The Current Trend of The Anticlimax in Video Games

[Yahtzee Croshaw]

The Current Trend of The Anticlimax in Video Games

Many of today's video games leave so many loose ends by the time you finish the game that the whole playthrough ends up being anticlimactic. Why?

Read Full Article

 

[tzimize]

Completely agree, too much sequalitis and franchise building. I really dont understand why either, if you build an interesting world and populate it with interesting characters people will come back to it. You dont NEED a worthless cliffhanger.

Some TV-series seem to get it as well. I just finished watching Season 2 of House of Cards...it was simply brilliant. I wont spoil it for anyone, but it was just great. It was not in any way a cliffhanger, and the series might have ended right there. But there was room for more, and I wanted more, so I will come back. Cliffhangers are a poor mans storytelling.

I loved for example Witcher 1 for this reason. The story was wrapped up, but the world was simply much bigger than that, and there were enough side-story to fill more games. Perfect. The ending of witcher 1 is one of the most satisfying things I've played since Baldurs Gate 2 ToB.

 

[Thanatos2k]

The Order 1886 smells of unfinished game and studio meddling. The game literally ends on gunshot fade to black, which is top 2 in worst ending to a story possible (along with "It was all a dream"). Which makes it seem like they threw it together because they were ordered to tie into a sequel at all costs.

Or the writers really, really didn't know what they were doing.

 

[craddoke]

Sequel? Pfftt! Why bother with a whole sequel when you can sell a satisfying ending (or two) as DLC? In fact, let's help publishers kill two birds with one stone: "Pre-order now at Gamestop to receive the special 'renegade' game conclusion DLC (for just an additional $9.99)! Pre-order at Target instead for the 'paragon' ending DLC at the same low price!"

 

[Evonisia]

And this is why cliffhangers are bullshit, basically. Not necessarily making the story on the whole ruined, but definitely stealing us from it. Then you get varying degrees of cliffhangers, and the second The Hobbit film definitely deserves incinerating for it.

Edit: The mentioning of looking back over six month's worth of episodes has given me quite the realisation of just how many new games Yahtzee plays. Holy crap.

 

[oldtaku]

Not just sequels, I think it's gotten much worse since DLC became a mandatory thing. How do we get them to buy the DLC? Leave lots of stuff hanging in the main game then make them cough up for some resolution. Anything still left is for the sequels.

 

[Dantos]

I think my first ever real, deadpan ending, was the first Crysis. Fight the giant spaceship on an aircraft carrier, sweet! Flying back to the island to finish those squidy aliens, Im gonna show then to freeze all our North Korean tropical paradises! .....Credits.....

But I just hit the turning point of the story....Where's the rest? I dont think we ever hear about the character we play again.

But yes, this whole trend is something thats been gnawing at me for a while now.

 

[Zontar]

Some cliffhangers are well done (a perfect example is Best of Both Worlds from Star Trek Next Generation) but more often then not it's just annoying. Especially when continuation is not assured. A perfect example of this recently is Agent of Shield. I love the show to death, and the ending of season one was good for the most part. Then the last 30 seconds was made a part of it and, though it did work out as a hook for the first half of season two, it was quite possible that the series wouldn't be renewed, and if that had happened we would have seen it end without knowing what the ending meant because the story would never be expanded upon.

Agent Carter also had this problem, since the series ended with a major end left loose, and it seems unlikely to have a second season made given how things turned out.

And in video games, even good ones, we see this problem. Just look at Supreme Commander. The second one (Forged Alliance, not the abomination that is 2) ended with one of the antagonists which had been defeated in the game coming back to life (it makes sense in context and isn't really an ass-pull given what the character is). The way the game ended implied he would be the antagonist in the third game that was never made, as Supreme Commander 2 ended up being a completely different story that gives only token lip service to the previous games and has the new villains just be random assholes instead of people with motives, and the twist ending shows us that one of the protagonists from a previous game was behind it all for no reason, while also setting him up as the antagonist proper for another sequel (which never happened due to Supreme Commander 2 being so bad it killed the franchise). The ending in the first Supreme Commander worked because 1) it was a teaser trailer for a standalone expansion that was already in development, and 2) in the original the story is self contained.

 

[visiblenoise]

Good zinger at the end, certainly a satisfying ending.

 

[o_d]

The film version of Fellowship of The Ring does a good job even within a planned trilogy of having a satisfying conclusion. The 'story' of the fellowship ends, the baddie they setup for the film (Lurtz) is dealt with, and Boromir's death provides the film with a significant emotional payoff as well.
It's worth noting that despite having similar intentions, the first Hobbit movie doesn't achieve any of these similar endings and feels anticlimactic as a result.

