Challenging Conventions is a biweekly column by Jeffrey Matulef that discusses the conventions of games design, whether regards the games that subscribe to these conventions or those that try to overcome them. This edition of the column contains spoilers concerning Demon’s Souls, Half-Life 2, Killer 7, The Darkness, and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time. Read at your own risk.
After the better part of a year, I finally beat Demon’s Souls. For the uninitiated, it’s a Japanese action role-playing game about one of the last remaining humans single-handedly taking on a world full of demons. The game has become infamous for its fiendish difficulty, now largely considered one of the hardest games ever made. While the whole game is difficult, the pinnacle lies in its terrifying boss creatures, many of whom are at least 20 times your size. It’s only natural to assume that the game’s final boss would present the biggest, most challenging encounter. So it may come as a surprise when you encounter the main antagonist and he’s nothing more than a diseased slug-like zombie, writhing around in agony and waiting to be put out of his misery.
When I finished my playthrough, my initial reaction was one of disappointment. After taking down a dragon hundreds of times my size, this puny mercy kill seemed highly anticlimactic.
But then I found that I liked it. I admired the game for flipping itself on its head. Up until then it was a fairly traditional good versus evil story, a series of David versus Goliath encounters with a clear hero and villain. The game’s few sympathetic enemies still provided a hefty challenge, so any feelings of remorse were outweighed by frustration as I attempted to defeat them for the umpteenth time. The final encounter, however, was extremely easy, so I took pity on the poor sap. It added depth and intrigue to a story that previously seemed rather simple.
Demon’s Souls has been praised for its high difficulty, so its easy ending is surprising.
This idea of having the endgame be the easiest part flies in the face of conventional game design. Most games ramp up their difficulty as they go, steadily providing a challenge while the player’s skills are honed. This makes a lot of sense; if a game ceases to provide challenge it could be in danger of becoming boring. Yet the notion of a difficult endgame been enacted so often that it’s become something of a cliché. So when a game doesn’t do this, it makes you sit up and take notice. Indeed, several of my memorable endgame sequences over the last few years are ones that defied the cliché.
While Half-Life 2’s ending was controversial due to its cliffhanger nature, you can’t help but love the suped-up gravity gun that you’re rewarded with in the endgame. Sure, it neuters the challenge, but it’s oh-so-awesome to use. Thus, the reward for making it to the end isn’t a greater challenge, but rather the satisfaction of becoming a badass. Actually, this easier play serves a double purpose. Not only is it fun, but it gives the endgame momentum, what with you not getting a game over as frequently. The gameplay picks up steam just as the narrative does.
Killer 7 also had an interesting endgame, in its case by making its final sequence an interactive cut scene. Its last level is completely devoid of combat, consisting of several flashback sequences where characters’ backstories are revealed. There’s no final boss, either. Killer 7 has quite a few boss battles, making the lack of one at the end conspicuous. A character simply opens a box, leading to a major plot reveal, and the game ends. It’s utterly baffling for sure, but I was glad it ended the way it did because the game had picked up so much narrative steam at that point. Shoehorning a boss before the end credits would have felt forced.
Perhaps the ultimate in rewarding anticlimaxes lies with The Darkness, which has an endgame which combines Killer 7’s interactive cut scene with Half-Life 2’s level of ease and Demon’s Souls’ purposely underpowered final boss. By the end, Jackie has several demonic superpowers and foes don’t stand a chance against you. After you make your way through a mansion’s courtyard, the game shortcuts through the ending with an interactive cut scene of Jackie wreaking havoc in the mansion, devouring mafia types by the droves. The game’s final boss (if you could call him that) is Jackie’s Uncle Paulie, a truly despicable mafia boss who thinks Jackie betrayed him and murdered his girlfriend. Paulie’s an important character story-wise, yet he’s still just a suit with a gun and you’re still a badass with tentacles hanging out your back. Fair fight? I think not. Empowering conclusion to a revenge story? Absolutely!
The notion of an easy ending providing a feeling of power doesn’t always work. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time perhaps offers the best example of how to do an easy ending poorly. While the entire game is fairly simple, there’s an attempt to ramp things up with the final boss fight (the only boss fight in the game) against the series’ antagonist, the Vizier. The problem with this fight is that the script insinuates that the Vizier should provide some kind of challenge, what with his cocky attitude and all, yet we can see that he’s a scrawny old man up against a young agile warrior. And not just any young, agile warrior, mind you, but one with the all-powerful Sands of Time at that. How is this supposed to be a challenge? And if it’s not supposed to be, why portray it as such? Why give the Vizier extra health and have him recite ominous threats when we all know he doesn’t stand a chance?
There’s more than one way to make an endgame satisfying and ramping up the difficulty is just one possible solution. A clever plot revelation is another. As is empowering the player, adding relief and providing momentum by doing so. Or a wimpy final boss can make you sympathize with your foe, letting you reflect on all you’ve done up to this point. There’s nothing wrong with tricky final bosses– and indeed many of my favorite gaming moments have emanated from such encounters– yet sticking them where they don’t belong is a mainstay the industry needs to get over. I don’t think I’m alone in thinking the weakest parts of critical darlings BioShock, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and Uncharted 2 were their final bosses, fights that were completely at odds with the story and gameplay up to that point. A game’s conclusion is important. It’s the last thing you’ll reflect upon after beating a title. It needs to go out with a bang. So why give the player two sticks when you could give them gasoline and a lighter?
I think alternative endings are good like you said: like adding more onto your characters storyline in the end and empowering them, or even letting you die or whatever, but having a weak final boss, to me, seems like a slap in the face to all players who put in hard working hours in. Iv’e played Fable 2, it was an ok game, but the fatal flaw of the game was the weak ass mofo at the end. He was a joke and a travesty to the series. i did not feel sympathy for him but anger at the company for utalizing such a flaw in story design. idk, I just get more of an award out of a more difficult opponent.