in gaming? Or are they the gaming equivalent of 50s sci fi, an antique best left on the
shelf where we can pretend they never happened?
If you agree that bosses are a concept well past their sell by date, what recent games have frustrated you with them?
If you think bosses are a fine idea, explain, and also tell us what games have especially good bosses, and why theyre
good, and why those of us who hate bosses have it all wrong.
STRIEGSS UPDATE: Dont know whether or not Steve was aware of this article posted a few days earlier regarding the same subject, but take a peek for yet more elaboration on the contentious issue of boss battles.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
striegs @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
It's a very intriguing predicament, come to think of it. Who are we question the immovable facets of gaming itself? To start off, let's break it down old school.
In the broadest sense, video games are generally focused around the exploits of a certain character or small group of characters attempting to achieve an objective. In order to establish a certain sense of urgency to their quest, these main characters are usually opposed by an inordinate number of enemies bent on preventing the character from achieving the aforementioned objective. And, in order to establish an eventual dramatic climax, the opposition is usually headed by a character representing the dramatic foil of the central character or group of characters. Thus, the evolution of a final boss becomes obvious. After all, the incentive offered for the heroes to undertake these trials is often to become more powerful, and a final boss serves to epitomize the extent to which their power has grown.
The evolution of lesser bosses (and even minibosses) is less necessary, though, undoubtedly, games that feature an end boss will also feature several lesser bosses along the way. The established method for justifying the existence of lesser bosses (a.k.a. end-level bosses) is usually to allow the hero to utilize a skill that they have just recently acquired. Take, for example, the Zelda series. A characteristic of each dungeon in the series is that it features both both a key item and an end boss. Excepting the instances of a particularly combat-useless item (the recorder springs readily to mind), the end-level boss can only be defeated by using the dungeon-specific key item in tandem with previously acquired skills. Hence, when you are faced with the final boss, you are at least partially prepared for the trials that lay ahead.
RPGs are even more straightforward in their justification of end-level bosses. Since it is often nearly impossible to defeat the end boss unless you have surpassed a certain level, regular end-level bosses are intended to keep the player on the right tack as far as experience points are concerned.
The common element between these two types of boss implementation (and, indeed, all games where boss battles are correctly utilized) is that each battle serves an identifiable purpose. Whether or not the battle itself is "fun" then becomes an issue for the developer to overcome. Of course, that's not to say that bosses can't be encountered simply for the sake of entertainment purposes without any practical reason behind them. As you say, not all bosses are there simply to serve as an annoyingly persistent obstacle. Many of the best games worth owning exhibit boss battles of the utmost quality.
Ultimately, trying to imagine video games without bosses would be like trying to imagine FPSs without guns, or RPGs without all those useless stat-altering items. A boss battle, correctly implemented, can be a thing of unmatched beauty. On the other hand, bosses thrown in for the sake of combating monotony aren't likely to inspire gamers to great deeds, or, at the very least, to purchase the inevitable sequel.
Steve Galgas @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Bosses are some of my favorite things in video games. =)
bbanzai @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
hey like all concepts wether a bossis good or not depends more on the execution than the concept itself.
it is worth noting that bosses are hardly a viedeo game only concept, they;ve been around much longer. for example anyone ever seen a Bruce Lee movie????
Justin C. @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
While I do admit that some bosses are just plain too hard I also think that boss are some of the best parts in games.
Halo, for example, was such a awesome game when it was released but lord knows I asked to myself when the game was up. "No finale boss or anything?" Yeah some games have to many bosses and some have not enough. What it comes down to in my opinion is that there should be a fair balance of bosses. DMC3 killed me in reguards to bosses. That game was seriosly hard but I kept going and lord know how good it felt each and everytime I conquered one of those damn things.
So while the bosses shouldnt be taken out of games maybe some games should just have better pacing with them.
32_Footsteps @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Now this is a piece I can sink my teeth into. A bit too well, actually - rather than post my thoughts here, I'm going to write my own column offering a counterpoint to be run next Thursday. I can have some real fun with this one.
