Boss Fights: Are they obsolete? Do we still need them?

On another gaming site I read an article posing the question: Do we still need Boss Fights in video games?

It's thought-provoking, so thought I'd post the article link here (LINK) along with a few thoughts of my own, and hopefully gauge what you all think about the role boss-fights play in today's modern games. ***Possibly minor spoilers on games you should have all finished by now*** ; )

In regards to the article's question - do we still need boss fights? Well, I'm in two minds. It really depends on the game. There are those game where boss fights mesh well with the rest of the game play (Borderlands, Gears of War, Dark Souls, Dead Space to name a few) and those where the boss fights do not mesh well with the rest of the game (Batman: AA, BioShock, the final Fontaine boss fight that is, and ANY FPS game akin to Army of Two).

But there is some middle ground to consider - people in the comments do make a good point in suggesting boss fights add tension as you're expecting a fight and the closer you get, the more wary you get. Examples of this: The Leviathan in Dead Space is one; You see its effects throughout the level with its alien form warping the nature of the ship around you. Or whenever your HUD tells you there's "Some weird happenings" in a game and you begin to see more and more human bones and gore the closer you get to a particular point; you begin to silently sh*t yourself! I mean even though there was no boss fight, who wasn't wary when you see the globs of guts and weird marine in Halo: CE right before you see the Flood? You're going "Hey, this gunk must come from something... Gee I don't want to meet it!"

And then think when you're utterly let down by the anticipation of a boss fight. Foremost in my mind is Fable 2. You're building up to a massive showdown as in the first game, but when you finally meet your nemesis, it's an on-rails scripted fight that you only shoot one bullet in!! LET DOWN!! You felt cheated and robbed! So in terms of tension and keeping a game moving forward, boss fights are in my opinion, necessary. And if not boss fights, at least a harder enemy or tricky situation.

And that brings me to the other thing to consider: Demi-bosses. I'm talking about the ones from BioShock, the mini bosses from Dark Souls and the Dragons from Skyrim. They're great for multiple reasons: Firstly you're not abruptly placed inside an arena with maybe a few waves on enemies trying to figure out a weakness and slowly whittle down a health bar before he goes into a berserker state etc. There's no sudden lava pit around you or dodging or scripted machine guns and thrown mines. It ain't Crash Bandicoot basically! Secondly, they're natural and flow with the gameplay more. As in BioShock and Skyrim, they're usually strolling around doing their thang. You could meet them in multiple places and have different situations. You're often not stuck in to versing them and can usually run away. And lastly, the approach you use can vary. Some boss fights are unvarying - you must use X weapon to take down X weakness then attack with X weapon until X health when X happens etc etc. With Demi-bosses, you usually can set traps, choose the right moment and use a lot of different techniques depending on the surroundings. For example in Skyrim I provoked a dragon into attacking, leading it to a small keep where I took cover and whittled it down. And in BioShock, Big Daddies were always easy prey when they ventured into water or near a bunch of explosives! So in terms of breaking up the monotonous equation of Level then Enemies then Boss Fight then Next Level, Demi-bosses are great for inserting when a player least expects it and can be used to expand areas far beyond if they'd simply had a big boss at the end.

That said, one of the best games I played on the PS2 was Shadow of the Colossus, which is pretty much an open world comprised ONLY of big boss battles! Go figure...

Considering those things, it brings me to a last point to consider: difficulty. Nothing annoys me more than utterly enjoying a game and only to find my enjoyment cut fully short by a boss battle that is too difficult to pass. I know this doesn't happen too much any more, but sometimes a boss fight is simply too hard. This can be compounded by the possible fact that you may indeed KNOW how to defeat the boss but simply cannot due to poor reaction times or a faulty controller or maybe impatience! I know that even if I've done the same attack several dozen times on a boss, that if I get him down to one bar of health left and need to simply do one last attack, it'll be THAT time when my heart begins to pump and I make the one mistake and have to begin the task all over again. Enjoyment=zero. This happens very rarely with Demi-bosses, and that why I prefer games without large scale boss fights, so boss difficulty in these fights is really hard to perfect but essential.

