What makes a good boss?

That's a tough question. Even in single game, people could have different opinion about most hated boss let alone OpenBoR games.
Also OpenBoR could be used to create games with different genres such as shmup and platformer in which the way bosses work there is totally different.
 
@Gary P Smith

since the majority of openbor games are of the beat-them up type, i can tell you that i hate easy bosses, the types where you spam a move and they get defeated easily, not openbor , but some streets of rage 1's bosses where jus there to annoy..

as far as openbor , i feel that of the stuff i have played they feel pretty good, when it comes to bosses of other games of the same genre, i liked the Krang encounters on the tmnt games, arcade, snes, nes, genesis

those krangs seemed to have very unpredictable patterns, in reality if i play now i may recognize it better.

but i believe good boss has more than 5 attacks and the more random their pattern, the better
 
I don't like bosses with asbolutely too long life bar.
Also don't like bosses that don't match visually with the game graphics. (same for all entities actually)
Also bosses with too cheap moves.
or the ones that dont allow to land 2 consecutive hits (combo) without auto counter.
 
i dont like when bosses have too many helpers. I mean, i want to fight the boss, not the underlings when reaching the boss battle
 
I hate bosses if the way to beat them has to be a battle of muscles with absolutely no strategy or anything else (n)

Worst of all, the only way to damage him is with special moves (n)(n) this way, the game becomes no longer interesting
 
Die_In_Fire said:
i dont like when bosses have too many helpers. I mean, i want to fight the boss, not the underlings when reaching the boss battle
Click to expand...
it depends on the context, the personality of the boss determines the amount of underlings.
for example, A Xenomorph queen or similar creature will surely be surrounded by its underlings...
As for a ruthless tyrant, usually, even if they have great strenght, they will throw everything at you in an attempt to crush you...

fortunately the openBOr engine is very flexible in this reguard

my personal preference is to encourage feelings of teamwork vs overwhelming odds,
to try and transfer these "feelings" from other works like the three musketeers, Ghostbusters, Lord of the rings, Nija Turtles, Sunset Riders, Contra

so my priority in design is for 4 players vs hell on earth

If i could , i would adapt most of our most popular modules to feature different experiences depending on the number of players, so a single player game is completely different to the multiplayer adventure, that would include the boss design, thus the hardest and most chaotic battles will be for 4 player campaigns.
unfortunately, the task is not easy, a good single player design is required for the single player campaign, challenging but not easy, more like training for the main event that is the true game.

The thing i like about about the beathemup genre is the fact that bosses don't have to have a "preset" formula, usually there are no weak spots that you have to hit , and if bosses in the genre had them, it was because of engine, hardware, memory, dev time limitations.

anyway, i think that the boss character should feel as if you actually battling a human counterpart when it comes to the fighting , Wrestling or Beatthemup genre....
 
Last edited:
It's hard to say... Indeed the job of a boss is exactly to make the player's life harder, this is the main characteristic that differentiates them from a common character. So, if you hate him, mission acomplished.

I remember the first time I played Final Fight, I lost countless coins trying to beat the Trasher (and after him, Sodom haha) with no success, this traumatized me for some time 😅

I hate bosses that are easy to beat and don't offer any challenge, the most memorable boss fights in my gamer's life were exactly against the hardest bosses. The only rule I expect is at least having one or two weak points but not too clear (and different weak points for each boss), players must discover how to explore and train repeatdely to the point they become easy to beat.
 
A certain game in openbor has two final bosses. This is a structure used in quite a few games I've played over the years, where the first final boss is easy and lulls the player into a false sense of security until the second really goes crazy (I think it was also used in KOF with Rugal). The problem was, the second final boss in the openbor game I mentioned was also pathetically easy, therefore defeating the whole point of the two-boss set-up. I don't think final bosses should be horrendously over-difficult once you've worked out the strategy for defeating them, but easy final bosses are a total anti-climax and can utterly ruin the feel of the game.
 
