End Game

[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. 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 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. 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.

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.

[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..

[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 "" at the same time. And that song.

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.