What's gaming coming too?

On Gamespot, Heavy Rain and Saints Row: The Thirdhave the exact same score.Saints Row sold higher than THQ expected and there is already a sequel under way. Heavy Rain has been out for two years. How many clones have you seen? That's plenty of time for new projects to be announced or showcased, so where are they?

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

[QUOTE="iHarlequin"]

I agree. I find it ridiculous that some people call having more than one QTE option in Heavy Rain gameplay -- all you do is press a button or swirl the analog stick and your 'character' responds in a completely non-intuitive way. As in: 'tap square really fast and she'll escape the table she's bound to!'. That requires no skill, give a well-trained ape a controller and he'll do it.

On the other side of the spectrum are the games (HR is an interactive story, and it's not even a good one, so I won't be calling it a game) that rely on gameplay to be good: Metroid, Mario, Halo, LBP, Megaman, Zelda, Bauldur's Gate. Mario has one of the most simple stories -ever-, and is widely considered the best gaming series to have ever been developed. The clever design of its levels, the precise timing of your platforming to make it to an end, the bosses in Metroid Prime and Megaman: they took the knowledge you'd acquired throughout the game and put it to use -- you felt that the time you spent getting to the point was worth it, and that now your skills were being tested. Completely relevant to what I am saying is a video that Gamespot produced talking about how boss-fights are, nowadays, all show and no quality. Developers are opting for a cinematic approach (colossal enemies) and simply skipping the challenging part of a game or bossfight. Gameplay has given way to this 'hollywoodian' approach to gaming: massive budgest converted into grand cinematic pieces and superb voice acting, with little attention and innovation going towards the actual 'game' part of the game: the player interactions with the environment and his character.

iHarlequin

So you and this nameless Gamespot video you are citing somehow missed God of War 3, Metal Gear Solid 4, Bioshock, Arkham City, Demon's Souls (and I imagine Dark Souls, though I haven't picked that one up yet), Valkyria Chronicles, Killzone 3 (nods towards the MAWLR) and Vanquish (the bosses were incredible the first time you fought them). Good to know.

I figured that by telling you the source website you'd be able to do a little research. Regardless, here it is, spoon-fed:

Out With the New:http://www.gamespot.com/god-of-war-iii/videos/out-with-the-new-in-with-the-old-boss-fights-6370094/?tag=Topslot;WhatHappenedToBossFights;OutWithTheNewWhatHa

My main complaint isn't even about bosses and their current condition in gaming (I agree they're generally easier, but I also agree there are some games that still deliver): if you had read what I said without actively looking for something to prove me wrong, you'd see that my gripe is with the games that oversimplify what should be a difficult task by making it strictly QTE, or mainly QTE. It's a bad mechanic, leave it to those interactive DVD games.

So you thought I would search Gamespot's archive of videos for your reference :lol:. Whatever you are on, lower the dosage.

The video was about as intelligent and informed as I expected it to be. If Altered Beast honestly represents a high point of 90's boss design in the guy's mind, either his taste sucks or he didn't play many games.

Also, the guy's fundamental argument is stupid. He whines that modern bosses are pattern based but that has always been the case in the 34 years I've been playing videogames (though bosses in the modern sense probably didn't hit until the 8 bit era).

Another stupid argument he makes is that boss battles are too spread out/infrequent in modern games. Throwing in bosses or anything else just to hit some sort of minimum is bad game design. When I play a kickbutt action game, I never look back and say 'Man, that was a great game, but more bosses would have made it better!'. On contrary, I say designers should use their discretion more when designing boss battles. If something doesn't go with the flow of the game or if one feels the boss just isn't gelling, cut it. Don't throw it in merely to hit some minimum count or to conform to player expectations (Hello there, steroidal Joker!).

I love a good boss battle (Dead Space and Dead Space Extraction are two games I didn't mention previously which boast great boss battles) but most bosses are far from good, so if designers are tightening up criteria (putting bosses in because they are exciting and not merely because they are expected at the end of a level or what have you) that's great.

At least the guy's (and your) argument about QTE makes sense, though I disagree with it. Generally speaking, I am fine with MK type over the top finishing moves in action games provided the battle that led up to those finishing moves was intense (nods towards GoW3). I have a problem with QTEs as they were sometimes used in RE4 (the knife and laser beam dodging sequences really sucked and their subtraction would have added to the quality of the game).