On the flip side, easy boss fights just make you yawn and detract from the game. You breeze by them and wonder if you have any final climax to look forward to at all! It probably even makes the game feel boring and repetitive, if all you're doing is slashing through foes to reach a boring boss.

So considering all this, I have to agree that in general boss fights are obsolete. And by obsolete I mean not necessary EVERY game. This is not Sonic or Mario. There is no princess in the other castle and there is no Doctor to defeat at the end of every stage. If it suits the game's theme, by all means put in a boss fight. Maybe supplement them with Demi-bosses (yeah, I'm definitely copyrighting that term...) but be careful the big boss fights don't ruin the flow of the game. So if you're playing Modern Warfare and suddenly a genetically altered Captain Soap comes out with a massive machine gun and waves of screaming suicide bombers, then this would be a perfect example of a flow-breaking, BAD boss fight lol. And by golly make sure the difficulty if damn perfect, and if not, make a path to circumvent them for a while. I know I go on about the game a lot, but Dark Souls really is what I see as a perfect example of a perfect boss game: It's a fantastical mythical world where large monster bosses don't feel out of place. Most bosses you can avoid for a time or all together (the multiple pathways means some bosses don't even have to be fought at all!). As you rank up the bosses get slightly easier, but are still very challenging if you don't know what you're doing or make a lot of mistakes/come unprepared. They can be fought co-operatively if you're still having a really hard time. And the game is wrought with Demi-bosses to make stages feel well spread out and well paced. And the sense of accomplishment is huge because the game is so hard, so all in all, the game shines in this regard.

My 2 Cents (or several of them) anyway, now tell me what YOU think. : )

And for those who missed it above, original article here: http://nzgamer.com/ps3/features/1047/boss-fights-do-we-still-need-them.html

Another question would be also, can anyone think of any amazing games where there have been NO boss fights?

Theres always going to be a place for boss battles, but there is certainly games that they dont have any place in, aka deus ex: HR, a perfect example.

Dark Souls' boss fights made that game.

Like every aspect of every game ever it's about how well it's realized within the game, both in terms of the actual mechanics of the game play, and the justification for why the encounter/mechanic exists, be it fiction based or otherwise.

Sorry, but this seems like a pointless questions. The answer is, "Yes, but not always."

Skyward Sword has some pretty good boss fights. They make great use of the motion controls, and are usually a pretty climactic way to end a dungeon.

So I think that in certain games, we totally do. Especially since the alternative in games without them is usually just fighting hella dudes. I'd rather fight one really cool looking dude than 50 of the same dudes I've been fighting.

You pretty much said all that needed to be said. Boss fights are one of the most core and universal concepts across video games in general, they couldn't simply just decide to scrap them completely. Plus the times where it feels like they don't quite ''fit'', that's more due to the boss fights themselves being poorly designed. Boss fights are there to supplement a great challenge over the norm. Naturally stuff like Adventure games and Puzzles game don't really work (though with puzzle games it all depend on the type of puzzles; if it involves competing against AI opponents, then a more advanced AI encounter would be classified as a boss battle), but I think boss battles are incredibly important within the fabric of gaming. It's not about whether they're required, it's about developers learning how to design better boss battles.

Yeah, I totally understand the thought behind whether or not we still need boss fights. There are a lot of story driven games out there that could have benefited from a good 'final boss' or mid-level bosses. There is an argument for everything, and boss fights get antiquated sometimes.

For my $0.02, I think the perfect example of a bad final boss fight for the sake of it was Uncharted 2. Sometimes a heavily story driven game will take a lot of positive momentum and ax it with a boss fight that might not be compelling or might be too challenging. In this case, the game was hurt by the idea that maybe they needed to close the game out with a challenge that would provide a difficult obstacle for the player to overcome in reaching the goal. But for me, it was a negative experience because I had so much trouble with it. The admission of guilt comes in the form of Uncharted 3 because the final boss isn't very difficult, but Naughty Dog still finds a way to make it feel edgy and successful. I wouldn't argue the plot so much, but the final boss in itself is solid.

