Superbosses

[Alexander Amnell]

   Why does the final boss have to be the strongest force in the known world, exactly? What's wrong with games like Way of the Samurai or The Last of Us? Do you always have to evolve into a "righteous god of justice" by the end game in order to fight the "dark god bent on destroying the universe"? Realistically speaking no matter how much of a badass you happen to be there is always going to be someone who is better than you, Why do games have to be any different? I'm honestly tired of the whole notion that the big bad can't be taken on by anyone other than your in game hero anyway. Every time a mysterious cloaked figure slaughters an entire squadron of elite soldiers and assassinates his mark only after killing every damn bodyguard alone I cringe a little inside. If anything I'd say having a protagonist that becomes so strong the only person that can challenge him is the final boss, and he is the only one that can face said boss, is detrimental to the story in a way, in that it is completely outside of reality, I would love to see Amerk's idea come through in that the player isn't even the one that deals with the boss. It's not necessary, all that matters is that he/she/it is defeated in the end, right? + the whole world domination/destruction angle has really been played to death, every once in a while a simple conflict between two opposing sides unfolding as a political drama that doesn't turn into a stage for an ancient demon's resurrection or something would be refreshing, stories can be really good without the fate of the world resting on the protagonist's success.

   I do understand wanting the final boss to be a challenge though. By the time you've killed the super boss going back and beating the game seems a little pointless (Extreme example, Final Fantasy 8... If you managed to get Eden before coming to Ultimecia's castle then you'll probably 1 shot everything in there because to kill the boss you get it from you have to completely break the game)

@Zoltar Ignoring the fact that you just condemned an entire diverse demographic as arrogant sociopaths (do you even see the irony in such an arrogant presumption?) your example is mostly wrong. It's not America that is condemning every terrorist act in the world as a function of Al Qaeda, quite the opposite. Every time a terrorist cell is successful Al Qaeda itself is very quick to claim responsibility for the action, they want America to think that they are the single most dangerous threat to their existence, because so far that hyper focus has stopped the populous as a whole from realizing the death of thousands of cuts that is killing us slowly but surely, predicted by Marx and outlined by Alinsky. Terrorists using fear to frighten people into foolish behavior does not = arrogance, condemning them for that fear does. There are a lot of pertinent and valid examples of  American politio-echonomic corruptions that you can use as an example if you want to trash the country and it's leadership, please pick one of them next time. (Also, your example doesn't even really fit that well before I attack it... like the subject matter was just an excuse to rage.) 

 

[Qeo]

Optional bosses (aka Super Bosses) = Optional Content.

Optional Content very seldom has anything to do with the story, and it's optional for a reason. You don't have to complete it.

I'm not sure what the deal is. If you feel it hurts the story, don't play through the optional content. It's not there for people who prefer linear storylines with little to no additional content. It's there for completionist and people like me who wish to feel like a bad ass when we complete the game.

I've heard a lot of absurd things in this community over the past several months:

People who don't like battles and think they should be removed from all rpg's.

People who don't think rpg;s should require a level up feature.

People who wish to punish gamers for saving.

People who think a person should be able to skip all battles and still be able to pummel the end boss.

People who feel story and cut scenes should be minimal.

And now: People who think Super Bosses should be removed because it might effect the story.

Seriously, these are rpg's. They are rpg's for a reason. They follow a certain mold of exploration, battle, leveling up, stat upgrades, combat (action or turn based), additional content, story, etc. Games like Final Fantasy (before 13), games like Dragon Quest, Lunar, Lufia, Breath of Fire, Wild Arms, and so on.

If people have a problem with these things, they're better off reading a book or watching a movie.

Now THIS is how you have a respectful argument, Zoltor.

Well, somewhat... he did think of the idea of no optional superboss as absurd but at least he didn't call me an arrogant scumbag who is full of myself.

"People who don't like battles and think they should be removed from all rpg's.

People who don't think rpg;s should require a level up feature.

People who wish to punish gamers for saving.