@Kratus

Final Fight SNES was a really tough game, to this day i think the AI had some kind of adaptive and cheap trick
the Arcade was easier, the Sega CD version was Easier, i don't know what psycho coded the SNES version, i was only able to beat it years later using an emulator with save states at the beggining of the levels

as for other types of games, this double gargoyle encounter:

is the only time ever i had to resort to save states in the middle of a level

One game in my list that i have not beaten is Contra Hard cops... its very hard to adapt to it, especially after the fantastic controller scheme that was used for the SNES, i wish someone could take the SNES mechanics and just hack them into the game

as for more modern games, one boss i found myself fighting for about 8 hours was the Forgotten One in Castlevania Lords of Shadow,

 
Gary P Smith said:
A certain game in openbor has two final bosses. This is a structure used in quite a few games I've played over the years, where the first final boss is easy and lulls the player into a false sense of security until the second really goes crazy (I think it was also used in KOF with Rugal). The problem was, the second final boss in the openbor game I mentioned was also pathetically easy, therefore defeating the whole point of the two-boss set-up. I don't think final bosses should be horrendously over-difficult once you've worked out the strategy for defeating them, but easy final bosses are a total anti-climax and can utterly ruin the feel of the game.
Click to expand...
I agree with your point but there's some exceptions. In the case of the original SOR2, Mr. X is easier than Shiva once he is not a fighter with a full moveset. In Urban Reign Shinkai is a lot harder than Bordin, following the same situation as SOR2. Considering that you don't have any recovery item between the battles in both games and the last bosses are not fighters, it makes sense to have them easier in this case.

 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: NED
While I agree with Danno, I think I got your question.

Speaking specifically about games made in OpenBOR*, I don't like enemies that don't respect the SPEED/DAMAGE/DELAY triad, especially without a good reason.
You can't have an enemy - especially at the beginning of the game - that is strong, fast and with a very short recovery or startup time. This is not a challenge, it is a mistake.

You may have an enemy whose attack causes absurd damage or is even indefensible. But you need to have a long activation time - Imagine a laser cannon that, before firing, loads the shot and emits a warning. Then if the player gets in front of him, it's the player's problem, lol.

Die_In_Fire said:
i dont like when bosses have too many helpers. I mean, i want to fight the boss, not the underlings when reaching the boss battle
Click to expand...
ah, for me depends on how this is done.
But it makes sense for the boss to have helpers, especially the bosses closer to the end of the game. And some call helpers constantly (see the Golden Ax series).

I like to put this on the bosses in my games, but I try to use it to make the fight more strategic. I will give some examples:

Most bosses - Only call for reinforcements when they are low on health

Balrog - He calls for reinforcements when he is low on health, but his blows even hit the reinforcements he called. It's to simulate him being angry, lol.

Rugal - Calls 2 helpers when he is low on health. And if you only have 1/4 of your life, call 3 (maximum).

Karma Wizard - He is a necromancer, so he starts the fight with 4 helpers. Every time he falls to the ground, he summons one undead (2 max). With low health, he can call up to 4 (max).

* A quick note: The vast majority of people who start on openbor have never developed a game before, so they don't have much idea about game design, balancing, etc. It's normal for this to happen. But this is more the developers' fault than the engine itself.
 
Last edited:
Since the title has changed, I'm going to post my opinion about good boss.

Generally speaking a good boss is boss which challenges your skill without negating player's special abilities. What I mean with the latter is the boss can be struck with those abilities if player could time and position properly, with skill obviously.
For beatm ups, I love fighting against agile duo such as twin bosses from SoR cause my timing and positioning skill is challenged. However I also love fighting against big tough bosses which couldn't be grabbed or even put in pain, easily at least, such as Guardroid from Punisher. I love the challenge of beating it with just basic combo. I couldnt' say the same about Kingpin and Guardroid2 thanks to enemy backups.
For platformers, I love fighting against bosses which force me to move around in the field not only to avoid their attacks but also to position myself to attack them. That's why from Contra series, the spiderbot mini boss from Super C is more memorable than actual bosses.
Die_In_Fire said:
i dont like when bosses have too many helpers.
Click to expand...
Second that. That's why bosses from SoR series are memorable than Capcom beatmups.
 
IMO, games sometimes get a little bit too much into making their bosses epic instead of making the fights epic. Amateur creators are especially bad about this. I generally prefer bosses that play by the same rules you do. This is easier said than done because it can make the fights super easy or far too difficult since by design PCs tend to have strong offense and poor defense.

However, when it's done right, it makes for fights that are challenging and fun. SOR2 Shiva is probably one of the best examples of it done right. He's basically a downgraded PC with blocking ability and aggressive AI. The other bosses follow this pattern to a similar degree, and you'll notice the tougher ones like Abadede and R.Bear are the ones that most closely resemble the players.