 

[llubtoille]

Even when they do actually manage to crank out a sequel, they often seem to ditch the original plot entirely to start 'fresh', resolving nothing of the previous unfinished story and over-complicating their universe until a reboot is required to salvage the wreckage.

 

[Trishbot]

Same problem as Too Human (well, one of many).

Going into a "series" without making sure the first one is as good and satisfying as it can possibly be is putting the cart so far in front of the horse, the horse has to run a marathon to catch up.

Almost all the best series have "self-contained" installments, that stand on their own two legs and are satisfying on their own merits. You don't NEED to see Raiders of the Lost Ark to see the sequel The Last Crusade, Terminator 2 can stand on its own, Aliens is brilliant all on its own, and none of these diminish what came before them (which also stood on their own).

Nobody like a story missing the equivalent of a third-act. You can't just end it on the second and then say "pay another $60 for the resolution... maybe". This isn't a serialized TV show; you did not film a whole season in advance. You may not get a second game, so ensure the first one is satisfying. When/If it is, THEN focus on fleshing out the world more and upping the ante in the sequels.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

This is a cancer that at this point has successfully carried across film, literature and gaming: telling stories with no head and no feet that go on and on and on and thrive solely on the promise of paying tenfold by the end. It all feels very speculatory. Like you're supposed to invest on them becoming more interesting than what they already are. And half-baked goods is what they are.

There's something very comic-bookish about the scheme. It goes like this: geek culture becomes a majority thanks to the internet, and the devs and the execs of the world realize they can now produce books, movies and games in "comic-book speak" - do half the work but earn twice as much so long as you promise you're not selling a story but an event. And the peoples will fucking love them for it.

 

[Thanatos2k]

Some cliffhangers are well done (a perfect example is Best of Both Worlds from Star Trek Next Generation) but more often then not it's just annoying. Especially when continuation is not assured. A perfect example of this recently is Agent of Shield. I love the show to death, and the ending of season one was good for the most part. Then the last 30 seconds was made a part of it and, though it did work out as a hook for the first half of season two, it was quite possible that the series wouldn't be renewed, and if that had happened we would have seen it end without knowing what the ending meant because the story would never be expanded upon.

Agent Carter also had this problem, since the series ended with a major end left loose, and it seems unlikely to have a second season made given how things turned out.

And in video games, even good ones, we see this problem. Just look at Supreme Commander. The second one (Forged Alliance, not the abomination that is 2) ended with one of the antagonists which had been defeated in the game coming back to life (it makes sense in context and isn't really an ass-pull given what the character is). The way the game ended implied he would be the antagonist in the third game that was never made, as Supreme Commander 2 ended up being a completely different story that gives only token lip service to the previous games and has the new villains just be random assholes instead of people with motives, and the twist ending shows us that one of the protagonists from a previous game was behind it all for no reason, while also setting him up as the antagonist proper for another sequel (which never happened due to Supreme Commander 2 being so bad it killed the franchise). The ending in the first Supreme Commander worked because 1) it was a teaser trailer for a standalone expansion that was already in development, and 2) in the original the story is self contained.

Well you have remember the history. Cliffhangers originated as a device for television shows, and that's really the only medium they work in, for several reasons.

Television shows need to keep viewers interested in the series so they tune in week after week, year after year. But television shows are also low investment - they're free (traditionally), so they only demand a short amount of your time. And the next part of the story will show up next week, or at maximum in a year if that was the season finale.

Huge difference in video games and movies, where pulling a cliffhanger sequel hook demands you often wait YEARS, *and* you have to pay to see it. Video games are the worst medium by far to try and use them because unlike a TV show or movie where you had only invested an hour or two up to that point, in video games it's at least 5 (if you're an awful game like The Order 1886, often it's 10, 20, 50 hours!) hours of previous story investment before you get to the unsatisfying "conclusion" making the viewer even more dissatisfied.

Trilogy movies have started getting more bold in shoving cliffhangery type stuff in their middle installments (or even worse, turning a trilogy into more movies for money, LOOKING AT YOU HUNGER GAMES/HARRY POTTER/TWILIGHT/HOBBIT). But there's a way to do things right, and Yahtzee touched on it. In The Empire Strikes Back they could have ended the movie right after Luke hurls himself into the pit. Wouldn't that have been a great sequel hook? Who knows if he lives or dies! Who knows if the Millenium Falcon is going to get out? But the people making that movie knew that would suck, so they finished the story. Luke is rescued, and they definitively escape their pursuers by fixing the hyperdrive. Plenty of unresolved loose ends, but the story for the movie had an ending and conclusion. It wasn't just cut off.

In summary: keep cliffhanger sequel hook crap in TV shows where they belong.

