Optional Content Isn't Really Optional | Semi-Ramblomatic

I'm fond of the Hollow Knight approach where among the rewards for hunting down all the extra content is a hidden extra harder version of the final boss. I'm inclined to be a completionist in general, so I tend to think that games like Hollow Knight and Arkham Knight that put content rewards like extra endings behind doing everything are just treating me well in the first place, but of those two examples, Hollow Knight's format has a more satisfying arc of difficulty curving up to the True Final Boss. (I'm not sure I like the Silksong structure quite as much, but the ratio of content in total versus the content just required to roll credits once is *impressively* large)

Great vid! Definitely agree that the term "optional" is really dumb for gaming. I really think it depends a whole lot on the game. BioShock is pretty linear, and once you get to the end, you can be pretty certain that it's really the end and that you didn't skip anything appurtenant to the main story. A replay would've yielded relatively little variation, and the gameplay is great but didn't really feel worth jumping back in. Baldur's Gate 3, on the other hand, has so many bits and bobs that add to the story that I unintentionally missed a solid 50% on my first playthrough. I still got an ending, but I knew it was incomplete. Plus I didn't get to try all the classes, discover item synergies, and me with the game mechanics as much as I wanted to in that first run. Replaying it gave me a chance to discover more story alongside new gameplay mechanics. So I guess the differentiating factor for me is the variability of the core gameplay. If a game is gonna feel the same the second time (or through a series of side missions that exist solely to add narrative meat) and I'm just doing it for a different story, it's tough to justify that level of repetition.

Undertale is an interesting case study in this. Arguably the good ending is the proper ending, and it's not significantly harder than the main route. Actually, it's impossible to lose the final battle in-story. And it has a satisfying ending. Though I'd argue it does subtly push you towards the Genocide ending. The final song doesn't resolve the chord progression. The OST has a song called "song that might play when you fight sans". But that aside, there's a lot of extra dialogue and random occurrences that you might not find on multiple playthroughs. And the game doesn't have achievements pushing you towards finding all the secrets. So in that sense they are optional, and the game design incentivizes you to find secrets because you want to, not to fill out a check-list. I think the real distinction here is structure and sign-posting. Which is exponentially harder to manage now because the collective processing power of people across the internet means secrets and optional content means we now know exactly what we're missing out on. Would the optional endings to Silent Hill f have bothered Yahtzee as much if he just didn't know they existed? And if I got optional dialogue in Deltarune for beating a puzzle well, but I didn't know it was optional dialogue, do I feel gratified? Or bemoan the dialogue I could have gotten if I was bad at the puzzle? Ultimately, I'm of the 'optional content should be harder' camp. You can finish Arkham Knight without 100%ing it and walk away happy if you're so inclined. And if you're not happy there's more to play, but also feel like you have to play it, that's just something you have to self-regulate. I know milage varies depending on your brain chemistry, and I'm not sure what to say for that.

The best example of “optional” content I can think of is the third act of expedition 33. If you want to engage with the additional content to spend more time with the characters, learn more about the game world, and pick up more items, you can. Alternately, if you want to beeline the final boss, you can do that immediately and you don’t miss out on a “true” ending. That said, I like the point that game playing is inherently optional, and perhaps “critical path” vs. “non-critical path” may be a more accurate way of describing. Thought-provoking, to be sure.

Is an ending always bad/unsatisfying if other endings exist? Armored Core 6 did the NewGamePlus trick very successfully: After 10ish-houres it offerend one of two endings, but if you play again the story changes subtly but meaningfully as you race towards the second ending. If you restart a third time things are different again and there is a third ending not accessable immediately. I´d argue this gels really well with the thight snacksized missions that IMHO are fun to do more than once. The ending I enjoyed most was the first but the third centered on the perspective on a up-until-then minor character that dealt with – repetition? Coercive structures? Frustration? Ludo-narrative synchronicity achieved ;-)

"I want to be done when the story is done." - my exact feelings, always struggle with this in games when there's a bunch of content that's intended to be "post-story". One extra boss for a secret ending can be one thing, but like unless it's maybe a DLC that expands the story somewhat or gives an epilogue type chapter, if it comes after the final boss I probably don't care. Like Yahtzee says though that is a me problem, since there are so many people who aren't done when the story is done.

The "extended plot after one playthrough" issue is what put me off Nier Automata, a game which I quite enjoyed while playing it, but after hearing you had to play through it something like four times to get the "real" ending, completely turned me off the narrative. It's getting increasingly common to leave "True" endings to New Game Plus. I expect it's done as a "reward" for the "true fans" but being forced to replay the same content does not strike me as rewarding. It's exceedingly rare for me to want to replay a game I've already finished, as I would rather play something new. The only narrative games I can recall actually completing more than once are the two Portal games and an old Amiga game called Millenium 2.2.

So, I agree with the notion that content that leads to more story content isn't optional. It's not optional if more content directly related to the main narrative is on the other side, so to speak. Giving players who do not engage with that content a bad/unsatisfying ending or locking them out of more story content means it's not optional. You roll credits but you roll credits on a lot of games that have bad endings for one reason or another. But I do disagree with the notion that all content is meant to be engaged with by every player. A good example of this is Kingdom Hearts 2: Final Mix and the boss Lingering Will. I think it's fair to assert that not every player will want to fight Lingering Will because it's an insane fight. There are so many attacks and projectiles to deal with that move so fast across the screen that mastery over the game's controls and combat is a necessity in order to get through it. Not every player will want to endure that just to roll credits. There are some that want to flex their skill over the combat and test themselves. The rewards are minimal, you do in fact get a crown for Sora to wear and you get a boost to your Drive Gauge, but that's not why people attempt the fight. The reward is the sense of accomplishment for beating the fight. But nothing you get is really required. And that feeds into the second point I want to make, about why people do these fights. I noticed this a (long) while back when Yahtzee said he asked WoW raiders why they went through the most difficult raids in the game. I think the disconnect here is that Yahtzee doesn't understand that undergoing a significant challenge is, in of itself, fun for certain kinds of players. It's fun to test your knowledge and skill over a game to their limits and optional superbosses/raid encounters provide that test. They're optional because they require a much higher level of execution than the regular final boss. Superbosses are for people who have already beaten the game and are seeking a greater challenge, raids act much the same way. They've finished the main story content and want to do more. They want to push themselves higher and higher, the gear is just a bonus. Sometimes they want to record their numbers and put them on a website to brag about having higher numbers. It's all about pushing oneself to be better, better than others or simply better than the strongest enemy the game has to offer.