THE BONUS DUNGEON IS THE FINAL DUNGEON?

Posts

Pages: first prev 123 last
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
author=zeello
Bonus dungeons make NO SENSE. The idea on the op is not that great of an alternative because the player will feel as though he's chosen the easy mode final dungeon which is the complete opposite narrative effect you wanted to achieve when designing the final dungeon. So come to think of it it's even worse of an idea than having a bonus dungeon since at least the player doesn't know about the bonus dungeon yet. (although this makes no sense either)

Maybe a better solution is to have the game continue with different characters. What I mean is you skin swap the characters so they have the same skills and level, but they have different names/appearances and are in a different setting such as 50-100 years after the events of the main game or a thousand years before. (e.g. the main characters offspring, or a race of ancients fighting monsters far more powerful than what had existed during the main character's time) This way the story of the main characters is still conclusively finished and the bonus dungeon is like a side story.

Are you saying bonus dungeons in general make no sense? Because that's an extremely narrow-minded attitude. What exactly is wrong with a bonus dungeon? Gameplay-wise, it can offer extra challenges to overcome (some even having a unique gimmick behind them like in Tales of Symphonia's Niflheim), and from a narrative point of view, you could gain insight into an aspect of the story that you wouldn't otherwise. Not ever story needs to cram every plot intricacy down a player's throat. If some players are curious about some aspect of the story and see the opportunity to explore it more via a optional version of a final dungeon, then why not let them?

Plus, some bonus dungeons can offer content that wouldn't make sense in the context of the main story. Tales games do this all the time: some bonus dungeons let you fight party members from previous entries, others can unlock joke endings upon completion, all of which are nice additions that would kill pacing and immersion if forced in the main game.

While your solution of an epilogue/prologue is a good idea on its own (wasn't that used in Red Dead Redemption?), I wouldn't call it a "better" solution to the OP, or even a solution at all if you're looking to conclude the story before that point.
I think that solves some of the problems with bonus dungeons at the expense of introducing completely new major problems. It gives the player a new cast which they haven't built up any investment in, A new conflict with no buildup, and a mechanical contrivance (a completely new cast which just happens to have identical equipment and abilities,) which assaults suspension of disbelief. I think that even something like the Seraphic Gate in Valkyrie Profile, which uses the same characters as the main game but has no pretense of having anything to do with the plot, would be less jarring.
Dragnfly
Beta testers!? No, this game needs a goddamn exorcist!
1809
Skin swapping is the worst idea ever. It screams lame and lazy and you're better off without it than with it. "Oh no! That character I liked just died/left the party/whatever! I grieve! Oh, wait. This new character is joining. Similar personality? Oh, you also use an axe? Oh... you start at the same level and with all the same skills... Well why the hell not just let me keep the character I liked!?"

Having a bonus dungeon or adventure with different characters is usually called a spin-off or fan disc. If it's a huge amount of bonus content with new characters, we call that a sequel.
author=Red_Nova
Are you saying bonus dungeons in general make no sense? Because that's an extremely narrow-minded attitude.
IMO there are things that, when looked at objectively, are things that generally shouldn't be done by games but it can be justifiable to include them in a game every now and then if you realize what you're doing. Bonus dungeons are illogical, but, if all games were 100% logical then they might start to feel to similar, its nice to have some oddball twist now and then. But even having said that, bonus dungeons still don't make sense because they are common enough to the point where your game isn't setting itself apart by having it, and if you were going to include bad design in your game as a twist, it should be front and center rather than hidden content buried after the end of a game that seems otherwise run of the mill. Sonic, Mega Man, and Half Minute Hero have ideas that don't necessarily hold up to reason, or at least are things you wouldn't want most games to do (RPG with a time limit?) but nonetheless make the game more distinct. Bonus dungeons don't really achieve this because they only apply to the last few percent of the game. You can't really build a game around it. It's an afterthought.

from a narrative point of view, you could gain insight into an aspect of the story that you wouldn't otherwise. Not ever story needs to cram every plot intricacy down a player's throat.
Those sentences contradict each other. You want to show the player a piece of the story and you don't want to.
I'm saying logically it has to be one or the other. It's binary in a way, either you will try to get a player to experience something, or the opposite, which is easy, since you can simply not include it.

