Jobs Store Support Register

Weekly Poll 3/11/19 - Boss Fights.

+

Boss fights


  • Total voters
    100
Boss fights. Ugh. Well, now you know how -I- feel about the "boss fight" idea. Anyone not aware, this is the idea that certain opponents should be dramatically harder than others, the peak of a certain type of badguy. Often requiring special mechanics to defeat and/or a truly amazing amount of damage. Typically involving multiple tries.

Agent Smith at the end of the last Matrix movie is an example of a Boss Fight in Cyberpunk.

We've seen one boss-type in the demo, although it seemed fairly fast. No idea about others, time-to-kill (TTK) or much anything else really.

Here are some options!

Weekly Polls located here:
 
3 & 4

I voted for 3, but by "fairly complex" I do not mean like WoW. I mean more like Horizon Zero Dawn (where targeting specific areas of enemies was definitely a thing) and God of War (where boss attack patterns like the Valkyries were relatively varied). 4 as well because I think strategy and tactics should play a role, and making certain enemies weaker to certain attacks is a mechanic I like.

EDIT: Added in 9 & 10. I would like it if some boss fights were skippable, but probably not all. And yeah Sigrun was hard, but fun!
 
While we know some killing of enemies will be flat out required, anything we can do to reduce the amount of Murder Hobo-ness in games is always a welcome departure for me (9). If 2077 truly IS an RPG at it's core, I'd hope to see a lot more than "go to the place and kill all the things." The Interactive Scene System could potentially pay some dividends there.

I voted for 5 in support of the idea that this is Cyberpunk (not Duke Nuke Em) we're talking about. Pray and spray at your peril. No edgerunner is an army. If you walk in the front door of Arasaka Tower and start shooting, you deserve what you get. Allowing the player to make bad decisions and (provided they survive) live with the consequences could truly set 2077 apart.

And I voted for number 4 as a way of reinforcing number 5. That is, forethought and strategy should matter. That doesn't mean "as long as Jackie is by my side I've got nothing to worry about", only that the right tool for the right job gives the options at your disposal value and meaning.
 
Last edited:
It depends on how much boss fighting there is, normal tank and spank works fi theres only a couple in whole game.
 
I am definitely a fan of #5 and this applies to a couple of the other choices as well. Each 'boss' encounter should require a lot of planning and be flexible whether you want to go in guns blazing, stealthy, or choose a diplomatic approach that you made available. As long as they feel like they require effort and are challenging I will be very happy with them. If I am going guns blazing I want to have to think on my toes constantly, if I'm stealthy I need the right mods and need precise execution, if I'm diplomatic I have to work hard to make that option available.
 
5 is about all I can go for here.

Personally I think "Boss Fights" are GREAT for MMOs and Action games, but have no business existing in any non-fantasy setting.

Why on earth does the "Boss" have to be some super-powered badass? Chances are (s)he's more like FDR, Churchill, Stalin, Hitler, Tojo.
 
8 and 9.

I don't like artificial bossfights. At all.

I'd much rather have some sort of intensive "boss-like" events/situations that aren't based on a locked arena fight against a bullet-sponge boss-enemy repeating a coreography according to which I am to find "weak spots" or just grind him down little by little, and work on a more organic level. Such whose outcomes and methods of completing are more "living".

I the case of Royce in the demo... Why would I be bothered to chase him dowm? Why, if he is escaping, does he make a stand at the end?

What if I just decided to walk away as he runs? What if, in order to fight him, I'd have to catch him on time before he escapes, and if he does escape, then bear the consequences later on? What if if I do catch him and beath him (in a fight that's not at all like the one in the demo... more down to earth... if he gets shot in the face, that's it), but let him live, what consequences would that produce? What if I just sneak around his last stand and exit?

Boss fights that lock progression and/or put you in an arena against an artificially/unnaturally inflated enemy are very arcade and unfun. They fit arcade games like DS and Mega Man and the like, but they really are an ill fit here in a game like this.

