[EDITED]how would you react to a distopian ending to a game

[Lunar Templar]

A more Dystopian ending would be for you to defeat the Boss only to find out all his evil acts served a greater purpose, say conquering and enslaving neighbouring countries to unite them and make them able to survive some catastrophe that, divided, would destroy them.

And there you stand, realizing by defeating the evil overlord you have doomed yourself and everyone you love to bitter destruction...

An ending like that would IMO be pretty sweet....

I like this idea better then having the villain go super sayin and flatten the group

 

[Dfskelleton]

It's been tried before, and believe me, it's not fun when it happens.
EXAMPLE (skip to 10:02):
Now, if it weren't just an instant "GAME OVER", and rather you knowing that you're going to lose and you have to hold out as long as you can, that would be something different.
A downer ending isn't nessecarily bad, but an abrupt one is.

 

[bug_of_war]

So i am trying to write a story to a game, and i came up with an ending to the game where you fight the final boss and you are kicking his ass, and just as you deal the finishing blow, he transforms into something big and crushes you and your party like a bunch of flies.

My question is how would you react to this kind of distopian ending to a game: would you demand your money back, or would you feel that this was a good ending to a game or something else.

please comment as much as possible on this, as it would be interesting to hear from every gamer. Also it would nice to hear how people take distopian endings in general.

captcha: happy rlappy

god damn that thing is sentient, or something

Well, look how people reacted to ME3's ending. It wasn't distopian, but people hated it.

After reading these forums I've come to the conclusion that every ending is a bad one. But I like your idea, however I might suggest thatyou don't make it so you kick the bad guy's ass before he transforms ad kills you. Personally, that would piss me off because it's like, why wold I stand round and wait. So if I were playing that, I would like to see an even battle that eventually gets too hard and then I die because I just aren't strong enough to beat the enemy. THAT would be a really cool distopian ending in my mind because there was never that moment where I was totally winning, if I was always on the back foot, then the ending looks very bleak, and I would love to see that.

 

[Altorin]

A more Dystopian ending would be for you to defeat the Boss only to find out all his evil acts served a greater purpose, say conquering and enslaving neighbouring countries to unite them and make them able to survive some catastrophe that, divided, would destroy them.

And there you stand, realizing by defeating the evil overlord you have doomed yourself and everyone you love to bitter destruction...

An ending like that would IMO be pretty sweet....

*slowclaps*

that's beautiful man

just beautiful

on topic, I found most of the ending vignettes in dragon age origin depressing. Everything seemed to go badly for everybody... but that might just have been me.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Depends on the universe and how the ending came about.

If it were in a GRIMDARK universe like Warhammer 40000 then I would be more accepting of it than a light hearted comedy.

Also if you were being played by the enemy/declared traitors for your actions/hadf to destroy the thing your were fighting for would definably be better than a generic "rocks fall everyone dies"

Of course if it is to create a cliffhanger for a sequel then the game can go die in a fire.

 

[Remus]

It has been done before - Legacy of Kain, Zone of the Enders...but there was always the subtext of "to be continued...". Outright killing the main character might not work. Perhaps a setback, like knocking the character out or the boss escapes at the last second.

 

[templar1138a]

It'd be best if you could have two different endings that are dependent upon the player's success or failure in said final fight. Much less irksome than a rocks-fall scenario. I can only think of two games I played through that I know did that; Lego Island and Freespace 2.

Off-topic: Discover can kiss my ass.

 

[Mikejames]

If there was no build-up to it, and it was a last second way to make the entire story inevitably and unnecessarily depressing?

As someone who's enjoyed tragic endings, that would hardly sound satisfying.

 

[thiosk]

The heroes winning and ushering in a nightmare future world would be awesome.

 

[Mick Beard]

well it happened in AC3 and everyone bitched and whined about it

That's because spoiler warning here (Desmond had no reason to die and he just does and releases a bitter goddess with intentions to enslave humanity into the world.)The whole thing was contrived and that's why people were pissed because Ubisoft needed some excuse to get Desmond out of the picture.

how do we really know he is dead?

AC4 is set within the same blood line (conners gramps) so my guess is that Desmond isnt dead or is brought back and now the fight is to stop Juno... if Juno can come back there is nothign stopping desmond from coming back

True but Ubisoft said AC3 was the last time we are going to see Desmond so that makes me think he's dead.

Besides it could be some randon person who's viewing Edward Kenway's memories since at the end of AC3 it was revealed that Desmond's genentic memories were recorded and archived in some sort of cloud system, so it could be anyone who has access to the animus.

Yeah seems legit, could be a bastard child, his father a sibling... but i am thinking desmond will be back, he has been the main dude in all the games so he still will have a part to play

 

[Kaymish]

the ending in the OP would be incredibly bad with the end boss just going "lol jk u die nao" i mean you gotta build it up like its an impossible task and you just fail in the end i am all for a game where you lose in the end mass effect 3 might have been great if you eventually lost i can also see working it where you win but its a hollow phrryic victory that might be pretty fun but the bad guy turning round and being all urban mech on you and stomping you out of no where where all the lead up is traditional would suck arse

 

[thespyisdead]

just edited the ending

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

If you're going to have a downer ending, you need to work HARD to make it work.

Having a "Rocks fall, everyone dies" kind of ending will just piss everyone off. NOBODY likes being on the road to winning, and then out of nowhere, you get owned and the game ends arbitrarily. You need to feel like your struggle MEANT something. You need to feel like you contributed to something. Otherwise, what the hell was the point of playing anyway?

To make a PROPER downer ending, you need to make the player feel like it was inevitable. You need to make them feel like it was more about the journey than the end. You need to make the player feel sad, beaten and broken. NOT frustrated.

For example, I made an RPG for a contest about a month ago. The ending segment was pretty downer. And people love it because you really feel like it was unavoidable and that you're a fool for thinking it would have turned out any different, which fits well with the theme of the game. And then I "ruin" it by letting the player pick between 2 downer endings (both of which are depressing as hell) or an ambiguous-yet-kickass ending, allowing the player the possibility to finish the game on something that isn't a low.

So far, though, I've gotten nothing but praise for the endings.

 

[TheMadDoctorsCat]

Compare that, to, say, the ending of "Fallout 3", which is as outside of the player's control as the rest of the main quest. Who wasn't p---ed off at the "choice" the player is presented with then? Especially if they have Fawkes with them, whose very presence should make the whole decision moot.

I guess what I'm saying is that an ending, good or bad, should be "earned".

I don't quite understand what you mean? You either die, kill the Brotherhood girl or if you found Fawkes you come out with a win-win.

Now, I didn't play the game when it was first released so I may be wrong here, but I believe that, originally, Fawkes refused to take your place and you just had to die.

Spoiler

With the Broken Steel DLC, Fawkes will not refuse and survive the nuke chamber, extending the main quest now that you have lived.

Wait... SERIOUSLY??!!!

I got that DLC but never bothered to play the main quest until the end with it. Why didn't they just do this with the original damn game??!!!

 

[Yopaz]

So long as there was a point to it besides, "Haha, look how unconventional my game is!"

Well said there. I agree.

Dystopian endings can be quite good, but I don't like the idea that the boss you just beat will be the one to cause such a thing. If things were to end badly then make it happen for some other reason. Beating someone shouldn't give them some magical boost of power.

You kill the villain only to discover that his existence was crucial to the world's balance might be a little cliched, but done right it could work.

It's tough to make them work, but as said before. If you make it just to be different then it wont.

 

[bug_of_war]

EDIT:after reading the comments, this is what i think will be a be better ending than the lolkill i proposed:

somewhere in the middle of the story, the protagonist and antagonist face off, the antagonist not being at his strongest, because he has not preformed the ritual needed to release the power of the artifact that he stole. the antagonist is naturally overpowered, and sees that should the protagonist not be slowed down, he will not have the time to do so, so he puts a curse on him, that in time will kill the protagonist. he also during this battle tell, that were he to be stopped a much greater evil would befall the world, but no one believes him naturally, after that, he teleports away.

despite the curse, the protagonist presses on. during the last battle he wins just by a thread, and as he does, he succumbs to the curses effects. as the rest of the party emerges from the battle, the greater evil starts invading.

*credit roll*

is this better?

Personally, the whole curse thing is something I would expect at the start of the story, not half way through. This is simply because the only information you have given us is the ending, so I am kind of confused on the points of why am I angry at the antagonist (I need a little more than 'he's an evil antagonistic person'). Also, it still feels like too much of a win to me. I think your original idea of the protagonist being killed is cool, but so long as there is no slimmer of hope.

That's just me though, and you'll never please evryone so...

 

[salfiert]

personally I'd like to see a game where if the player wins the world goes to hell, if you lose then the world gets the happy ending, seems more interesting than just 'lol you lose' especially if you make the player aware beforehand, see if they will persevere knowing they will doom the world, or give up everything they put in the game up to this point for the good ending.

 

[Da Orky Man]

From the way you said it, I don' think that would be a very popular ending. I'm good with dystopian, bittersweet endings, but you have to make sure the player feels rewarded for playing the game. A simple 'Villain gets bigger and crushes hero' doesn't reward the player. Having the player character killed during or after having killed the big bad can work.

 

[SD-Fiend]

personally I'd like to see a game where if the player wins the world goes to hell, if you lose then the world gets the happy ending, seems more interesting than just 'lol you lose' especially if you make the player aware beforehand, see if they will persevere knowing they will doom the world, or give up everything they put in the game up to this point for the good ending.

More people should know about this game.
http://lparchive.org/Live-a-Live/Update%2067/
http://lparchive.org/Live-a-Live/Update%2068/

 

[Ickorus]

I like the expanded ending but you should try hinting subtly throughout the story that perhaps the bad guy is doing all the nasty evil things for a reason and perhaps that reason could be considered as 'for the greater good' even though it is still really, really evil and perhaps misguided.