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

[WanderingFool]

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

Thats a horrible ending, and you should be ashamed.

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?

Slightly, at least when compared to your original. Thing about this ending though, is that it depends on if this is meant to be a stand alone game or a series. Cause this ending is basically a cliffhanger, and people hate cliffhangers that dont get resolved.

To be honest though, your original ending is slightly... whats the word im looking for? philosophical? The idea that no matter what you do, you will fail and die with little fan-fair would make it a decent indy, artsy-fartsy game, but other than that...

 

[Eternal_Lament]

In response to your edit:

That could work. Again, nothing is really coming out of nowhere, as it's all sort of clear that bad stuff will happen in the end. The curse is an interesting addition, but I'm not sure if it's necessary. If you want to keep it though, I'd write it like this: pro is cursed by ant, ant gets away, pro realizes the desperation of the situation, pro gets more angry and frustrated as the curse spreads, pro's team realize that pro now wants to actively kill ant instead of just stopping ant, pro and ant fight, pro fights ant in a way that conveys desperation/dishonor (assuming pro was honorable at some point), pro eventually succumbs to the curse after killing ant, big evil shows up, pro's party decide to fight big evil as a sort of testament to what pro couldn't live on to do, pro's team have an in-game fight where big evil slowly picks away at them until everyone is dead, cue ending.

Not sure if this helps, just my thoughts

 

[Lovely Mixture]

This discussion reminds me Drakengard and Nier (despite having played neither).

Not exactly spoilers, but general plot details

Spoiler

Basically the fifth ending of Drakengard leads to the post-apocalyptic world featured in Nier, because the big bad's body leaves a virus that causes a huge chain of events.

The protagonists of Drakengard kill the big bad after traveling to another world (ours) and are killed shortly after. But even if they had survived, killing the big bad would still have resulted in the the catastrophe.

I'm also reminded of Shadow of the Colossus's ending, which is hopeful but still very depressing.
There's also the "true end" of Tokyo Jungle, though the entire thing is dystopian so I'm not sure if it counts.

Basically, as long as it makes sense in the context of the game.

 

[aegix drakan_v1legacy]

If the story is that of a tragedy, where the main character has some major flaw that is constantly tested throughout the story, and no matter what happens he continually fails at addressing that flaw. If that flaw is directly the cause of the downer ending, then it's dramatically appropriate.

This.

This guy gets it.

You need to make the player see the ending and go "...This was inevitable. This HAD to happen. There as no other way.". It's even a BIGGER punch to the gut if it's the hero's fault, and you can see him never address the fault that will be his downfall.

^_^ THAT'S how you do it.

That's also, incidentally, how I did it.

 

[EHKOS]

In response to your edit, I feel as if telling the player halfway through reduces the impact. Then again inFamous did pretty much this, and it was used as an opening for a sequel.

But it is much better than just killing the player.

 

[kwydjebo]

Fallout 3 ending was mentioned as similar, but I kinda disagree.
In that one, you beat the boss, the final battle is won, but to complete (in this case END) the story, you have to do the noble heroic sacrifice. I'll admit, it annoyed me, particularly since I had Fawkes who refused to do the task for me (My guy does it, radiation kills me, game over man. He does it...well he isn't affected by radiation so really why the heck not)....and only reading here today did I learn that the DLC changed that.
But I'd have been REALLY dissappointed if I went into a final boss fight that was unwinnable. If it was just a "get to the boss, party dies in cut scene", that is one thing, but if you actually go through the fight, only to learn you never could win, that pretty much sucks.
If this is the way you want to go, a more interesting approach might be to, when the villain is on the verge of defeat, he then activates the heroic choice, and the hero has to decide if he should beat the baddie, or sacrifice himself for the greater good (The villain will now go Super Sayen and your defeat is assured, but it takes a minute to power up, and the villain can be killed in that minute, but his death will instantly trigger the doomsday device. Your life or everyone elses in 60...nope 45 seconds now).

Red Dead Redemption also (as mentioned) had the "Hero destroyed" end (Although the main goals you had worked towards had been accomplished, this end was more like an epilogue..part 1), but at least you get to play as his son and get revenge for him(Epilogue part 2).

The uber tough bos beating the hero, badly, as an opening (hero survives so he can face him at the end) or part way through works, and does help to build the urgency some (You discover you are soooo not ready, gotta work harder), but as described, boss just up and kills all, seems like a slap in the face and a bit of a "You never had a chance" so kinda begs the question, why bother?
Just my opinion.

 

[latiasracer]

Well, with the ending of Metro 2033, it made me replay the entire game a few months later to try and get the ending where i didn't accidently obliterate the mutants who actually just wanted to be freinds...

The negative ending is very powerfull.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

Well, with the ending of Metro 2033, it made me replay the entire game a few months later to try and get the ending where i didn't accidently obliterate the mutants who actually just wanted to be freinds...

The negative ending is very powerfull.

I actually hated the fact that they gave you a choice. They should have did it like the book did.

 

[balladbird]

circumstances would play a huge role in how I reacted to either of the endings you described. there's potential for a powerful and memorable gaming experience with such a macabre twist at the end, but you'd be walking an incredibly thin tightrope between a unique climax and a shaggy dog story. Generally if I were presented with a situation where I spent 30 hours with a character, put tons of time and effort into his story, and then reached the end only to learn that things were no better for him/her than if I had simply set down my controller and walked away, then I wouldn't react favorably.

Granted, multiple endings are par for the course in gaming today, so having one or two really bad endings would hardly be a game breaker, provided they weren't too easy to get on a first playthrough.

 

[spartandude]

it can obviously be done


good example

Spoiler: a possible dragon age origins ending

as the character is a grey warden only he (or other grey wardens) can truley kill the arch deamon but in doing so the one who does will also die. now this is was good because you could prevent a situation from happening where somebody would have to die, or have somone else die or do it yourself for a bitter sweet ending.
Now Two things that make this work are that it isnt pulled out right at the last minute, well it sort of is but atleast a few hours before it must be done so you see it coming. but you also acomplish your goal, while its nice to have a failure ending every now and then its also good to be able t accomplish what you set out to do.

but it can also be done badly


Mass Effect 3 or Fallout 3. and im not even going to bother getting into those (especially ME3) as im burnt out discussing them


but i guess my point is dont just bring out a fail ending with no possible other outcome and have the player not accomplish anything they set out to do

 

[00slash00]

we have games like that. the last game i finished comes to mind and while im one of like 5 people here who actually liked the game and its predecessor, i shall put it in spoiler tags anyway

Spoiler

final fantasy 13-2 ends with the main character dying, your sister being frozen in crystal, the bad guy winning, and the world basically ending...and i fuckin loved it!

 

[latiasracer]

Well, with the ending of Metro 2033, it made me replay the entire game a few months later to try and get the ending where i didn't accidently obliterate the mutants who actually just wanted to be freinds...

The negative ending is very powerfull.

I actually hated the fact that they gave you a choice. They should have did it like the book did.

I kinda agree, but it was a good insentive to replay the game and find the secret bits, and the "Moral points" where very subtle, and i'm pretty sure most people would have got the ending the book had first time they've played the game. Given that if they did trigger one by chance, they wouldn't have known they have, as all you get is a little flash of the screen (First playthough i just thought was a funny effect)

Although, they could have made them more "Moral", some made sense, such as denying rewards and donating money to the homeless people dotted about, But some where just stupid. On one level, i'm pretty sure you just have to jump over a crate

 

[Karfroogle]

I think it would definitely be a fresh change. Of course it all really depends on the gameplay and the story, etc. But a "bad" ending would, in my opinion, be (potentially) very interesting.

 

[spartan231490]

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


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?

Frankly, I like a power corrupts the hero ending better than a hero loses ending, but both could work if the game was set-up correctly. The biggest problem I have with what you said is the incorrect use of distopian. Firstly, it's spelled dystopian. Secondly, nothing you said indicates a dystopia, you made no mention of society, let alone a dystopian one. Perhaps you meant disappointing?

 

[00slash00]

we have games like that. the last game i finished comes to mind and while im one of like 5 people here who actually liked the game and its predecessor, i shall put it in spoiler tags anyway

Spoiler

final fantasy 13-2 ends with the main character dying, your sister being frozen in crystal, the bad guy winning, and the world basically ending...and i fuckin loved it!

I actually agree, despite not liking endings where you lose, I thought that ending really set the stage for the next game really well, just wish we didn't have to buy the damn epilogue to the game.

I think knowing there was going to be another game helped, if that was the end of the series itself, I probably would have been much less positive about it.

i agree. if that was the end of the story i might be considerably less happy with it. i personally didnt mind the dlc. when i first heard about it i thought it was like pay $5 for a cutscene, but i enjoyed playing the game so i didnt mind buying dlc to get more gameplay and more backstory to set up for the sequel. plus...youtube exists now, so you dont have to pay for the dlc at all if you just want the extra cutscenes

 

[00slash00]

we have games like that. the last game i finished comes to mind and while im one of like 5 people here who actually liked the game and its predecessor, i shall put it in spoiler tags anyway

Spoiler

final fantasy 13-2 ends with the main character dying, your sister being frozen in crystal, the bad guy winning, and the world basically ending...and i fuckin loved it!

I actually agree, despite not liking endings where you lose, I thought that ending really set the stage for the next game really well, just wish we didn't have to buy the damn epilogue to the game.

