Development Info MCA and Role-Playing for the People

[Volourn]

FO has bosses. Deal with this fact. I may be a dumb fuck; but you are fucking idiot. Hahahahaha!!!

I may ahve the title; but you life by the creed.


P.S. Give me some of your millions, and I'll forgive your stupidity in regard to this, and I'll even pretend you are right all the time.

LOLOLOLOLLLIPOP

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Did you ever think to yourself "I can't wait to find the boss on this level?" No. Were some fights harder that others? I suppose so, but I would not say there were any bosses. Only the lieutenant comes close, and he is completely optional.

Gizmo, the Khan's leader, the Master, the Deathclaw in the cave at The Hub, The Maltese Falcon guy, etc. They're all bosses. Also, the lieutinant isn't optional, there's no way to beat the game so that he lives.

 

[Lumpy]

Fallout 2 had traditional bosses: The Keeng Rat, Frank Horrigan, etc.

 

[bryce777]

Did you ever think to yourself "I can't wait to find the boss on this level?" No. Were some fights harder that others? I suppose so, but I would not say there were any bosses. Only the lieutenant comes close, and he is completely optional.

Gizmo, the Khan's leader, the Master, the Deathclaw in the cave at The Hub, The Maltese Falcon guy, etc. They're all bosses. Also, the lieutinant isn't optional, there's no way to beat the game so that he lives.

First, have you even PLAYED fallout? I am beginning to think no is the answer. you do not even need to go to the military base. If you do, you do not need to confront him. If you do, you do not need to kill him.

A boss is traditionally an end of level fight required to get to the next stage who usually requires some gimmicky/idiotic way to defeat and is often a hopped up version of whatever the lower level monsters of the level were. NONE of the characters in fallout fit this bill REMOTELY, with the lieutenant and the master coming closer. I don't think the master counts because you do not need to physically fight him and hey there is a villain in most games of some sort but that is different than the idiotic and contrived 'level boss'. The lieutenant is the commander of the base, and is tough, but the big difference is that all these characters fit in with reality and are not completely contrived and artificial. A bandit leader being a bit tougher is not the same as a boss, and he is not even the toughest one, anyhow.

 

[kris]

whether Fallout had bosses or not is a point of view. It all depends on your definition. I would not use the word "bosses" for pretty much anyone in fallout.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

First, have you even PLAYED fallout? I am beginning to think no is the answer. you do not even need to go to the military base. If you do, you do not need to confront him. If you do, you do not need to kill him.

Have you? The only two things you have to do is destroy Mariposa and the Cathedral. Both are required for the Overseer to give you that pat on the back and the boot in the ass. The water chip is the optional part.

Since Mariposa must be blown up, and the lieutinant is in Mariposa, and there's no way for you to tell him to leave.. That pretty much implies you have to kill him. There's just multiple ways of getting that job done.

A boss is traditionally an end of level fight required to get to the next stage who usually requires some gimmicky/idiotic way to defeat and is often a hopped up version of whatever the lower level monsters of the level were.

That's not true. Hell, even Diablo 2 had bosses which were optional. Blood Raven, for example, you can completely ignore and finish the whole game. Blood Raven is definitely a boss monster, completely optional, and we're talking about Diablo 2 for shit's sake! Even action CRPGs have optional bosses, so why question the ones in Fallout?

NONE of the characters in fallout fit this bill REMOTELY, with the lieutenant and the master coming closer. I don't think the master counts because you do not need to physically fight him and hey there is a villain in most games of some sort but that is different than the idiotic and contrived 'level boss'.

You don't have to fight a boss to beat them even in arcade games. There's a few side scrollers where the boss pops in, does something that you have to undo or bipass, and then they pop out. Shit, in Impossible Mission, you never actually fight Melvin, but you still beat him and he's the boss.

The lieutenant is the commander of the base, and is tough, but the big difference is that all these characters fit in with reality and are not completely contrived and artificial. A bandit leader being a bit tougher is not the same as a boss, and he is not even the toughest one, anyhow.

If you want Tandi back, you generally have to defeat him somehow. The only way to get her back without a confrontation is to sneak in, pick the lock, and sneak her and you back out. I'm not even sure how possible that is. Either way, he's still the boss of that map.

 

[bryce777]

I didn't even notice the lieutenant the first 2-3 times I played fallout.

"Gizmo, the Khan's leader, the Master, the Deathclaw in the cave at The Hub, The Maltese Falcon guy, etc. They're all bosses. Also, the lieutinant isn't optional, there's no way to beat the game so that he lives."

Gizmo is ONE fight. How that constitutes a boss of a level is beyond me. The deathclaw is one fight out of potentially two fights with deathclaws. Again, it is a big stretch to say there is a level at all, let alone boss of a level. The maltese falcon guy, again, is one fight. He has no level. he is a guy. Same with hightower if you kill him. The khan is not some uber fighter bigger and tougher than all the other raiders combined, either - I suppose he comes closest of your examples, but he is not only irelevant to the game but he is not in the least uber or contrived or unrealistic. Hitler in castle wolfenstein is a perfect example of a boss monster.

