The life experiences thing is spot on. My wife and I both had very sudden, very big losses in our lives in a short period of time. It was hard to relate to people who didn't understand what that meant for us (whether they had a similar experience or not wasn't the key point, it was if they could understand, give space, etc.) and people who were just completely tone deaf to what we were going through got cut out of our lives and we left them behind. Things had different meaning to us now, and people who couldn't understand that, well, we went our separate ways. Boss fights can impart a same kind of experience - mechanically, narratively, etc. Never thought of it that way before.
Wow, wasn't really expecting to even get mentioned, given the quality and depth of many of the responses. Thanks. Extra props for pronouncing my name correctly. That happens about once every few blue moons.
This got me thinking, I remember that like 3 or 4 years ago the idea that video game bosses were an out dated concept became a popular opinion among a large sector of younger gamers. though it quickly faded out. I have to wonder if this could be connected to something that was happening in real world social culture at the time.
[May be spoilers for Dark Souls 1, I just name bosses in relation to the topic and my own opinions.] I love boss fights. I search for them because they are usually so epic, and almost always a one time event never to be done again without starting over. They force you to learn/relearn/unlearn on the fly, and can bring any kind of emotion out of you. Anger quite often(Hellkite), elation once destroyed(Hellkite again), palpable fear(Nito), and even great sorrow(Sif) from within their meaning. They can be hauntingly beautiful(Moonlight Butterfly), or grotesquely disgusting(Gaping Dragon). They can be like fighting nightmares(Manus) or dreams(Priscilla). However, not all boss fights are good. Some are just plain annoying(Bed of Chaos), or far too difficult to be enjoyable(Four Kings). Others can be a grind on a large healthbar(Ceaseless Discharge). And some boss fights are so easy as to make the experience less fulfilling(Taurus Demon). Even the Zelda series has had a few bosses that weren't quite what was needed or intended. Good boss design is important for the bosses to remain in good memory.
So when you were talking about getting so stressed out about video game mechanics that you'd avoid it entirely, I suddenly remembered how much throwing parties in The Sims 2 freaked me out. I don't think I managed to get through a single one when I was younger, since that "fun" meter on the side gave me so much anxiety. Thinking back on it, besides the obvious social connotations of knowing how to throw a good party or going on a successful date, those interactions could actually count as boss fights. You're put into an instance where your skill at performing the mechanics of the game are put to the test, though in The Sims' case, this means you know how to schmooze the neighbors into liking you. Funnily enough, I don't remember ever having problems with actual combat oriented boss fights. I wonder what that says about me as a person XD
The comment about avoiding conflict in video games and real life resonated with me. I'm definitely not much of a risk taker, and I can't stand to see myself fail at something, so even though I enjoy many video games, some of my favorites I've only experienced by watching others play because I could never get myself to play them. The thought of not being able to succeed in one sweep gives me some sort of anxiety because I don't want to go into something knowing that I'll have to fail a few times along the way. I often joke that I'm just not coordinated enough to play games with more action, but a part of me wants to because I enjoy the games so much when I watch other people playing them.
The Witness' "The Challenge", even if I haven't played it, could totally be counted as a "Super Optional Boss". A common trope in RPGs, these are boss battles that are completely optional, but are extremely hard, usually harder than the actual final boss them self.
There seems to be a trend that says, "You're like this in real life, so these must be the games you play." I'm not sure if I agree completely. For example, Games can be forms of practice or therapy for real life, or even to make up for missing aspects. The Japanese game market isn't full of Dating Sims because guys can't get enough girls, or vice versa, but because the workforce is so completely demanding that social life, especially romantic, take a huge hit. Holding a stable relationship is difficult. Using a game to make up for that feeling of loneliness is easy. So, it's possible that people who have trouble dealing with major complications and confrontations IRL might find themselves playing games that offer mainly those things, in the hope that they can practice and get better at doing it in real life.
Also, I've been looking through a gallery of Cy Twombly's works and I find it very interesting how easily I come up with impressions of what a lot of these things could be even though they ultimately aren't those things I don't think
So you mentioned someone who avoids games with boss battles and it made me realize that I don't avoid the games with boss battles, but I avoid boss battles for the most part. Like over 100 hours on FO4 and I still haven't even met Nick, or fought Kellog, and I even managed to just run from the Deathclaw leaving Preston Garvey to deal with it. This is an interesting idea because in life I am ambitious, but any fault causes that ambition to crumble. I tried starting businesses and just utterly lost all hope when people didn't instant enjoy it, or when my close friends back out of it. I think there is precedent for the two being related.