Chiablo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Play Resident Evil 4. Those are some of the best bosses in any game and the game itself is far from monotonous. I think the real reason there are bosses in the game is not to "break up the monotony of the game" but rather to give the player a sense of accomplishment and provoke him to continue.
Some games do not have boss fights, and are good as a result (half life 2.) But other games don't have boss fights and I think they suffer as a result (Halo 2.)
The Plague @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Interesting take on the boss thing, but I completely disagree with it.
Sticking just with the example you used, Devil May Cry doesn't derive its difficulty from its boss fights. Rather, the whole game is difficult from start to finish: the first interactive segment of the game stands as much chance of killing you as does the first boss. Possibly more so. While I think that DMC3's difficulty curve is extremely exclusive to anyone not familiar with hardcore action games, I don't think its bosses are necessarily what causes the difficulty. Attribute this to camera and character controls, low character health, and what have you.
As for the experimentation, every action game derives its challenge from having to memorize patterns: the only enemy that doesn't do anything surprising the first time you encounter it is one that doesn't attack you. If a new monster is dropped into the game world, you have no idea what it's capable of until it attacks you. Most of the time, we get hit by it. That's natural; we're not psychic. But my question is this: how are bosses any different? Perhaps they have more attacks, higher defense, faster movement, etc, but in essence, they're still a new enemy.
Bosses, however, allow for the ultimate test of one's character's skills, and in many cases present the height of a gaming experience. They're very gladitorial: you square off against a single foe or challenge, usually something that you'd ordinarily never expect to get through, and you beat the odds. It's a complete david vs. goliath sort of thing. Taking these moments out would be like cutting your way through cannon fodder the whole game through, which is fun, but has its limits if nothing ever puts up a fight. Supposing a game does away with "boss fights," it'll resort to putting a stronger and more adept enemy in front of you. Isn't that a boss?
And think cinematically. In every action movie, there's a boss. Terminator 2 had the T1000, Spiderman had Doc Oc and Green Goblin, Die Hard had Hans Gruber and his henchman, Karl. These are the obstacles that we look forward to seeing the character surmount. Take these away, and you've already taken a hit in the drama you're trying hard to establish. It's not that bosses are a cheap way of injecting drama into a game; rather, they're the most efficient and satisfying.
Jason Tocci @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think the comment about Bruce Lee movies is dead on. Whether or not game designers realize it, boss fights are a mixture of two conventions: the narrative convention of presenting a series of rising summits until the major climax at the end (the clearest parallel to most boss-filled games being action movies), and the gaming convention of the game ending and starting from scratch (not just in video games, but also in tic tac toe, chess, solitaire, hangman, etc.). I think a lot of video games designed in recent years have attempted to emphasize the narrative element (with cinematic cut scenes and so on) but without really adjusting the game element to compensate -- so you get a lot of potentially really exciting climax scenes but the pointless frustration of repetition. Ironically, that pretty much subverts the narrative element completely. With the exception of movies with a time-travel subplot, action heroes tend not to repeat the same battle over and over until they figure out how to win. If you're heading back into a battle for the fiftieth time, kind of bored and frustrated, thinking that you need to shoot some dude's left earlobe because you think maybe he winced last time you did that before he crushed your head under his foot, I have to imagine that it ruins the narrative experience by taking you out of the role of a hero fighting an enemy and placing you squarely in the role of a person trying to figure out what the hell the programmers were thinking.
Here's a thought: wouldn't it be more interesting if "losing" a boss fight just took the narrative in a different direction, continually pushing you forward instead of breaking the narrative through repetition? Instead of getting your head crushed like a grape, the boss beats you within an inch of your life, laughs, and leaves you for dead, and you spend the next hour of game time training in with Tibetan monks so that you can ruin him but good next time you run into him...
rex @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
i think bosses don't "break up the monotony" so much as they add to the pacing of the game.
beating a boss and moving to the next level or area gives a sense of accomplishment, whereas a boss-less game experience may come off like a movie that's too long.
