"True" Endings and Gated Content

[BQE]

I've recently completed quite a few games that I had either not finished or simply took a shine to and played until completion. Among them are: Walking Dead + 400 Days, Persona 4, X-COM:EU, Witcher 2 and Chrono Trigger.

I'm currently playing Agarest: Generations of War and after a little research, I found the game has multiple endings. The "True Ending" is only achieved by completed the game in less than 500 battles. This may seem like a large number but grinding is a near necessity in JRPGs such as these. Persona 4, Chrono Trigger, Agarest and many others have multiple endings with one considered canon, true, or the best.

When I put some serious thought into this, I found that the concept was rather infuriating. I hate being 'boxed in' to a certain playstyle or path in a game in order to achieve the ending considered the best. Hiding content behind a requirement as arbitrary as "Beat the game as fast as you can" is especially bothersome.

Why give people options if there is only one set path to unlock the most content?

I made this post partly to vent these thoughts that have perturbing me for some time, and to see if any of you suffer similar woes. Perhaps someone agrees that this method of storytelling is best.

What say you?

 

[Keoul]

Makes sense to me.
Having the "ideal" ending hidden behind requirements makes it an ending worth getting, you always feel better about these things if you put a lot of effort into it, obviously the best endings would require the most effort. Not to mention you're not really boxed into a certain play style at all. It's considered a challenge for the best ending, not the only ending, you don't have to get it. You could play however you want and still feel great when you reach the ending, if not then you strive to try again for a better ending.

And example would be my play through of Mass Effect 2. I had no idea what the upgrades to the ship were for and just didn't get em. It's no surprise that when it came to the suicide mission about 4 members died, It tore me up and in the end I replayed the entire thing start to finish to make sure every one of them survived. The bad ending I got spurred me on to do better to get the better ending.

 

[BQE]

I enjoy them as it usually involved the user being creative or sometimes just stumbling through the requirements. Sadly most games fall into the latter category where a person stumbles through to get the real ending if they don't have a checklist. Persona 4 actually does a decent job of letting you reach the true ending as long as you're careful and do some thinking. Other games like Valkyrie Profile (my favorite game ever) or Cross Edge require you to follow strict checkpoints or fail.

In P4's case I absolutely botched the hospital sequence several times. Was it necessary though?
Is it actually constructive for the game to fail you with a bad ending if you don't choose the correct chat options? Persona 4 is a great game, it also had quite a bit of arbitrary dialogue choices that didn't even impact conversation at times. I just can't concede the hospital sequence being improved by the decision to address the sequence as it was.

Makes sense to me.
Having the "ideal" ending hidden behind requirements makes it an ending worth getting, you always feel better about these things if you put a lot of effort into it, obviously the best endings would require the most effort. Not to mention you're not really boxed into a certain play style at all. It's considered a challenge for the best ending, not the only ending, you don't have to get it. You could play however you want and still feel great when you reach the ending, if not then you strive to try again for a better ending.

And example would be my play through of Mass Effect 2. I had no idea what the upgrades to the ship were for and just didn't get em. It's no surprise that when it came to the suicide mission about 4 members died, It tore me up and in the end I replayed the entire thing start to finish to make sure every one of them survived. The bad ending I got spurred me on to do better to get the better ending.

I can't abide this argument either. I can't see the reasoning in gating content like this, particularly if you're going to have 'levels' of successful endings rather than simply different outcomes. I feel that this is a method to artificially add playtime to a game I may not have the desire to play again.

I'll give an example of a game I beat multiple times: Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater. Such was my adoration for this game I immediately played it again to unlock the patriot gun, and again with the patriot gun and supercamo. Extra content such as this, or enhanced difficulties like Devil May Cry are acceptable. They don't hide significant content behind inane requirements. You aren't guilted into playing the game again (especially if it means trudging through tired content or battles)to see what should be seen in a normal playthrough.

