well for one i dont mind as long as its well written and fits but generally i go for the good endings but i will replay a game to see both
Poll: Do You Like Bad Endings?
- Thread starter Grahav
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Bad endings are great in movies and fail states are a requirement for many genres of games, but a game that only has a bad ending often feels a bit disappointing.
The unavoidable bad ending is a bit like the 'incompetent cutscene', where the designer takes control of the player character and does something dumb, when a player could have easily avoided this if is had been an in game scene. That is just annoying.
I prefer a game to punish failure and to recognize skill. It's nice when the narrative of the game follows aswell and there's more than just a higher score at the end.
It's no biggie and the game itself is much more important, but if there's money spent on CGIs and the like, might aswell make them satisfying.
Some reasonable examples of bad endings can be found in puzzle-adventure games, especially the linear, old point&click. There's no way to really excel at such game (except for the solving the puzzles faster and without a walkthrough, which a game cannot register) and there's often no way to fail (LucasArts AG), so there's no performance to punish or reward.
It's also fair to deal the player a bad card right from the start. The game can start with a flash-forward where the player character has already messed up and rest of the game is finding out how it got to this mess. Dreamfall is a passable example of this.
For everything else if a game offers a challenge, it's only fair that the player can also win.
The unavoidable bad ending is a bit like the 'incompetent cutscene', where the designer takes control of the player character and does something dumb, when a player could have easily avoided this if is had been an in game scene. That is just annoying.
I prefer a game to punish failure and to recognize skill. It's nice when the narrative of the game follows aswell and there's more than just a higher score at the end.
It's no biggie and the game itself is much more important, but if there's money spent on CGIs and the like, might aswell make them satisfying.
Some reasonable examples of bad endings can be found in puzzle-adventure games, especially the linear, old point&click. There's no way to really excel at such game (except for the solving the puzzles faster and without a walkthrough, which a game cannot register) and there's often no way to fail (LucasArts AG), so there's no performance to punish or reward.
It's also fair to deal the player a bad card right from the start. The game can start with a flash-forward where the player character has already messed up and rest of the game is finding out how it got to this mess. Dreamfall is a passable example of this.
For everything else if a game offers a challenge, it's only fair that the player can also win.
But, but, doesn't it evoke a wonderful sense of schadenfreude to watch your protagonist fail miserably, partly because of the choices you have made? What if there's multiple endings, some bad, some good, some inbetween? Doesn't that give you an incentive to play differently next time?Akytalusia said:
Generally no, but sometimes they can be memorable if well done
I remember one of the bad endings of Wing Commander to this day. Basically you're losing control of the sector as the Kilrathi take over, the last mission has you defending the carrier, Tiger's Claw as it prepares to jump out.
Unfortunately, they don't have to time to wait and pick up all the fighters, so the last thing you see is the glow of the Tiger's Claw engines as it jumps to Hyperspace leaving you to your ievitable death...
Unfortunately, they don't have to time to wait and pick up all the fighters, so the last thing you see is the glow of the Tiger's Claw engines as it jumps to Hyperspace leaving you to your ievitable death...
Probably one of my favourite uses of the 'bad end' is Spec Ops: The Line.
Which ending you choose pretty much depends on whether you think Walker can be redeemed or not. I went for the good ending, where Walker goes home, which I think means he can be redeemed. However, someone who went for a bad ending would probably think that he can't.
Depends on the context of "bad".
Suikoden 2 has three distinct endings: One "Normal Victory", one "Best Ending" and a semi-hidden "Bad Ending".
Obvious spoilers are obvious.
And that is one instance where I actually found more value in the Normal and especially Bad endings than the Best Ending.
Suikoden 2 has three distinct endings: One "Normal Victory", one "Best Ending" and a semi-hidden "Bad Ending".
Obvious spoilers are obvious.
The first two endings are similar.
1) "Normal": The first basically ends with you as "king" of a new nation.
2) "Best": You have to collect all 108 Stars of Destiny before infiltrating Rockaxe, due to the events at Rockaxe Castle, then refuse leadership (refuse the Normal Ending) duel Jowy and REFUSE TO ATTACK HIM.
In short, this is the Happy Ending, where the young kids have won out, the war is over, Nanami is alive and neither side has to shoulder much of any sort of responsibility for their actions. They are even still in the prime of their youth and can go on to live their lives at the best of it.