The thing is, bosses, like everything else, don't exist in a vacuum. They're part of the overall game design, and that includes the mechanics you bring to the table. I don't mind bosses having a gimmick you don't have, but that should go both ways. I want a tough challenge, but I don't want to feel like I'm outgunned. Any idiot can make a boss with one hit kills, invincible everything, and more hitpoints than a second hand pinata. That's like the DM saying "rocks fall, everyone dies." Whoop de do, really beat us there didn't you?

When Shiva kicks my a**, I know it was my fault because I had all the tools to take him down and just blew it. Conversely, in a game like the first Crime Fighters, you are absolutely powerless and the only way to win is lameing them out in a boring game of attrition.

DC
 
Last edited:
O Ilusionista said:
Karma Wizard - He is a necromancer, so he starts the fight with 4 helpers. Every time he falls to the ground, he summons one undead (2 max). With low health, he can call up to 4 (max).
Click to expand...
As a necromancer, it makes sense that he’ll call undead, that’s his gimmick.
Ofc there’s exception in what I posted and the examples you posted are all good exceptions and good examples of a balanced way to do it.
It’s the same with Damnd when he calls reinforcements while whistling, but what set him apart, it’s that not all bosses do the same. Sodom you fight him alone since the start.
In most classic beat’em ups you start the fight facing them alone (tmnt, avengers, x-men), or they had helpers since before the boss joined the arena (double dragon).
From what I read on most comments here is that all prefer hard bosses. I prefer memorable bosses and they don’t need to be hard. Avengers arcade have all sort of memorable bosses and they are all pretty easy, except for the gigant droid and the octopus bot (and I hate those two bosses lol) I can beat all bosses no damage, and one of my fave bosses from all time is Crossbones: it’s one of the most difficult bosses - but still easy - and yet he has lot of different attacks and for me he’s just THAT fun to fight, I love him. Last boss is a joke compared to him.
The first boss in Vendetta is the easiest, ofc because he’s the first boss, but he’s still my fave boss fight in the entire game.
Phantom boss in Knights of the Round is just a remap and swap head from a regular enemy, but the environment and the music makes that battle memorable alas my fave fight in that game.
So for me it’s not only difficulty, it’s how the boss is presented too.

About my first comment: Calling reinforcements it’s ok, it’s not ok when there’s waves and waves of enemies coming, like I’ve seen in many old Openbor mods, maybe specially in BoR clones.

It’s a learning curve, getting balance is difficult in a beat’em up IMO.

Edit: in Shredder’s revenge out of thin air foot soldiers keeps coming and coming. Compare the fights against Bebop for example in that game vs the old arcade game. The mood would be completely different if Bebop actually “call” the reinforcements and not just “ohh btw let’s put some foot soldiers in there to increase the difficulty in an artificial way”.
 
Last edited:
Die_In_Fire said:
From what I read on most comments here is that all prefer hard bosses. I prefer memorable bosses and they don’t need to be hard.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this: I do prefer memorable bosses over harder bosses.
For example, the first boss of Sunset Riders is easier than the last one, but its way more memorable thanks to his "bury me with my money" line
9h6P7SR.png


This one is a bit hard, but sill more memorable than the last boss, thanks to the fact you can get his hat if you play as Cormano
qVaATiJ.png


This is a constant concern of mine when I develop a game: I always think about what new that character (whether playable, enemy or boss) brings to the game.

I know it's not possible to do this all the time, but whenever possible I think about it and add a different attack, or a different property. Because I don't like it when a character simply looks like a skin of another character (especially when it comes to playable characters).

In the case of bosses, I always tend to add a new challenge to the player (for example, one boss only attacks at close range, the other attacks at medium range, the other uses a long-range projectile, etc.).

And something I always like to add: new attacks, based on how much health the boss has. I think this forces the player to use a new tactic during the fight, preventing it from becoming boring. This is answer for the topic question by the way :)

Die_In_Fire said:
is Crossbones: it’s one of the most difficult bosses - but still easy - and yet he has lot of different attacks and for me he’s just THAT fun to fight, I love him.
Click to expand...
Yeah they did a great job with him because he is like that on Comics (he is a very strategic enemy, more than Red Skull).
 
When it come to what make a good boss !
I feel like the boss fight should be 2D instead 2.5D in most cases.
Hollow knight have some great bosses that test the player hand eye co-ordination levels.
Cuphead and the messenger did this well too.
When it come to Openbor games Avengers battle front,UDD have some cool boss fights n them.

The boss I'm trying to create will punish players who can't pull of combos that juggle the enemy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom