Random: Sakurai Likens Boss Battles In Nintendo Games To Tutorials

I agree.... but hey, I'm no pro. I am currently stuck on the Phantom Ganondorf battle in TotK. I have no idea how to beat this

To me weak points and patterns means all games are/have boss tutorials. It adds structure of course but imo it also makes the boss daunting. If you only have one or two weaknesses but plenty of difficult attack patterns then the player has to manage two things: don’t get mowed down and position yourself for a weak spot hit (this can be aided by the environment). It’s also why I have to sit on souls/team ninja games a bit because EVERYTHING in the game you have to learn patterns for and by the time you get to the boss you are already a little toasted. (At least I am)

That is the biggest difference to me in games like sekiro and mario 64. Both are weak point exploit simulators but the difference is Nintendo doesn’t give Bowser some insane attack pattern so people don’t throw the controller out the window. Usually. I still side eye SMB 3. Totk’s Gannon is a nice middle ground to me. Or surprisingly the bosses in Peach Showtime.

I do like games that give you tools to exploit weak points/create your own opening through as it can showcase how good the AI attack patterns are. The Horizon games are fun for that.

I think Sakurai's video is a bit more nuanced than just his own preference.

The reality is that it depends on what role the boss fight has in the overall texture of the game. That fight in Ocarina of Time is absolutely a tutorial. It's literally the first boss. Later fights have more strats available to you, though there's usually something or other that you definitely have to do. But Ocarina is more about puzzle solving and narrative experience.

If we're talking about a game where bosses and combat play more of a role, and it's all about your skill and inventiveness, then yeah, more leeway and room for experimentation are awesome. Because I'm gonna be doing a lot of that during the game's runtime.

If the boss is already difficult or tedious to reach, I don't mind a set strategy. I already had it bad reaching the boss only to figure out what works best, potentially having my rear handed to me and still not figuring it out.

Then there are boss fights that have set strategies but still aren't as easy to pull off or their patterns don't make it so evident what you're supposed to do. Stares at Yooka-Laylee's final boss

I don't think it's quite as simple as one or the other... and the poll should really offer up both as a legitimate option!

I think both approaches have their pros and cons. Personally, I like having predefined ways to beat bosses since it shows the creators put a lot of thought into it. But I also appreciate a bit of wiggle room for freedom, so I can add my own touch on how I defeated said boss.

I never thought of "weak point" bosses as tutorials, more like tests to make sure you know how to use a mechanic. Take the Zelda bosses, for example. They come at the end of a dungeon and often require you to use the dungeon item you've been using through it, just in a more tense and high stakes situation, with less room for error due to the boss's attacks.

I don't mind either way, to be honest.

I love all kinds of games, so either approach is fine with me. A boss battle in a Mario game can be just as fun as a boss battle in a Soulsbourne title - but they are fun for entirely different reasons!

I prefer the set strategy. I am not creative and need a defined path to victory, otherwise I'll just die repeatedly and possibly drop the game.

I've somewhat realised in recent years that I'm not a huge fan of boss fights in general. In Mario or Zelda games at least they're often just a blocker to the more fun stuff (platforming / puzzles). There's been a couple of really good ones in recent memory: Colgera in TotK was great because it was more spectacle than difficult and I really enjoyed the bosses in Metroid Dread which follow the mandatory strategy being discussed here, but a lot of the time I kinda wish I had options to skip them altogether

I think the problem for me is that often the more free approach leads to bosses just being damage sponges that rarely have much spectacle unless you put in the time to make an elaborate trap or set up (thats normally outclassed in every way by simply having a better weapon and whacking them whenever). A set strategy can lead to difficulty, whilst still maintaining that spectacle such as most older zeldas or hollow knight

Is it too much to ask for both?

How about both? Where the defined strategy could simply be more effective?
I'm thinking of Zelda where it can be a do X-then-Y-then-Z and you'll do damage. Repeat 3-6 times and boom you've won. If such a sequence means you do say 18-30% damage of the boss, then how about other attacks doing significantly less?
This would leave the defined strategy to still have that success, but allow someone that maybe can't get the timing, etc., just right another option to grind it out.

I like when there is a mix of the two, and I also think it depends on the game and on the boss itself..

There is a rewarding feeling figuring out how to break through a boss's defences so that you finally can hit it in the eye with an arrow.

But perhaps that's just the first phase of the fight and the next phase is more open ended when you have to dodge or block and find openings to go on the offensive.

But still allow the physics engine and the game system to allow multiple different approaches to these things.
(I feel like breath of the wild was a good example of this)

In a Mario games they could step back a bit to allow a bit more freedom in boss battles (especially in the 3D Mario games).
I mean in the first Mario game you had at least 2 options for dealing with bowser (fight him with a fire flower or go straight for the switch).

However that being said, do I want all games to have Monster Hunter battles? No! I like the problem solving aspect in boss battles as well sometimes. And I don't want all games to be the same. (that being said I do enjoy Monster Hunter quite a bit when I am in the mood for it)

As long as it's fun and provides a fair challenge then I think that's all that really matters. However different people enjoy different things and you can't please every one so a variety of games with different genres and approaches is a good thing.

@CaleBoi25 it took me a while to beat Phantom Ganon but ultimately I found the best way for me was to collect a load of sundelions, cook them up in some highly restorative recipes, then go to town with one of the phantom's weapons, eating your meals as you go.

@JCWrites Cool I'll try that out.

Samurai is going to get a very sternly-worded email from Nintendo.

@Tott
It kind of reminds me of the bosses in something like sonic 3&K where there are quite a few ways to make quick work of the bosses a big one being sonics double jump "insta-shield" which when timed right can hit bosses when otherwise they would damage you.

by comparison something like sonic 4 episode 2 was infamous for having several bosses where it felt like you were spending waiting for the next chance to hit it.

in general i like it when the player has more control over the pacing of the fight since it also means that when replaying a game you can get more efficient at dealing with things like bosses and stages and as you mentioned a game can combine multiple aspects into its design.

I have a similar feeling when it comes to levels in general, i prefer it when the player sets the pace, where the first time through the player may be playing it safe and taking their time where's on replay they may be more willing to take more risks and speed through segments which initially would take them a while, its why im REALLY not a fan of auto scrollers in most platformers.

I don't actually mind whether a boss fight has a mandatory design or not, as long as it's a natural continuation of the skills the game has been testing up until that point.

Any design approach is fine so long as it doesn't feel like a complete departure from the rest of the game.

I prefer exploration/puzzle solving over combat in general. The "mandatory" style is more like a puzzle, and is therefore more fun to me.

He's absolutely right and this is why I hate boss battles in general. I really wish videogames would do away with them. They're all the same and just plain not fun.

Depends on the game. Some games are more strategy or puzzle based, others are more execusion and reaction based.

Zelda typically gets away with it's bosses because it's an extension of the puzzle dungeon design. Mario perhaps less so due to the overly scripted nature.

But then you have Devil May Cry which lets you treat bosses like a toy if you know what your doing, much to their humiliation.

And some games try to balance both strategy and action, like some shmups and Boomer Shooters like Doom Eternal.

It's very much about how much the game designers understand their game that depends on what a good and bad boss is. After all, I don't think I have to bring up old platformer bosses that just winged the boss structure with no rhyme or reason with their game or thematic design, making for a disjointed mess

Both approaches are valid and I think it really comes down to the balance in the end. You can have a boss fight that's too reliant on a set sequence of events that must be done to the point where it can feel gimmicky and tedious. On the other end, to make a more free-form boss battle challenging, it has to demand some amount of precision, and that can go too far. For example, the true final boss of Demon's Crest is just brutal. Now, I love that game, and since it's a secret final boss(hope that's not a spoiler...) I don't dock the game much for it. I do favor a more free form approach though, where there's no special requirement to damaging a boss, but avoiding damage is the real challenge, like with many Castlevania bosses.

@OrangeSoda This. I honestly think it's basically the point of bosses, all of my favorites have that puzzle aspect.

I don’t want all one or the other, really

I'd like a bit of both. Sometimes I find the freedom to do anything and go anywhere just unfocussed and dull. Most of the time I find being told exactly what to do and when to do it frustrating. But I'd say the best Nintendo games don't actually do either of those too often. I mean, someone could say Super Mario World is very directed and guided because it's largely a simple linear game, but I'd actually argue there's a kind of sandbox in the game design that opens up possibility without just leaving it all actually open and unfocussed. Thoughtful and intentional design with an actually quite easily understandable end goal and the option for the player to try a few strategies and different approaches to achieve that end goal is when it works best imo.

I prefer the Monster Hunter way where you can grind the HP down but also have the opportunity to attack or use items at specific times to cause the monster to falter and maybe also reveal weak spots.

I like both of them, depends on the game itself.

Yeah I can't say I'm a big fan of the "hit the bright glowing spot" boss tactic Nintendo loves so much.