It's not a terrible ending if you really want the game to end on a high note with warm fuzzies but in a strange way, I consider it the worst ending and I'll explain why below.
3) "Bad": During the events of Tinto, you take the advice of Nanami and run away from the conflict entirely; opting to live out the remainder of your life in peace and seclusion.
Now, the game does everything it can to shame you into sticking around, but I rather like this ending because it ties in with the theme of children going to war (namely, that they shouldn't).
Jowy and the player character (tentatively named "Riou") are best friends who through fate, end up on the opposite sides of a brutal war and ultimately adopt different methods for trying to end the war. And it harms them, both physically and mentally. Suikoden 2 goes to lengths to show that it's harming them repeatedly.
Riou's adopted sister Nanami acts as the proverbial "Voice of Childhood" and is CONSTANTLY suggesting that they don't belong at the battlefront and that it's not their war to fight. She questions the actions of Jowy and later the actions of Jowy and Riou when it appears that they could simply end the war following the death of Luca Blight, who started and perpetuated the war.
And in part, she is correct. With Luca Blight was far too dangerous to not stand up to for both nations, and the game more or less proves this by having both Riou and Jowy be responsible for Luca's death even though they're on opposing sides of a war.
But once Luca Blight is dead, the game comes seemingly to a halt, and for good reason: Jowy and Riou do not want to face each other. However, they cannot simply end the war because both their respective countries are too invested in the war to stop and in-universe, the two halves of the Rune of Beginnings they bear are by nature in endless conflict dragging their bearers into that conflict.
The conflict only ends when one side is defeated or admits defeat (with the exception of the Best Ending, which is basically the conflict ending by one half "forgiving" the other).
An alternative extension of the Normal Ending involves killing Jowy in the Duel, proving the White Shield beat the Black Sword and ending the conflict. Riou then goes onto lead his country.
But the Bad ending also ends this conflict: The White Shield Bearer Riou leaves the conflict entirely, admitting defeat on the grounds of losing the will to continue. It's a metaphorical submission.
If playing normally, Nanami, being the Voice of Childhood, questions why it has to end that way, and begs Jowy and Riou to end the conflict. Knowing that actually gives the Bad Ending more weight. Nanami even "dies" during the events of Rockaxe before Jowy and Riou's eyes as a consequence of political machinations; machinations caused by the war so Nanami is literally and metaphorically slain by the war she detests.
(well...she lives in the Best Ending, faking her death for somewhat contrived stated reasons. But if you don't have all 108 Stars of Destiny and do nothing at a certain event, she dies for real.)
Nanami is...polarizing. She is obnoxious comic relief for a good chunk of the game and is CONSTANTLY forcing her way into your party, but at the same time the game mostly falls apart without her. She's supposed to be annoying because she's immature and that is ironically what makes her and the theme of "children shouldn't go to war" more believable.
When taking the Bad Ending, you lose out on the last 25% or so of the game, but it's an ending that makes sense even if it isn't the canonical ending.
More personally: This is one of the few times where a JRPG actually has the balls to say something out of the ordinary; it's not an especially deep message but it's one that has more clout and less trope-wank than the usual Coming of Age + Kill Satan + Power of Friendship + Children Save the World most JRPGs present. It's probably why Suikoden 2 still stands out to me.
1) "Normal": The first basically ends with you as "king" of a new nation.
2) "Best": You have to collect all 108 Stars of Destiny before infiltrating Rockaxe, due to the events at Rockaxe Castle, then refuse leadership (refuse the Normal Ending) duel Jowy and REFUSE TO ATTACK HIM.
In short, this is the Happy Ending, where the young kids have won out, the war is over, Nanami is alive and neither side has to shoulder much of any sort of responsibility for their actions. They are even still in the prime of their youth and can go on to live their lives at the best of it.
It's not a terrible ending if you really want the game to end on a high note with warm fuzzies but in a strange way, I consider it the worst ending and I'll explain why below.
3) "Bad": During the events of Tinto, you take the advice of Nanami and run away from the conflict entirely; opting to live out the remainder of your life in peace and seclusion.
Now, the game does everything it can to shame you into sticking around, but I rather like this ending because it ties in with the theme of children going to war (namely, that they shouldn't).
