Final Boss *spoilers-ish*

[Eschaton]

I had this idea...

I say that a lot.

Anyway, I had this idea that the final fight of the main story in my project would be a one-on-one fight.  It wouldn't be one of those deals where you can't lose, nor would it be easier than the penultimate fight like in some games. It's going to be a true test of how you built your character and the strategies you as a player have developed.

It makes sense to me because the focus of most of the game is on the player character, while the PC's companions are merely satellites.  I want to design the game to be easily solo-able.

And it could be argued that the battle before it could be considered the last real challenge since you get to do it with whatever companions/party members you decide to bring, but it is against the hardest normal enemies rather than against a big boss.

Anyway, I wanted to see what the opinions were on the concept of a one-on-one final battle.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

   It's fine as long as there aren't any foolish reasons given for why it takes place. (Large scale military operation happening, hero spots the enemy general that killed his little sister 3 years ago and orders his men to stand down so that he can fight him solo, enemy general for some strange reason obliges him.) Combat is not the place to go solo, if one ends up in a situation where they have no support and have no choice that is fine, all he/she can do is press on to survive. Only a fool chooses to fight alone when they have support available however. It isn't about pride or honor, it's survival and it's our instinct in times of turmoil.

 

[Eschaton]

Hmm...  well, the other option I had was that the party, the last boss and all of his infantry support duke it out for the final battle.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

   Depending on what type of person your protagonist is it could easily work. Are you still using that idea where your protagonist starts out as a sort of freelance spy working for one of the ruling bodies? If so it might suite his/her character to seek out the enemy leader during the battle (after all generals who can even be found on the front-lines are rare in history and even rarer do they live long enough to require assassinating) of course that would likely be a one way mission.

   Duels are fine and a good way of drawing out emotion and tension between two rival characters but the reason for the duel has to make sense or else it loses it's power.

 

[Eurgh]

If you want it to be solo. Then why not, if you die, this boss laughs at them and tells them that they weren't a challenge. Then possibly, you get a choice of a companion that can come to rescue you, giving you another chance. But if you fail that, it's obviously game over.

 

[Omnimental]

If you really want a downer ending, have the reason you're fighting the boss solo be because he's already killed off the rest of your party.  BD

 

[Eschaton]

I'm less about downer endings and more about Pyrrhic endings.  And the only reason why your party would die is because the player made bad calls.

 

[BlissAuthority]

If your character is a spy, and if the enemy is a tyrant with a very hands-on approach to being a dick, it would make total sense for Ralph Hiroaki Protagonist* to go on a solo assassination mission.  Just make sure that the rest of the party doesn't seem useless - find a compelling way to have them help you into the Very Definitely Final Dungeon, and a good reason for staying behind - as lookouts, say, or so they can go LOOK A DISTRACTION! to Sol Badguy's* guards.

* I am going to assume that MC Protag and Villanous Q. Badenov do not actually have names as silly as the ones I've given them.

 

[Omnimental]

You could do something similar to Mass Effect 2, where your various party members are actively ensuring you can reach the BBEG.  One stays behind to operate the hidden levers, a couple stay behind to hold off the mooks, etc etc.

 

[Eschaton]

The PC is only a spy of they have the rogue class.  Otherwise, they are a sellsword if a warrior or a hired "expert" in the arcane if a mage.

 

[Cozzer]

As long as your battle system is interesting even with only one character, I'd say go with it (but don't force the player to redo the penultimate battle if he loses in the last one).


I seem to remember that your game uses and action battle system; in those cases I usually like solo battles more than party ones, so I fully support the idea.


(And don't worry too much about the story. If it makes sense gameplay-wise to have a solo last battle, you can find tons of reasons for other characters to stay behind.)

 

[estriole]

you could make your party storming to last boss place together. but one by one left to stop the enemy general. until the last one reaching the last boss is only MC... there you go. you got a date with the last boss. (it even cooler if before you face last boss. hero also solo one or two enemy general).

