Development Info MCA and Role-Playing for the People

[Lumpy]

Nobody seems to remember where this discussion started. MCA mentioned interesting boss fights in NWN2, probably meaning fights with stronger creatures. Bryce claimed that NWN2 can't be an RPG since it has boss fights. That's idiotic.

And in certain cases, it makes sense for the leader of a group to be the stongest enemy. If you have an undead dungeon for example, of course the strongest will be the summoner, the necromancer or the lich, thus the leader of the dungeon.

 

[Greatatlantic]

OK, I suppose its time to restate what I said earlier and resolve all differing ideas. (yeah, right)

Bosses- Obviously the leader of a faction or a plot of land or company is a "boss". This does not immediately make fighting them "boss battles".

Boss Battle- This is all about the combat. Its a tougher battler made special by the developers, so it has higher stakes or winning it clears the "level" or completes the quest. At least if its a GOOD boss battle. If your game is going to have a combat system, you can make combat more fun by having these sort of encounters.

Games like Fallout succeed by having very subdued boss battles that fit perfectly into the setting and fabric of the world. Of course, DnD is a very different gameworld, where more powerful creatures are much more commonplace, so its a bit more conducive to boss battles.

Yes, Boss Battles are somewhat associated with arcade games. Big whoop. I've played action games with out them. As long as you have combat in some form, it can be improved by having certain battles that are harder, more fun, and for higher stakes. That being said, RPGs should never sacrifice a cohesive gameworld to include them. Plus, having non-violent ways to deal with all situations sort of changes the dynamic.

I enjoyed the Boss fights in Bloodlines, and think they did a good job interdispersing unique, more powerful enemies (which is what a good boss battle is) through out the game. But, they did so by sacrificing diplomatic resolutions, which sort of stinks.

 

[Sol Invictus]

 

[Pseudofool]

I think galsiah was being droll.

So was I, but I supposed I failed horribly. To wit.


And I have no problem with "bosses" unless it leads to playing level 2, or to a lower level in a dungeon, and I think this is or should be Bryce's concern. I doubt nwn2 has bosses of such nature, give me a break. The bosses of nwn2 will *hopefully* have plenty of depth to set aside the STREET RAGE notion (an apt metaphore) of bosses.

And really Bryce what kind of "bosses" are you expecting in NWN2 that makes you think it will no longer be a crpg?

btw, Is Zelda an rpg? or just an adventure game? I'm just trying to gadge how people define this whole Role Playing Game thing, which really means to me, taking on a ROLE (with significant character compents) and playing the game as that ROLE.......

 

[Gambler]

Bosses- Obviously the leader of a faction or a plot of land or company is a "boss". This does not immediately make fighting them "boss battles".

Boss is a unique and ridiculously powerful fighter who guards some in-game reward. (Level exit, magical sword, etc.) The idea is that you can't get that reward without defeating the boss. That's a moderately percise description.

 

[galsiah]

Clearly there's a lot of confusion over what exactly is meant by "boss". However, I'd say that makes it a stupid word to use. In an RPG context, why not say leader / commander / ... rather than "boss"? It's one or two extra syllables for a lot less confusion.

"Boss" has a load of associations from a Zelda-like context. If you don't want those associations, then why not avoid the word when there are perfectly good alternatives?

I agree that it's unlikely NWN2 will include a load of uber, nonsensical traditional "bosses" in any case.

 

[bryce777]

Clearly there's a lot of confusion over what exactly is meant by "boss". However, I'd say that makes it a stupid word to use. In an RPG context, why not say leader / commander / ... rather than "boss"? It's one or two extra syllables for a lot less confusion.

"Boss" has a load of associations from a Zelda-like context. If you don't want those associations, then why not avoid the word when there are perfectly good alternatives?

I agree that it's unlikely NWN2 will include a load of uber, nonsensical traditional "bosses" in any case.

the point I was making is that it is not really an rpg term in the least. It has very specific, obvious connotations and has been used for decades. The very fact that they would use such terminology for an RPG shows they are fucknuts and are emphasizing exactly the wrong things during development.

Do you remember the troika guys talking about 'bosses'? No; it is a whole different emphasis that takes it away from RPGs and towards arcade games.

Even in bard's tale and other hackfests they would never have said something like that. Tajan the mad god is a 'boss' all of a sudden? No fucking way.

 

[Volourn]

Oh, please. Every Troika RPG had bosses. FO series had bosses. the IE games had bosses. the Gb games had bosses. Every game everr created outside of games like Tetris or sport sgames had bosses.

Just deal with it, you moron. Your millions will not buy you out of this!

 

[bryce777]

Oh, please. Every Troika RPG had bosses. FO series had bosses. the IE games had bosses. the Gb games had boxes. Every game everr created outside of games like Tetris or sport sgames had bosses.

Just deal with it, you moron. Your millions will not buy you out of this!

Volly, you are the biggest dumbfuck on the whole internet. When you agree with me, that's when I will think twice about my position.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

the Gb games had boxes.

Gold boxes at that!

 

[Volourn]

"Volly, you are the biggest dumbfuck on the whole internet. When you agree with me, that's when I will think twice about my position."

So, you now think the GB games were shitty? That TOEE's implementation of D&D rules is the worst ever?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

 

[bryce777]

"Volly, you are the biggest dumbfuck on the whole internet. When you agree with me, that's when I will think twice about my position."

So, you now think the GB games were shitty? That TOEE's implementation of D&D rules is the worst ever?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Why do you lie?

 

[themadhatter114]

Clearly there's a lot of confusion over what exactly is meant by "boss". However, I'd say that makes it a stupid word to use. In an RPG context, why not say leader / commander / ... rather than "boss"? It's one or two extra syllables for a lot less confusion.

"Boss" has a load of associations from a Zelda-like context. If you don't want those associations, then why not avoid the word when there are perfectly good alternatives?

I agree that it's unlikely NWN2 will include a load of uber, nonsensical traditional "bosses" in any case.

It was an off-hand remark that MCA made and he used the word 'boss'. It's not a big deal, and there shouldn't be any confusion over the term, unless you're a dumbfuck like Bryce who doesn't understand that 'boss' is a generic video game term that can be applied to several characters in just about any game.

 

[galsiah]

It was an off-hand remark that MCA made and he used the word 'boss'. It's not a big deal...

Sure, agreed.

and there shouldn't be any confusion over the term

Whether there should be confusion is irrelevant - it's abundantly clear that there is confusion.

'boss' is a generic video game term that can be applied to several characters in just about any game.

It's a generic term with a load of unhelpful (in an RPG context) baggage and associations. People might assume you mean just "leader", or a more traditional end-of-level enemy you need to fight.

If you're talking about an action game, it might be helpful and reasonable to talk about bosses. When talking about RPGs it introduces a load of unhelpful assumptions - e.g. that it's necessarily an enemy, that you have to fight it, that it ought to be really powerful, that there ought to be only one in an area...

Any, none or all of the above might be true of an RPG "boss". Using the word "boss" immediately brings the more traditional idea to many people's minds, which just gets in the way if that's not the intention.

When would it be at all helpful to use the word in any case? Only if you're saying things like "All bosses should have...", "Bosses muse be like this...", or "The boss in that area is ...". Generic terms are most useful to describe generic games with generic gameplay.

In my ideal RPG the natural question to ask when someone says "Bosses need..." would be: "But which characters do you mean when you say bosses?". It really shouldn't be clear in an RPG.
If the term is being used, it might indicate that the distinction is clear in NWN2 - otherwise it wouldn't be a useful thing to say. If true, I'd say that's a bad thing.

EDIT: actually, having re-read the initial comments, the use is reasonable I'd say. There's nothing really confusing about "frenzied berserker boss". I'd still be happier with another word, but it's not like he was saying "The bosses in NWN2 ...".

 

[themadhatter114]

It was an off-hand remark that MCA made and he used the word 'boss'. It's not a big deal...

Sure, agreed.

and there shouldn't be any confusion over the term

Whether there should be confusion is irrelevant - it's abundantly clear that there is confusion.

'boss' is a generic video game term that can be applied to several characters in just about any game.

It's a generic term with a load of unhelpful (in an RPG context) baggage and associations. People might assume you mean just "leader", or a more traditional end-of-level enemy you need to fight.

If you're talking about an action game, it might be helpful and reasonable to talk about bosses. When talking about RPGs it introduces a load of unhelpful assumptions - e.g. that it's necessarily an enemy, that you have to fight it, that it ought to be really powerful, that there ought to be only one in an area...

Any, none or all of the above might be true of an RPG "boss". Using the word "boss" immediately brings the more traditional idea to many people's minds, which just gets in the way if that's not the intention.

When would it be at all helpful to use the word in any case? Only if you're saying things like "All bosses should have...", "Bosses muse be like this...", or "The boss in that area is ...". Generic terms are most useful to describe generic games with generic gameplay.

In my ideal RPG the natural question to ask when someone says "Bosses need..." would be: "But which characters do you mean when you say bosses?". It really shouldn't be clear in an RPG.
If the term is being used, it might indicate that the distinction is clear in NWN2 - otherwise it wouldn't be a useful thing to say. If true, I'd say that's a bad thing.

But if the first part is agreed, what's the real point in arguing about it? Is there any justification for being a stubborn whiny dumbfuck like Bryce just because MCA used the word 'boss' when clearly referring simply to some uber-powerful character that you'll be killing, especially when the reason he used a generic term was because he wasn't talking about some particular beast? And isn't it reasonable to assume that you can use the word 'boss' without people going up in arms about it? I mean, who the fuck cares whether or not he used the word 'boss'? I think just about anyone who's not a pretentious asshole has a grasp of what was meant with no need to focus on that particular statement.

What this argument is really about is Bryce being a dumbfuck and looking for any excuse to bash NWN2, and upon realizing that his complaint in this particular thread was totally illegitimate and that he's a dumbfuck, he's been forced to resort to more dumbfuckery in order to defend his initial comment that had no relevance to anything.

 

[galsiah]

I'm only discussing the use of such terms in general. Whether or not the discussion started for stupid reasons doesn't really bother me.

In general I think the use of "generic video game term"s is unhelpful, since it pushes design in a more-of-the-same direction. Clearly a common vocabulary helps to communicate quickly and easily. However, as soon as you innovate significantly, using conventional terms will be more of a barrier than an aid. Using a load of conventional vocabulary too early is likely to get in the way of creativity.

For example, why do many RPGs still use the same tired rules systems? If a designer's first thought is "what should happen when a character levels up?", rather than "how should a character improve through the game?", or even "how should a character change through the game?", then he's stuck with a level based system without even considering an alternative.

Asking "How will we handle bosses?" tacitly assumes that the game will have clearly identifiable "boss" characters, without considering the alternative. I don't think that's helpful.

This specific example isn't too bad, since Avellone clearly means to imply that the berserker is a powerful combatant, rather than a leader (who may or may not be powerful). I can't think of another single word he could have used, so it's fair enough really.
The only gripe I could have is that his use of the word places it squarely in his active vocabulary. Given the choice, I'd always prefer a designer who didn't spend his time talking about bosses, levelling up, buffs...

 

[Pseudofool]

We need to apply Godwin's Law here, evidently when the word "boss" is used it stirs up too much emotion for gamers to have an earnest debate

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Every game everr created outside of games like Tetris or sport sgames had bosses.

You're right. There are no such things as adventure games.

 

[themadhatter114]

Every game everr created outside of games like Tetris or sport sgames had bosses.

You're right. There are no such things as adventure games.

Since when do adventure games not have bosses?

 

[bryce777]

Every game everr created outside of games like Tetris or sport sgames had bosses.

You're right. There are no such things as adventure games.

Since when do adventure games not have bosses?

Wow, you really just have severe mental problems, don't you?

 

[Hazelnut]

Well The Hobbit (by Melbourne House) has Smaug... but, really, saying adventure games have bosses is really dumb.

 

[ad hominem]

Every game everr created outside of games like Tetris or sport sgames had bosses.

You're right. There are no such things as adventure games.

I suppose you're actually correct in saying there are no such things as adventure games, at least outside of a few dedicated indie developers. Those were the good ol' days.

 

[galsiah]

Since when do adventure games not have bosses?

I think "adventure" games here is intended to cover things like Day Of The Tenacle - not Zelda. It's right up there with "boss" in terms of unambiguous comunication.

 

[themadhatter114]

Since when do adventure games not have bosses?

I think "adventure" games here is intended to cover things like Day Of The Tenacle - not Zelda. It's right up there with "boss" in terms of unambiguous comunication.

Point taken. Still, pointing out exceptions among genres is pretty pointless. Sure, not every genre has bosses, but several of them do. We could sit around all day and say things like "lol sports games don't have bosses" but that's really beside the point. Unlike bryce, I'm not one to continue hammering a point where I'm clearly mistaken. I could think of games that don't have bosses, probably, but regardless some people can't seem to grasp that some things, like the word 'boss' have common usage outside their own narrow definitions.

 

[bryce777]

Since when do adventure games not have bosses?

I think "adventure" games here is intended to cover things like Day Of The Tenacle - not Zelda. It's right up there with "boss" in terms of unambiguous comunication.

Point taken. Still, pointing out exceptions among genres is pretty pointless. Sure, not every genre has bosses, but several of them do. We could sit around all day and say things like "lol sports games don't have bosses" but that's really beside the point. Unlike bryce, I'm not one to continue hammering a point where I'm clearly mistaken. I could think of games that don't have bosses, probably, but regardless some people can't seem to grasp that some things, like the word 'boss' have common usage outside their own narrow definitions.

That's because you have an idiotic definition of what a 'boss' is that flies in the face of all accepted use of the term.

No one ever used to talk about bosses in rpgs. Give me a fucking break.