Bossbattle Variety

[Tangsta]

My focus is simply on replacing the arcade fight sequence with something more sound and thematically fit mechanicswise.

I think I'm slowly starting to understand your gripe here, but I do feel you've misunderstood the entire mission. It feels like you think the combat scenario, which is only one of many options to approach this mission, is the only way to complete the mission. Is this correct? Because the game does explicitly state there are various ways to solve this that doesn't involve a "conventional" showdown with Royce.

You can consider the entire mission itself the boss "encounter", and solving it does not necessarily require you to go down the combat route, ending in Royce's demise.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Is this correct

Hah, no. Am I really that cryptic?
I mean, I might well be... this isn’t the first time I need to explain myself at length, but I don’t quite get where things are getting shrouded here.

I’m very aware of the options for approaches and solutions (those that were explained) in the mission, some of which do not involve violence with Royce.

My only point if contempt is how the fight happens (if it happens) and what leads to it. Everything else is fine.

Post automatically merged: Jul 1, 2019

I do like the idea of boss encounters over boss fights. I think it's not just more thematically realistic, but also just plain cooler from a gameplay standpoint.

Yeah. It keeps the gameplay more rooted to the surroundings and the gameplay prior and past it, and has the potential to offer much more interesting and varied experience.

A ”special boss” tends to abruptly cut the prior gameplay theme with - to deliberately be a bit petty here - something that doesn’t really feel very ”Cyberpunk”, if you get my meaning, but rather a monday morning scifi romp for kids (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing in itself, but doesn’t really serve its purpose here).

 

[Tangsta]

My only point if contempt is how the fight happens (if it happens) and what leads to it.

Ok, sure. But I did explain earlier, why things occurred in the order they occurred in, is simply a means to facilitate solid boss fight mechanics. A boss is a test of the player's skill, specifically, certain skills the game wants to test you on at this stage in the game. This is something you have to consider when providing alternative suggestions.

Royce suddenly running away to rig the building to blow doesn't fit thematically because he was never established as a demolitions expert, and why he would do such a thing doesn't make sense strategically because he has a small army to take you out, as well as an armored exo-skeleton to gear up to should you actually succeed. He also strikes me as a character that would very much enjoy taking you on toe to toe, rather than outwitting you as a tactician. Rest assured though, as I'm sure there will be characters we face off with in this game that can give you the interactions you want, it just isn't Royce.

Also, I like the suggestion that we can let him live if we choose to, but to have this option after we've chosen to attempt to kill him in combat is rather redundant as the game already provides the option to not kill him, which would be the non-lethal option(s). Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense for a character like Royce to either beg for mercy or simply accept defeat, i.e. if you give him an opening I believe he will shoot you in the back (that may be a cool outcome, actually).

I apologise for dissecting the minutiae of your argument, but I'm just really analytical by nature and I feel if I break things down in detail you'd better understand where it is exactly I'm disagreeing with you and why. Maybe even change your mind on certain things.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

But I did explain earlier, why things occurred in the order they occurred in, is simply a means to facilitate solid boss fight mechanics. A boss is a test of the player's skill, specifically, certain skills the game wants to test you on at this stage in the game. This is something you have to consider when providing alternative suggestions.

Yeah, I get (and have all this time). But the whole point I've been driving here is that an archaic boss fight doesn't need to be how it is done. There are better and much more involving ways, such that are contextually much better fit for a game like this, to test the players mettle and his character than that.

Royce suddenly running away to rig the building to blow doesn't fit thematically because he was never established as a demolitions expert, and why he would do such a thing doesn't make sense strategically because he has a small army to take you out, as well as an armored exo-skeleton to gear up to should you actually succeed.

Don't take it too literally. It was just one possible example of how things might roll I came up as I wrote it. I didn't give any background thought. And I did mention the missions might require some retooling (and they do).

But if you want an explanation, here goes:

The Maelstrom are a very tech savvy gang and they already have mines in the perimiter. So rigging some plastic explosives around the building shouldn't be a problem. And they might've done it beforehand already as a backup if things start to really go south. They're on the brink of cyberpsychosis already.... better blow the whole thing up than let anyone get their tech.

Royce already considers you might be a part of a Militech operation and he must know, that if MT hitsquads start swarming in, they will fuck his merry gang of drugged minstrels up with ease. So when the virus in the chip kicks in, he might think that that's exactly what's happening. So he runs to gather his personal valuables, set the timer for the bombs, and escape. Looney as he might be, it's better to be a live looney than a dead one.

That's one possible scenario.

Also, I like the suggestion that we can let him live if we choose to, but to have this option after we've chosen to attempt to kill him in combat is rather redundant as the game already provides the option to not kill him, which would be the non-lethal option(s).

The idea is that there is a fight, and he obviously believes he'll win, but before the last blow, he might try to bargain with you to for his life. That's very different from making deals before there's any aggression.

And on that note, that door might well open both ways. The player might (at the players on initiation at the right time, not automatically) also be able to try to strike a bargain for his life when the final blow is close. And in doing so, owe Royce big time... having deal with that debt later on.

but I'm just really analytical by nature and I feel if I break things down in detail you'd better understand where it is exactly I'm disagreeing with you and why. Maybe even change your mind on certain things.

Likewise. And I do appreciate the effort to try.

I've had the trouble that normally I would write very longwinded posts where I file every dot and deal tangents of tangents to make my point as comprehensive as possible. But people tend to shy away from long posts like that, and the posts themselves tend to sprawl around and branch to the point of being nigh incomprehensible mush of words riddled with typos, and as mind works faster than my fingers on the keyboard, some things maybe lost in the process; and as such the posts can be very laborious to read (like this whole sentence, for example). So I've tried to keep things more compact and trust that people understand what I'm saying... and ask specifically, if they don't. Buuut, que sera sera.

Post automatically merged: Jul 1, 2019

This mission doesn't exist at all

I think it does; in some form at least. I remember doing that kind of mission.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

I think it does; in some form at least. I remember doing that kind of mission.

I'm 100% sure there's no griffin hunt in the woods like that and you never save that girl. I'm replaying the game in this days.

Ofc all griffin hunts are not very different to each other or bandit fights since TW3 is quite plain in terms of gameplay. But that specific mission desn't not exist, in particular if we consider it was given by djikstra in the rosemary and thyme.

I believe the maelstrom mission is in the game and pretty early on, but the point is we shouldn't consider that demo as a 1 to 1 part of the final game. The new one probably is to a big extent.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I'm 100% sure there's no griffin hunt in the woods like that and you never save that girl.

Ok. I do remember a mission where I shoot at a griffin and follow the bloodtrail. But it is a faint memory. I haven't touched the game in a long while.

I believe the maelstrom mission is in the game and pretty early on, but the point is we shouldn't consider that demo as a 1 to 1 part of the final game.

Yeah, I don't. But I really would want the game to rid itself from the boss fights as they are. They've been showcased twice now, and while missions might change on their own like in that griffin example, I'm not sure if mechanics will without a push from some direction.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

I'm not sure if mechanics will without a push from some direction.

I don't think any mechanic will change now with the game coming out in 10 months. I'm not even asking anymore to remove levels or "+X% DMG perks" (which they refused to comment on, I think it says a lot), it didn't work 1 year ago and it won't work now. In the next months they'll be polishing the game, improving animations and driving, bug fixing and balancing RPG elements (= numbers and difficulties). They were quite cear: the game is pretty much done, it's beta time.

We can hope for minor fixes like hiding dialogue lines that don't satisfy requirements, trying to reduce bullet sponges as much as possible... stuff like that. For more, we need to wait for their next game.

 

[fridgeband]

Ok, sure. But I did explain earlier, why things occurred in the order they occurred in, is simply a means to facilitate solid boss fight mechanics. A boss is a test of the player's skill, specifically, certain skills the game wants to test you on at this stage in the game. This is something you have to consider when providing alternative suggestions.

Royce suddenly running away to rig the building to blow doesn't fit thematically because he was never established as a demolitions expert, and why he would do such a thing doesn't make sense strategically because he has a small army to take you out, as well as an armored exo-skeleton to gear up to should you actually succeed. He also strikes me as a character that would very much enjoy taking you on toe to toe, rather than outwitting you as a tactician. Rest assured though, as I'm sure there will be characters we face off with in this game that can give you the interactions you want, it just isn't Royce.

Also, I like the suggestion that we can let him live if we choose to, but to have this option after we've chosen to attempt to kill him in combat is rather redundant as the game already provides the option to not kill him, which would be the non-lethal option(s). Furthermore, it wouldn't make sense for a character like Royce to either beg for mercy or simply accept defeat, i.e. if you give him an opening I believe he will shoot you in the back (that may be a cool outcome, actually).

I apologise for dissecting the minutiae of your argument, but I'm just really analytical by nature and I feel if I break things down in detail you'd better understand where it is exactly I'm disagreeing with you and why. Maybe even change your mind on certain things.

This post really resonated with me!

Post automatically merged: Jul 1, 2019

But if you want an explanation, here goes:
The Maelstrom are a very tech savvy gang and they already have mines in the perimiter. So rigging some plastic explosives around the building shouldn't be a problem. And they might've done it beforehand already as a backup if things start to really go south. They're on the brink of cyberpsychosis already.... better blow the whole thing up than let anyone get their tech.

I don't know how I feel about that. If that were true, It would make me feel like the maelstrom game are some crazy dudes from the borderlands series, and that doesn't really feel like the vibe they are giving off in the game. Three reasons I think this:
1. Royce (Maelstrom gang leader) is logical and clear-minded enough to not shoot V or Jackie and actually take the chip and give V the spider bot, essentially completing the deal with V and Jackie.
2. The Maelstrom gang don't seem crazy, and the small mines they placed everywhere seem to imply that they are interested in defending/protecting their base, not blowing up everything and losing it all. They care about it and want to protect it.
3. One of the Maelstrom gang members seems unusually friendly and shares some drugs with V (Gross! but still a friendly gesture)
Makes sense?

 

[Suhiira]

Well, you were technically trapped inside the building after the virus went off. The mission then was to find a way out.

My understanding is that you had the option (at some point) to warn Royce about the virus on the credchip and by doing so not need to fight your way out.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I don't know how I feel about that.

You don't have to like it. The purpose of those examples is to illustrate a point, not to dictate that that's exactly how it should go.

There are countless of possibilities for narrative reasonings for things to happen in a certain way. It doesn't need to include a bomb, that's just an offhand example.

Post automatically merged: Jul 1, 2019

We can hope for minor fixes like ... trying to reduce bullet sponges as much as possible... stuff like that.

Right at the heart the heart of the point there. Shouldn't be too hard to finetune the boss fights as well while at it... Doesn't need a complete redesign like what's been discussed, just a more sensible execution.

 

[fridgeband]

You don't have to like it. The purpose of those examples is to illustrate a point, not to dictate that that's exactly how it should go.

There are countless of possibilities for narrative reasonings for things to happen in a certain way. It doesn't need to include a bomb, that's just an offhand example.

Would you kindly please quote my entire post and respond to every individual point that I made? Please?
V V

I don't know how I feel about that. If that were true, It would make me feel like the maelstrom game are some crazy dudes from the borderlands series, and that doesn't really feel like the vibe they are giving off in the game. Three reasons I think this:
1. Royce (Maelstrom gang leader) is logical and clear-minded enough to not shoot V or Jackie and actually take the chip and give V the spider bot, essentially completing the deal with V and Jackie.
2. The Maelstrom gang don't seem crazy, and the small mines they placed everywhere seem to imply that they are interested in defending/protecting their base, not blowing up everything and losing it all. They care about it and want to protect it.
3. One of the Maelstrom gang members seems unusually friendly and shares some drugs with V (Gross! but still a friendly gesture)
Makes sense?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Would you kindly please quote my entire post and respond to every individual point that I made? Please?

I didn’t think it was necessary in this particular case since the opening line described the general idea so well, and I didn’t really have a cause to challenge it for the reason I stated (I obliged Tangsta earlier with the bit since I had not given a background for the situation previously, with a thought that it might clear things out a bit since I seem to have been a bit vague here). And sometimes there’s just so much to quote and say, when multiple people contend my stances, that some things are inevitably forgotten.

I could’ve said that a group calling themselves ”animals” and dressing and behaving as such is already much more ”Borderlandsy” than a psycho tech gang using scorched-earth tactics at a possible retreat (which is not really that psychotic solution when they are at a situation where they’d certainly lose), and that friendly as they might be when you’re being friendly to them, they turn very murderous when aggroed.

But like I said, I’m ok with you feeling wary of the idea. It’s not the best one one could possibly have. But it was a hopefully clear enough example of one possibility. There are certainly better ways out there to achieve the same goal if one really puts his mind to it.

 

[fridgeband]

I didn’t think it was necessary in this particular case since the opening line described the general idea so well, and I didn’t really have a cause to challenge it for the reason I stated (I obliged Tangsta earlier with the bit since I had not given a background for the situation previously, with a thought that it might clear things out a bit since I seem to have been a bit vague here). And sometimes there’s just so much to quote and say, when multiple people contend my stances, that some things are inevitably forgotten.

I could’ve said that a group calling themselves ”animals” and dressing and behaving as such is already much more ”Borderlandsy” than a psycho tech gang using scorched-earth tactics at a possible retreat (which is not really that psychotic solution when they are at a situation where they’d certainly lose), and that friendly as they might be when you’re being friendly to them, they turn very murderous when aggroed.

But like I said, I’m ok with you feeling wary of the idea. It’s not the best one one could possibly have. But it was a hopefully clear enough example of one possibility. There are certainly better ways out there to achieve the same goal if one really puts his mind to it.

well said. However, I do appreciate how diplomatic they are willing to be before and up until the point that you do make them angry/dangerous. In borderlands, unfortunately there is no diplomacy, just total chaos, So I would say there is a big difference.

 

[Snowflakez]

The idea is that there is a fight, and he obviously believes he'll win, but before the last blow, he might try to bargain with you to for his life. That's very different from making deals before there's any aggression.

And on that note, that door might well open both ways. The player might (at the players on initiation at the right time, not automatically) also be able to try to strike a bargain for his life when the final blow is close. And in doing so, owe Royce big time... having deal with that debt later on.

This is a very important point, and an important distinction to make.

It's what I was trying to get at earlier, but not successfully explaining very well... But if a game touts freedom of gameplay, you should have freedom more often than a locked-in story choice that you are forced to make before you even have the full context in mind. If that makes sense.

So, you try to go in diplomatically but don't warn the gang about the virus, so things devolve into a firefight. OK, fair enough. This illustrates the corps cannot be trusted and view you as disposable. Cool, that's interesting. So now you shoot, punch, or whatever your way through that first room, grab the spiderbot chip and then... What? In a game with freedom of gameplay, you should have many options, not all of which lead to an inevitable boss fight.

Because now you have context, you made a choice and you are seeing the impact of that choice. Now you should be able to choose how to deal with that fallout instead of being forced down some hallways until its Mecha-Royce 3000 vs. Terminator V.

Those options could be:

• Run or sneak past Royce's boss room and escape without a fight. Unless Royce is omnipotent like GTA V police, and knows where you are at all times.
• Fight Royce, the environment, and his lackeys. It's OK if he's still in his fancy mech-suit, IMO, but I think perhaps his weapons should be looked at -- can the players get access to similar equipment at some point in the game?
• Find another exit, perhaps by leaving the way you came (maybe enemies will have arrived and you'll need to get past them through stealth, hacking, or engineering).

Just examples.

 

[Tangsta]

you should have freedom more often than a locked-in story choice that you are forced to make before you even have the full context in mind.

This actually worked quite well in the Witcher 3, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. But I'm digressing a little. I think this is a rather unfair assessment of what was shown in the demo. There are a variety of choices, and their context is rather obvious.

What you are requesting isn't so much "player freedom" but unreasonable player freedom, in that you've been given choices, but would like the option to "change your mind" after making such choices, which negates the very important aspect of consequences for player actions in video games. Not only does it render the initial choices almost meaningless (because you know you'll be given an "out") it teaches the player bad lessons like it being ok to make bad decisions. Consequences are a vital part of quest design. As much as I love narrative choices, sometimes it's important to just roll with the punches and a big part of the fun of video games is "figuring things out".

But if we have to implement what you're suggesting, I prefer the following system: if you've chosen to take out Royce, you have to commit, and the game has to punish you if you then choose not to kill him, e.g. have another NPC blacklist you or something, preventing access to certain gear. Likewise if you've chosen the diplomatic route and choose to kill him instead.

And on that note, that door might well open both ways. The player might (at the players on initiation at the right time, not automatically) also be able to try to strike a bargain for his life when the final blow is close.

This is something that sounds great on paper, but I don't think would work very well in practice, unless there is some epic narrative reasoning for it, but I doubt they can implement this for every boss. I know for me personally, if I lost in a boss fight, having the option to bypass a death-screen would be insulting. I'd much rather take the loss, reload and try again. That way, I can reflect on where my mistakes were, try to patch those up and do better.

 

[Snowflakez]

This actually worked quite well in the Witcher 3, so I'm not sure what the issue is here. But I'm digressing a little. I think this is a rather unfair assessment of what was shown in the demo. There are a variety of choices, and their context is rather obvious.

What you are requesting isn't so much "player freedom" but unreasonable player freedom, in that you've been given choices, but would like the option to "change your mind" after making such choices, which negates the very important aspect of consequences for player actions in video games. Not only does it render the initial choices almost meaningless (because you know you'll be given an "out") it teaches the player bad lessons like it being ok to make bad decisions. Consequences are a vital part of quest design.

But if we have to implement what you're suggesting, I prefer the following system: if you've chosen to take out Royce, you have to commit, and the game has to punish you if you then choose not to kill him, e.g. have another NPC blacklist you or something, preventing access to certain gear. Likewise if you've chosen the diplomatic route and choose to kill him instead.

You seem to have misread what I said entirely, but I'm not sure how to explain it better.

The new demo explicitly shows that you can do precisely what I am asking for, so I don't think it's at all unreasonable.

 

[Tangsta]

The new demo explicitly shows that you can do precisely what I am asking for, so I don't think it's at all unreasonable.

I've been on a media blackout for the new demo (not intentional), so you'll have to reference the specifics here.

In a game with freedom of gameplay, you should have many options, not all of which lead to an inevitable boss fight.

But you do have that freedom. We've already established that the demo was only showing a specific path to show the combat mechanics. The narrator literally stated "so many options, so many possibilities" after the Royce fight, referring to what could have been if a different route was taken. Nowhere in the demo was it demonstrated that the game forces this fight onto the player.

 

[Snowflakez]

I've been on a media blackout for the new demo (not intentional), so you'll have to reference the specifics here.

So, apparently, even after you fight your way (or sneak your way) through the mall in the latest demo, you don't have to fight the boss. Apparently, you can just sneak by or run by. Which is all I want. The only reason I brought my frustrations up at all was because I was saying I hope this design philosophy is also applied to the Royce encounter (in whatever form it comes in post-launch, if it exists at all).

Spoiler: wall

The 2018 demo didn't seem to have that option. I interpreted the "So many choices" thing as so many "story" choices. Story choices are not the same as gameplay choices.

In fact, I'm 100% sure that's what he meant, because he specifically referenced the other story choices you could have made to influence the outcome. I.E. telling Royce about the chip, asking Meredith for help. FYI, I consider a "story choice" a choice you make during dialogue. I do not mind these choices influencing mission out comes. I had no problem with that in the Witcher 3. However, this game says that the main distinguishing factor is freedom of gameplay, not just freedom of choice.

If making a on-the-spot gameplay choice is something you find totally unreasonable, well.. I don't know what to tell you, except that it's pretty common in other games, RPGs or otherwise.

To lay it out again, hopefully in a more clear manner:

My "issue" with the e3 2018 demo specifically was that the player seemed to have no choice after entering the plant but to proceed down a series of narrow corridors and fight a boss. At no point did there seem to be an option to leave or bypass the fight after you already enter, despite the fact that the player already had the spiderbot chip and thus had no reason to stick around except for the game forcing them to do so to put them in a big boss encounter.

By contrast, the 2019 demo offered precisely that choice.


At any rate, I don't want to argue it much more. I hope that made sense, as I don't know how else to explain it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

This is something that sounds great on paper, but I don't think would work very well in practice, unless there is some epic narrative reasoning for it, but I doubt they can implement this for every boss. I know for me personally, if I lost in a boss fight, having the option to bypass a death-screen would be insulting. I'd much rather take the loss, reload and try again. That way, I can reflect on where my mistakes were, try to patch those up and do better.

Not every boss, no. Only when it would be feasible.

I would almost always try out something unusual if the game offered an option. I find unexpected features and choices mire fascinating than redundant even if I might not use that option myself. And in a case like this, if it would save me redoing an annoying boss fight, I’d definitely go for it. If it led to trouble and grey hair later in the game, so be it, that’s the problem of that particular moment.

I’d even consider it hood design if the game laughed at me (in cases where it fits the context) and otherwise accounted for me begging mercy.

 

[Tangsta]

If making a on-the-spot gameplay choice is something you find totally unreasonable, well.. I don't know what to tell you, except that it's pretty common in other games, RPGs or otherwise.

Um, no it isn't, at least not from my experience. If you've chosen a combat option, I think it's important you stick to this path, and this applies to every other option. The game allowing you to constantly go back and forth between paths on a whimsical note is not something I would associate with good game design. The moment we start branching options into more options, whilst sounding liberating, things will just escalate into a convoluted mess of a narrative that goes nowhere. Structure is needed in certain areas.

If not fighting a boss in an arena fight is what you want, then sure, the game already accommodates this, but to ask for a guns blazing option and then ask for the ability to change into a pacifist route midway just doesn't make any sense to me.

if it would save me redoing an annoying boss fight

But if you were going to find boss fights annoying, you wouldn't be going down this path to begin with. This is like going to a pizza parlour and asking for burgers instead because you don't like pizza - it's a bizarre request following a bizarre choice. The developers have already provided you with a way (perhaps more than one) to bypass this fight, why trouble them with yet another? Surely they have better things to spend their time on.