The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Commandos 3 released this summer.
Fantastic, I loved Commandos 2. One of the best tactical games on the PC evah.
Hooray for Commandos 3 then. Realistic (I'd imagine), involving, demanding, cerebral, exciting etc etc.
But they're about to throw all that away.
Why?
End of Level Bosses.
The bane of computer games, the tedious cliche forced upon an overfed gamer tired of working through a level only to be confronted by a generic super-badman. With 1 fatal weakness.
Always the way - HUGE KILLER UNSTOPPABLE MONSTER BOSS...oh, but if you stand on that platform and shoot that switch, water falls on him and he short circuits. We didn't plan for the eventuality we'd take our MEGANASTY outside at all.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein suffered from this standard. Atmospheric, realistic, tense. All the things a game should be, but regular as clockwork here comes an end-of-level-boss.
Why? Why must we suffer these moribund mini-threats. It doesn't make the game more fun to have to throw yourself endlessly at your foe until he gives in.
People moan about quicksaves ruining a game, I say end-of-level baddies are the David Hasselhoff of games - amusing once but now a bad idea.
They are, you can't deny it.
You take care and skill getting through a level. Your progress is down to your skill and time spent, carefully working your way through the various tests and traps laid out for you by the game designers. This is how it should be, a test of skill. Not like Tomb Raider when you get killed by an unseen trap the 1st time.
But your reward for playing well?
You have to zip about a handily placed arena-type room getting killed over and over until you learn the 1 vital weakness in End Level Villain.
And why put them in Commandos 3? Have I missed something here? Was WW2 interrupted frequently by oversized enemies?
Has Spielberg lied to me by not including the legendary Super Soldier with Laser Eyes in his war movies?
Was there a 30ft Robo-Hitler with an aversion to electricity?
So having planned and snuck through a level of Commandos 3 employing skill, timing and a knife from that Green Beret that says "I cain't do dat sir" or "This one's moine", you then have to defeat a generic, over-used cliche of level boss.
Rubbish.
We no more need end of level bosses than we need ladders in FPS or the instantly equipped and researced AI enemies you get in RTS.
Remember those chaps? Age of Empires etc, you're scrabbling around in the dirt trying to build fire and here comes the AI soldiers all with muskets and biplanes.
End of Level Bosses suck.
I don't want any.
Medal of Honour doesn't have them. Delta Force doesn't have then.
Life doesn't have them.
Games shouldn't have them
Fantastic, I loved Commandos 2. One of the best tactical games on the PC evah.
Hooray for Commandos 3 then. Realistic (I'd imagine), involving, demanding, cerebral, exciting etc etc.
But they're about to throw all that away.
Why?
End of Level Bosses.
The bane of computer games, the tedious cliche forced upon an overfed gamer tired of working through a level only to be confronted by a generic super-badman. With 1 fatal weakness.
Always the way - HUGE KILLER UNSTOPPABLE MONSTER BOSS...oh, but if you stand on that platform and shoot that switch, water falls on him and he short circuits. We didn't plan for the eventuality we'd take our MEGANASTY outside at all.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein suffered from this standard. Atmospheric, realistic, tense. All the things a game should be, but regular as clockwork here comes an end-of-level-boss.
Why? Why must we suffer these moribund mini-threats. It doesn't make the game more fun to have to throw yourself endlessly at your foe until he gives in.
People moan about quicksaves ruining a game, I say end-of-level baddies are the David Hasselhoff of games - amusing once but now a bad idea.
They are, you can't deny it.
You take care and skill getting through a level. Your progress is down to your skill and time spent, carefully working your way through the various tests and traps laid out for you by the game designers. This is how it should be, a test of skill. Not like Tomb Raider when you get killed by an unseen trap the 1st time.
But your reward for playing well?
You have to zip about a handily placed arena-type room getting killed over and over until you learn the 1 vital weakness in End Level Villain.
And why put them in Commandos 3? Have I missed something here? Was WW2 interrupted frequently by oversized enemies?
Has Spielberg lied to me by not including the legendary Super Soldier with Laser Eyes in his war movies?
Was there a 30ft Robo-Hitler with an aversion to electricity?
So having planned and snuck through a level of Commandos 3 employing skill, timing and a knife from that Green Beret that says "I cain't do dat sir" or "This one's moine", you then have to defeat a generic, over-used cliche of level boss.
Rubbish.
We no more need end of level bosses than we need ladders in FPS or the instantly equipped and researced AI enemies you get in RTS.
Remember those chaps? Age of Empires etc, you're scrabbling around in the dirt trying to build fire and here comes the AI soldiers all with muskets and biplanes.
