Open endings

[Xerosch]

I was just wondering how you people feel about the new trend in games to deliberately not finish the story although you played through the game.

Well, I absolutely hate it. It always makes me feel as if I played a half finished game. Take 'Assassin's Creed', 'Halo 2' or 'Condemned 2' for example: These games want you to buy the sequel so badly, they just finish in the middle of the scene.

I think a game should be so good that it wants you to buy the next installment, but it should do so by wrapping up the story. The Sly Cooper games are a good example for this: They finish a game's story, but reference the prior game and the consequences in the sequels.

 

[Lvl 64 Klutz]

I can't think of any examples, but an open ending can be good by being a statement about how things are in real life instead of about how there's going to be a sequel.

Oh yeah, and now I feel like playing some Sly Cooper. Thanks a lot.

 

[rossatdi]

Assassin's Creed was awful for that. I hate the assumed franchise start. You get a sequel if you're good! Not on general principle!

Gears 1 didn't leave it open but the second one neatly carried the concept.

Half Life 2 would be a good example of tying most of the ends neatly shut at the end of each chapter except for keeping the general tension running.

Except for Ep 2. Goddamn I want Ep 3 out NOW.

 

[AuntyEthel]

It depends. Sometimes its leaving it open to continue the story in a sequel which is fine. However, when some games end with a delibrately ambiguous ending, it sometimes seems to me that the writers couldn't think of a satisfying ending, and just decided to go, "Fuck it, we'll make it vague."

 

[Brokkr]

I really don't like it when they leave the ending open just so there is a sequel opportunity. Game developers should finish the story and if the game was good, create a sequel that adds to the story of the first.

 

[towncalledmike]

I agree. It's worse though when the game ends on a brilliant cliffhanger, only for no one to buy it, no sequel to be made and therefore, no closure (i'm looking at you XIII).

 

[Antiparticle]

Yeah, I usually dislike open endings. Unless it really fits the story to have a vague, "what if" kind of ending. But I don't like them if it's an open ending just to get people to buy the sequel so they'll know what happened next.

 

[Fanboy]

Open endings in games are usually way too open; Halo 2, Assassin's Creed, Crysis, etc are a few examples of how NOT to end a game. Instead of leaving me anxiously awaiting the next game, I usually just feel ripped off, like all the work was for nothing.

I do like certain open endings that still wrap up the main plot, yet hint towards a sequal. The thief series did this perfectly.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Any worthwhile narrative should tell a complete story in and of itself yet reveal plot threads that can continue on through a myriad of sequels and potentially spin offs. In essence there is nothing wrong with an "open" ending as long as it wraps up every major thread within the story that it told. Always wrap up the main plot, kill off the ( or a) main villain and reveal the fate of the heroes. Cliffhangers and too open endings are lame in long release games.

People reference Assassins Creed a lot but I felt the game wrapped up Altairs story nice and neatly, it just left Desmond's story open, which I feel fits my criteria for an okay ending.

 

[Vlane]

I don't like open endings but I despise open endings when there is no sequel! I'm looking at you Psi-Ops.

 

[Quick Ben]

I actually kind of like open endings. Then I can keep on imagining the answers to all those unanswered questions.

I have nothing against the ending of Assassins Creed at all. PedroSteckecilo makes good points on that. As for Desmond I have the entire story for a possible sequel in my mind. My guess is that the sequel will greatly disappoint me, because it won't beat my imagination.

Anybody like me here?

 

[Dr. Crowbar]

Haha omg, I'd totally forgotten about Sly Cooper.. The Kingdom Hearts ending sucks..

 

[olicon]

I think open endings are fine unless it is in multimedia franchise. But it does have to be an actual ending, with some lose ends, not an explosion scene followed by credits. That's not an ending in any way, shape, or form.
The reasons I say no for multimedia franchise is simply because it causes a lot of disconnect in the story. In other words, I want the frikkin lore/story/history to remain constant, rather than always shifting around because the last ending was so damn open, it is possible to just twist the outcome of past events around.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

I forgot about the annoying and super vague Kingdom Hearts endings, man those are annoying.

 

[Puppeteer Putin]

Any worthwhile narrative should tell a complete story in and of itself yet reveal plot threads that can continue on through a myriad of sequels and potentially spin offs. In essence there is nothing wrong with an "open" ending as long as it wraps up every major thread within the story that it told. Always wrap up the main plot, kill off the ( or a) main villain and reveal the fate of the heroes. Cliffhangers and too open endings are lame in long release games.

People reference Assassins Creed a lot but I felt the game wrapped up Altairs story nice and neatly, it just left Desmond's story open, which I feel fits my criteria for an okay ending.

Agreed. They just need to accomplish a sense of closure. If the ending is vague and whimsical then you feel like you've ploughed through a game only to be told "Hah, Enjoy it did you? Well F*** you, your princess is in another castle...which is another installment, which you also have to pay for".

 

[Zig13]

I think theres got to be a balance. It's almost worse when a game is fully wrapped up but then gets crudely unwrapped (bad analogy) to make a sequel. The end of the Halo wraps up THAT PART of the story but left the actual game world open for sequels.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Despite what I said earlier about Cliff Hanger Endings, the one for Digital Devil Saga 1 was AWESOME, however the sequel was already made and translated and was released only a few months after the first one.

 

[olicon]

I actually rather like all the KH endings. The theme of the game itself is that everything goes in cycle, so it sort of sticks with that. It does get a bit annoying at times, but I think it's a rather clever way of doing it--especially KH2 OP giving the game a lot of extra meaning when played backwards. But then again, I just button mashed my way through the game, and never cared too much about the story to begin with. So I can't say the ending or any other part of the game for that matter means much to me.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

Every game should follow the "Star Wars" formula.

At the end of the story the Death Star is destroyed, Luke has used the Force, Han proved he was a good guy and Darth Vader is last seen hurtling off into space. There's still a ton open though, Luke isn't a Jedi yet, The Empire only lost one of its super weapons and Darth Vader could have survived, we also haven't seen the Emperor yet. However if "The Empire Strikes Back" were never made we could "assume" that Vader is dead and that eventually The Rebels will defeat The Empire. If you can't tie up the loose ends with your imagination, then the ending is way too open.