Poll: Endings where the main character dies

[Rblade]

it all depends wether it makes sense for the character and the story. I hate it if it's just for cheap thrills and shock but if it is some kind of nobel sacrifice or an honorable last stand or maby even some kind of justice being served I can dig it. It should also be a surprise, it should make you care about the fact that it happens.

 

[pearcinator]

I don't like endings that are 'bad' (as in the hero loses/dies and fails to save the day kind of thing). I don't mind if the main character dies BUT saves the day/world/universe whatever...as long as it is done right.

However, my most hated endings with games and (especially) movies are the ones that leave the ending open for interpretation. NO! FUCKING NO! DON'T MAKE ME GUESS WHAT THE ENDING IS!

Cliffhangers are good if you know that there is going to be a sequel or something that continues the story. If it is a movie that has its own self-contained story then you better not fucking leave the ending open! To me that's lazy and I picture the writer/director/whoever is responsible for the ending to have a big troll face on.

Case in point. Inception.

I hated the ending for Inception (a lot of my friends rate the movie in their top 5 ever) because it didn't satisfy me. It left more questions than answers and I don't like that. Either leave it open for a sequel (and make the sequel) or tell me the true canon ending. Don't make me guess because that leads to arguments between me and my friends over what the ending is.

 

[Tazzy da Devil]

Well, two of my favourite games end this way

Spoiler

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon and Final Fantasy X, even though in both games the protagonist isn't really dead. But that's beside the point.

So I guess I love them. I've never really been a fan of the whole 'happily ever after' thing, anyway.

 

[lovest harding]

Cliffhangers are good if you know that there is going to be a sequel or something that continues the story. If it is a movie that has its own self-contained story then you better not fucking leave the ending open! To me that's lazy and I picture the writer/director/whoever is responsible for the ending to have a big troll face on.

I thought Stephen King did cliffhanger really well in The Mist (the story ends at a point of hope, but still cliffhanger like). The movie gave it a different but equally as compelling (if not more so) than the novella without a cliffhanger, though.

 

[EHKOS]

I do enjoy these, and the games where the villain wins. It's just so refreshing from the norm, that I feel like the medium isn't totally predictable. Even if it only seems like the protagonist died and they bring him back later, it's still nice because it actually makes you feel something. Sadly there aren't many of these types of games.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Really depends on the game and the story, so if it fits, go for it. Then, there are other cases...

Spoiler: Prison Break [TV Show]

Just finished watching all four seasons of Prison Break again yesterday, and at the end, after the solved everything and everyone was all happy, they decided to kill off the main guy. I see no other reason for them to do this rather than to just make it more emotional. It's not like it had anything to do with the story at that point, the story had just finished.

 

[Woodsey]

Depends on the story. Sometimes it can feel manipulative, but it's probably one of the easier ways to extrapolate an emotional response from an audience without them feeling like that.

 

[BLAHwhatever]

Well, I loved the Martyr ending in the first Dragon Age.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

If the story is done well, and it's a logical conclusion, then I love a good death. But if it's just a cop out, like they thought it'd be a cool way to finish things or something, then I hate it.

But really, if it's well-written and well supported by everything else, then I really don't mind (and even like) the main character ending.

Oh, and they can't bring the character back, because if they do, unless they have a REALLY good explaination for it, it's stupid and cheap. It cheapens the death and makes it pointless.

I agree with this. When the story builds it up as the logical conclusion, the death of the main character can have a more emotional impact than a simple bad guys lose, good guys win ending.

Spoiler: Blood Diamond/Children of Men Spoilers

Leonardo DiCaprio's death in blood diamond is a good example of a main character's death. In dying to ensure his companion escaped, it helps show the true cost of the diamond wars.

The ending of Children of Men also works well for much the same reason.

I think this kind of thing works better in movies than video games though, because in game a players ultimate death can come off as not having accomplished anything during your gameplay since you died regardless. So games more so than movies need to take careful thought into how to do it.

 

[Therumancer]

I went with "hate". There have been a few cases where the protaganist dying has worked and felt right, but usually it strikes me as being pointless and the creator trying to be "dark" and "edgy" for no other reason.

99% of the time killing the protaganist is the sign of a hack writer who feels something can't be good without it being a tradgedy, with it being done for the "cred" rather than nessecity.

As I point out though, there are exceptions (like there are with everything), which is why I didn't use the psychotic rage option.

 

[hermes]

The only problem I have with them is when they cheapen it by making sequels where the character is alive again, somehow. It cheapens the original experience.

 

[aguspal]

It depends in the game, just how much sence does it make, and HOW he/she/it/whatever died.


Those are the key factors for me.

If its a silly game then I am likely not care for it so much (or maybe not a silly game but rather I dont take it seriously).

If its a non silly game and the death its ridiculous and dosnt makes sence... Yeah, I dont like that Its pretty retarded.


Oh yeah the characters itself obviously matters, that goes without saying. But even if I hate the character I will still hate it if the death is senceless.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Depends on the game. It has to work well with the story, not just come out of left field for no reason. Infamous 2 has a great example. I'm having trouble thinking of a bad ending other than ME3, though.

 

[C117]

If it's the only available ending, I do get pissy if my character dies. If, however, there is another ending in which he lives, I grit my teeth, clench the controller/mouse, and do whatever it takes to obtain said ending.

That's the main reason I played through Mass Effect 3 again recently. Yes, I like Mass Effect that much...

 

[Spider RedNight]

I kinda like it in multiple ending games, such as Silent Hill 2 or something where how I play the game ultimately affects the well-being of the protagonist. Sometimes, I LOVE seeing protagonists die because not only is it a breather from the "everyone wins" situation, but it also add gravity and realism to the situation. I'm also a fan of "fake-outs" and/or situations where the main protagonist doesn't even get the killing blow on the main antagonist a la

Spoiler

Bioshock.