People who think a person should be able to skip all battles and still be able to pummel the end boss.

People who feel story and cut scenes should be minimal."

All those things are absurd, we can agree on that.

But some people enjoy all of those those things but find the optional battles to weaken the story. If you don't think it does or it doesn't matter we'll agree to disagree.

"Seriously, these are rpg's. They are rpg's for a reason. They follow a certain mold of exploration, battle, leveling up, stat upgrades, combat (action or turn based), additional content, story, etc. Games like Final Fantasy (before 13), games like Dragon Quest, Lunar, Lufia, Breath of Fire, Wild Arms, and so on.

If people have a problem with these things, they're better off reading a book or watching a movie."

I don't have a problem with those things.

 

[Arkecia]

I understand where both sides are coming from. If you're fighting an optional boss that's much stronger than the final boss than from a story standpoint it kind of cheapens the idea of the final boss being the world's greatest threat that many final bosses aspire to be.

But, there's also many stories out there where the world isn't actually in peril and it's a more personal conflict, the optional bosses don't seem so bad for the main story then. I feel it's even better if you can actually justify its existence in the storyline.

In my last game I have a superboss that acts as a program that simulates what is considered to be the main enemy to humanity in my game's world. The last boss of this game is actually the final stepping stone in proving the team's skill, so that one day they can fight the real thing outside the virtual reality the game takes place in. In this case the superboss makes sense and I'd think add more to the storyline instead of take away from it.

I also have a superboss even more hidden who could be an even bigger threat. That's what superbosses tend to be, that greater unknown threat that can show how big the world is. Even previous Final Fantasies have backstories for their optional bosses that make sense.

Either way, it can be fun to test your skill and prove you've mastered the game's systems. I know many people in RL who love working towards fighting those optional bosses in RPGs, so it feels kind of empty without them. (And this is coming from someone who rarely fights them)

 

[Qeo]

   Why does the final boss have to be the strongest force in the known world, exactly? What's wrong with games like Way of the Samurai or The Last of Us? Do you always have to evolve into a "righteous god of justice" by the end game in order to fight the "dark god bent on destroying the universe"? Realistically speaking no matter how much of a badass you happen to be there is always going to be someone who is better than you, Why do games have to be any different? I'm honestly tired of the whole notion that the big bad can't be taken on by anyone other than your in game hero anyway. Every time a mysterious cloaked figure slaughters an entire squadron of elite soldiers and assassinates his mark only after killing every damn bodyguard alone I cringe a little inside. If anything I'd say having a protagonist that becomes so strong the only person that can challenge him is the final boss, and he is the only one that can face said boss, is detrimental to the story in a way, in that it is completely outside of reality, I would love to see Amerk's idea come through in that the player isn't even the one that deals with the boss. It's not necessary, all that matters is that he/she/it is defeated in the end, right? + the whole world domination/destruction angle has really been played to death, every once in a while a simple conflict between two opposing sides unfolding as a political drama that doesn't turn into a stage for an ancient demon's resurrection or something would be refreshing, stories can be really good without the fate of the world resting on the protagonist's success.

   I do understand wanting the final boss to be a challenge though. By the time you've killed the super boss going back and beating the game seems a little pointless (Extreme example, Final Fantasy 8... If you managed to get Eden before coming to Ultimecia's castle then you'll probably 1 shot everything in there because to kill the boss you get it from you have to completely break the game)

@Zoltar Ignoring the fact that you just condemned an entire diverse demographic as arrogant sociopaths (do you even see the irony in such an arrogant presumption?) your example is mostly wrong. It's not America that is condemning every terrorist act in the world as a function of Al Qaeda, quite the opposite. Every time a terrorist cell is successful Al Qaeda itself is very quick to claim responsibility for the action, they want America to think that they are the single most dangerous threat to their existence, because so far that hyper focus has stopped the populous as a whole from realizing the death of thousands of cuts that is killing us slowly but surely, predicted by Marx and outlined by Alinsky. Terrorists using fear to frighten people into foolish behavior does not = arrogance, condemning them for that fear does. There are a lot of pertinent and valid examples of  American politio-echonomic corruptions that you can use as an example if you want to trash the country and it's leadership, please pick one of them next time. (Also, your example doesn't even really fit that well before I attack it... like the subject matter was just an excuse to rage.) 

I can understand where you're coming from. Personally I love having super powered protagonists... as long as they don't start out powerful. Seems like in a lot of final fantasy games, you're at a low level but in terms of the story your hero is very powerful and skilled at the beginning.

Ressurected/unsealed demons have been done to death... I'm fine with them as long as they're not the final battle. If you don't like the final boss being the most powerful being in the world, I'll just respectfully disagree.

 

[TheRiotInside]

Yeah...I think certain people are blowing this out of proportion. You're bordering on insulting each other, not to mention the ridiculous jabs at America (not saying they're not true, I'm saying it shouldn't be a discussion point in this thread).

Anyway, I'll try to lay this topic out plainly:

Some people think that optional content (which includes "superbosses") breaks story-immersion and view it as a negative. I think the problem is that those people are viewing optional content as something it's not. Post-game shenanigans are supposed to be a refreshing break from the main game. You go through your grand adventure, and get the wonderful story out of the way, and then you just want to have some fun with the game mechanics and see how far you can push them (ie: optional dungeons, equipment, bosses that exceed the regular story counterparts).

Sure, the idea of these extra things in relation to the main story seem absurd, but that's because they aren't meant to be part of the main story, as explained above.

Basically, if you don't like things that break immersion, like others mentioned before me: optional content does that on purpose, and therefore may not be for you.

 

[Zoltor]

I understand where both sides are coming from. If you're fighting an optional boss that's much stronger than the final boss than from a story standpoint it kind of cheapens the idea of the final boss being the world's greatest threat that many final bosses aspire to be.

But, there's also many stories out there where the world isn't actually in peril and it's a more personal conflict, the optional bosses don't seem so bad for the main story then. I feel it's even better if you can actually justify its existence in the storyline.

In my last game I have a superboss that acts as a program that simulates what is considered to be the main enemy to humanity in my game's world. The last boss of this game is actually the final stepping stone in proving the team's skill, so that one day they can fight the real thing outside the virtual reality the game takes place in. In this case the superboss makes sense and I'd think add more to the storyline instead of take away from it.

I also have a superboss even more hidden who could be an even bigger threat. That's what superbosses tend to be, that greater unknown threat that can show how big the world is. Even previous Final Fantasies have backstories for their optional bosses that make sense.

Either way, it can be fun to test your skill and prove you've mastered the game's systems. I know many people in RL who love working towards fighting those optional bosses in RPGs, so it feels kind of empty without them. (And this is coming from someone who rarely fights them)

It's silly to think a Super Boss would care what's going on in the outside world, It's not like it would effect him/her, It's only when some greed, power hungry adventurer invade their lair, with the intent to loot(lol not very hero like, is it) it, does such effect them(and It's not the boss doing such, but the so called hero, so the Super boss still wouldn't give a crap about what the boss is doing. monster/demon society Isn't like the budding in other people's business, that is the human society, they just want to be left in piece most of the time, that's all they want.

Lol I just had an idea I'm gonna have a secret treasure(perhaps char) in my game revolving how you go about entering a super Boss's lair.treat it.

"Sure, the idea of these extra things in relation to the main story seem absurd, but that's because they aren't meant to be part of the main story, as explained above."

Exactly.

 

[Qeo]

I understand where both sides are coming from. If you're fighting an optional boss that's much stronger than the final boss than from a story standpoint it kind of cheapens the idea of the final boss being the world's greatest threat that many final bosses aspire to be.

But, there's also many stories out there where the world isn't actually in peril and it's a more personal conflict, the optional bosses don't seem so bad for the main story then. I feel it's even better if you can actually justify its existence in the storyline.

In my last game I have a superboss that acts as a program that simulates what is considered to be the main enemy to humanity in my game's world. The last boss of this game is actually the final stepping stone in proving the team's skill, so that one day they can fight the real thing outside the virtual reality the game takes place in. In this case the superboss makes sense and I'd think add more to the storyline instead of take away from it.

I also have a superboss even more hidden who could be an even bigger threat. That's what superbosses tend to be, that greater unknown threat that can show how big the world is. Even previous Final Fantasies have backstories for their optional bosses that make sense.

Either way, it can be fun to test your skill and prove you've mastered the game's systems. I know many people in RL who love working towards fighting those optional bosses in RPGs, so it feels kind of empty without them. (And this is coming from someone who rarely fights them)

Hmmm that's different, haven't heard of it done like that before.

I understand both sides too. Now that you bring final fantasy up, the first time I ever knew about superbosses was from Final Fantasy 7. I loved the final boss from Final Fantasy 7. He looked godlike, had great music and attacks... And the "Superbosses" were inferior in all those aspects but were more difficult. I'm trying to think of one optional boss more impressive than the final one in those three aspects and I can't, maybe someone can help me with it..

Even if/when someone comes up with examples, my opinion still stands: Superbosses weaken the story.

 

[Zoltor]

Hmmm that's different, haven't heard of it done like that before.

I understand both sides too. Now that you bring final fantasy up, the first time I ever knew about superbosses was from Final Fantasy 7. I loved the final boss from Final Fantasy 7. He looked godlike, had great music and attacks... And the "Superbosses" were inferior in all those aspects but were more difficult. I'm trying to think of one optional boss more impressive than the final one in those three aspects and I can't, maybe someone can help me with it..

Even if/when someone comes up with examples, my opinion still stands: Superbosses weaken the story.

Are you kidding me, what this: "sure, the idea of these extra things in relation to the main story seem absurd, but that's because they aren't meant to be part of the main story, as explained above." doesn't sum it up enough for you.

It has nothing to do with the story, don't fight if(if even possible) before you beat the final boss, there done, It's that simple.

In almost every case(minus FF7's emerald weapon), you need to go out of your way, and way, way outside the bounderies of the story, to even locate them, nevermind fight them.

 

[Qeo]

Are you kidding me, what this: "sure, the idea of these extra things in relation to the main story seem absurd, but that's because they aren't meant to be part of the main story, as explained above." doesn't sum it up enough for you.

It has nothing to do with the story, don't fight if(if even possible) before you beat the final boss, there done, It's that simple.

In almost every case(minus FF7's emerald weapon), you need to go out of your way, and way, way outside the bounderies of the story, to even locate them, nevermind fight them.

I know you have to try hard to find them, but the fact that they even exist at all ruin it for me. Obviously it doesn't completely destroy the story but it makes it not as good in my opinion.

We're not going to change each others minds by arguing about it. This thread isn't for that, it's for people stating their opinions and giving an explanation for why they have that opinion - not to say anyone is wrong or to try to convince them into agreeing.

 

[TheRiotInside]

We're not going to change each others minds by arguing about it. This thread isn't for that, it's for people stating their opinions and giving an explanation for why they have that opinion - not to say anyone is wrong or to try to convince them into agreeing.

Agreed. People coming into opinion threads with the intention of "winning" are doing it wrong.

To me, anything after the main story of an RPG is separate, and treated in my mind as such, so optional crazy-strong bosses don't seem like negatives to me. If you view the entire game overall as part of a large story (which I'm guessing you do, correct me if I'm wrong) than it would be difficult to detach the post-game content from the "main" story arc, which understandably causes you to dislike optional content not fitting in well. I'm thinking that the issue is not with post-game content objectively; but more with how it is all connected together in different players' minds. Again, if post-game is seen as part of the game (so to speak) then it would definitely take away, so I see where you're coming from.

 

[Archeia]

The reason why final bosses aren't stronger than optional bosses is for some less-skilled players to finish it. 

But I LOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE superbosses since there are players that love to minmax or just look for challenge as a whole. That's not something every rpg player likes to do!

I will always appreciate it when FF7 had the weapons as optionals and it makes sense they're stronger than Sephiroth, they're the Planet's defense mechanism made from Lifestream and destroying everything that's consuming the Lifestream itself. The only reason they can't attack the Northern Crater was because of a barrier, otherwise, Sephiroth is doomed. But he is the final boss. Physical/Magical Strength isn't the only thing that counts as final-boss like but also the way they handled the entire plot.

Even then, FF7 did something that if you're lvl 99, Sephiroth gets a final boss boost. 

Either way, I would hate to see Superbosses disappear, I enjoyed the Deep Dungeon in FFT and would hate to see that removed just because they're stronger than the FB.

Also without them, we won't have Demi-Fiend!

 

[Qeo]

That's an interesting way to look at things TheRiotSide, if I were able to seperate them it wouldn't bother me so much.

"The reason why final bosses aren't stronger than optional bosses is for some less-skilled players to finish it. 

But I LOOOOOOOVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE superbosses since there are players that love to minmax or just look for challenge as a whole. That's not something every rpg player likes to do!"

I like a challenge. I think they should just make final bosses harder... But NOT having to grind, but perhaps find ultimate weapons to stand a chance, I'm about Skill over Patience, I think they should lower the max levels in games to something you would naturally come to by defeating most of the enemies you naturally come by instead of fighting the same things for hours. That is not fun to me or to a lot of other people.

It might be unforgiving to make a final boss superboss worthy but if the games gradual difficulty increase over the game is done right then I think it can work great. If you're trying to save the world it should FEEL like it. It should take everything you have.

"I will always appreciate it when FF7 had the weapons as optionals and it makes sense they're stronger than Sephiroth, they're the Planet's defense mechanism made from Lifestream and destroying everything that's consuming the Lifestream itself. The only reason they can't attack the Northern Crater was because of a barrier, otherwise, Sephiroth is doomed. But he is the final boss. Physical/Magical Strength isn't the only thing that counts as final-boss like but also the way they handled the entire plot.

Even then, FF7 did something that if you're lvl 99, Sephiroth gets a final boss boost. 

Either way, I would hate to see Superbosses disappear, I enjoyed the Deep Dungeon in FFT and would hate to see that removed just because they're stronger than the FB."

I'm not thinking Square was really thinking about making sense with those bosses... Why weren't the other weapons as powerful as Ruby and Emerald? And shouldn't a God be more powerful than weapons made from the planet?

LV 99 final boss boost... That is some crazy grinding right there.

I'm not asking for Superbosses to disappear, I'm just saying not every RPG needs one.

 

[Archeia]

I like a challenge. I think they should just make final bosses harder... But NOT having to grind, but perhaps find ultimate weapons to stand a chance, I'm about Skill over Patience, I think they should lower the max levels in games to something you would naturally come to by defeating most of the enemies you naturally come by instead of fighting the same things for hours. That is not fun to me or to a lot of other people.

RPGs are about Stats, Balancing, etc. While I am one of those who like Skill vs. level progression, I can see why it needs grinding. It's for the illusion there is a progression of improvement of your avatar. It depends.

A lot of people do enjoy grinding if the game's battle system is fun enough. (e.g. Mana Khemia, the entirety of a dungeon crawler series). FF7 is insanely easy as it is and it's not that hard at all to grab lvl 99. (Even though I prefer to finish it at low levels)

It might be unforgiving to make a final boss superboss worthy but if the games gradual difficulty increase over the game is done right then I think it can work great. If you're trying to save the world it should FEEL like it. It should take everything you have.

While I don't want to sound like a prick, have you tried the mathematical side of RPG Game Design? These kinds of things are easier said than done. And the reason you don't see what you want is because developers have different design goals, based on what THEY want.

I'm not thinking Square was really thinking about making sense with those bosses... Why weren't the other weapons as powerful as Ruby and Emerald? And shouldn't a God be more powerful than weapons made from the planet?

LV 99 final boss boost... That is some crazy grinding right there.

I'm not asking for Superbosses to disappear, I'm just saying not every RPG needs one.

They explained it in the plot. Also, since Ultima Weapon was part of the plot, they had to make him weaker than the others because he directly gets in your way in the plot. The worst part that could happen to you in FF7 is getting stuck after a long cutscene because of Ultima Weapon and make you rage quit the game. There's a difference.

It's like in FFT vs. Wiegraf in the castle where a lot of people HAD to restart their playthrough since their Ramza wasn't strong enough to face such a foe. That's exactly what Ultima Weapon would be like if he was as beefed up as Emerald or Ruby Weapon.

Lvl 99 is hardly grinding with FF7. That's only for people who wants it. And even then, Final Fantasy isn't really a good example of great battles haha

If you want something challenging but doesn't let you grind a lot, then try the Shin Megami Tensei series. I never found myself grinding there because everything is progressive.

Also why would you want to remove optional content from people? Just because you don't think every RPG doesn't need a superboss doesn't mean that the fanbase wouldn't want them included. Or the developers themselves. A lot of developers make a game based on what they want or what they enjoyed. If a developer loves super bosses, it's gonna be in, whether the player wants it or not.

 

[Zoltor]

"They explained it in the plot. Also, since Ultima Weapon was part of the plot, they had to make him weaker than the others because he directly gets in your way in the plot. The worst part that could happen to you in FF7 is getting stuck after a long cutscene because of Ultima Weapon and make you rage quit the game. There's a difference.

It's like in FFT vs. Wiegraf in the castle where a lot of people HAD to restart their playthrough since their Ramza wasn't strong enough to face such a foe. That's exactly what Ultima Weapon would be like if he was as beefed up as Emerald or Ruby Weapon.
 
Lvl 99 is hardly grinding with FF7. That's only for people who wants it. And even then, Final Fantasy isn't really a good example of great battles haha 

If you want something challenging but doesn't let you grind a lot, then try the Shin Megami Tensei series. I never found myself grinding there because everything is progressive.
 
 
Also why would you want to remove optional content from people? Just because you don't think every RPG doesn't need a superboss doesn't mean that the fanbase wouldn't want them included. Or the developers themselves. A lot of developers make a game based on what they want or what they enjoyed. If a developer loves super bosses, it's gonna be in, whether the player wants it or not."

Radiant Historia is like that too, as well as Hoshigami. Levels don't matter much in them.

Lol oh yea, lets not forget the most challenging RPGs ever made, Dragon Warrior 2, Wizzardry 1, 2, 5, 7th Saga, ect(I know there's more, I can't think of).

Oh yea, there's always the Ancient Cave in Lufia 2, levevils really don't matter, when enemies can beat you in 1-2 hits nomatter what(you better have good equipment, and more importantly "know how to use them")

 

[Qeo]

RPGs are about Stats, Balancing, etc. While I am one of those who like Skill vs. level progression, I can see why it needs grinding. It's for the illusion there is a progression of improvement of your avatar. It depends.

A lot of people do enjoy grinding if the game's battle system is fun enough. (e.g. Mana Khemia, the entirety of a dungeon crawler series). FF7 is insanely easy as it is and it's not that hard at all to grab lvl 99. (Even though I prefer to finish it at low levels)

While I don't want to sound like a prick, have you tried the mathematical side of RPG Game Design? These kinds of things are easier said than done. And the reason you don't see what you want is because developers have different design goals, based on what THEY want.

They explained it in the plot. Also, since Ultima Weapon was part of the plot, they had to make him weaker than the others because he directly gets in your way in the plot. The worst part that could happen to you in FF7 is getting stuck after a long cutscene because of Ultima Weapon and make you rage quit the game. There's a difference.

It's like in FFT vs. Wiegraf in the castle where a lot of people HAD to restart their playthrough since their Ramza wasn't strong enough to face such a foe. That's exactly what Ultima Weapon would be like if he was as beefed up as Emerald or Ruby Weapon.

Lvl 99 is hardly grinding with FF7. That's only for people who wants it. And even then, Final Fantasy isn't really a good example of great battles haha

If you want something challenging but doesn't let you grind a lot, then try the Shin Megami Tensei series. I never found myself grinding there because everything is progressive.

Also why would you want to remove optional content from people? Just because you don't think every RPG doesn't need a superboss doesn't mean that the fanbase wouldn't want them included. Or the developers themselves. A lot of developers make a game based on what they want or what they enjoyed. If a developer loves super bosses, it's gonna be in, whether the player wants it or not.

"RPGs are about Stats, Balancing, etc. While I am one of those who like Skill vs. level progression, I can see why it needs grinding. It's for the illusion there is a progression of improvement of your avatar. It depends.

A lot of people do enjoy grinding if the game's battle system is fun enough. (e.g. Mana Khemia, the entirety of a dungeon crawler series). FF7 is insanely easy as it is and it's not that hard at all to grab lvl 99. (Even though I prefer to finish it at low levels)"

I can handle some grinding, to gain about three levels to get a certain skill. Or fighting to get enough money if it doesn't take too long.

I had great fun with Star Ocean 4's battle system but even then grinding became a pain.

I heard that in Mario & Luigi Dreamteam, the level cap is 99... but you can beat the final boss at 40. Why not have the cap at 50? It'll make it ridiculously easy for those who love grinding.

"While I don't want to sound like a prick, have you tried the mathematical side of RPG Game Design? These kinds of things are easier said than done. And the reason you don't see what you want is because developers have different design goals, based on what THEY want."

Yes, I've been doing it for ten years now. And yes, it is easier said than done.

"They explained it in the plot. Also, since Ultima Weapon was part of the plot, they had to make him weaker than the others because he directly gets in your way in the plot. The worst part that could happen to you in FF7 is getting stuck after a long cutscene because of Ultima Weapon and make you rage quit the game. There's a difference.

It's like in FFT vs. Wiegraf in the castle where a lot of people HAD to restart their playthrough since their Ramza wasn't strong enough to face such a foe. That's exactly what Ultima Weapon would be like if he was as beefed up as Emerald or Ruby Weapon."

Yes, having that as powerful as Emerald or Ruby would be ridiculous. But I still think it's nonsensical storywise to make those weapons so much stronger... They could have just had three weapons and made different superbosses.

"Lvl 99 is hardly grinding with FF7. That's only for people who wants it. And even then, Final Fantasy isn't really a good example of great battles haha

If you want something challenging but doesn't let you grind a lot, then try the Shin Megami Tensei series. I never found myself grinding there because everything is progressive.

Also why would you want to remove optional content from people? Just because you don't think every RPG doesn't need a superboss doesn't mean that the fanbase wouldn't want them included. Or the developers themselves. A lot of developers make a game based on what they want or what they enjoyed. If a developer loves super bosses, it's gonna be in, whether the player wants it or not."

There should be rpg's for people who like superbosses and rpg's for those that don't. Will I not buy a game just because it has a superboss in it? Of course not, it's not that huge a deal. I can just pretend it doesn't exist, I would just prefer it not to be there.

Obviously a developer is going to make what they want to make. Thankfully there are some that don't make superbosses in their RPG's.

 

[Engr. Adiktuzmiko]

you could have just not quoted the post if ur gonna rewrite each part anyways... just makes the post unnecessarily long...


Hmm... superbosses, not really a fan of them, but I do try them out when a game has them

 

[XPKobold]

Though for me i don't mind superbosses in rpg  if done correctly. Like what if said super bosses were  secretly actually holding the final bosses power in check till someone powerful enough that could actually defeat the final boss at his full power. Star Ocean the second story did this right, and ended up making the final boss  a whole lot harder. Though i also would enjoy ones that actually grow powerful based on the party own level, or even well balanced that it takes everything you learned in the game to take the boss down.

