Endgame done right

[Lysen]

Let's talk a bit about endgame and how it is done in classic RPGs. Take Baldur's Gate for example. In my opinion, endgame wasn't particularly fun, to say the least. Why? Remember the dungeon under the thieves guild in the city? It was a complete disaster, especially for a low-level party. You have to find your way through a maze stuffed with very tough enemies and dangerous traps. Then you enter an underground city, also a very boring basically linear area, and follow to the temple and final battle. The only good thing about it was the enemy adventuring party. I think fighting them were actually more fun than killing Sarevok himself.

 

The problem is, BioWare used the same approach in every their game since then. The last one that I finished was Mass Effect 2. What we have as an endgame there? The same boring combat sequence, and they made it even more linear. It was terrible. Of course, you could get your party killed or save them all, but it didn't really change anything because saving or killing them was really easy to achieve and it felt more like a fake choice, a failed attempt to make things more interesting.

 

Now, how to do it right. The most perfect example is, of course, Fallout. You could get to the Master in the vault under Cathedral without killing anyone - if you had monks' robes on and didn't bring companions. They will just let you through, assuming that you are one of them! No combat at all. And you could actually convince the Master himself to blow the place up, assuming that you had high speech check or found a certain holotape. It was awesome. Of cource, you could just kill everyone, Master included. The key is to make combat just one of the options to achieve your goal.

[Monte Carlo]

Ha ha ha. I'm writing the end of a story. Looking at it in the cold light of day I see a glaring mistake: I lost track of the plot elements and ended up writing the end to a slightly different tale.

 

Hmmm.

 

So I'd say that a game ending should be about wrapping up what went before in a satisfying, and challenging, manner. The protagonist (i.e. you) should have changed in some way (the obvious one in a CRPG is in power and status). This is often done via the epic 'end boss' but as you point out (a la Fallout) as long as that final confrontation is resolved in a manner consistent with your character, and the changes in them, then it's all good.

 

Sorry I don't have a brilliant prospectus for P:E, but those are the broad brushstrokes IMHO.

[Starwars]

I would like to avoid the whole "fight through an army of enemies and mini-bosses and the final boss and, oh yeah, that boss was a fake-out so here's the REAL boss" stuff. Or at the very least, I hope they will provide different paths through that stuff as well through use of skills.

[Monte Carlo]

More than one way to complete the game would be cool. A 'vanquish' option, a 'peace' option, a 'sneaky' option... all of which unlock as you go along.

[Wolfenbarg]

There's nothing wrong with having the game end with a battle, it just has to be built up properly. If New Vegas ended without a huge battle, that would have sold all of its build up short. Same with games like Dragon Age, Mass Effect 2, or Neverwinter Nights 2. Those games weren't so much about self discovery as they were about finding the courage and the resources to face a monumental threat. Forgoing a traditional ending in those cases would have made their build pointless. On the other hand, forcing games like Fallout, Morrowind, or Planescape: Torment to have a single traditional path for an ending would have sucked. It depends on the game and the story they're trying to tell more than anything.

[rjshae]

Perhaps it's not for everybody, but I really enjoyed a couple of the "endings" to Fallout 3; both the Liberty Prime march through the city and the satellite strike in the Broken Steel DLC. I think the distinguishing feature in each case is that the actions of the player finally trigger something larger than themselves, which then proceeds to absolutely kick butt. It felt like an accomplishment.

[True_Spike]

I would actually enjoy fighting through an *actual army* to get to my final destination, but that would be very hard to implement. Besides, we don't know what the final goal of the game is, it's supposed to be more about self-discovery rather than going up against someone or something.

 

I remember when I finally made Yaga-Shura (in BG2:ToB) mortal and came back to the city only to see it in shatters. The swift introduction was brilliantly read and the epic music (bhallspawn battle, one of my favourite tracks in the entire game) started to play. I brazed through the first opponents with ease and, after a minute or two, fought my way towards Yaga-Shura himself. As poorly as the encounter was done (due to technical limitations, I assume), the sheer atmosphere of it (the music, the setting, the plot) made the blood in my veins boil. It was so much fun to do.

 

http://youtu.be/4V6ayeiKkT4

Edited October 12, 2012 by True_Spike

[Luckmann]

Endings done right: Throne of Bhaal, Knights of the Old Republic, Arcanum, Mass Effect 2.

Endings done wrong: Mask of the Betrayer, Knights of the Old Republic 2, Mass Effect 3.

[limaxophobiacq]

What's your reason for disliking the MotB ending? Was it the crusade not really going anywhere or getting anything accomplished which I guess was kind of anticlimatic or something else? I personally found it pretty satisfying still, the endless fights against Melissan in ToB not so much.

[Uomoz]

Am I the only one who absolutely loves ending a cRPG with a super boss battle? The battle vs Sarevok could be done better but cutting him down felt so good

[rjshae]

Am I the only one who absolutely loves ending a cRPG with a super boss battle? The battle vs Sarevok could be done better but cutting him down felt so good

 

Yes, done well it can be enjoyable... for a while. But I often find myself skipping big boss battles these days. They start to seem like the same old same old; lots of minions to cut through followed by the final drawn out epic whack fest.

[Tale]

Am I the only one who absolutely loves ending a cRPG with a super boss battle? The battle vs Sarevok could be done better but cutting him down felt so good

Every single final battle in a BG game is the bane of my existence.

 

Planescape and Arcanum's were far more satisfying.

[Domigorgon]

Well, it sure helps that you are able to utilize ALL of your skills in the final battle, not just your prowess with a blade.

 

Planescape: Torment did this right. There was a bunch of ways to end the game, and more than one dialogue-only solution. Fallout is a close second.

 

I'm currently playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution and I'm pretty much pissed over the boss fights. I've put all my XPs to sneaking and hacking skills, which I use to go through much of the game, and then I get to boss fights with puny weapons and no armour.

 

Sure, Project Eternity will feature a party of up to six characters who should be able to handle combat even if the protagonist isn't too combat-savvy... but then what's in it for the protagonist?

[Water Rabbit]

The point about all endgames: When they all for character agency they work well. When the character is railroaded into a particular ending or given choices without meaning (ME 3, DE: HR) then they are unsatisfying. I also fall into the camp that dislikes tedious boss battles like most console games have.

[Jarmo]

Agree with the OP. The end of BG was just an awful never ending grind.

Mass Effect 1 nearly had a good ending where you could just talk the end boss into giving up... but then Bio didn't have the guts to do it and you had to fight after all.

ME3 was better in that, even if that too had the eternal grind before getting to very end.

[ilhdr]

Jesus, I can't image how you people can find a funny thing betting a game with a speech check of 100 in the end.