For example, would you prefer a game where every stage/dungeon has a boss, or would you prefer games where bosses are used sparingly?

For example, if we look at the Phantasy Star series, PS2 has only 3 real boss fights (not counting the one you aren't intended to win (and that the game becomes unwinnable if you somehow do)). On the other hand, PS4 has bosses at the end of almost any dungeon.

Do you prefer games where bosses are commonplace, or when boss fights are reserved for those major battles that come only rarely in the game?

(Of course, this discussion only applies to genres that typically have boss fights, so it doesn't really apply to genres like strategy, puzzle (except some action puzzle games, though not Tetris-likes), (pure) adventure games, and visual novels.)

It depends on the game and has to be done right based on the context. Having unconditional bosses fight in a stealth game is bad. If it's an action shooter, no boss, weak boss or easy bosses in the end is big let down.

Bosses are tied in with the ending and required to give satisfactory end to the game. The most egregious thing are unfinished games with cliff hanger and a forced bosses that doesn't add to the story and you don't give a crap about, ie. Witcher 2, Deus Ex - Mankind Divided. Aka flagrance cash grab. Other examples: No Man's Sky, Kane and Lynch 2.

I like it if bosses are like in DOOM.

If they are alike "The Last Remnant" bosses, why not?

It depends on the game's genre and style. Even within a genre, for example RPGs, there are important differences. A somewhat linear game, like many JRPGs, profit from multiple boss battles throughout the story, they keep it interesting through variation and represent important milestones. Other RPGs, for example the Gothic series, with a huge open world, don't really work with bosses, rather they have many more or less dangerous regular creatures.

Anyway, it's clearly not possible to give a general this or that answer. I personally don't really care.

Interesting question. Depends on the game and how they are done. Bosses tend to be bullet sponges with a set pattern of attacks. I'm okay with this in RPGs (sometimes), ARPGs, SHMUPs or side scrollers but I don't really like them in FPSs.

Some bosses can be really bad. The end boss in Risen is probably the worst I've seen in a game. Before I played Risen, the worst was Morrowind. Who woulda thought a naked guy wearing a huge mask and could be killed in 5 hits could cause so much trouble? Or Painkiller: Overdose where the first boss was just a large version of a regular enemy, lazy and boring.

Some bosses can be quite good though. The bosses in Planescape: Torment, Fallout 1 and Fallout: Tactics could be handled through dialog. I also liked the boss battles in Spacechem as they did bring a bit of variety to the puzzles in the game.

I think it really depends on how the game is set up. Having bosses most levels can be kind of nice if the game progresses towards the player being more or less a god. It's nice to have something big to clobber regularly.

But, OTOH, bosses require some thought to design and a lot of designers are too lazy to do it right.

I like when I am boss in company or dungeon.

A well-done boss is fine. A poorly done boss is not. If a game has bosses that almost require a specific character build in order to defeat particular bosses, then I have a problem with that type of design. Ditto if the boss is built in such a way that you're essentially done for if she gets a single hit on you. Encountered that a few times in Titan Quest, for example, where I'd be hit with some sort of paralyzing attack and that was that.

It's always awkward when my boss is there.

BEST ANSWER

Boss-heavy; in fact, boss rushes are often among my favorite modes on any game that has it, like the GBA Castlevanias.

Of course some bosses are poorly designed, and of course some games, or even entire companies--SNK I'm looking at you--are full of such annoyances, but in general, I find a reasonably-designed boss is often the only way you have to experiment with the game's full set of combat options and linking long chains of attacks, without the enemy dying on step #1.

Depends on genre.

I was a fan of this obscure JRPG called Beyond the Beyond, and always found it weird that you didn't fight your first boss until about a third of the way through the game.

Then there was Quake, which only had two unique bosses, and the final boss you beat simply by jumping into a teleporter at the right time.

Shadowrun for the SNES is an interesting example. Is Drake considered the final boss? You had one last dungeon after him, filled with generic high level enemies, and then a final pseudo-Minesweeper hacking game.

So I guess I just like when games do something weird or unconventional with bosses.

Both, as too much of one becomes boring as hell, variety & all that jazz.
Maybe a option to add them more often would work, not attached to difficulty.

Hmm, I think I would prefer a boss heavy game, so long as they are all done well and significantly unique in visual design (not just palette swaps of enemies and other bosses.)