 

[Ksi]

I love that the FF games had optional superbosses - and that they fit in with the lore of the worlds. Of course the last boss isn't going to be stronger than some Eldritch evil that has slept for centuries, biding it's time and growing stronger and stronger until awoken to roam the world once more. The last boss is almost always central to the actual story. They are centred around the Hero's story and someone the hero aims to beat. But they are not all that exists in the world - there are horrors from the past that the last boss awoke who can put him/her to shame and I fricking love that.

It shows that the hero's quest, even if it is to save the world from the villain, isn't the only thing happening in the world. That the villain isn't the only evil that exists - hell, isn't the biggest threat in the world. There are other, hidden evils and threats out there that the hero doesn't know about and when you, as the hero, find them it's often a case of going in swinging, thinking it's just another minor boss... only to have your ass handed to you and humility fill you.

This creature is a colossus, a beast that lies in waiting. If you don't challenge it, perhaps it will go back to sleep. Perhaps it will terrorise the locals. That is has nothing to do with the story is just an extra plus - it shows there's more to the world than your struggle to fight one of the many villains that, through history, have determined to destroy or control it. Compared to those Eldritch horrors who have survived time immemorial, what is the hero's tale but a drop in the ocean of forever?

And frankly, I wouldn't want my superbosses any other way. ^.~

@Zoltor: The Ancient Cave in Lufia II was hella fun! Unlocking that mode of New Game + was one of the best things - more games should do that. My brother and I spent hours apon hours in that cave, finding the rainbow treasures and blue boxes. It wasn't hard - not as hard as beating Gades the first fight on initial story mode (for those who don't know, Lufia II had another New Game + mode that gave double experience from enemies and beating Gades in it was a lot easier - you're supposed to die in that battle, but if you do defeat him you get his super powerful sword). Man, that game, though~<3

All you needed to do to get through to at least level 30 in the cave (and ensure you get providence, so you can leave at any time) is the healing pet and to not sell any rare weapons/armour (you can buy them back at a certain island in the middle part of the game anyway) and just fight every monster you find to get enough levels. We had no problems with that at all.

 

[amerk]

I think I see the problem people have. The final villain wants to conquer the world, so therefore he should be the hardest foe. Right?

Not necessarily.

First, this highlights a problem with a lot of rpg's. The whole conquering world bit. They forget there is a whole vast universe available, with many worlds. I can see a villain conquering one world, but not the entire universe. What's wrong with a villain just wanting to conquer a particular kingdom or continent? Why the world? Isn't it possible to have a Super Boss on a continent the final villain doesn't want to conquer?

Second, just because the cliched villain wants to conquer the whole world doesn't mean he does it on strength alone. Oftentimes he needs to collect all the runes or artifacts or whatever and use them to bring about some ultimate destruction, or he's using a machine to suck up all the energy, or he's corrupting the lifestream or something like that, or calling down meteor... you get the idea. Just because the villain is trying to conquer the world doesn't mean he's the toughest or smartest. In fact, he's usually not too smart since he keeps employing the same brainless henchman who will surely be defeated each and every time they stand up against the hero.

Finally, if the final villain is to be believed to be the hardest foe you will meet, then how is it possible for the hero to defeat him/her/it? Shouldn't the final villain be able to wipe out your party? In fact, I find it more absurd that none of the kingdom's finest soldiers can do anything to the villain, but your hero who comes from the backwoods hills of a hick village and has never lifted a sword in his life can suddenly rise to the challenge and come out victorious. I find that to weaken a story far more than some optional Super Boss.

 

[Blindga]

Second, just because the cliched villain wants to conquer the whole world doesn't mean he does it on strength alone.

Yep.

Control > Power. Always is.

To clarify, a villain may not be the biggest and most powerful guy out there, but that doesn't mean he still isn't holding all the cards. Realistically, that's how things often work.

My 2 cents on that. Otherwise I can't say anything that hasn't already been said.