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

[AlmostLikeLife]

If its in the theme of the game, as in you and your party are doomed to fail no matter what, I wouldn't mind it if it was done well.

I would like to take this time to agree with 100% of this statement.

If there was this sense of hopelessness throughout the game, with bits of false hope sprinkled in, I think that might work.

 

[Mick Beard]

well it happened in AC3 and everyone bitched and whined about it

 

[Whateveralot]

Not sure if it's a good example, but I think the ending of Inception was very good, while still being unsettling. As a viewer, knowing what the lead character doesn't seem to (want to) realise, it's that knowledge that burdens the viewer.

Not bad, indeed.

 

[Souplex]

Spoiler: When you said "Distopian Ending" I thought you were referring to...

Crackdown's ending.

 

[shadow skill]

See Magna Carta 2 on the 360.

Spoiler

Basically you doom the world to back breaking labor because one of the main characters refuses to stabilize a machine that gives people magic powers and makes crops grow effortlessly. The writers try to put a nice spin on it, but it was such bullshit that I just ended up being disgusted, especially since the last half or so of the game is just an annoying grind.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

I probably wouldn't take kindly to a crushing out of the blue. I would be ammenable to a game where as soon as your party set out, they are subject to disease and death and fatigue so that when you get to the final boss you realise how hopeless everything is and the fight is more out of honouring your comrades than actually intending to defeat it. Or, a game where the people who send you to fight the boss have manipulated you, and it turns out you were intended to die, releasing some agent they had you carry that would kill the boss. Or have a subsequent playthrough where the protagonist is aware of the bosses' power from the last playthrough and does things differently, getting better over a number of playthroughs until they defeat the boss. But everything should be defeatable within gameplay, I think.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

I would call the ending shit and urge everyone not to buy it. Like with AC3, if the ending is completely out of synch with the game and nullifies all of your work then it's a shitty ending.

 

[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.

 

[snappydog]

As has been mentioned, I'm not sure dystopian is the right word for what's being talked about but let's roll with it. I like the idea, if it was well-implemented. If the major themes of the game fit with it, if it was a narrative about how you couldn't fight fate or something, it would be shocking and new and I'd like it. Don't wanna see it everywhere though, it would take away the achievement after a couple of goes.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

You now, I'm fine with a downer ending, where the heroes lose, but that's pretty bad. It seems like a combination of bad storytelling and a downer ending solely for the sake of a downer ending.

I say "seems" because I lack details, but I doubt anything will save it.

 

[Autumnflame]

So basically the starchild from ME3.

Did what no one else could. united the galaxy. made peace between synthetics and organics

well sorry to say. (insert logical fallacies here) MIDDLE FINGER, YOU LOSE!

( and yes i believe this is a good portrayal of how to do it badly.)


One for the good maybe considered of you sided with prince lacroix. is vampire bloodlines.
Just as you think you have won you lose

 

[pspman45]

I think what you'd have to do is literally spend the entire game emphasizing that you and your party are not likely going to make it out alive, you know, what EVERY RPG does!
also have a lot of dialogue about accepting fate and whatever

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

Context is everything here. The events that lead up to this ending as well as exactly what happens in the ending and how much tension / atmosphere is built up are what will make or break the storyline. Without knowing any of those things, it's impossible to say how I or anyone else will react to this.

 

[Ranorak]

I could get into that.

If he big bad was constantly hyped up to be a deadly, deadly creature, and it turns out to be...true!
If done properly, I like a sad ending.

 

[kailus13]

It really depends on how it's done. If the big bad turns out to be nuclear powered and you kiling him has irradiated the country your trying to save, then that could work. You'd have to foreshadow it a lot though.

 

[Squilookle]

From a story point of view, there's nothing wrong with a dystopian ending.

The way you describe it though, with success switched to defeat on the very verge of victory. with no warning whatsoever, is just cheap and nasty. You have to at least foreshadow it. Let us know early on that our chance of success is slim, that it is likely we won't return etc. People are so used to hearing that in successful adventures they wont think much of it at the time, but when you DO fail, it's harder to justify being angry at the game when it TOLD you near the start of the adventure how unlikely it would be that you'd pull it off.

And like others have said, if you lose, but cheat death and get to see the ruined world after the end of the story, then there's more sense of causality to it. Not to mention if the game has stated you were essentially going on a suicide mission, you can console yourself that while you lost your adventure, at least you survived despite titanic odds against you.

 

[hazabaza1]

If it's just "durr-de-durr instant kill everything you did was worth shit" then seriously fuck you.

If it's like, your party or whatever is the first line of assault and enable a victory at the cost of your lives? If it's done well I could dig it.

 

[Mick Beard]

well it happened in AC3 and everyone bitched and whined about it

That's because spoiler warning here (Desmond had no reason to die and he just does and releases a bitter goddess with intentions to enslave humanity into the world.)The whole thing was contrived and that's why people were pissed because Ubisoft needed some excuse to get Desmond out of the picture.

how do we really know he is dead?

AC4 is set within the same blood line (conners gramps) so my guess is that Desmond isnt dead or is brought back and now the fight is to stop Juno... if Juno can come back there is nothign stopping desmond from coming back