Hardcore Gamer - Multiple Endings a Good Thing?

Couchpotato · January 20, 2015

Alex Carlson of Hardcore Gamer posted a new editorial article where he talks about Multiple Endings in games, and asks if they are a good thing. So what do you all think?

So are multiple endings a good or bad thing? That’s a tough call. Sure, you can get a greater power of choice or be pushed to improve your skills, but you can also spend hours getting an alternate ending that might not be worth the effort (or in extreme cases, be meaningless). Using multiple endings can be very risky for developers; the endings need to be worth the extra effort for people to actually care about them. They can’t be in a game just for the sake of being there; no one would play them otherwise.

More information.

borcanu · January 20, 2015

it depends on peoples MBTI function. if its extroverted intuition or introverted intuition.
The thing is to do it well, not which of the two you select.

considering movies are very enjoyable and Ni type, should be proof of that.

But I think multiple endings gives way to looser logic. quantity > quality. considering u have same resources for both..

joxer · January 20, 2015

Videogames are not books, music compositions, movies nor TV series.
It's a special media that makes multiple endings possible. And that's a good thing.

The not so good thing is red/blue/green ending. Or, as someone suggested, pink/purple/rainbow ending we'll get for sure in ME4.

Archangel · January 20, 2015

I would rather he finally plays VtM:Bloodlines and reviews that. I cannot take him seriously in the meantime

greywolf00 · January 20, 2015

I like my choices to matter and impacting the ending is a clear indication that they do. It's a different scale than individual quests that really adds to the engagement/interest for me.

DArtagnan · January 20, 2015

It really depends on how well it's done, and at what cost.

In many games, I think it's more or less superfluous - and in a few games, it really makes a positive difference.

Deleted User · January 20, 2015

If I were designing a game, I don't know if I'd spend any resources towards true multiple endings. Perhaps I would make a modular ending, that changes based on tasks that you accomplished in the game, but I don't think my ideally-designed RPG would have multiple outcomes in a "real" way.

I think Fallout 3 and Fallout: New Vegas had modular endings. Something like that would be my choice.

borovnica · January 20, 2015

To be honest I prefer one good ending then three bad ones. Of course some game managed to make more than one good ending but they are rare. Probably the best game that managed to do it was VtM:B.

So I say quality over quantity.

CelticFrost · January 20, 2015

I liked the way the witcher2 gave you to different sides to play. I think it was very well done. Unlike in DA:2 were your choices didn't seem to matter at all.

This all said I do believe a game does need an ending though. It took me until this past Christmas to give Skyrim a real play(150 hours). It never ends which to me left me feeling like I never finished it.

rjshae · January 20, 2015

CelticFrost said:
I liked the way the witcher2 gave you to different sides to play. I think it was very well done. Unlike in DA:2 were your choices didn't seem to matter at all.

The thing about that is it only matters if you replay the game. If you don't then the ending is just an ending. Many players don't actually finish games, so including multiple endings is primarily in support of the hard core gamers. At that point, like it or not, it becomes an economic decision.

Humanity has risen! · January 20, 2015

The problem comes when the game ending is something you get based on a decision you make at the very end and which is spelled out clearly to you, instead of being the sum of your choices or performances in the game. The other problem is an ending affected by missable events which you have virtually no way of knowing in advance; Japanese games are especially bad in this regard.

It has to mean something. If the game expects you to replay over and over to unearth new insignificant details to unlock new or proper endings it's an insult to the player's time and intelligence.

CelticFrost · January 20, 2015

rjshae said:
The thing about that is it only matters if you replay the game. If you don't then the ending is just an ending. Many players don't actually finish games, so including multiple endings is primarily in support of the hard core gamers. At that point, like it or not, it becomes an economic decision.

Yes and the title is Hardcore Gamer.....Not the economics of multiple endings.

If the choices you make in the game matter and they count how the out come is, then yes.

I just like having some sort of ending that doesn't feel like a be let down.

Ripper · January 20, 2015

rjshae said:
The thing about that is it only matters if you replay the game. If you don't then the ending is just an ending.

