Why is it so ******* hard to make a decent ending?
- Thread starter Grivahri
- Start date
Recommended Videos
TBH I'm not really a fan of what you would have wanted for an ending. Its just an exposition dump rather than a conclusion.
Why did they kidnap your friends? To force you to make the choice to kill them and free yourself of the burdens of civilization.
Why didn't they leave earlier? Use your imagination. You just broke up with your girlfriend, they could have decided to give you 1 or 2 days to decide to come back before leaving, during that time you killed Hoyt and the Rakiat captured them.
Also, the monologue Jason has during sailing away from the island is as detailed as it really needs to get. He knows he's still got problems, but he's going to try and fix them. Quite likely by leaving the island, but that's open to interpretation. What happens after that doesn't need to be said - its not a part of this story, its another story in itself.
The endings weren't perfect, but TBH an exposition dump with Captain Obvious like Blizzard do their cutscenes [Seriously, everything that is implied in those cutscenes is spoken out loud by one of the characters a few seconds later. It makes me want to bang my head on the table at such blatant forced "We think you might be stupid so we'll spell it out for you" dialogue. I wouldn't mind if the lines seemed natural, but they just feel forced in to make a point, which is horrid] isn't any better. You don't need to see Jason burning weapons to know he's leaving his life of killing behind, his monologue and the fact he's on the boat leaving the island tell you that just fine.
Anyway, getting slightly off topic.
Why is it so hard to make a good ending?
IMO because a lot of the time games focus on symbolism rather than narrative coherence at this point, or try to force a moral choice.
Mass Effect 3 as an example. I can't tell you how much I've heard on the symbolism of the ME3 endings, and how much they supposedly represent various themes throughout the series. I also don't need to tell you the problems people have with the endings. Rather than making satisfying endings, Bioware focused on the symbolism at the price of everything else, which led to stuff that didn't make a lot of sense at times, and that really didn't work with the rest of the series.
Deus Ex HR's ending was just a forced moral choice. It had no need to be there. It was simply because it was another checkbox on the design sheet.
Those are the two main problems IMO, but W/E. Its the common thing between the endings I don't like in videogames.
Captcha: Magical Realism
Does that make any sense at all?
Why did they kidnap your friends? To force you to make the choice to kill them and free yourself of the burdens of civilization.
Why didn't they leave earlier? Use your imagination. You just broke up with your girlfriend, they could have decided to give you 1 or 2 days to decide to come back before leaving, during that time you killed Hoyt and the Rakiat captured them.
Also, the monologue Jason has during sailing away from the island is as detailed as it really needs to get. He knows he's still got problems, but he's going to try and fix them. Quite likely by leaving the island, but that's open to interpretation. What happens after that doesn't need to be said - its not a part of this story, its another story in itself.
The endings weren't perfect, but TBH an exposition dump with Captain Obvious like Blizzard do their cutscenes [Seriously, everything that is implied in those cutscenes is spoken out loud by one of the characters a few seconds later. It makes me want to bang my head on the table at such blatant forced "We think you might be stupid so we'll spell it out for you" dialogue. I wouldn't mind if the lines seemed natural, but they just feel forced in to make a point, which is horrid] isn't any better. You don't need to see Jason burning weapons to know he's leaving his life of killing behind, his monologue and the fact he's on the boat leaving the island tell you that just fine.
Anyway, getting slightly off topic.
Why is it so hard to make a good ending?
IMO because a lot of the time games focus on symbolism rather than narrative coherence at this point, or try to force a moral choice.
Mass Effect 3 as an example. I can't tell you how much I've heard on the symbolism of the ME3 endings, and how much they supposedly represent various themes throughout the series. I also don't need to tell you the problems people have with the endings. Rather than making satisfying endings, Bioware focused on the symbolism at the price of everything else, which led to stuff that didn't make a lot of sense at times, and that really didn't work with the rest of the series.
Deus Ex HR's ending was just a forced moral choice. It had no need to be there. It was simply because it was another checkbox on the design sheet.
Those are the two main problems IMO, but W/E. Its the common thing between the endings I don't like in videogames.
Captcha: Magical Realism
Does that make any sense at all?
