Is it possible to beat all bosses in 1 playthrough?

[Northgate]

Also is some content gated behind (not dying too often)?

[Nerevar]

the answer is NO.
currently there is 1 boss that isnt added to the game yet.
and 1 boss is only fightable in ending B (worse ending)

the ending A is gated behind haveing below 100 will before interacting with "the source"
will raises by 1 for each death and starts at 100. it caps at 200 tough. and each heroic boss you kill lowers it by 40 points (only once per heroic boss) and in order to get EITHER ending A OR B you MUST kill FIVE different heroic bosses. so even if you had 200 will and then kill 5 heroics you would still end up with less than 100 will in the end even if you died another 100 times while beating 5 heroics and alot of heroics are silly easy when you have a higher level and better gear.

[Tsuki Zero]

No matter what, you will miss out on at least 1 boss. So here's some pointers:
In Ending C route, you'll miss out on three bosses and their heroic versions.
In Ending B route you'll miss out on two bosses and their heroic versions.
in Ending A route you'll miss out on one boss and their heroic version.

Apparently, if you kill Vrael and Ione it increases your Will by 100, so be careful to not kill them else you might wind up locked into Ending B or C.

[Northgate]

That's pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up game design. Who though that's a good idea? I like the game, but that decision is so dumb, that I will have to give it a negative review.

[SeekerHammerdin]

Ending C is basically an early ending, you didn't meet the criteria which would unlock the final areas of the game. Endings A and B are completely different as far as who you fight and where you go. So you'll explore different areas for ending B vs ending A and there's a big plot reason for all of that.

I wouldn't say it's bad game design, if anything, it'll add replayability to the game. Though if you want, you could make a copy of your save file before you make the decision between ending B and A and just go for both endings that way.

[Tsuki Zero]

Originally posted by Northgate:

That's pretty ♥♥♥♥♥♥ up game design. Who though that's a good idea? I like the game, but that decision is so dumb, that I will have to give it a negative review.

Nintendo maybe. And SEGA. A lot of old games ends early if you don't fulfill some requirements. See Sonic 3 & Knuckles, which cuts off the final final boss, or Donkey Kong Country 3 that hides the final area beyond a collecthathon...

[Northgate]

Originally posted by SeekerHammerdin:

I wouldn't say it's bad game design, if anything, it'll add replayability to the game. Though if you want, you could make a copy of your save file before you make the decision between ending B and A and just go for both endings that way.

You're right, I should've done that. Unfortunatelly it's too late now. However I think this is something the game should offers, since it's not hard to do from a technical standpoint.

Originally posted by Tsukiyomaru Zero:

Nintendo maybe. And SEGA. A lot of old games ends early if you don't fulfill some requirements. See Sonic 3 & Knuckles, which cuts off the final final boss, or Donkey Kong Country 3 that hides the final area beyond a collecthathon...

I've not played any of those games. I play exclusively on PC. But I would consider that bad game design too.

[Tsuki Zero]

Originally posted by Northgate:

Originally posted by SeekerHammerdin:

I wouldn't say it's bad game design, if anything, it'll add replayability to the game. Though if you want, you could make a copy of your save file before you make the decision between ending B and A and just go for both endings that way.

You're right, I should've done that. Unfortunatelly it's too late now. However I think this is something the game should offers, since it's not hard to do from a technical standpoint.

Originally posted by Tsukiyomaru Zero:

Nintendo maybe. And SEGA. A lot of old games ends early if you don't fulfill some requirements. See Sonic 3 & Knuckles, which cuts off the final final boss, or Donkey Kong Country 3 that hides the final area beyond a collecthathon...

I've not played any of those games. I play exclusively on PC. But I would consider that bad game design too.

Well, you know nothing of game dev.

[Northgate]

Don't assume things about people you don't know.

[Tsuki Zero]

Originally posted by Northgate:

Don't assume things about people you don't know.

There's an irony in that statement...
YOU!!! assume that you know what is good design or bad design in the mind of a game dev

Also, bad design is when NOTHING hints things... When no cutscene plays out to show "here, you did something wrong" or when nothing points you in the right way.

But Death's Gambit DOES show you: There's something wrong the moment tossed back to the title screen and then wake underwater and has to survive a certain boss fight, and Death makes no mention of it whatsoever. And well before then you defeat your first Heroic (which might be Owlking or Ione, as they are the easiest), and a creepy voice tells you "defeat a few more and I will tell you a secret". And yet, there's EVERYTHING about Death, supposedly watching every time you died and you might have died one or two times at most in Y'lnoth, completely ignoring the absurdity of that place...

[Northgate]

I didn't assume anything. I simply voiced an opinion.

I have no gripes with what you're talking about. I have gripes with A) bad people getting locked out of content and B) you can't fight all bosses during one playthrough.

[Leoscar]

Thing is, unless you're actually trying to, you can't possibly get ending C, or have your will above 100. You don't need to be good to kill five heroics and keep your will in check, two of them are actual free kills and a handful of them are barely harder than their normal version.

About locking bosses from some endings : that's because fightning the ending B boss in ending A makes 0 sense from a lore perspective. Also the game has enough build variety to jusify multiple playthroughs, so I wouldn't consider it a problem.

