Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine guardians were fun to fight.
TellTale's "boss fights" at the end of their episodes are pretty fun (most notably Tales of Monkey Island final confrontation and some of Sam and Max "bosses").
Planescape: Torment was very creative about the final guy.
Good bosses and bossfights should must with us.

I admire your cool Nirth - my archnemesis was THAT tentacle thingy, and I was not exactly lol'ed about it then, and not too much even now!

Well, my frustrations do probably play into my dislike of these scripted type battles, but I still find personally more enjoyable - and far superior for replay value - when you can tackle a given battle in a number of ways.

I haven't played TellTale's games and Infernal Machine but if I recall the bosses were annoying in Indiana Jones on snes, at least when I was a kid. I replayed it a few years ago on an emulator and even without state saves the entire game was a lot easier than I had remembered so I can't fault the game but then again, easy bosses may not be a good design as well, then they could feel as filler content.

As for Planescape Torment the last boss is a very good example of a boss fitting the game and in general, a boss fight you would want in most games except perhaps for arcade FPS. My personal choice was diplomatic but I still faught him to see how someone with real powers can do.

An example of a broken boss fight was the target in the 8th in Hitman: Codename 47. I watched a YouTube movie where I guy used a machine gun and used up about 300 ammo before he died. One bullet should have sufficed both because it fits the game as it tries to be rather realistic but also because I don't want to sit there and try to avoid his 4 or 5 bullets before I died when he survived 300.

I want epic boss fights!

Nothing is more anticlimatic than dealing with too easy boss, like Unreal 1, where I killed the end boss with 2 shots (my little brother killed with one) -> just fully upgrade the first weapon and use the damage multiplyer...

I dont mind puzzles, but they better be epic ;)

RAGE would've been so much better without the final boss.

Certainly not the case in Infernal Machine where you have to avoid the boss, steal obiect he's guarding and figure out how to use the obiect to defeat your adversary.
In TellTale games boss fights are basically enviroment-oriented puzzles.

I don't think he was meant to be fought with - certain winged enemy gave me much harder fight.

As the game is basically portrayed as one that should be looked from multiple perspectives I believe the developers' intentions were that it was your choice and basically tricking you into fighting. The easy answer is to run in and fight but they made him powerful so you might die and then have to reload, hopefully one saves before the dialogue and if I recall right there's an auto-save in that exact moment.

As for his stats, I thought the winged enemy and the night hag were harder so for immersion that was a little disappointed especially after his boasting about him being able to forge planes. Not that it would make sense if he actually was that powerful during gameplay but I think you get my point.

I found him a poor boss, when your final boss is easier than most the normal enemies then you might as well not have him. Worse is that he's not Caesar, he's some Legate that I don't know or care about. That guy was pointless.

Also if the option to circumvent the boss battle should have challenge, if there is an option to talk a boss from a fight, it should be like an LA Noir Interrogation or Deus Ex: HR dialog battles. (shame they didn't use these for the boss battles, would probably have made DE:HR one of the best games of all time if they did that.) Make the player earn it. Instead NV was: I have 100 speech! I Win! Roll Lazy epilogue! If the player isn't going to earn it, then just don't have a boss battle.

Depends on the game. Some end-game bosses are fun, some are not.

Indeed. One of the fairly rare cases (IMO) where the story telling element was absolutely great: Neverwinternights 2 finale.

Spoiler alert:

One of the best acted characters of any RPG (Bishop) appears owing up his motives for the grand show-down, reframing a lot of his actions - and then the lines of the battle shall be set according to your in-game choices towards the world and your compagnions. As the jealosy factor actually influences what Bishop will do, and how emphatetic his divided loyalties are, I do have to make a reservation that the writing might work better in this case for a female main character. Have not played the game as a fellow.

Spoiler ends.

Actually, the final battle felt almost irrelevant in outcome, with such story-driven build up - plus I also thought that the reaver battle before the boss fight in NWN2 was insanely difficult in comparison!

It's not the concept per se that is annoying, it's just bad implementation of the concept. Personally, I like the idea if it makes the finale exciting, challenging and fun. But it's a thin line between that and totally frustrating. And what from my experience often makes it frustrating is when such boss battles drag on for too long, meaning you'd have to invest a lot of time when retrying and doing a lot of things over again.

It's no fun to die for one small mistake after struggling to stay alive and slowly diminishing the HP of a boss for more 5-10 minutes or so. It's no fun if you can hardly harm a boss and there is no other trick but to slowly chip away at his HPs for all eternity. It's no fun if you have to fight more than three forms of a boss without saving when each battle in itself is epic already and you first have to learn how to defeat him, at high risk of life, like: barely survive first fight, get killed while learning how to manage second fight, repeat first fight, get killed in second again, repeat first fight, barely survive second fight, get killed while learning how to manage third fight, repeat first fight, repeat second fight, get killed in third fight etc. etc. This might work in some cases, but it becomes extremely repetitive and frustrating quickly, if the battles are not fun or drag on for too long.

I have a few games that I nearly played through and mostly enjoyed all the way but then abandoned because of the frustrating difficulty curve in the finale, and IMO that should not be the goal of a developer, to make the finale extra frustrating. It should be challenging, but still enough fun to make players want to try again instead of making them rage-quit.

My first character was a weak, durable and charismatic warrior and I missed a lot of things that'd help me in that final battle (I had one important tool, but lacked knowledge of how to use it; I missed one important clue about one thing I had from the very beginning; my will and wits weren't strong enough to back my charisma). That character had to beat the final boss to death with his hammer and surprisingly did it without breaking a sweat (probably due to the fact that EO levels up with NO - I was weak and low-level and so was he).

I had some troble with that winged one, but I get what you mean. The same people tried to do the same with Darth Nihilus in KotOR2 - he had such a great buildup, they gave you so many reasons to hate him and fear him, they allowed you to make certain sacrifices during the battle to weaken your enemy... and in the end they put enemy so weak (stat-wise) you could easily beat him to death bare hands.

When you build a stealthy sniper and he gets a good clean head shoot in, then I prefer it if the target is dead. Anything else is just silly and break the immersion. And he is not easier then normal mobs if you go head to head with him. He is a human person, not a bulletproof super hero.

well my experience was that he was pretty bulletproof, it took 3 gauss rifle shots in the head for me to kill him, but the thing was that he was easier, he stood no chance against me, I beat him twice with no effort, (the game crashed first time he died and the ending didn't trigger.) The game was pretty meh for stealth anyways, though then again, only Deus Ex series and the Thief series got it right. It was a bad anticlimax with nothing a good way was to have the stealth section where sniping possible but it needed to take more than one good shot, Heck I think it would ruin immersion since Caesar's legion could not crumble when Caesar died but this Random Legate is all it takes for them to split up and Run. The Ending Sequence to NV shouldn't have been killing one dude but to perhaps capture key points, cutting supplies, destroying the chain of command or causing a change that would make Caesar's Legion broken. I could buy it if the one guy that I killed was Caesar but it wasn't, he died off screen and it didn't break the legion, so it showed the legion could survive the death of their supreme leader but they couldn't survive the killing of this one guy that only recently got the position? As a sniper I should ahve to earn that glorious headshot but it wasn't earned, it was just a given for going across the bridge.

Well, Fallout did have a nice boss fight at the end, no?