It's not really "Why" is it hard. It just is and it's one of those things you just have to accept.
In my entire life of watching reading and playing stuff I've only experienced 6 endings that I conciser to be Good. (Meaning the most satisfying conclusion given the current state of the narrative)
The end of Fight Club
The end of Code Geass
The end of Avatar: The Last Airbender
The end of Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog
The end of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
and most recently the end of Spec Ops The Line
Now human emotions are a careless fickle thing, that don't seem to operate by any system of rules. and writing a narrative is a cold meticulous process where everything has to be planed out and make sense, (be free of plot holes and star children and multicolored explosions, but I'm getting off topic) The emotional climax is the peak of the action and it would follow that everything after that is all down hill, hence why so many endings disappoint us.
There's always snap ending right after the climax, but the effort the writer has to put into making the narrative succinct enough to pull that off is insane.
Alternate to that after the climax they will try to engage the audience with a something unexpected to go out on, but that is usually what we in the biz like to call an "ass pull" which usually raises questions and leaves the audience unsatisfied.
Leaving things open to interpretation is risky, and when it's done in the stead of actual closure it's just plain dumb.
Sometimes convoluted stories will get mushed into a remedial structure (Like The Phantom Menace or Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy being told in a 3 act structure, what the fuck?) then multiple plot threads force quit at the same time leaving everything muddled and confusing.
The key to a satisfying conclusion is to understand the structure of what you're writing. With games that's incredibly difficult, even more so in open world games like Farcry 3 or Skyrim because the structure is completely dependent on how much dicking around the player does. I always thought games like that should have a time factor so the ending varried based on how long you spent doing side quests and spanking tigers. But the heft of the blame lies with writers who don't know what to do with the character after the goal is accomplished. (I haven't played Farcry 3 to the end so I don't know how bad it was)
In my entire life of watching reading and playing stuff I've only experienced 6 endings that I conciser to be Good. (Meaning the most satisfying conclusion given the current state of the narrative)
The end of Fight Club
The end of Code Geass
The end of Avatar: The Last Airbender
The end of Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog
The end of Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
and most recently the end of Spec Ops The Line
Now human emotions are a careless fickle thing, that don't seem to operate by any system of rules. and writing a narrative is a cold meticulous process where everything has to be planed out and make sense, (be free of plot holes and star children and multicolored explosions, but I'm getting off topic) The emotional climax is the peak of the action and it would follow that everything after that is all down hill, hence why so many endings disappoint us.
There's always snap ending right after the climax, but the effort the writer has to put into making the narrative succinct enough to pull that off is insane.
Alternate to that after the climax they will try to engage the audience with a something unexpected to go out on, but that is usually what we in the biz like to call an "ass pull" which usually raises questions and leaves the audience unsatisfied.
Leaving things open to interpretation is risky, and when it's done in the stead of actual closure it's just plain dumb.
Sometimes convoluted stories will get mushed into a remedial structure (Like The Phantom Menace or Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy being told in a 3 act structure, what the fuck?) then multiple plot threads force quit at the same time leaving everything muddled and confusing.
The key to a satisfying conclusion is to understand the structure of what you're writing. With games that's incredibly difficult, even more so in open world games like Farcry 3 or Skyrim because the structure is completely dependent on how much dicking around the player does. I always thought games like that should have a time factor so the ending varried based on how long you spent doing side quests and spanking tigers. But the heft of the blame lies with writers who don't know what to do with the character after the goal is accomplished. (I haven't played Farcry 3 to the end so I don't know how bad it was)
Not sure if this has been pointed out yet, but I remember AAAGES ago, when Extra Credits was still on here, they did an episode explaining why sometimes the story lacks in certain areas/or overall. They basically pinned it down to that when developing a game, they decide what happens at the start, middle and end. Then, they begin building the game and give proper writers the gist of where everything is going. The game writer then has to link the begining, middle and end together, all while keeping with the gameplay scenario that will be occuring in the back of their minds. So in the end, it's not always that the writers are bad, but they are restricted due to multiple other factors in being able to write what they want.
