Personally I think not as they make a goal to aim towards and most bosses are the memorable characters in a game. But I've heard say they should stay in the past, what does others think.

No.

No it should not.

End game bosses are a good thing. They can help give a feel of accomplishment when you beat the game. Also if the game has been driven by a story, killing the main bad guy at the end gives a nice sense of closure.

If the game gives the option to keep exploring the open world after the boss is dead, that is fine. Still having one is better than none.

Absolutely not. It is a thing that always bothered me in western developed RPG's. They often do not have bosses or only normal enemies with higher stats and a special name as bosses. I'm glad that this has changed in the past years.

I whish I would get paid every time someone said "game element X is a relict of the past", then I would burn 99% of the cash to stop inflation and I'd still be the richest person in the world.

Oh yes, please just get rid of them already. I welcome a good challenge at the end of the game, but presenting this challenge in a form of a few actors with a crapload of HP is just bad, bad design IMO - they're fine in some genres of course, but in most games, I really could do without.

It depends. In more modern games, end boss fight is a endless QTE sequence plus some retarded way to kill the boss...

It's not a challenge as it used to be. I don't feel any acomplishement from Spacing my enemy to death. THIS.

I always thought D3D's bosses where far to easy :(

The Battlelord = Circle strafe with Rocket Launcher until dead.

The Overlord and Cycloid Emperor = Circle strafe with Devastator until dead.

The Queen is the only hard boss, but it's only because you have to fight her underwater.

I forgot to mention that while I love FPS games, I'm not actually that good at them.

Depends on the genre and the particular game. But to be honest I've seen few games where I considered the boss battles just irritating - not counting the bosses who just are too hard (for example I considered the first boss battle in Devil May Cry 3 ridiculously difficult, at least in comparison to the challenges you had to deal with up to that point). But Dawn of War 2 would certainly be a negative example. It was a very bad attempt to make the gameplay less monotonous - at the cost of introducing both gameplay and content that just doesn't fit the rest of the game. The battles were long and boring and it just seemed absurd that a squad that just decimated legions of minor enemies would have such trouble fighting one guy whose looks suggest that he should only be slightly stronger than his buddies.

Generally I appreciate boss battles a whole damn lot, many games just won't feel complete without them and a "no boss battles" philosophy seems absolutely moronic to me. That some devs fail to create good ones doesn't mean that they are a bad idea in general. :P

The end boss in DMC 3 was the best thing ever! Both of the encounters with him (end and mid-game) were utterly brilliant, one of the most adrenaline-filled, hectic, yet manageable battles I've ever seen in videogames.

Personally I'm not fond of bullet sponges at any point in the game. Sometimes bosses aren't so bad though, as long as they're handled right. Borderlands 1&2 were both pretty good on the boss front, even if the ending to the first game made no sense until the second one turned up.

It depends on the game really. Some game mechanics really do ask for a boss fight, others really do not.

Without making too much in the form of spoilers, Thief: The Dark Project had an awesome "boss fight" at the end that wasn't so much of a fight as it was being a sneaky badass. I thought it was a memorable way to go out at the end.