 

[IllumInaTIma]

I don't really have a problem with a concept itself, it's how you execute it. Persona 3, for example, had just two endings, good and bad. And how do you decide which one you get? You just pick a dialogue option. Picked one, time skips couple months forward and world ends. Pick another and welcome to the path to the true ending. Compare it to Persona 4, where in order to get the best ending you actually had to think. You had to control your feelings, analyze the situation and then figure out who the culprit is. This is a really good execution.

 

[gavinmcinns]

I've recently completed quite a few games that I had either not finished or simply took a shine to and played until completion. Among them are: Walking Dead + 400 Days, Persona 4, X-COM:EU, Witcher 2 and Chrono Trigger.

I'm currently playing Agarest: Generations of War and after a little research, I found the game has multiple endings. The "True Ending" is only achieve by completed the game in less than 500 battles. This may seem like a large number but in a grinding is a near necessity in JRPGs such as these. Persona 4, Chrono Trigger, Agarest and many others have multiple endings with one considered canon, true, or the best.

When I put some serious thought into this, I found that the concept was rather infuriating. I hate being 'boxed in' to a certain playstyle or path in a game in order to achieve the ending considered the best. Hiding content behind a requirement as arbitrary as "Beat the game as fast as you can" is especially bothersome.

Why give people options if there is only one set path to unlock the most content?

I made this post partly to vent these thoughts that have perturbing me for some time, and to see if any of you suffer similar woes. Perhaps someone agrees that this method of storytelling is best.

What say you?

replay value. If the game is any good, this can be a god send. If it sucks, then who cares, sell it back to GameStop or something

 

[Another]

It depends on two things 1) I'm okay if the game lets me know there will be multiple outcomes (The Walking Dead) 2) The "True/Good Ending" is readily achievable. For example I thought Chrono Trigger had a True/Good end that was pretty easy to get. What I don't like is what Shin Megami Tensei 4 did and make the good ending a pain in the ass to get and screwing the 40 plus hours it took to get there.

*grumbles* stupid lawful ending bs.

 

[skywolfblue]

All endings should have enough leeway so that people can be flexible and still attain that end. An ending should never encourage munchkenism(min/maxing) to a degree where the game ceases to be fun and becomes a grind instead.

As already mentioned, Mass Effect 2 is a good example of a true/good ending system, everyone can attain the good ending by researching some upgrades and picking some squad mates who are well suited to the task they have to perform. You still have plenty of freedom to play the game as you see fit.

 

[BQE]

For the Persona 4 Hospital Sequence, yeah it's a little difficult to navigate; but as I've said that was nothing compared to something like Valkyrie Profile or Cross Edge. Fingering Adachi as the culprit and then not throwing Namatame in the tv is a few choices that take place near the end of the game. The only possible sidetrack from there is fighting Margaret, which you can still meet all the criteria for before you fight Adachi in the tv. Everything before that doesn't matter.

Now take something like Cross Edge which requires you to see multiple different scenes in different worlds in a short time frame. If you progress a small portion you lock yourself out of that scene, keep in mind that you are not alerted to the scenes at all and you have to walk around the map to find them. When you compare something like Persona to Cross Edge, the hospital scene is nothing a save load can handle. Cross Edge, is either going to be a fuck ton of backtracking or a pre-made checklist.

The thing about these games is that there's usually a sense of mystery. The fog, murders, and tv world of Persona; or the random worlds and character mashuups of Cross Edge. As the hero you don't realize there's something much more going on and if you miss out on something vital; you won't find your way to Inazami/Dark Baku.

As for Metal Gear Solid 3, entirely different game. RPG's tend to last much longer, even if you skip all the cutscenes and dialogue; so while you have the fortitude to go through Metal Gear numerous times, of course you'll be less likely to go through something like Cross Edge.

Thanks for putting the time into your post. I'd like to clarify first that the Metal Gear Solid 3 example was to illustrate a game I played more because I wanted to play it more, even it there was nothing left. The example also highlights certain things being gated, such as 'god' weapons or extra difficulties/modes.