Richard H @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Ninja Gaiden for XBOX was a game that brought back boss battles in a good way. It all falls on the developer of the game. Get ready for Wanda and the Collosus, it looks like nothing but boss battles, and what about Zelda games, how much different would that game be without boss battles, not as good.
brett @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think boss's have thier place in some genres. I mean no one expects a super line muching boss in tetris, but i think they are more than acceptable in most action games. Not to get too offtopic, but the best boss ever was the giant robotic hitler head in Total Carnage. Now that was a game with awesome bosses.
Ryan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
First I have to say I like Jason Tocci's suggestion that losing to a boss simply changes the story and does not automatically imply your reloading and repeating everything over and over.
I personally think bosses are great. Take God of War ... awsome game, but monumentous boss fights really added to it.
I do however feel that there is one simple thing to keep in mind when creating a boss ... and thats to keep the difficulty in line with the rest of the level. If your the type of person that breezes through levels than you should be able to get through a boss without dying ... likewise a weaker player will have to lose to a boss at a similar rate to which they die on the standard levels ... tough to design a boss like this sure but I'm confident it can be done.
I think Boss fights themselves, as long as they dont become a roadblock, are quite fun ...
Trachalio @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Amen Sistah!
I can't stand bosses anymore. Resident Evil was my personal final straw. "Oh look, you've just dumped a stupidly hard boss into molten metal, you're almost dead, almost out of ammo, and you still have more zombies to fight to get to the train. Oh, and guess what? Molten dude is back, faster, and on fire."
At that point I just give up on the game. And that makes me mad. Up here in Canukida, game's still ain't on the cheap. And nothing pisses me off more than buying a game for $60 or $70 and have to play "die repeatedly until you luck out and win." A challenge I don't mind. Heck, that's what I expect when I pick up a game. But to force me to fight stupidly hard bosses? That's just a cheap ass cop out.
psu @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I agree with this so much that my friend and I wrote an article very similar to this one day before this one came out.
http://www.tgr.com/weblog/archives/000391.html
Icelawn @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I agree with #10. Ninja Gaiden for XBox has some really good boss battles. Up until that point, I was a little on the fence. But I think it overall depends on the game. Zelda, Devil May Cry, Final Fantasy, etc.= Yes, Any team based game (Ghost Recon, Socom, Rainbow Six, Halo 1 & 2), GTA, etc.= No. And Before it happens lets make sure its about bosses and NOT objectives. 2 different things.
Chris @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Sometimes bosses are a good thing. Like in games where you are trying to clear out a certain area or something, like zelda. Also, bosses give a creature to destry to get a new item. like in zelda and metroid and all those games. However, quite often, I have died multiple times on a boss that sent me back to the begining of the level, and I went to a different game becasue it was too hard for me.
2play @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Oh come on you all, Bosses are what makes games fun. they are the test of your ablilities. Sure you can kill 1000 mindless grunts alday but whats the fun in that? You want one really hard enemy that really pushes your mind and reflexes to the limit. I love DMC3 because the boss battles were hard at first but once you figure out the patter they are easy. Boss battles weed out the worthy and unworthy people. People who have the endurnace, smarts, and reflexes should be able to see the ending, they deserve it.
Allan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Take a look at God of War's boss batteles, the game would not be where it is without them, they are pure genius.
CorvusE @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Now where did I see this topic a couple of days ago? Oh yeah, over here:
http://www.tgr.com/weblog/archives/000391.html
Christopher7xii @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Wow... I simply can NOT believe that Parsons posted this. This is almost like an upset diary entry wishing that you were the prom queen instead of Lizzy Perdacelli, and you wish you could take that crown and inject it into her throat and dump her off in the river. I think you may just be too old for video games now-a-days Parsons. You want the rush from games you had when you were younger without being as devoted as you once were. The 40 year old wishing for his glory days on the High School Football team sorta deal.