Jowy and the player character (tentatively named "Riou") are best friends who through fate, end up on the opposite sides of a brutal war and ultimately adopt different methods for trying to end the war. And it harms them, both physically and mentally. Suikoden 2 goes to lengths to show that it's harming them repeatedly.
Riou's adopted sister Nanami acts as the proverbial "Voice of Childhood" and is CONSTANTLY suggesting that they don't belong at the battlefront and that it's not their war to fight. She questions the actions of Jowy and later the actions of Jowy and Riou when it appears that they could simply end the war following the death of Luca Blight, who started and perpetuated the war.
And in part, she is correct. With Luca Blight was far too dangerous to not stand up to for both nations, and the game more or less proves this by having both Riou and Jowy be responsible for Luca's death even though they're on opposing sides of a war.
But once Luca Blight is dead, the game comes seemingly to a halt, and for good reason: Jowy and Riou do not want to face each other. However, they cannot simply end the war because both their respective countries are too invested in the war to stop and in-universe, the two halves of the Rune of Beginnings they bear are by nature in endless conflict dragging their bearers into that conflict.
The conflict only ends when one side is defeated or admits defeat (with the exception of the Best Ending, which is basically the conflict ending by one half "forgiving" the other).
An alternative extension of the Normal Ending involves killing Jowy in the Duel, proving the White Shield beat the Black Sword and ending the conflict. Riou then goes onto lead his country.
But the Bad ending also ends this conflict: The White Shield Bearer Riou leaves the conflict entirely, admitting defeat on the grounds of losing the will to continue. It's a metaphorical submission.
If playing normally, Nanami, being the Voice of Childhood, questions why it has to end that way, and begs Jowy and Riou to end the conflict. Knowing that actually gives the Bad Ending more weight. Nanami even "dies" during the events of Rockaxe before Jowy and Riou's eyes as a consequence of political machinations; machinations caused by the war so Nanami is literally and metaphorically slain by the war she detests.
(well...she lives in the Best Ending, faking her death for somewhat contrived stated reasons. But if you don't have all 108 Stars of Destiny and do nothing at a certain event, she dies for real.)
Nanami is...polarizing. She is obnoxious comic relief for a good chunk of the game and is CONSTANTLY forcing her way into your party, but at the same time the game mostly falls apart without her. She's supposed to be annoying because she's immature and that is ironically what makes her and the theme of "children shouldn't go to war" more believable.
When taking the Bad Ending, you lose out on the last 25% or so of the game, but it's an ending that makes sense even if it isn't the canonical ending.
More personally: This is one of the few times where a JRPG actually has the balls to say something out of the ordinary; it's not an especially deep message but it's one that has more clout and less trope-wank than the usual Coming of Age + Kill Satan + Power of Friendship + Children Save the World most JRPGs present. It's probably why Suikoden 2 still stands out to me.
And that is one instance where I actually found more value in the Normal and especially Bad endings than the Best Ending.
Can you give an example? Does the hero really need to ALWAYS win and save the day , and make everything rainbows and sunshines?( and please don't say ME3)Zhukov said:
OT: i like bad endings, i find that not enough games movies have ending where the hero dies or fails his mission . It would be interesting to see darker endings . Especially if there is going to be a sequel .
if there's multiple endings and at least one of them is good, then i can handle bad endings. they'll give me motivation to find the good one, and it'll be all the more satisfying. but things like this [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.409363-Save-The-Date-A-indie-interactive-story-that-all-of-you-must-play], fuck that game and all it's ilk. i think you'd really like it though, if you haven't played it. i recommend it.MammothBlade said:
Don't think it depends on the game. Its impossible to generalize and say i like or dislike all bad endings.
And to go even deeper, some of the bad endings i like are because they make me regret my desicions. (i.e infamous 2)
And to go even deeper, some of the bad endings i like are because they make me regret my desicions. (i.e infamous 2)
Shirou may have flipped he bird and have brushed it off, but I got really pissed off a lot of times.NeutralDrow said:
About his ideals, the thing is that they reach a fork. Either he saves a lot of innocent people and let a few loved ones die (cruel) or he sacrifices a lot of people fo the sake of one person (selfish). The tragedy is that his ideals lose either way.
