I was thinking that a Seven style ending could be great in a game where nonviolent progression is an option. Meaning that you go through a game all nonviolent and stuff, by reasoning with people, making friends and avoiding the more violent types. Essentially you are roleplaying a true pacifist. Meanwhile, the game gives you a bunch of characters for you to relate to and develop a proper friendship with. And, when the end is near, the main antagonist kills the character you have developed a bigger attachment to ina particularly gruesome way. So the ending is just the choice that you, the consumate pacifist, make when faced with the opportunity to take revenge on the antagonist.

 

Also, the ending where you decide to kill the bastard shouldn't be a long and drawn out fight. It should be you shooting him once in the head, and the scene ending with his dead eyes looking at you. Furthermore, after that scene some of the people that you might have gathered as friends throughout the game should leave you filled with disgust and disappointment.

 

There should be, of course completely different endings if you play the game in a completely different way.

 

 

 

My idea here is that designers should begin to create endings for games that don't involve beating some big and evil boss person to a pulp. First because ending bosses are trite as hell, and secondly because games should and could be about more than the player against whoever.

The problem with a game like that would be in persuading the player that violence isn't the best (or rather, the most fun) option.

 

PSTs 'best' ending was awsome in that reguard, esspesally considering that the combat just wasn't fun anyway.

Well, this thread is a big hit...

 

Thanks for at least posting in it, Nick.

Your central point:

...ending bosses are trite as hell...

I wholeheartedly agree with, both as 'end of chapter' and 'end of game' devices. 'End of chapter' bosses are so often terribly artificial, only there because the convention requires them to be there. I think that the end of a chapter should indeed be some significant event or accomplishment, but more variety would definitely be a good thing.

 

Having the villain kill a close NPC friend (or romantic interest) near the end is interesting, but potentially very tricky to pull off. I think it would affect replayability (I'm reminded of Ultima VII Serpent Isle where you spend the first half of the game performing quests to help people

who are then all killed off about half-way through

). If, as you say, it's only one of many possible outcomes, then that's not so much of a problem. Otherwise, it's better left to more linear games like adventure games.

I was going to post something, but I think I've been seeming too argumentative lately. So, I didn't.

Thinking about it, I guess the central point of my idea is to have some sort of dilemma presented to the player at end of the game instead of a supposedly climactic boss fight. Also important, is that the dilemma is based on the way the player plays the game. It should be something that challenges the way the player has been progressing through the game. For example, if you've managed to get to the end of the game without ever taking sides, always going for the neutral path, the ending would pose you with a situation where either you choose a side or you die (which if you feel that strongly about neutrality, might be a "good" ending for you.)

 

 

 

P.S.: I'm thinking that perhaps this thread would be better in the Aliens forum.

We can do that - we have the technology!

I don't see that as feasible. You can't grasp a character in a way that they feel invested for some last minute choice. When a game is about to end, the player recognizes any choices made are trivial and only effect his supposed "ending." It becomes the most detached choice in the game. His choice becomes based on what cinematic he thinks would be neat to see (he'll probably save right before so he can try both), not emotion.

 

Contrast this to early choices with far reaching consequences that they player will actually have to play the game through and deal with said consequences in gameplay.

 

Maybe I shouldn't say "feasible." There's nothing preventing such a situation. However, it's also a tired cliche. The decision at the last minute that effects your ending.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Tale

I'm not talking about some detached choice that falls on the player's lap at the last minute. The choice should follow from the game's narrative, from the narrative has been progressing, and from earlier choices the player might have made earlier in the game. This final choice should itself be a consequence of all the things he did during the game, of all the things that during the game made him feel invested in the character and in the story.

Then you're not actually talking about a choice. Your main premise seems to be a personalized ending that you're dressing up as a "choice."

 

The end of a game is probably the time the player is going to be least invested in a game. Because whatever he does there has no effect he'll have to deal with. It's impossible to make a choice that is not detached unless consequences/rewards follow from it.

 

To be a positive contributer instead of a naysayer, I'll look at it a bit from your angle. It seems you obviously want some eventful emotional ending with a choice. Something akin to Se7en. You won't be able to achieve that by putting the player in Brad Pitt's shoes. The audience sympathized with the character because of the emotion Brad Pitt showed. If it's your character, you don't have that emotion to sympathize with. HOWEVER, if the player were Morgan Freeman. He could then see the emotion of Brad Pitt and sympathize with that.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Tale

It's a personalized ending and a real meaningful choice. I don't see how it is a false choice. It's a choice with immediate consequences instead of far reaching ones. The game has to end somewhere, you know.