All your examples are fucking ridiculous.

"There's a few side scrollers where the boss pops in, does something that you have to undo or bipass, and then they pop out." That's called a cutscene. Then you usually fight him at the end of the level or else at a later level or the end of the game, or whatever.

"That's not true. Hell, even Diablo 2 had bosses which were optional. Blood Raven, for example, you can completely ignore and finish the whole game. Blood Raven is definitely a boss monster, completely optional, and we're talking about Diablo 2 for shit's sake! Even action CRPGs have optional bosses, so why question the ones in Fallout? " I didn't play diablo, but the basic paradigm of a boss is to have a boss at the end of a level, and not one of your examples matches this.

You don't blaze your way to gizmo through 200 thugs and then see gizmo has dual miniguns and some weird superpower.

There are people who you can fight, but not contrived idiocies like that in the game.

 

[bryce777]

FO has bosses. Deal with this fact. I may be a dumb fuck; but you are fucking idiot. Hahahahaha!!!

I may ahve the title; but you life by the creed.


P.S. Give me some of your millions, and I'll forgive your stupidity in regard to this, and I'll even pretend you are right all the time.

LOLOLOLOLLLIPOP

My balls are getting dry. When did I say you could stop sucking?

 

[Lumpy]

Bryce, how about the bosses in Fallout 2?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

I didn't play diablo, but the basic paradigm of a boss is to have a boss at the end of a level, and not one of your examples matches this.

No, a boss is just a tougher fight at the end of something. In terms of CRPGs, those bosses are generally at the end of quests. It doesn't matter you don't have to fight them because they're optional quests or not, they're still boss encounters.

 

[themadhatter114]

I think it's pretty fucking moronic to say that the simple word 'boss' would exclude something from being an rpg just because bryce is too big of a fucking moron to realize that it can mean different things.

A boss is pretty much any character that you have to beat to completely any quest that you've undertaken, optional or required. Have you never heard of a 'mini-boss'? Pretty much any tough fight before the main boss. Most quests in Diablo II have some sort of boss, but there are only 5 creatures that you must kill in order to beat the entire game +expansion. Any creature that is the most powerful in a given area and who is the leader of the surrounding creatures is a boss. And they're not necessarily more difficult even in Diablo II. Most of the bosses are pussies but they have so many monsters backing them up (Andariel, Mephisto, Baal) that they are tough to beat, although if you have good defense you can just pound on them mercilessly and ignore their henchmen.

 

[Spazmo]

Fallout had bosses. Fallout did not have boss fights. There's an important difference.

 

[bryce777]

I think it's pretty fucking moronic to say that the simple word 'boss' would exclude something from being an rpg just because bryce is too big of a fucking moron to realize that it can mean different things.

A boss is pretty much any character that you have to beat to completely any quest that you've undertaken, optional or required. Have you never heard of a 'mini-boss'? Pretty much any tough fight before the main boss. Most quests in Diablo II have some sort of boss, but there are only 5 creatures that you must kill in order to beat the entire game +expansion. Any creature that is the most powerful in a given area and who is the leader of the surrounding creatures is a boss. And they're not necessarily more difficult even in Diablo II. Most of the bosses are pussies but they have so many monsters backing them up (Andariel, Mephisto, Baal) that they are tough to beat, although if you have good defense you can just pound on them mercilessly and ignore their henchmen.

hey dumbfuck, the whole point is the focus of an RPG should not be bosses but actual game content. That's why we get dumbfuck games like oblivion and gothic and witcher.

 

[Gambler]

the whole point is the focus of an RPG should not be bosses but actual game content.

I agree. If there is an enemy whose sole purpose is to add 20 minutes of combat to the game, it sucks.

 

[themadhatter114]

I think it's pretty fucking moronic to say that the simple word 'boss' would exclude something from being an rpg just because bryce is too big of a fucking moron to realize that it can mean different things.

A boss is pretty much any character that you have to beat to completely any quest that you've undertaken, optional or required. Have you never heard of a 'mini-boss'? Pretty much any tough fight before the main boss. Most quests in Diablo II have some sort of boss, but there are only 5 creatures that you must kill in order to beat the entire game +expansion. Any creature that is the most powerful in a given area and who is the leader of the surrounding creatures is a boss. And they're not necessarily more difficult even in Diablo II. Most of the bosses are pussies but they have so many monsters backing them up (Andariel, Mephisto, Baal) that they are tough to beat, although if you have good defense you can just pound on them mercilessly and ignore their henchmen.

hey dumbfuck, the whole point is the focus of an RPG should not be bosses but actual game content. That's why we get dumbfuck games like oblivion and gothic and witcher.

Hey dumbfuck, using the word 'boss' in an interview has no relevance to what you're saying, and the presences of bosses and the glory of killing them detracts in no way from an RPG. Since when does the presence of a boss mean that's the entire focus of the game and there's no content? You're the dumbfuck who doesn't understand what a boss is.

 

[Rat Keeng]

To me, bosses are like the bosses you'd encounter in Bloodlines. Y'know, with their name and oversized healthbar at the top of the screen, and usually with their own personal cutscene and/or pre-fight introduction. The thing about fighting bosses, is that it's almost always excruciatingly repetitive, and it's often a question of recognizing the boss's pattern, and then whack him at appropriate times. Once you've got the pattern figured out, the fight often stops being challenging, and becomes trite and/or frustrating instead.

So no, Fallout has no bosses, I don't equate unique enemies with bosses. You could argue that the combat is still somewhat trite and frustrating, but that's a different matter.

 

[themadhatter114]

To me, bosses are like the bosses you'd encounter in Bloodlines. Y'know, with their name and oversized healthbar at the top of the screen, and usually with their own personal cutscene and/or pre-fight introduction. The thing about fighting bosses, is that it's almost always excruciatingly repetitive, and it's often a question of recognizing the boss's pattern, and then whack him at appropriate times. Once you've got the pattern figured out, the fight often stops being challenging, and becomes trite and/or frustrating instead.

So no, Fallout has no bosses, I don't equate unique enemies with bosses. You could argue that the combat is still somewhat trite and frustrating, but that's a different matter.

According to that definition, not a lot of modern games have bosses. Diablo wouldn't have a single boss according to that definition. No health bars at the top of the screen, no personal cut-scene or pre-fight introduction, no more repetitive than the rest of the fights, and no patterns to recognize, just hack & slash away.

It also doesn't really apply to NWN2 or NWN1. It's really only relevant to FPS games and for console games.

 

[Pseudofool]

Semantics. If each poster would define "boss" we would find that the argument lies in the different definitions and not said "bosses" implementation in an rpg. Clearly Obsidian does not use "boss" to mean a Zelda like "boss", more like "boss" equates to leader of the group to which you are seemingly opposed through the game. It doesn't mean the "boss" is stronger than his/her minions merely that the character plays some significance to the plot, which really good crpgs are all about. Der.

 

[galsiah]

Semantics...

I think we should agree on a definition before we start throwing terms like that around - what precisely do you mean by "Semantics"?

 

[Pseudofool]

what precisely do you mean by "Semantics"?

Oh I'm sorry, I meant semiotics, definitions, after all, are only signs, suggestions, arrows, or simplified, aren't really good for much.

 

[bryce777]

The definition is obvious, however some people here are Fucking Idiots and therefore feel the need to either stuff a gorilla into a suit anyhow, or else pretend that he is not a gorilla at all.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

hey dumbfuck, the whole point is the focus of an RPG should not be bosses but actual game content. That's why we get dumbfuck games like oblivion and gothic and witcher.

Since when are bosses NOT game content? Hell, most of the content of CRPGs since the very beginning have revolved around boss encounters. No self respecting lich lord is going to live in an alley next to the king's keep just waiting for a player to walk next door and off him.

Look at ToEE's elemental factions. Each had several bosses, and there were sets of quests revolving around each of the factions.

 

[EvoG]

Fallout and most every game (genre more or less irrelevent aside from Tetris and the like) containing conflict with a significant NPC, has a "boss character".

This is simply an argument of semantics.

If you choose to only accept the old school arcade term, then I can see how one would think FO had no bosses, though this is purely abstraction of gameplay, and nothing truly academic.

A major or significant character who causes conflict in which you must deal with in one way or another is a 'boss character'; a character that perhaps leads a faction or is representative as the top of the echelon of a faction/group/whatever in which the player must deal with is a 'boss'. Regardless of the fact that you may have a multitude of choices in how you deal with him, he's still defined by his status represented to the player.

Now do "I" call them bosses when I'm playing? No. Do I relate them as boss characters when discussing the game to establish context. Of course, as then the idea is clear.


Cheers

 

[Zomg]

what precisely do you mean by "Semantics"?

Oh I'm sorry, I meant semiotics, definitions, after all, are only signs, suggestions, arrows, or simplified, aren't really good for much.

I think galsiah was being droll.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

If you choose to only accept the old school arcade term, then I can see how one would think FO had no bosses, though this is purely abstraction of gameplay, and nothing truly academic.

Even then, the AI for say.. A boss at the end of STREETS OF RAGE and the boss of any CRPG are fairly close to one another in terms of AI. They all use repeating actions to kill the player in a fight(like BG's scripted spell lists), they all know how close to be to the player to attack, and so forth. There will be exploits that always work on any of them that make things easier. The Master in Fallout, if you moved to a certain spot in the lower corner, it jammed up his ability to summon mutants.

I think bryce's argument just boils down to, "I liked Fallout, and it's too cool for simple concepts!" when it's the presentation of the concept that made the game great as opposed to just not using them.