Page 1 of 3
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 1:57 pm
by Alienblue
Naw, throw him/her outta the building!
As y'all know, I am loving my platform game SUPER PRINCESS PEACH
(Ok, Critic? (: ) , but have been frustrated by the end of level bosses. This got me to thinking. Does EVERY platform game need a boss at the end of the level? Or every shooter for that matter?
I come from a simpler era where you played for HIGH SCORES. I DO think there should be some major obstacle at the END OF THE GAME, but don't we enjoy getting from level to level and seeing new sights, new music, do we REALLY need to beat some big thing after every four levels? Some "bosses" are ridiculously easy while others are so hard you just give up. I feel Super Mario World would be more fun WITHOUT the ghost houses and castles. Remember PITFALL 1 & 2 and SMURF? Other opinions?
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 2:39 pm
by sega saturn x
That game would be even more of a joke without the bosses, as they were they only part that had any challenge to them at all. But on the topic as a whole most western made games don't have large elaborate bosses any more. Since most strive for realism there are very few huge end of the level bosses.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 2:57 pm
by snakeboy1
I hate games that put a heavy emphasis on boss battles and ones with nearly-impossible-to-beat bosses. I think that shooters especially should be pretty light on boss battles since they are usually difficult even without them. However, I'm not sure if I would want to take them out of platformers. One thing about beating a boss is that it gives you a feeling of accomplishment. And taking bosses out I think would diminish that feeling.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 3:09 pm
by bluemonkey1
I agree. I do get irritated sometimes by some games' mentality of having you battle all the way through the level then after that significant time you put in they confront you with a boss who kills you easily because you don't know his super special weakspot that you only get by facing him lots of times (each time having to work through the level). I don't mind if a boss is intuitive to beat or if you have a checkpoint just before though.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 3:14 pm
by VideoGameCritic
In the early days, the bosses were only slightly larger and more difficult to defeat that the normal enemies. But over time, developers have taken a bigger is better approach and the size of bosses (and time it takes to kill them) has gotten out of hand. In some games, the normal stage is just a warm-up for a frustrating boss encounter that takes forever. Some games are nothing BUT bosses - which is a pretty bad idea (except for maybe Shadow of the Collosus).
I think they need to go back to the old school and bring it back down a few notches.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 3:31 pm
by Adamant1
While we're on the subject, anyone know which game was the first to feature bosses? Time Pilot?
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 3:57 pm
by zenzerotron
The only boss-heavy game that I can think of that's fun is Gunstar Heroes(Genesis).
I agree with the VGC that bosses are overused. They are a big cop-out for adding playtime-length and challenge to a game.
The worst offender I can think of is Contra Shattered Soilder(PS2). This game has very little pure run-n-gun action, it's just nothing but bosses that take 6-million hits to destroy. The game is a complete bore.
One thing that really pleases me about "Gears Of War" is that there are very few boss fights in this game. Not only that, but each boss is unique and requires a certain-approach to defeat it. I'm hoping that GoW is a trendsetter, in the boss-battle department.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 4:53 pm
by a1
[QUOTE=The Video Game Critic] Some games are nothing BUT bosses - which is a pretty bad idea (except for maybe Shadow of the Collosus).
[/QUOTE]
Dynamite Heady would be a good example of too many bosses. I swear I did one level and then 7 bosses in a row. Absolutely ridiculous.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 7:44 pm
by Steerforth
I don't know about fewer bosses, but most games need at least a greater emphasis on AI for smaller and midsized enemies. Most of the enemys in Zelda TP are just a pain in the butt, no real danger to Link and no great challenge to kill. For instance, you start climbing up a vine wall, get half way up, and, oh crap, there is a spider there you forgot to shoot first and he knocks you down. For some reason it is more satisfying to kill critters in 2D Zeldas but not the 3D ones, they just irritate me.
Do we need the Boss?
Posted: January 15th, 2007, 9:19 pm
by a1
[QUOTE=Steerforth]
For some reason it is more satisfying to kill critters in 2D Zeldas but not the 3D ones, they just irritate me.
[/QUOTE]
I'm much more frustrated by enemies in 2D Zelda games. In 3d Zeldas I have complete control over my movements. I can spin, slash, jab, roll, and dodge. In 2D all I can do is attack and try to get out of the way of enemy attacks by walking around.