I think great boss titles this year include Iron Brigade, Dragon Age II, and LA Noire. I felt they were able to capture the challenge and fun with a satisfying conclusion better than other games had done. That's really why I think boss fights have a place. When they are done correctly, you do get the end of LA Noire. The closure is significant and the road to the end was worth it for a lot of people. I will always recognize that the quality of a game like Dragon Age II deservers to be called into question. But the boss fights were worth mentioning. I think Bastion is a game that deserves all the credit in the world for being amazing but the bosses aren't much more then infuriating arena battles for me. I would say the same for something like Dead Space 2 (my personal game of the year.)

The reason boss fights have always worked is because they provide a really interesting and challenging conclusion to a great experience. I love the Genesis Sonic games because the boss fights always gave me the perfect balance of each. Most games use boss fights correctly, even with missteps. It's hard to end a game the same way it's hard to end a movie or TV show in a good way. I think in that sense video games might have a better track record because even the worst movie licensed game will have something that drove you to finish it in the first place and give you something tangible to equate to closure.

/Drunken Post

Theres always going to be a place for boss battles, but there is certainly games that they dont have any place in, aka deus ex: HR, a perfect example.

@KittyMeggerz said:

Theres always going to be a place for boss battles, but there is certainly games that they dont have any place in, aka deus ex: HR, a perfect example.

I disagree, the original had bosses, i do however think that the bosses in HR were badly implemented.

MikeGosot knows what's happening.

@MikeGosot said:

@KittyMeggerz said:

Theres always going to be a place for boss battles, but there is certainly games that they dont have any place in, aka deus ex: HR, a perfect example.

Deus Ex: HR could have good boss battles. They were just poorly executed. Any game could have boss battles, they just need to be well executed.

I third this.

Any game could have boss battles, unfortunately we have gotten a lot of bad boss fights this generation, mostly in shooters and action games.

So while they might need to rethink their strategy in those kind of games, I would certainly miss boss fights in most RPGs.

@Village_Guy said:

Any game could have boss battles, unfortunately we have gotten a lot of bad boss fights this generation, mostly in shooters and action games.

Rainbow Dash Village_Guy here makes a pretty good point.

I don't like when a boss battle is only thrown in because it might have been deemed that a game "needed" that sequence. I don't think they're obsolete, but I do believe that the approach to making a good one seems to become a lazy one. Or they have overlooked spots that can make them far too simple. Prime example that I can recall is the Rakk Hive in Borderlands. That's one of my favorite fights when you physically get down there and go toe-to-toe. But that fight can be very short and incredibly unsatisfying if you just stand where the entrance is and snipe him down to nothing, taking no damage. Makes it seem cheap and takes away the fulfillment, really. But the DLC bosses (Lookin' at you, Knoxx) do a lot better job at actually being the right balance for a challenge. I'd really like to see more bosses in shooters and such, and I'd like to see them be given more thought.

It depends on the individual game. To say that they're obsolete as a whole is just foolish.

I think the theoretical boss fight is a necessity. It adds a variance to games. Of course, just having some occasionally more difficult enemies and quite a few more different types of enemies would be a solid change. Like, I guess we could look at God of War as an example. For all of the plain guys to fight, have more satyrs, centaurs, and minotaurs, otherwise shit just gets repetitive.

@SpawnMan said:

And for those who missed it above, original article here: http://nzgamer.com/ps3/features/1047/boss-fights-do-we-still-need-them.html

Another question would be also, can anyone think of any amazing games where there have been NO boss fights?

Limbo, Where Is My Heart?, Pixel Junk Eden, Flower, Heavy Rain and I'm going to guess L.A. Noire but I've never played it. Killzone 3 didn't have a final bos fight. Instead it had an on rails shootout with a space frigate. It coud be argued that Shadow of the Colossus has no boss fights. When every enemy is a boss are any of them really a boss? Aren't they just normal enemies then?

Well done boss fights are a beautiful thing that absolutely can raise a game from memorable to amazing. See Bayonetta for the most recent example I can recall at the moment.