I voted "yes," but only if a bad ending is genuinely fitting. If it's a cheap afterthought in an effort to make the game dark and edgy, then bollocks to it. My favourite is still Silent Hill 2's "In Water" ending, which is an appropriately tragic end to a tragic story, despite also being a complete kick in the teeth. On the opposite end of the scale are games like Fallout 3, where choosing the most logical option apparently makes you a coward, and BioShock, which had the "afterthought" vibe about it. And was also pretty dumb.
Sure, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl had 5 out of the 7 endings being bad. My first play through I ignored all the warnings and pressed for the wish granter hording money the entire time. The bad ending fit the play style. Metro 2033 had a bad ending.
Which is the real ending to the book as well.[\spoiler]
So did Metro: Last Light, all done very well.
So did Metro: Last Light, all done very well.
I generally don't like definite "bad" endings chosen based on your success or the choices you made in a game. Bleak endings aren't a bad thing in and of themselves, but the bad endings we're talking about generally aren't well-planned conclusions, but instead simple "LOLdead" worst-case scenario writing.
It definitely wasn't particularly satisfying, even when you have the necessary context. I felt they could have at least shown the effect of lighting the flame (A light being cast across Anor Londo and Firelink and something like that) or leaving it be (Those areas growing darker instead, with the undead you've met previously who are still alive standing up from the spots they always sit at and contemplating their new role in this uncertain age).
I was thinking of Dark Souls and I'm rather conflicted on it. I think part of the problem with Dark Souls's ending was that most people didn't realize they even had a choice, or if they did, they didn't really understand the ramifications of what that choice meant. On the one hand, making the choice non-obvious was more elegant and realistic than the Blue-Green-Red Deus Ex/Mass Effect 3 ending. On the other, having a choice doesn't really matter unless you understand what that choice means.MeChaNiZ3D said:
It definitely wasn't particularly satisfying, even when you have the necessary context. I felt they could have at least shown the effect of lighting the flame (A light being cast across Anor Londo and Firelink and something like that) or leaving it be (Those areas growing darker instead, with the undead you've met previously who are still alive standing up from the spots they always sit at and contemplating their new role in this uncertain age).
Chrono Trigger uses the bad ending quite well, I think. Lose to Lavos in the final battle and and cutscene plays showing the people of 2000 AD get nuked by the cosmic parasite when he emerges. You're confronted with the image of grey, dead planet, almost completely scoured of life.
And then the immortal words appear: "But The Future Refused To Change..."
Really shows what a threat Lavos is, and reminds you what is at stake in the final battle.
And then the immortal words appear: "But The Future Refused To Change..."
Really shows what a threat Lavos is, and reminds you what is at stake in the final battle.
Generally. Since most of the time your quest is to stop the villain du jour we rarely get to see their big plan in action and thus may not have a clear idea of the stakes involved. If you have an ending where the villain's doomsday device actually succeeds in destroying the world and you see the results and the tears of all the characters you just FAILED to save, it's good motivation and interest.
Banjo Kazooie's bad ending isn't that sort of gruesome, but still amusing to watch. Glad to see someone mentioned the creepy Lavos Ending as well. Then there's this one:
There's also a feature on particularly creepy bad endings on Youtube. Just enter 'creepy bad endings'. The Splatterhouse 3 one is pretty nasty.
Banjo Kazooie's bad ending isn't that sort of gruesome, but still amusing to watch. Glad to see someone mentioned the creepy Lavos Ending as well. Then there's this one:
There's also a feature on particularly creepy bad endings on Youtube. Just enter 'creepy bad endings'. The Splatterhouse 3 one is pretty nasty.
I'm inclined to agree. Even paying attention to item descriptions and NPC dialogue, the ramifications of extending the flame or leading the Dark are pretty vague, especially when considering the age of Dark is sort of said to be the age of man...and yet the forces of Dark you've seen just pillage humanity. And whether anything you're doing affects the spread of the Darksign is almost not even addressed. Honestly, for the Dark ending, I'd not have minded seeing any still-living NPCs be slain by Darkwraiths, and for the fire ending, see the deities fighting hordes of undead, if that fits with the story. That's how hazy I am on the undead curse and how it pertains to the player. But yes, most people I suspect linked the flame because that's what you do after every Lord boss fight, go to the fire, or chose the Dark ending by trying to go back to the Lordvessel, and probably didn't know really what they were doing either way.Toxic Sniper said: