Excommunicator
Arcane
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2010
- Messages
- 3,524
I don't want any of the masochistic shit that you people call playing an MMO in my singleplayer RPGs, including the poisons they already share
Any single player game with boss fights is likely to be shit no matter what they do.
Or just a normal mob, with the model scaled up x2, and health scaled up x800Any single player game with boss fights is likely to be shit no matter what they do.
I agree, all fights should be as banal and unremarkable as possible for maximum realism and grittiness
it is the final room of the final dungeon, do you want a boss? Fuck you, have six thugs instead
Um, by not looking into different examples of encounter design you get exactly that.No, RPGs should not look to WoW or any other game for encounter/boss design. We don't need more copy-pasted games like Dragon Age 2.
Any single player game with boss fights is likely to be shit no matter what they do.
I agree, all fights should be as banal and unremarkable as possible for maximum realism and grittiness
it is the final room of the final dungeon, do you want a boss? Fuck you, have six thugs instead
Actually, six thugs that have good AI and maneuver around for positional advantage is much more tactical and fun to play against than one boss that can only one small circle of positional influence.Any single player game with boss fights is likely to be shit no matter what they do.
I agree, all fights should be as banal and unremarkable as possible for maximum realism and grittiness
it is the final room of the final dungeon, do you want a boss? Fuck you, have six thugs instead
And who says a boss has to be a lone character? Maybe it has henchmen, it can summon demons, it has its boss bro with it, whatever to make it interesting.Actually, six thugs that have good AI and maneuver around for positional advantage is much more tactical and fun to play against than one boss that can only one small circle of positional influence.Any single player game with boss fights is likely to be shit no matter what they do.
I agree, all fights should be as banal and unremarkable as possible for maximum realism and grittiness
it is the final room of the final dungeon, do you want a boss? Fuck you, have six thugs instead
Basically it's just about having varied encounters. Fighting 6 thugs is not very exciting for a final fight if you've fought off several bands of 5 thugs already, no matter how deep the combat system is when fighting thugs.
it doesn't matter how creative boss encounters can be. rpgs should not have bosses at all, especially those rpgs that try to be more than trivial fantasy trash. the word "boss" alone implies encounter design where everything in between is filler combat that requires much less effort and by extension trivialization of combat as such, both of which is bad design for anything but arcade beat 'em ups.The people saying 'no' probably aren't even familiar with some of the more creative boss encounters in WoW and are just saying it because 'lol WoW sux.'
Nonsense. Variety is good no matter what. Even if you had a tactical combat system where trash fights are rare and challenging (yeah, keep dreaming), inserting a unique boss fight now and then keeps things fresh. Say a bandit hideout where you fight through a series of ambushes that all have a different setup requiring different tactics to avoid repetition (ie. grind), then at the end you face the bandit leader with his minions, perhaps with some traps and shit to add another layer of complexity. He doesn't necessarily have to have 10x the hp of a normal mob, it's still a bossfight that bring satisfying conclusion to the whole dungeon and makes sense in the context.it doesn't matter how creative boss encounters can be. rpgs should not have bosses at all, especially those rpgs that try to be more than trivial fantasy trash. the word "boss" alone implies encounter design where everything in between is filler combat that requires much less effort and by extension trivialization of combat as such, both of which is bad design for anything but arcade beat 'em ups.The people saying 'no' probably aren't even familiar with some of the more creative boss encounters in WoW and are just saying it because 'lol WoW sux.'
i'd rather have variety in the form of much less but more deadly combat against individually designed enemies that have names and connections to the gameworld beyond being nameless bandit #3 from ambush #2 with different outcomes and consequences than have a game full of scenarios with series of distinctly different encounters against disconnected nameless goons usually culminating in a boss encounter with a 1:1 chance of being just as disconnected as his underlings or actually integrated into some other parts than just his scenario...Nonsense. Variety is good no matter what.
the word "boss" alone implies encounter design where everything in between is filler combat that requires much less effort and by extension trivialization of combat as such, both of which is bad design for anything but arcade beat 'em ups.
[...]
a game full of scenarios with series of distinctly different encounters against disconnected nameless goons usually culminating in a boss encounter with a 1:1 chance of being just as disconnected as his underlings or actually integrated into some other parts than just his scenario...
No, it's more like you should specify what you mean by the very generic term of "boss" that can imply a variety of meanings.the word "boss" alone implies encounter design where everything in between is filler combat that requires much less effort and by extension trivialization of combat as such, both of which is bad design for anything but arcade beat 'em ups.
[...]
a game full of scenarios with series of distinctly different encounters against disconnected nameless goons usually culminating in a boss encounter with a 1:1 chance of being just as disconnected as his underlings or actually integrated into some other parts than just his scenario...
Uh, no? "Boss" just implies a tougher fight against someone or something that has an advantage other enemies didn't. You're having a kneejerk reaction caused by bad experiences with "bosses" in the past.
...maybe he's busy sending off a shipment and just wants to delay you until it's gone, maybe he's scared shitless because he knows you're coming for him and he's bound to die, maybe it's all just a ploy to lure you into a trap.* There are many plausible reasons for a boss being at the end of the dungeon other than just sitting on a pile of loot and feeling like a boss. Can all be tied into the narrative and part of a big picture. As CK said, you probably haven't seen it done well before so you'd rather dispense with the concept entirely.i'd rather have variety in the form of much less but more deadly combat against individually designed enemies that have names and connections to the gameworld beyond being nameless bandit #3 from ambush #2 with different outcomes and consequences than have a game full of scenarios with series of distinctly different encounters against disconnected nameless goons usually culminating in a boss encounter with a 1:1 chance of being just as disconnected as his underlings or actually integrated into some other parts than just his scenario...Nonsense. Variety is good no matter what.
especially when those scenarios make little sense to me personally, like why the fuck the leader of gang smart enough to rig their hideout against law enforcement would wait around idly until a group of dangerous vigilantes makes it through all of his gang's traps and ambushes to suicide against them.