End Game

[Loony BoB]

FFXIII, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, FFXIII-2 and now Mass Effect 3 have all had their endings pointed out as not up to scratch in the past year or two. Do you think that, in general, the writing in games needs to improve? Are these representative of the way gaming is going, or are they exceptions to a more positive trend?

No spoilers, please. :) Just stick to opinion on where gaming is heading in general, not the individual games.

[Pike]

Sometimes I get the feeling that games are "trying too hard". They want so badly to be seen as a serious narrative form that they go overboard and it turns cheesy or silly or whatever. I'd like to think it's sort of a phase that they'll eventually grow out of and improve upon, especially as games become more of a respected medium.

[Quindiana Jones]

With the increase in players with internet access, and the simplicity of the downloads process, I feel that most developers aren't too worried about proper closure, because if they don't complete a game they can just release DLC and make more money. There's no incentive to create a self-contained story anymore. It's not just a matter of close in terms of the game ending, even with loose ends all tied up. Closure is just the feeling that you've done what you set out to do, it's complete. Whether or not the world created can continue from that point isn't important. FFIX has closure in a bittersweet sense, kind of like finishing the Lord of the Rings book, in that the journey has ended and the world will now just continue. It's a great way to end a game. So closure can be open-ended, I think. What's important is ensuring that the game feels finished, which game devs rarely bother with now.

[Shattered Dreamer]

A good storyline I fear has been the casualty of improving graphics & the increased emphasis on online multiplayer. DLC has also contributed to this problem but not as much as the other 2 points I feel.

I am actually racking my brains trying to think about recently released games with a good ending. Batman Arkham City had a decent ending that probably stands out above a lot of the "big releases" of the past few years.

Another point I think that needs to be made is that Final Fantasy games haven't had good endings since the PSX era. Every title in the series since has fallen down in the ending department in a big way.

[Slothy]

I think with Deus Ex:HR, it was more a case of the ending being rushed than anything else. I have no idea if it actually was, but I can't think of any other reason to essentially throw out the established gameplay at the very end of the game other than they were simply running out of time and had to get it done. The gradual tapering off of the HUB cities would also seem to support that conclusion.

Which is actually where I see a lot of big games ending up these days. Uncharted 1 and 2 actually suffered from this a great deal as well. Because they simply wrote the game as they went along, the final sections are by far the least interesting, and the final bosses were also underwhelming at best and annoying bullet sponges on the highest difficulty.

A lot more games fall into the category of ran out of time so the ending suffers as a result. And in large part I blame the sky high budgets and the difficulty in developing on present hardware. It is very hard to do a good amount of prototyping and playtesting, particularly when it's crunch time and you have under a year to finish the damn thing and have it on shelves. The only developers not really affected by this are either those who had a clear vision from the start and accomplished it relatively smoothly, or those with all of the time in the world to finish the game. But since not every developer is Valve, most don't have that luxury.

Some of it could also be that writing a satisfying ending requires a good writer, and frankly, many video game writers aren't that good. Even a lot of the stuff from companies known for making story and character driven games like Bioware and Bethesda I find completely underwhelming. Though admittedly, it's not always the writers fault. Many companies are getting better at having a writer involved from day 1 so things go smoothly there, but not all of them. And the ones that don't usually suffer the most for it.

[VeloZer0]

I think it is also that they just don't put the same amount of resources into the ending as other parts of the game. The fact is that the majority of people who play a game won't ever see the ending. This doesn't escape most game developers, they know that resources put into the ending won't reach as many people as resources put into other parts of the game.

[Loony BoB]

I think it is also that they just don't put the same amount of resources into the ending as other parts of the game. The fact is that the majority of people who play a game won't ever see the ending. This doesn't escape most game developers, they know that resources put into the ending won't reach as many people as resources put into other parts of the game.
Following that train of thought, do you think after prominent games have suffered from bad user reviews over the ending that they will adjust this balancing of resources? Or do you think it needs to be panned by critics before they pay more attention? ME3 is a good example for this - user reviews are at around 5.0/10 on metacritic, while critic reviews are at 94/100.

[Quindiana Jones]

User reviews of ME3 are skewed by trolls, but I think the point still stands. I think that users shouldn't praise games in their reviews. In my opinion, the critic reviews are for giving the game a cheeky handjob, whereas the user reviews should be used to draw attention to the bad points. As it is now, I would argue that it even needs to be exaggerated to ensure the message is properly understood.

