Thoughts on multiple/bad endings.

[JazzFunk]

I wish developers would make endings controllable, like in Super Monkey Ball.

[Ady]

As others have said, it's all about implementation. I think one of the best uses of this particular motif is in Shenmue. You trigger the bad ending by not playing the game properly rather than failing to find an obscure item or randomly triggering some event you don't even know about on first playthrough.

However, I think multiple endings will ever really work in open-ended games where multiple choices affect the outcome (as others have said) or more 'linear' games that change significantly on replay.

For example, imagine a 3rd person/survival horror title ala Silent Hill or Resi which is probably only about 5 or 6 hours long on straight playthrough. However, rather than getting a 'good' or 'bad' ending for your efforts, you get an ending that only tells part of the story, so you replay the game again from the perspective of a character that was previously an NPC, giving you more insight into the overall picture once the game is finished completely. (Silent Hill 2 hinted at this with the 'Born From a Wish' sidequest with Mary, but didn't really follow it through.)

So with, say 5 characters/perspectives/story threads all about 5 hours each, you've got a game that's worth replaying because its actually different each time.

I think the genre worst suited to multiple endings though is RPGs. Did anyone actually bother with all of Chrono Trigger's endings?

[Spatial]

I think the second Silent Hill is the last game I played with an actual multiple ending where I bothered to go back and find them all.

It was probably that game that put the nail in the coffin since the first one I got (unintentionally) was the bad ending where

->Open Spoiler<-

he drowns himself in the car

.

It fitted the game so well that all the other seemed rubbish in comparison.

[Dogg Thang]

I don't mind multiple endings but I hate bad endings. I think all endings should be satisfying and not end with something like 'collect all the x to see the true ending' or some crap.

As mentioned, Silent Hill 1 is a really bad example of how to achieve different endings, though I didn't find the endings themselves unsatisfying except one (the worst one). However, I loved the way SH2 did the endings - it seemed subtle like the ending you got reflected your playing style. I can't even remember the requirements but I remember they were all fairly vague. It wasn't a case that if you missed one object, you couldn't get an ending.

[Ady]

As you mention it, SH2 did do a good job of using multiple endings. I actually got the 'best' ending straight off, but actually bothered to go back and see what the others were like. Besides, none were really 'bad' per se, just different.

[Rick]

The endings of games don't get anywhere near as much attention during development as the beginnings, because the vast majority of players don't finish games. Sad but true.

But whos fault is that? you can't blame it on the gamers, its usually down to bad game design.

I hate games that have to be played through 87 times while your hopping on one leg.

I just want to spend my time playing a good game, and not having to worry about wasting my time because i didn't pick up a pixel, which then means i don't get a resolution to the story.

Why should i have to read ****ing gamefaqs to find out what obscure bollocks i've missed to be able to finish the game properly.
You don't have to rewatch a film to see an alternative ending, They don't miss the last 5 minutes off because i didn't press pause 67 minutes in.

So who decided this would be a good thing in games? are there any western developed games that do this, or is it just the Japanese games that suffer from this?

[Red Hogg]

Stick with one ending that packs an almighty wallop. MGS3, I'm looking at you. Bless you.

[Magnakai]

Agreed. MGS3 had one of the best ending sequences of all time. By ending sequence, I mean

->Open Spoiler<-

everything after the Big Boss fight, since you couldn't lose the Ocelot gunfight.

Plus the whole tone of it fitted the game perfectly.

I just finished Gears Of War, and that had an appropriately poor ending in my opinion. Then again, the game wasn't exactly big on story, was it?

[Ady]

Why should i have to read ****ing gamefaqs to find out what obscure bollocks i've missed to be able to finish the game properly.
You don't have to rewatch a film to see an alternative ending, They don't miss the last 5 minutes off because i didn't press pause 67 minutes in.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. A video game is a very different thing from a film. This is part of the problem with the cinema obsession; games are now expected to be like films. Even down to the level of passivity.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with what you're saying with regards to having to replay because you unwittingly missed something you didn't even know about, but there are other ways of extending longevity and playtime without resorting to repetition, and I think this should be what game designers aim for.

[JamesS]

The endings of games don't get anywhere near as much attention during development as the beginnings, because the vast majority of players don't finish games. Sad but true.

I worked on a game once that nearly didn't have an ending at all. The marketing department had put out a press release claiming the game had considerably more levels than it actually did. Instead of correcting it, they instead wanted us to make the final level impossible so that nobody would ever know that there weren't more. They changed their mind when we pointed out that people would probably notice by looking at the files on the disk, or by using cheat devices to get past the impossible level.

[Profit]

So who decided this would be a good thing in games? are there any western developed games that do this, or is it just the Japanese games that suffer from this?

Lack of a single, dedicated 'Editor' as seen in movie production is the main reason (also the reason for overly long games or average parts in good games); as far as narritave based games are concerned. An independent person who was not involved in the development process, who plays the game start to finish as many times as possible, and says to the lead creator "i dont care how long you spent creating this part, leave it out". (It's not uncommon for editors to argue with directors and for films to have 30+ mins cut out).

There is however an inherent problem in that games start out as a gameplay mechanic concept and not as a design or story concept. Edit: although there are exceptions such as MGS2 or ICO where the producer concentrates more initially on creating a design and fitting the game around it.

[Eight Rooks]

The basic premise of multiple endings is perfectly sound; no-one's forcing you to see them all, and you know exactly what you did to get the one you saw.

In practice, of course, things aren't quite like that and things like Squenix's ridiculous "true" endings for the KH games are the epitome of the trend. I've got no problem with people complaining about them or anything similar. But the idea that multiple endings are pointless is ridiculous. Jesus, imagine the outcry over Bioshock if you'd only had the good ending, even for people who ran around acting so as to deserve the bad.

SH2 had some of the best ever - dog included . Seriously, one of the very, very few videogames ever made with a truly decent story, and endings that aptly reflected how you chose to interpret the events therein... says a lot about you, Spatial. While I think of it, another where the "bad" ending was every bit as good as the "good" one (and even went on to be canon!) was Shadow Hearts - it was ages before I found out you could change things, and I really didn't care. On the other hand, I applaud Nautilus for giving people the option. I repeat, no-one's being forced to see anything they're not particularly interested in.

[Profit]

Jesus, imagine the outcry over Bioshock if you'd only had the good ending, even for people who ran around acting so as to deserve the bad.

Doubt it. No one ever complains there isn't an option for a bad ending in single ending games. So what if another player ran around acting as unintended by the developer? That player is not going to complain that they were given a good ending. The fact that that player reached the end proves that they enjoyed the game as much as other's who played the game 'properly' and enjoyed more than those who didn't reach the end at all.