"Forced" Second Quests

[fcgamer | 4,738]

I wanted to start this thread a few nights back, but decided to hold of any judgement and at least complete the game in question before opening this thread.

Do you folks know what really pisses me off? "Forced" second quests.

Listen, I am not talking about games that have multiple difficulty settings, where one has to complete the "normal" or sometimes even highest setting to acquire the good or full ending. This annoys me to a degree, as I personally feel that the "normal" mode is the "standard" and therefore should provide the gamer with the full game (and ending), with the difficult mode and easy mode each serving their own respective places. I might be in the minority on this, but I've just come to accept it for what it is.

On the other hand, nothing sucks more than being drunk at 2 AM on a Wednesday, knowing full well you need to work the next day. You beat the final boss and get a message that it was just an illusion and then you're thrust back to do the game again, albeit with slight changes to make the game more difficult this time around. You might think I'm talking about one of the Ghouls n Ghosts games, but I think we all are familiar with how it operates. Instead, I was referring to the homebrew Micro Mages.

Ultimately I decided to call it a night and then played through the game again tonight, using a password to pickup from where I left off. The second quest was a bit more difficult, with enemies being placed differently and stages being slightly rearranged; however, the differences were more or less very miniscule, in my opinion, and I would have rather seen the game have an extra area rather than the bogus rehashed areas.

This is a fun game, for sure, but it's like being forced to play through the second quest of Super Mario Bros. or Castlevania III or something - there just isn't enough content to make the additional playing feel varied and fresh, and at the point of life I'm in currently, I just don't want to be forced to play through a second quest just to be able to actually complete the game. 

Thoughts?

[spacepup | 2,406]

I understand your frustration, but at the same time, maybe consider that you can define completion on your own terms.  You don't *have* to play through it the second time.  If you want to see potential more content or the completion of the story, you can choose to play through it again, but it's optional like everything else.  

[fcgamer | 4,738]

3 minutes ago, spacepup said:

I understand your frustration, but at the same time, maybe consider that you can define completion on your own terms.  You don't *have* to play through it the second time.  If you want to see potential more content or the completion of the story, you can choose to play through it again, but it's optional like everything else.  

The thing is though, in this example, it doesn't even take you back to the title screen suggesting that one "round" was done. One just gets a message saying the boss was an illusion and you keep going, hahaha.

[spacepup | 2,406]

Ah ok.  I really like Micro Mages but tbh, I haven't made it that far in the game.  I need to get back into it and finish.

I don't think I'd mind this personally, because at least it is kinda different, and I like seeing them through to completion.  Who knows - maybe there are surprises in store for the second phase?  Not really sure.

I remember at first feeling a little disappointed at Legend of Zelda, but looking back, I'm very content with it.  Maybe give it a chance and see if you enjoy it? Idk.

[fcgamer | 4,738]

15 minutes ago, spacepup said:

Ah ok.  I really like Micro Mages but tbh, I haven't made it that far in the game.  I need to get back into it and finish.

I don't think I'd mind this personally, because at least it is kinda different, and I like seeing them through to completion.  Who knows - maybe there are surprises in store for the second phase?  Not really.

I remember at first feeling a little disappointed at Legend of Zelda, but looking back, I'm very content with it.  Maybe give it a chance and see if you enjoy it? Idk.

I completed it tonight, it's a great game and I'd recommend it to anyone. The differences between the two sections are quite small though, that it would have seemed more fitting in my mind to have them be a "normal" and "difficult" mode or "easy" and "normal" or something. How it is though, it just feels like padding.

Either way, I'd highly recommend the game, and you should definitely get back to it. I wasn't particularly enthused with the small sprites to begin with, but it grew on me so much especially with the tight controls.

[a3quit4s | 4,121]

I know it’s a different complaint, but New Game+ type games piss me off. Especially ones where you have to do the entire game again to get some unique thing you can’t get the first time around. Like I’m not playing this game again. I don’t care that it’s 10/10 game of the decade, once I do the play through once, it’s dead to me

[fcgamer | 4,738]

1 hour ago, a3quit4s said:

I know it’s a different complaint, but New Game+ type games piss me off. Especially ones where you have to do the entire game again to get some unique thing you can’t get the first time around. Like I’m not playing this game again. I don’t care that it’s 10/10 game of the decade, once I do the play through once, it’s dead to me

Yeah I feel the same way, at least with longer games like RPGs and stuff. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,563]

You can't tell me what to do game!

...unless you're a Nier game.  Then I guess you can...

[Sumez | 2,983]

Has any game outside of Zelda ever called the second loop a "second quest"?

Anyway, this is such a weird thing to bemoan - there are no games that "force" you to play the second loop, not Ghosts n Goblins. Does it encourage you to do so? Sure. But it's up to you where you want to stop - the game loops endlessly. A lot of games are more interesting thanks to the second loop, and if you don't like it you can just ignore it. Castlevania throws you right into the second loop right after finishing the first, but I've never heard anyone complain about that. 

Imagine if Hammerin Harry or Metal Storm ended after the first loop, that would be pretty boring.

Ik the case of Micro Mages, the claim is just ludicrous though. The games three loops are wildly different, and offer unique gimmicks and challenges. A single loop is extremely short and extremely easy, why would you want the game to end there just when it's getting good? 

IMO the most fun way to play micro mages is the Expert Mode, it's actually somewhat challenging, and hey, guess what - it's only one loop! No forced second quest. 

Don't bother looking for the hidden relics to unlock it, you can just look up the password online

Edited July 7, 2023 by Sumez

[DefaultGen | 5,422]

If a game isn't good enough that I'd want to play it again, it probably has bigger issues than "forcing" me to. Undertale's default ending is kind of a bad ending, but the game was so good I immediately replayed it multiple times to get the better endings. I don't really have an issue with the devs incentivizing multiple playthroughs with differing content. Doesn't the Nier series have a ridiculous number of endings so people play through those numerous times?

[cj_robot | 545]

23 hours ago, a3quit4s said:

I know it’s a different complaint, but New Game+ type games piss me off. Especially ones where you have to do the entire game again to get some unique thing you can’t get the first time around. Like I’m not playing this game again. I don’t care that it’s 10/10 game of the decade, once I do the play through once, it’s dead to me

I don't get it. Isn't New Game+ in most cases basically just a bonus mode to mess around with after you beat the game?

Like in Chrono Trigger, it's an easy way to play through a bunch of times and see the different endings without having to waste time on tedious stuff like grinding for experience and money to buy stuff.

In The Last of Us, it was a way to experience the story again, while being able to finally max out Joel's upgrades and play the game as a badass. It's not the game's fault that you can't do that in one playthrough. It's specifically designed so that you have to make those tough choices on what to upgrade and what to skip. But, in the bonus mode, it's more about screwing around and having fun.

I haven't played every game that has a New Game+ option, but I've never came across one that I felt absolutely obligated to play.

[fcgamer | 4,738]

19 hours ago, Sumez said:

Ik the case of Micro Mages, the claim is just ludicrous though. The games three loops are wildly different, and offer unique gimmicks and challenges. A single loop is extremely short and extremely easy, why would you want the game to end there just when it's getting good? 

I haven't tried the third loop and didn't know that there was one, though it does make sense since I was aware of the relics and found a few.

The first two loops aren't wildly different though, hence my gripe. IMO, a much better way would be to list the two loops on the title screen as "Easy" and "Normal", giving the player a choice which mode to play. As it stands, one is forced to play through the baby hand-holding trainer mode first (and with no warning as to it being such), before being able to access the normal mode, which is just slightly different.

Sorry, but it just felt like a huge waste of time to me, and as though they were padding the game since it's short. To contrast, I played through Kubo 3 and also Skate Cat and completed both modes, same with many other games over the years; however, they were upfront about what it was, rather than trying to disguise the trainer mode as part of the normal game and then forcing two loops to get a somewhat decent ending. Yeah, that sucks.

[RegularGuyGamer | 2,016]

So you're not upset about having more content, you just don't like how they presented it to the player?

[fcgamer | 4,738]

22 minutes ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

So you're not upset about having more content, you just don't like how they presented it to the player?

In part, yes. Have you ever played Micro Mages (the game that made me start this thread)? The differences between the first two loops are very, very miniscule. Essentially, it's just enemy placement and some rearranged blocks / ledges or added lava. So there really isn't any logical reason why anyone would sit down to play both loops in a single setting - if these were presented as "Easy" and "Normal" modes, for example, people would just dive into "normal" and skip what in this game is the first loop. The way this game is set up though forces the player to play through the easy loop, to access a second loop that is more or less the same but slightly harder, to get to an ending (I can't comment on the ending of the second loop compared to the hard mode that Sumez mentioned, as I haven't played the latter...yet). 

How would people feel if they had played through Super Mario Bros., and at the end of 8-4 received a message "Now you're ready for the regular game, get back out there and save the princess!" before taking the player to 1-1 second quest (not even bringing the title screen back up, further suggesting the second loop is still part of the initial round)? Then they have to play the same thing essentially one more time to just get a decent ending. That's my issue.

Having gamed NES since I was three years old, I don't need to have my hand held playing through a non-essential easy mode just to feel obligated to play through the same thing again, albeit slightly more difficult, just to get to the ending of the game. It's just a way to pad out the game, nothing more. 

[AirVillain | 490]

[Sumez | 2,983]

3 hours ago, fcgamer said:

As it stands, one is forced to play through the baby hand-holding trainer mode first (and with no warning as to it being such), before being able to access the normal mode, which is just slightly different.

Okay I can understand this perspective. But as I see it the larger problem with Micro Mages in this concern is that the game is just much too easy by default. It's not the first time I've heard that complaint either.

I agree that context the game would have been better off excluding the first loop to a separate easy/tutorial mode. 

Seriously do look up the expert mode password, I think it'll provide exactly what you were missing from the game.

[T-Pac | 7,577]

4 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

So you're not upset about having more content, you just don't like how they presented it to the player?

This is how I always feel about games that present additional loops or harder difficulties as "necessary" for a legit playthrough.

I agree with @fcgamer on a lot of these points. And I would even go as far as to say - if I had it my way, every game would offer easy, normal, and hard modes that each present a proper ending and include all the content so everyone can get what they want out of a game - skilled players don't have to waste their time with low-difficulty loops, casual players can ease through the "full" game with the satisfaction of a definitive ending, and everyone else can enjoy the stock experience.

[T-Pac]

[Tanooki | 4,943]

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe I've ever seen anyone upset about a New Game+.  Usually it's just a new game, and the PLUS is carrying over minimally your gear+spells+items from the previous play, in some cases also carries over any leveled up skills if not the money and xp as well.  it's a way to just plow through the game twice to enjoy the story, not the standing around for hours pounding out kills to get stuff.  That's a good thing.  Some games have since, like some Square FF titles, have those max mode type setups where you can just have a Lv99 character to start to just enjoy the story.

[a3quit4s | 4,121]

8 hours ago, RegularGuyGamer said:

So you're not upset about having more content, you just don't like how they presented it to the player?

I love more content; items, things to do, quest lines, and whatever else you can throw at me. But it all needs to be available the first time I do the main story, not some gimmick to get me to play the story again. It’s an extremely lazy way to get people to say your game has replay value imo

Edited July 9, 2023 by a3quit4s

[Ankos | 452]

2 hours ago, Tanooki said:

As far as I'm concerned I don't believe I've ever seen anyone upset about a New Game+.  Usually it's just a new game, and the PLUS is carrying over minimally your gear+spells+items from the previous play, in some cases also carries over any leveled up skills if not the money and xp as well.  it's a way to just plow through the game twice to enjoy the story, not the standing around for hours pounding out kills to get stuff.  That's a good thing.  Some games have since, like some Square FF titles, have those max mode type setups where you can just have a Lv99 character to start to just enjoy the story.

Some megaman battle network games require multiple loops of new game plus to get extra content. I want to say mmbn4 has the player do four loops. They have some changed content, but a decent chunk of it goes unchanged. Most games don't do that, but it can be very grindy in ones that do

[Tanooki | 4,943]

I barely even in my best days would tolerate more than one loop, two was rare.  If ever saw a game saying to really get it done I had to do more than two I'd save my money and redirect it elsewhere as that's insane.

[Sumez | 2,983]

11 hours ago, T-Pac said:

I agree with @fcgamer on a lot of these points. And I would even go as far as to say - if I had it my way, every game would offer easy, normal, and hard modes that each present a proper ending and include all the content so everyone can get what they want out of a game - skilled players don't have to waste their time with low-difficulty loops, casual players can ease through the "full" game with the satisfaction of a definitive ending, and everyone else can enjoy the stock experience.

It's worth pointing out in this context that the idea of a gradually increasingly difficult loop is pretty much exclusively an arcade thing, and any console game deriving this concept is almost certainly a direct port of an arcade title.