End of Level Bosses suck.
I don't want any.
Medal of Honour doesn't have them. Delta Force doesn't have then.
Life doesn't have them.
Games shouldn't have them
Bosses? What?! Stupidity.
The founder guy has left. Probably going downhill now.
CM2 is a great game. The Guns Of Savo Island is just a fantastic RTS level.
The founder guy has left. Probably going downhill now.
CM2 is a great game. The Guns Of Savo Island is just a fantastic RTS level.
Dont think I shall be buying it then.
I liked the large levels and reasonable realism of the other games.
This is the kind of game I expect to buy for a console, not the PC.
I liked the large levels and reasonable realism of the other games.
This is the kind of game I expect to buy for a console, not the PC.
I thought the games were supposed to have some semblance of reality.
How are bosses anything to do with WW2 at all. Everyone was just as vulnerable as everyone else, that was one of the things about the war.
So what, now there is a general who can withstand tank shells, just because the developers want to make the levels easier?
How are bosses anything to do with WW2 at all. Everyone was just as vulnerable as everyone else, that was one of the things about the war.
So what, now there is a general who can withstand tank shells, just because the developers want to make the levels easier?
"Eidos has finally leaked more details about Commandos 3: Destination Berlin. The PC game will be released this summer powered by a new engine that enables players to rotate the environments and zoom in and out.
The structure of the gameplay has been completely revamped as well to accommodate smaller maps and more action-orientated missions.
The gameplay incorporates completely new situations for the tactical combat series - including ambushes and level bosses."
No.
The structure of the gameplay has been completely revamped as well to accommodate smaller maps and more action-orientated missions.
The gameplay incorporates completely new situations for the tactical combat series - including ambushes and level bosses."
No.
I did read somewhere that commandos 3 was going to be a bit more action orientated this time, and that together with this aweful sounding "boss" thing makes me believe the series could start going down hill after the second sequel.
A shame I think, commandos 2 is a great game it'd be terrible if the developers just pushed out all that what made the comandos games good just so they can try and appeal to a wider audience.
A shame I think, commandos 2 is a great game it'd be terrible if the developers just pushed out all that what made the comandos games good just so they can try and appeal to a wider audience.
You're joking right?
How the hell can they stick an end of level boss in there?
Bah.
I am now in a mood. Commandos 1&2 were brilliant. The sneaking, perfectly timed attacks, and tension as you just scrape round a corner with a body on your back before some enemy sees you.
Next thing they'll do is start whacking impossible ladders everywhere. Just for fun, the game will switch to first person and allow you to fall off every ladder in existence.
*Tries to imagine end of level bosses in Op flaspoint*
Nah, its gonna suck balls.
Unless, they are changing the idea of an end of level boss. If it is indeed some kind of mutant with one weakness, it will be rubbish.
However, if they stick you in some small level and you have to take out some heavily guarded general, it may be alright.
ish.
Still prefer they left it how it was though
How the hell can they stick an end of level boss in there?
Bah.
I am now in a mood. Commandos 1&2 were brilliant. The sneaking, perfectly timed attacks, and tension as you just scrape round a corner with a body on your back before some enemy sees you.
Next thing they'll do is start whacking impossible ladders everywhere. Just for fun, the game will switch to first person and allow you to fall off every ladder in existence.
*Tries to imagine end of level bosses in Op flaspoint*
Nah, its gonna suck balls.
Unless, they are changing the idea of an end of level boss. If it is indeed some kind of mutant with one weakness, it will be rubbish.
However, if they stick you in some small level and you have to take out some heavily guarded general, it may be alright.
ish.
Still prefer they left it how it was though
Work Bosses suck.
End of Work Bosses would suck harder.
Boss 2:Suck Harder
End of Work Bosses would suck harder.
Boss 2:Suck Harder
Goatboy wrote:
> End of Level Bosses suck.
> Life doesn't have them.
Imagine if life ever gets "end of post bosses"; I'm outta here bud. Having to fight your way through the spammer's and vacuous noob's detritus is one thing, but to then have to lure Megabusivetron into the pit of acceptance would be too much.
> End of Level Bosses suck.
> Life doesn't have them.
Imagine if life ever gets "end of post bosses"; I'm outta here bud. Having to fight your way through the spammer's and vacuous noob's detritus is one thing, but to then have to lure Megabusivetron into the pit of acceptance would be too much.
Commandos 3 released this summer.
Fantastic, I loved Commandos 2. One of the best tactical games on the PC evah.
Hooray for Commandos 3 then. Realistic (I'd imagine), involving, demanding, cerebral, exciting etc etc.