I think a mark like 94/100 would require a game to be practically perfect in every way. That's why you can't trust critic reviews; they are always in favour of the people giving them money. Take Skyrim, which is still showering off the saliva of every games mag. The critic and user review were practically incoherent with glee. And while I agree that it is an absolutely fantastic game, I think it still only deserves an 8/8.5. Reviews need to get out of the mindset of "There was this bad thing, but this bit more than made up for it!". That doesn't help anybody. Praise the good bits, punish the bad bits. Do not mingle them or try to create a counterbalance. When a teacher tells little Timmy that this part wasn't very good, but the middle bit was incredible so it's okay, Timmy doesn't learn how to write properly. You should tell Timmy that the middle bit was terrific, but this part was very bad and needs to be improved.

Reviews should be used to tell developers that their bad decisions should be brought up to the level of their good ones, not to tell them that their mistakes are acceptable as long as the rest is okay.

[Del Murder]

I didn't think FFXIII's ending was really that bad. It was certainly no worse than the rest of it. It had that one huge cop-out moment but otherwise I liked it.

FFXIII-2, on the other hand, felt like SE spit in our face. There's no excuse to have an ending like that. This isn't a movie where we can sit for two hours and then be ready for the next one, a game with 30 hours of your life invested in it deserves a bit more closure than that.

I haven't played ME3 so I can't comment, but aren't the endings of the ME games totally dependent on the choices you make in the game and who survives until the end?

In general, I don't think game endings or game writing is in trouble. Back in the day, 'Congratulations for saving the world', followed by the end credits was enough. We've come a long way since then. Game writing is still pretty good, see the Batman, ME, or Uncharted games. Even Skyward Sword has some of the best writing in a Zelda game I've seen in a while. Only SE has been disappointing, but that's because they set the bar so high for themselves. They are really trying to hard to make a splash when all they really need to do is make something good.

[Slothy]

I haven't played ME3 so I can't comment, but aren't the endings of the ME games totally dependent on the choices you make in the game and who survives until the end?

Based on everything I've heard (having not played it and having no intention to to be honest) your choices have nothing to do with the ending in ME3. They basically pull a Deus Ex and make you choose between a few options. Which sounds like a huge slap in the face to be honest for a series where your choices are supposed to matter.

[Crop]

I think with Deus Ex:HR, it was more a case of the ending being rushed than anything else. I have no idea if it actually was, but I can't think of any other reason to essentially throw out the established gameplay at the very end of the game other than they were simply running out of time and had to get it done. The gradual tapering off of the HUB cities would also seem to support that conclusion.

I think this was the case. I did read somewhere that Monteral, where the Picus centre is was also supposed to be an area that you could explore but they were running short on time and had to cut it.
It was disappointing, the endings were god awful compared to the rest of the brilliant game.

[Sephex]

Like most views in the gaming world, it's not as bad as critics make it out to be, but a bigger problem than optimists are willing to admit.

Despite a few set backs, writing in video games has been improving. Even the most lamest ending in modern gaming is far better than a single screen that misspells congratulations or some other positive message.

Of course, I am not giving writers a free pass based on that notion, but I feel far too many people fail to see how far gaming has come because of some issues here and there. Hell, I am a person that will cry foul when I feel like the writing in a game isn't up to par, but I'm not going to kid myself and claim that, "WORST WRITING EVER!!!!"

Bah, I am going in circles. Long story short, you take the good and the bad and hope things improve over time. Otherwise, break into the biz and show people who's boss.

[I Don't Need A Name]

You take all these points and then you compare to games like the CoD series. The developers for them seem to put all of their resources into the last level...but that's probably because you get to it within 3 hours of playing the game..

[Psychotic]

Why can't I have an ending where I save the world, get the girl, my dead friends come back to life and we all have a foam party? Or perhaps the heroes perform a medley with the villains and they all have one of those stage bows at the end.

Red Dead Redemption is the only recent game that has a great ending that I can think of. Makes you go "HELL YEAH" and ":cry:" at the same time. And that song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAvVqjbUG8) I think MGS3 has the other incredible ending I can think of.

[Wolf Kanno]

Honestly, I think most games have terrible endings, it's only the few exceptional ones that actually have really great endings. For instance, I wouldn't place any of the FFs in the category of having a great ending, maybe good, but not great. Most of them are either too flashy and don't answer anything, and the ones that do try to give closure are kind of boring.

I do think it's a bit unnerving how we've kind of had a surge of games that end with a "sequel hook" which I feel Del pretty much expressed my thoughts on, though I would add it's fine if the game developer is up front about the fact they plan on making sequels about it.