I sympathize so much with people who get too anxious to fight bosses in games. I felt that for a long time but eventually pushed through it and love those types of games. (Oh! I almost said, "I pushed through it and became a gamer", which is a great example of what I want to dissect about this phenomenon.) I have such a strong urge to encourage people to fight their demons ...of fighting video game bosses. I want them to try and succeed and realize that this genre of game is super cool and that they'd enjoy it. Sometimes, that is a good idea: helping someone get through a struggle to find happiness on the other end. Sometimes, that is a bad idea: pushing someone further into something it turns out they simply don't like. Even further, as my sub-thought revealed, the ability to Beat Bosses is all wrapped up in what it is to be A Gamer. You have to undertake significant challenge and suffering and play These Titles to be authentic. Of course that's a toxic attitude and not helpful to people, the genre, the culture... And I want to alleviate that baggage, too. I suspect that for some people, boss battles are a little scarier just because gaming culture emphasizes them so much as markers of success, failure, or authenticity. If we broke those down a little bit, or even if games explored new ways of approaching boss battles (rewarding more ingenuity in finding alternate solutions that used different skills, for example), at least we could remove that extra burden placed on people trying something hard.
Regarding Avery's comment, it seems to get at Adorno's idea of substitute gratification. A boss battle no matter how difficult, has a solution in a manner that life does not. Therefore, it at least establishes that obstacles are defeat able, or more importantly there are rules and if learned and trained, they can be overcome, but this is not always the case in life. So it serves to reinforce the idea that the rules are outside us, fair, and the code must be worked out for success and all failure is a result of the player.
i like some bosses, but can the way how you respond with a boss also reflect upon your life as well? - save scumming before bosses - letting someone else beat the boss for you -procrastinate meeting the boss or even stop playing the game when you meet a boss too stressfull and difficult? - going for a boss while you know you cant handle it and go through countless deatsh as a way to "punish" yourself? Like, pokemon bosses i save scum, i save and if i die i reload. zelds games have made me procrastinate at too stressfull bosses and dungeons and are collecting dust. Undertale i made myself suffer through some really hard bosses just bc i knew i was bad at them. i would almost say this is a type of honor thing how i feel about it. i can be proud of my endurance but also scared of results of the "fact" i failed. even while these games had no real consequence of game over. (some even positive like battle lv ups in pokemon). I can joke about me failing (undertale) but i also would prefer not to show that i failed. i avoid games where death is a permanent restart to start the journey all over again. it demotivates me and really makes me feel like a failure :(
Re: M. Avery comment response. This is a classic 1st world problem. Child soldiers on the African continent would give anything to have a "boring", "minion" filled life. Adult soldiers forced to live through the hell of war want nothing more than to just "live their lives, you know, blah, blah, blah". Having a life of "big events" is only enjoyable when the events really aren't that big and the drama is on the order of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" rather than massive earthquake or serial killer.
As a games developer... boss fights would be better described or best described as highlights or flashpoints of the experience/game. Look, people can't be having mind blowingly awesome experiences all the time... eventually that high would become your new normal... You're not gonna win that fight. You can always see when games try to do this too much and notice how it always fails in the end (or looks cartoonish?) So you have to set up the game to have consistent points that should be fun, or different or big. That's what a boss fight is. That's also why you have trash to blow through to build up lots of xp over time and get better at the mechanics of the game that you'll need to do well for the boss.
one boss i like it is Rubicante The party confronts Rubicante again in the upper half of the Tower of Babil, where Edge accuses him of not only destroying Eblan, but also turning his parents into monsters. Rubicante explains that the transformation of the king and queen of Eblan into chimeras was Lugae's doing, and in an interesting show of his character, when he saw what had happened to Edge's parents he actually cursed Lugae for what he did. He commends Edge's strength but sees him as being too emotional to be a worthy opponent. Edge ignores Rubicante's remark, and joins the party in attacking, and then defeating Rubicante. Unlike the other fiends, Rubicante accepts his defeat and compliments the party on their victory.
Very early on in this video, I started thinking about a very weird idea. Does anyone remember playing any sort of child's educational maths games? Well, they're a thing, and I really liked the one that I had for my Leapster. The idea I had is totally different from that, mostly. Unrelated the that but part of the idea is something which makes "hard maths" look easy to people that don't like maths: Unmaths. Basically maths on opposite day. The idea is that if you prove something, then it's false. If you find that something is contradictory, that proves it (possibly only in certain cases?). This isn't any easy thing to do, you can't just take every proof and say the opposite is true, you have to start from the bottom up; that's how maths was built. So, to make Unmaths, you'd have to start by stating what constitutes true and false in a way that is contradictory to how we normally define it, and then run with it... really far... off the edge of the Earth, figuring out everything that happens when you say that if x = y, then x ≠ y. Precise definition of this kind of stuff would be... hard. So, what is the specific idea? Make a game called Unmaths, wherein you learn Unmaths like we all learned maths, and go through all of it. Beyond the analogies for algebra and geometry, and into how calculus gets turned inside-out, not in 3 dimensions, but in a number of dimensions equal to how many proofs there are using it, or something like that. This idea came out of the idea of bosses, and I recognized that maths is challenging for people, perhaps boss-like, and I considered how you could make a mentally challenging game different from any other. I think this is a pretty different sort of game. First, I'll have to make Unmaths. That'll take me... a while... and several sequels. In that, I'll have to name everything in a way that allows people to... sort of understand what it is. Then I'll need to figure out how to teach it, and teach it in a video game. Part of that is explaining to the player that they have to connect everything in a way that, more literally than it has ever been meant before, makes no sense.
I don't feel like I play games _quite_ like I interact with real life; some ways I do and some ways I don't. Where I distinguish the two shines in games like Overwatch; when given the ability to play the core game AGAINST people or merely _with_ people AGAINST the computer, I will always choose the latter, for the same reason I will immediately stop a serious match of TF2 to engage in shenanigans with everyone the first opportunity it arises. This is also why I can't get into Mann Vs Machine, because instead of _playing_ with people, I feel this harsh judgemental MUST SUCCEED THERE ARE THINGS AT STAKE FOR OTHER PEOPLE attitude that I strongly dislike. When I'm struggling against or fighting or competing with a computer, I can mentally separate that from doing so against a person. When I'm struggling with a person, I'm not nearly as happy, because I dislike combative situations in real life, but when I have the opportunity to co-op with other people to overcome this non-sapient adversity, I feel amazing.
Would the bosses for painting and sculpture be people or would they be techniques/concepts/styles that are particularly difficult to master? I assumed the latter but you assumed the former so I wonder
Your (and Dan's) video got me to play Shadow of the Colossus over the weekend for the first time. Aside from raging about performance issues (Curse you emulator!), I noticed that, though the Colossi look like bosses and act like bosses, they... really aren't bosses. Setting aside the lack of other mooks, bosses in most every other game are a moment of culmination; the energy you invested in the level is honed to an edge, and traditionally, the theme of the level is built up to traumatic levels in the entity of the boss. This is true in Dark Souls, in Final Fantasy, and more. This isn't true in SotC. The bosses are rarely physically dangerous (up to never actually attacking), and more importantly, aren't a finishing point. The moment of triumph or introspection is lacking (You are a little concerned with the post-boss cutscene, but nothing dramatic until the halfway mark through the game), and they aren't a finale to an area. In fact, the structure of the game doesn't allow the victory to resolve; you're whisked away back to the temple and given your next challenge. The fact that Dormin knows exactly how to beat them also takes away the challenge a bit. Now, though the Colossi are not bosses in the sense of the video (mechanically, they often are), there is a boss in the game. Firstly, there's the gameplay boss: Colossus 16, aka bullshit lightning spammer. It's the most frustrating boss, with a couple serious design flaws, but you also have to know everything the game taught you to eventually win. Then, there's Dormin, who I'd say forces the introspective moment. Then, without spoilers, there's the crushing moment when you realize exactly what you did, and get a chance to enjoy and/or rage against the fruits of your labor. The pay-off is delayed to the last moment of the game, ad hits all at once. Because of this, the first 15 Colossi really can't qualify as "boss fights"
If it makes you feel any better, the game had serious performance issues on console during release too. The physics engine was far too complex for computing at the time. With that said, within this game i would argue that the sage guy in the temple is really the only boss. The colossi are boss like indeed, but (for the most part) do not impart the same emotion that conquering a boss of another game might. I believe this is because of the lack of finality or closure you receive from each one. Only when you have defeated all of the colossi and returned to your original spot do you truly feel accomplished. With that said, exploring the SoTC world is incredible. It is absolutely beautiful despite how barren it can be.