But they're about to throw all that away.
Why?
End of Level Bosses.
The bane of computer games, the tedious cliche forced upon an overfed gamer tired of working through a level only to be confronted by a generic super-badman. With 1 fatal weakness.
Always the way - HUGE KILLER UNSTOPPABLE MONSTER BOSS...oh, but if you stand on that platform and shoot that switch, water falls on him and he short circuits. We didn't plan for the eventuality we'd take our MEGANASTY outside at all.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein suffered from this standard. Atmospheric, realistic, tense. All the things a game should be, but regular as clockwork here comes an end-of-level-boss.
Why? Why must we suffer these moribund mini-threats. It doesn't make the game more fun to have to throw yourself endlessly at your foe until he gives in.
People moan about quicksaves ruining a game, I say end-of-level baddies are the David Hasselhoff of games - amusing once but now a bad idea.
They are, you can't deny it.
You take care and skill getting through a level. Your progress is down to your skill and time spent, carefully working your way through the various tests and traps laid out for you by the game designers. This is how it should be, a test of skill. Not like Tomb Raider when you get killed by an unseen trap the 1st time.
But your reward for playing well?
You have to zip about a handily placed arena-type room getting killed over and over until you learn the 1 vital weakness in End Level Villain.
And why put them in Commandos 3? Have I missed something here? Was WW2 interrupted frequently by oversized enemies?
Has Spielberg lied to me by not including the legendary Super Soldier with Laser Eyes in his war movies?
Was there a 30ft Robo-Hitler with an aversion to electricity?
So having planned and snuck through a level of Commandos 3 employing skill, timing and a knife from that Green Beret that says "I cain't do dat sir" or "This one's moine", you then have to defeat a generic, over-used cliche of level boss.
Rubbish.
We no more need end of level bosses than we need ladders in FPS or the instantly equipped and researced AI enemies you get in RTS.
Remember those chaps? Age of Empires etc, you're scrabbling around in the dirt trying to build fire and here comes the AI soldiers all with muskets and biplanes.
End of Level Bosses suck.
I don't want any.
Medal of Honour doesn't have them. Delta Force doesn't have then.
Life doesn't have them.
Games shouldn't have them
Fantastic, I loved Commandos 2. One of the best tactical games on the PC evah.
Hooray for Commandos 3 then. Realistic (I'd imagine), involving, demanding, cerebral, exciting etc etc.
But they're about to throw all that away.
Why?
End of Level Bosses.
The bane of computer games, the tedious cliche forced upon an overfed gamer tired of working through a level only to be confronted by a generic super-badman. With 1 fatal weakness.
Always the way - HUGE KILLER UNSTOPPABLE MONSTER BOSS...oh, but if you stand on that platform and shoot that switch, water falls on him and he short circuits. We didn't plan for the eventuality we'd take our MEGANASTY outside at all.
Rubbish. Utter rubbish.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein suffered from this standard. Atmospheric, realistic, tense. All the things a game should be, but regular as clockwork here comes an end-of-level-boss.
Why? Why must we suffer these moribund mini-threats. It doesn't make the game more fun to have to throw yourself endlessly at your foe until he gives in.
People moan about quicksaves ruining a game, I say end-of-level baddies are the David Hasselhoff of games - amusing once but now a bad idea.
They are, you can't deny it.
You take care and skill getting through a level. Your progress is down to your skill and time spent, carefully working your way through the various tests and traps laid out for you by the game designers. This is how it should be, a test of skill. Not like Tomb Raider when you get killed by an unseen trap the 1st time.
But your reward for playing well?
You have to zip about a handily placed arena-type room getting killed over and over until you learn the 1 vital weakness in End Level Villain.
And why put them in Commandos 3? Have I missed something here? Was WW2 interrupted frequently by oversized enemies?
Has Spielberg lied to me by not including the legendary Super Soldier with Laser Eyes in his war movies?
Was there a 30ft Robo-Hitler with an aversion to electricity?
So having planned and snuck through a level of Commandos 3 employing skill, timing and a knife from that Green Beret that says "I cain't do dat sir" or "This one's moine", you then have to defeat a generic, over-used cliche of level boss.
Rubbish.
We no more need end of level bosses than we need ladders in FPS or the instantly equipped and researced AI enemies you get in RTS.
Remember those chaps? Age of Empires etc, you're scrabbling around in the dirt trying to build fire and here comes the AI soldiers all with muskets and biplanes.
End of Level Bosses suck.
I don't want any.
Medal of Honour doesn't have them. Delta Force doesn't have then.
Life doesn't have them.
Games shouldn't have them