If some players are curious about some aspect of the story and see the opportunity to explore it more via a optional version of a final dungeon, then why not let them?
"optional". In your example the player will have finished the easy dungeon and then moves on to the more difficult version. Which in effect is the same as if you had made both versions mandatory and simply stacked the easy dungeon in front of the harder dungeon and the player has to complete both to get the ending.
You might as well argue that final dungeons are optional in the first place and make them bonus-dungeon hard. Which actually doesn't make any less sense than having a bonus dungeon in the first place.
Aren't you just looking for loopholes? Either you include something with the expectation of the player experiencing it, or you don't. If you do, t arguably should be not optional. If you don't, you arguably shouldn't have bothered to include it let alone create it. And if you do include it, it arguably shouldn't be after the game has ended becaus by then the game is already over!

plus, some bonus dungeons can offer content that wouldn't make sense in the context of the main story. Tales games do this all the time: some bonus dungeons let you fight party members from previous entries, others can unlock joke endings upon completion, all of which are nice additions that would kill pacing and immersion if forced in the main game.
All excellent arguments as for why those things didn't need to be in the game at all.
I mean if you're gonna shed tears over cut content why not stuff that actually related to the story? For example, how the protagonist's parents met, or more insight into the villain's motivations. That's the kind of stuff you were talking about a moment before, or at least I assume you were, and if so then I can relate. But joke endings? They are, by your own admission, included as a joke, meaning they aren't important, in addition to the fact they are not the ACTUAL ending which generally there should be only ONE, even if the extra endings aren't jokes.

While your solution of an epilogue/prologue is a good idea on its own (wasn't that used in Red Dead Redemption?), I wouldn't call it a "better" solution to the OP, or even a solution at all if you're looking to conclude the story before that point.
The story was arguably concluded nonetheless. So it makes sense perhaps, if you're going to prolong the game, to start a new story or continuation rather than rewinding the previous story that just ended.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
IMO there are things that, when looked at objectively, are things that generally shouldn't be done by games but it can be justifiable to include them in a game every now and then if you realize what you're doing. Bonus dungeons are illogical, but, if all games were 100% logical then they might start to feel to similar, its nice to have some oddball twist now and then. But even having said that, bonus dungeons still don't make sense because they are common enough to the point where your game isn't setting itself apart by having it, and if you were going to include bad design in your game as a twist, it should be front and center rather than hidden content buried after the end of a game that seems otherwise run of the mill. Sonic, Mega Man, and Half Minute Hero have ideas that don't necessarily hold up to reason, or at least are things you wouldn't want most games to do (RPG with a time limit?) but nonetheless make the game more distinct. Bonus dungeons don't really achieve this because they only apply to the last few percent of the game. You can't really build a game around it. It's an afterthought.

You don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be done by all games. 90% of your statements about what other games should be like are based on a your own personal, biased views of what a game should contain. This may come as a shock to you, but not every player and developer shares your opinions of what they like in a game. Developers can include unique ideas, extra content, and the like if they feel the game would benefit from having it, and to state that ideas that deviate from a specific blueprint are objectively wrong is absolutely ridiculous.

Those sentences contradict each other. You want to show the player a piece of the story and you don't want to.
I'm saying logically it has to be one or the other. It's binary in a way, either you will try to get a player to experience something, or the opposite, which is easy, since you can simply not include it.

Nope. Not every game needs to take the player on a guided tour. Some can have branching paths depending on choices players make, others are more free form allowing you to explore and experience what interests you. Forcing every single snippet of backstory to the front and center isn't always the best idea for a game, and to claim otherwise neuters the potential of storytelling through gameplay.