(this a bit cliche though. used in many manga/anime)

 

[arekpowalan]

I don't like 1v1 final battle even if other PCs are satellites. In my opinion, it's a waste of team building. After 80% of time used in discovering a favorite team combination, I can't even use it in the final boss.

...Unless it's really that climatic.

If 1v1 is really a must, I would set stages where I first can first full party to fight like FFVII, where you fight multiple form of the final boss and only solo Cloud with Sephiroth at the final stage. Nobody say you have to make a duel anticlimatic like in FFVII.

I agree with Cozzer in that action battle system would work batter for a duel. It's would be more intense and make senses in general. Just be sure the system doesn't come out of nowhere. I suggest you character get to duel serveral enemies throughout the game, so the player can get used to the system, and therefore is confident to go all out in such a climatic fight.

 

[Eschaton]

Again, I'm not having a gigantic solar-system-destroying final boss.  The final encounter your party can face will just be waves of the most powerful human enemies.  Throughout the game, you'll be encouraged to solo as well as have a party.  The penultimate fight will be a test of your team.  The final fight will be a test of your solo build.

Either that, or I'll just have the final boss supported by these waves of difficult enemies and you can bring your party in to make it fair.  Who knows?

 

[Tai_MT]

If done well, I could see enjoying a one on one fight.  However, you're probably going to have to program in some "insurance" against really bad player builds so that poor builds require more tactical skill than planning to beat the boss.  Why do this?  Because, let's face it, it sucks to get to the end of a game and be unable to complete it simply because you made suboptimal decisions in creating your character when you had no problems with it up until then, or indication you'd need a certain build.

That's not to say you need to make this fight easy (oh no, you can make it insanely hard even with the insurance against bad builds), but making it reasonable would be a good thing.  Optimal Builds already put the work and strategy into the game, so they would have an easier 1v1 fight.  Not super easy, no.  It would still be challenging.  But, it wouldn't be as challenging as a sub-optimal build which would have to rely on careful usage of every single turn, every single skill, and some interesting or unique strategies to prevail.

I think it could be very interesting in either of these extremes.  I'd likely even play it twice just to see if I could do it with a poor build as well as a good build.

As for concerns about the 1v1 fight in general...  Well, if your other characters really are just satellites (which mine basically are as well, so I get what you're saying here), then it only makes sense that the fight would be 1v1.  The story isn't about the other people in the party.  This is the main character's fight, why do they need to get involved?  Have some honor in combat!  I've always thought it kind of funny that you'd bring 4 people to beat up a single guy.  In some of those fights, it's kind of dishonorable.  Beat up the king with 4 people and somehow call it fair?  Pishaw.  Honestly, depending on how your story plays out, the 1v1 end boss fight could be a pretty good thing.  I wouldn't really worry about the merits of such a thing as long as you design it well and explain it well in terms of the story you're telling.  You need to keep the player from asking "why doesn't everyone fight this boss?".  It needs to be immediately obvious or easily explained so that the question doesn't come up because it makes complete sense to the player.

 

[Eschaton]

My issue is bringing 3, 4, or 5 people against one while making the fight at all climactic without inflating his stats to super human levels.

Although, I fear I might have to do so in the end.

 

[Omnimental]

Yeah, it would suck to build your main character as a healer only to have him being stuck soloing the main boss.  If solo-only missions are introduced as a thing earlier on though, I think you would be okay.

 

[Eschaton]

I had that issue with KOTOR.  Go Soldier, or go home.  I figure the best way around that is to ensure that each class has a fair shot at the final boss.

Maybe some party members show up if the fight goes on for too long.

 

[Eurgh]

I had that issue with KOTOR.  Go Soldier, or go home.  I figure the best way around that is to ensure that each class has a fair shot at the final boss.

Maybe some party members show up if the fight goes on for too long.

Don't speak ill of Kotor!

 

[Eschaton]

KOTOR was awesome, it really was.  But if you were a "talk or sneak your way out of every battle" Revan, than Malak would own you.  The infinite droids in the Star Forge would own you.  And the game encouraged non-combat builds.  If the game suddenly changes their mind in the final level, that's bad design.