Even when they do actually manage to crank out a sequel, they often seem to ditch the original plot entirely to start 'fresh', resolving nothing of the previous unfinished story and over-complicating their universe until a reboot is required to salvage the wreckage.

Well duh, you have to have every single person on the planet able to buy the latest game without having played any earlier games. Asking people to go back and purchase and play through the first game in a series is unacceptable to their sales numbers and ability to market hype their game.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

I wonder if the fault isn't in our stars, but in ourselves. We look at The Order as a game. We looked at Sonic Boom as a game. We looked at Sims 4 as a game. And that's the problem. Now of course the publishers sold them to us as games, so they can fuck right off.

But Sonic Boom was never meant to be a stand alone game. Its a feature length commercial for the tv show, nothing more. It was made to sell kids on a show, not feed nostalgia starved mid 20 somethings.

Sims 4 was a micro-transaction vector, not a 'game' per se. And I can respect that to some degree. It's dickish sure, but some people buy things and are happy doing so. So I shrug and say its not for me, but eh. Harmless for what it is.

I wonder what the long term plan for The Order is, because its certainly a cross-media project. Comic books, figurines, maybe a direct to DVD movie or two. A short run anime if they're ambitious. Remember that Silent Hills interactive trailer? PT? The Playable Trailer? That's basically what I see The Order as. Its supposed to sell me on other things. And in that light, I'm not sure it is anticlimatic. I think the climax hasn't happened yet.


P.S. I am in no way excusing the terrible gameplay of any of these games. Merely pointing out the 'game' aspect wasn't central to what the devs were going for.

 

[CrazyBlaze]

Agent Carter also had this problem, since the series ended with a major end left loose, and it seems unlikely to have a second season made given how things turned out.

Eh that cliffhanger could go either way. It isn't really one where the show will live or die on it. If you cut that last scene out then it doesn't affect the story that Agent Carter told and it gives it a good reason for a season 2. A better example would be the season finale of Hereos. Something like that demands another season.

 

[CaitSeith]

I wonder if the fault isn't in our stars, but in ourselves. We look at The Order as a game. We looked at Sonic Boom as a game. We looked at Sims 4 as a game. And that's the problem. Now of course the publishers sold them to us as games, so they can fuck right off.

But Sonic Boom was never meant to be a stand alone game. Its a feature length commercial for the tv show, nothing more. It was made to sell kids on a show, not feed nostalgia starved mid 20 somethings.

Sims 4 was a micro-transaction vector, not a 'game' per se. And I can respect that to some degree. It's dickish sure, but some people buy things and are happy doing so. So I shrug and say its not for me, but eh. Harmless for what it is.

I wonder what the long term plan for The Order is, because its certainly a cross-media project. Comic books, figurines, maybe a direct to DVD movie or two. A short run anime if they're ambitious. Remember that Silent Hills interactive trailer? PT? The Playable Trailer? That's basically what I see The Order as. Its supposed to sell me on other things. And in that light, I'm not sure it is anticlimatic. I think the climax hasn't happened yet.


P.S. I am in no way excusing the terrible gameplay of any of these games. Merely pointing out the 'game' aspect wasn't central to what the devs were going for.

As long as they announce them as games (and they are priced as games), they must be judged as such. As long as they are available in game stores, they are competing against the best games, side by side. Just saying "they are not games" is giving them a free ticket to do whatever they want, and still sell them as games.

 

[distantworlds]

It's NOT mid-way budget cuts. In the last five years, games makers have been deliberately cutting back on the "big ending". Why? Both consoles and PCs now collect player telemetry. Mass Effect 2 was the first big one I saw on this, but everyone's doing it.

What did they find? Only 50% of the players finished the game. Why bother spending your budget on a big finish that only half your players will see?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/09/06/crazy-mass-effect-2-stats-and-what-theyre-used-for

Think back. 2010 was the turning point where the ending parts started getting less and less emphasis to the point where DA:I, for instance, didn't even bother with an ending dungeon, you just go and fight the boss and that's it. It's why Mass Effect 3's designers didn't give a shit about the ending. And it's not just Bioware, every other publisher is looking at the same stats. Heck, even DX:HR had a shitty ending sequence in what was otherwise a great game.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

This might have been somewhat forgivable if the gameplay were at least good, but we're left with a boring slog through tepid levels and half-baked design. Seriously, I can't see anything in 1886 that required the PS4's hardware other than textures and lighting. As Yahtzee said, it's a launch title made months and months after launch. It shows off graphical potential but is ultimately useless and will be forgotten in a few months.

 

[K12]

I know that with open world games I always make sure that the final main mission level is the very last thing I do. If I'm going for 100% then I make sure I've done everything first. Usually I can't be arsed and just leave that for a second run a bit later on.