I don't remember any boss fights in RDR, discounting duels (I wouldn't count them). I certainly consider that an amazing game.

On the whole, I agree with many of the sentiments already expressed, though. Boss fights, when they add to an experience, are exhilarating and one of the best parts of gaming. Boss fights that feel shoe-horned in, conversely, are one of the worst experiences in gaming. It's up to the game designers to know when they have crafted a memorable and fun encounter, versus when they just felt like they needed a boss fight in this part and ended up detracting from the experience.

Boss fights aren't obsolete. But boss fights don't need to be in everything, and they aren't.

no, they're not obsolete it just depends on the game. good read though.

@iam3green: Fanx! It's good just having a debate about gaming for once without needing to have a firm result. : )

No ideas are obsolete in an artistic medium, because there is always someone who can find a way to make an old idea feel new and awesome.

@crusader8463: Okay, what about the idea that a boss fight MUST be included in a game, not necessarily the idea of bosses themselves.

@SpawnMan said:

@crusader8463: Okay, what about the idea that a boss fight MUST be included in a game, not necessarily the idea of bosses themselves.

Nothing MUST be in any game. If they can work one in that fits with the game then fine, but forcing any one thing, or the lack there of, just to meet some pre-coneption of what has to be in a game is silly and is something that's limiting much of modern game design in my opinion. You can't make blanket statements about stuff like this, because every game has it's own set of rules and what makes sense in that world might not in others.

The boss fight against Mr. Freeze in Arkham City was really well done but the ones at the end of the game was just bad. The rule of 3 and the repeatable patterns just don't play anymore.

There is still a place for boss fights. But, I'm also finding that, recently, those moments in games where I have gone through distinct boss fights (so I wouldn't call the dragon fights in Skyrim boss fights because they quickly become normal, random battles) were some of the least fun experiences I had in those games.

@crusader8463 said:

No ideas are obsolete in an artistic medium, because there is always someone who can find a way to make an old idea feel new and awesome.

Good thing video games aren't art.

@crusader8463: I'm glad we agree on something. : )

@Example1013 said:

@crusader8463 said:

No ideas are obsolete in an artistic medium, because there is always someone who can find a way to make an old idea feel new and awesome.

Good thing video games aren't art.

I dunno - I look at some games like Limbo and Dark Souls and the like and reaaaallly wonder if this statement is true. What is art? Visual. Makes people think in a different way or points out social issues. In your face. To be enjoyed when looked at. Creative. I'd definitely say video games are an art form in their own sense of the term.

In Deadly Premonition bosses are used incredibly sparingly and are all pretty fuckin' awesome, if extremely easy. The demibosses, however, are AWFUL. And in Persona 4, bosses are used as incredibly important character development despite not really having anything to do with the narrative. And let's not even get into the two required boss fights in Saints Row: The Third, two of the absolute largest "WTF" moments in the game.

So, in short, I'd say no, bosses aren't simply tied to when it "fits" in the narrative. Sometimes a boss is a great monkey wrench that can completely change perception of the game, most often when they "don't fit" the tone of the game. Bosses are great because they're nice shorthand for "important." However, our current gameplay systems mostly facilitate really shitty bosses, namely because we still believe that we want to survive all the bullets, but we also want to kill our opponents in just a few choice blows. Games need to be unafraid to have intensely difficult bosses sometimes; not obscenely difficult, but in some games it makes sense to have the boss battle be incredibly tense. If I were picking the "best boss games" I'd raise Metal Gear Solid, Megaman, and Shadow of the Colossus as my nominees, with Persona 4 being an honorable mention. None of those boss types would ever work in a first-person shooter, so they should probably take a break from anything larger than a demiboss in the meantime.

I don't think bosses are obsolete; I think mediocre bosses are obsolete.

I love Boss Fights!

My very first boss fight was the giant resident evil snake. *sighh* seems like it was yesterday.

@SpawnMan said:

@crusader8463: I'm glad we agree on something. : )

@Example1013 said:

@crusader8463 said:

No ideas are obsolete in an artistic medium, because there is always someone who can find a way to make an old idea feel new and awesome.