I absolutely agree. I just had a hard time enjoying it while riding Agro in incredibly slow motion (the only parts of the game that ran decently were the fights, and even that wasn't true after the amazing flying one)
hmm this makes me think that, isnt that the purpose the game actually wanted? to give the false idea you beat bosses (sheer size implies that standard idea in peoples mind) that you are progressing through tests but somehow you feel something is off? (difficulty and the scene after beating it). It all becomes clear in the end. couldn't the collosi be classified as bosses in a psychological view on them? it tests your judgement. you at the start, feel the need and impression you need to "beat it". even while at the end we see the result of that. like, puzzles that can be seen as bosses, aren't collosi the narrative and story type of boss for figuring out the plot?
I agree with you absolutely that the game wants you to feel like something is off, but I still have some trouble viewing these as bosses. Firstly, it doesn't help that the first half of the game is pretty easy. Each Colossus has a creative gimmick, but none of them are hard to beat (something I think is incredible game design). For me personally (though this may be because the game was partially spoiled for me by virtue of age), there was no particular desire to beat the Colossi except I knew that was what the game wanted. In fact, I had more desire to "beat" the performance issues that I did some of the Colossi. Does that make the 63% at the top of my emulator a boss? I'm not sure that the Colossi are 'narrative" bosses. After all, you don't learn anything from them. Dormin is drip-feeding you all the information, and though the Colossi are key to the story, killing one only enables the story to continue, rather than giving the player new plot. Hell, the looming threat of Lord Emon seems more of a narrative boss than the colossi do.
The overall plot of Dark Souls 1 is kind of like life. You go through all these trials to achieve some goal that you are told is supposed to be all worth it. You meet people along the way that help and hinder you, but in the end, all your quest leads up to you burning yourself in a fire wordlessly, and then it ends with no explanation.
Or worse, you went on to become the last Hollow after all others have perished. Heh, that would be a cool boss fight in a Dark Souls game, The Last Hollow.
I'm part glad and part sad that pokemon gym battles, the pokemon league, and encountering legendary pokemon weren't mentioned at all in this pair of idea channel videos. those are kind of bosses for me but I could see how they wouldn't be for some others
I definitely see those things as the "bosses" of pokemon games, but at the same time, they were never really the most challenging points in the game for me. Gym leaders definitely stood as a sort of roadblock in the game that you had to defeat before you could advance, like many bosses, but were often some of the easiest battles for me, because they all specialized in a single type. All I need is a decent super effective move to sweep the gym, whereas I've had some ace trainers for example royally kick my butt because they were more well rounded trainers. I guess this brings up the question of, do video game bosses need to be challenging, or do they only have to serve as sort of a roadblock in the game? Or both? And now I'm laughing a bit because I just envisioned fighting other video game bosses like I would a legendary pokemon, i.e., chucking endless amounts of ultra balls at it until one of them finally works haha
FlyToTheRain Giovanni/Max/Archie or any of the evil pokemon syndicate "bosses" could count as well. But I see what you're saying about roadblocks. And when I think of roadblocks, I also think of shooting games I've played where you can't advance until you've defeated a certain number of enemies e.i Doom, Vanquish, etc.
Am i blocked or something cause i posted a comment related to how the narrator could form as a boss as well in addition to many other thing like how the stage is more a moment or part of a photo of what once happen :/
The life experiences thing is spot on. My wife and I both had very sudden, very big losses in our lives in a short period of time. It was hard to relate to people who didn't understand what that meant for us (whether they had a similar experience or not wasn't the key point, it was if they could understand, give space, etc.) and people who were just completely tone deaf to what we were going through got cut out of our lives and we left them behind. Things had different meaning to us now, and people who couldn't understand that, well, we went our separate ways. Boss fights can impart a same kind of experience - mechanically, narratively, etc. Never thought of it that way before.
Wow, wasn't really expecting to even get mentioned, given the quality and depth of many of the responses. Thanks. Extra props for pronouncing my name correctly. That happens about once every few blue moons.
7:23 final boss for painting is definitely Bob Ross! His perm is the ultimate shield
This got me thinking, I remember that like 3 or 4 years ago the idea that video game bosses were an out dated concept became a popular opinion among a large sector of younger gamers. though it quickly faded out. I have to wonder if this could be connected to something that was happening in real world social culture at the time.
[May be spoilers for Dark Souls 1, I just name bosses in relation to the topic and my own opinions.]
I love boss fights. I search for them because they are usually so epic, and almost always a one time event never to be done again without starting over. They force you to learn/relearn/unlearn on the fly, and can bring any kind of emotion out of you.
Anger quite often(Hellkite), elation once destroyed(Hellkite again), palpable fear(Nito), and even great sorrow(Sif) from within their meaning. They can be hauntingly beautiful(Moonlight Butterfly), or grotesquely disgusting(Gaping Dragon). They can be like fighting nightmares(Manus) or dreams(Priscilla).
However, not all boss fights are good. Some are just plain annoying(Bed of Chaos), or far too difficult to be enjoyable(Four Kings). Others can be a grind on a large healthbar(Ceaseless Discharge). And some boss fights are so easy as to make the experience less fulfilling(Taurus Demon).
Even the Zelda series has had a few bosses that weren't quite what was needed or intended. Good boss design is important for the bosses to remain in good memory.
So when you were talking about getting so stressed out about video game mechanics that you'd avoid it entirely, I suddenly remembered how much throwing parties in The Sims 2 freaked me out. I don't think I managed to get through a single one when I was younger, since that "fun" meter on the side gave me so much anxiety. Thinking back on it, besides the obvious social connotations of knowing how to throw a good party or going on a successful date, those interactions could actually count as boss fights. You're put into an instance where your skill at performing the mechanics of the game are put to the test, though in The Sims' case, this means you know how to schmooze the neighbors into liking you. Funnily enough, I don't remember ever having problems with actual combat oriented boss fights. I wonder what that says about me as a person XD
The comment about avoiding conflict in video games and real life resonated with me. I'm definitely not much of a risk taker, and I can't stand to see myself fail at something, so even though I enjoy many video games, some of my favorites I've only experienced by watching others play because I could never get myself to play them. The thought of not being able to succeed in one sweep gives me some sort of anxiety because I don't want to go into something knowing that I'll have to fail a few times along the way. I often joke that I'm just not coordinated enough to play games with more action, but a part of me wants to because I enjoy the games so much when I watch other people playing them.
great video, very excited to learn more about the 12 principles of animation.
+dracosfire7 +1
Lol wouldn't that be great if people saw it as that
The Witness' "The Challenge", even if I haven't played it, could totally be counted as a "Super Optional Boss". A common trope in RPGs, these are boss battles that are completely optional, but are extremely hard, usually harder than the actual final boss them self.
There seems to be a trend that says, "You're like this in real life, so these must be the games you play." I'm not sure if I agree completely. For example, Games can be forms of practice or therapy for real life, or even to make up for missing aspects. The Japanese game market isn't full of Dating Sims because guys can't get enough girls, or vice versa, but because the workforce is so completely demanding that social life, especially romantic, take a huge hit. Holding a stable relationship is difficult. Using a game to make up for that feeling of loneliness is easy. So, it's possible that people who have trouble dealing with major complications and confrontations IRL might find themselves playing games that offer mainly those things, in the hope that they can practice and get better at doing it in real life.
Also, I've been looking through a gallery of Cy Twombly's works and I find it very interesting how easily I come up with impressions of what a lot of these things could be even though they ultimately aren't those things I don't think
I wish I had your insight. I wish I had more friends like you. Damn
So you mentioned someone who avoids games with boss battles and it made me realize that I don't avoid the games with boss battles, but I avoid boss battles for the most part. Like over 100 hours on FO4 and I still haven't even met Nick, or fought Kellog, and I even managed to just run from the Deathclaw leaving Preston Garvey to deal with it.
This is an interesting idea because in life I am ambitious, but any fault causes that ambition to crumble. I tried starting businesses and just utterly lost all hope when people didn't instant enjoy it, or when my close friends back out of it.
I think there is precedent for the two being related.
Isn't your classic boss fight kind of a puzzle anyhow
A very confrontational puzzle where doing something wrong gets you killed.
I had completely forgotten about the Stanley Parable!
Shame on you! ;)
I know you've got a merch backlog already, but I'd love a "Luddic et cetera et cetera" shirt/hat/pin/apron/what-have-you…
I sympathize so much with people who get too anxious to fight bosses in games. I felt that for a long time but eventually pushed through it and love those types of games.
(Oh! I almost said, "I pushed through it and became a gamer", which is a great example of what I want to dissect about this phenomenon.)