I think knowing there was going to be another game helped, if that was the end of the series itself, I probably would have been much less positive about it.

i agree. if that was the end of the story i might be considerably less happy with it. i personally didnt mind the dlc. when i first heard about it i thought it was like pay $5 for a cutscene, but i enjoyed playing the game so i didnt mind buying dlc to get more gameplay and more backstory to set up for the sequel. plus...youtube exists now, so you dont have to pay for the dlc at all if you just want the extra cutscenes

I thought the DLC itself would be more fun, but it was just 2 short battles for 5 euro (I paid 400MSP as I am on 360) but it was only 400MSP so it wasn't too bad, the cutscenes were excellent though. I enjoyed the gameplay too.

I hope the next game wraps things up nicely, this "doomclock" thing sounds fishy, like not finishing the game on time will give you a terri-bad ending...

haha well im not getting a good ending then. with jrpgs i tend to spend a few hours grinding before going to the final boss, just because they often tend to have cheap attacks. ill just take whatever ending i get and watch the others on youtube

 

[Lovely Mixture]

I kinda agree, but it was a good insentive to replay the game and find the secret bits, and the "Moral points" where very subtle,

Although, they could have made them more "Moral", some made sense, such as denying rewards and donating money to the homeless people dotted about, But some where just stupid. On one level, i'm pretty sure you just have to jump over a crate

Yeah that about summarizes it.

and i'm pretty sure most people would have got the ending the book had first time they've played the game. Given that if they did trigger one by chance, they wouldn't have known they have, as all you get is a little flash of the screen (First playthough i just thought was a funny effect)

But the game doesn't have the book ending

Spoiler

The game only has:
1. He destroys them whilst thinking they are hostile
2. He realizes they aren't hostile and doesn't destroy them

The book has:
He realizes that they aren't hostile RIGHT as the missile hits them.

I just hope Last Light improves on it.

 

[ItsNotRudy]

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??!!!

From the Fallout Wikia:

Spoiler

When the player is faced with the climactic decision at the conclusion of the game, Fawkes politely declines to enter the radioactive room in lieu of the player (even though he is immune to radioactivity), stating that the decision is the player's destiny and not his. However, if the player has the Broken Steel add-on installed, the option to send Fawkes in will appear, allowing the player to opt out of entering themselves or Sentinel Sarah Lyons. When this option is used, he states that although he was going to tell the player that the player's destiny lies in that chamber, he has already altered his own.

 

[latiasracer]

I kinda agree, but it was a good insentive to replay the game and find the secret bits, and the "Moral points" where very subtle,

Although, they could have made them more "Moral", some made sense, such as denying rewards and donating money to the homeless people dotted about, But some where just stupid. On one level, i'm pretty sure you just have to jump over a crate

Yeah that about summarizes it.

and i'm pretty sure most people would have got the ending the book had first time they've played the game. Given that if they did trigger one by chance, they wouldn't have known they have, as all you get is a little flash of the screen (First playthough i just thought was a funny effect)

But the game doesn't have the book ending

Spoiler

Huh, i thought Artyom did think did relise they where good in the game after the missile hits - I think he mentions something about it in the end monolouge as the credits roll. After i played the game first time, and bought the audiobook, to see how close the game followed the story, and i thought the endings where pretty similar... Maybe it's just me who felt that

But yeah, Seriously looking forward to last light!
The game only has:
1. He destroys them whilst thinking they are hostile
2. He realizes they aren't hostile and doesn't destroy them

The book has:
He realizes that they aren't hostile RIGHT as the missile hits them.

I just hope Last Light improves on it.

After i played the game i bought the audiobook, and thought the ending was pretty similar to the distopian game ending... Perhaps it was just me who thought that... Doesn't Artyom mention something about it in the ending monolouge? It's been a while since i last finished it

And yes, Seriously looking forward to last light!

 

[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??!!!

From the Fallout Wikia:

Spoiler

When the player is faced with the climactic decision at the conclusion of the game, Fawkes politely declines to enter the radioactive room in lieu of the player (even though he is immune to radioactivity), stating that the decision is the player's destiny and not his. However, if the player has the Broken Steel add-on installed, the option to send Fawkes in will appear, allowing the player to opt out of entering themselves or Sentinel Sarah Lyons. When this option is used, he states that although he was going to tell the player that the player's destiny lies in that chamber, he has already altered his own.

See, this is the thing... I prefer not to get my game ending via the wiki. I prefer, y'know, PLAYING THE DAMN GAME. If you hadn't pointed that out, I would never have known.

Honestly I really liked Fallout 3 (although it wasn't as good as New Vegas, which I think had better characters although less content). But the main quest kinda sucked. They turned an open-world adventure into a shooter where you don't have an iota of control over the outcome. You never feel like you've changed anything. That's one of the many, many ways that I thought "New Vegas" was superior (along with the characters of the companions - seriously, you can go through the game with Felicia Day in tow, how awesome is that? - and the skill balancing.) If you used New Vegas' characters and skillset with Fallout 3's map, I think you might very well have the perfect game.