Achievements, discoveries, and the like can be made all the more satisfying if you, the player, discover them. If you stumble across a bonus dungeon all by yourself using either context clues provided by the game or by complete accident, you would feel a certain sense of satisfaction, would you not? More than if the game led you there by the nose, anyway.

Same deal with a bonus final dungeon. The potential to go for an optional, harder version of the final dungeon with extra content you wouldn't see otherwise puts control in the hands of the player, and it feels more special because of it. If I chose to go through a harder version of the final dungeon, I'd be annoyed if I was then forced to experience the tamer version right after.

Person A can think, "Oh my gosh, this guy is so evil! What could possibly have made him this way?"

Person B will think, "Oh my gosh, this guy is so evil! Time to die, asshole!"

Take a guess which one wouldn't appreciate being forced to sift through a bunch of backstory.

I mean if you're gonna shed tears over cut content why not stuff that actually related to the story? For example, how the protagonist's parents met, or more insight into the villain's motivations.

Sure, and while we're at it, why not have a button at the beginning that plays the entire game by itself, leaving nothing to the imagination and wonder of a player? If you're going to go through the same motions with no variation, why bother playing at all?

I happened to thoroughly enjoy all the crossovers and joke endings in Tales games, and I would enjoy the games a lot less if those moments were absent. Sorry they're not ABSOLUTELY VITAL to the game, but don't try to claim they have no right to be in a game, especially if there's a large audience of people who enjoy them.

They are, by your own admission, included as a joke, meaning they aren't important, in addition to the fact they are not the ACTUAL ending which generally there should be only ONE, even if the extra endings aren't jokes.

Wrong.

Once again, you don't get to decide what a game should and shouldn't have. You have no right to dictate how many endings a game should have, especially since they can be one of the most important moments in a game's story.

Silent Hill 2 has multiple endings, each one a different representation of how the protagonist, James, overcomes the guilt of his dead wife. Achieving an ending requires players to perform certain actions in-game that they aren't aware of, actions that reflect different mental states James may be in. When you finally reach the end, James' feelings on the situation can accurately reflect your own, and a different resolution is reached.

If your ideas were the norm, then arguably the most important aspect of the game wouldn't exist. The idea of every game only containing one ending both limits and insults the potential for interactive storytelling.

The story was arguably concluded nonetheless. So it makes sense perhaps, if you're going to prolong the game, to start a new story or continuation rather than rewinding the previous story that just ended.

Or maybe, after completing the game, a player may want to let loose and screw around with their endgame characters? Colosseum minigames, bonus dungeons, alternate joke endings, a player can get a lot of enjoyment out of any or all of those, and if a developer wants to add them in, it's not inherently bad design.
author=Red_Nova
You don't get to decide what should and shouldn't be done by all games. 90% of your statements about what other games should be like are based on a your own personal, biased views of what a game should contain.
Wrong. It's based on logic and deduction.

This may come as a shock to you, but not every player and developer shares your opinions of what they like in a game. Developers can include unique ideas, extra content, and the like if they feel the game would benefit from having it, and to state that ideas that deviate from a specific blueprint are objectively wrong is absolutely ridiculous.
There is nothing wrong with liking it.

Nope. Not every game needs to take the player on a guided tour.
Most single player games do in fact. Unless the game is some artsy sandbox game with no objective, then generally speaking a guided tour is at the core of the premise. This probably includes your game, which is why a large portion of your game probably isn't optional, if not the vast majority of it.

Some can have branching paths depending on choices players make, others are more free form allowing you to explore and experience what interests you. Forcing every single snippet of backstory to the front and center isn't always the best idea for a game, and to claim otherwise neuters the potential of storytelling through gameplay.
When the game is beaten then the story is over. All unseen optional content during the course of the game becomes forfeit. The insanity of bonus dungeons is tht they are meant to come into play at this point. Things like branching paths can resonbly be justified since they come onto play DURING the game and are naturally part of it.