I have such a strong urge to encourage people to fight their demons ...of fighting video game bosses. I want them to try and succeed and realize that this genre of game is super cool and that they'd enjoy it. Sometimes, that is a good idea: helping someone get through a struggle to find happiness on the other end. Sometimes, that is a bad idea: pushing someone further into something it turns out they simply don't like.
Even further, as my sub-thought revealed, the ability to Beat Bosses is all wrapped up in what it is to be A Gamer. You have to undertake significant challenge and suffering and play These Titles to be authentic. Of course that's a toxic attitude and not helpful to people, the genre, the culture... And I want to alleviate that baggage, too.
I suspect that for some people, boss battles are a little scarier just because gaming culture emphasizes them so much as markers of success, failure, or authenticity. If we broke those down a little bit, or even if games explored new ways of approaching boss battles (rewarding more ingenuity in finding alternate solutions that used different skills, for example), at least we could remove that extra burden placed on people trying something hard.
Regarding Avery's comment, it seems to get at Adorno's idea of substitute gratification. A boss battle no matter how difficult, has a solution in a manner that life does not. Therefore, it at least establishes that obstacles are defeat able, or more importantly there are rules and if learned and trained, they can be overcome, but this is not always the case in life. So it serves to reinforce the idea that the rules are outside us, fair, and the code must be worked out for success and all failure is a result of the player.
Drawing hands and feet might be the boss battle of drawing/painting
the 80s movie Crossroads has a boss battle with Steve Vai, who is still considered one of the best ever, be that a movie or music boss battle....
thebrainscoop's comment has just explained so many feelings that I have felt and didn't understand
I love finding people with the same profile icon xD
i like some bosses, but can the way how you respond with a boss also reflect upon your life as well?
- save scumming before bosses
- letting someone else beat the boss for you
-procrastinate meeting the boss or even stop playing the game when you meet a boss too stressfull and difficult?
- going for a boss while you know you cant handle it and go through countless deatsh as a way to "punish" yourself?
Like, pokemon bosses i save scum, i save and if i die i reload.
zelds games have made me procrastinate at too stressfull bosses and dungeons and are collecting dust.
Undertale i made myself suffer through some really hard bosses just bc i knew i was bad at them.
i would almost say this is a type of honor thing how i feel about it. i can be proud of my endurance but also scared of results of the "fact" i failed. even while these games had no real consequence of game over. (some even positive like battle lv ups in pokemon). I can joke about me failing (undertale) but i also would prefer not to show that i failed.
i avoid games where death is a permanent restart to start the journey all over again. it demotivates me and really makes me feel like a failure :(
I was sure that was plan I'm a fan pf you both y'all also both upload on Wednesdays
OH YEAH. I'M IN THERE!Also pretty interesting to find out how someone who'd say my made up name.
No mention of Firewatch
Disappoint
Re: M. Avery comment response.
This is a classic 1st world problem. Child soldiers on the African continent would give anything to have a "boring", "minion" filled life. Adult soldiers forced to live through the hell of war want nothing more than to just "live their lives, you know, blah, blah, blah". Having a life of "big events" is only enjoyable when the events really aren't that big and the drama is on the order of "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" rather than massive earthquake or serial killer.
When you say that the hype is over you mean when every news outlet stops running stories on it, or when no one is playing it anymore?
none of these will stop. maybe the news outlets but people will keep playing xD
As a games developer... boss fights would be better described or best described as highlights or flashpoints of the experience/game.
Look, people can't be having mind blowingly awesome experiences all the time... eventually that high would become your new normal... You're not gonna win that fight. You can always see when games try to do this too much and notice how it always fails in the end (or looks cartoonish?)
So you have to set up the game to have consistent points that should be fun, or different or big. That's what a boss fight is. That's also why you have trash to blow through to build up lots of xp over time and get better at the mechanics of the game that you'll need to do well for the boss.
one boss i like it is Rubicante
The party confronts Rubicante again in the upper half of the Tower of
Babil, where Edge accuses him of not only destroying Eblan, but also
turning his parents into monsters. Rubicante explains that the
transformation of the king and queen of Eblan into chimeras was Lugae's
doing, and in an interesting show of his character, when he saw what had
happened to Edge's parents he actually cursed Lugae for what he did. He
commends Edge's strength but sees him as being too emotional to be a
worthy opponent. Edge ignores Rubicante's remark, and joins the party in
attacking, and then defeating Rubicante. Unlike the other fiends,
Rubicante accepts his defeat and compliments the party on their victory.
I don't have a lot to add, but this is a good point, and a good example of the kind of boss Mike was talking about, so in vlogbrother's new policy, +.
p.s spoilers for a 20 year game lol
Very early on in this video, I started thinking about a very weird idea.
Does anyone remember playing any sort of child's educational maths games? Well, they're a thing, and I really liked the one that I had for my Leapster. The idea I had is totally different from that, mostly.
Unrelated the that but part of the idea is something which makes "hard maths" look easy to people that don't like maths: Unmaths. Basically maths on opposite day. The idea is that if you prove something, then it's false. If you find that something is contradictory, that proves it (possibly only in certain cases?). This isn't any easy thing to do, you can't just take every proof and say the opposite is true, you have to start from the bottom up; that's how maths was built. So, to make Unmaths, you'd have to start by stating what constitutes true and false in a way that is contradictory to how we normally define it, and then run with it... really far... off the edge of the Earth, figuring out everything that happens when you say that if x = y, then x ≠ y. Precise definition of this kind of stuff would be... hard.
So, what is the specific idea? Make a game called Unmaths, wherein you learn Unmaths like we all learned maths, and go through all of it. Beyond the analogies for algebra and geometry, and into how calculus gets turned inside-out, not in 3 dimensions, but in a number of dimensions equal to how many proofs there are using it, or something like that.
This idea came out of the idea of bosses, and I recognized that maths is challenging for people, perhaps boss-like, and I considered how you could make a mentally challenging game different from any other. I think this is a pretty different sort of game.
First, I'll have to make Unmaths. That'll take me... a while... and several sequels. In that, I'll have to name everything in a way that allows people to... sort of understand what it is. Then I'll need to figure out how to teach it, and teach it in a video game. Part of that is explaining to the player that they have to connect everything in a way that, more literally than it has ever been meant before, makes no sense.
I don't feel like I play games _quite_ like I interact with real life; some ways I do and some ways I don't. Where I distinguish the two shines in games like Overwatch; when given the ability to play the core game AGAINST people or merely _with_ people AGAINST the computer, I will always choose the latter, for the same reason I will immediately stop a serious match of TF2 to engage in shenanigans with everyone the first opportunity it arises. This is also why I can't get into Mann Vs Machine, because instead of _playing_ with people, I feel this harsh judgemental MUST SUCCEED THERE ARE THINGS AT STAKE FOR OTHER PEOPLE attitude that I strongly dislike.
When I'm struggling against or fighting or competing with a computer, I can mentally separate that from doing so against a person. When I'm struggling with a person, I'm not nearly as happy, because I dislike combative situations in real life, but when I have the opportunity to co-op with other people to overcome this non-sapient adversity, I feel amazing.
Boss fights in Art isn't people, its technique. Mastering 3 point perspective is a boss fight.
Would the bosses for painting and sculpture be people or would they be techniques/concepts/styles that are particularly difficult to master? I assumed the latter but you assumed the former so I wonder
In stanley parable are the boss yourself.
Your (and Dan's) video got me to play Shadow of the Colossus over the weekend for the first time. Aside from raging about performance issues (Curse you emulator!), I noticed that, though the Colossi look like bosses and act like bosses, they... really aren't bosses.
Setting aside the lack of other mooks, bosses in most every other game are a moment of culmination; the energy you invested in the level is honed to an edge, and traditionally, the theme of the level is built up to traumatic levels in the entity of the boss. This is true in Dark Souls, in Final Fantasy, and more. This isn't true in SotC. The bosses are rarely physically dangerous (up to never actually attacking), and more importantly, aren't a finishing point. The moment of triumph or introspection is lacking (You are a little concerned with the post-boss cutscene, but nothing dramatic until the halfway mark through the game), and they aren't a finale to an area. In fact, the structure of the game doesn't allow the victory to resolve; you're whisked away back to the temple and given your next challenge. The fact that Dormin knows exactly how to beat them also takes away the challenge a bit.
Now, though the Colossi are not bosses in the sense of the video (mechanically, they often are), there is a boss in the game. Firstly, there's the gameplay boss: Colossus 16, aka bullshit lightning spammer. It's the most frustrating boss, with a couple serious design flaws, but you also have to know everything the game taught you to eventually win. Then, there's Dormin, who I'd say forces the introspective moment. Then, without spoilers, there's the crushing moment when you realize exactly what you did, and get a chance to enjoy and/or rage against the fruits of your labor. The pay-off is delayed to the last moment of the game, ad hits all at once. Because of this, the first 15 Colossi really can't qualify as "boss fights"
If it makes you feel any better, the game had serious performance issues on console during release too. The physics engine was far too complex for computing at the time.