 

 

 

 

Tangent: To make this topic more Alienish, I was thinking that a possible ending for the game would be a final battle against waves and waves of Aliens, trying to keep them at bay until a spaceship with the last of the planet's survivors, can take off. The final sequence itself would be you, the main character, finally being overcome and mauled by the Aliens, with the ship being seen in the distance finally taking off.

 

 

Edit: The point with referencing Se7en, is that when I saw the movie, the first thing I thought of when Pitt's character was presented with the situation, was what would I choose if I had been in his place. With a game, I feel the player should actually have to make that choice. The player as Morgan Freeman would just be your average spectator, which is what already happens in all other storytelling mediums.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Pidesco

It's a personalized ending and a real meaningful choice. I don't see how it is a false choice.

I'm not saying it's a false choice, I'm saying it's not meaningful.

 

It's a choice with immediate consequences instead of far reaching ones. The game has to end somewhere, you know.

Immediate consequences are shallow consequences in games. They're shallowest at the game's ending. As I said before (or at least I think I did), consequences only have meaning if the player has to deal with them. Key emphasis here is that it has to effect the player. Not the character. Consequences upon a character that have no appreciable effect on a player are meaningless.

 

If the player makes a choice between living, dying, going to jail etc, these are all choices that effect the character. If the end result for the player is that regardless of which choice he chooses, the game ends, then the appreciable effect on the player is minimal.

 

Edit: The point with referencing Se7en, is that when I saw the movie, the first thing I thought of when Pitt's character was presented with the situation, was what would I choose if I had been in his place. With a game, I feel the player should actually have to make that choice. The player as Morgan Freeman would just be your average spectator, which is what already happens in all other storytelling mediums.

 

You sympathized with him because you saw his emotion. You can't put the player in Brad Pitt's shoes. The character's expression is what attaches you. A player's expression of his own character does not attach him to his own character.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Tale

It's a choice with immediate consequences instead of far reaching ones. The game has to end somewhere, you know.

Immediate consequences are shallow consequences in games. They're shallowest at the game's ending. As I said before (or at least I think I did), consequences only have meaning if the player has to deal with them. Key emphasis here is that it has to effect the player. Not the character. Consequences upon a character that have no appreciable effect on a player are meaningless.

 

If the player makes a choice between living, dying, going to jail etc, these are all choices that effect the character. If the end result for the player is that regardless of which choice he chooses, the game ends, then the appreciable effect on the player is minimal.

 

The player has to deal with the choices. He has to deal with his character getting killed, or with the character losing someone, or whatever, because of his choices. The key is that an attachment to the character has already been built throughout the game. A choice can act as closure for a narrative, and the fact that it finishes the game doesn't make it automatically less meaningful. It just has to be an ending that satisfies the player and brings proper closure to the narrative.

 

Edit: The point with referencing Se7en, is that when I saw the movie, the first thing I thought of when Pitt's character was presented with the situation, was what would I choose if I had been in his place. With a game, I feel the player should actually have to make that choice. The player as Morgan Freeman would just be your average spectator, which is what already happens in all other storytelling mediums.

 

You sympathized with him because you saw his emotion. You can't put the player in Brad Pitt's shoes. The character's expression is what attaches you. A player's expression of his own character does not attach him to his own character.

 

The key here is making the player feel he is for all intents and purposes, the character. The expressions of the character and of the player should be the same or at least appear to the player be same. You keep talking like the choice is independent of the rest of game when, what I'm talking about here is a character that the player created and developed throughout the game.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Pidesco

The player has to deal with the choices. He has to deal with his character getting killed, or with the character losing someone, or whatever, because of his choices.

They don't have to deal with this. That's the problem. If the game simply ends thereafter, there is no dealing, it's done and over. Regardless of what decision you make and how you think the player develops the character.

 

The key here is making the player feel he is for all intents and purposes, the character.

The expressions of the character and of the player should be the same or at least appear to the player be same.

You keep talking like the choice is independent of the rest of game when, what I'm talking about here is a character that the player created and developed throughout the game.

You cannot make a player feel he is the character. You simply cannot do it. It is impossible. A player of a game is an untrained actor who is reading off a script. It may not be a fully fleshed out script, but it has the outline of how to respond to situations. The player makes choices based upon what kind of character they want to play, not who they actually are. And you can't make them do otherwise. They play the game from the perspective of being someone else. Some may pick choices that they think are "most like" themselves, but that's based upon perception, not reality. Their choices reflect the difference between perception and reality, as well. That is to say, even for these players, the character is still different from themselves. Any emotion they assign to their character is the result of belief, not personal investment.