Please do consider ditching them, CDPR. There are better ways to handle mission climaxes that need ”intensity”.
 
Last edited:
I voted number 5.

To give a bit of context, in a world as futuristic as the one we will find in cyberpunk 2077 having boss fights would be fairly normal, a megacorporation will not spend too much money on the normal run of the mill cannon fodder they may give them some upgrades but mostly they would give them the most basic ones, but the leader of the project or the manager or whatever you want to call it would be far better armored, 2 reasons:

Reason A: the manager, aka leader of the project, aka team leader, could be the one that is managing the money the corporation send to his group as such he will have a higher salary and more resources that he will be able to distribute however he wants, getting high quality mods for himself while the regular members get only normal mods would be fairly normal, as such once us the hero comes we could find that the "boss" actually is tougher because he expended more money on himself and got better quality mods, than the regular goons.

Reason B: the company considers the mission, project or task so important that they send an elite person of the company to oversee it, this person not only will have top of the line mods they will also have training on how to use them in the most lethal way possible, this person may end up being the controller of the manager or the bodyguard of said manager, etc etc, but this would mean that there would be a person with not only top of the line mods but also training for it. in other words a "boss", and last but not least in this kind of world with megacorps, the megacorps are the equivalent of governments so it would not be surprising for them to have armies and that you could find that battalion 5 is where some of the toughest rookies live, while battalion 9 are veterans from fights with other corps, while you have battalion 11 being rangers, battalion 12 being seals, battalion 13 hackers specialist, and have 2 special division one with super elite soldiers of all disciplines and another with some super elite type bodyguards that will protect the companies big-shots. In other words you could just in 1 corporation have enough to give you a lot of tiers of bosses and enemies, you could even have full armies of pseudo-boss like characters with a proper boss at the end of it. And remember there are multiple megacorps in this world, so in this world you could easily have in one city of 40 million people around 20 thousands boss like people just walking around. In other words plenty of Bosses for us the players to enjoy. Last detail on this point, also a medium megacorp could easily have far lower "quality" people than a Big Megacorp, so you could end up having lots of levels to go through and lots of bosses to enjoy, since at the beginning you may end up working for small megacorps and as your fame grows you could end up working for bigger and bigger corps until endgame.

Now even if you go and fight against a gang, the leader of the gang would also be tougher, do remember that in most gangs the boss is the one that gets a cut of the profits first and he also usually gets the bigger part, so having a gang leader with better mods would be normal.

Actually having boss fights in a game like cyberpunk 2077 is far more logical than in some other games, here you can see and relate the importance of a person is directly related to the quality of the mods that same person will have, you could close to endgames start encountering people who own experimental modifications that make them so freakishly tough, that either you fight smart or you die, remember this is a futuristic game is not post-apocalyptic nor medieval nor anything, people with money can and will try to get the best they can get with that money (we the players will also do the same).
 
Last edited:
9 & 4

I hope we'll be able to kind-of one shot them, either using the environment or through the use of certain skill (kinda how AC Odyssey did it.. you could go toe to toe with an elite ((not exactly bosses i know, but still)) and dance till one of you can't anymore or stealthfully one shot him, if your build was right). Would play right into a Cyber-ninja type build and character type imo

And avoid them/talk them out of fighting altogether.

P.S. @Sardukhar at number 9. you probably meant DE:MD not HR ;)
P.s.s Can you elaborate a bit on option 6? Seems like an expression,i as a non english native am not familiar with.
 
Last edited:
Boss fights can be ok if they are done and balanced correctly. Done INcorrectly, they can be jarring and greatly reduce game experience.

Anyone remember the bossfights of Deus Ex: human revolution? Those were greatly maligned and out-of-place in an otherwise great game, and received lot of flak. In that case, they were even done by a separate studio.

However, it makes sense for some enemies to be stronger than others. particularly in a world of cybernetically enhanced murder machines.

There are two main pitfalls that I can see:

1. If I have to load savegame and retry the fight several times, it breaks the immersion ENTIRELY. So the trick is to provide a challenge, but not too much of a challenge.

2. If the ONLY way to beat a boss is to unload hundreds of bullets into them, the fight has failed. The point is the difference between standard enemies and boss enemies. If the bosses are too far above normal mooks, its also jarring and immersionbreaking. Not to mention such a fight is usually terrible and boring. I think best bet would be to let the bosses have some sort of weakness or disadvantage, that you would have to find out and abuse in order to win (or at least win considerably easier). Like aiming a specific part of their body, exposed life support system of a cyborg or some such. Use environment against them maybe.

Additionally, in the greater scheme of things, I think its important for there to be multiple ways to finish a quest. This is one of the things that made the cult classic Vampire: the Masquerade Bloodlines such a hit. You should be able to circumvent dangerous enemies somehow if you play a character thats more of a hacker or a socially smooth operator who talks his way out of things. Obviously such solutions should require investment into non-combat skills in order to not be too abusable.

The one complaint about VtM:B was its unavoidable story-related bossfights. If you wanted to play a sneaky ninja or use social disciplines to solve problems you were out of luck. That game required some investment in combat, so lets do one better here.

Obviously if there is one game world where combat-readiness is more or less expected, its here. The crapsack world is full of combat zones where dangerous gangers roam, armored murder-hobos succumb to cyberpsychosis and corp agents shoot first and ask questions later.
 
Last edited:
P.S. @Sardukhar at number 9. you probably meant DE:MD not HR ;)
I think the meaning behind "getting around bosses without fighting" is to hack turrets and robotic sentries to do the fighting for you.
If that's the case, then it's 9 for me.
 
I think the meaning behind "getting around bosses without fighting" is to hack turrets and robotic sentries to do the fighting for you.
If that's the case, then it's 9 for me.
Human revolution had unavoidable bossfights. (Pretty much the worst aspect of the game) See my earlier post.
 
8 and 9.

I don't like artificial bossfights. At all.

I'd much rather have some sort of intensive "boss-like" events/situations that aren't based on a locked arena fight against a bullet-sponge boss-enemy repeating a coreography according to which I am to find "weak spots" or just grind him down little by little, and work on a more organic level. Such whose outcomes and methods of completing are more "living".

I the case of Royce in the demo... Why would I be bothered to chase him dowm? Why, if he is escaping, does he make a stand at the end?

What if I just decided to walk away as he runs? What if, in order to fight him, I'd have to catch him on time before he escapes, and if he does escape, then bear the consequences later on? What if if I do catch him and beath him (in a fight that's not at all like the one in the demo... more down to earth... if he gets shot in the face, that's it), but let him live, what consequences would that produce? What if I just sneak around his last stand and exit?

Boss fights that lock progression and/or put you in an arena against an artificially/unnaturally inflated enemy are very arcade and unfun. They fit arcade games like DS and Mega Man and the like, but they really are an ill fit here in a game like this.

Please do consider ditching them, CDPR. There are better ways to handle mission climaxes that need ”intensity”.
I don't think royce was escaping, I think he went to pick the exosuit to kill V and any militech agent coming. But I see your point.
 
Human revolution had unavoidable bossfights. (Pretty much the worst aspect of the game) See my earlier post.
I know, I don't like them either, but at least the DC allowed you to play those portions as a hacker, thus avoiding the fight yourself. ;)
 
I, somewhat paradoxically, voted for both 5 and 6. It should be very difficult to win a fight without preparing for it and said preparation should allow for other options in resolving the conflict (I also voted 4 and 9), perhaps in a similar manner to the non-lethal approaches in the Dishonoured games (hopefully better though). That said, in some fights there ought to be the possibility of winging it, provided the right character skills, load-out, etc. and, dare I say, the player's own skill.
 
You don't often see FPS bosses with multiple phases. They're usually lazier bullet sponges with discouraging health bars and boring mechanics. If it's possible, I'd want a V that's almost entirely melee/netrunning. But if the bosses are straight out of Destiny, I'll have to rethink my build.
 
I'm expecting memorable characters as bosses that I can remember after playing, but also a variety of resolutions to avoid direct fights, like negotiation or blackmail, bluff, hack, sneak kill, environment kill, etc.

Thus considering that some choices may have repercussion on the later game, or changes the balance between corporations or gangs (like say, if you stole a valuable item from a gang A, and you exchange it for a valuable hostage to another gang B. That means they have this item now and will use it at their advantage later on and take control of gang A, whereas if you decided to fight your way to save the hostage you could avoid the gang B to expend its territory).
 
Boss fights can be ok if they are done and balanced correctly. Done INcorrectly, they can be jarring and greatly reduce game experience.

Anyone remember the bossfights of Deus Ex: human revolution? Those were greatly maligned and out-of-place in an otherwise great game, and received lot of flak. In that case, they were even done by a separate studio.

However, it makes sense for some enemies to be stronger than others. particularly in a world of cybernetically enhanced murder machines.

There are two main pitfalls that I can see:

1. If I have to load savegame and retry the fight several times, it breaks the immersion ENTIRELY. So the trick is to provide a challenge, but not too much of a challenge.

2. If the ONLY way to beat a boss is to unload hundreds of bullets into them, the fight has failed. The point is the difference between standard enemies and boss enemies. If the bosses are too far above normal mooks, its also jarring and immersionbreaking. Not to mention such a fight is usually terrible and boring. I think best bet would be to let the bosses have some sort of weakness or disadvantage, that you would have to find out and abuse in order to win (or at least win considerably easier). Like aiming a specific part of their body, exposed life support system of a cyborg or some such. Use environment against them maybe.

Additionally, in the greater scheme of things, I think its important for there to be multiple ways to finish a quest. This is one of the things that made the cult classic Vampire: the Masquerade Bloodlines such a hit. You should be able to circumvent dangerous enemies somehow if you play a character thats more of a hacker or a socially smooth operator who talks his way out of things. Obviously such solutions should require investment into non-combat skills in order to not be too abusable.

The one complaint about VtM:B was its unavoidable story-related bossfights. If you wanted to play a sneaky ninja or use social disciplines to solve problems you were out of luck. That game required some investment in combat, so lets do one better here.

Obviously if there is one game world where combat-readiness is more or less expected, its here. The crapsack world is full of combat zones where dangerous gangers roam, armored murder-hobos succumb to cyberpsychosis and corp agents shoot first and ask questions later.
To tell you the truth I think having the difficulty settings is required, if you do not want "difficult" fights because it will break your immersion, then go ahead and put it on easy or normal, for myself I grew up with 80's and 90's videogames, the harder and more impossible the enemy is, the more fun it is for me, I play TW3 in max difficulty and i still find it far too easy, I know every gamer is different but for me I enjoy challenges it makes me more invested in the game, the only thing i have found breaks the immersion for me is QTE (quicktime events), for the rest give me good cinematics for the story parts and on the game parts "BRING IT ON SWEETY"
 
To tell you the truth I think having the difficulty settings is required, if you do not want "difficult" fights because it will break your immersion, then go ahead and put it on easy or normal, for myself I grew up with 80's and 90's videogames, the harder and more impossible the enemy is, the more fun it is for me, I play TW3 in max difficulty and i still find it far too easy, I know every gamer is different but for me I enjoy challenges it makes me more invested in the game, the only thing i have found breaks the immersion for me is QTE (quicktime events), for the rest give me good cinematics for the story parts and on the game parts "BRING IT ON SWEETY"
While you are right in that easier difficulty settings might be a solution, they can also easily lead to bullet-soaking absurdly durable enemies, as that is the other end of the dial. I've noticed people complaining about such a possibility.

Overall I am in favor of multiple difficulty levels though, as that is a way to make the game enjoyable for a wider variety of players.