So for example, you may get a really excellent writer whom made a majority of the build up really fantastic and awesome, but then when it comes to the ending, they have to go with what the other devs had agreed on, thus making all that hype and build up fall flat on it's butt. Now, while this is not an excuse that should let everygame fall flat sit on, it is a reason that should be seriously looked at and manipulated with to try and stop many games (Especially those that plan on being big epic multi game series).
Deadlines could also be a factor, but I wouldn't think it would effect too many games as the process normally take 2 to 3 years, which is plenty of time to write a good story. Albeit, there are always, and will always be ecxceptions.
So for example, you may get a really excellent writer whom made a majority of the build up really fantastic and awesome, but then when it comes to the ending, they have to go with what the other devs had agreed on, thus making all that hype and build up fall flat on it's butt. Now, while this is not an excuse that should let everygame fall flat sit on, it is a reason that should be seriously looked at and manipulated with to try and stop many games (Especially those that plan on being big epic multi game series).
Deadlines could also be a factor, but I wouldn't think it would effect too many games as the process normally take 2 to 3 years, which is plenty of time to write a good story. Albeit, there are always, and will always be ecxceptions.
Actually, I think that both endings are already thematically pretty good. The first half of the game has Jason reveling in his newly discovered potential to kill people, the second half has him questioning what this power and potential does to him. In the end he has to choose between embracing the power that the Rakyat helped him discover and loose himself to a lifetime of violence or he can back away from the precipice and hang onto the things that make him Jason Brody and not another Vaas.Diablo2000 said:
If he embraces the power, his death is as much a metaphor as an actual event, Jason Brody has lost himself and dies. If he backs away and saves his friends instead, he survives because he didn't forget who he is and wasn't ready to pay the price of power. It ties in nicely with how the game, in some ways, mimicked Heart of Darkness (and Apocalypse Now, by extension). The ending is Brody seeing what he can become if he embraces his darker, malevolent side, but if he does so it will also cost him his humanity.
The "odd" endings will stay with us as long as shitty companions do. You all know some decent games that are fun, but then you'll have a companion whom you must protect or its "game over". And then they have armor as sturdy as whipped cream and constantly run in front of you and your weapon.
Apparently everyone wants to do something "out of the ordinary" and ends up doing something that is either boring, disconnects us from the story and the Character, something that feels rushed, unfinished or not even part of the story or all of the above.
Yay.
Well, play the game, then go read some fanfiction because the probability that some freetime authors spit out better endings then you can find in some of the Games nowadays is depressingly high.
Apparently everyone wants to do something "out of the ordinary" and ends up doing something that is either boring, disconnects us from the story and the Character, something that feels rushed, unfinished or not even part of the story or all of the above.
Yay.
Well, play the game, then go read some fanfiction because the probability that some freetime authors spit out better endings then you can find in some of the Games nowadays is depressingly high.
Probably because you have to incorporate every loose end and tie them up or some internet complainer will kick off that it was too sudden.
The ending to Far Cry 3 WAS short...I would've definitely preferred to see a little more. I'd have liked to see how J-Bro fit back into normal society, given that he'd seized control of his own path for once in his life.Grivahri said:
However, where was the explanation for the Rakyat turning crazy? At what point did you think they weren't? They draw their power from hallucinogenics and murder. They were never on Jason's side, he was just a weapon to them. They shared a common foe. That was all. When Citra found out Jason would leave, she had every reason to take hostages.
And as for the soldiers in the hallucination. Think about how many people you, as the player, has killed. One Gunslinger takedown would've cleared that room. I actually quite liked the fact that you skipped straight to the important fight. Otherwise we'd have to deal with him running off onto a balcony and gloating while you kill his men. Like we've never seen that before.
Far Cry 3 had the coolest quick time events of all time.
It isn't that hard, and they aren't that rare. Many of the games I play have fantastic endings (Fire Emblem), others have terrible ones (fucking Assassin's Creed). It is quite easy really, but that doesn't mean that people always get it right. Never discount an artist's inexplicable ability to drop the ball.
Because developers are more into 'upping the stakes' than making a coherent ending. I'm looking at you Halo, Gears of War, Assassin's Creed, and most other sequeled games.
It's like they forget you can do two things which will actually increase the chance of someone bothering enough to buy the next game.
It's like they forget you can do two things which will actually increase the chance of someone bothering enough to buy the next game.
