I certainly did... the good ending, anyway. I felt it completed the narrative in a compelling way that make Jack's journey actually matter from pillar to post, and it's one of the only endings in any game to evoke an honest emotional response from me. The bad ending? Well... it blew monkies. There's a reason on repeat playthroughs I rescue every Little Sister.seditary said:
On Endings
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
The kingdom hearts games showed that you can leave room for a sequel, yet still have a sense of closure.
At the end of the game, I was content with my job of killing a large portion of the heartless and stopping the immediate bad guy, yet it still left opportunity for a number 2 to come out.
At the end of the game, I was content with my job of killing a large portion of the heartless and stopping the immediate bad guy, yet it still left opportunity for a number 2 to come out.
FFVI just goes the extra distance with it's endingXMark said:
I'm nominating both the MegaTen games and the Super Robot Wars games. Again for the sheer fact that they actually END and have pretty definitive conclusions. Even a game like Super Robot Wars Alpha which was the lead in for a 4-Parter (Gaiden, Alpha 2, Alpha 3) Still wrapped up each of it's stories in a way that felt complete, yet still left enough bad guy factions around to go "Okay well if they revisit this era we have something else"
The only Misstep in story telling was the addition of Gundam SEED to Alpha 3 because it never made any sense where the fuck they came from, especially when we had this big ass war between the Titans, Zeon, Federation and AEUG way back in Alpha 1!
And Megaten? Megaten often lets you see the end result of your actions first hand before ending, SMT2 ends with you (after having enslaved the population, sold them out to the demons, or killed both forces) wandering through towns and seeing how everyone is living now (the neutral ending is always the best in Megaten) Persona 4 ends with you killing the big bad, stepping onto the train to depart for parts unknown as your party tearfully bids you farewell.
A good ending leaves you with a feeling of completion, even if it's just "This chapter has been completed"
I think the Kingdom Hearts games end pretty well in each game. Solid intro (if not a little confusing) with hints at a next game but a good ending when you're following the story well.
Does anyone remember the ending of Grandia II (preferably the decent looking and bug free Dreamcast version, and not the hideous PS2 port?). Of all the games I ever played that one still sticks with me as one of the coolest, most cathartic amounts of closure I have ever experienced in a game. After the final battle is fought, and the story arcs are all finished, you are left, still in control of one of your characters, the young boy, as the credits roll. The world is safe, peace reigns, and power and mass transit have been restorred to the lands. So you can now easily retrace your journey going back to all the towns and NPC's you have encountered, interact with them again, and see how the changes you have wrought to the world have impacted their lives. Just amazingly immersive.
What made fallout 3's ending so bad was how pointless it was. In real life it easily possible to filter water through things like sand to get rid of radiation, so having to build a giant purifier is pointless.Misterian said:
Broken Steel, well firstly most of the Enclave was already destroyed in Fallout 2, so they shouldn't really be that powerful in 3 in the first place. Also no blowing up either the Citadel or Enclave Base doesn't do anything either. The Brotherhood of Steel was never a major faction to begin with, just a bunch of self absorbing assholes who care only about themself most of the time. Ironically the Brotherhood Outcasts are more like the BoS from Fallout 1 and 2.
Fallout 3 was a fun game for me, but it did have its faults. Also New Vegas is a continuation of Fallout 2, not Fallout 3, and is being made by the people who made the originals. So it has the expectations to outdo the first two, not 3. Also no characters from Fallout 3 will appear in New Vegas, that was confirmed a long time ago.
Oh god I made a text wall. FYI, the quotes were more of a jumping-off point than for a direct response.
Summary for the impatient: the games industry is too broken to nurture great artists and too lacking in incentives to keep them.
A good system begets good results. For games, that system is built terribly. The entire industry is a ramshackle of conflicting, inefficient, and counterproductive organizing principles stolen from a myriad of different fields because the business-side doesn't know how to define itself. But on the art side, it's even more of a mismanaged dump, collectively speaking. That's why good games (and good game endings, by proxy) are the exception rather than the rule (as opposed to the Film Industry, where good movies are at least closer to a dice roll. Game stories are more like a dice roll loaded against you)
The reason that Shakespeares and Steven Spielbergs can enjoy the fame from creating great works within their big-business entertainment of choice is because those forms of entertainment were, and are, designed in such a way that properly rewards the better artists. And even with all their faults, most of the reason they can exist in that manner is because they're organized well from a business standpoint.
On the other hand, the reason you can have penniless painters and writers who become famous after death is because those art-forms have organized their business around two important things that game creation ignores/can't afford: 1) an obsessive cult of preservation, built into the system - I'm not referring to fans who collect things, only those who make money off it. The droves of "patrons of the arts" in other words, who account for a majority of the income (or fame, depending on whether there's a heartbeat) that those types of artists receive. And 2) the celebration of the lay savant, which is a nice thing to shoot for in games but is realistically outside the abilities of an industry that uses vastly expensive hardware as their canvas and brush.
Let's try playing this out
Thus, consider a hypothetical "Van Gogh" of video game writers (and pretend he isn't catastrophically manic-depressive in this version). Let's say he writes his best story yet for a game. It's not only moving but it compliments the mechanics and evokes the themes of the art direction (or maybe he's the art director and it's vice versa. The specifics aren't important). Hell, lets even say that it's only botched slightly after the management gets their hands on it. Then the game is released and it's a smashing success, even though the mechanics are a bit buggy and the auto lip sync was implemented poorly. The studio, meanwhile, has already started working on the next game, but now half the team is laid off because their jobs won't be important till later. Most of the creativity that complimented his work has now spread itself thin into the industry. Also they started on the sequel before even contacting Mr. Gogh, so most of the next story will need to be shoehorned into whatever the designers are goofing around with at the moment. Also, they're not offering him a very big raise, even though there's another developer on the East Coast that will net him a huge pay increase for a preexisting IP (they'll filter absolutely everything he writes through focus groups, ruining it...but that's moot because he doesn't know and hasn't decided to accept the offer yet). Also, I forgot to mention, little detail - juuust before the project ended, he was laid off and the producer's second-cousin was brought in to finish up some of the dialogue trees. Since he didn't see the project all the way through, his name is saved for a less important section of the credits if it was even included at all, because the games industry doesn't have the infrastructure of unions that the film industry does, making sure everyone is getting credit. This means that even the few players who sit through the credits won't know he was responsible for the storyline.
This all may sound ridiculous to you, like I'm putting way too many caveats in Mr. Gogh's role here. But unfortunately, everything I mentioned here has been told/complained to me firsthand by various friends of mine, and friends-of-friends, who work in the games industry. This is basically an averaging out of what probably happens to the majority of creative talent within the field.
No chance of fame, monetarily he'll actually be rewarded more for disloyalty, and the next company will most likely scrap his best work because it's too risky. So, the thought experiment: how does he make "Starry Night" in this scenario, and who will be there to give a shit if he does?
Summary for the impatient: the games industry is too broken to nurture great artists and too lacking in incentives to keep them.
I think you may have glanced against his point and then shot off in the wrong direction. It is true that constraint and money are usually beneficial to art, rather than the demons they're made out to be. Although an artist's best work is usually not made within those constraints and oversight, a large body of his or her most notable work typically is. But it's not working "within the system" (which doesn't make any sense anyway - if you're making a game in the first place then you are, by definition, inside the system) that suppresses the artist's best work, it's the way the system is built.BloodSquirrel said:
A good system begets good results. For games, that system is built terribly. The entire industry is a ramshackle of conflicting, inefficient, and counterproductive organizing principles stolen from a myriad of different fields because the business-side doesn't know how to define itself. But on the art side, it's even more of a mismanaged dump, collectively speaking. That's why good games (and good game endings, by proxy) are the exception rather than the rule (as opposed to the Film Industry, where good movies are at least closer to a dice roll. Game stories are more like a dice roll loaded against you)
The reason that Shakespeares and Steven Spielbergs can enjoy the fame from creating great works within their big-business entertainment of choice is because those forms of entertainment were, and are, designed in such a way that properly rewards the better artists. And even with all their faults, most of the reason they can exist in that manner is because they're organized well from a business standpoint.
On the other hand, the reason you can have penniless painters and writers who become famous after death is because those art-forms have organized their business around two important things that game creation ignores/can't afford: 1) an obsessive cult of preservation, built into the system - I'm not referring to fans who collect things, only those who make money off it. The droves of "patrons of the arts" in other words, who account for a majority of the income (or fame, depending on whether there's a heartbeat) that those types of artists receive. And 2) the celebration of the lay savant, which is a nice thing to shoot for in games but is realistically outside the abilities of an industry that uses vastly expensive hardware as their canvas and brush.
Let's try playing this out
Thus, consider a hypothetical "Van Gogh" of video game writers (and pretend he isn't catastrophically manic-depressive in this version). Let's say he writes his best story yet for a game. It's not only moving but it compliments the mechanics and evokes the themes of the art direction (or maybe he's the art director and it's vice versa. The specifics aren't important). Hell, lets even say that it's only botched slightly after the management gets their hands on it. Then the game is released and it's a smashing success, even though the mechanics are a bit buggy and the auto lip sync was implemented poorly. The studio, meanwhile, has already started working on the next game, but now half the team is laid off because their jobs won't be important till later. Most of the creativity that complimented his work has now spread itself thin into the industry. Also they started on the sequel before even contacting Mr. Gogh, so most of the next story will need to be shoehorned into whatever the designers are goofing around with at the moment. Also, they're not offering him a very big raise, even though there's another developer on the East Coast that will net him a huge pay increase for a preexisting IP (they'll filter absolutely everything he writes through focus groups, ruining it...but that's moot because he doesn't know and hasn't decided to accept the offer yet). Also, I forgot to mention, little detail - juuust before the project ended, he was laid off and the producer's second-cousin was brought in to finish up some of the dialogue trees. Since he didn't see the project all the way through, his name is saved for a less important section of the credits if it was even included at all, because the games industry doesn't have the infrastructure of unions that the film industry does, making sure everyone is getting credit. This means that even the few players who sit through the credits won't know he was responsible for the storyline.