[SeekerHammerdin]

Originally posted by Northgate:

Originally posted by SeekerHammerdin:

I wouldn't say it's bad game design, if anything, it'll add replayability to the game. Though if you want, you could make a copy of your save file before you make the decision between ending B and A and just go for both endings that way.

You're right, I should've done that. Unfortunatelly it's too late now. However I think this is something the game should offers, since it's not hard to do from a technical standpoint.

Originally posted by Tsukiyomaru Zero:

Nintendo maybe. And SEGA. A lot of old games ends early if you don't fulfill some requirements. See Sonic 3 & Knuckles, which cuts off the final final boss, or Donkey Kong Country 3 that hides the final area beyond a collecthathon...

I've not played any of those games. I play exclusively on PC. But I would consider that bad game design too.

I guess that could be seen as an argument between wanting a game to offer everything it has in one go, which may eat into game design decisions, or for the sake of plot, split the game off based on decisions to make these choices matter more.

As an example, Sekiro has something like this, you have to make a decision in the game at one point that leads to different endings and would keep you from going through every part of the game, and it's a pretty big decision.

Witcher 2 could be another example, where a decision between who you side with will lead to big differences in the rest of the game

In the case of a game like Witcher, it does have a save game feature, so while you won't have to go through the whole game again to get to your decision (provided you saved), you'd still essentially be replaying like half the game anyway, since it's a big choice.

So on one hand, having a save game system in Death's Gambit could alleviate your concern, but how saves are handled can also depend on what kind of experience the creators want a player to have. Since death plays a big part in this game (like it does in Dark Souls for example), it makes sense to not let people have a save system that they can lean on since that can cheapen the experience some. In the case of Dark Souls, it's the loss and hollowing which is part of the story and having to deal with the consequences of screwing up which they want to reinforce through their game design, in Death's Gambit, it's basically part of the plot and you even get flashbacks and other scenes/dialogues when you die, so it's again, reinforced through those design decisions..

I can understand having some frustration if you're the completionist sort, but I'd still say this design being good or bad is a pretty subjective and it's fine to not like it if it doesn't mesh well with how you play.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by UwU Notices your towers:

Thing is, unless you're actually trying to, you can't possibly get ending C, or have your will above 100. You don't need to be good to kill five heroics and keep your will in check, two of them are actual free kills and a handful of them are barely harder than their normal version.

About locking bosses from some endings : that's because fightning the ending B boss in ending A makes 0 sense from a lore perspective. Also the game has enough build variety to jusify multiple playthroughs, so I wouldn't consider it a problem.

Sorry but that's simply wrong. You start with a Will of 100 and it increases by 1 after each death. Killing a heroic reduces it by 40. By killing 5 heroics mathematically you have 200 deaths to work with. That's not a lot. I had over 2000 deaths in Nioh just for comparison.
I also intentionally make the game harder if it's too easy. The whole point of a soulslike is to day a looooot.

Then the endings are badly designed. Simple as that. Or just do it like Dark Souls and let the player attack NPCs and thus lead into the other boss fight. There are countless solutions for it. Lore is not an excuse for such a design decision.

Originally posted by SeekerHammerdin:

As an example, Sekiro has something like this, you have to make a decision in the game at one point that leads to different endings and would keep you from going through every part of the game, and it's a pretty big decision.

Ohh I highly disliked this in Sekiro too. But it's alleviated there as that decision is midway through the game and not at the end. It's still bad.

And of course it's subjective. Game Design is like art. There is no such thing as objectivity. You guys seem to like this sort of stuff and that's okay.

But I'm a Youtuber and I don't have much time to replay games (nor any interest) and I'd like to show my audience all the content a game has to offer. And as a result of this mess I had to go on a rant about this game.

Anyway my questions have been answered. Thanks Nerevar. I think we can put this thread to rest.

[Leoscar]

Originally posted by Northgate:

Sorry but that's simply wrong. You start with a Will of 100 and it increases by 1 after each death. Killing a heroic reduces it by 40. By killing 5 heroics mathematically you have 200 deaths to work with. That's not a lot. I had over 2000 deaths in Nioh just for comparison.
I also intentionally make the game harder if it's too easy. The whole point of a soulslike is to day a looooot.

Then the endings are badly designed. Simple as that. Or just do it like Dark Souls and let the player attack NPCs and thus lead into the other boss fight. There are countless solutions for it. Lore is not an excuse for such a design decision.

200 deaths against heroic Ione, Owl king, Origa, Sirad, Bulwark and Phoenix rider ? Again unless you're trying to, it's impossible. Also the point of soulslike was never to die a lot, the whole "prepare to die" thing is just marketing, souls games were never that difficult, just not brain dead easy like modern RPGs. Also Nioh is super cheap as far as difficulty goes, not a good example of what a souls like should be.

[Northgate]

No 200 deaths in total. The will counter rises also if you die against normal enemies.
And of course it's the purpose to die a lot. Because that's how you get satisfaction when finally defeating a hard boss.

Nioh is not cheap at all.