It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Afwul endgame design?(65 posts)(65 posts)
(65 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted July 29, 2013
Nothing can beat galactic vacuum cleaner in Freelancer.
Posted July 29, 2013
Neverwinter Nights 2. Rocks fall, everybody dies.

You wrap up all your side quests and everything. You rest, you memorize spells, you restock, all your standard last night at the inn business. You go off to fight the big bad. You kill the big bad (and likely some of your friends). Then you fight the big bad's boss. You kill the Boss. The main opponent. Dead as a doornail. And then bam, the temple/cave/whatever collapses and its a TPK. Everybody dies in a cave-in that had zero foreshadowing leading up to it.

It's such a WTF? kind of moment. In fact you as a player are more rewarded if you choose the psychotic chaotic evil path as opposed to the cannon good/neutral path because then at least you get to keep the castle you've been remodeling for the last half of the game.
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
Arteveld: Oh, the old 8bit ones that gave You a "GAME OVER" screen once they were finished.
If you're lucky, most of those games would just throw faster enemies at you and go on and on and on and on.....

=P

And what about Karateka, after defeating hordes of samurais to save the princes she would just :spoiler:! >(
Post edited July 29, 2013 by Strijkbout
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
Telika: Ciffhangers.

To be resolved in the sequel that we'll make soon if, uh, what ? Oh.
This is especially bad when said games never have their sequels, or when they were originally planned as a single game but, for some reason (in the case of Soul Reaver/Soul Reaver 2, technical limitations -- the game just wouldn't fit a reasonable amount of discs, if they tried releasing it as they planned), they have to cut it in two or more parts, and the developing time between them is way too long.

[EDIT] It's kind of sad that almost no one is mentioning actually badly designed endgames, but rather focusing on the final bosses' difficulty... especially when talking about old games. Well, those games were designed to be hard, they were designed to be games and not the interactive "immersive" movies that today's AAA games tend to be. You had to be good at it to finish it, with no such thing as Steam achievements to show the world how much of a bad-ass you are.
Post edited July 29, 2013 by groze
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
Melhelix: Neverwinter Nights 2. Rocks fall, everybody dies.

You wrap up all your side quests and everything. You rest, you memorize spells, you restock, all your standard last night at the inn business. You go off to fight the big bad. You kill the big bad (and likely some of your friends). Then you fight the big bad's boss. You kill the Boss. The main opponent. Dead as a doornail. And then bam, the temple/cave/whatever collapses and its a TPK. Everybody dies in a cave-in that had zero foreshadowing leading up to it.

It's such a WTF? kind of moment. In fact you as a player are more rewarded if you choose the psychotic chaotic evil path as opposed to the cannon good/neutral path because then at least you get to keep the castle you've been remodeling for the last half of the game.
More of a bad endgame closure, which (I believe) wasn't what the TC was aiming for, but still, damn that sucks. I was gonna go into NWN games a lil' later (after FC 3...and Arcanum perhaps) but knowing now it will all end in such a lackluster fashion, makes me kinda want to postpone the whole playthroughs even further.
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
Melhelix: *snip*
The expansion picks up from that and makes the ending a bit more palatable. Still, I know that it's a bit like being shot for seemingly no reason and hearing the motive in afterlife.
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
Telika: Ciffhangers.

To be resolved in the sequel that we'll make soon if, uh, what ? Oh.
avatar
groze: This is especially bad when said games never have their sequels
You don't say. Condemned 2: Bloodshot. For fuck's sake. The first one had a cliffhanger (well sort of) too, and even that was risky. It was a really good game however, and apparently gained enough fans in order to justify a sequel.

And the sequel was good too...until about midway/endgame when they pretty much wrote themselves into a corner (via the power of Street Fighter style vocal Hadoukens), yet still had the nerve to end on a cliffhanger. And guess what? Yup, not even a word of Condemned 3 all this time. I am eternally bitter about this.
Posted July 29, 2013
I'm surprised nobody mentioned Rage yet. Horrible endgame. If it were any other action game, it feels like it would be the part that leads into the climax at the middle of the story. What it doesn't feel like is an appropriate ending point, especially since the game just ends before anything really exciting occurs.

While I had fun with the side stuff in the game, the actual story was just anticlimactic event after anticlimactic event. I was really let down with that aspect of the game. For all the years it took iD to make it, they didn't flesh out the plot or storyline gameplay aspects nearly as much as they should have.
Posted July 29, 2013
In recent memory: i recently finished cave story + and the ending was terrible for me because it was so hard. I know how this sounds and i hate myself for it (i love oldshool hard games) but a lot of the bosses in that game i beat with the skin of my teeth. But then the ending: 4 bossfights in a row without checkpoints or health powerups. Now that is brutal. I was just about to throw the towel when by some miracle i succeeded.