I don't quite agree with that, because the mere knowledge that the game will end differently depending on your actions increases the dramatic stakes for the player, even if he plays only once.

It's an interesting question. As I say, the multiple endings scenario enchances the dramatic experience in one sense, but running counter to that is the difficulty of writing a satisfying story that has no definite conclusion. A story with multiple possible endings has been done well in movies and literature, but rarely, because it's very difficult. When you're writing fiction, you often know where you're going better than you know how you're going to get there.

I think this is why we saw the red/green/blue at the last moment in Mass Effect. Much better, IMHO, to have just had one strong ending, with the consequences of the player actions defining things like which worlds survived and triumphed. They already had that in there - if they'd emphasised that aspect, and written a single satisfying conclusion to the main Reaper plotline, I think it would have worked better.

rjshae · January 20, 2015

CelticFrost said:
Yes and the title is Hardcore Gamer…..Not the economics of multiple endings.

Yes and 'Hardcore Gamer' is the name of the site, not the target of the editorial. Nowhere in the editorial does it focus specifically on hardcore gamers; it just says 'players'.

CelticFrost · January 20, 2015

rjshae said:
Yes and 'Hardcore Gamer' is the name of the site, not the target of the editorial. Nowhere in the editorial does it focus specifically on hardcore gamers; it just says 'players'.

Well, you got me there. I just figured because of it being on Hardcore Gamer and not Casual Gamer. That it was written towards hardcore gamers….silly me.

You win...

txa1265 · January 20, 2015

I guess for me it isn't just 'different endings', that is a bit simplistic ... I like games that offer branching throughout - even if it occasionally returns to the same 'trunk' and only one or two things really impact the core of the game. It is that appearance - even mostly an illusion - that my character is making a substantive difference in the world.

rjshae · January 21, 2015

Ripper said:
I don't quite agree with that, because the mere knowledge that the game will end differently depending on your actions increases the dramatic stakes for the player, even if he plays only once.

What you're saying then is that listening to spoilers about the ending will spoil the ending?

Maybe video games need to use the old wargame approach of ranking the outcome. I.e. marginal victory, substantive victory, or decisive victory. That way players have something to shoot for without necessarily requiring umpteen different endings.

figment · January 21, 2015

txa1265 said:
I guess for me it isn't just 'different endings', that is a bit simplistic … I like games that offer branching throughout - even if it occasionally returns to the same 'trunk' and only one or two things really impact the core of the game. It is that appearance - even mostly an illusion - that my character is making a substantive difference in the world.

For me one of the best examples of this was the original Deus Ex and is one reason I allow myself to consider it an RPG. The game is really quite linear but gives great illusion of choice throughout. Be non-violent then you get a short dialog acknowledging that fact but does not materially change anything. Allow a boss to live and he dies 2 levels later away. And the final 3 endings are not forced based on previous choices and while not ideal from an pure story perspective it does allow the player to experience much of the content without significant reinvestment of time replaying to get those flags.

Humanity has risen! · January 21, 2015

figment said:
For me one of the best examples of this was the original Deus Ex and is one reason I allow myself to consider it an RPG. The game is really quite linear but gives great illusion of choice throughout. Be non-violent then you get a short dialog acknowledging that fact but does not materially change anything. Allow a boss to live and he dies 2 levels later away. And the final 3 endings are not forced based on previous choices and while not ideal from an pure story perspective it does allow the player to experience much of the content without significant reinvestment of time replaying to get those flags.

But in the end it means none of your actions really mattered.

xSamhainx · January 21, 2015

Multiple endings can be very satisfying, I pay big money for that sort of thing

Hardcore Gamer - Multiple Endings a Good Thing?

Part-Time News-bot

muist

The Smoker

SasqWatch

Keeper of the Watch

DArtagnan

Guest

Deleted User

Guest

Watchdog

SasqWatch

Periapt vs Paronomasia

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Зичу Вам успіхів

Periapt vs Paronomasia

SasqWatch

SasqWatch

Periapt vs Paronomasia

Keeper of the Watch

SasqWatch

Paws of Doom