As for your comment regarding the mystery and intrigue of the plot, my feelings are best explained as questioning the necessity of the storytelling mechanisms. I couldn't find an adequate plot synopsis for Cross Edge and, having not played the game, won't speak to it. Persona 4 on the other hand, foments serious disagreement with some of it's choices. It'd take quite a bit to convince that the barriers to the games content were done in the player's interest. I just can't see it! The True and Superduperultra True endings are walled off by some seriously bizarre things. I ask you, can you really say that obfuscating content in such a manner is to the game's merit? Some people might have conceivably been able to access the absolute best ending in that game without any sort of outside influence (internet, other people), I would certainly speculate that those people are few and far between.

Take what Keoul said here:

Having the "ideal" ending hidden behind requirements makes it an ending worth getting, you always feel better about these things if you put a lot of effort into it, obviously the best endings would require the most effort.

Despite the fact I think he may be begging the question (I hope that's the right fallacy, I took more time than I care to admit to try and figure it out; Someone correct me if I'm wrong), I just don't agree with this sort of notion. Why must the best endings require the most effort? The assumption that the player always feels better about achieving the most difficult ending is a pretty broad generalization that isn't based on any sort of evidence.

 

[Maximum Bert]

It really depends on the game as mentioned numerous times already Persona 4 is a game with multiple endings I didnt mind because it did it well but games that require a checklist of things to do that make no sense and you couldnt possibly know without feverishly scouring the world constantly (or using a guide) in order to get the `true` ending do irritate me.

In FFX-2 collecting everything was a pain in the ass and confusing as hell I still missed one orb thingy and so only got 99.something% completage and so I was never saw I got the true end (think I did).

Disgaea also does multiple endings correctly. The best endings arent even the canon endings either probably because the best endings require a stupid level of investment, so you can see the true endings without killing yourself.

I thought the thread was going to be about endings like in Asuras Wrath where it is actually locked behind a pay wall. This I cant stand I was so tempted to buy it as well because I really wanted to see what happened after that damn cliffhanger but I didnt in the end because I really did not want to support such disgusting practices.

 

[Keoul]

Despite the fact I think he may be begging the question (I hope that's the right fallacy, I took more time than I care to admit to try and figure it out; Someone correct me if I'm wrong)

I think you used the right fallacy, though I don't necessarily agree with it/

I just don't agree with this sort of notion. Why must the best endings require the most effort?

It's simple logic really, work harder to get better things. This is a driving point for a lot of games, basically every game. Terraria for example gets harder and harder as you play and while there isn't necessarily an ending to get there is loot which becomes harder and harder to get, therefore the better the loot the harder it is to get. This is applied to basically every mmorpg and rpg.

The assumption that the player always feels better about achieving the most difficult ending is a pretty broad generalization that isn't based on any sort of evidence.

True, this is not always the case however it usually is as the ending you work harder for is usually the better ending. However you are right that this is not always the case and it's not an "always" thing. What I should have wrote was
"you feel better about these things because you put a lot of effort into it and it feels like your effort has paid off"
If that still sounds like a broad generalization well then there's not much to say is there? I can exactly find a scientific report about an experiment conducted to find out the effort:enjoyment ratio. All I can make are assumptions and conjuncture. Though you do have to wonder why people even bother play on harder levels at all if what I've said was completely incorrect.

 

[BQE]

It really depends on the game as mentioned numerous times already Persona 4 is a game with multiple endings I didnt mind because it did it well but games that require a checklist of things to do that make no sense and you couldnt possibly know without feverishly scouring the world constantly (or using a guide) in order to get the `true` ending do irritate me.

I thought the thread was going to be about endings like in Asuras Wrath where it is actually locked behind a pay wall. This I cant stand I was so tempted to buy it as well because I really wanted to see what happened after that damn cliffhanger but I didnt in the end because I really did not want to support such disgusting practices.

This is a pretty suitable place to bring up the abhorrent practice as the one you've described.

As for your comment regarding P4, I'm forced to ask if the steps taken to achieve superior endings were only justified because of preceding gameplay.

If we agree that Persona 4 was a very well received game beloved by many, is it not fair to associate the whole rather than the end? I would postulate that on its own, the procedure to achieve specific endings that game would be reviled if they were more frequent. I would further say that it was because the player had developed a passion for the game to the point of clouding an objective analysis of what needed to be done to achieve endings.

A lot of people have difficulty being critical of something they care deeply about.

The assumption that the player always feels better about achieving the most difficult ending is a pretty broad generalization that isn't based on any sort of evidence.

True, this is not always the case however it usually is as the ending you work harder for is usually the better ending. However you are right that this is not always the case and it's not an "always" thing. What I should have wrote was
"you feel better about these things because you put a lot of effort into it and it feels like your effort has paid off"
If that still sounds like a broad generalization well then there's not much to say is there? I can exactly find a scientific report about an experiment conducted to find out the effort:enjoyment ratio. All I can make are assumptions and conjuncture. Though you do have to wonder why people even bother play on harder levels at all if what I've said was completely incorrect.

Perhaps I'm framing the arguement poorly. Let me ask you this: Why bother having multiple endings at all in a situation where they are rated 'best to worst'? Does this particular setup really add agreeable substance to the game? Why is it permissible to gate endings behind different 'levels of effort' so to speak? When endings are categorized by Bad, Normal, and True/Canon, is it really for the best? Multiple people in this thread alone have stated that when endings are behind something as dauting as replaying the entire game (especially a long one), they are markedly less attractive?

I suppose the other extreme though is the ending to Deus Ex: Human Revolution and the original Mass Effect 3 ending.

 

[Keoul]

Perhaps I'm framing the arguement poorly. Let me ask you this: Why bother having multiple endings at all in a situation where they are rated 'best to worst'? Does this particular setup really add agreeable substance to the game? Why is it permissible to gate endings behind different 'levels of effort' so to speak? When endings are categorized by Bad, Normal, and True/Canon, is it really for the best? Multiple people in this thread alone have stated that when endings are behind something as dauting as replaying the entire game (especially a long one), they are markedly less attractive?

I suppose the other extreme though is the ending to Deus Ex: Human Revolution and the original Mass Effect 3 ending.

It's ordered best to worse by the community, the ending you get is simply the outcome of your choices.
Don't forget that just because it's true/canon it doesn't mean it's something you need, games with endings like these are more often than not a result of the choices you make throughout the game. If a character dies due to your decisions you can't expect them to be alive in your ending now can you? Just like the example I gave about my play through of ME2.

Games with endings that require the player to go through something a lot more challenging to get the true ending are simply there as a reward, nothing more. Not getting the best ending isn't necessarily a bad thing and I think that's what you're missing, you don't need the true/canon ending you get what you get and if you want a better ending then you try again and try harder, you can get better.
And in regards to the part where you said multiple people said that a huge challenge makes these endings less attractive that's true, and I definitely won't deny it. However some people don't find that the case, previously you complained about persona 4's hospital scene and how getting the bad ending from simply getting a few chat options wrong is a bad thing. IllumInaTIma said he enjoyed it

in order to get the best ending you actually had to think. You had to control your feelings, analyze the situation and then figure out who the culprit is. This is a really good execution.

How much you desire the ending kinda depends on the gamer is what I'm saying and we can't exactly put this kinda thing in a black and white situation, not all gamers find a challenge attractive and not all gamers hate a challenge.

 

[Vegosiux]

The moment I read the title I just knew Agarest would pop up in the OP. You can grind to your heart's content in "quest" marked areas, the turn counter will not go up after the battles in those areas; only after battles and events on the overworld map.

Now, the EU Playstation version is fucked in that regard as it will count those battles too, but I suspect you're on Steam version, in which it does work the way I said.

It's simple logic really, work harder to get better things. This is a driving point for a lot of games, basically every game. Terraria for example gets harder and harder as you play and while there isn't necessarily an ending to get there is loot which becomes harder and harder to get, therefore the better the loot the harder it is to get. This is applied to basically every mmorpg and rpg.

I don't think the "gear treadmill" is a good analogy here, really. Nor does it apply to every RPG, many, including the aforementioned Agarest depend a lot more on how well you know the tactical battles. Yes, of course, bruteforcing via grinding is always an option, but if you know how to play your positioning and extended attacks, and manage your action points well, you won't need the top grade gear to beat the battles. It will help, yes, but you don't need it.

As for MMOs, well, I do not like the standard model of gear progression. It's a damned Skinner box and boy, am I glad to be out of it.

 

[Lil_Rimmy]

I like it. Complaining about being locked out of content because you didn't do a certain thing is kind of like complaining about being locked out of a dungeon because you can't beat the mobs. It's just on a bigger scale. Games should not make everything open and easy for you, otherwise they wouldn't be a game. It would just be a movie. I understand that some games will to be easier and harder, but if the game wants you to break your balls to get the best ending, then suck it up and do it, or just don't get the ending.

It's just like say, getting the mega weapon in some RPG. It's some insanely hard as hell quest with a million mobs guarding it and whatnot. Complaining that the game locks you out of it because it is really hard to get is pretty much the same as this.

 

[Rariow]

As long as the getting the true/good ending can be achieved through logical thought, I'm all for it. Gives the game some replayability, (as long as the base game is good enough to be replayed in itself, of course) and there's always the chance you'll be smart enough to get it the first time. Of course, if it's something that doesn't make sense or goes completely against the game's rules for the entire rest of the game, I call bullshit. If the game itself (and not one of the characters in the game) misleads you into not getting it that's also bullshit.

 

[Vegosiux]

I like it. Complaining about being locked out of content because you didn't do a certain thing is kind of like complaining about being locked out of a dungeon because you can't beat the mobs. It's just on a bigger scale. Games should not make everything open and easy for you, otherwise they wouldn't be a game. It would just be a movie. I understand that some games will to be easier and harder, but if the game wants you to break your balls to get the best ending, then suck it up and do it, or just don't get the ending.

It's just like say, getting the mega weapon in some RPG. It's some insanely hard as hell quest with a million mobs guarding it and whatnot. Complaining that the game locks you out of it because it is really hard to get is pretty much the same as this.

See, I might be just a cynical old curmudgeon, but every time this point is brought up in this kind of tone, all I hear is "Lol, I'm better than you, noob".

And honestly? Especially JRPGs have so many "Guide dang it" moments that getting the "best" ending means you either got lucky, or that you looked it up and had the knowledge of what the game is going to throw at you hours of gameplay before it actually happens.

Also funny you should say "It would just be a movie" while the talk in OP was about having to stick to one very precise path to get to a particular ending. Basically, you need to stick to the script and not make your own decisions. That sounds a lot more like a movie to me.

And it's not only JRPGs, Yahtzee for example complained several times that this or that RPG locks you into making decisions that "give you the most good/evil points" as opposed to decisions you as a player would actually want to make, if you don't want to fall into the "No points for neutrality" trap.

I prefer it if difficult challenges have many solutions. You want that Infinity plus One sword from the Cave of Doom that is guarded by Demons of Despair? Why is the only way to get it yourself, why isn't it possible to, for example, scour the world far and wide for exotic, rare items, sell them off and once you corner the global economy, hire your own mercenary contingent with the riches that brought you to help you out? That's still a lot of work. Why can't you set up an elaborate scheme to get an unwitting fool to do it for you, steering the events so that you still end up with the sword? That's still a lot of work. (But this one can be credited to AI limitations, not sure how a scheme on such a grand scale with so many variables could be reliably simulated, yes). Hell, why can't you walk up to the Demons and Despair and pretend you want to join their little cult, work your way up through the ranks (by doing undoubtedly evil deeds), and get your hands on the weapon that way? That's still a lot of work.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

I don't mind multiple endings as long as there aren't some dickish requirements that you need to know in advance to even fulfil.

As for working harder to get the best ending, it's not always the case. Disgaea 2, for example, has you working much harder to get the bad and worst endings, while for the normal one, you really don't need to do much (or it's very easy to meet the conditions anyway).