There are a few arcade games that do offer different selectable modes for different skill levels, but typically that concept is in direct conflict with the idea of an arcade, where you are presented a specific challenge, and you compete to see how far you can get, and/or how many points you can build up. You aren't necessarily expected to make it all the way to the end. In fact, it's probably expected that only few players are. (on top of that, nearly every arcade game has an operator-adjustable difficulty level, that simply modifies the balance of every loop)

Now imagine you're one of the players who are consistently able to make it through the first loop nearly every time you play. Does that mean the game just ends there? And how do you compete with other players able to do the same? I think being able to always go for a higher challenge is a valuable addition to a game that's able to provide additional depth, while still providing a reasonable goal for people who are barely able to beat the first loop.

A good example of a popular loop design in a relatively late-era arcade game designed around the knowledge of how far arcade players are willing to go is Ketsui.
Ketsui is famously a pretty difficult game. Beating the first loop is no easy task, and anyone who can say they did so is certifiably a super skilled shoot'em up player. This is fine for most players, really. Beat Ketsui in a single credit, and you have a massive achievement under your belt!

Yet, there are of course players who love the game so much, and have practiced it so intensely that they will always be able to do so. Well, if they do 1CC the game, and use less than 6 bombs or deaths, and only then, the game will loop and give them an even harder challenge, allowing them to score higher and challenge themselves further.
This is the final loop of the game, however even better players will be able to go for the Ura Loop which has much stricter conditions, since you can't even die or bomb on the first loop. Beat this loop, and you will also get to fight the game's True Last Boss. Is it unfair that less skilled players can't fight it on the first loop? Don't worry, if they can't reach the Ura Loop, they really don't want to fight this guy either. And the loop conditions make sure even the most skilled players don't get to "waste time with a low-difficulty loop". The challenge is there all the way through. I don't really think having a player-controlled difficulty selection would have been a better approach here.

 

Of course, the proposed issue here is "being forced to play two loops" which is kinda an ambiguous term.
I honestly can't really think of more than two games who are truly designed like the player hasn't reached some sort of ending after a single loop - Ghouls n Ghosts and Super Ghouls n Ghosts. And I guess Micro Mages.
While I do sort of see the argument in Super, since the loops are so similar, I personally enjoy the game more like this. In Ghouls 'n Ghosts however, I'd say the second loop is absolutely essential. It's hard to argue exactly why to anyone who hasn't done it yet, but I think it makes sense when you do learn the game, due to the amount of RNG it is designed around. Either way, two loops of that game is still shorter than one loop of most other arcade games.  

[fcgamer | 4,738]

@Sumez I wouldn't take issue with arcades, that makes sense. 

[T-Pac | 7,577]

7 hours ago, Sumez said:

It's worth pointing out in this context that the idea of a gradually increasingly difficult loop is pretty much exclusively an arcade thing, and any console game deriving this concept is almost certainly a direct port of an arcade title.

There are a few arcade games that do offer different selectable modes for different skill levels, but typically that concept is in direct conflict with the idea of an arcade, where you are presented a specific challenge, and you compete to see how far you can get, and/or how many points you can build up. You aren't necessarily expected to make it all the way to the end. In fact, it's probably expected that only few players are. (on top of that, nearly every arcade game has an operator-adjustable difficulty level, that simply modifies the balance of every loop)

Now imagine you're one of the players who are consistently able to make it through the first loop nearly every time you play. Does that mean the game just ends there? And how do you compete with other players able to do the same? I think being able to always go for a higher challenge is a valuable addition to a game that's able to provide additional depth, while still providing a reasonable goal for people who are barely able to beat the first loop.

That's fair - I guess I just prefer the idea of letting the player be in the position of the "arcade operator", tailoring the difficulty to their taste so they can experience at least one whole loop in the most satisfying way for themselves.

Maybe I equate video games too closely with other media, like books and movies, where I feel cheated if I don't get to enjoy the content in its entirety and have the option to reread/rewatch/loop if I so desire.

I just need to be more open-minded to how other people approach games, especially in a competitive space.

[T-Pac]

[Ankos | 452]

19 hours ago, Tanooki said:

I barely even in my best days would tolerate more than one loop, two was rare.  If ever saw a game saying to really get it done I had to do more than two I'd save my money and redirect it elsewhere as that's insane.

I think mmbn4 required four loops or something super unreasonable like that. It also had a bunch of stuff you had to unlock via link play with the other version of it, meaning to truly 100% it you'd be doing eight loops total