What are your thoughts on multiple endings?
- Thread starter TWEWYFan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree with this . Having a best endi just ivalidates having any other ending since that ending is usually cannon . Now i like a good ending as much as the next guy , but i don't really want to have to jump through hoops to get the "best" ending especially if the other ending are unsastisfying .Yopaz said:
I think (most) games should have two ending . One where you fail and one where you suceed . Each with their own epilogue ( games need more epilogues ) , based on if you defeat the final boss or if he defeats you ( especially in rpgs ).
Now in open world games where decisions are important having variations in ending is a good thing and in those i like them, less in linear games.
I don't mind them as long as you don't have to replay 20-40 hours of game in order to achieve the different endings. I rather like the way Amnesia: The Dark Descent and Bastion did it--it all depended on how you approached the endgame. You had the whole game to mull over how you wanted to do it, and then you made your choice.
Silent Hill 2 did a very good job.
The endings were very different, and the way you achieved them wasn't in-your-face obvious. It depended on how much time you spent with a certain character, how well you looked after your health, or what array of special items you had gathered.
The endings were very different, and the way you achieved them wasn't in-your-face obvious. It depended on how much time you spent with a certain character, how well you looked after your health, or what array of special items you had gathered.
I like the concept of multiple endings as it can increase replay value, but it can be difficult to do well without sending the development budget into orbit.
I suppose they can be done well, just often aren't.
I remember watching a friend finish a game (I cant for the life of me remember what the game was, but it was a PSOne turn-based tactics game, graphics were kind of anime-ish) and at one point in the ending there was this kind of slideshow of consequences. At one point, it showed a character apparently crippled, sitting in a chair in some kind of retirement home. The guy playing it gasped. It was apparently a really badass, cool character whom he had chosen to leave behind to hold a castle on his own. Making that choice had resulted in this fate for that character.
I'm not sure if my perception of the whole thing was right. I'd walked in on him playing the last battle of the game, so am somewhat clueless. However, the whole scene kind of stuck with me.
Deciding the outcome of a hero's arc doesn't usually work too well. There is usually only one satisfying outcome to a well-woven story. However, all the details and ancillary parts can be moved around, and doing that can add quite a bit of emotional punch to a well-told story.
I remember watching a friend finish a game (I cant for the life of me remember what the game was, but it was a PSOne turn-based tactics game, graphics were kind of anime-ish) and at one point in the ending there was this kind of slideshow of consequences. At one point, it showed a character apparently crippled, sitting in a chair in some kind of retirement home. The guy playing it gasped. It was apparently a really badass, cool character whom he had chosen to leave behind to hold a castle on his own. Making that choice had resulted in this fate for that character.
I'm not sure if my perception of the whole thing was right. I'd walked in on him playing the last battle of the game, so am somewhat clueless. However, the whole scene kind of stuck with me.
Deciding the outcome of a hero's arc doesn't usually work too well. There is usually only one satisfying outcome to a well-woven story. However, all the details and ancillary parts can be moved around, and doing that can add quite a bit of emotional punch to a well-told story.
Multiple endings are a source of replay value, especially if lots of endings and choices exist within the game.
I love multiple endings myself. Games with only 1 ending, you beat it...might as well trade it in right away, cause its a dead game after that.
If I game can give me 40 hours, and promise another 40-120 hours of new and different gameplay...thats a winner.
I love multiple endings myself. Games with only 1 ending, you beat it...might as well trade it in right away, cause its a dead game after that.
If I game can give me 40 hours, and promise another 40-120 hours of new and different gameplay...thats a winner.
I'm fine with multiple endings, so long as they feel both substantially different to one another, and feel like a conclusion to the choices the player makes to bring them about.
Several people have already mentioned what I consider to be a particularly bad example; Human revolution, which gave 4 endings that all consisted of speculative monologues, that didn't just fail to explain their consequences, much even specify them. For all that has been said of ME3, it's endings were at least significantly different in terms of outcome, its failing wasn't the endings per se, but its failure to expound on them in any way.