As for writing in games, I think my own beef with the quality of writing nowadays comes more from the developers dropping the ball on how to integrate story and gameplay. Certainly, they've come a long way since the days of the 16-bit era when Japanese companies really started to push character development and narrative, or the Western PC RPGs and Adventure games. Yet, I still just find it kind of odd that so many people hold onto the idea of approaching the story like a film instead of fusing it with the new medium. Granted not all of this is successful, this idea of fusion did spawn quick time events but I personally never saw why people revile them so much but then again, I never bothered playing RE4 but I felt Shenmue did them rather well when it first introduced the concept.

Despite the game having a terrible plot and some awful dialogue and the very ending cutscene being overly dramatic and cheesy while it retcon the hell out of the original FFVII, the way Crisis Core fused the gameplay and story for the final battle was incredibly well done and did create a powerful emotional moment for the player, it's just a shame it's followed up by more cheese which kind of killed the moment for me.

I think the other issue is that most writers don't know how to end things, or worse, they try to be clever and avant garde and try to create some kind of profound ending that doesn't answer anything and feels kind of out of place from the rest of the story. You know, a Gainax Ending (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GainaxEnding). While such endings are not always bad, I do feel they are incredibly hard to pull off, especially if you're trying to do this to a story that's pretty straightforward (I'm looking at you FFVIII) up until the ending.

[Old Manus]

MGS4 comes to mind. MGS1 had incredible writing with the occasional cheesy line. The plot and script in the fourth game was absolute 100% pure unadulterated hog tit with more cheese than a Boursin factory and enough half-baked pseudo-philosophical mumbo jumbo to sink the Titanic. It was unbelievably bad.

"Call me mama...BIG MAMA"

The second half of this video is just cringeworthy. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7rACs8x78U) What the hell are they even talking about? In fact, I could have picked just about any cutscene really. What also doesn't help is the rubbish voice acting. "He got old lol" is no excuse for Snake going from talking like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma3uGk4yA1o&t=5m30s) in the first game to sounding like a submerged HAM radio in MGS4. Actually, that codec conversation there is a good example of the superiority of the writing in MGS1 compared to its successors, and there wasn't even any animation.

Seriously, bring this up with me down the pub sometime and I will bitch about it for hours.

[edczxcvbnm]

I think a big part of the problem is that so much of the story in video games is "story by committee". You don't have one or two writers hashing out a screen play and then a singular director that brings that vision to life. You have teams of people working on dialog for dozens of characters that span way longer than a movie.

I think a big part of the problem with video games is that most studios view story in terms of movies instead of in terms with games. I feel like most of the time, the big choices in games have no impact and sometimes that is a bit of the point (GTA 4 when Nico has the man he has been after. You can kill him or let him live but considering what both men have become what repercussions would there really be?). If you want to give a player choice then you need to spend time planning out the scenarios by which the player will take the game.

In Mass Effect I always felt my choices didn't matter much so I don't know what people are complaining about. Sure at the end of Mass Effect 1 the Citidel gets attacked and maybe the ruling console gets destroyed but it doesn't make a bit of difference. It isn't like my experience in Mass Effect 2 has changed in any significant way. I don't get more intel on missions, different missions, different characters or anything else that might affect the course by which I am traveling. It is what I like to call the illusion of choice. They give you options and it changes minor things but nothing significant.

One of the few games that made choice matter was New Vegas. The ending is long and every part of the Mojave has been shaped by your choices. I am not forced to stick with the NCR or anyone in the game. I can side with who I want or no one at all. I can kill practically any character in the game and it affects what I can do. My actions have real consequences. It could still be better but compared to everything else out there this stand head and shoulders above just about everything I have played in terms of getting real choices.

How did New Vegas escape the trap of the illusion of choice? Probably because there were plenty of vets from the original fallout games on the team that understood how to design it to give you choice.

Usually when there is one genius at the top controlling everything you get a good solid story in that creators vision. Shadow of the Colossus, Metal Gear Solid, Braid, etc. It seems like games like Bioshock and New Vegas are the exception to the over produced, design by committee types of games.

[NeoCracker]

Games like Mass Effect and Dragon age are examples of why you shouldn't do such choice heavy games when there are going to be sequals. It's inevitable you will feel like your choices don't matter in the end.

It bothers me a bit is Elder Scrolls as well, but not quite as much. it just seems awkward to me that in each game you do this epic journey of some kind or another, but inevitably it has no consequence on any country outside of the one you did it in. It boggles my mind, but at the very least your choices have an impact there.