ANYWAYS - Scenario
-----------------------
You're sitting there, quarter health(which is about 2 hits left), staring down the Cerebus with Ebony/Ivory in hand. He's down to about a fifth of his bar and you see him switch heads. Which attack does this head do again? That moment you slip out, then the next thing you see is a big ass beam of light frothing out of his mouth bursting at you. 'FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!' as you scramble to dodge, just barely missing it. Then you dash at him, break out your sword, hoping to get to his leg in time to work it down and get him stunned. You slash away, mashing that button for dear life when you see him start to rear his head up for another attack. Split-second decision, keep swinging, praying that he'll go down, or try and break out and evade as he's about to crash down on you. You keep slashing and he starts to switch heads and icicles start to fall. Slamming away, you see a shadow form under your feet and you take the hit from a falling icicle. You've got a blip of help left. Rising to your feet then slashing wildly as you realize you could get this. Just a few seconds of vulnerability, maybe enough to kill him is all you need. Finally his leg gives way, a big sigh of relief as you realize this puppy is about to get spayed. After dropping him you're treated to a sensation of joy and relief. Mmm. Dead dog, new save, and a change of boxers. Congratulations, you've accomplished something difficult.
---------------------------
Personally I see the boss fight as a test of manhood, a right of passage, etc. Anyone and everyone that has invested time in Halo2 has beaten it. No one has that 'man, i just couldn't beat ____' stories. With bosses you seperate the boys from the men, you can actually brag when you say you've beaten a game like DMC3 or Ninja Gaiden. Hell, I know people who still brag about beating Ruby and Emerald weapon in FF7... As well as many people who've cried over not being Ultima(Atma?) Weapon in FF8.
Here's my list of games that would have sucked without bosses / sub-bosses.
-Star Wars: Jedi Knight Series
-Legend of Zelda Series
-Final Fantasy Series
-Duke Nukem 3D
-Devil May Cry Series
-Super Mario Bros 1, 2, and 3.
-Castlevania Series
-MEGAMAN series
-Diablo
-Final Fight
-Gradius Series
-Ikaruga
-Resident Evil Series
-Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance
----------------
I think you get the point... I love the challenge of figuring out how to counter a bosses moves, where to hit, and managing to survive. I don't think there's ever been a time I've sworn more(aside from Winning Eleven 8 actually) during a game then the Cerebus boss on DMC3.
dan @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think my take on bosses have been touched on pretty well in the previous comments. It's really all in the implementation. To use a pretty unflattering analogy, a good boss should be like a final paper in a class. You've spent all this time studying your character and abilities on these lesser tasks, now lets see if you can string it all together. It's a good test to see how far you've come in mastering the game. The problem occurs where the everything that lead up to the boss was absolutely no help in defeating the boss (remember the end boss for the 1st Devil May Cry? When did it become a rail shooter?). Repeating the level wouldn't be so bad if the level offered any help beating it. Otherwise, just let me continue somewhat close to the boss so I don't waste time honing one set of skills that will be useless in the end.
On a different level, and to restate what has been already said, bosses really are a staple of story telling. Whether it's a physical person shooting at you, the protagonist's own trouble mind, an uncaring mother, life in general, etc. It's all about conflict and resolution so one can argue that bosses are really there as the bridge between Point A and Point B in a plot. The problem here is that unlike a book or a movie, developers can't (or won't) fill in the spaces between those conflicts with descriptions of your characters plight or witty dialogue or some random side story, instead we get more action. So we have conflict just to get to the real conflict which can make the boss seem like an annoyance when they should feel like goal post you've been working towards.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure you can get around this in an action game, the point of the game is the fighting. In an adventure game you spend most of the time between bosses exploring and learning about the world around you so each boss really does feel like a transition. But if you're constantly fighting in a game how do you set the markers? You have to cut up the constant wave of fodder with something so the players feel like they are getting somewhere. Making the levels missioned based (like FPSs) is one way I suppose, but I think a well integrated boss can work too.
Its funny that DMC3 was used as an example in the post, because I think it really captures both the good and the bad. After every boss I felt I gained something. Not just a new weapon, but greater control of Dante and his various abilities. Exactly what I'm looking for in a boss, something that makes me better at the game. But this was after going through the ENTIRE LEVEL several times. There is no need for me to fight the same punk monsters and solve the same puzzles just so I just get another few minutes to recognize weaknesses and patterns.... though trying to preserve as much energy as possible during the level did make me better for the boss...
