Really depends on the game. I have no problem with games that kill off the main characters at the end as long as it has a reason to do so. It can be a very effective tool. If they do it arbitrarily, then it just seems like weak writing. Actually I think it's most effective in RPGs because you spend time building up and becoming your character so that if the end comes, it's very impactful. Sometimes I want the protagonist to die in the end because if they survive the events of the game, it would feel like too sugary of an ending.
Poll: Endings where the main character dies
- Thread starter Cannibal Johnson
- Start date
Also depends on the game, some games it makes ZERO sense, as stated in the op about Fallout 3 pre broken steel. It CAN make sense but when you have fawkes in your party the idiocy destroyed anything that could have been seen as decent in the ending.
It's like "You need to press this button to save the world... but it kills anyone with a penis, should you touch it sir or let your wife?" "Well it makes perfect sense that I beat my manly chest and press the button! It's clearly the only way to save the world!"
Some games though, as annoying as it can be it makes sense and even adds to it sometimes. I don't want to mention games because I don't know how to do the spoiler things and just mentioning the game in this thread is a spoiler
It's like "You need to press this button to save the world... but it kills anyone with a penis, should you touch it sir or let your wife?" "Well it makes perfect sense that I beat my manly chest and press the button! It's clearly the only way to save the world!"
Some games though, as annoying as it can be it makes sense and even adds to it sometimes. I don't want to mention games because I don't know how to do the spoiler things and just mentioning the game in this thread is a spoiler
I agree with this person!!!krazykidd said:
I think happy endings where everyone lives and world is saved are cliche to say the least, and at worst downright unbeliveable. Newsflash, not every game, book, movie, TV show, etc. needs a happy ending, or at least one where the character dies, not where everyone but the villian lives. And even then often the villian escapes.
Its worst than the sword is the best weapon cliche in my opinion.
There was this one game that kinda did it, but kinda didn't.
Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time. Asmuth kills Ratchet, and Clank heads over to this one chamber, turning back time by six minutes, which happens to be the maximum safe time to turn back without destroying the universe. This whole "protagonist dies at the end, gets brought back" thing was done a whole lot better than that of Sonic the Hedgehog 2006.
Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time. Asmuth kills Ratchet, and Clank heads over to this one chamber, turning back time by six minutes, which happens to be the maximum safe time to turn back without destroying the universe. This whole "protagonist dies at the end, gets brought back" thing was done a whole lot better than that of Sonic the Hedgehog 2006.
It varies. The original ending of Fallout 3...
There are some games where it's definitely thematically or dramatically appropriate. I think the first game I saw in which this happened, many years ago, was an adventure game called Dreamweb. In that, it was kind of effective- essentially a cold, final moment of clarity that the forces that have sent you on the game's quest were using you, and didn't really regard you as anything more than a tool.
It's definitely not a choice that should be made lightly, though, because if you flop that one and the death comes off as trivial or contrived- hoo, boy, are you going to receive some rage. And rightly so, frankly. In nearly every game in which the player character serves as a kind of player-surrogate, you spend most of the game expanding and developing that character's abilities and- even more so- keeping them alive. To snatch the controller out of the player's hands when it's most important because the writer suddenly decided that "pathos" was the direction they wanted for what you've been encouraged up to that point to think of as "your" character- that can easily be a mistake.
...Mostly pissed me off because the game had the nerve to call me "selfish" after a whole game's worth of good karma for taking a few seconds to figure out the code. (Yes, perhaps it was boneheaded that it took me that few extra seconds, but still! Sheesh! It's not enough that I throw myself to the lions, I have to do so at a sprint?!)
There are some games where it's definitely thematically or dramatically appropriate. I think the first game I saw in which this happened, many years ago, was an adventure game called Dreamweb. In that, it was kind of effective- essentially a cold, final moment of clarity that the forces that have sent you on the game's quest were using you, and didn't really regard you as anything more than a tool.
It's definitely not a choice that should be made lightly, though, because if you flop that one and the death comes off as trivial or contrived- hoo, boy, are you going to receive some rage. And rightly so, frankly. In nearly every game in which the player character serves as a kind of player-surrogate, you spend most of the game expanding and developing that character's abilities and- even more so- keeping them alive. To snatch the controller out of the player's hands when it's most important because the writer suddenly decided that "pathos" was the direction they wanted for what you've been encouraged up to that point to think of as "your" character- that can easily be a mistake.
I never thought of it that way but...Lugbzurg said:
HELL YES. I definitely agree with you on that one.
That was quite a twist the game pulled there. Part of me knew Azimuth was going to do something drastic, but I didn't think he would kill Ratchet. I thought he was going to mess with the clock while Ratchet and Clank fight Nefarious and end up leaving another cliffhanger for the next game in the series.
Oh god... the unhidden spoilers- they're everywhere!
I suppose I don't mind them- if they're done well. If a game looks like it should let you roam around after the completion of the story, however, it's a big no-no. Then again, my all time favourite game story ends in this way...
[small]poor guy... all he wanted to do was water his front lawn...[/small]
What I'd like to see more of is stories that tie up all loose ends and leave the main character with all conflict resolved and with no need whatsoever to do a sequel. That would make the individual game more satisfying, though I'm sure the suits would hate the idea of tying up an IP like that...
I suppose I don't mind them- if they're done well. If a game looks like it should let you roam around after the completion of the story, however, it's a big no-no. Then again, my all time favourite game story ends in this way...
[small]poor guy... all he wanted to do was water his front lawn...[/small]
What I'd like to see more of is stories that tie up all loose ends and leave the main character with all conflict resolved and with no need whatsoever to do a sequel. That would make the individual game more satisfying, though I'm sure the suits would hate the idea of tying up an IP like that...
It all depends on how it's executed (hurr). Two extremes come to mind when it's very, very bad. One would of course the death being entirely meaningless and unnecessary for the conclusion of the story. The other would be trying too hard to give it meaning and thus coming across as pretentious and cliche'd.
It comes down to knowing the difference between a dramatic death and a death that has lots of drama about it.
It comes down to knowing the difference between a dramatic death and a death that has lots of drama about it.
Much as the poll states, it depends on the game? Why? Narrative. Is it okay for John to die at the end? Or will John then be a zombie? Or what? It's a jusgement call. However, that being said...I think some people complain too much.