Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

 
Advanced search

1375332 Posts in 65116 Topics- by 57364 Members - Latest Member: jeijst

April 09, 2020, 11:01:30 PM

Need hosting? Check out Digital Ocean
(more details in this thread)
TIGSource ForumsDeveloperDesignShould boss fight designed in way that you can beat it without taking any damage
Pages: [1]
Print
Author Topic: Should boss fight designed in way that you can beat it without taking any damage  (Read 354 times)
beetleking22
Level 5
*****



View Profile
« on: December 16, 2019, 08:47:49 PM »

Should boss fight designed in way that you can beat it without taking any damage? I just made semi hard boss and I cannot beat it without monster touching me at least once or two times.. I think it is  possible but its very very hard.. Is this supposed bad design?
Logged
ThemsAllTook
Global Moderator
Level 10
******



View Profile WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 16, 2019, 09:47:18 PM »

It depends. If you think of player health as a cushion of foregiveness against mistakes, it'd make sense for the entire game to be beatable without ever taking any damage. If you think of player health as a resource to be spent, then it's fine if you have to take a lot of damage and manage it so that you just barely survive. Spelunky would be a good example of the first type of design; most RPGs would fall into the second category.

I replayed an old NES game called Faxanadu recently, and it stuck out to me that there were a lot of places where I took unavoidable damage. Enemies were sometimes placed haphazardly in such a way that I'd take a hit as soon as I came through a door, with no way to dodge it. This is something I don't normally see in a modern action game. It was a surprisingly jarring problem in an otherwise excellent game.

Maybe the distinction is the type of skill the game asks of the player? If it's a game of reflex, making all damage avoidable makes sense. If it's a game of planning and strategy, unavoidable damage might just come with the territory.
Logged

beetleking22
Level 5
*****



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2019, 06:42:14 AM »

It depends. If you think of player health as a cushion of foregiveness against mistakes, it'd make sense for the entire game to be beatable without ever taking any damage. If you think of player health as a resource to be spent, then it's fine if you have to take a lot of damage and manage it so that you just barely survive. Spelunky would be a good example of the first type of design; most RPGs would fall into the second category.

I replayed an old NES game called Faxanadu recently, and it stuck out to me that there were a lot of places where I took unavoidable damage. Enemies were sometimes placed haphazardly in such a way that I'd take a hit as soon as I came through a door, with no way to dodge it. This is something I don't normally see in a modern action game. It was a surprisingly jarring problem in an otherwise excellent game.

Maybe the distinction is the type of skill the game asks of the player? If it's a game of reflex, making all damage avoidable makes sense. If it's a game of planning and strategy, unavoidable damage might just come with the territory.

Thank you for good answer. In my game... player can get a skills where he could easily dodge at least few of attacks with limited amount of mana. If I  take this approach.. It will have more of strategy aspect. I think this will be fine then? The  the boss attacks are easy dodge but when he gets in second state.. He will attack and do some projectiles at same time.. This part how it becomes hard to avoid his attack... So using skill in this section would be more useful. Yeah I dont like the old game design approach  where they put enemies in very narrow space and then yoU will get hit almost automatically. They had plenty of this stuff in games such Alundra and even in links awakening. I will try to get rid of unfairness as possible.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2019, 07:00:04 AM by beetleking22 » Logged
michaelplzno
Level 6
*



View Profile WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2019, 04:07:53 PM »

It really depends on your creative direction. I was recently playing "Color Jumper" which is a tough as nails platformer where one mistake means you have to restart the level. On the other hand, in "You Have to Burn the Rope" you cannot even die.

However, I agree with ThemsAllTook: if your game is about skill then there should be a way to beat it without taking a hit. If health is a resource that you spend each battle then its ok.

When I do a boss battle in something like "Mega Man" or "Mario" or even "Zelda" I always want to feel like there is a way to avoid the damage because those are skill games. So if a boss in one of those games just filled the screen and took a hit point I would be angry as a player. (Unless it was some kind of special thing like the final boss who has a special ability that is explained in the narrative. For example, if you get a special item during the level you can block this special attack.) Even though I take hits I always know that I could avoid them. For RPGs like FF I don't mind taking hits because you literally cannot do a battle without taking a hit.
Logged

Pages: [1]
Print
Jump to:  

Theme orange-lt created by panic