I guess the only time it irritates me is if I play a game that has multiple endings and no matter what I do, the main character ends up dying. THAT bothers me to know that I could try any and everything and the developers still think that making the main character die would be a satisfying ending. Excluding ME3, as I have no opinion on that ending.

 

[Guffe]

I like those endings.
There are too few of them.
Why must there always be a happy ending? I mean it doesn't need to be a bad guy wins scenario but if you die, sacrifice yourself for something bigger, like a real hero. So cool!!!

 

[Something Amyss]

It depends on the game AND the character for me, so I didn't cast a vote. Red Dead Redemption, for example, I loved the ending. Mass Effect 3? Dumb.

It's all about context. Hell, death in Mass Effect 3 could have been a viable deal. But "you have to die now because ponies, it's the only way" doesn't do it.

 

[Alexias_Sandar]

Honestly, depends on the game. Planescape: Torment...your GOAL is to regain your mortality. There can be only one ending to that...the story is about how you go about such, as much as anything...who you become along the way...how belief can change and shape the world. Does that mean it's appropriate to every game? No, it doesn't.

 

[elvor0]

It really depends on the game and how it's handled. I didn't mind that Shepard died because it was a final conclusion to the series. However,

Spoiler: L.A. Noire Spoilers

Everything about Phelp's character told me that he wouldn't just stand by while a massive wall of water was charging toward him. I get that he was depressed about his demotion, his marriage ending (which also didn't make a whole lot sense characteristically), and learning what became of his old war pals, but he never seemed to be in such a deep hole that suicide became a good idea. If he had at least attempted to get out of that sewer, even if he failed, I think it would've made for a better ending.

Maybe I missed something in L.A. Noire, but the ending seemed like it was trying too hard to force us to feel sad about what happened.

Spoiler: Spoilers in response

I dunno, it did seem like he was trying to get out, if half heartedly, it didn't entirely feel like a suicide for me. I think it was more a statement on how corrupt the police force can be, because even that dick in the drug squad that sold you out (can't remember his name) was at Phelps's funeral saying what a great friend he was, a noble man etc. despite the fact that it was his fault he ended up in that situation in the first place, he was a nasty fucker that still never got his commupins. I think the thing that made Phelps' death less poinient is we never really got to see any of his life outside of the missions, the relation ship with him and Elsa was implied vaguely but then suddenly came out of nowhere, if I'm playing the main character, current events within the narrative shouldn't come as a surprise. So although there were elements of Phelps character shown, it just didn't have enough depth. Still loved the game, but it seems like it was missing some detail sometimes.

It's a great way to end a game, but only in moderation. When a bunch of games start using it at the same time (from recent memory; Halo: Reach, Red Dead Redemption, Mass Effect 3), it starts to appear cliche. Which is a shame, because all three of the aforementioned games had endings I enjoyed.

I'd say the ending for Halo:Reach was really good for that, although the character was pretty much a non character, the way it lets you just fight until you can't anymore was a fantastic link between narrative and gameplay. Like you say it's a bit unfair to say it's "cliche" in that context, it's set on Reach, and you're playing a Spartan that wasn't Master Chief, we all knew right from the start that all the Spartans would die, because in the words of Yahtzee "Whenever Reach gets mentioned it's implied as somewhere where a lot of shit got fucked up".

Spoiler: RDR Spoilers

That and John's death was was supposed to be symbolic, given John was a a relic of the old west, in a game where one of the main themes which is present from the very start was the death and Industrialisation of the Old West, by the time we're playing Jack, the "old" west was gone, and WW1 had started, with John being in the name of his last mission "The Last Enemy That Shall Be Destroyed" by the Bureau.

It really annoys me when people complain that you didn't get a choice about killing Edgar, because RDR isn't supposed to be a game with branching options, it's a set narrative delievered through a gaming medium that the writers wanted to tell. By killing Edgar Ross, Jack became an outlaw, which is the opposite of what his father wanted. So not only is John dead, but Ross also removed any chance John might've found of Redemption through bringing his son up well. Also I believe it's left ambiguous if Shepard is dead depending on the ending.

Although I do get what you're saying with it making it appear cliche when they're still great endings, I'm more just sort of thinking aloud in response

 

[SonOfMethuselah]

When it's done well, I actually really like these endings. Oftentimes, stories carry more weight when it's understood that no one in the story is guaranteed to come out of it alive. For example, in Mass Effect 3, (behind spoiler tags, just as a courtesy):

Spoiler

I think an ending featuring Shepard's death actually could have been quite fitting. The entire series is about the choices s/he has to make in order to thwart the Reapers, and the sacrifices inherent in these choices. One's own life is one of, or perhaps the absolute greatest sacrifice they can make to a cause, so Shepard dying actually fits with the theme of the series quite well. That said, it would have had to have been handled extremely well, and my own rather ambivalent feelings about the current 'canonical' ending aside, I feel like that isn't the case.

But if it isn't done well, as in Fallout 3 (again, spoilers more as a courtesy than anything):

Spoiler

and just comes sort of out of left field as a way to ramp up the stakes at the very end, in what is perhaps an attempt to eke out some sort of poetic equality, i.e: your whole family having died for Project Purity (yes, even your mother, though she died in childbirth), and there's no allusion nor foreshadowing, consequently removing any real weight from the moment,

then yeah, it can be sort of an annoyance, mostly because it doesn't really offer any closure. But, overall, it can be an extremely effective method of telling a story, especially if it's established right away that whatever journey the protagonist has to partake in is going to lead inevitably to their death, and they go ahead with it all anyway.