Should you be able to kill the final boss in one hit?

[Jotari]

That being said though, I might be the only one who thinks Idenn isn't really supposed to be a really dramatic final battle. Zephiel is more of the normal final boss, kind of like Hardin. Idenn isn't really hyped up as much of an antagonist at all, Jahn spends the entire prelude to you fighting her talking about how stupidly powerful the Divine Weapons are. Not to mention she's repeatedly stated to pretty much just be an empty shell who churns out war dragons. I think IS just really really wanted you to use Roy, no matter how weak he was to deal with her at the end beacuse of the whole Harmut's pity stuff, and I'm okay with that.

Nah Zephiel isn't the final boss either. Murdock is the true final boss of Binding Blade. Especially if you subscribe to the theory he's secretly a time lord.

Look at those sprites. That is not a man who has aged twenty years.

[Chiki]

@Knight; we could call the auras sub-bosses as well. Ashera doesn't seem any worse for wear then they die, they can't be too integral to her being.

@Chiki; the between chapter saves (discounting savestates and the like since they're not always available). If Veld kills Leaf, you need to beat the warlords again, but you don't need to beat the other chapters again.

Depends on if you use them or not!

[Jave]

Veld is so pathetic, you can use Tina to steal his weapons. It's hilarious.

[dondon151]

I have never bothered to actually get the Aum staff but I suppose that could help,

you can't get the aum staff in H3; there's an enemy standing on top of the chest, so you can't target it with the thief staff.

[Irysa]

can't you get that guy to move if you put someone on the edge of his range?

[Kysafen]

My philosophy is that, for a game whose genre is "strategy," the final boss isn't the unit that you kill on the final chapter, but the final chapter itself.

What's worse is being able to capture the final boss like some hostage. Like in FE5. Lol.

FE5 is a strategy game. If you instead consider the entire chapter itself is the final "boss," then you could easily argue that Thracia 776 has the best "final boss" of the series thus far, because you actually have to strategize, not just for what units and weapons you bring, but as an accumulation of the resources you've conserved thus far. Hope you saved your Blizzard/Sleep/Berserk/Silence tomes and Holy Water, because you'll need to take out Elf somehow.

Devising a strategy to overcome the chapter through use of unconventional tactics should be the challenge of designing and playing a strategy game, not "you beat the enemy because you're stronger."

Edited December 17, 2014 by Kysafen

[Chiki]

My philosophy is that, for a game whose genre is "strategy," the final boss isn't the unit that you kill on the final chapter, but the final chapter itself.

FE5 is a strategy game. If you instead consider the entire chapter itself is the final "boss," then you could easily argue that Thracia 776 has the best "final boss" of the series thus far, because you actually have to strategize, not just for what units and weapons you bring, but as an accumulation of the resources you've conserved thus far. Hope you saved your Blizzard/Sleep/Berserk/Silence tomes and Holy Water, because you'll need to take out Elf somehow.

Devising a strategy to overcome the chapter through use of unconventional tactics should be the challenge of designing and playing a strategy game, not "you beat the enemy because you're stronger."

We've already talked about this. In that case, why don't we consider FE7's final chapter as a whole as the final boss? It's not intuitive, though, to think of the final boss as the plurality of the fire dragon, Nergal, and the Morphs. What seems intuitive is that the fire dragon alone is the final boss. I've never heard anyone say that the plurality fire dragon + Nergal + the Morphs is the final boss.

Better yet, why don't we consider FE9's final chapter as the final boss, so that Ashnard + all the random Daein soldiers is the final boss? Sounds silly. It seems intuitive to think of Ashnard alone as the final boss.

It's impossible to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for a final boss battle if you don't restrict it to that one final boss enemy. So we should just say that Veld alone is the final boss of FE5, and so on.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Chiki

[Snowy_One]

That's not to mention that, because the final chapter is over when you beat the boss, killing the boss fast is akin to beating the entire chapter. One-rounding Ashnard ends the entire fight after all. No need to fight anything else.

[Kysafen]

We've already talked about this. In that case, why don't we consider FE7's final chapter as a whole as the final boss? It's not intuitive, though, to think of the final boss as the plurality of the fire dragon, Nergal, and the Morphs. What seems intuitive is that the fire dragon alone is the final boss. I've never heard anyone say that the plurality fire dragon + Nergal + the Morphs is the final boss.

Better yet, why don't we consider FE9's final chapter as the final boss, so that Ashnard + all the random Daein soldiers is the final boss? Sounds silly. It seems intuitive to think of Ashnard alone as the final boss.

It's impossible to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for a final boss battle if you don't restrict it to that one final boss enemy. So we should just say that Veld alone is the final boss of FE5, and so on.

Narrowing the definition of a final boss down to just one enemy unit makes for a boring final boss. Medeus/Julius/Fire Dragon/Fomortiis: Whittle down boss HP, heal with Physic/rescue-heal-re-drop, rinse, repeat until win. Veld: Use Sety/Galzus/Thief Staff. At least Grima constantly flings units at you so that you're pressured to keep them at bay with your other units (as opposed to having them stand and watch, in other final boss battles), so that you can actually focus, but again, the other units don't matter, the final boss does.

And maybe that's a fundamental thing, but I'd rather have an antithesis to this.

That's not to mention that, because the final chapter is over when you beat the boss, killing the boss fast is akin to beating the entire chapter. One-rounding Ashnard ends the entire fight after all. No need to fight anything else.

Veld/Julius say "hi."

But that'd be pretty interesting as a concept, wouldn't it? What if, in the context of the story, you had a "final boss" that'd be standing over a NECESSARY switch that'd reveal a section of the chapter where you'd have to have a unit "Arrive" on a space to end the chapter; and probably have it surrounded by overpowered enemies, so that the final boss would actually not be the final obstacle.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Kysafen

[Emnay]

I remember that Ross dealt with Fomortiis in one hit.

Good feeling, but also pretty damn silly.

[Baldrick]

It's impossible to define the necessary and sufficient conditions for a final boss battle if you don't restrict it to that one final boss enemy.

Chiki, you need to read my post again. Your rebuttal cannot be taken seriously if we assume the player is rational.

Knowing you, you'll say "a rational person uses savestates" so assume playing on console, on RD HM for Ashera. Only Julius and SD Medeus are always affected by mid-chapter saves

Edited December 17, 2014 by Baldrick

[Chiki]

Chiki, you need to read my post again. Your rebuttal cannot be taken seriously if we assume the player is rational.

Knowing you, you'll say "a rational person uses savestates" so assume playing on console, on RD HM for Ashera. Only Julius and SD Medeus are always affected by mid-chapter saves

Um.. There's many playthroughs in which you don't want to use saves (challenge playthroughs, speed running). Also, what if a rational player just happened to forget to save before the last chapter?

Narrowing the definition of a final boss down to just one enemy unit makes for a boring final boss.

You need to come up with a better counterargument than "boring." Give me a thought experiment, tell me why my position is unintuitive.

[Baldrick]

Um.. There's many playthroughs in which you don't want to use saves (challenge playthroughs, speed running).

Challenge runs are inherently irrational.

Also, what if a rational player just happened to forget to save before the last chapter?

What if a rational player decides to use Meg instead of Jill? Does that mean Meg > Jill?

[Florete]

I think people are focusing on the idea of "final boss" too much. I look at it more in terms of the whole "finale," which is typically the final chapter (though one could take all of 4-E as RD's finale). This is different from what I said previously, but if it makes sense for the final boss alone to be fairly weak, yet the "finale" as a whole is done well, then it's still good in my book. I haven't beaten FE5, but it sounds like this might be the case there.

[Lord Glenn]

I'm going to go along with Cam's earlier post on this one (if we're going to be stuck with the same old formula for final bosses, that is - I'm definitely open to changing the status quo!); out of the final bosses in the FE games that I've played, I can't say that I've really had any memorable moments with any of them, given how quickly they end up falling. (And even if you factor in the entire chapter, I still can't say that any of them really felt fun to me...)

Meanwhile, I look back on the final bosses in both Super Robot Taisen: Original Generation games and, not only do I fully enjoy the entire chapter, but the high HP and powerful attacks (coupled with damage reducing barriers) actually mean that I can use actual planning to figure out a strategy to win. Sure, even with the high HP values, you can two-turn KO the bosses with careful planning, but the fights are certainly more memorable, and the rest of your units feel like they contribute more (unlike in, say, FE9 where none of them really can).

That being said, Kysafen's post certainly might be an interesting take - though, you'd have to make those enemies worth it so that they're still a challenge, but no so much so that they're stronger than the final boss or pose the question "if the boss had these at their disposal, why didn't they just use them from the get go?"

[Chiki]

Challenge runs are inherently irrational.

What if a rational player decides to use Meg instead of Jill? Does that mean Meg > Jill?

..What a ridiculous thing to say LOL. So by your reasoning, efficiency runs are irrational. SO efficiency tier lists are irrational. That's absolutely not true.

I really have to ask, what kind of a playthrough would even be rational on your view? I can't see it. What player rationality should be is something like this: what it means for a player to be rational is to make the best decisions possible given a certain context. This may be LTC, challenge runs, speedruns, whatever. Not saving in speedruns is rational.

Here's the problem with your view: speedruns and casual runs have different final bosses! Sounds ridiculous right?

Anyway, I wasn't able to give you a proper reply last time because I had to go make dinner, but now I can. Let me improve your argument for you, since you haven't thought of this. One way to respond to my arguments is to cite the mere existence of saves. There is a save between 24 and 25 in FE5, and it doesn't matter if the player uses it or not. Its existence is enough for a final boss battle to be considered chapter 25 as a whole, and not 24 + 25. Now I'm screwed because I can't use my original response to you. It doesn't matter if players choose not to use saves. Saves exist.

But I've already taken care of this counterargument in a previous post:

In that case, why don't we consider FE7's final chapter as a whole as the final boss? It's not intuitive, though, to think of the final boss as the plurality of the fire dragon, Nergal, and the Morphs. What seems intuitive is that the fire dragon alone is the final boss. I've never heard anyone say that the plurality fire dragon + Nergal + the Morphs is the final boss.

Better yet, why don't we consider FE9's final chapter as the final boss, so that Ashnard + all the random Daein soldiers is the final boss? Sounds silly. It seems intuitive to think of Ashnard alone as the final boss.

There's no saves between Ashnard and the generic Daein enemies, and no saves between the dragon and the Morphs. So, on your reasoning, the Daein enemies on the way to Ashnard is a part of the final boss battle. That sounds unintuitive though. You need to come up with something else that doesn't involve just saving.

Jahn spends the entire prelude to you fighting her talking about how stupidly powerful the Divine Weapons are.

LOL Jahn is a dude.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Chiki

[General Banzai]

You need to come up with a better counterargument than "boring." Give me a thought experiment, tell me why my position is unintuitive.

we're discussing entertainment boring is the metric of choice

thought experiments pfffft

[Chiki]

we're discussing entertainment boring is the metric of choice

thought experiments pfffft

My mistake. :(

Edited December 18, 2014 by Chiki

[Irysa]

LOL Jahn is a dude.

You realise the her refers to Idenn in that sentence right.

[Jotari]

LOL Jahn is a dude.

The prelude to you fighter her, her being Idoun, the prelude being Yahn's chapter. That's the way I interpreted the statement anyway.

[Chiki]

You realise the her refers to Idenn in that sentence right.

I read the pronoun as bound to Jahn because when you say "spends the entire prelude to fighting her talking," there's also a time when Jahn is dead and Idoun is alive, and Jahn can't talk while he is dead.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Chiki

[Irysa]

There are also a lof of previous sentences (hell, half of that sentence itself even) that add context to that statement, because the entire paragraph is about Idenn as a final boss. Clearly someone else read it correctly.

That being said though, I might be the only one who thinks Idenn isn't really supposed to be a really dramatic final battle. Zephiel is more of the normal final boss, kind of like Hardin. Idenn isn't really hyped up as much of an antagonist at all, Jahn spends the entire prelude to you fighting her talking about how stupidly powerful the Divine Weapons are. Not to mention she's repeatedly stated to pretty much just be an empty shell who churns out war dragons. I think IS just really really wanted you to use Roy, no matter how weak he was to deal with her at the end beacuse of the whole Harmut's pity stuff, and I'm okay with that.

Replacing "her" with "Idenn" results in the same meaning, which is kind of the point of the pronoun.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Irysa

[Baldrick]

I really have to ask, what kind of a playthrough would even be rational on your view?

A playthrough where one did not deliberately choose to make the game harder for themselves.

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking an irrational playthrough is worse than a rational one. If you want an extra challenge, it's better to be irrational. But is it a bad assumption to assume people are rational by default?

One way to respond to my arguments is to cite the mere existence of saves

That was my more or less my intent. Saves exist and are convenient (save you time in case of a mistake), so a rational person would use them.

[Chiki]

There are also a lof of previous sentences that add context to that statement, because the entire paragraph is about Idenn as a final boss. Clearly someone else read it correctly.

Why do you care so much about the potential readings of that sentence? Even I don't, and I do this for a living! Big deal, I caught another reading of your post that you didn't catch. Calm down.

A playthrough where one did not deliberately choose to make the game harder for themselves.

It seems really unintuitive that we can't be rational while LTCing, see below.

A playthrough where one did not deliberately choose to make the game harder for themselves.

You seem to be making the mistake of thinking an irrational playthrough is worse than a rational one. If you want an extra challenge, it's better to be irrational. But is it a bad assumption to assume people are rational by default?

It's much more intuitive to say this: people can be rational in certain contexts. You can be rational while playing with Meg > Jill, as long as you make the best decisions possible in that certain context.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Chiki

[Irysa]

Why do you care so much about the potential readings of that sentence? Even I don't, and I do this for a living! Big deal, I caught another reading of your post that you didn't catch. Calm down.

I'm not sure why you think I'm particularly bothered by what you said? It's just a chain of discussion, and I thought that I was being rather civil. I don't usually bother to complain about your attitude, but what I'm actually annoyed by now is the assertion that I'm somehow frustrated enough to be told to calm down over something so trivial, what the hell dude.

Edited December 18, 2014 by Irysa