Good thing video games aren't art.

I dunno - I look at some games like Limbo and Dark Souls and the like and reaaaallly wonder if this statement is true. What is art? Visual. Makes people think in a different way or points out social issues. In your face. To be enjoyed when looked at. Creative. I'd definitely say video games are an art form in their own sense of the term.

I will argue with you on pretty much every point there. First, let's address Dark Souls. I'm assuming you're referring to the design and palettes of the world. Yes, all of that is art, but is the game itself art? Ultimately Dark Souls is still largely ludological (as I understand the term). The mechanics of the game, the actions you complete (leveling up, acquiring gear, defeating bosses), are what gives the game meaning, and what you derive joy from. Dark Souls may have a lot of art in it, as artists have designed every single thing you see in that game, but that doesn't make the game itself art. As an analogy I'll use an art museum. The museum is filled to the brim with art, but the art within doesn't make the museum art itself.

Next, as a musician I'm a bit miffed that when you think of art you only think of visual art. Music is art just as much as painting and sculpture.

On viewpoints and social issues: first, making a political statement is not a necessary criterion for something to be art. The Lascaux paintings predate politics themselves, but are still art. And second, any political or moral statements made by video games are, to generalize to about 99.9% of all video games, child-like in their simplicity. The closest thing to a "complex" statement made in a video game would have to probably be "No Russian", but even that is rather black-and-white, and is very blunt and in-your-face even in the moral grey-area part of it.

To be enjoyed when looked at: Once again, this is not a necessary criterion for something to be considered art. There are plenty of works that are horrifying to look at, which are no less art than some visually pleasing image. Some of the most meaningful and impactful art is, in fact, quite grotesque, but that grotesqueness is actually what allows its message to be better conveyed.

And on the last point: creative. All art is creative, but creativity isn't defined as creation of art. Creativity is something that can be applied in just about any school of thought. Scientists can be quite creative, as they try to find answers to the questions they have, as can be social scientists. Creativity is often used in reference to art, but it isn't beholden to that single sphere of influence. Yes, many game designers and developers are quite creative, but that doesn't mean they're making art.

The boss fights should definatly stay but really deveolpers shoould be mroe smart about if they should have them or not in the first place, it definatly makes sense for games like dark souls, or zeldas, marios cuz they are definatly enjoyable and work with the mechanics of the game, Human revolution felt as if the boss battles were shoe horned right in there Just beceause the previous games had them, and if anyone had a conplaints about that game that was one of the thigns that always came up, it cold have worked, but alot of things would of had to change for it to work.

Another question would be also, can anyone think of any amazing games where there have been NO boss fights?

@Example1013 said:

@SpawnMan said:

@crusader8463: I'm glad we agree on something. : )

@Example1013 said:

@crusader8463 said:

No ideas are obsolete in an artistic medium, because there is always someone who can find a way to make an old idea feel new and awesome.

Good thing video games aren't art.

I dunno - I look at some games like Limbo and Dark Souls and the like and reaaaallly wonder if this statement is true. What is art? Visual. Makes people think in a different way or points out social issues. In your face. To be enjoyed when looked at. Creative. I'd definitely say video games are an art form in their own sense of the term.

I will argue with you on pretty much every point there. First, let's address Dark Souls. I'm assuming you're referring to the design and palettes of the world. Yes, all of that is art, but is the game itself art? Ultimately Dark Souls is still largely ludological (as I understand the term). The mechanics of the game, the actions you complete (leveling up, acquiring gear, defeating bosses), are what gives the game meaning, and what you derive joy from. Dark Souls may have a lot of art in it, as artists have designed every single thing you see in that game, but that doesn't make the game itself art. As an analogy I'll use an art museum. The museum is filled to the brim with art, but the art within doesn't make the museum art itself.

Next, as a musician I'm a bit miffed that when you think of art you only think of visual art. Music is art just as much as painting and sculpture.

On viewpoints and social issues: first, making a political statement is not a necessary criterion for something to be art. The Lascaux paintings predate politics themselves, but are still art. And second, any political or moral statements made by video games are, to generalize to about 99.9% of all video games, child-like in their simplicity. The closest thing to a "complex" statement made in a video game would have to probably be "No Russian", but even that is rather black-and-white, and is very blunt and in-your-face even in the moral grey-area part of it.

To be enjoyed when looked at: Once again, this is not a necessary criterion for something to be considered art. There are plenty of works that are horrifying to look at, which are no less art than some visually pleasing image. Some of the most meaningful and impactful art is, in fact, quite grotesque, but that grotesqueness is actually what allows its message to be better conveyed.

And on the last point: creative. All art is creative, but creativity isn't defined as creation of art. Creativity is something that can be applied in just about any school of thought. Scientists can be quite creative, as they try to find answers to the questions they have, as can be social scientists. Creativity is often used in reference to art, but it isn't beholden to that single sphere of influence. Yes, many game designers and developers are quite creative, but that doesn't mean they're making art.

You make some good points, but I think you failed to see my list there - not all points were to be taken as necessary points in order for it to be art, but merely aspects which art could express. So yes,I agree not all art needs to make a political statement (this is pretty obvious lol).

You use the museum as an example. However, you obviously have not curated an art show. As a photographer (and I'm not saying this to brag, but just to show how I see things - probably why I referred to the more visual aspect of art and neglected the musical nature of it) you can create art. But as a curator, you also do this. There is a journal article I read on it recently (name escapes me, but if you google the concept of curators being the "ultimate" artists, you'll probably find it) but anyone who has curated an exhibition can tell you that the show takes on an enjoyment of its own. You've laid out the works in a particular fashion. You've thought about how the people will move around it and enjoy it. The show itself is as artful and thoughtful as the individual works.

So you say leveling up and acquiring gear is not artful. But it is just as artful as a curator choosing pieces for an exhibition. In a way the curator says "Screw the artists, this is MY work now!" The game is much like that. Someone has taken these beautiful art designs and characters and works of art and placed them together, thinking about how they fit and work together. An even more blunt way to put it is akin to how a framer presents an artwork. The delivery of art should not take away from the fact that it is indeed still art.

I agree that most video games fall short in the artistic realm of political or moral satire though, and that is a shame, because imagine how powerful a game would be if it did. Games which do come pretty close that I've played have been games such as Fallout (a commentary on the effects of nuclear dependance and looming war) etc, and of course Half-life, commenting on totalitarian regimes and the power of the repressed minority.

But I have to disagree completely that creativity doesn't equal art. Art IS creation! "Art" is so conceptual and undefined that you really can't say what it is and isn't, but creation and creativity surely is part of it. You're taking something from your mind, expressing it in a medium and presenting it to a public. People will receive it different ways - you can't really say if a toothbrush is artful or not, just if it gets the job done properly or if it doesn't. But like a movie (another great example of characters, story, sets and scenes coming together to make another form of "art") video games can be interpreted, felt, analyzed and dissected. I'm not saying that there's gonna be books on the psychology of Mario Bros (LOL) but for games like Dark Souls and Limbo, they move people and make them think. Limbo for example - could just be a side scrolling puzzle game. I've heard other people swear it's a commentary on the afterlife. Others say it's a story of a brother's journey through his own subconscious to rescue his sister. Now look at a Jackson Pollock painting. I think they're just paint blobs on panel. Others see something vastly different. Art is in the eye of the beholder, and the very fact that we're having such a debate over whether or not video games are art, by essence, proves they are.

As you say, not all creativity is art, but art is creativity. And in this case, due to the fact that video games can mean different things to different people (again, a toothbrush is a toothbrush, but can the same be said about all video games?), and the fact that video game design is so similar to the act of curating pieces of art, then I feel that video games are 100% acceptable as pieces of art.

@SpawnMan: Oh my god, someone willing to sit down and have this discussion with me, and you make good points as well! While I have not myself curated an exhibition, now that I think about it I can certainly see a method to design there.