Also the endings of amnesia and penumbra were a major let down. they know how to make good atmosperic games but they have no idea how to end them (frictional games).
Posted July 29, 2013
Just playing through Mark of the Ninja.

Been a nice slealthy little ninja, sneaking past traps, creeping up to the bad guys and slitting their throats before they spot me.

Now Im dumped in this QTE sequence with these super-mech-ninja's with perfect 360 degree night vision and instant death laser guns all round me. Only escape is to jump around like a demented kangaroo on steroids in precisely the correct sequence of jumps from plaform to platform.

No, not out of chara\cter for the rest of the game much.

I hope its the end game ... please let it be the endgame.

I had to go and play some point-and-click to calm me down.
Post edited July 29, 2013 by brianhutchison
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
groze: [EDIT] It's kind of sad that almost no one is mentioning actually badly designed endgames, but rather focusing on the final bosses' difficulty... especially when talking about old games. Well, those games were designed to be hard, they were designed to be games and not the interactive "immersive" movies that today's AAA games tend to be. You had to be good at it to finish it, with no such thing as Steam achievements to show the world how much of a bad-ass you are.
I've not played most of the games mentioned here, but I do think a distinction should be drawn between boss fights that are hard simply because the difficulty level is insane and boss fights that are hard because they are badly designed. Now people may disagree about any individual case - about difficulty versus design of a particular endgame boss fight - but I think it is fair to say that some boss fights in some games are simply not well designed and are difficult because of that poor design rather than out-and-out difficulty. If one can back up with rational reasons that a particular end-game boss fight is hard because of bad design, then it is a fair post to make even if not everyone agrees. It's also the case that poor design may make the boss fight easier than the rest of the game or simply so substantially different from the rest of the game's gameplay (and may be easier or harder because of that) that one has to question the boss fight from a design perspective.
Post edited July 29, 2013 by crazy_dave
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
tburger: Nothing can beat galactic vacuum cleaner in Freelancer.
Maybe it was a Spaceballs homage?
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
crazy_dave: A little different I think from the posts above, but I find 4X space strategy games tend to get less interesting in the end-game - and not just because you are simply rolling through what is left of your opponents. Technology simply reaches a point where it becomes so overwhelming that there is little real strategy necessary anymore.
This reminded me of Ground Control (a real-time strategy, but still). Unless you cock things up terribly, you will have something like four aircraft squadrons (four planes in each, I think) towards the end of the first campaign. Once you unlock the bomber, the campaign is officially over. A bomber squadron annihilates everything faster than the enemy can fire back, reducing the final mission to deploying everything, leaving your ground forces behind, and sending your sixteen bombers to wreck the enemy anti-air units and level their base. This takes no longer than five minutes and can be performed without taking any casualties. It also makes the ending cutscene look ridiculous, with its smouldering allied tanks and wounded soldiers and things.
Posted July 29, 2013
avatar
crazy_dave: I've not played most of the games mentioned here, but I do think a distinction should be drawn between boss fights that are hard simply because the difficulty level is insane and boss fights that are hard because they are badly designed. Now people may disagree about any individual case - about difficulty versus design of a particular endgame boss fight - but I think it is fair to say that some boss fights in some games are simply not well designed and are difficult because of that poor design rather than out-and-out difficulty. If one can back up with rational reasons that a particular end-game boss fight is hard because of bad design, then it is a fair post to make even if not everyone agrees. It's also the case that poor design may make the boss fight easier than the rest of the game or simply so substantially different from the rest of the game's gameplay (and may be easier or harder because of that) that one has to question the boss fight from a design perspective.
I totally agree with you, the fact is that I don't think multi-stage boss fights are a design flaw (unless, of course, it's a 10 stage boss fight, like the OP mentioned, that would be just ludicrous, unless there was something else to it). I had to grind my way through the Bloody Mary boss, on Terranigma (not even the end boss, mind you), but does that make the boss flawed? Sure, she was hard, but was pretty well designed, otherwise; it is possible to beat her, you just memorize her somewhat randomized patterns of attack and make sure you take a LOT of healing potions/rings with you, and then you prepare for a half-hour fight. When you beat her, the sense of fulfillment and accomplishment couldn't be greater. Obviously, when the game doesn't give you the tools and the chances to beat a certain boss, that's just plain poor design, and should count as the developer's fault, not the player's.
Posted July 29, 2013
I vaguely recall a fantasy platformer game on the SNES without savegames where you need to make a choice after beating the final boss.

One is the good choice and one is the bad choice leading to a lousy ending.

As my English skills were not that good at the time, I made the bad choice.

That was on the last day of a two day rental.

That's about the only thing I remember about the game. Ironic isn't it?
Post edited July 29, 2013 by Magnitus
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Afwul endgame design?(65 posts)(65 posts)
(65 posts)