Same deal with a bonus final dungeon. The potential to go for an optional, harder version of the final dungeon with extra content you wouldn't see otherwise puts control in the hands of the player, and it feels more special because of it.
It's literally no different from choosing a difficulty level at the start of the game, so by your logic the choice between Easy, Medium, and Hard "puts ontrol in the hands of the player and makes them feel special because of it". Complete madness.

If I chose to go through a harder version of the final dungeon, I'd be annoyed if I was then forced to experience the tamer version right after.
Which suggests you wouldn't choose to take the hard dungeon unless you completed the easy one first, because otherwise you'd have to play the easy one afterwards to see how it differs from the hard and whether it contains any exclusive bosses, alternate dialogue, etc.

You have no right to dictate how many endings a game should have
One. The correct answer is one.

Silent Hill 2 has multiple endings, each one a different representation of how the protagonist, James, overcomes the guilt of his dead wife. Achieving an ending requires players to perform certain actions in-game that they aren't aware of, actions that reflect different mental states James may be in. When you finally reach the end, James' feelings on the situation can accurately reflect your own, and a different resolution is reached.
This requires the player to play multiple complete playthroughs, which wouldn't work for a long game such as many rpgs.

If your ideas were the norm, then arguably the most important aspect of the game wouldn't exist.
Oh lookie here. Deciding which parts of a game are the most important. Hypocrisy much? ;)

idea of every game only containing one ending both limits and insults the potential for interactive storytelling.
By definition I see only one ending when I finish the game. To see multiple endings suggests that the endings aren't actually endings in the first place, and that I stop playing not when I get the ending but when I've unlocked them all, or at least a sufficient amount of them. This is fine for some games but it's absurd to suggest that a game somehow fails to live up to the medium if it doesn't have multiple endings. If I'm going to see both choice A and choice B, then its not really a choice in the mutually exclusive sense, and you as game designer might as well have stacked both choices in a linear fashion, and then put the ending (the "actual, true ending") after it.

or maybe, after completing the game, a player may want to let loose and screw around with their endgame characters?
Key word is maybe. However, once the expectation is placed on the player to do this then players might start to do this anyway just to check if the game HAS a bonus dungeon, which defeats the point of treating those players who wanted to stick around regardless.
By the way, in some games, rather than screwing around with my endgame save file, I immediately start a new game to experience the game with a different class/loadout. This is devastating to the idea of bonus dungeons.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Most single player games do in fact. Unless the game is some artsy sandbox game with no objective, then generally speaking a guided tour is at the core of the premise. This probably includes your game, which is why a large portion of your game probably isn't optional, if not the vast majority of it.


The impression that I got from you was that there should be no optional content. You do it all, or you do none of it, which doesn't makes sense to me. Yes, a large portion of most single player RPGs are linear, but there are still typically side quests, hidden goodies, etc. that you can still experience only if you seek them out. A bonus final dungeon would just be one of those things.

It's literally no different from choosing a difficulty level at the start of the game, so by your logic the choice between Easy, Medium, and Hard "puts ontrol in the hands of the player and makes them feel special because of it". Complete madness.


It's actually very different, especially if the choice to enter the optional dungeon isn't immediately apparent. For example, say you unlocked a different version of the final dungeon because of a side quest you completed earlier in the game. That was the outcome of the player playing the game, discovering a secret, and was rewarded as a result. A difficulty choice at the beginning of the game is not the same thing at all.

Which suggests you wouldn't choose to take the hard dungeon unless you completed the easy one first, because otherwise you'd have to play the easy one afterwards to see how it differs from the hard and whether it contains any exclusive bosses, alternate dialogue, etc.


Or it suggests that I don't want to go back and play the easy one at all. If a player knew it was a shorter, easier version of the same dungeon, they may just call it quits there and not bother.

One. The correct answer is one.


At least one. Not at most.

This requires the player to play multiple complete playthroughs, which wouldn't work for a long game such as many rpgs.


That alone debunks the "all games should have one ending" argument. And who knows? Some players might do just that for a long RPG.

