Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
SHOULD THE LAST BOSS BE SUPER CHALLENGING?
Posts
RyaReisender
200
RyaReisender
View playlists
Closeauthor=Feldschlacht IVEntertainment doesn't require challenge.author=RysThis is a mutually exclusive mindset; if normal battles aren't challenging enough to be entertaining or instruct the player, then by that logic they shouldn't even be there.
Regarding "normal battles should train your skills", this is not always a good idea, because normal encounters shouldn't take very long
I agree! I think most are at least looking for some level of challenge, to at least feel like they've earned their victories. And you can deliver that challenge in many different ways. It doesn't necessarily have to mean long non-boss battles.
author=Rys
Entertainment doesn't require challenge.
I'd estimate that many (if not most) players are looking for challenge, and in any case, its those players I'm catering my game towards.
RyaReisender
200
I'd estimate that many (if not most) players are looking for challenge
Not so many in JRPG communities, because there are plenty who:
1. Play them for the story.
2. Want to bash the buttons without much thinking and see numbers go higher.
But if you are in a community that's, let's say, about Dark Souls, then yes.
Also you forget that there are different ways of challenge. Challenge in the form of long normal encounters might not be the challenge people actually want. I for example enjoy a challenge in the form of finding the way in huge dungeons and long normal encounters are counterproductive for such a challenge.
In Bravely Default I end 90% of the random battles at the end of the first turn making most fights super quick. Of the remaining 10% half of them are the first time encounters in dungeons where I got a feel for what enemies could do and how to best kill them. The other half the time I either clutch the victory or wipe because most of my part is at -3 BP (read: turns) and the remaining enemies have free reign to wreck my guys. It also does nothing to 'train' me for bosses because when I face a boss I always rebuild my team since mob strats and boss strats are completely different from each other. You need things like a healer! BD is also really fun! (barring the awful level design and a few other things)
... wait what was the topic again? Oh right!
I'm in the "No" category. My ideal vanilla experience is that if you can reach the final boss you should, with a decent strategy, possibly (but not required) wiping to get a feel for the battle and opening the elixir warchest, make the final boss taste the curb and see the ending. The final dungeon and whatnot are the checks to see if the player is good enough to face the final boss, if they can't then it'stime to make better plans! back to the trail and finding ways to power up! Ideally, again, for the pro-gamers is both difficulty levels for those who work to make a team of demigods and achievements for self-imposed restrictions, likely a kind of profile leaderboard that would track fastest completion times or lowest levels, etc..
My favorite 'most challenging' 'final boss' would be:
Lord British asking if you have the sandalwood box at the end of Ultima 5. The final boss is Richard Garriot flipping the bird to the player who finally managed to make it to the end of Doom (which is the goal of 80% of the game) only for Garriot to tell the player to fuck off and they can't see the ending yet. The sandalwood box is never hinted at until this moment (it is hinted at.... in the sequel if you talk to a certain horse) and only the ending+credits is after this question. Now go and explore the whole of Brittania to find the sandalwood box!
It's hidden in Lord British's chambers if you play the right song on his harpsichord. The game tells you how to play the song and that you can but afaik there's no hint to play it in his room to find the hidden room with the said sandalwood box.
... wait what was the topic again? Oh right!
I'm in the "No" category. My ideal vanilla experience is that if you can reach the final boss you should, with a decent strategy, possibly (but not required) wiping to get a feel for the battle and opening the elixir warchest, make the final boss taste the curb and see the ending. The final dungeon and whatnot are the checks to see if the player is good enough to face the final boss, if they can't then it's
My favorite 'most challenging' 'final boss' would be:
Lord British asking if you have the sandalwood box at the end of Ultima 5. The final boss is Richard Garriot flipping the bird to the player who finally managed to make it to the end of Doom (which is the goal of 80% of the game) only for Garriot to tell the player to fuck off and they can't see the ending yet. The sandalwood box is never hinted at until this moment (it is hinted at.... in the sequel if you talk to a certain horse) and only the ending+credits is after this question. Now go and explore the whole of Brittania to find the sandalwood box!
It's hidden in Lord British's chambers if you play the right song on his harpsichord. The game tells you how to play the song and that you can but afaik there's no hint to play it in his room to find the hidden room with the said sandalwood box.
UPRC
5516
author=RyaReisender
I'm a completionist too and can tell you that the less optional content there is, the better (for a completionist). Lots of optional content and the completionism, don't go well together.
But I don't think that was the point. In FF7 the final boss actually DOES get stronger if you get ultimate weapons and if you defeat the "Weapons" in FF7. But even if you got all the ultimate weapons and defeated all the "Weapons" he will still be weaker than the "Weapons", so it is kind of pointless fighting him again at this point. Why not make him even harder after having defeated all the Weapons? Then there would be a complete ending to all the bonus content you played.
I like that! I know what I'm going to be doing for my next final boss!
Crystalgate
694
author=RyaReisenderI'd estimate that many (if not most) players are looking for challengeNot so many in JRPG communities, because there are plenty who:
1. Play them for the story.
2. Want to bash the buttons without much thinking and see numbers go higher.
I suspect that this is a consequence of RPGs usually having brainless combat thus weeding out people who demand tactics. People have mostly given up on the idea of combat actually requiring thought. I know that even though I would like more thoughtful combat, I get suspicious whenever a game creator claim that his/her game actually requires tactics. Usually, my suspicions are very well founded.
What this means is that even if you manage to make an RPG who's combat requires thought, chance is people won't believe it. Watch them tell you that RPGs shouldn't require grinding. However, if you do convince people this is actually the case unlike the other 95+% of all other game creators who make the same claim, then you should have a sizable audience available.
author=Crystalgateauthor=RyaReisenderI suspect that this is a consequence of RPGs usually having brainless combat thus weeding out people who demand tactics. People have mostly given up on the idea of combat actually requiring thought. I know that even though I would like more thoughtful combat, I get suspicious whenever a game creator claim that his/her game actually requires tactics. Usually, my suspicions are very well founded.I'd estimate that many (if not most) players are looking for challengeNot so many in JRPG communities, because there are plenty who:
1. Play them for the story.
2. Want to bash the buttons without much thinking and see numbers go higher.
Mimana Iyar Chronicle. The game was specifically advertised as "You can't just mash buttons and win". I beat the entire game pressing 'X' or whatever the attack button was. I think I used healing things about three times in the entire 12-hour game. It was advertised as a 30+ hour game. Lots of walking, pretty much no music outside of town or battle. The game was a joke yet somehow managed to get positive reviews from players who thought the game was "challenging" and "18 hours and I'm only at the fourth boss!".
The last boss consisted of: Attack. Walk away from final boss's attack. Hope awful AI-controlled allies attack and manage to dodge. Watch allies die. Wait for final boss to heal back to max HP. Repeat five times. Win a feeling of buyer's remorse.
I think, not necessarily extremely hard but challenging enough that you feel accomplished beating it, that you feel that everything up to that point has culminated in this one battle, that you must win at all costs and that it was worth all the effort you put in.
If you could scale it to level, that'd be pretty awesome. It's not something done often with last bosses.
If you could scale it to level, that'd be pretty awesome. It's not something done often with last bosses.
author=unityThis
I agree! I think most are at least looking for some level of challenge, to at least feel like they've earned their victories. And you can deliver that challenge in many different ways. It doesn't necessarily have to mean long non-boss battles.
Sviel
2006
author=Crystalgate
What this means is that even if you manage to make an RPG who's combat requires thought, chance is people won't believe it. Watch them tell you that RPGs shouldn't require grinding. However, if you do convince people this is actually the case unlike the other 95+% of all other game creators who make the same claim, then you should have a sizable audience available.
RPGs shouldn't require grinding.
If the game is paced properly and doesn't rely on strawman difficulty, the player -should- be able to handle challenges as they come. Grinding should be an optional strategy, if that.
That's not to say there should be no non-boss encounters...just, there should never be a point where the player has no choice but to slaughter hordes of enemies just to get their numbers higher so that they can overcome some obstacle.
Crystalgate
694
author=Sviel
RPGs shouldn't require grinding.
If the game is paced properly and doesn't rely on strawman difficulty, the player -should- be able to handle challenges as they come. Grinding should be an optional strategy, if that.
To clarify, I never suggested that RPGs should require grinding. The idea is that if you manage to make an RPG who's battles require thought, then a lot of people who fail due to using a poor tactic will assume that rather than the problem being them playing too poorly, the problem is that their level isn't high enough. They grind or quit instead of trying to learn the game.
RyaReisender
200
I like grinding as a means of allowing you to overcome a challenge you are just not good enough for. But a perfect player (read: the developer) should be able to beat the game without doing any "grind" battles.
But Crystalgate is right that the danger of grinding is that players will actually think that the game is grindy rather than that their tactic is wrong.
But Crystalgate is right that the danger of grinding is that players will actually think that the game is grindy rather than that their tactic is wrong.
Ravenite1
243
I like challenging final bosses as long as they don't drag on for hours. The final boss should be a test of all the skills you've learned to that point.. rather than a test of patience.
RedMask
1139
I think a last boss should be challenging but I'm not opposed to the idea of an easy last boss either. It depends on context I think.
Also, here's a thought does the last boss have to be the final challenge in the game?
Metroid for example has you escape the planet after the defeat of the last boss.
Also, here's a thought does the last boss have to be the final challenge in the game?
Metroid for example has you escape the planet after the defeat of the last boss.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Ending the game with something other than a boss would be a good whole separate topic!
The game should end with the climax of its primary form of gameplay. If the majority of the game's design feeds into its combat, then it should end with a fight. A game about dungeon puzzles should end with a difficult dungeon or puzzle, and so on.
RyaReisender
200
That's how games usually do it but I don't think that's necessarily required. At least it didn't annoy me at all that Lufia 2 had some gameplay after the final boss.
There's certainly nothing wrong with some interactive falling action. The story has to wrap itself up anyway; it doesn't hurt to let the player be involved. There shouldn't be any challenges left in it, though. Aside from "escape the exploding lair," once the final challenge (battle or otherwise) is complete, that should be it for the conflict. Unless there's a cliffhanger for a sequel.
