In this week's Face Off debate , Tyler goes left, then right, then left again to dodge Evan's precisely timed barrage of attacks against traditional boss fights in modern games. Are they an outdated trope which should be reserved for arcade-style experiences? Is there some common ground, where boss fights and modern ideas can coexist?
Read the debate below, add your argument in the comments, and jump to the next page for opinions from the community. Tyler, you have the floor:
Tyler: Why shouldn't games use a tried-and-true design template? Here's an analogy: you spend a semester learning, then face the ultimate challenge in the final exam. It's hard. You might have to repeat it again and again to pass, but it makes earning the right to advance to the next level meaningful. My degree would just be a piece of paper if I passed on attendance alone.
Evan: Thanks for comparing bosses to school exams, something universally disliked by mankind.
Tyler: I know, but see, what I'm saying is, because tests and bosses are- OK, fine. I guess I didn't do myself any favors with that analogy. But are you just going to critique my rhetoric?
Evan: Let's try this again, with less sarcasm on my part. So you're saying that without a demanding test punctuating a player's progression, being told “You won!” or “You advanced to the next area!” by a game isn't as meaningful. Correct?
Tyler: I'm not saying games need boss fights to create meaningful progression, but the old-school structure still works where it's used well. Bosses get the big set pieces—the explosions that would just be worn out if they weren't a sparingly-used reward. They can be crazy, huge, monstrous things. They can seem insurmountable at first, and when you turn one to dust, you are the hero. You're Bruce Willis at the end of Die Hard. Happy trails, Hans.
Evan: I see bosses as an antique trope. They're a lazy roadblock-in-antagonist's clothing, and I think designers generally use them out of convenience or tradition, and not because bosses are the best or most creative way of structuring a game. Plenty of modern games have used bosses in a way that feels completely out of place—BioShock's pathetic end boss was one of the only stains on one of the best games of the era. Ken Levine has admitted this .
Tyler: You're right, that was too conventional for BioShock. That was an avoidable error—Wolfenstein 3D wouldn't have worked if it built to not a fight with mecha Hitler, but BioShock? BioShock should have ignored tradition. That doesn't mean design traditions are universally bad or lazy, though. They give us historical learning to draw from, and that's valuable.
Iterating on a design only leads to better versions of that design—not in every case, but over time. We'll only get more and more amazing boss fights, and I'm happy to allow for some failures.
Evan: But designers aren't iterating, they're regurgitating. For the most part, bosses are still being implemented in the same form they were 10 and 20 years ago. What would you cite as an example of a great modern boss?
Tyler: Dark Souls, all of them. Sorry, is that game too “antique” for you?
Evan: Actually I'm glad you bring it up, because Dark Souls demonstrates what I'm talking about. The fun I had fighting its bosses relied on difficulty more than interesting design. Dark Souls is saying: “You're fragile, so let's make you fight things that have a bunch more HP and do more damage than you. Boss: DESIGNED! ”
I don't find that totally unappealing, but it's mechanically mundane: pattern recognition, timing, and fighting an enemy with an enormous hit point bar isn't tried-and-true--it's overdone. That template originated in the 2D arcade games of the '80s and grew ubiquitous through the console games of the '90s. Do we really want games that are just a series of homages to the techniques of the past, or do we want new ideas and new experiences?
Tyler: We want both! And sometimes we want a combination. We can want whatever we want. Alright, that last one isn't a very good argument, but how about this: it's true that the best examples of boss fights come from arcade-style games and Japanese console series, making a “modern” PC-centric argument more difficult, but even Valve draws from that collective design learning. I thought Portal and Portal 2 climaxed just fine, and those are plenty modern.
Evan: I remember enjoying the ending of both games, but I think I was enjoying the narrative execution more than what I was being asked to do with my mouse and keyboard. Glados and Wheatley are both entertainingly written, and both Portals incorporated original, lyrical songs that provided as a surprising payoff for all your hours of brain work. But as an activity, as a test , I'm not sure if I'd call Portal and Portal 2's bosses stimulating.
How to beat the end of Portal 2:
It does a lot of the work for you--you don't even have to consider where to place the gel, which was something Portal 2 taught you how to do over and over. It was a narrative success, but if we're judging bosses by their test-like traits, I'd say it was a pretty easy exam.
Tyler: You're right, boss battles tend to be exercises in pattern recognition and repetition. They require a binary win/lose state, and winning in one shot would be a bit anticlimactic, so you wear them down in stages. But what about Half-Life 2: Episode 2? That wasn't a standard pattern-based test, it was a whole level. Conceptually, is that still a “boss?”
Wait. No. I'm unplugging my keyboard and walking away before I turn this into a semantic argument about “what is and isn't a boss.” I'll plug it back in after I've sat in the corner thinking about what I've done.
Evan: Yeah, I agree that it's pointless to argue whether Half-Life 2: Episode 2's incredible sawmill/Strider showdown is or isn't a boss. Mostly I'm interested in encouraging designers to throw out the notion that bosses or “tests” or endings require something like a binary win/lose state, or that they have to replicate something players already understand. I like that Left 4 Dead's crescendo events make it possible to win and lose simultaneously--you or a teammate might've died, but if one person completes the finale it's considered a success.
Mainly, I don't want any more Human Revolutions. It was a legitimate tragedy that the reboot of one of the defining, agency-driven games of our time reverted to “let's put the player in the room with a guy that they stun and then shoot until they kill him.”