This all may sound ridiculous to you, like I'm putting way too many caveats in Mr. Gogh's role here. But unfortunately, everything I mentioned here has been told/complained to me firsthand by various friends of mine, and friends-of-friends, who work in the games industry. This is basically an averaging out of what probably happens to the majority of creative talent within the field.
No chance of fame, monetarily he'll actually be rewarded more for disloyalty, and the next company will most likely scrap his best work because it's too risky. So, the thought experiment: how does he make "Starry Night" in this scenario, and who will be there to give a shit if he does?
As much as I liked Armored Core 4 and for Answer, I have to say that the endings were both really underwhelming. Not that the story was particularly great, anyways. But that's probably the only game I liked which has very little story or character development.
Or an ending.
Or an ending.
I also hate poor endings. After spending weeks playing Spellforce 1 you get a totally crap ending. /spoiler The man you have been working for the ENTIRE game suddenly just goes, OH BAI TEH WAI i IZ EVUL hurrrrrrrrr. Then he proceeds to cockup the whole world with magic from the one item you spent ages to get for him.
This is the kind of comment that shows why games became shallow. A good story can save flawed gameplay as it also works the other way around. Graphics and gameplay are the first thing you notice about a game and if you're only excited because of them, developers don't need to convince you in any other way.Electrogecko said:
There's a reason why Silent Hill, Valkyrie Profile, Fatal Frame, Final Fantasy, Xenogears, Persona, Shadow Hearts, Shenmue, Heavy Rain and so on are very present in the gaming community. And that's not because of their often clunky gameplay.
Yes endings are important. What I really hate are when endings are too short. Especially when the games take their time to introduce the character. So I really liked the ME2 ending were you chatted a little bit about your decisions and the future events.
I liked the good ending of Bioshock because it was a good wrap up of the story and showed the consequences of your actions over a long time. I never could "harvest" a little sister after I finished it with the good ending.
I hated the Fallout 3 ending. Because all the good you did over the game was in vain if you decide not to sacrifice yourself. And it was way to short.
And I get the feeling that way to many games end with a sacrifice ending because the developers seem to be clueless what to do with the character when the game ends. So they just decide to kill him if they aren't panning a sequel already. If they are planning a sequel (although they might not release it) you will get a generic cliffhanger because the can't let the story end properly.
[edit:] a few more endings I liked: Chrono Trigger and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
I liked the good ending of Bioshock because it was a good wrap up of the story and showed the consequences of your actions over a long time. I never could "harvest" a little sister after I finished it with the good ending.
I hated the Fallout 3 ending. Because all the good you did over the game was in vain if you decide not to sacrifice yourself. And it was way to short.
And I get the feeling that way to many games end with a sacrifice ending because the developers seem to be clueless what to do with the character when the game ends. So they just decide to kill him if they aren't panning a sequel already. If they are planning a sequel (although they might not release it) you will get a generic cliffhanger because the can't let the story end properly.
[edit:] a few more endings I liked: Chrono Trigger and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines
I guess Metroid Other M just worsened the issue.
And let's pray that Yatzee will never become a bloodthirsty dictator.
While it is sad to admit, Mario games are above average in terms of endings. At least he gets a kiss on the nose - or got to stomp a shrinked down Bowser and eat apples from a cake with Yoshi like in Super Mario Galaxy 2
And let's pray that Yatzee will never become a bloodthirsty dictator.
While it is sad to admit, Mario games are above average in terms of endings. At least he gets a kiss on the nose - or got to stomp a shrinked down Bowser and eat apples from a cake with Yoshi like in Super Mario Galaxy 2
You magnificent bastard. Someone who is willing to admit you want to rule the world, and not share it!Yahtzee said:
....Anyway, I find good endings also terribly hard to come by. I think everyone has caught "Sequel Fever", and everyone wants to leave their endings open so they can try to cash in later. The problem that everyone seems to have with this particular setup is that even if you do plan on a sequel, you can still have a damn ending! Way too often, all the questions are left, and then in the next game are often barely noted, or completely forgotten. Makes me want to ask if anyone is thinking of the story as a whole any more?
I'm going to go a bit classic for an example of a good ending, but it's appropriate given your Zero Punctuation this week: Super Metroid. A brilliant example of storytelling done with gameplay itself, and geeze when you get that super gun is it ever satisfying.