 

Simply put, player's don't "develop" their characters. They don't change and grow outside of gaining stats and skills. Because that's not in their script. And nobody can change the writer's script but the writer.

 

 

As an example. A player will go into the game with the script of "badass marine, BOOYAH!" and every decision he makes he will make to reflect that character. Despite the fact that the player is actually a weasly little coward and he knows it.

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Tale

Of course you can't make the player feel he is the character, you just have to do your best and hope that the player falls for it, so to speak. In the same way that that a film maker can' make a movie goer empathize with his characters and enjoy the film. A creator just has to try his best and hope it works for some people. You can't just go into any creative endeavour and expect everyone to like what you have created, everyone to be touched by what you've created. If all you can do is something generic and that attempts to appeal to everyone, all you're going to end up with is crap.

 

So, a game designer should try to engage the player in meaningful ways, but can't adopt that all or nothing approach of appealing. Some players will empathize with their characters, some will just feel badass, some will be bored, some will be engaged by the plot, some will enjoy the tactics and combat's challenge, some will enjoy the integration of all the game's elements into a whole, some will the main character is crap, some will feel the main character is great, and so on and so on and so on. So some players will react like you are saying but, if a designer/writer does a good job others won't.

So, I heard you like Mudkips?

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Tale

Heh, sorry. This is why I avoided posting in this thread at first. I was hoping I could avoid an argument that way. I'll leave it to others discuss who may see it better than I do and just shut up.

Well, I still read what you posted originally, and I still don't understand how you can possibly say that it's impossible for a player to become emotionally invested in his own character. A player becomes attached to whatever and whoever he wants or is compelled to be attached to even if that something is just a bunch of stats huddled together.

The audience sympathized with the character because of the emotion Brad Pitt showed.

What movie are you watching?

Well, I still read what you posted originally, and I still don't understand how you can possibly say that it's impossible for a player to become emotionally invested in his own character. A player becomes attached to whatever and whoever he wants or is compelled to be attached to even if that something is just a bunch of stats huddled together.

Let me ask you a question. What is attachment? How do you define it? How do you know it is there?

When you care for someone and are affected emotionally by what happens to that person you have an attachment to said person. It's rather trivial.

Thinking about it, I guess the central point of my idea is to have some sort of dilemma presented to the player at end of the game instead of a supposedly climactic boss fight. Also important, is that the dilemma is based on the way the player plays the game. It should be something that challenges the way the player has been progressing through the game. For example, if you've managed to get to the end of the game without ever taking sides, always going for the neutral path, the ending would pose you with a situation where either you choose a side or you die (which if you feel that strongly about neutrality, might be a "good" ending for you.)

What if the player is rewarded with a bland and grey ending for his bland and grey playing style? If not committing yourself to anything in the game, are you not deserving of the game not showing any commitment to you in the end? Wasn't that how Batman started? Not wanting to take sides comes back and bites your butt in the end...

 

For what it is worth, I *hate* end of level bosses, being some kind relic from old arcade games

 

The end of chapter/episode/trip/whatever should really be something appropriate for the style of game, not just always a combat the tests the game mechanics and the patience of player to the limit. Tombraider Anniversary is a good example of boss fights done poorly. Hard, uninteresting and completely out of place for the type of game that it is. In an alien game on the other hand... it really all boils down to what type of game it is going to be.

 

Is it a tactical combat game (like JA2)? is it a first/third person perspective action rpg game? Should it even have "chapters" or should it be more like Fallout, you have a beginning and an end, but the main game is the middle part? All things that for me determines what would be appropriate to give a sense of accomplishment. A superhard puzzle at the end of puzzle game

When you care for someone and are affected emotionally by what happens to that person you have an attachment to said person. It's rather trivial.

Edit: Actually, let me take back that question and go with another. Do you think Shakespeare was attached to his characters?

Edited December 7, 200718 yr by Tale

Maybe. You'd have to ask him.

being attached to the characters is more of a by-product of being emotionally invested in the overall story.

 

If you give the player a series of choices though-out the game and tell a story that emotionally hooks a player into it, then the ending needs to both offer an emotionally satisfying and logical conclusion. If the story has lead, logically, to a showdown with a big-bad then an end boss fight can make complete sense and be emotionally satisfying story-wise. It's all in how you frame the story and then staying honest to that narrative.

 

Aliens ended with a big-bad fight, with Ripley facing down the queen in the Sulaco's dropship bay. Did it feel cheap or did that feel like a natural part of the over-all story?

 

(as a side note, the original ending to Se7en was supposed to be Morgan Freeman shooting Kevin Spacey in the head, saving Brad Pitt from having to make that decision and sacrificing himself to break conclusion of the final sin - wrath.)