Support NeoGAF

[64bitmodels]

I've been thinking about bosses specifically. More specifically how i dislike "weak spot" bosses... They typically pad out their duration for longer than necessary because the boss refuses to open up and let me attack

with more regular, any-attack-goes bosses, you can walk and chew gum- dodge the attacks while giving the boss a healthy serving of knuckle sandwiches along the way. I like this about some Mario bosses and most of the classic Sonic Bosses. If you want, you can just wail on them and get it over with. But in a lot of more recent games, (for instance, not the best example but GOW2018 and the stone ancient boss) you're forced to wait through super long attacks to hopefully get the chance to strike back. You can't do both at the same time, the game's speed and flow is dependent on the boss AI opening up and not your skill of being able to defeat them- counter intuitive to what I want from a videogame boss, in my opinion

That being said, there's probably folks who prefer the "weak point" style of design, otherwise it wouldn't be getting made. So what style of boss do you prefer

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

Exposing weaknesses is the best imo. While we're on the subject, I hate cheap bosses that take three turns to your one etc. and are immune to all ailments.

 

[LectureMaster]

For single player, strike at any time! A combination of reflection, movement/combo muscle memory, pattern learning, and precise timing.

Weak point design can work great for co-op or MMO where folks are assigned to different tasks and have to coordinate well. Destiny's raids are pinnacle in this regard.

 

[Guilty_AI]

a mix of both is good. Give them a weakness but just damaging them until they die also works

 

[TintoConCasera]

I prefer strike at any time bosses, but weak spot bosses can be very fun specially if well designed, which usually means they don't take a lot of time for them to show the weak point.

My favorite tho would be puzzle bosses, like those in Zelda games. Think and do something instead of just attacking.

 

[thegame983]

I was about to say "a good boss should neither seen nor heard," but then I realised you were talking about video game bosses.

 

[64bitmodels]

I prefer strike at any time bosses, but weak spot bosses can be very fun specially if well designed, which usually means they don't take a lot of time for them to show the weak point.

My favorite tho would be puzzle bosses, like those in Zelda games. Think and do something instead of just attacking.

Zelda is a particularly interesting example because I feel like they manage to make that sort of weak spot design not feel as slow as other games, and it makes a lot of their bosses quite memorable. and yes, the puzzle style design of the bosses are quite fun as well.

It still can have the trapping of taking very damn long for stuff to get done, but they're more fun than most "weak spot" style bosses. That being said, Majora's Mask/BOTW still has my favorites due to their different design philosophy of letting you hit at any time-very representative of how those games in general tried the Zelda formula

 

[Puscifer]

Much prefer Deus Ex Directors Cut style bosses. Strike nearly any time but with options to actually do it so it's not just 1:1 combat the entire time. Dark Souls 2 had some bosses like this, but they seemingly required a summon to get the full effect

 

[Holammer]

Do the thing three times and bosses you can finish fast with knowledge & skill.
Sonic Superstars is an excellent example how you don't do it. I felt myself dying of old age on the first boss.

 

[Parazels]

It's hard to say.

But it's annoying, if I have to kill some simple enemies, which are distracting you from the boss itself.
Examples? Rise of the Tomb Raider, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Dead Space 2 etc.

 

[64bitmodels]

But it's annoying, if I have to kill some simple enemies, which are distracting you from the boss itself.

thats another element which makes me prefer the free strike style of boss, because in the case where they send their lackeys at you, once you're done getting those idiots finished you can go back to beating up the main guy without pause

If it were a "weak point" style boss, you could end up missing the window of opportunity/ having to sacrifice that rare open chance to finish off the other guys attacking you.

 

[ReyBrujo]

Exposing weaknesses is the best imo. While we're on the subject, I hate cheap bosses that take three turns to your one etc. and are immune to all ailments.

I face one of those every other time I play a dungeon crawler lol

Personally I like bosses that got weak points but also that you can beat by brute force. I hate when you got bosses that are completely cryptic (like the Discordance in Labyrinth of Galleria) and that you need special tools and powers to beat without clues within the game.

 

[Danjin44]

To me it doesn’t matter as long as it’s well designed.


For example I have been re-playing MH Iceborne, I MUCH prefer fights like Raging Brachydios over Safi'jiiva siege fight.

 

[LectureMaster]

Sekiro's boss battles are so satisfying thanks to the superb deflect system.

 

[intbal]

The kind that will agree to resolve your differences with a friendly chat.

 

[ShadyAcshuns]

I face one of those every other time I play a dungeon crawler lol

Personally I like bosses that got weak points but also that you can beat by brute force. I hate when you got bosses that are completely cryptic (like the Discordance in Labyrinth of Galleria) and that you need special tools and powers to beat without clues within the game.

I hate the cryptic shit that you see in FS titles, like some stupid little item that can be completely overlooked, that a boss might be distracted by for two or three seconds etc.

 

[Codes 208]

Bosses where you need to expose the weakness feel less like a skill test and more like just another obstacle or puzzle

Like zelda and mario are notorious for the rule of 3 and while i have fought some iconic bosses back in the day, when i think of really good bosses now, I’m thinking more like souls-like or cuphead bosses

 

[Kataploom]

I actually hate HATE having to wait for the boss to expose his weaknesses so I can finally get a chance (missable even) to hit, souls bosses are not like this BTW, the sole reason you're expected to wait is because you decide it, by mere tactic.

But dragons in souls games are my least favorite bosses by far because they're kinda like this, they are too big so hitting them is a matter of not having bad luck they moved the head at the moment then pursuing them and praying they don't put their head too far in the few hits you can do and they HP sponges. Unnamed King first phase was specially tedious for that, I preferred to fight it's second phase by far compared to most people who say the first one is easier lol Midir too.

 

[64bitmodels]

Bosses where you need to expose the weakness feel less like a skill test and more like just another obstacle or puzzle

yeah!! A common trend is that games that do the weak spot style of boss too aren't as hard or don't give the bosses a menacing, memorable feel. Soulsborne will go over the top to give their bosses the most insane cinematics, lore, specatcle to perfectly compliment that they're a true test of skill and an achievement to beat.

When one of those broodals show up in Mario Odyssey it's another regular day for the fat plumber.

 

[ConkerTheSquirrel.]

I prefer bosses the way Nintendo does them:

- 3 hits
- Creative, in design and gameplay. They're puzzle in themselves, where you have to figure out how to beat them given the mechanics presented to you.

 

[Beechos]

I really don't care i like big badass spectacle boss fights god of war/contra style.

 

[Kings Field]

In a game like Destiny I feel like you should be able to do damage at anytime on strikes. Raid bosses are usually immune until you unlock or figure out the puzzle/requirement which is ok since it's about teamwork.

Single player games I like to be able to damage whenever. I do like that certain bosses are immune or decreased damage using certain effects and the other way around.

 

[PeteBull]

Anything is good as long as its not this:

 

[Crayon]

The staggering mechanics in jrpg's are interesting. I kinda don't like it conceptually but I have to admit they add tons of texture and strategy. I still enjoy just chipping away at a bosses hp in an old game, though.

 

[ZoukGalaxy]

Furry boss hating fire

 

[rabbity-thing]

I love when the boss is approximately the same size as the protagonist and punishes you for mashing. I'm thinking of Virgil in DMC3 or Knight Artorias.

 

[Codes 208]

yeah!! A common trend is that games that do the weak spot style of boss too aren't as hard or don't give the bosses a menacing, memorable feel. Soulsborne will go over the top to give their bosses the most insane cinematics, lore, specatcle to perfectly compliment that they're a true test of skill and an achievement to beat.

When one of those broodals show up in Mario Odyssey it's another regular day for the fat plumber.

Exactly. Gears of war is also strangely an example of two different bosses. Raam in 1 and Queen Myrah in 3 were both bullet sponge-type bosses that generally forced you to move to eifferent positions but didnt focus on the weakspot shenanigans.

Buuut Skorge in 2 was different, he was a rule of three kind of boss like what youd expect out of zelda

 

[Duchess]

The boss fights I like the best are those where you need to get inventive.

Soul Reaver did this very well back in the day.

 

[GymWolf]

Strike at any time
Similar to my protagonist size
Not too much gimmicks or at all
I have a preference for humanoids but i'm ok with not-so-large creatures

Gigantic creatures usually suck absolutely asses compared to humanoids, their hit zones are usually wonky, their attacks are more confusing and less readable and they are more prone to have gimmicks, cinematic set pieces bosses are usually the worst, all spectacle, zero substance or skill involved.


The boss should not have a safe zone\phase, at best they can have a shield\good at evading but the player should always have the chance to outsmart\manouvre them if they are good enough.

 

[The Cockatrice]

Im ok with both as long as theyre fun.

 

[GymWolf]

To me it doesn’t matter as long as it’s well designed.


For example I have been re-playing MH Iceborne, I MUCH prefer fights like Raging Brachydios over Safi'jiiva siege fight.

Amen, siege fights are too gimmicky or have too much health (or force you to be in multy)

Gimme the regular encounters every day of the week.

 

[Berserking Guts]

Both can be good.

I hate bosses where you don't know if you're doing damage though. Especially if you have finite ammo if it's a shooter.

 

[Danjin44]

Amen, siege fights are too gimmicky or have too much health (or force you to be in multy)

Gimme the regular encounters every day of the week.

Yup, Safi'jiiva was just grind fest and not actual fun fight.

I hope we don’t get that type of fight in Wilds.

 

[GymWolf]

Yup, Safi'jiiva was just grind fest and not actual fun fight.

I hope we don’t get that type of fight in Wilds.

Hard to believe we don't get at least a couple.

Every mh seems to need at least some gimmicky shit in it

 

[Danjin44]

Hard to believe we don't get at least a couple.

Every mh seems to need at least some gimmicky shit in it

At least in Wilds you can summon AI to do these siege fights instead of forcing MP on you.

 

[MayauMiao]

I don't like boss that use cheap moves that cannot be pull of by players, like no 2 second charge attack.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Both are actually good, as long as the battle is well-designed and not formulaic.
In time I’ve grown to despise the typical N64-era Rare bosses, which are just about repeating the same thing three times with faster tempo and greater difficulty. Most of the times you aren’t even required to do anything to expose the boss’s weak point, just run/defend and wait. That’s the worst kind of boss. You can have some of those in a game, but not ALL of them.
It’s better in most Zelda games, when you at least have to attack or do stuff to open up the boss to actual damage.

I hate how Souls games have increasingly added cheap boss tactics to make the bosses more of the “wait for weak point exposition” (ie, wait for the boss to fucking stop spamming attacks and take a breath) type, unless you use some OP strats that make the boss incapable of doing anything. Bosses like Quelaag were great.

 

[jufonuk]

Definitely not M Bison or Gil. Cheap ass fuckers.

 

[Cyberpunkd]

are immune to all ailments.

This right fucking here. Shit design that makes you just brute force the encounter, which most of the times devolves to being high lvl enough to just heal through the damage.

 

[jufonuk]

I don't like boss that use cheap moves that cannot be pull of by players, like no 2 second charge attack.

 

[Lunarorbit]

I forgot I was in the gaming section for a minute.

I like my bosses to be hard but fair and tell me what I can impro....... wait what? Hit your boss? Oh shit, videogame bosses.

 

[Big Baller]

Girlbosses