Oh lookie here. Deciding which parts of a game are the most important. Hypocrisy much? ;)


I was talking about one specific game. You were referring to all games.

By definition I see only one ending when I finish the game. To see multiple endings suggests that the endings aren't actually endings in the first place, and that I stop playing not when I get the ending but when I've unlocked them all, or at least a sufficient amount of them. This is fine for some games but it's absurd to suggest that a game somehow fails to live up to the medium if it doesn't have multiple endings. If I'm going to see both choice A and choice B, then its not really a choice in the mutually exclusive sense, and you as game designer might as well have stacked both choices in a linear fashion.


Not what I was saying. It's fine if a game only has one ending, though I admit I usually like to see more. The insult came, again, from trying to apply that logic to every game.

If the story comes to a conclusion, then the ending has been reached. If there are multiple instances of the story coming to a conclusion, then there are multiple endings. Whether or not to keep going is a choice left to the player, not the game. Because the game ended.

Key word is maybe. Once the expectation is placed on the player to do this then players might start to do this anyway just to check if the game HAS a bonus dungeon, which defeats the point of treating those players who wanted to stick around regardless.


Depends on how much you enjoyed the game. I remember finishing Tales of Zestiria and not enjoying it to the point where I wanted to neither play the post-game dungeon or start a new playthrough. Some players aren't completionists, and don't care if they miss a few points, especially if they reasonably assume that they wouldn't enjoy them in the first place. I'm sure others who loved their time with Zestiria wouldn't hesitate to start looking for the optional dungeon, but I would have been annoyed if I was forced to play through an extra dungeon with little plot relevance. Key word here being "forced"
author=Red_Nova
The impression that I got from you was that there should be no optional content. You do it all, or you do none of it, which doesn't makes sense to me. Yes, a large portion of most single player RPGs are linear, but there are still typically side quests, hidden goodies, etc. that you can still experience only if you seek them out. A bonus final dungeon would just be one of those things.
But unlike all those other things, the bonus dungeon comes after the game had already ended.

It's actually very different, especially if the choice to enter the optional dungeon isn't immediately apparent. For example, say you unlocked a different version of the final dungeon because of a side quest you completed earlier in the game. That was the outcome of the player playing the game, discovering a secret, and was rewarded as a result.
How would the player be aware of any of those things? As far as the player knows, the different version is the only version. By your logic I could baselessly assume that the final dungeon in every RPG I've ever played was something unique to me because of choices made throughout the game. There is no reason for extra versions to actually be created, the same effect is achieved regardless.

or it suggests that I don't want to go back and play the easy one at all. If a player knew it was a shorter, easier version of the same dungeon, they may just call it quits there and not bother.
I love how you use the word "knew" in the past tense, as well as the qualifier "if", proving twice in the same sentence that the player wouldn't know until after they had already played the other version.
Time and time again the element of choice in games seems to be based largely on faulty assumptions and false logic.

That alone debunks the "all games should have one ending" argument. And who knows? Some players might do just that for a long RPG.
Key word is "some".
Furthermore... just because some players play through a game multiple times doesn't mean there HAS to be elements that take advantage of this. It's great that some players want to enjoy the game multiple times. There is nothing wrong with a game to just leave it at that. It's if anything presumptuous and cocky to assume that the game will be played multiple times. The game creator should just focus on making the game good enough that players will want to do this in the first place. And even then, many players won't, which is why the objective should be to make the first playthrough as enjoyable as possible, which means to largely disregard the possibility of subsequent playthroughs. Nothing is stopping those players who want to play a second play through from doing so.
p.s. Multiple endings and bonus dungeons are like oil and water. Because you can't start a second playthrough toward a different ending while also screwing around in the first playthrough some more. It has to be one then the other, just like a player might have to beat world 2 before they can neat world 3, and it is not at all oppressive for the game designer to decode which order the worlds come in, in fact it is the game designer's only one job.

Depends on how much you enjoyed the game. I remember finishing Tales of Zestiria and not enjoying it to the point where I wanted to neither play the post-game dungeon or start a new playthrough.
This flies in the face of what you said earlier that you wouldn't have enjoyed a certain game nearly as much if this content weren't there.
Why bother having this content if players won't try it unless they liked the game anyway? It becomes nothing more than icing on the cake, and not essential to the game.
Which is better, a game that the player loves, but doesn't have any bonus content.
*or*
A game with lots of bonus content that the player won't bother trying out because they didn't like the main quest.
Your above comment proves that this type of content does not make or break the game.

Whether or not to keep going is a choice left to the player, not the game. Because the game ended.
Bonus dungeon means the game hasn't ended, and that the ending was actually a lie.
If a bonus dungeon really is meant to be played after the end of the game, then beating the final boss should plop the player right back in the game, and possibly even with the final boss defeated.
Dragnfly
Beta testers!? No, this game needs a goddamn exorcist!
1809
I think this is the first time I've ever seen somebody be against additional content. Unsure if serious. Actually, pretty sure not serious. This isn't some case of differing opinions from multiple views like how some people can eat BBQ insects, it's more like saying you eat broken glass.
author=Dragnfly
I think this is the first time I've ever seen somebody be against additional content. Unsure if serious. Actually, pretty sure not serious. This isn't some case of differing opinions from multiple views like how some people can eat BBQ insects, it's more like saying you eat broken glass.
Well that's not what I was arguing, but you are wrong anyway because not all additional content is worth putting in. The argument levelled against me (or so I hope is) is the addition of GOOD additional content that's actually worth putting in. But if anything you guys are the ones arguing against this content because I am proposing you put that content in the main game but you say no. So I guess this isn't some case of differing opinions from multiple views like how some people can eat BBQ insects, it's more like saying you eat broken glass. ;)

My argument was never with the bonus content itself, just the way it's implemented. you might as well use the "bonus content is bad? Huwah?" argument against anyone who complains about paid on disc DLC. Why shouldn't that logic apply there as well? It doesn't. So you should be able to see what I mean.

But, as I mentioned, there can be bad bonus content that makes the game worse. Also, film directors cut tons of stuff from their film all the time to make the final cut. Gee I wonder why that is.

author=Red_Nova
There would need to be some incentive other than challenge to do the harder, bonus path.
i.e. punish players who choose the easier one.
It's the final dungeon. you're here to SAVE THE WORLD. It's already the hardest version. Period. Adding a "harder version" destroys the illusion, at one of the most critical points in the game, and it was all you had.
Marrend
Guardian of the Description Thread
21781
I don't know if it's a good idea to punish players for choosing an "easy path" in regards to a final dungeon. Or any dungeon, for that matter, but let's keep this thread in focus. I guess it depends how you define "punishment". Like, are we talking about an ending that's still satisfying, but not quite the best (Maybe that's what optional final dungeons could be for?), or are we talking about an ending being so dumb/lame, that only the "true, 101% perfection" ending causes any amount of closure?

*Edit: Like, I get that players should be able to complete a game without doing optional content, and still be able feel accomplished by what they've done. Maybe they will feel more accomplished if they do the optional final dungeon (or two), depending on how they are presented in the story. I sincerely doubt an optional final dungeon that has no context whatsoever is going to be appreciated.

*Edit2: My mind keeps going back to Shin Megami Tensai Persona 4, and how it handled it's optional final dungeons. Like, my memory might be a bit fuzzy on this, but, players can get an ending by throwing the so-far main suspect of the murders into the TV-realm. By choosing not to do that, players will eventually have an optional bonus dungeon to go through. Once that is done, there's another opportunity to end the game, or, you guessed it, unlock yet another optional final dungeon. Completing that optional final dungeon leads to the best ending of that game.
Bonus Dungeons are great in games where I really like the gameplay but don't care much about the story. So when I finish them I'm just like "I want to play more with this gameplay".

I played the bonus dungeons in most tri-Ace games, because of how fun the combat is in them, but didn't care about them in many other games.
Pages: first prev 123 last