 

[Amaror]

I actually enjoy them and i don't find them hard to reach. That being said i only play western rpgs which tend to have better requirements.
In Mass Effect 2 for example, it never occured to me to NOT get every single possible upgrade before the last mission, since i am a completionist. And the people you need to choose to let everyone survive are just logical.
I didn't even know that people can die on that mission ^^.

 

[krazykidd]

Why do people feel the need to get the " true" ending? I'm sure the regular ending(s) isn't bad , just to get the best one you need to put some effort . If you don't want to don't do it. I like little extra challenge in my games.

That being said, with youtube , these things are obsolete other than for braging rights.

 

[BQE]

I appreciate all the input and ideas in this thread folks, I'll try and reply to as much as I can.

The moment I read the title I just knew Agarest would pop up in the OP. You can grind to your heart's content in "quest" marked areas, the turn counter will not go up after the battles in those areas; only after battles and events on the overworld map.

Vegosiux, you know me better than I know myself. We must enjoy more words together.

I suppose I don't mind, I can always youtube the ending if I really want to.

However, the game needs to be good enough for me to warrant to dig through for the ending. Take Nier for example. Sure sure, I hear the ending is great, and subsequently the other 3. But it's so damn boring and repetitive I never got past the whole desert city part.

The trouble with this option is that, from what I've seen, not all the dialogue is captured in these youtube replays. However, if worse comes to worst, I won't hesitate to look it up.

It bothers me too, especially Persona 4.
You have talked to everyone, now go home.

Hmm, one minute, I'll go to Junes *activates elevator*
There is nothing more to do here, go home
Oh, okay then *goes home, gets normal ending*

Turns out, despite the game telling you to go home and that there was nothing in Junes, I had to prompt it again to get the message to go to the food court and lock me into the True Ending, thanks for fucking me out of the true ending the first time round game, the worst part is, its completely uncalled for, why couldn't it just say "would you like to go to the food court" first? Why would I go back after the game tells me to fuck off home? Its just as bad as the annoying hospital scene, it wouldn't be so bad if you didn't have to flick through a literal 30 minutes of dialogue again because you might have accidentally slipped up and made a wrong choice.

The Accomplice ending in fucking Persona 4 Golden was better done, at least that was a simple Yes/No question, no cryptic hidden bullshit that would waste time if the game deemed it incorrect.

I love multiple endings, but having a "true" ending makes the other endings feel shallow and unnecessary. Persona 3 had such a choice near the end and it was a simple Yes/No as well, the game tells you what each decision will entail.

Devil Survivor didn't have a true ending, it had 5 ending routes that had radically different outcomes, making the endings carry more weight, each one felt conclusive (except Yuzu's, but you are told the consequences and you are given a chance to make up for it in Overclocked)

Tizzy, thank you for encapsulating the emotional response to these situations so poignantly. I honestly couldn't of expressed it better. I did the same exact thing as you did after the Aeon dungeon and was defeated the same way. There is simply satisfactory explaination for something so arbitrary. You capture my ideas very well and I wholeheartedly agree with your sentiments.

As long as the getting the true/good ending can be achieved through logical thought, I'm all for it. Gives the game some replayability, (as long as the base game is good enough to be replayed in itself, of course) and there's always the chance you'll be smart enough to get it the first time. Of course, if it's something that doesn't make sense or goes completely against the game's rules for the entire rest of the game, I call bullshit. If the game itself (and not one of the characters in the game) misleads you into not getting it that's also bullshit.

I don't mind multiple endings as long as there aren't some dickish requirements that you need to know in advance to even fulfil.

As for working harder to get the best ending, it's not always the case. Disgaea 2, for example, has you working much harder to get the bad and worst endings, while for the normal one, you really don't need to do much (or it's very easy to meet the conditions anyway).

You two hit the point as well. When serious parts of the game are hidden behind bizarre and perplexing methods of unlocking them, it doesn't do well for anyone involved. Most are oft frustrated with needless complications that bar content.