With that said, within this game i would argue that the sage guy in the temple is really the only boss. The colossi are boss like indeed, but (for the most part) do not impart the same emotion that conquering a boss of another game might. I believe this is because of the lack of finality or closure you receive from each one. Only when you have defeated all of the colossi and returned to your original spot do you truly feel accomplished. With that said, exploring the SoTC world is incredible. It is absolutely beautiful despite how barren it can be.
I absolutely agree. I just had a hard time enjoying it while riding Agro in incredibly slow motion (the only parts of the game that ran decently were the fights, and even that wasn't true after the amazing flying one)
hmm this makes me think that, isnt that the purpose the game actually wanted? to give the false idea you beat bosses (sheer size implies that standard idea in peoples mind) that you are progressing through tests but somehow you feel something is off? (difficulty and the scene after beating it). It all becomes clear in the end.
couldn't the collosi be classified as bosses in a psychological view on them? it tests your judgement. you at the start, feel the need and impression you need to "beat it". even while at the end we see the result of that.
like, puzzles that can be seen as bosses, aren't collosi the narrative and story type of boss for figuring out the plot?
I agree with you absolutely that the game wants you to feel like something is off, but I still have some trouble viewing these as bosses. Firstly, it doesn't help that the first half of the game is pretty easy. Each Colossus has a creative gimmick, but none of them are hard to beat (something I think is incredible game design).
For me personally (though this may be because the game was partially spoiled for me by virtue of age), there was no particular desire to beat the Colossi except I knew that was what the game wanted. In fact, I had more desire to "beat" the performance issues that I did some of the Colossi. Does that make the 63% at the top of my emulator a boss?
I'm not sure that the Colossi are 'narrative" bosses. After all, you don't learn anything from them. Dormin is drip-feeding you all the information, and though the Colossi are key to the story, killing one only enables the story to continue, rather than giving the player new plot. Hell, the looming threat of Lord Emon seems more of a narrative boss than the colossi do.
Life is a boss fight that we all lose
The overall plot of Dark Souls 1 is kind of like life. You go through all these trials to achieve some goal that you are told is supposed to be all worth it. You meet people along the way that help and hinder you, but in the end, all your quest leads up to you burning yourself in a fire wordlessly, and then it ends with no explanation.
+Mordalon or you become the Lord of darkness until someone deposes you. But either way YOU DIED
Or worse, you went on to become the last Hollow after all others have perished. Heh, that would be a cool boss fight in a Dark Souls game, The Last Hollow.
I'm part glad and part sad that pokemon gym battles, the pokemon league, and encountering legendary pokemon weren't mentioned at all in this pair of idea channel videos. those are kind of bosses for me but I could see how they wouldn't be for some others
I definitely see those things as the "bosses" of pokemon games, but at the same time, they were never really the most challenging points in the game for me. Gym leaders definitely stood as a sort of roadblock in the game that you had to defeat before you could advance, like many bosses, but were often some of the easiest battles for me, because they all specialized in a single type. All I need is a decent super effective move to sweep the gym, whereas I've had some ace trainers for example royally kick my butt because they were more well rounded trainers. I guess this brings up the question of, do video game bosses need to be challenging, or do they only have to serve as sort of a roadblock in the game? Or both? And now I'm laughing a bit because I just envisioned fighting other video game bosses like I would a legendary pokemon, i.e., chucking endless amounts of ultra balls at it until one of them finally works haha
FlyToTheRain Giovanni/Max/Archie or any of the evil pokemon syndicate "bosses" could count as well. But I see what you're saying about roadblocks. And when I think of roadblocks, I also think of shooting games I've played where you can't advance until you've defeated a certain number of enemies e.i Doom, Vanquish, etc.
Bosses actually have a lot of meaning in my life... but sadly the thoughts are a little too jumbled as of yet to really discribe it at all.
7:25
not bob ross?!
he's the tutorial boss of painting
Am i blocked or something cause i posted a comment related to how the narrator could form as a boss as well in addition to many other thing like how the stage is more a moment or part of a photo of what once happen :/
cool
Seems like someone was playing some Dark Souls 3.
Yeah, when the hype is over, like that will ever happen. The game has no less than 6 major content updates in the works.
lol ikr
Hopefully one of them is standard Pokemon battles.