Tyler: You're right again, but I don't agree with a universal conclusion. Yes, “shoot until they die” is out of place there (and no fair using Human Revolution, which had bad boss fights for many reasons), but even so, I want to face the villain, and sometimes I really just want to win the fight. The hero's journey, and all that! There's a place for challenging the idea of binary win/lose states, as in L4D, but there's also a place where John McClane shoots the bad guy, and it's a place I'm not done visiting.
I don't want to miss that confrontation because we're just too sophisticated for traditional boss fights. True, there are better ways to handle that confrontation, and that's the experimentation I want to see.
Evan: “The hero's journey, and all that” is exactly what I want more designers to deviate from. Not to derail our discussion about bosses, but I'm sick of being everyone's savior.
Now that i think of it, Far Cry 3 represents one of the recent attempts at iteration on boss design. It's an open-world game with maybe last year's best villain, but Ubisoft's solution for bringing you face to face with Vaas and other big bads was throwing you into these frustrating, (and I hate to use it like it's inherently a bad word, but) linear, drugged-out hallucination sequences. Why did they do that? Because they wanted the player to have this prolonged encounter with the villain, and a dream sequence creates this context where they can bend the rules and allow the player to shoot the villain a whole bunch of times before they die.
Tyler: You sure have a lot of examples of bad boss fights, but they don't add up to a rule—and at least Far Cry 3 tried to justify its boss confrontations a bit differently, even if it didn't succeed.
And on your first point, sure, things can get really interesting when we deviate from archetypal hero narratives. What if I'm just a person in DayZ, on an island with zombies, what do I do? Fascinating, and I can't wait for more. But why can't we have both? We don't have to stop saving the world to also find out what happens when we can't save the world, or when the final boss is actually Jonathan Blow's internal emotional struggle.
Evan: It sounds like we're approaching something that resembles consensus. I think we're both interested in boss encounters or “difficult trials” that are built on new ideas. I guess part of my criticism stems from the idea that Western game design has won out over Japanese game design over the past 10 or 15 years, and that bosses represent a dated trope that was perpetuated a lot by Japanese games.
I'm especially frustrated when well-funded projects, staffed by dozens of talented people, rely on templates like locking you in a room and throwing a single, durable enemy at you.
Tyler: Have you played Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater? I know, another Japanese console example, but I think The End is a brilliant modern boss fight—it's a sniper battle, a long back-and-forth which can be won with a kill or non-lethal takedown. That's the kind of boss fight experimentation we need more of in PC games. We don't need to do away with them altogether.
Evan: I'm a closet Metal Gear Solid fan, so I'm not going to fight you on this one--The End works for the same reasons HL2: Ep. 2 does--Konami built a whole, intricate level around that character, imbued him with some unpredictable behaviors, and the result was this interestingly-paced jungle hunt that didn't simply have one solution, yeah. A lot of MGS' bosses do rely on some tropey pattern-recognition stuff, but he's one of the best examples of combining “Japanese difficulty” and Western sensibilities. There's a lot of that in what Kojima does.
Tyler: Yeah, we're at least within sight of each other now (nice hat, by the way). Neither of us mind having that big confrontation, or even sometimes sticking to narrative tropes, we just want cleverer approaches. That is, we don't want designers to force traditional boss fights into otherwise non-traditional games. We want them to design climactic experiences that make sense, and “dodge, shoot, dodge, shoot” can be fun, but it only works in games wholly designed in that arcade style. When you force it into something like BioShock or Deus Ex, it's a mechanical and narrative let down.
That's the debate! As always, these debates are exercises meant to reveal alternate view points and cultivate discussion, so continue it in the comments, and jump to the next page for more opinions from the community.
@ pcgamer I hated ME3. Without boss battles, the story was basically about fighting mindless enemies 4 cutscenes. And Kai Leng don't count.— Nathan Hansen (@NathanHansenWDN) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer outdated. but also fighting endless waves, survival style is boring too.Simply, keep "boss" fights at random times throughout.YAY— derps | ADLT (@Batou079) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Dark Souls did it well. Bioshock did it well. I like the idea of roaming boss fights with the black knights and big daddies— Nicklaus Lacle (@NLacle) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Like anything else, boss battles have a place if they fit the game. They are often overused and obvious, though.— Ben Price (@bk_price) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Japanese-based games have it on tight, I don't see much from NA titles.— Abdelrahman Al Amiri (@_Bu3ouf_) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Boss battles are a needed mechanic but also needs to be well implemented using the games key features e.g. Zelda style or DMC!— Russell Jones (@RusDJones) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Bosses are essential.The problem is every boss is the same now, people don't put the effort into creating original fights anymore..— Niek Kerssies (@KIPKERssIEs) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer The Boss is the one unique super baddy that gives us the challenge I seek in a game, otherwise its just CoD— Zack McCloud (@ZackLynx3187) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer depends on the game's style. A bit outdated. only not that bad. but don't really need it anymore if the gameplay is strong enough.— Tony J. Vodka (@tonihato) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer Yes Boss battles should be the climax of a game - compare Hitler Robot of Doom vs UN victory in Civilization 3— Logun (@Logun0) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer For something like a Strider or Reaper I think yes; otherwise, I feel it's outdated, as games like Mirror's Edge or Far Cry 2 show.— Davehonored (@david_shea) March 20, 2013
@ pcgamer No tool in a writer's box is ever obsolete, but just as hammers aren't for fixing electronics, not every game needs a boss battle.— Jacob Dieffenbach (@dieffenbachj) March 20, 2013