Josh @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
The Tea Leaves article linked by Corvus and psu goes into this with a lot more detail it seems. Less of a blanket statement and more of a "why doesn't this work sometimes" statement.
guslav @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
God of War's bosses are great because they are not frustrating. sure it takes a while, but you don't die repeatedly...there are enough life and magic orbs that you can keep going.
the worst bosses for me where the ones in MGS2. not cuz they were hard, but because their existence, to me, really brought the game down. especially the stupid fat guy on rollerblades. i mean come on!
echo @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
i admit, i've had my fair share of horrible bosses (most of which i don't want to talk about), but you did ask which games had good bosses. if you want a good boss, i say turn to the old legend of zelda: ocarina of time and majora's mask for good bosses: challenging, but not. and it was nice that they often gave you a clue with the item they gave you in each level. that, and i think they made fairly nice eye candy for the games.
metaphyzxx @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Seems like there's a general consensus that the games that made us gamers are most remembered for their boss battles. Would Metroid really have been worth it without them? Starfox? Return to Castle Wolfenstein?
I feel that, with the concept of the suspension of disbelief, the boss battles are kind of a symbol for the player, showing that they are more than the average character in the game, that they are the equivalents to your adversaries elite forces. It generates the sense that the player is "special", which is why he deserves to have the game shown from his point of view.
Knight37 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Bosses, like any other gaming convention, can be good or bad, depending on implementation. I think a lot of games have written some crappy boss encounters, and almost every game has at least one boss encounter that sucked, but then again, a lot of games have boss fights that are pretty damn cool and the game would have suffered if they were removed.
Matt @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
You dis bosses in this article, but you're really just dissing games that frustrate you. The role of difficulty in a videogame is a debatable one, but how about addressing that instead of saying that bosses are stupid?
A good boss encounter is simply the culmination of the skills you've learned throughout that section of the game, but through the lens of a shifted gameplay perspective. It's like the bridge in a song. Are you implying that a song doesn't need a bridge?
A hero always needs a suitable villian. A story needs a climax. I won't say videogames need bosses, but if you broadly define a boss as a climactic encounter that bends the rules a little bit, are you really going to say that bosses are a bad thing?
Adam @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Bosses are a great indication of poor game design. No make that piss poor, absolute crap game design. They may be fine for the kids, but after awhile you just realize this is crap.
Christopher7xii @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Nice support their adam. It sucks because you say so. Why are bosses indication of poor game design? Halo2 sucked big time from lack of a boss. It's just one big long level without a boss IMO. That gets boring. I completely forgot about God of War. That was a fucking amazingly well designed game. Hard and fun and constantly entertaining. It flows from area to area seamlessly, while still giving off incredibly different atmospheres. The bosses in that were more encounters than an actual boss per se. There was definitely a boss at the end of the game, as well as in the begining, and several... 'uber mobs' in between. If you can somehow speak ill of God of War, you simply do NOT know what good gaming is anyways. That's like denying that gravity exists.
James @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I think both sides of the argument have been stated well. Ill just name some memorable bosses, ones that in my opinion were done well.
Half Life - The mutli-arm mini-boss where you were required to drop multiple gernades into its hole at the bottom of a three? story room.
Serious Sam - The last boss. Youve made the mad, long dash to the temple complex. You turn around and are rewarded with an absurdly tall (likely the largest ever) boss making his triumphent way to you, knocking things over etc. Though he was a very cliche boss it was presented well.
MUhockey @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I personally love bosses and boss fights, I particularly loved the Resident Evil bosses. Especially in RE4. Even though the final boss was easy pickings if you saved enough ammo (god help you if you didn't) but the fight in the sewers with Salazar's right hand...creature was very unique and not to mention terrifying the first time you play it(in the dark). Did anyone else find the regenerators from that game coming back to haunt you in your nightmares? I sure did.