I do still take issue with using ludological concepts as art (leveling up, etc.), because saying that leveling up can and should be in and of itself meaningful enough to carry a piece of art (a game) means that the bar is set really low. Part of what art does is not just provide enjoyment, it challenges (or reinforces) conceptions. I haven't gotten to play Limbo, but I can certainly see your point there, as it sounds like the game does just that--along with the artistic direction with which the world is designed. I was actually reading an interesting article on Kill Screen Daily about logic and ludology, and it put definitions to thoughts I already had. Life as we experience it is largely illogical (many might even say absurd), and much of the creation of the complex orders within which we live (social, cultural, etc.) are constructs of the human brain. A logical system (which ludology is) has its own inherent order, and thus provides no room for the creation of new concepts within the mind of the consumer. The interactive nature of video games leaves room for them to be, quite simply, the most powerful artistic medium. I would hate to see someone else's ordered construction of games get in the way of that.

I feel on that last part you may have slightly misunderstood me. I'm not saying that video games can't be art, but rather that they aren't now. Video games, as a medium today, are not art. I fully expect that to shift over the next decade or so, as smaller, more fully creatively controlled projects become the norm, video games will become art as a medium. But few games are art, and certainly not enough are to label games themselves as an artistic medium, for the time being.

Any game where your progress is directly linked to the bolstering of your character can make good use of boss fights. In Deus Ex: HR (And the original for that matter), it's completely viable to not advance your fighting abilities at all. When the odd boss fight comes around though, you're left feeling unprepared with no other option. Even in that case though, you could solve that problem by adding win conditions that don't require direct combat, similar to the rest of the game.

If your character is growing stronger, you like to see that strength on display. Take SWTOR for a clear example. The whole goal of an MMO is to get stronger, which leads to the occasional boss fight leaving you feeling like you've accomplished something. If the game had no foreshadowing into the eventual boss fight, you wouldn't get the same feeling.

In most shooters, however, even if you are gaining abilities and getting slightly stronger, it isn't the focus. Especially nowadays, the main focus is instead on the spectacle, and not on the progression.

A lot of them are terrible. Some are really fun and rewarding. It just depends.

In general I think boss fights are great. Some games would feel pretty empty without them. What's wrong with facing one tough bastard every once in a while?

@Example1013: While I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, I just want to make two points.

I think that mechanics such as leveling up can be used to great artistic effect. If a game allows you to choose every corner of progression for the characters, you can get a level of attachment you rarely find in other art forms. Taking, side by side, my favourite game character and favourite TV character as an example: my emotional investment in FFIX's Vivi was so much stronger than my emotional investment in Cowboy Bebop's Spike. I attribute this to the fact that Spike was a character in a TV show, but Vivi was my Vivi. I had spent a lot of time following the stories of both, but my time with Vivi had my own influence, especially so, because of the fact that he was an avatar of my own unique decisions when leveling up. Not only did I control him, but he was a different Vivi (mechanically) to any other Vivi that anyone else in the world was playing. *SPOILERS* When Vivi didn't show up in the ending sequence and you knew he had died, I was a lot more touched than when Spike had died at the end of Cowboy Bebop, and in my opinion, Vivi's death was the less dramatic of the two, having lived out his entire natural life.

*END SPOILERS*

The second point is that while I agree games aren't an inherent art form, I'd like to say that neither are movies, drawings, photos and other such things. You can draw a diagram, or you can draw a wonderful picture laced with metaphors. It's not entirely fair to say that games aren't when nearly no form of media is necessarily even trying to be art. I do understand that I could easily be misunderstanding you, as even the definition of art seems to be mostly subjective. Most of me thinks you are meaning to say that video games aren't generally art (with which I agree), instead of saying that the medium outright isn't art (even yet). The fact that some games can be used to express artistic vision and already have done certainly proves the whole medium is used for art (even if not exclusively).

@Example1013: I know right? I got all giddy with excitement there was someone who I can have a debate with on here lol. ; )

Yep you make some good points and I think we can both part having respect for each other which is awesome! I do agree that in a few years, videogames as art is definitely going to take off completely and it will be amazing to watch and experience! And it'll almost surely come from the likes of indie/small arcade games that this will rise, and not from the likes of FPS (LOL). Hope to see you around man! :D

@fang273 said:

Any game where your progress is directly linked to the bolstering of your character can make good use of boss fights. In Deus Ex: HR (And the original for that matter), it's completely viable to not advance your fighting abilities at all. When the odd boss fight comes around though, you're left feeling unprepared with no other option. Even in that case though, you could solve that problem by adding win conditions that don't require direct combat, similar to the rest of the game.

Exactly the problem with such games. In games where you can choose stealth etc, then it really smarts when you suddenly have to alter your gameplay completely, break your character's mindset and fight, generally unprepared. The flip side though, as I mention in the OP, is that over-leveling is then a problem - you over-prepare for every fight possibly, and then you find the boss fight too easy. IMO a game shouldn't be like that - it should be natural and without worry that you might need to bump a certain skill to overcome a boss later on as it breaks gameplay. At most, hoarding certain useful weapons or items should be the limit to pre-preparing. And if not, make the bosses optional (IE, if you're a water dude, you don't HAVE to fight a fire boss, as in Dark Souls where you can circumnavigate areas all together).

I enjoy boss fights, if they are appropriately designed like they are in Zelda games and Dark/Demon Souls then they can be really fun. However Deus Ex: HR boss fights were badly designed because they did not appropriately fit the ability skillset of the game.. thus a boss fight would be incredibly hard if you did not have appropriate skills in a game that is very open ended in how you build a character. Not all games need them but when they are well designed then i welcome them with open arms.

Sorry but I just don't think there's an argument here. The problems you and the article are describing with boss battles are in the implementation, not a fundamental issue with the mechanic and when that's the case there's no way to say it's straight-out obsolete. Yes, the mechanic has a specific place and can't just be used anywhere, yes difficulty balancing is important, and yes it has to fit with the flow of the rest of the game but this applies to everything in video games anyway. Boss battles provide a satisfying finale to a level, they make villains seem more imposing and manage to take on a generally epic feel when done right. I don't want to see them going anywhere.

Good read.

I for one couldn't imagine games like Dark Souls abandoning the idea of bosses, but considering that I still didn't beat the first boss in Human Revolution because I was an entirely stealth character I agree that many games can do perfectly fine without them.

I was thinking about this today when I was working out. Are you psychic?

I would say that boss fights have a place in gaming, but don't necessarily fit well with every type of game. Some games are dramatically better with (or without) the inclusion of boss fights.

@RsistncE: I can read your every thought. And yes... I'm up for IT. Thanks for asking hot stuff.... ; )

I think that boss fights are far from obsolete. But in order to make a boss fight interesting (at least for me), the said boss has to be a major or minor character, and that character has to be developed and detailed. Otherwise, what's gonna set him apart from the hordes of generic enemies you kill for exp or loot?

@TheDudeOfGaming: But then he doesn't really fit in with the rest though? Horde horde horde Character Boss. Repeat. Look at Gears of War - sure there's General RAAM in the first game for example, but most of the "bosses" were simply harder varieties of locust, like the two berserkers or corpsers. I think having only characters as bosses detracts completely. In fact, I'd prefer it if my bosses were generally NOT characters.

@Rudyftw said:

I love Boss Fights!

My very first boss fight was the giant resident evil snake. *sighh* seems like it was yesterday.

God Damnit that boss scared the shit out of me. I turned off the game and didn't play for like a week when first encountering it. I didn't even try, I just quit on the spot and waited to go back to it.

I like boss battles, but I hate it when they are overly difficult. I like a challenge, but I don't like feeling like I'm charging, head lowered in front, into a brick wall. Uncharted 2 is an excellent example, so +1 to the person that mentioned it on the first page.

@SSully said:

@Rudyftw said:

I love Boss Fights!

My very first boss fight was the giant resident evil snake. *sighh* seems like it was yesterday.

God Damnit that boss scared the shit out of me. I turned off the game and didn't play for like a week when first encountering it. I didn't even try, I just quit on the spot and waited to go back to it.

haha I was fucking scared of that game as a kid. I would force myself to play it though.