[Loony BoB]

To be fair, I can't think of any game off the top of my head where choices can have that heavy an impact on the plot. So far, ending not yet reached, I've already seen the impact my choices in the first game has had on the last game in the Mass Effect series. I don't think that's too big of an issue, personally. Choices in that game have a notable enough impact to keep me satisfied. But games where you can be either good or evil tend to always end up with you saving the world or whatever regardless. I'd be interested to see how many games out there are played out in such a way that you can actually have two entirely different plots, one good and one bad, or perhaps even more branches.

[edczxcvbnm]

To be fair, I can't think of any game off the top of my head where choices can have that heavy an impact on the plot. So far, ending not yet reached, I've already seen the impact my choices in the first game has had on the last game in the Mass Effect series. I don't think that's too big of an issue, personally. Choices in that game have a notable enough impact to keep me satisfied. But games where you can be either good or evil tend to always end up with you saving the world or whatever regardless. I'd be interested to see how many games out there are played out in such a way that you can actually have two entirely different plots, one good and one bad, or perhaps even more branches.

Part of the problem with choices and impact is that either you don't have enough power so the powers that be continue to move towards the inevitable (New Vegas though I would argue the endings and outcomes do change big time depending on which one of the 4 sides you choose). Or you are so big and bad assly powerful that your choices would have such an impact that it is practically impossible to build a story around it.

One of the few games I have played where choice matters and has a huge impact is Phantasy Star 3. The choice you make in the game is who to marry and then you play the next generation and choose a wife again and play the final generation and they are all different quests.

[Slothy]

I'd be interested to see how many games out there are played out in such a way that you can actually have two entirely different plots, one good and one bad, or perhaps even more branches.

I say this whenever I get the chance but Way of the Samurai is still the best example of choice and branching narrative I've ever seen in a game. I'll let that sink in a bit. A 10 year old PS2 game few people have heard of and fewer have played did choice better than any AAA game I've played since with only Heavy Rain coming kind of close (keep in mind I haven't touched a Mass Effect title since the original, but from what I hear, the overall plot still doesn't change much based on your choices, but rather smaller details).

Way of the Samurai actually had several different endings, and if I recall 3 or 4 factions you could ally (or not) with. Each resulting in a different ending based on who you joined. Or if you were really good and planned things well you could get the best ending which involved uniting them all I think (a bit hazy on the details). Or go it alone. Or die. Or just turn around and leave town whenever you felt like and wash your hands of the whole mess (yes, that was an ending too). It'd be tough for most people to get into these days because the combat is clunky by today's standards (though remarkably deep and challenging in a very good way) but the game was definitely worth it.

[Loony BoB]

You mention that you can still unite them to get the ultimate ending, which sounds kind of like Skyrim's faction quests mixed up with the multiple endings you can get in many games rather than completely different plots (correct me if I'm wrong!). I'm more thinking of a game where there are two or more sides you could join up to, but that you could only join up to one side for the rest of that playthrough. Basically forcing you to restart from that save if you were to want to check out the other plots available. Imagine if you could be a freedom fighter who frees the world from Shinra... or if you could join Shinra and then go up the ranks there and get rid of those freedom fighters. Two completely different stories... in one world/game. One interesting take on this is Crysis and Crysis Warhead, which saw the same plot from the view of two different good guys who were on the same team. I thought it was pretty well done, but couldn't help but think "How awesome would it be if a company did that without me having to pay for two games?"

One simple way of looking at this would be that most RTS allow you to play as numerous different races/factions, each with their own storyline. Obviously the plot takes a massive backseat in such situations, so I'm wondering if there are any games like Skyrim/Mass Effect where you could actually just join the bad guys and have a completely new plot develop.

[Slothy]

You mention that you can still unite them to get the ultimate ending, which sounds kind of like Skyrim's faction quests mixed up with the multiple endings you can get in many games rather than completely different plots (correct me if I'm wrong!). I'm more thinking of a game where there are two or more sides you could join up to, but that you could only join up to one side for the rest of that playthrough. Basically forcing you to restart from that save if you were to want to check out the other plots available. Imagine if you could be a freedom fighter who frees the world from Shinra... or if you could join Shinra and then go up the ranks there and get rid of those freedom fighters. Two completely different stories... in one world/game. One interesting take on this is Crysis and Crysis Warhead, which saw the same plot from the view of two different good guys who were on the same team. I thought it was pretty well done, but couldn't help but think "How awesome would it be if a company did that without me having to pay for two games?"

The thing about Way of the Samurai though is that the entire plot is very different depending on your actions throughout the game. Even to get the ultimate ending of uniting the factions against their common enemy you play out a completely different series of events than if you simply join any one of them, and if I'm not mistaken it even required that you not join one specific faction to accomplish. And even when it comes to joining them, there are multiple ways the stories can play out depending on everything from the choices you actively make to the battles you may unintentionally lose.

It's a hard concept to get your head around without playing it, but the game essentially took place over the course of a few days in a small town in Japan. Each day played out with events happening in the morning, afternoon, evening, night, etc. But there were many different events happening with all of the factions at different times of day in different parts of the town. Anytime you went to an area and completed a major story event time would progress and new events would take place. Some were somewhat static and would stay the same regardless of your previous choices, but many times, what was available changed based on which events you had previously completed and the choices you made there. It was a wonderful system filled with more possibilities than most people would even take the time to explore. A lot of games with player choice make a big deal about the game being different each play through when it's really just the minutia of major events which changes more often than not. But if you played through Way of the Samurai more than once it had the potential to legitimately be a completely different experience on subsequent playthroughs with the only repetition being the initial events of the game (which succeeding or failing in themselves drastically changed how the story would play out). If you watched two separate people play the game for the first time, odds are you'd see two completely different games. To the point that if it weren't for the graphics, gameplay, and characters being the same you'd think they weren't the same game.

That game had more complexity in it's branching story and player choice than most developers dare do more than dream of these days. And yes, it does include letting you join the obvious good or bad guys in the game, though the real irony is that doing so will not get you the good ending.

[Loony BoB]

Hmm. Iiiiiiinteresting. I just checked it out on Wikipedia and I think the description of "Choose Your Own Adventure" styled gaming is what I'm talking about, so thanks for the heads up. :D I may just check that game out when I have a bit of spare cash and have finished my current games (FFVI, FFIX, ME3). ...whenever that might be. xD

[Slothy]

Choose your own adventure. Yes, I suppose it would have been easier to explain if I'd remembered that analogy. :D

It is definitely worth checking out though, and I'd imagine it probably isn't that expensive these days.

[NeoCracker]

There are two ways I think a choice system can work in a game.

1) The Route of something like New Vegas, (New Vegas I feel handles this way better then Skyrim). You have an insane amount of things one can do, and you can get radically different endings. It's far more then a simple 'good or evil' choice, and you see the ramifications of all your actions.

2) The route of games like Agarest War. The choices you make are always toward the same goal, but it's more in how you do it. Are you going to be a bit more cold hearted and pragmatic with your decisions? Are you going to try to be the goody goody? All the choices available can fit your character fine, so it's a very limited range of your characters actual personality, but it helps build relationships with characters and in a few instances determine who you can get to join you.

So basically I only find the two extreme ends of choice making enjoyable, minimalistic or over board. I don't fancy the in between ones to much. :p

[Jiro]

I haven't finished Mass Effect 3, but from what I have heard, you basically get a handful of choices that decide your ending, incredibly similar to how Deus Ex: Human Revolution worked. I don't like this mechanic. I don't like that you can play through the entire game and then pick how it ends. I love multiple endings, I really do. I feel like it brings a unique quality to every playthrough. But being able to pick and choose at the end ruins it. Make the ending based on your decisions throughout the game, not one choice at the end.

I do feel like the quality of endings could use an improvement. Sure being satisfied is alright but having a memorable ending is far better. I feel that the general quality of narratives is improving* but it's not a complete package yet.

*Tentative, because I haven't played many new games recently. Overall, though, I think there is at least some attention being paid to narrative in video games, rather than let's slap in some vague excuse for why this is happening.

[black orb]

>>> Yeah, I stoped playing Mario games because of its terrible stories..:luca:

[Shiny]

Red Dead Redemption is the only recent game that has a great ending that I can think of. Makes you go "HELL YEAH" and ":cry:" at the same time. And that song. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkAvVqjbUG8)
I completely agree.

Story wise, I don't think gaming is going down hill, but they need to up their anty on the choice options. The problem many people have with recent games is that they give us multiple options and sometimes multiple endings, but they do not really shape the overall story in an astronomical way nor do they precede what happens in the sequel to a large degree. I like to think of the games I enjoy as interactive films so when I'm doing events in a game I expect them to have certain consequences rather than "game over" or something like that. For once I want a game to actually pull a Psycho or Children of Men and actually kill off an integral character fairly early and perhaps because of something I did or didn't do in a game. Doooo it.