I've always been of the opinion that game devs finish making the final level, or boss fight or whatever and then go on holiday, leaving the cleaning lady to make the ending.
My main feeling on this relies on four factors:
1) Is it a franchise game? As in, are they making this game with a conscious belief that there may be sequels with those exact same characters (Assassin's Creed, for example)? If so, chances are it's going to have a weak "To be continued...?" kind of ending because they're hoping if you liked the game enough, you'll come back for a second, or third, or tenth helping. However, if they know they're making a self-contained story (Spec Ops: The Line), the ending will have a lot more oomph to it.
2) How important is the overall story - REALLY - to the game? Yeah, I realize nearly 95% of all games have some kind of plot to them now, but really, how many of them can be devolved to "get character A to Place B while avoiding X obstacles?" Far Cry 3, for example is essentially get your character Jason to save his friends while not getting killed by pirates. There is the very slight plot change at the halfway point in the game, but that is diluted because the fact the idea it's trying to exude "Jason has gone crazy and is becoming a heartless killer!" is lost because it's how I've been playing the entire game. You can put a different collar of a dog, but it's still the same dog. Same thing all the way to the end. It does give you the illusion of multiple endings, but one is IMO and extended game over screen, and the other is true to form- just trying to put a different collar on the same dog without expecting anything to really change.
3) The actual fan dedication. We now live in a "transmedia" age, where video games aren't just video games. They got spinoff novels, animated features, comic books, etc. Because of that, either two happens, for fans who just play the games, they probably don't want all the extra stuff, and if it's in there. it's just bloat. When developers don't include it in the game, the fans that have absorbed the rest of the media may feel the story is skewed. In either case, it disrupts the ending because it feels like either you've missed a few pages, or there are glaring plot holes.
4) Game development choking at the end. This kind of relates to the first point. Once the game reaches it's zenith, what is there left to do? How do we close it up? Can we close it up? If we have a definitive ending, what will the players think? If we have a solid, confirmed ending, will fans accept that, or will they go apeshit, because that's not what they think they're entitled to?
Factoring all of those factors into a game, it's not surprising, at least to myself, that games aren't renowned for having incredible endings.
1) Is it a franchise game? As in, are they making this game with a conscious belief that there may be sequels with those exact same characters (Assassin's Creed, for example)? If so, chances are it's going to have a weak "To be continued...?" kind of ending because they're hoping if you liked the game enough, you'll come back for a second, or third, or tenth helping. However, if they know they're making a self-contained story (Spec Ops: The Line), the ending will have a lot more oomph to it.
2) How important is the overall story - REALLY - to the game? Yeah, I realize nearly 95% of all games have some kind of plot to them now, but really, how many of them can be devolved to "get character A to Place B while avoiding X obstacles?" Far Cry 3, for example is essentially get your character Jason to save his friends while not getting killed by pirates. There is the very slight plot change at the halfway point in the game, but that is diluted because the fact the idea it's trying to exude "Jason has gone crazy and is becoming a heartless killer!" is lost because it's how I've been playing the entire game. You can put a different collar of a dog, but it's still the same dog. Same thing all the way to the end. It does give you the illusion of multiple endings, but one is IMO and extended game over screen, and the other is true to form- just trying to put a different collar on the same dog without expecting anything to really change.
3) The actual fan dedication. We now live in a "transmedia" age, where video games aren't just video games. They got spinoff novels, animated features, comic books, etc. Because of that, either two happens, for fans who just play the games, they probably don't want all the extra stuff, and if it's in there. it's just bloat. When developers don't include it in the game, the fans that have absorbed the rest of the media may feel the story is skewed. In either case, it disrupts the ending because it feels like either you've missed a few pages, or there are glaring plot holes.
4) Game development choking at the end. This kind of relates to the first point. Once the game reaches it's zenith, what is there left to do? How do we close it up? Can we close it up? If we have a definitive ending, what will the players think? If we have a solid, confirmed ending, will fans accept that, or will they go apeshit, because that's not what they think they're entitled to?
Factoring all of those factors into a game, it's not surprising, at least to myself, that games aren't renowned for having incredible endings.
I was going to write a reply explaining why I thought Far Cry 3 had a pretty damn good ending. Cutting it short, however, I believe that the ending achieve two things: it wraps up the dominant themes of insanity, freedom, tribal mysticism and growing up, whilst also leaving questions inside of the players mind which they can later think about. But in its full form that would have taken too long, so here's a few responses to some of the questions you raised.Grivahri said:
Why did the Rakyat suddenly go crazy? At the point in the main campaign when this happens, Citra believes that you are essentially the second coming of the Warrior God that slew the giant ink monster whose corpse, which Rakyat tradition dictates, created the Rook Island. Your victory over Vaas, Buck, the poison and Hoyt are the things that prove to them that you are this God, trapped in mortal form. Not only this, but when did the Rakyat ever suddenly go crazy? They always were, the carried around AK-47's and went around killing pirates, led by a mystic 'Warrior Goddess' whilst following ancient tribal traditions. Dennis is the perfect example of this, at the start of the game, he is made to appear like a hero standing up for his people - Jason eventually discovers otherwise, however, first when you see him drunk after the ceremony, but also how he appears in the good ending - he's absolutely batshit crazy.
Why did they kidnap your friends? This is because of the whole tribal mysticism aspect of game, and is revealed in greater depth by the bad ending - Citra and the Rakyat believes that you are a Warrior God trapped in mortal form. The only way to 'free' you from your earthly ties is to first cut that which binds you to the mortal realm, and then to destroy your mortal body, allowing you to ascend to God-knows-where.
Why were your friends still there? This much isn't actually explained in game, and can easily be seen as a ploy to help the plot potter along. Then again, at that point Jason has already cut his ties with them to delve deeper in the insanity of life on the island, so why should the player, as Jason Brody, need to know there thoughts and reasons for staying? It shows that things are happening outside Jason's knowledge, which is actually quite realistic when you think of it.
Why can't they take it easy and celebrate Hoyt's death? This is mixture between the mysticism and the insanity - Citra is most definitely in love with you and believes that you are suffering whilst trapped in your mortal form, and therefore would organise the Rakyat ceremony as soon as the Island is safe.
Why don't we get to see what happens after the ending? Because that'd totally ruin it! They supply the reader with just enough to allow them to imagine what could happen to Jason following the psychologically traumatic events on Rook Island - he's obviously in a seriously dark place, so whether he becomes a deranged serial killer, works hard through psychotherapy to live normally, constantly trying to suppress that thought that things were so much...more on the Island. The good ending supplies what it needs to, and does it in a clever way.
Why is Dennis only there for half a minute? IMO, Dennis' disappearance from the plot symbolizes Jason becoming more important to the Rakyat, and crucially Citra.
The difference between the good ending and the bad ending is that in one you accept childish insanity of the Island and its traditions, you choose escapism over the much harder to live with reality, the thing that Jason has constantly been avoiding, as demonstrated by his bio of 'drifting' through things, signing himself up for death-defying, adrenaline-junkey endeavors. In the good ending, you accept that the freedom offered by the Island is a fake one, Jason accepts that this is not life, that human life has value, that order is there for a reason against anarchy. That's the short of it, at least.
What you seem to consider a 'good ending' is one that fully wraps almost everything up, ending with a memorable but entirely gratuitous image. Don't get me wrong, this can definitely be really cool - Halo:Reach is a great example where such a thing works really well. But Far Cry 3 is a different game, with different themes underlying its plot. I think it does its job well.
Hope that helps a teensy bit at least!
The implementation of a proper ending seems to run into a few notable challenges:
#1 - Concluding a story in a satisfying manner while still leaving room for a sequel.
This is arguably more an issue with publishers than developers (not to mention more modern to boot), as they'll demand that room be left for a sequel in the plot... and quite preferably, with the same characters as well. Developers could effectively be forbidden from finishing the storyline of a game properly. I find that the best game endings are those which actually end the storyline, and it then forces any sequel to establish a new conflict rather than feeding off it it's predecessor; essentially, it forces the developer of the next game to do the plotline properly and completely rather than feeding of the predecessor's success. It's surprisingly easy to understand why publishers (and lazy developers) want to avoid this situation, it's just significantly more work (and unlikely to turn a better net gain for the additional cost).
#2 - Writing games is different than writing other media.
Believe it or not, if not for the fact gameplay provides the conflict (and possibility of failure) in any given game, most game protagonists would be rather blatant "Mary Sues". This is only part of the problem, but it means there's a fundamental issue with writing games; you can't treat writing games like a movie, or even a book, due to it being a explicitly interactive medium. This leads to an interesting situation, particularly in the modern era, where the story and gameplay aren't always built in a way that is cohesive; in an interactive medium, it is absolutely necessary for the story and gameplay to work in tandem. However, it's fairly clear that seldom happens these days (for a variety of reasons); not to mention there's no definitive method or formula for writing games that has been established as something that "works" for everyone.
#3 - Many game developers don't understand pacing.
This is very easy to see, actually. Most modern games are fast-paced and adrenaline-pumping experiences; first-person shooters, doubly so. This makes for a fun game, but also makes for a lousy story. Good stories have bouts of downtime between the exciting moments, it provides a contrast for both and allows the audience to appreciate both even more than before.
#4 - Spectacle is too dominant.
Summer block-buster movies have lousy stories, that's a well-known fact; however, they're there to be fun movies which don't demand too much. Many games are treated the same way, and they also happen to be the popular ones. Those which try to break the mold face quite a bit of difficulty, both stemming from expectations (from publishers and players) and inexperience.
---
One could easily go on, but there's a laundry list of reasons for why games have difficulty concluding their plotlines.
However, I'm running out of ideas... well, ones that I can explain at least.
#1 - Concluding a story in a satisfying manner while still leaving room for a sequel.
This is arguably more an issue with publishers than developers (not to mention more modern to boot), as they'll demand that room be left for a sequel in the plot... and quite preferably, with the same characters as well. Developers could effectively be forbidden from finishing the storyline of a game properly. I find that the best game endings are those which actually end the storyline, and it then forces any sequel to establish a new conflict rather than feeding off it it's predecessor; essentially, it forces the developer of the next game to do the plotline properly and completely rather than feeding of the predecessor's success. It's surprisingly easy to understand why publishers (and lazy developers) want to avoid this situation, it's just significantly more work (and unlikely to turn a better net gain for the additional cost).
#2 - Writing games is different than writing other media.
Believe it or not, if not for the fact gameplay provides the conflict (and possibility of failure) in any given game, most game protagonists would be rather blatant "Mary Sues". This is only part of the problem, but it means there's a fundamental issue with writing games; you can't treat writing games like a movie, or even a book, due to it being a explicitly interactive medium. This leads to an interesting situation, particularly in the modern era, where the story and gameplay aren't always built in a way that is cohesive; in an interactive medium, it is absolutely necessary for the story and gameplay to work in tandem. However, it's fairly clear that seldom happens these days (for a variety of reasons); not to mention there's no definitive method or formula for writing games that has been established as something that "works" for everyone.
#3 - Many game developers don't understand pacing.
This is very easy to see, actually. Most modern games are fast-paced and adrenaline-pumping experiences; first-person shooters, doubly so. This makes for a fun game, but also makes for a lousy story. Good stories have bouts of downtime between the exciting moments, it provides a contrast for both and allows the audience to appreciate both even more than before.
#4 - Spectacle is too dominant.
Summer block-buster movies have lousy stories, that's a well-known fact; however, they're there to be fun movies which don't demand too much. Many games are treated the same way, and they also happen to be the popular ones. Those which try to break the mold face quite a bit of difficulty, both stemming from expectations (from publishers and players) and inexperience.
---
One could easily go on, but there's a laundry list of reasons for why games have difficulty concluding their plotlines.
However, I'm running out of ideas... well, ones that I can explain at least.
What I hate more is when the writers try to blame the audience to defend their crap...
"Oh you just didn't get it.", "It's too deep for you", "It's supposed to be abstract".
e.g. - http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/double-talk-far-cry-3s-lead-writer-explains-the-deceptive-nature-of-th
"Oh you just didn't get it.", "It's too deep for you", "It's supposed to be abstract".
e.g. - http://penny-arcade.com/report/editorial-article/double-talk-far-cry-3s-lead-writer-explains-the-deceptive-nature-of-th