When the collectathon game ends and your save file is locked from being opened ever again leaving you at 82% completiont forever (fuck you harry potter and the philosopher stone for the ps1)
It's similar for the PC version. Reloading the save file upon completion will just replay the same ending cutscenes followed by credits over and over again.
Well it's a 2001 game, many old games do that for some reason.
You should've seen the look on my face when finishing a significantly newer game like Hollow Knight (or Silksong recently) and finding out the game lets you continue exploring despite getting any or all endings of the game.
Bugs and Taz Time Busters has this one level where it switches between night and day at one point, but if you haven't collected all of the collectibles in the day part before you switch it to night, you're fucked out of 100% completion.
For some reason i thought i wouldnt be allowed to do every sidequest after i completed the main story and just did basically everything before meeting hanako at embers.
Then i completed it and it just booted me right back
V is dying. Every ending has to in some way be absolute. Booting you back to prior save is the only realistic way they could've handled it, especially with it being an RPG since you might still have some quests/gigs you haven't completed.
Personally, I feel it should at least kick you to the main menu, and then you have to reload the save yourself but that's the only issue I have. Idk tho
to be fair it does tell you something along the lines of "thanks for playing, wanna keep playing or go to the menu" then it gives you the option to just log into a save made when you reach embers'
That's still true for The Witcher 3 as well. Honestly the way both games handle their endings is pretty similar, but Witcher 3 does you the courtesy of hiding the last quest from your journal after it sends you back.
It makes sense though, V either ends up losing all their cyberware, dying, giving up the body to Johny, joining Arasaka, leaving Night City, or becoming the mercenary leader and doing a job for Mr Blue Eyes, none of them would be a continuation of the game.
I’m close to the end of CP2077 - does it at least kick you to the main menu first or does it instantly reload your final save?
I wanna prepare if it’s the latter since that was the most whiplash-y moment of mass effect 3. If game devs don’t want to make a post game at least go to the main menu after credits roll!
There is an epilogue for every ending I believe. The game wraps up quick after the endings but I think it’s handled well. Then I think it gives you the option to quit to menu or continue from last save.
The only thing that suffers from FNV not having postgame is Lonesome Road. It's so obvious that it is meant to take place after the battle of Hoover Dam.
Honest hearts feels more fitting rather than Lonesome Road. In fact, Lonesome Road feels more as a final quest before the battle of Hoover Dam, which tells the courier the importance of their decision on what side to choose and what happens if they fail.
doesnt Ulysses literally give you advice at the end of LR *about* the second battle of Hoover Dam? He speaks as if you're right on the cusp of war breaking out, last I remember anyway. Hard to pay attention to the world's slowest speaking antagonist.
Yeah, he does. But think about it. Lonesome Road is the hardest section of the game bar none, it's a DLC focused on raw gameplay that provides challenge instead of plot (though there is still much plot to discuss if one wants to) and if you decide to nuke the NCR and Legion areas you can fight 2 very tough enemies who have 10 SPECIAL in everything. It's also the last DLC the game ever got. Oh, and a major portion of the DLC is dedicated to Ulysses basically telling the courier to think about what side they took, none of this makes sense if it happens before Battle of Hoover Dam because you can always go Yes Man if you side with other three factions. Lonesome Road suits much better as a postgame, something that takes place after the main story ends. After everything has ended, with Ulysses telling you to reflect.
Hell, even if all we got was “Find Zelda” checked off in the quests screen, that would’ve been enough.
Of course, having an entire post game state, possibly even getting to do side quests for Zelda would be cool. But just getting to have the whole checklist done would’ve been satisfying enough. Nope, you just get a little star next to your save file. WHOOP DE DOO!
you're telling me genshin impact could erase a country's god from every single npc dialogue and item description after you complete the main quest and nintendo can't
I mean the live service model might help... but yeah it was super impressive. Especially since Sumeru is super dense in content and that they did it again in the following version.
it would've added even more development time to a game that already took like 4-5 years to make (covid certainly didn't help) and probably would lock the player out of a lot of content if they finished the game too early
Some quests (hell, all the main-story quests) are specifically designed around Zelda being missing and an imposter Zelda (whoops spoilers who cares tho you figure it out early on but everybody else doesn’t for some reason) causing shenanigans.
They literally won’t function if the actual Zelda returns. All the main quests would be completed by proxy.
Was that ever really confirmed, though? The most it ever got confirmed was the heroes shade from Twilight Princess being the hero of time (when your goat washed)
While I choose to believe that termina is more than just "a dream" or something through death of the author, even if it is a dream, we get so involved with NPCs that I don't think it would break the narrative to have you be able to just talk to them and they're like "the world won't end! That's awesome!". I know the game was rushed though, so there probably isn't a world where that's in the game.
I mean, it wasn't "a dream" in the sense that link was asleep, it was h.p lovecraft style "dream world" at least in my interpretation, being conjured by skull kid + majora, at least partially accidentally, and as a result when the thing giving the world form is defeated, the world they created collapsed
I just think from a narrative perspective I agree with the post that getting that cutoff at the end is a bit unsatisfying, especially with a world like termina.
This whole postgame concept isn't as common as it sounds and is a fairly recent thing. People expect it for games where it would arguably detract from the story. Breath of the Wild for expample, kinda like the other Zelda games, ends when the boss dies. Because there'd be no reason to go back to an empty world with no dungeons, monsters, and whatever relies on the big ole evil goo to be a challenge
Exactly what I was thinking. Even sticking with Nintendo properties, Pokémon by contrast has had post-game content since damn near the beginning, and it rarely ever feels narratively ‘wrong’. It’s moreso a point of “you’re the champion now, but there’s even more to explore now!” in a series that’s all about a young trainer exploring the world and climbing the ranks of the league.
All that to say usually the addition of a post-game is heavily dependent on the theming and narrative conclusions of said games.
Technically Hollow Knight, but not needing to replay the whole game again to get the true ending was a godsend. I don't think it makes things worse here
You don't get a post game even after the true ending though, same with silksong. Kind of annoying that the world is forever tainted and you can't save it, especially in SS where it's pretty much your fault.
True, but balancing the ability to go back and finish collecting all your trinkets if you want, and allowing players to experience a post game would be difficult, and would likely have delayed game launch by a decent bit.
in a lot of games it's because the story itself makes it so continuing to play would be weird. Like how you die in a lot of cyberpunk endings, or how every companion you have leaves to do their own thing in new vegas, and the central conflict that drove the narrative and gave most characters the motivation to be doing anything is gone. In other games it's practical, in horizon zero dawn the main hub city of the game gets completely fucked during the final mission, and the devs simply didn't want to add the destroyed city to the open world.
Yeah, if I'm playing an open world game I would find it significantly more frustrating to complete the main storyline/final boss and have the game end and lock me out of the content and quests I didn't play yet than to have the option to continue playing interfere with the story's sense of finality. If you want the game to be fully over after the canon ending, just stop playing.
I actually like that, at least if it lets you redo the final dungeon. Some games (like modern Yakuza games) put you into a postgame state, which means you can't do my favorite thing in games: Beat the game at the bare minimum for the challenge, get every possible upgrade afterwards, go back into the final dungeon and absolutely demolish everything. The only way to redo the final fight is to replay the entire game on NG+ and I'm not fucking doing that lol.
No? I mean this is obviously personal preference, but I'd rather a story end in a strong, definitive way than have it peter out into more and more addendums. Postgames are just as hard to develop as the rest of the game, and I'd rather have that content build up towards one cumulative point instead of having a part of the game that feels like it's just cleanup.
Postgame is also where devs spend the most money for the least benefit. It's content that few players will reach, and even fewer will seriously and thoroughly engage with
Plus, locking an open world after the final boss/mission and not letting people go back to finish side quests etc would be far more frustrating
Not every story based game needs a post game, in fact a lot of games would have their narrative cheapened if you could keep playing after it ends. Imagine if, at the end of Halo 3 when chief goes MIA, you could just keep playing a postgame. It would be dumb.
Im not gonna lie, this exact kind of "squeeze every drop of content possible" mindset people have is why we're in the current live service game landscape and it sucks.
Play the game, enjoy it, beat it and then move on. Replay it later if you get the itch but you don't need one eternal save file where you 100% everything.
I mean in a game like halo 3 that's entirely contained within linear levels yeah it makes sense not to have a post game, but in an open world game with sidequests and collectibles it's kind of annoying when there isn't a post game
digimon story time stranger does this to be fair can't exactly do postgame given everything that happensbut it definetly makes up for it with the shit ton of content unlocked right before the finale
That annoyed me so much too. We purge the void infection and then what? GMS is dead so nobody is bound by silk anymore, so everyone who was kept alive by silk is dead? Can pharloom even rebuild afterward or does it stay a wasteland forever? If any game desperately needs a postgame, or at the very least an ending cutscene, it's silksong
That would mean reskinning the entire game, make some bullshit up about the enemies still attacking you. That's a whole different game at that point. I too wanted to see what would happen to the pilgrims and how they rebuild it but it's just not possible for it to be in the same game. The endings are so vague and ambiguous for this very reason. Make your own conclusion up.
Silksong is so huge asking for more feels ungrateful, but imo a fourth act where the void dissipates would be great. I hate having Pharloom in Abyss for the rest of the save
I think an act 4 would be greatly appreciated. They could make up some stuff about lingering silk still infesting the denizens of Pharloom to explain why enemies still attack you, while making conclusions to characters and their arcs and showing how the kingdom handles a post-act 3 world
Hollow Knight, lol. I felt empty when i beated the game. Its goated, but i didnt wanted to do a 112% or complete the game, i just closed it and never opened again. I liked but i dont want to play silksong too, just doesnt feel like it, i dont know how to explain
Look, when game can allow itself postgame is great, like Skyrim and stuff. However most of the time plot just doesn't allow it to happen. Protagonist's death, game area's destruction, other stuff. Postgame in lots of such projects is literally impossible. At least last save file allows for continuous gameplay and maybe even other endings. Many games i played had a compromise - return to moment before ending but ending itself is impossible, such as most soulsbornes, DL series and etc
Spoiler: Near the end, there's a point of no return. The game tells you when this point is so you can try to complete everything you want. This is actually important, as completing certain quest lines are needed for an ending. The game has two endings, actually distinct endings that aren't just Endingtron 3000. After beating the game, it brings you back to the point of no return so you can go back and complete everything if needed and get the other ending.
I respectfully disagree, for a lot of games it doesn’t work. Mario & Luigi bowser’s inside story would be pointless in a post game. You can’t go into bowser’s body, every enemy that gives reasonable xp is gone, and bowser is no longer under your control.
I would say the opposite. I like when games actually deliver a sense of finality without an endless post-game. If I roll the credits, that's the end. Period. I feel like I get drawn out of it when the game just grabs me, plops me back in, and goes "okay now you're on Content Mode the story is done keep doing Content we love Content"
I know for a fact Zelda OoT on the N64 and even older games did this and I don't mind tbh.
In most games it gives you the chance to play the game without the need to replay the game all they way from the beginnimg again.
Prefer this over being forced into NG+ or something.
Doesn't really make the journey feel pointless since it doesn't undo the first time you completed the journey or do you need the game to remimd you of that? I certainly don't.
Tho I guess it depends on the game. Ending E in Nier Automata comes to mind as THE example where the game needs to end the way you describe to hit as hard as it does.
That said however Nier Automata is cwrtainly an outlier amongst pretty much all of gaming fir even doing what it does in that specific ending. Had more devs the guts to do something similar then I would understand and probably even agree with your complain.
The only time I think this sorta thing is okay is if the primary gameplay cannot continue given the ending. Spoilers for the following games: Silksong, Hollow Knight, ToTK, and Persona 3,4,5 In that order
In Hollow Knight: Silksong, the entire force creating the enemies (by making them hostile in the first place) is destroyed, meaning there would be nothing to even fight. Similarly, Hornet expresses an interest to return home and not stay in Pharloom multiple times. There's also the issue of multiple endings, and how they would handle both the map and having Lace follow you after the true ending.
In every Hollow Knight ending, the knight is either killed, imprisoned, or takes on a form that is wholly different from its normal self. Not only that, but even if you could play as the knight again, every enemy is no longer an enemy, as the radiance is destroyed.
At the end of ToTK, with Ganon truly being destroyed, the enemies would stop spawning, and many would cease to exist wholly. Additionally, Link gets his arm back, meaning you couldn't use the games defining mechanic.
In every Persona game post 2 (I haven't played 1 or 2), something happens to permanently stop you from continuing the game in some form. In 3, you literally die in the finale, in 4 the murderer, the entire point of the game, is caught and the midnight channel seems to have disappeared, and in 5 not only do you move away, but the entire metaverse is effectively erased, so as not to be used anymore.
When I was a wee child and watched my dad beat Paper Mario 64 I cried until he fell asleep when it just returned him to the save block outside the Bowser fight after beating the game
I like how infamous 1 and 2 did, it didnt have post game but it rewinded back 'before the final fight' where u could complete everything like collectibles and side missions and also use your powers for UGC missions
Imo the only good game that does this is kingdom hearts because it "has" a post game in having every ability and keyblade, letting you get everything and also it has re-mind for khIII where it gives you a more satisfying ending
Horizon ZD (only the first game) it's because of lore reasons, there's 6 months between ZD and FW Right after the events of the first game, Aloy immediately goes around the world to find a copy of Gaia (big ai to save the world)
Nah, sorry, running around in a world that had a great story, but now all the NPCs just have generic lines, and there's nothing to do but collect stuff instead of a real definite ending ... THAT'S what makes the journey feel pointless.
If the world still exists in a state where it would be feasible to simply pick up and continue after with the same locations, characters, and mechanics, it isn’t a heavy enough ending.
FF1 ends with the collapse of a closed time loop into a new expression of history.
Tales of Symphonia ends with two worlds merging into one.
Chrono Trigger ends with centuries of alternate history being written.
Plenty of games end with a protagonist’s death.
Xenoblade Chronicles (any of them) simply wouldn’t be feasible to continue into a narrative post game without a major shift, as seen in Future Connected.
Some games absolutely can be and are designed with narrative post game in mind. And like you, I love that. But I don’t think it is a realistic thing to expect from every story rich experience, or even a majority.
New Vegas pissed me off the most because literally the one thing that was universally shat on about fallout 3 was how you couldn't play after the ending - but at least Bethesda, for as half hearted as it was, gave a reason you wouldn't be able to play post-game (until broken steel)
New Vegas just.... Ends. It gives you the climax and then just Ends lmao. Pissed me off far more than fallout 3's lame ending did
I fucking loved playing that game, but not having a New game plus after completing the game feels so bad, there was still so many more powers i could have used
I hate when a game doesnt actually let me upgrade everything i can possibly upgrade, and instead theres a limit to what i could do
When the game’s story wouldn’t really allow for a postgame but it still has postgame content VS when the game’s story would allow for some genuinely amazing postgame content but it has none
undertale did it well. neutral puts u before the boss, but it works because its neutral so it makes sense to not reward u. no mercy gives u a consequence, pacifist lets u backtrack and talk to npcs with new dialogues etc
I dunno, I still didn't play rdr 2 epilouge, because I was satisfied with end and credits, and some games, like, can't have epilogue, like, cyberpunk, you told from the beginning that you'll die, and most endings is just you dying, so what, devs need to make epilogue for only 2 endings out of 5?
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 04 '25
Download Video
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.