Christopher7xii @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I loved the boss in RE3... Tall Dark and Ugly is what I always called him because I never knew his name. That part of the game always had my pulse going. Apparently I was the only one who felt that way though...
Sternhammer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I generally detest bosses in much the same way as I don't like timed tasks: they often impose a different play mechanic on the game. For some this is welcome variety but I prefer to choose a game by the style of play I enjoy. For example, I don't like being forced to do platform jumping in an FPS, I just want to shoot stuff. If I want platform hopping I'll bloody well buy a game that features it as the core mechanic. For this reason I enjoyed all of Halo except the atypical final sequence: I got through the 98% of the game without having to drive well and fast and suddenly it's required of me in order to complete it. Grrr.
Sternhammer @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I generally detest bosses in much the same way as I don't like timed tasks: they often impose a different play mechanic on the game. For some this is welcome variety but I prefer to choose a game by the style of play I enjoy. For example, I don't like being forced to do platform jumping in an FPS, I just want to shoot stuff. If I want platform hopping I'll bloody well buy a game that features it as the core mechanic. For this reason I enjoyed all of Halo except the atypical final sequence: I got through the 98% of the game without having to drive well and fast and suddenly it's required of me in order to complete it. Grrr.
Belgand @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I see someone else has already mentioned it, but honestly bosses aren't exclusive to video games.
How many action movies end with the final, ultimate confrontation between the hero and the villain? How many take time out for a dramatic fight scene (don't tell me the great scene between the Indy and the German Mechanic around the plane in Raiders of the Lost Ark wasn't a level boss fight) that adds to the film? What about the fight scene between McClane and Karl in Die Hard? Are you saying that it would be more fun if he'd just spent the same time killing more random guys?
Boss fights are a dramatic device that allows for the establishment of progress, the characterization of the opposition (i.e. you tend to remember that really cool boss far better than the hordes of underlings), and the ability to implement innovation that would otherwise be unwelcome. Not all bosses do this, but it does give you the option to implement something unique that might not be desired for the rest of the game whether it is Link needing to rely on the hookshot for the fight or Riggs having to fight that South African dude hand-to-hand in the hold of the ship in Lethal Weapon 2.
Yes, an overly challenging boss can be a pain in the ass. Yes, some lazy designers throw in boss fights in an attempt to make the game seem longer without actually building a game with depth and longer levels. When you come down to it though bosses are a crucial part of the experience and something that is in no way isolated to gaming.
roy179 @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Good post, however many people are missing the point.
Even though gaming is becoming more mainstream, majority of the games being released still cater to the hard-core gamers who have the time, skills and patience to put up with having to 'work' to get past a particularly hard part of a game. Yes, this does add a sense of accomplishment to the experience, but is there a chance that there are people out there that just want to play the game and get what they paid for? It has nothing to do with separating men from the boys. Developers as simply not providing a variety of difficulty levels for the variety of gamers that are out there, and still allow them to experience their work. It's a shame really, all the games that don't get played through. Read this thread for a sample:
http://www.forumplanet.com/gamespy/topic.asp?fid=2370&tid=916183&p=2
MUhockey @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Well Roy, if we are going to put it in those terms, lets look at it from the economic stand point. Simple supply and demand. I think the demand for difficult and time consuming games are at a high right now, I believe that we've hit the point where the gamers of old (Atari, NES, SNES) are masters at what they do, and they are teaching their younger counterparts how to play up to these standards also. Personally I was never taught, but I've evolved just fine so I am able to defeat games like DMC3, multiple times, even on the hardest levels. Now when we discuss gamers who don't have the time, don't have the skill level, well then they are in the wrong time period when it comes to games, and they need to grab an older system with older games that they can just pick up and play. Then maybe they too can evolve to be able to play harder games. No one is going to spend the money it takes today to make a game that looks as good as they do now, to play like Space Invaders, or Centipede. If developers are going to put time and money into a game, they don't want the game being short, or easily defeated. Thats what occurs when we don't have bosses, when we don't have end of level challenges that are terribly difficult. To sum up, I believe that the demand for the games you are trying to describe are not very high, so why would developers want to spend their time and money to make them? I'd like to think that developers cared about us gamers and our needs, but...in the end, its almost always about money.
Jason Tocci @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
"Now when we discuss gamers who don't have the time, don't have the skill level, well then they are in the wrong time period when it comes to games, and they need to grab an older system with older games that they can just pick up and play. Then maybe they too can evolve to be able to play harder games."
Have you ever beaten pac man? A lot of old games are really hard but still quite playable and approachable.
Roy is correct that video games are becoming more popular in the cultural mainstream. The industry is potentially shooting itself in the foot when it fails to look beyond its market. What leads you to believe there's a demand for hard games that target hardcore gamers? Look closer: the unexpected hits come in places you wouldn't expect, like among female gamers and people looking for a new kind of gaming experience (see The Sims, Nintendogs, Dance Dance Revolution, etc.). Games don't have to be like Centipede to draw in new players. While hardcore gamers may be interested in more challenging games, catering too exclusively to that market could send the video game industry on the same route as the comic book industry in the long run -- i.e., barely staying alive with the support of an aging and increasingly insular fan base, with the real critical successes marketed toward the mainstream. At least anybody can pick up a comic on a whim; if the gaming industry becomes too exclusive, joe average consumer won't pick up a console just to try out a game, and that would be pretty bad for the market in the long run.
I don't mean to say that you shouldn't get your games with bosses, or that the industry shouldn't make games for the target audience of core fans. But I do think it's short-sighted and misguided to say that that's just how the industry works and that's just how games ought to be made.
Advocate @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
painkiller, a very addictive game, good in most ways, almost bit the bullet on my hard drive for this very reason.
Trevor Claiborne @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
My take on bosses is really a mixed bag. A well done boss is fun to play against, but many games these days rely solely on gimick kills or, worse yet, repeat one exploit for 10 years until the boss dies.
Games with good bosses that come to mind are the Jedi Knight series, and Max Payne 1 & 2.
I think one point that has not been brought up on bosses is whether they fit into the story line or not. This was partially addressed with talk of the climax, but I think it needs to be elaborated on. I think part of what makes a boss particularly effective is how they are woven into the story.
In JK1 it was clearly established that there were 7 dark jedi who had joined together. Clearly you would have to fight these jedi to make it through the game. One made these battles better is how they were fought. They were just spectacular lightsaber battles. No tricks required.
JK2 revamped this with a series of jedi battles plus the general. When Desann beat the crap out of you in the second level, he definitely made it personal.
Max Payne had great bosses in that they were mentioned thoroughly in the story line. You remember hearing all about the Trio and the hitman before you ever got to go toe to toe with them. The fights, in the end, were quick and dirty and relied mostly on putting more bullets in them than they did in you, but the impact on the story line is what made things memorable.
The most recent example of a bad boss for me was from Prince of Persia Warrior Within. The Empress of Time battles were incredibly lame. Back away until she warps, hit twice, run away, repeat. All of the cool moves you were using up until that point were all useless. The big golem wasn't much of a boss either. Swing, swing, swing at his legs, jump on his back swing swing swing, dodge, swing swing swing. Blah! Boring!
Finally you could end up at the final boss and be simply unable to kill it. If you didn't take the time to find the health bumps throughout the game you could get up facing the boss with simply not enough health to get through it. I had to replay the whole game just so I could increase my health to the point that the final battle was possible.
One absolutely lovely application of bosses is from Deus Ex (and to some extent Deus Ex 2). Depending on how you play the game, the bosses you fight, how fight them, and when you fight them changes considerably. For example, you had three chances to kill Anna Navarre. The third of which is perhaps the most satisfying in which you simply utter her killswitch command forcing her to self-distruct. This is your reward for letting her assasinate someone in front of you and letting her kill you earlier in the game.
Overall, I think bosses can be very good in a game, but I don't think every game needs them. If they are done well, they can be very satisfying, but too often developers take an easy way out in terms of a boss and this detracts from the overall experience.
jumpstart @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I agree one hundred percent with the author. Bosses completely destroy the flow of the game for me. I hate getting repeatedly kicked out of the game until I finally figure out what kills the boss. I love getting immersed in the game environment by strategizing my way shooting through hordes of enemies, then the boss comes along and is instant death to me and the fun.
Shawn Oster @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
A game that throws bosses in just to make it harder: bad.
A game that uses bosses as skill / plot / cinematic checkpoints while having allowed a means of discovery for bosses said weakness: good.
Personally I like there being multiple ways to discover a bosses weakness. A shoot-first/haul-ass through the level player probably enjoys rushing head first into a room to die over and over again until they figure out a grenade in the pie-hole does the trick. Others are the adventure type and they go into every room, read everything, talk to every person, etc. Little clues left that way for the more patient player helps add balance and variety.
Hattricko @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
I really don't understand how can you even think that Bo's fight`s are not needed in a game, Bo's fights is what makes the game itself spacial and is a part that u cannot spare.
with no Bose's all the games will look the same and that wont be very much fun, Bo's`s makes you REMEMBER the game`s most epic parts where you had the most fun! yes i mean fun! getting killed again and again and finely killing the Bo's at the end is what makes the game fun!
how far do you think Half-life could have got to with out that baby like Bo's at the end? how far could the Zelda or Mario games get with no bosse`s ? how good could serious SAM could have been with no Bo's fights? how good could Metal Gear solid have been with out those freaky bosses? get me meaning?
games with no bosses are repetitive and you will never fell your done with them at the end. i mean look at games like metal of honor allied assault...great game right? but when you finish it all you see is the Bunker explode and yourself on that train running...that at least for me was not very rewording...think how good you could have fell if you killed Hitler or a bionic robot that the Germans secretly planned and with it could take over the world...i call THAT and ending.
so what i tyred to say is that games as we know them could never got us here today with out cool Bo's`es , true sometimes the BO`s did not come out right and its boring...but you will never fell more rewarded after killing a very challenging Bo`s.
hope youll understand
Hattricko -Gamer.co.il
The Him (Gamer.co.il) @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Boses are necessery for almost every game, yet it is important not to take it too far.
Bosses who are almost god-like (comparing to the character) are bad.
Bosses who are better than the character, but the character has a chance to defeat are good.
Bosses that you need to use skills or certain items to defeat, are reasonable and neccesery for gaming...
Otherwise, the game will get boring.
Its all about how strong is the boss comparing to the character.
Malaggar @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
Boses are one of the most importent part of the games, without boses most of the games would be boring and not challenging. u ppl are stupid if u belive that boses are just a way of the gaming companies to make our lives a living hell lolz.
i think ur against boses just because u dont play good enough to eliminate those boses. i mean, think about it, how would diablo 2 be without the boses?? u guys are crazy. this is bs!
Rare Hare @ Dec 18th 2005 9:47PM
i agree wholeheartedly with #20 christopher's statements.
bosses just seem to be really defining points in a game to me. games like God of War, Reisdent Evil 4, and even Prince of Persia Warrior WIthin have genius bossbattles that really take the games from good to epic.
playing halo 2, the first time i saw that collosal walking robot from across a landscape crawling with aliens, i got this sense of giddy foreboding (an odd combination of words, but it describes the feeling you get when confronted with the possibility of a boss battle). when it turned out that you didn't have to fight it, i was majorly dissapointed. boss battles would have made the halo 2 campaign worth playing. as it stands now, the halo 2 campaign kind of sucks.
having never played ninja gaiden, i can't speak from personal experience. but i've had more people tell me that they can't beat that game because the bosses are so frustratingly hard than i've had tell me they loved the game. i want challenge in a game, but bosses that hinder you from ever completing a game are a stretch too far.
i'm going to keep on loving bosses, and getting that wonderfully sick feeling in my gut whenever waiting for the cutscene leading up to one to end.
i hope they stick around in games forever.