![Lucid stock price](https://loka.nahovitsyn.com/236.jpg)
![crosscode a new home ending crosscode a new home ending](https://www.snackandbakery.com/ext/resources/Issues/2017/November/Market-Trends/healthy-snacks-13.jpg)
I'm not saying, that you should implement these into CrossCode. It would probably have been enough if the start of the postgame episode was part of the true ending (and by that I mean: a reunion scene of Lea and her friends, nothing more than that).Ī lot of my suggestions on how the true / bad ending split could be better designed, are pretty big ones. Now, I'm not saying that the "true" ending of CrossCode needs to be as radically different as Undertale's "true" ending, but additional scenes, and maybe a true final boss would have been a good idea (I'm speaking in general terms here I have no idea how you could do these things in CrossCode's case). The "true" ending of Undertale, for example, is nothing like the normal ending. (Please note that none of this is about the time investment needed to get the true ending.)īasically, what I'm saying is, if the game has a "true" ending, it should be different enough that the players don't want to skip through everything. Once you go back and fulfil the right conditions, you are left with two choices:Įither replay chapter 10, which is exactly the same as the last time, or skip through everything, which kills the narrative flow. So the good ending is more like a "true" ending. When you get the bad ending you are encouraged to go back to the past and try to get the good ending, because otherwise you won't be able to access the postgame (in the future, of course). Individually both of these things are fine, but together they create a problem. The bad ending is not an ending you are supposed to just accept.ģb. First you happily play CrossWorlds, nothing can really go wrong, but then you get to VW, and suddenly fun time's over, and now your actions have consequences.)ģa. It would have been a nice contrast between CrossWorlds and the CC main plot. (Now that I think about it, chapter 7 would have been perfect for having consequences for your actions and choices. Once I knew that there is a good ending it was very easy to find, it just didn't occur to me. If the game had earlier moments during which your actions and choices had actual consequences, this moment at the end wouldn't have come out of nowhere like this. (Sergey even tells you to just focus on the VW Raid, and worry about getting Instatainment Support later.) I just didn't even consider that it was something that could affect the story I thought it was maybe a sidequest, or an optional scene at best. When I got to chapter 10 I did notice what Hlin was saying, and I looked for Albert in Rhombus Square, but since I couldn't find him, I just continued with the story. It's the only time that your actions have a meaningful impact on the narrative. It is similar to CrossCode, because in both games you don't know that those specific actions or choices have an impact on the game's ending.Ģ. During that game there are some choices that affect the ending, and if you did at least 2 out of 4 things the right way (or 3 out of 5 it depends on another choice), then you get one of the two good endings (which you get depends on another choice). (Of course you would have to make sure that it's still possible to get the good ending in chapter 10 alone).Ī game that does something similar to this is The Witcher 3. Maybe it would have been better if, over the course of the entire game, multiple things affected the ending, and if you got at least 2 out of 3, or maybe 3 out of 5, then you would get the good ending. The ending you get is not determined by a conscious choice, so I don't think you should fail to get the good ending just by missing one little thing.
![crosscode a new home ending crosscode a new home ending](https://www.foxtrendingnews.com/upload/media/posts/2021-05/24/10-000-zombies-vs-mutant-wither_1621832264-b.jpg)
It's not a choice, and it has an instant fail condition. So here are three reasons why I think that's the case:ġ. There's also the "Turing Test" sequence that wouldn't really work if you couldn't fail it, so I'm not saying that it the good / bad ending split was a bad idea in general, just that it wasn't all that well designed.
![crosscode a new home ending crosscode a new home ending](https://digilord.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/server.digimetriq.com/uploads/2021/03/word-image-9362.jpeg)
Lea does maybe depend on Sergey's help a bit too much, and does slightly too little of her own initiative. This "flaw" is not that huge, really, but since it affects the ending, it's a bit more impactful.ĭuring the last dev stream Lachsen briefly explained why they wanted to have a bad ending.Īs far as I understood it, the plan was originally to have just one ending, and Sergey would tell you where to meet a certain person, but they changed it because they didn't want Sergey to do everything for Lea. I didn't see many people talking about it, so I felt like I had to say something about what I consider a narrative flaw in an otherwise near perfect game. Here's why I think that the ending, or more specifically the good / bad ending split is a bit badly designed (The rest of the ending was great, in my opinion). This contains spoilers for the end of the game!
![Lucid stock price](https://loka.nahovitsyn.com/236.jpg)