Every old game ever where you get "Well done" or "Congratulations" and thats it. Weird thing is those were awesome because it showed you did it. 
All My Hard Work and I Get This Ending?
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I guess I sort of disagree. Only kind of really. There really are games that a bad ending CAN ruin. But games (as well as lots of other entertainment media) can satisfy in a lot of different ways, and frankly for some the ending just isn't important at all. And they can still be pretty good games even with a bad ending. A bad example, Watch Dogs. I loved the gameplay, the sandbox world, and all the different challenges and side-mission stuff. The story and characters were awful, but I really did have enough fun with the sandbox that I didn't really care less about the ending. Perhaps it would have been different if the story had ever gotten good enough to make me invested, but that just wasn't where my enjoyment was.
A better example, Masters of Orion 2. The ending, woo you won or aww you lost... now play it again. And I did. Time after time after time. The ending wasn't the reward at all, the gameplay was entirely the reward. Lots of games are like that, and ending just isn't necessary at all. Like Chess.
Sure, if the Telltale Walking Dead had a crummy and cliché ending that would have been a nightmare. But in that game, gameplay itself was the unimportant and forgettable part. Borderlands' crappy ending didn't seem to hurt its sales or franchise launch very much. Because the story is far less important to Borderlands' experience than shooting and looting is.
That's why I tend to agree with the "gameplay is the important part and a bad ending can't ruin a good game" crowd. That's not to say that critiquing an ending isn't a valid critique. But for a lot of games, it is a critique that doesn't factor much into the "did I enjoy it" equation.
A better example, Masters of Orion 2. The ending, woo you won or aww you lost... now play it again. And I did. Time after time after time. The ending wasn't the reward at all, the gameplay was entirely the reward. Lots of games are like that, and ending just isn't necessary at all. Like Chess.
Sure, if the Telltale Walking Dead had a crummy and cliché ending that would have been a nightmare. But in that game, gameplay itself was the unimportant and forgettable part. Borderlands' crappy ending didn't seem to hurt its sales or franchise launch very much. Because the story is far less important to Borderlands' experience than shooting and looting is.
That's why I tend to agree with the "gameplay is the important part and a bad ending can't ruin a good game" crowd. That's not to say that critiquing an ending isn't a valid critique. But for a lot of games, it is a critique that doesn't factor much into the "did I enjoy it" equation.
Wait, DLC in general or the Extended Cut in particular? Because the latter would actually make sense (a "hey, if you didn't like the ending there's an optional fix out there" message would be a valuable service for fans who don't keep up with gaming news), but the former is just a dick move par excellence.zinho73 said:
I just think they missed out on some of the other ideas they had in the game, like the things the band of three where searching for, the thinning of the veil the magesters of old had done and so having a circle there was a terrible idea.Thunderous Cacophony said:
Just want to preface this by saying I've read/watched your content for a while Shamus and I feel you've fundamentally missed the mark with this statement:
As for the topic itself, I think both are valid perspectives to have (so long as you aren't throwing out garbage like "entitled"). I still have not bothered with Mass Effect 3 despite playing the first Mass Effect game countless times simply because I don't really want to go through the slow decay of a story that already felt like it was crumbling with the second installment, but I wont get on someone's case if they like the rest of the game to the extent that the troublesome bits can safely be ignored or excused. I will argue with them endlessly about the overall quality of the game however.
And as for Fahrenheit, that's still the best first half of a crime drama and worst second half of a DBZ fanfiction I've ever had the opportunity to slightly interact with.
The "Craft" of an interactive medium should be the way in which the user interacts. The design of gameplay is to games what cinematography is to film. To compare it to stunts in a film is to suggest that cinematography is film's "QTE". The story and its resolution are important, but they're not the core tenant of the medium. I'm sure this isn't a comparison you necessarily meant to make (judging by a few of the conversations I recall from Spoiler Warning) but it's a sentiment I've seen disturbingly often over the past few days.
As for the topic itself, I think both are valid perspectives to have (so long as you aren't throwing out garbage like "entitled"). I still have not bothered with Mass Effect 3 despite playing the first Mass Effect game countless times simply because I don't really want to go through the slow decay of a story that already felt like it was crumbling with the second installment, but I wont get on someone's case if they like the rest of the game to the extent that the troublesome bits can safely be ignored or excused. I will argue with them endlessly about the overall quality of the game however.
And as for Fahrenheit, that's still the best first half of a crime drama and worst second half of a DBZ fanfiction I've ever had the opportunity to slightly interact with.
There was an odd permutation in a game I loved but had a weird ending issue, and I can't explain it without massive spoilers that kind of ruin the whole thing, so be forewarned if you plan on playing Bravely Default:
So, all throughout the game you keep getting hints that you need to "Never be afraid to disobey", and get subtle clues that the quest you're on is probably not the right way to go about things. You're awakening a set of 4 crystals then activating "The Holy Pillar" that is supposed to cleanse the land and close the "Great Chasm", but instead keeps teleporting you to alternate worlds where everyone is slightly different and you have to awaken the crystals yet again. Every time you do so, the Navi-like support character will warn you not to overcharge them or they might explode and doom the entire world.
Later in the game, it becomes almost explicitly clear that the little annoying fairy is actually evil and you should blow up the crystal. When you do, you start the final chapter, but instead of fighting the final boss, you merely fight the evil fairy's 2nd form and the game ends with everyone going their separate ways, having bought the universe a few thousand years of peace before she rises to try again. This ending sucks.
To get the real ending, you have to awaken all the crystals 5 times (20 crystals in total), then watch as your characters, who have seemingly ignored all the hints and even the pretty much explicit revelation that the fairy was evil, act utterly surprised and shocked by her inevitable betrayal. NOW you get to fight all 3 of her forms and the final boss and get the "true" ending from which the sequel picks up.
WHY? Why does the game punish you for following its hints and figuring out the plot ahead of time with a shitty, shitty ending? Shouldn't that be the REAL ending?
I mean plotwise, it kind of makes sense: the only reason the final boss showed himself was that all the crystals on every single alternate world had been activated, so if you blow one up he has no reason to reveal himself, but still, there's a billion narrative ways around that. I still love the game, the normal ending is just fine, but it really bugs me that I figured out the big mystery early and wasn't rewarded properly for it.
Later in the game, it becomes almost explicitly clear that the little annoying fairy is actually evil and you should blow up the crystal. When you do, you start the final chapter, but instead of fighting the final boss, you merely fight the evil fairy's 2nd form and the game ends with everyone going their separate ways, having bought the universe a few thousand years of peace before she rises to try again. This ending sucks.
To get the real ending, you have to awaken all the crystals 5 times (20 crystals in total), then watch as your characters, who have seemingly ignored all the hints and even the pretty much explicit revelation that the fairy was evil, act utterly surprised and shocked by her inevitable betrayal. NOW you get to fight all 3 of her forms and the final boss and get the "true" ending from which the sequel picks up.
WHY? Why does the game punish you for following its hints and figuring out the plot ahead of time with a shitty, shitty ending? Shouldn't that be the REAL ending?
I mean plotwise, it kind of makes sense: the only reason the final boss showed himself was that all the crystals on every single alternate world had been activated, so if you blow one up he has no reason to reveal himself, but still, there's a billion narrative ways around that. I still love the game, the normal ending is just fine, but it really bugs me that I figured out the big mystery early and wasn't rewarded properly for it.
I'm going to have to paraphrase/butcher Yahtzee here, since it's such an easy and logical sentiment that I truly can't comprehend why game developers don't employ it...
Captcha: half done
Well...that's absolutely perfect and apt. Thank you, robot overlord.
It's a ridiculously easy thing to do and yet we keep getting rushed endings because...poor planning?
Captcha: half done
Well...that's absolutely perfect and apt. Thank you, robot overlord.
How is that any different then the message at the end of Mass Effect 2?zinho73 said:
Edit I found the one from the original ending off a screenshot at Gamefaqs.
I really don't see them urging people to buy DLC with that message, it just says that they will have some in the future you can play.
Edit #2
I found the message from Mass Effect 2 from a YouTube video
To me the message is almost identical, but people only got upset with it in Mass Effect 3 to the point they changed it with The Extended Cut.
My question whenever this issue comes up is what happens when people expect something different from what you were trying to make.
You make a fantasy RPG who's story is effectively entirely about how the player character is lost in the middle of events that are beyond their control, and shows how whatever choices they can make may effect things personal to them but will still be incapable of changing the larger course of where the story is headed. They can fight their hardest and maybe make some kind of small difference, but in the end they won't be able to single-handedly stop a war or prevent the king of the demons from rising or whatever the plot is about.
And everyone hates it because fantasy RPGs that give you choices are 'supposed' to be about empowering you and giving you choices with complex, far reaching consequences because you are the hero that will save the land etc. That's what all the popular games that everyone likes did.
So did the writers fuck up or is it possible that you actually just aren't on the same page as them? Is it bad or is it just not what you wanted?
You make a fantasy RPG who's story is effectively entirely about how the player character is lost in the middle of events that are beyond their control, and shows how whatever choices they can make may effect things personal to them but will still be incapable of changing the larger course of where the story is headed. They can fight their hardest and maybe make some kind of small difference, but in the end they won't be able to single-handedly stop a war or prevent the king of the demons from rising or whatever the plot is about.
And everyone hates it because fantasy RPGs that give you choices are 'supposed' to be about empowering you and giving you choices with complex, far reaching consequences because you are the hero that will save the land etc. That's what all the popular games that everyone likes did.
So did the writers fuck up or is it possible that you actually just aren't on the same page as them? Is it bad or is it just not what you wanted?
You, sir, are a man with a good, innocent heart. Don't you ever dare change.Sanunes said:
Context is everything. Mass Effect 2 does not feel rushed or insane at the end. You actually want more content and the story is quite open at that point - you kind of expect a continuation. It is still ludicrous marketing - but it is ludicrous marketing after a good thing (so less complaining).Sanunes said:
Telling you that that there is more DLC to come after Mass Effect ending is adding offense to the injury. The first thing I thought was: "don't you guys want to proper finish the game I just played before dumping more content?". Also, that was the final chapter, planning to launch DLC after the story conclusion is ridiculous from a consumer point of view (unless it was an epilogue)- but nowadays all games must have DLC, even if it hurts the experience.
I guess there is some amount of frustration that can build up when the end of something is not what you are expecting. I would put SPec OPS- the Line in that category. (Great game, by the way).Mike Richards said:
But the sad fact is that most endings cited here are just really bad: convoluted, out of character, bad planned, badly written, badly executed, bland and so on.
When the problem is isolated (like a bad boss battle or an uninspired cutscene) we can get around it and it usually do not hurts the experience too much. I guess the problem is accentuated in narrative heavy games, which requires a lot of skill and planning to wrap up.
Naughty Dog, for example, knows how to structure the narrative in their games. They are not always fantastic, but they are always solid.
Bioware, on the other side, seems to have lost its touch and lately is letting external factors interfere too much on the creative process (cutting things to put in DLC, rewriting things at the last minute, moving key writers around mid project and so on).
The problem with making a game like you've described, where all your choices are meaningless and nothing you try to do matters in the long run, is that for most people this is just normal boring life. Like, I get what it's like to be completely impotent and have no influence over the greater events that happen in civilization; I don't need a game showing me what it feels like to live my life, I'm obviously well acquainted with the experience.Mike Richards said:
Not to mention the time commitment most games require. There aren't a lot of people that want to spend 20-60 hours working at a game only to find out at the end that nothing you've done matters anyway. Being completely powerless to change anything also isn't a very good feeling any way you look at it, and I don't know why anybody would want to do something that makes them feel bad. Pretty much, what is the point of simulating the experience of pointless existence with the pointless exercise of playing a video game.
Actually, when you think about it this is basically the game just saying "Yes, you did just waste all that time that you spent playing video games rather than doing slightly more productive." It's not really in the mediums best interest to make people believe this.
OT: This really isn't only a problem with interactive mediums like video games. I think it's really about time commitment. A perfect example is the TV show Merlin: after 5 seasons the ending managed to invalidate pretty much every single thing that happened throughout the show. For all that it was worth Merlin may as well have let Arthur die in the very first episode. Total run time of the show comes to about 43 hours and I was every bit annoyed with that as I was with Dragon Age 2.
Also, I sympathize with Shamus, I'm still annoyed about Fable 2 as well.
I don't really buy the idea that all games have to be the same kind of escapist fantasy reinforcement. There's a place for it sure, but there's a lot of different kinds of narrative out there that can make a lot of different kinds of points. We don't need the same one every time. Not to mention there's a lot of variables of execution that need to be considered in an example like that. Spec Ops The Line had several moments of choice scattered through it's campaign and none of them effect where the story moves to next, you're still presented with the same set of endings no matter what you did the rest of the time. But it works because of the way its a part of the themes and the idea on a whole.Drathnoxis said:
In fact, that entire game was basically about being as not-classically-fun as it is possible to be, that was the entire point and for my money it was all the more amazing for it. Like Yahtzee said it was essentially a psychological horror game wearing a modern warfare shooter hat, 'fun' or making you feel like you accomplished something worthwhile isn't exactly on the menu. That's not what this story is for.
In any case I wasn't really trying to talk just about how much impact choices should have, I was making an example about what happens when people have different expectations from what you made. If I only ever enjoy strategy games and someone hands me Half Life, I can't call it a terrible game because it doesn't play like Company of Heroes. I can say I don't enjoy it but that's not the same thing as saying it did something wrong. Maybe the problem wasn't that ME3 had a terrible ending, (at least as far as the EC goes, the original was a misfire, yeah) maybe it just wasn't the ending people wanted. I loved it and I can explain every single complaint I've ever heard someone make about it on a level that more then completely satisfies me. So where exactly is the line there? Who knows.
I haven't played Spec Ops yet, so I can't really comment on that, but I will concede that there might be a certain type of story where pointlessness may be a useful theme. However, I do think that the game would have to be very well written for this to work and should probably have some other draw such as comedy, mystery, etc; something that the player can walk away with rather than just reaffirming the pointlessness of life. If there is a place for a game where the characters accomplish nothing and the entire point is to show how much life sucks I think there would have to be two guidelines that it would have to follow.Mike Richards said:
1. Be upfront with the pointlessness of the whole game. I think this ties in with your point about expectation, but this kind of thing really has to be a running theme rather than a surprise twist that is heaped on the player at the very end. Hmmm, I've been sitting here for a while trying to think of how I can describe why this is so bad, but I've realized that there really is no way to explain an emotion like the disappointment that will be felt when expecting the events of the game to wrap up nicely only to find that everything you've just done was pointless. Suffice it to say that having running themes of inevitability and futility gives the player a chance to acclimatise to the outcome or to decide that they don't want to have the kind of experience the game offers.
Some examples of games that did not do this are Dragon Age 2 and Mass Effect 3, pretty much for the same reason. The series up to the ending point mainly had a theme of player choice having a heavy impact on the events of the game. So in the very end, when it turns out that none of the choices you've made matter for anything, it's almost like a bait and switch. In Dragon Age 2, we are constantly told how Hawke will have a major role to play in the upcoming conflict. This is constantly reaffirmed through game play (dialogue choices) and cut scenes. However, at the very end, all player input is ignored, all previous choices are negated, and by extension Hawke is made to be a mere bystander in the final events. I haven't played Mass Effect 3, but I believe Shepard is similarly built up and then made irrelevant in the final moments. Now, the pointlessness of all previous choices may make for a decent ending in a different game which has futility as a consistent theme, it's just very incongruous with a game that has a theme of the importance of one person. So, actually I will agree with you that having the wrong expectation is very much the reason that people didn't enjoy Mass Effect 3's (and DA2) ending; however, I would say that it is very much the fault of the games for engendering the wrong expectation.
(Shoot, on retrospect this is starting to seem a bit rambly because I started by still trying to address your hypothetical RPG but then realized that the point of the conversation was the difference in expectations. Doh well, I'm 500 words in and don't want to rewrite the whole thing from scratch so hopefully this is still understandable and relative to your points)
2. The character should actually be their own character, independent from the player. When you give a character appearance customization, dialogue choices, and class choices; then in conjunction with the act of controlling the character it's very easy to project onto the character (e.g. someone walks up and asks you which character you are, common response would be "that's me"). So if a game then invalidates everything you've done, it's easier to feel like the whole thing was a waste of time rather than if they were their own character making their own decisions which then got screwed over. Not to mention this stops the theme from digressing into any form of player control, which can lead to an inconsistent tone.
Also I don't think your Half life to Company of Heroes is that accurate of analogy for why people didn't like the ME3 ending. I think a better example would be Brutal Legends, where the game starts off an action adventure and then morphs into an RTS, because the rest of the Mass Effect series cultivated the expectations about the endings, rather than the expectations being brought by the players unprompted.
TL
R Getting to the end of a game with differing expectations of what is to come can be a cause of dissatisfaction with the ending, but in many cases it is the game's fault for not engendering the proper expectations and having an ending that conflicts with the themes present throughout the rest of the game (e.g. ME3, DA2, SMB2)
First off, yeah, sometimes your choices didn't change everything. You aren't a god, you can't control everything. As singularly important as Shepard was the war didn't revolve around them, it's ridiculous to assume that everything that happens will be shaped by their decisions. Some things need to be out of their/our hands. All games will do this. Isn't it fascinating to take this hyper-competent, total badass who has always been in control of virtually every situation they've ever found themselves in and slowly strip that control away through the horrors of the worst conflict any living person in the galaxy has ever seen? That's amazing, I can't think of a better way one could tell a story like that then exactly what we got.Drathnoxis said:
More importantly I think one of the bigger issues the ME3 situation highlights is that there isn't really single overarching definition for what it means for choices to have consequences. If some of your party didn't survive the suicide mission in 2, even though the final scene of 3 wasn't effected they still weren't alive in 3. Isn't that a consequence? Isn't the story different because of that? Pretty much the whole of of 3 is an ending, saying goodbye and tying things up. The final scene is about resolving the theme of the story, and that theme isn't choice.
I've never really understood exactly what people were expecting in that regard. How many endings was it supposed to have? Exactly what choices were important enough that they were supposed to effect the last fifteen minutes of the game? You want to talk about consequences, the last scene is literally Shepard deciding the fate of every single being in the galaxy.
Sure there were only four ways that choice could play out and always only those four (assuming your GR wasn't low enough that it started locking things out), but they were thematically the right ways to resolve it. I'd much rather have a game with only a handful of endings that that really feel like they were the /right/ endings for it's story, rather then a game with 30 endings that were all "..and then this happened, I guess." If you can make 30 distinct endings that all feel thematically appropriate more power to you but good fucking luck.
This is why so many games end up having the good ending and the other ending. Resolution is unimaginably important in defining exactly what your story is about and it's incredibly hard to build up multiple resolutions that all feel equally justified. So you get Bioshock's good ending, which may be a bit on the happy side but adequately feels like it resolves the character and the situation in a whole and relevant way, and the bad ending, which just feels kind of silly and thrown in because you had to have another option. It's no coincidence that the good ending is a montage of re-framing the iconic image of the Little Sister taking the Big Daddy's hand, calling back to their complicated and fascinating dynamic and recontextualizing it an a new and positive way, and the other ending randomly tosses a nuclear submarine and splicer invasion at you, then throws up its hands and says "Nice knowing you!" This is also why so many games end up making their theme choice itself, because it becomes much easier to make diverging paths relevant when the fact that they diverge is your point. Mass Effect was not one of those stories.
Every conflict in the series, of which there were many, was based to some form of essentially misunderstandings, on assumptions made about the enemy because they were the enemy. Some times they were to a degree justified, the krogan would have posed a serious threat if some action hadn't been taken, same with the rachni. But the actions taken were extreme, and little thought apparently given to trying to find a better way. If krogan culture had been better understood and their relationship to the council strengthened, maybe they wouldn't have needed the genophage. Maybe if the rachni hive mind had been understood and some serious attempt at communication made they wouldn't have needed to nearly exterminate them. It's hard to say for sure either way, but it's unfortunate that they didn't try and find out.
Some of these conflicts were entirely based in fear. The quarians were terrified of the geth when they started to evolve of their own accord and attempted to wipe them out for fear of the geth turning on them. Out of fear for their own new-found existence the geth subsequently turn on their creators to protect themselves. It's easy to see how that could have gone better.
There are more smaller examples but this idea of acting solely on what you think you know rather then making a real attempt to understand and find a better way is reflected a lot over the course of all three games. And it reaches its apex when you understand the Reapers motivations. Their actions are horrific from our perspective but sensible, even altruistic from theirs, and we are such profoundly different beings that it's challenging for either of us to understand the viewpoint of the other.
Each of the choices Shepard is presented with is based around resolving that divide in one way or another, eliminating all voices besides your own, refusing to acknowledge or understand the situation and allowing that to destroy you, everyone uniting under a single hopefully benevolent voice, and attempting to reach an unprecedented level of genuine understanding and communication across different groups of beings.
This is what the story was about, it just wanted to take its time getting there and not hit you over the head with it. But if all you want to do is be Commander Awesome Shepard and kill the evil Reapers because evil you're going to miss things. Of course there's nothing wrong with wanting to be Commander Awesome and kill evil, but we have a /lot/ of other games that do that. This isn't one of them. That was the different expectation. And it can't start that way because /reaching/ understanding over fearful and easy assumptions is the point. It needs to play off that instinct, and we have to move past it. If we can't, we're almost proving its point.
I'd really like to make a response to this, but It's become obvious to me that my second hand knowledge of Mass Effect 3 is not nearly enough to make any sort of reasonable argument on the strength of the ending. I haven't actually played past the first Mass Effect, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to bow out of this discussion.Mike Richards said: