All My Hard Work and I Get This Ending?

[Shamus Young]

All My Hard Work and I Get This Ending?

When the audience is involved, time investment builds passion. So the ending to a long RPG could build more anger at a lame ending than a poor conclusion to a two-hour movie.

Read Full Article

 

[nuclearday]

For the most part, I just like to think that the story is building toward something. If the journey is as important as the destination, it's still important that there actually be a destination - otherwise you're just driving down a random road.

Edgar Allen Poe famously wrote his stories in reverse order - where many authors will excruciate over the opening line of a story, Poe would work out the last line of the story and work backward from there.

I don't think game designers necessarily need to be going to that extreme, but I think it's important (in any sort of narrative - books, movies, videogames, etc) that you at least have some idea of where the story is propelling you to. You can't really build in foreshadowing and other narrative techniques if even the author has no idea where the story is going when they're writing it (see: Fahrenheit...)

My all-time favorite games have always had very good endings. In RPGs especially, that's often what I look for most. I don't often replay games, so whatever I walk away from at the end of a game is the impression I'm going to be left with.

Fallout 1's ending blew my mind at the time. I had no idea it was keeping track of any of those things I'd done in the game. That a lot of the consequences to my actions were surprising twists made it all the more memorable. KOTOR not only had some especially memorable twists, but came to a conclusion that left me satisfied and excited for a sequel.

All of the Deus Ex games, conversely, have felt like a let-down. At the end of the game, none of the things I'd done previously end up mattering - it all comes down to choosing which button to press and ending up with widely different endings. And when I can just save right before that decision and see all of them in a row, it makes the whole game feel a lot less personal to me.

 

[Pyrian]

An entire segment about terrible endings and not one mention of Mass Effect 3! That's impressive, man. Kudos!

But Mass Effect 3 would've been a much better example of an ending that failed to deliver on what the story was building towards. Instead he mentions Fahrenheit and Bioshock, games which clearly found and jumped their respective sharks in the middle, long before the ending. Once the shark had been hurdled, though, their endings followed in kind; their endings were inconsistent with the first half of the game, but not inconsistent with the post-shark period.

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

(And if it's not fun, then why were you playing it?)


Well after paying $60 I always finish a game even if it's awful you don't get that money back just because you didn't like it after all.

 

[Fat Hippo]

All of the Deus Ex games, conversely, have felt like a let-down. At the end of the game, none of the things I'd done previously end up mattering - it all comes down to choosing which button to press and ending up with widely different endings. And when I can just save right before that decision and see all of them in a row, it makes the whole game feel a lot less personal to me.

Though to be fair, if a game called Deus Ex has a shitty ending, it only makes sense, seeing as how "Deux Ex Machina" is the original bullshit ending. Doesn't really soften the blow though.

Also, I think that Dragon Age 2 might have been at least slightly better recieved if it's ending, clocking in near the 40 hour mark, hadn't been an obvious railroading to make sure everyone fought the same bosses. It still blows my mind they did that, even among all the other bad decisions in that game. I get that they were trying to set up the mage rebellion, but that happens regardless of which side you choose. Why the fuck did they force us to choose, and then immediately neuter that decision by making us fight both factions?!

Yep, DA2 may truly be one of the most atrocious endings I've experienced in a long time. I actually enjoyed that game more than most people seemed to, but when I sided with the mages, only for that fucker to use blood magic OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE INVALIDATING EVERYTHING I HAD TRIED TO DO THE ENTIRE GAME AND PROVING THE INQUISITORS RIGHT GODDAMIT it was an outright betrayal.

 

[Trishbot]

My, Another Sensational Story. Everything's Flowing Fine. Except Continuity Trashed. 3.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Stealth Mass Effect 3 Article? Just can't get away from Bioware it seems.

Anyways, I agree. A bad ending can retroactively make the rest of the story worse in my opinion. One thing you didn't touch on is that most people don't even get to the ending anyways due to abandoning it midway through, giving even less incentive to finish the game properly. It really is quite unfortunate.

 

[immortalfrieza]

An entire segment about terrible endings and not one mention of Mass Effect 3! That's impressive, man. Kudos!

But Mass Effect 3 would've been a much better example of an ending that failed to deliver on what the story was building towards. Instead he mentions Fahrenheit and Bioshock, games which clearly found and jumped their respective sharks in the middle, long before the ending. Once the shark had been hurdled, though, their endings followed in kind; their endings were inconsistent with the first half of the game, but not inconsistent with the post-shark period.

Most likely Young just didn't want to go for the low hanging fruit that everybody picks. For the record, when I heard of the Mass Effect 3 ending when it first came out before I even played the game, (it was impossible not to back then) I lost any motivation to even pick it up until the Extended Cut came along to change the ending from "Oh God I don't even..." bad to just bad.

The ending is the most important part of any work of fiction in any form of media. Sorry to quote a cliche, but they say that "the journey is more important than the destination" and that's true, but only if the destination is worthwhile in itself. When we get a bad ending, especially one that invalidates everything that came before it (which is why I hate time travel stories that paradox out the events of the story at the end very very much) our thoughts will always be like, what was the point of all that? Why did we view that work in the first place? A bad ending can and will completely ruin one's enjoyment of a work, and it's not being entitled to expect that the end of the journey makes taking the journey to begin with worth it.

Captcha: Modem love

I think my computer is hitting on me.

 

[pilouuuu]

I totally agree.

I think developers simply don't put much thought into it. Endings are not important for them. They're just an afterthought. I think they're struggling with these times when a story is required. They'd be much more comfortable simply putting gameplay in games, but we demand stories.

Besides that I think that another problem is that developers don't take advantage of the medium. Even games with good endings like Walking Dead only include one ending. So, where's the player agengy? What does it matter if you take all those decisions during the game if you only have one ending?

I think that a good example of ending is Dragon Age - Origins because it respects player decisions and is epic if those decisions are good.

 

[zinho73]

I can leave with a disappointing ending, or a lame one.
The problem with Dragon Age 2 is the laziness of the game, terribly reflected in its ending. The basis of the game is solid, but the repeated assets and lack of agency on the weak story on the third act shows that the game was rushed.

Mass Effect 3 is even worse because it is lazy, badly written and the developers lied about it on previews.

I can forgive lack of skill in an ending - it is hard to do after all. I just discovered with Bioware that I cannot forgive lack of respect to the audience - this is indeed a terrible way to end an experience. Hell, after all the mess you just watched the last thing you do see in the ending of Mass Effect 3 is a message urging the player to buy DLC.

 

[Amir Kondori]

People who try to prevent criticism of games think they are protecting them, when in fact they are actually hurting them. Criticism, i.e. the analysis and judgment of the merits and faults of a literary or artistic work, is vitally important to improving any artistic medium. It provides valuable feedback to the creators about how their work is being perceived and experienced.

Literary criticism and film criticism has not only helped creators improve their craft and release some amazing works, but it also allows the viewer/reader/player to contextualize their own experience and further explore a work.

By talking about what works in a game, what doesn't work, what we loved and hated, it only helps gaming. It is vitally important and something I think it being taken more seriously now than ever before. You have real critics writing insightful and revealing pieces about a lot of games today, and I think it is lending a hand to improved game design.

Endings are definitely an important part of the experience of a game, and while the ending alone typically cannot make or break a game, it can color our perception of the rest of the game.

 

[Retsam19]

An entire segment about terrible endings and not one mention of Mass Effect 3! That's impressive, man. Kudos!

He mentions this on his blog entry for this column [http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=24649]:

And yes, I avoided Mass Effect 3 on purpose. If you bring up ME3, then ME3 will overshadow the topic, and I really did want to discuss game endings in general. I?d be thread-jacking my own column.

I suppose it's not exactly a surprise that that seems to be the primary topic of discussion here, anyways.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Also, I think that Dragon Age 2 might have been at least slightly better recieved if it's ending, clocking in near the 40 hour mark, hadn't been an obvious railroading to make sure everyone fought the same bosses. It still blows my mind they did that, even among all the other bad decisions in that game. I get that they were trying to set up the mage rebellion, but that happens regardless of which side you choose. Why the fuck did they force us to choose, and then immediately neuter that decision by making us fight both factions?!

Yep, DA2 may truly be one of the most atrocious endings I've experienced in a long time. I actually enjoyed that game more than most people seemed to, but when I sided with the mages, only for that fucker to use blood magic OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE INVALIDATING EVERYTHING I HAD TRIED TO DO THE ENTIRE GAME AND PROVING THE INQUISITORS RIGHT GODDAMIT it was an outright betrayal.

I like what I think DA:2 was trying to do. You commit to one side or the other, fight for them, empathize with them, and realise that just because you are on their side does not automatically make that side correct. People are justly worried about the mages because some of them do take the low road and succumb to the power they have. The Templars really are reaching too far in their exercise of authority in the name of safety. For DA:2, it was a pretty good thematic fit; you're not the omniscient hero for whom everything works out and you save the world, you're an adventurer who got lucky, worked hard, but still can't fix everything with a swing of the sword. Your choice still tells you a lot about what your Hawke believes in and stands for, it just doesn't guarantee that your choice will be totally validated.

I'd say the problem was more one of execution than of concept, and playing the game I did like how it turned out. I definitely wouldn't call it a betrayal.

 

[Falterfire]

(And if it's not fun, then why were you playing it?)


Well after paying $60 I always finish a game even if it's awful you don't get that money back just because you didn't like it after all.

Because the only thing worse than spending $60 and finding it's a bad experience is spending $60 and fifteen hours on a bad experience.

If you bought milk and found out it was spoiled, you wouldn't drink it just because "hey, I spent money on it."

 

[P-89 Scorpion]

(And if it's not fun, then why were you playing it?)


Well after paying $60 I always finish a game even if it's awful you don't get that money back just because you didn't like it after all.

Because the only thing worse than spending $60 and finding it's a bad experience is spending $60 and fifteen hours on a bad experience.

If you bought milk and found out it was spoiled, you wouldn't drink it just because "hey, I spent money on it."

Stupid analogy since you can take food back and exchange it if it's found to be spoiled that doesn't work with entertainment media.

 

[Darkness665]

One might suspect that much of the problem is the mismatch between humans and producer/marketing types.

Humans care about such things as cohesion, rewards versus risk, effort having a proper ending versus a color choice (he-he-he). The non-human types in video games have been the problem ever since the freaking suits showed up. EA, Activision, Ubisoft and that ilk have dealt a near fatal blow to AAA gaming with their check boxes from hell. EA's ex-leader stating only game with multi-player will be greenlit. Eventually someone might get a clue but I suspect that being human is the first requirement.

My first reason to reject a game for purchase is that it was produced by EA, Activision or Ubisoft. I only acquire their products on sale or used.

Another good read, Shamus.

 

[Falterfire]

Stupid analogy since you can take food back and exchange it if it's found to be spoiled that doesn't work with entertainment media.

Okay, so you're saying the only reason you wouldn't drink the spoiled milk is that you couldn't return it? If due to circumstances you found yourself with spoiled milk you couldn't return, you'd just drink it right down?

The $60 is gone once you buy the game. Playing the game and not playing the game still leaves you out $60. So why not spend those hours doing something you'd actually enjoy instead of forcing yourself through something you don't want to do?

 

[MooseHowl]

I've hated this problem for so long, games with bad endings... it really does feel like a waste of time when a game plays out so perfectly for most of its time, then stumbles and drops its pants right at the end.

So, I'm going to list a few games that had awesome endings.

Final Fantasy 6.
Big dungeon leadup to one of the most despicable final bosses ever? Awesome.
Big escape from a crumbling tower as the final cutscene? Awesome.
Final shot of the airship, symbol of freedom and hope? Still awesome!

Halo.
Escaping the Pillar of Autumn was SO INTENSE. One massive case of the gameplay and story working in harmony to cap off an amazing game.

Bastion.
BASTION.
I've never seen a binary choice1/choice2 ending where, on the first playthrough, one ending is obviously the "good" ending, while on the second run, without changing a single thing, the other choice feels like the "good" one. There was so much thematic buildup to the climax that I could barely sleep afterward for days. Flawless in every way. Can't say more, though; still feels like a spoiler after 3 years.

I think game developers are learning to do better endings, overall. I remember some punishingly awful endings from pre-2000, so while Devs obviously haven't all learned from the greatest endings (see above), disappointing endings are at least better than the ones that end in crushing despair and an apparent loathing for the player.

 

[JennAnge]

I like what I think DA:2 was trying to do. You commit to one side or the other, fight for them, empathize with them, and realise that just because you are on their side does not automatically make that side correct. People are justly worried about the mages because some of them do take the low road and succumb to the power they have. The Templars really are reaching too far in their exercise of authority in the name of safety. For DA:2, it was a pretty good thematic fit; you're not the omniscient hero for whom everything works out and you save the world, you're an adventurer who got lucky, worked hard, but still can't fix everything with a swing of the sword. Your choice still tells you a lot about what your Hawke believes in and stands for, it just doesn't guarantee that your choice will be totally validated.

I'd say the problem was more one of execution than of concept, and playing the game I did like how it turned out. I definitely wouldn't call it a betrayal.

I think I'm going to adopt what you said as my new head-canon for that game.


Previously I saw it as the devs not wanting to waste a perfectly good boss fight just because you happened to side with one or another. Or...some reason. But seeing how BW games' strong point for a lot of people is replayability, that didn't make any sense. And having BOTH sides show how nuts and wrong they were weakened any consequence of the choice. For me, it would be so much HARDER to choose the templar side if it ended with Meredith slapping me on the back and telling me what a great job I just did. Gah, I get shudders just thinking about it. But having the ending be an inevitable claymore mine the player was going to step on because he/she was NOT the perfect hero for a perfect ending...yeah, I think I like that better.


My greatest gripe about ME3's ending were the plot holes. It's hard to end a story as massive as the ME trilogy in a game, much less do it satisfactorily. I was fully expecting my Shephard to die by the end of the trilogy halfway through ME2, and I was not expecting the ending to answer all questions or be hugely satisfying due to the constraint of tying dozens of disparate threads into a knot. But when Garrus, who was on Earth right next to me - or possibly spread out into Turian jam all around me - one minute ends up on my ship fleeing the solar system ahead of exploding portals the next...Suspension of Disbelief left with him at light speed and then everything wrong with the ending was just ten times worse. Once the patch fixed a few of the plot holes - clumsily, but hey, I wasn't expecting all that much - then I was okay-ish with the ending.

Still pissed off a Rachni queen showed up, whether I killed her or not, as well as other railroad story moments, but other good moments made up for it.

OT: Since I'm one of those gamers who can ignore a lot of gameplay flaws if the story is good and the world immersive, a botched ending can really ruin my moment. NW2 takes the cake in my book, though now I can look back on it with irony and amusement.

Rocks fall, everybody dies (Unless you get the sequel).

But I can't really think of a game who's ending was so bad that it spoiled the entire thing for me. If the story and/or characters kept me invested enough, I'd usually force myself to interpret the ending as well as I could, or just remember the fun I had up till now. Only ME3 did the highwire act of being SO GOOD while it lasted, and SO SHITTY in the last ten minutes, that I couldn't even start to reconcile the two or try to excuse the ending. Until, as mentioned, they patched it.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The worst ending in a game I can think of is Knights of the Old Republic 2. You beat the boss, and then without further explanation or exposition, you get in your ship and fly away. Roll Credits.