The importance of endings

[Kaftan Barlast]

The phenomena of a non-existant or anticlimctic ending is unfortunantly not a new thing in the world of gaming but we have recently seen two big examples in the RPG genre which caused massive fan protests, Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines and Knights of the Old Republic 2

 

 

Its been my experience during my life as a gamer, that game developers for various reasons tend to neglect that any story must have beginning-middle-end in order to feel complete to the player.

 

 

Now the question is, why do western developers so often seem to take the decision to skimp out on endings, which is, in many ways, the most important part of the story?

[Tsel]

Unfortunately since we are not in their board room meetings and we do not know what the business executives decide we most likely will not know why some Publishers push game companies to finish a product before its full completion.

 

Also, it saddens me that the word choices you used is seemingly bigot / prejudiced towards western companies.

Business knows no boundaries and the issues you raise can be found on any continent.

 

Tsel

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Now the question is, why do western developers so often seem to take the decision to skimp out on endings, which is, in many ways, the most important part of the story?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Two reasons that I can think of.

 

1. The whole choice thing makes it difficult to tie up the end a coherent way and still keep the idea that you had some choice in the matter.

 

2. Because they have to incorporate all these multipath aspcets throughout the game they simply run out of time and then have to tie things up very quickly.

 

Granted the Japanese do some terrific endings. But in fairness to the western developers, the JRPGS are very much more book like when it comes to storytelling.

[Kaftan Barlast]

2. Because they have to incorporate all these multipath aspcets throughout the game they simply run out of time and then have to tie things up very quickly.

 

 

Thats probably a very common reason.

 

 

 

A theory of mine has to do with the fact that games traditionally have been about gameplay and the story was only secondary. In that line of thinking, it would make more sense to attend to the actual "middle" gaming part primarily and then spend the rest of the time trying to tie the loose ends together, unfortunantly resulting in an anticlimax for the player.

 

Nowadays, when games(not just RPGs) are becomming more and more like films with real story, characters and so on, players will come to expect a big hollywood ending to the gaming experience. While Devs are perhaps still locked, thinking that merely defeating the end boss will do.

 

Point being, developers need to realise that arent just making "Pong 2000", they are telling a story and they need to learn how to do that effectively. And above all- they need the time and means to do it.

 

 

 

(I might need to add that this doesnt apply to Obsidians devs, I know that you know your stuff, and that the ending of K2 had its reasons, both practical and planned ones)

[kirottu]

Worst ending I

[Drakron]

Problem is storytelling, its possible to make a good ending as long the game is story focused.

 

Problem is they rarely are and try to be character focus, add open character generation and we can see the disaster ... now add multiple endings and we can see its simply not going to work.

 

VtM:B tried to be story focus and we all see how well it was taken, it seens people today are simply not happy if they are not playing some kind of super character that the world resolves around and are unable to understand a ending were they were simply a pawn (VtM:B ending is not liked because they either get blown up, thown to the bottom of the ocean or realized they were used as a pawn in someone else game).

[Antagonist]

It's difficult to judge for me how game development works but I'd like to see desigers focus on the end part of a game at the beginning of development and make adjustments later on if necessary because I don't think that they start without a finished plot (or outline at least).

[Tsel]

Worst ending I

Edited March 16, 2005 by Tsel

[Skynet]

I never completed Lionheart (and don't intend to). How does it end?

[BattleCookiee]

Now the question is, why do western developers so often seem to take the decision to skimp out on endings, which is, in many ways, the most important part of the story?

 

I guess because Game Magazines and Sites never play to the end of a game.

They think: "Great story etc." as they don't see that bad part... and give it a better number in their mags/on their sites than if they begin sucked (as they DO play that).

Also if a gamer plays he might tells others (friends) about it how good it is and when they find out they screwed the ending he mouth-to-mouth advertisment is already given...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I never completed Lionheart (and don't intend to).  How does it end?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dont remember :"> perhaps I blocked it out or something. The first part of the game was nice though.

 

I can remember the end battle just not the title ending.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

One of the best methods I

[kirottu]

One of the best methods I

[Jumjalum]

I seem to remember someone from Black Isle commenting that the greater percentage of players dont make it past the middle of the game so thats where most of the attention goes. I guess developers tend to put most of their tricks where the majority of people will see them, thus the endings are the weakest part of a game, generally.

[GhostofAnakin]

IMO, the ending is very important because it tends to be the last thing we remember about the game. So a bad ending could otherwise spoil a spectacular game, since the player will dwell on the last thing he/she sees.

 

As for why endings perceivably get less attention, I think it has to do with time constraints. If a developer is short on time, it's much easier to cut, edit, or slap on an ending, because it doesn't affect anything after it. Whereas the rest of the game has to take into account how changes or lack of development will affect events after it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I seem to remember someone from Black Isle commenting that the greater percentage of players dont make it past the middle of the game so thats where most of the attention goes.  I guess developers tend to put most of their tricks where the majority of people will see them, thus the endings are the weakest part of a game, generally.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes I remember that one too.

 

If that is indeed the case, then yes it makes perfect sense to focus on the bits that the most people will see.

[Kaftan Barlast]

the ending is very important because it tends to be the last thing we remember about the game.  So a bad ending could otherwise spoil a spectacular game, since the player will dwell on the last thing he/she sees.

 

 

 

That is one of the most important truths to this issue. I was so thrilled while I was playing K2, but now after Ive finished it I have to struggle to remember that greatness because it gets snuffed out by the sudden and unsatisying ending.

[birdiedude]

One of the best game endings I have ever experienced was Final Fantasy 3 for the SNES. (6 for those of you who care.)

 

I won't post any spoilers so this is safe to read.

 

First of all there are twelve characters that are forced into your party through the course of the game. Technically only three are required to enter the final dungeon and beat the game.

 

The final area is magically held together by the bad guy. When you kill him, it begins to fall apart. The bulk of the ending cinema deals with the characters backtracking to a point at which they can escape.

 

Each of the characters you have collected has a scene in the ending. This scene mostly reinforces the development they encountered during the previous sections of the game. THere are some new developments, but nothing earth shattering.

 

On the one hand, defeating the final enemy has made the world a much safer place, and you have brought about a significant change to the game world. On the other had, the ending itself only continues for roughly five minutes after the characters escape. Essentially any further development is left in the player's imagination, but we have been given more than enough info to know what to expect.

 

The beauty of the game is at certain points character choice has a significant impact on the story. As I stated above there are only three characters necessary to beat the game. Using only those three will give you a "default" ending only showing their sections, any further characters not only reveal more of the cinema, but also alter those default scenes.

 

For example, one of the default characters may have a love interest. If you don't have him, she simply comments that she misses him. If you do have him the scene is changed to further reinforce their feelings.

 

 

What is the point of all of this? CHARACTERS!

 

If you have a linear plot driven quest, that doesn't mean you need some hour long cinema tying things up. Even if you have a non-linear choice driven quest it doesn't mean you have to shoe-horn the plot into some default ending.

 

The focus should be on the character's you've encountered and the one you've created yourself (I actually consider cities to be under the category of "character" in some instances). The development given to the characters you encounter should be more than enough to make this a viable way to wrap things up. If this can

[Azure79]

My God I love the FF6 ending. Its great! All those characters coming together in the end escaping from the crumbling tower, Locke and Celes...awwww!!

I knew they were meant for each other.

 

Then each of them march past on your screen and all the adventures you had with them go through your head. Man....I need to play that again. Was the re-release for the earlier FFs on the Ps1 or PS2? I think I might just buy them.

 

The ending to Ninja Gaiden 2 was also cool. One of my favorite endings in a Video game. That whole cinematic approach to ninja gaiden was awesome.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

My God I love the FF6 ending. Its great! All those characters coming together in the end escaping from the crumbling tower, Locke and Celes...awwww!!

I knew they were meant for each other.

 

Then each of them march past on your screen and all the adventures you had with them go through your head. Man....I need to play that again. Was the re-release for the earlier FFs on the Ps1 or PS2? I think I might just buy them.

 

The ending to Ninja Gaiden 2 was also cool. One of my favorite endings in a Video game. That whole cinematic approach to ninja gaiden was awesome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I cant think of a Sqare/Enix Squenix game where I havnt enjoyed the ending.

 

Re release was on the PS.

[Zero]

I thought the endings for Oddworld: Munch's Oddysee was pretty good at the time...thats a western game.

 

 

I don't think endings are the only thing that suffers in a large portion of western rpgs; the whole structure of the games isn't exactly designed to deliver great storytelling. Japanese rpgs determine who your character is and how he/she interacts with those around them. That gives them a lot to work with thematically speaking. They can manipulate things however they want to convey the kind of message they need to convey. Not to mention I think JRPGS tend to cater to a specific niche in the gaming community, whereas CRPGS seem to try to cover a lot of bases (from those craving scantily clad women to those looking for shakespeare in game format).

 

I mean in western rpgs the protagonist tends to be really bloody bland (in order to be accesible to a large audience I'm sure) and their involvement with other characters rather superficial. Planescape was actually rather good in that respect..so that may not hold entirely true... Maybe thats not a valid point.

 

I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting at...I think what I'm saying is that when you have a game that would work best with a certain type of protagonist and you let say a crude jacka$$ take his place, its very hard to make the story have the same kind of meaning. If you aware of this while you are designing the game, i think it would be very hard to create an ending that isn't lacking in emotion in order to cater to the large amount of character personalities possible.

 

Choice is the enemy of good storytelling..unless your a really good storyteller and have a lot of time on your hand.

 

(sorry if this is all too obvious or just repeating whats others have said)

[Child of Flame]

Once again, I LIKED the endings in Bloodlines.

 

One of the best endings I've seen in any game though (yes I know it was not an RPG) was Mafia. That ending made me tear up a little.

[Squidget]

Choice is the enemy of good storytelling..unless your a really good storyteller and have a lot of time on your hand.

 

True - but on the other hand, if you don't have choice then how does the player relate to the story?

 

The biggest problem with JRPGs is that they don't. The player's control is restricted entirely to combat and item selection, and they watch the story sequences in-between. This tends to make those games pretty decent strategy combat simulators, but the lack of choice in the story also hurts their connection to the player overall. It's like switching back and forth between Soul Caliber and a good movie, basically. The story and gameplay aren't at all connected.

 

In a western CRPG you might not be able to tell as good a story and the story might have to be split into more paths, but the player's actions can also have consequences, and determine how the story goes. You can get a great story by reading a book or watching a movie, but only in a western CRPG can you get a story that changes according to what you as the player want to occur, or make occur through your character's actions.

 

It's essentially a sliding scale between choice and story depth. Something like Morrowind might be on one end (all choice, little story to speak of) and Final Fantasy on the other, with most linear CRPGs of the type Obsidian and Bioware make falling somewhere in the middle.

[Loof]

To adress your first question: Books have absolutely no choises and the reader still manages to relate to the story and the characters in it. At least I do.

[Noceur]

To adress your first question: Books have absolutely no choises and the reader still manages to relate to the story and the characters in it. At least I do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So do I, but you have to realize that the book is not an interactive medium.

 

I think game developers are still trying to manage all this new technology, where they CAN make games with movie like quality but still make them interactive.

It certainly doesn't help that "evolution" that we have a bunch of publishers that wants to push out products as fast as possible (and perhaps stick to the well tried, as well).

 

I don't know if this has anything to do with game endings however. I think deadlines put on by publishers is a big problem with endings... whilst the ending(s) may be already written, the actual scripting/rendering of the ending might actually take place last in the pipeline, thus when the developer nears the extremely optimistic deadline they have to rush the ending.

Or, in the middle of the production timeline the developer realize that they just don't have time to incorporate all of the plot-threads, and it all becomes a mess. Cut out the whole plot thread or just the end?

 

I've seen my share of bad endings... I think the worst ever was in Tomb Raider 1. Actually, it's kind of amusing...

 

The Fallout 2 ending kicked ass though... you got to keep playing, and some things happened depending on what you did during the game... actually, that was after the ending. The actual endings in Fallout 2 was also good, because the player was told about the consequences of his actions during the game were.

 

Ron Gilbert and his team (during his time at Lucas Arts) said that the avarage gamer played through about half of an adventure game, and they used to joke about just making half the game since noone would play through the rest anyway. The Monkey Island games still had good endings. I believe it's easier to write an ending for a linear game though... although the ending of a non-linear game may be linear as well. It just depends on how much the developer wants the player's actions to affect the ending.

 

 

edit:

Also, I believe that the eastern games that are translated/published here in the west are the top of the crust, so to speak. There may be a whole bunch of games released in the east with endings that make even the most extreme otaku weep in his pillow with frustration.