I think context matters, and since in theory multiple endings require context based on player choices, multiple endings are fine, so long as they are substantially different.
Having said all that, a game that's not been mentioned here yet is Nier, which with one exception actually lacks any kind of narrative decision making, but instead on replays does little more than make the enemies intelligible. This design choice changes the plot so significantly than despite it's first two endings being essentially identical, the change in tone actually alters its entire meaning, and makes the whole game much more morally ambiguous, not to mention the fourth and final ending gives a meta-spin on the concept of making sacrifices.
Several people have already mentioned what I consider to be a particularly bad example; Human revolution, which gave 4 endings that all consisted of speculative monologues, that didn't just fail to explain their consequences, much even specify them. For all that has been said of ME3, it's endings were at least significantly different in terms of outcome, its failing wasn't the endings per se, but its failure to expound on them in any way.
I think context matters, and since in theory multiple endings require context based on player choices, multiple endings are fine, so long as they are substantially different.
Having said all that, a game that's not been mentioned here yet is Nier, which with one exception actually lacks any kind of narrative decision making, but instead on replays does little more than make the enemies intelligible. This design choice changes the plot so significantly than despite it's first two endings being essentially identical, the change in tone actually alters its entire meaning, and makes the whole game much more morally ambiguous, not to mention the fourth and final ending gives a meta-spin on the concept of making sacrifices.
tippy2k2 said:
Spec Ops: The Line, brah.
They actually do matter in there because all that happens in the end is about you, the player, and not what you did to the world of the game
I think its okay.
I think I likie games that reward better endings according to how you play it. Dead Rising 2 did that well (Except the cannon ending is "A" and not "S", but whatever).
Other than that. I cant really think of a game where I liked the multiple endings factor. Thats not to say I disliked them, they are just kinda... there.
I think I likie games that reward better endings according to how you play it. Dead Rising 2 did that well (Except the cannon ending is "A" and not "S", but whatever).
Other than that. I cant really think of a game where I liked the multiple endings factor. Thats not to say I disliked them, they are just kinda... there.
Multiple endings only work if you have a true, canon ending but can get different ones if you do certain things. See the canon ending in MGS is when you do not give into torture, you do not have a choice about endings it all depends if you did something correctly or not, same with Heavy Rain, good implementation there as well. Multiple endings suck if all it comes down to is press button A,B or C and watch the fireworks.
I kinda liked Shadow Complex's take on multiple ending. There's the one ending you get just going through the game and beating the final boss and rescue your girlfriend. Or, once you get a certain upgrade, you can make your way to your jeep and just drive away. The main character even says something like "Plenty of fish in the sea." Obviously not 'canon' and more of a joke ending, but still kinda interesting.
I'm fine with multiple endings. Ones like Deus Ex HR or ME3 seem a little cheap because it's just a choice at the end, but if they're set up and done right, it works well. I do like the concept of endings based on choices you've made throughout the game, BUT only if it's not based on a black and white moral system. That's one thing I hated about Bioshock. I killed 1 little sister, felt bad, then decided to save the rest, and what did I get at the end? The evil ending. That's stupid.
While I do like multiple endings but I do agree it can be a problem when it come to sequel. Like you said, the game declare which one is canon meaning your prefer ending could be false or they may not be clear on what had happen from the last game.
Sure I love to see a sequel game that generate itself a cut scene/ gameplay based from the last game ending (e.g. the fisrt game, the bad ending had made the hero the villain and the sequel is a new hero got to defeat the former hero) but I don't think we are there yet to make that possible.
Sure I love to see a sequel game that generate itself a cut scene/ gameplay based from the last game ending (e.g. the fisrt game, the bad ending had made the hero the villain and the sequel is a new hero got to defeat the former hero) but I don't think we are there yet to make that possible.