Does a game have to fail to have an ending?

[Dominus Atheos]

Ars Technica

We live in a world where creating a video game costs a very large amount of money. While there is the indie-gaming circuit and PC development can be done on a budget, getting a game onto consoles (and hyping it) requires money. It's no surprise that most games hope for a sequel, as it's the easiest way to get some of that money back while taking advantage of the staff, engine, assets, and other advantages you've banked while creating the first title. The problem? This has lead to a generation of cliff-hangers at worst, and endings that hedge their bets at best. Oddly enough, it's an MMO that had the most satisfying ending this week.

On February 27, there was a message posted on Tabula Rasa's official webpage that basically explained the end of the world. "We request that all military personnel begin fortifying defenses at every AFS base in preparation for a massive Bane assault. If enemy troop movements are as large as we fear, and the Neph are truly prepared to lead all out war against us, this may be our last stand," the message stated. "We can not afford to be complacent or uncertain, but if it is truly our destiny to be destroyed, we are taking them all with us."

Players weren't left completely unprepared. "Two to three weeks ago they started dropping all kinds of high-level goodies (basically level 50 armor and weapons but no minimum level requirement for use) and hyper-XP tokens that gave a 2000% experience point bonus," one Ars reader wrote on our gaming forum. "Those allowed folks to level-up much quicker. I managed to get to level 42 by the end of last week with a sniper, but then was out of town until last night when it was all due to shut down."

It seems every game you play ends by pointing at a sequel, with story threads left hanging, characters left floating in the depths of space, or wars left unwon. When was the last time you finished a game and felt completely satisfied by the experience? With Tabula Rasa, at least the ending has come for everyone; there will be no final call from the governor, no last-minute angel investor. The war is going to come to an end, and by all accounts humanity didn't win, and the game ended with quite the bang. Sure, it was a down note, but the game failed, and a happy ending would be somewhat inappropriate for fans.

Is this what it takes to get a final goodbye from a game? Does a world have to fail to be so decisively shut down? As all the game's characters die, as the servers are shut down, as the data is erased or backed up and then boxed or whatever happens to MMO data once the game is done, it's hard not to be a little sad. The sights and sounds of the world of Tabula Rasa are gone, forever. All the memories written into those ones and zeroes will quickly be forgotten, and no one will walk those grounds again. The game never gained the following that NCSoft hoped for. It did one thing better than almost every other game on the market however: end with grace.

I've never played Tabula Rasa, but the bolded portion jumped out at me. It's been a long time. It seems like the video games with deep, engaging story lines (all five of them) always end on a cliff hanger, or without any satisfying ending. I really have to give kudos to Tabula Rasafor going out the way it did.

[Eleas]

Been thinking about this ever since my latest gaming spree, in which I finished Fallout 3, Neverwinter Nights 2 and Assassin's Creed. I think it's an excellent point, and I largely agree with the analysis as well. It's about money. Specifically, it's about being able to create something big and spectacular, and to do it with the least amount of money. There are many ways of doing that but one of the most effective ways of cutting corners is doing it where it won't hurt the short-term sales at all. Game reviewers being generally representative of their audience (with all the short attention spans and propensity for distraction by shiny object that this entails), they will already have made up their minds after an hour's worth of playing the main part of the game even if (and that's a big fucking if right there) they decide to play it through to the end. And so, cutting corners in the later stages of the game won't hurt initial sales... well, at all.

Look at KotOR 2: The Sith Lords. Now I've browsed a few reviews, including Gamespot and Gamespy. Neither of those two even mentions the fact that the last chunk of the game is fucking missing; in fact, only one of the five reviews I read took a notice of the fact, and even then, gave it glowing reviews. Seeing that, I have no problem putting myself in a developer's head.

You have money, which you're expected to transform into the game itself, and so you allocate that money according to what's immediately obvious (flash and game mechanics), put some on the rest to deliver what you may consider to be a solid experience, and sprinkle the remainder on the parts the reviewer's don't see. That, of course, isn't restricted to video gaming. To pick an example from another genre, let's take the TV show Heroes. That show pretends to a grand design in the narrative sense, but that's a threadbare illusion at the most; all it has is a couple of script writers frantically tossing out mysteries and plot hooks in a futile effort at staying one step ahead of the viewers. Employing that sort of writing is at best equivalent to building a house of cards. For a point in case, take Mass Effect, its building tension and growing mystery resolving into... well, mush.

I guess what I'm trying to say here is that while the phenomenon itself is the most visible in gaming, it actually spans genres, because it plays on the free market and its short attention span. As such, it's gonna be difficult to root out.

[Nephtys]

I can name a few games with satisfying endings that aren't cliffhangers, even if they may in some cases, leave room for sequels.

Homeworld 1 and 2 were both pretty self-contained, very atmospheric, and satisfying if you enjoyed that style of game. Minimalist storytelling helped make space feel pretty barren, even if you really were a bunch of little spaceships shooting at each other from 3 kilometers off

I was quite satisfied with the original System Shock. Crawling through vents and feeling completely trapped by the omnipresent Shodan, smashing servers and cameras, etc... then finally winning respite after a cyberspace showdown wrapped things up pretty well.

Old adventure games such as 'The Dig' or the 'Space Quest' series were satisfying, and did not directly lead to sequels. The sequels in the case of Space Quest just happened. They were quite fun, and creatively written.

All of the good 'Wing Commander' games were self-contained and didn't go cliffhanger just for sequel purposes. (Bite me, Prophecy.)

[Hawkwings]

I played Tabula Rasa all the way to the last "You have been disconnected" screen, and it was well worth it. A lot of it was because of the great community and dev events near the end, but anyways, onto the topic at hand...

The most engaging story I've ever experienced in a game was in Dreamfall: The Longest Journey, and yes, that story ends with a cliffhanger-esque ending. Fitting, given the story, and stragely satisfying, but it's not a real ending. I'll echo the Homeworld games, they had pretty satisfying endings. I also remember that after playing Deus Ex 2, the endings seemed very final in all cases. Can't think of any other games with engaging stories, honestly.

[Teleros]

I'll agree with Nephtys that the Homeworld games had good, self-contained stories, although I'll add most of Blizzard's games that I've played to the list (Warcraft & Starcraft series). Not because they ended the story - they didn't - but because they ended the part you played well, with the exception of Starcraft: Brood War.

[Thanas]

Max Payne 2 is a good example of an ending. However, what really annoys me is that companies that were good at engaging storylines and endings became quite bad at them. Bioware is one such company - after Throne of Baal they simply decided to frak it up. With the exception of KOTOR I I cannot remember a single Bioware game that engaged me in a story in recent times.

[18-Till-I-Die]

I feel satiated when i play a game with good gameplay and good replay value.

I've beaten Super Mario Bros. 3 at least a hundred thousand times since i got it way back in Ye Olde 1990s, and i still play it till this very day on my shitass old NES. In fact i'm probably going to go play it again.

I could say the same for, say, Gears of War or Turok 2008 or just go off and fuck around in Crackdown or Dead Rising.

So yeah, "deep story" means shit to me, if the game is fun to play i feel satisfied. Frankly if i had my way, we'd still be making 2D beat 'em ups and platformers and SHUMPs.


*waits for someone to tell me i have bad taste*

[Stark]

It's different in that this is an MMO, and is thus generally built around 'constant additions'. They knew they were dead months in advance with no chance of survival, so they made a 'finale' scenario. Heaps of non-MMOs end on actual climaxes all the time. There are older games that end on a question (like Freespace with Earth, the Shivans etc) but it's really a symptom of EA disease that every game now ends on a setup for the sequels.

And 18, you use the word 'SHUMP', ergo you are a fat listless unimaginative trendster idiot. You're exactly the kind of 'I like that, simply give me more' person that makes everyone from EA to Paramount churn out lifeless rubbish every year.

[Dread Not]

I would say the worst offender of this phenomenon I have ever encountered is Psi-Ops: The Mindgate Conspiracy. Given that the title had the word conspiracy in it I was expecting a storyline that might slightly hold my interest. Instead you have a heavily muscled skinhead amnesiac thug, interacting with a bunch of other moronic characters, you are served with the most predictable plot twists ever, and finally after the pain in the ass final boss when you should be served with some satisfying explanation for the events in the game, some helicopters show up out of nowhere and start blowing shit up and you get a fuck you very much "to be continued." It's no wonder that the game never got a sequel because I don't think anyone would think of buying it for closure to a bullshit story.

I was quite satisfied with the original System Shock. Crawling through vents and feeling completely trapped by the omnipresent Shodan, smashing servers and cameras, etc... then finally winning respite after a cyberspace showdown wrapped things up pretty well.

If we're going back as far as something like System Shock which came out almost 15 years ago, I don't think it should be hard to think of compelling storylines that didn't end with a cliffhanger. Grim Fandango left very little room for a sequel and will probably never get one. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time had sequels, but had no need to continue the story. I think cliffhangers have become much more common in the current generation, but I can't really comment since I don't think I've finished a single game from the last couple of years.

[Nephtys]

Well, System Shock is brought up since real immersive gaming died for me around 2002

I just haven't felt satisfied with a game in ages.

[Erik von Nein]

Seems to be the same with a lot of books I can think of, ones that are obviously setting up for sequels. It's not surprising games would do the same thing. They're businesses, building repeat customer bases is what they do.

We could all list of games with good story lines that actually end. What I'd like to know is how prevalent this trend is becoming with games and whether or not it's actually that bad of a thing. I liked Beyond Good & Evil even if the ending had "TO BE CONTINUED" written all over it.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Max Payne 2 is a good example of an ending. However, what really annoys me is that companies that were good at engaging storylines and endings became quite bad at them. Bioware is one such company - after Throne of Baal they simply decided to frak it up. With the exception of KOTOR I I cannot remember a single Bioware game that engaged me in a story in recent times.

Ironic, because Mass Effect is about the only "planned trilogy" game to come out in the last couple years that had an ending that was satisfying in its own right in addition to leaving hooks for the sequel.

[Teleros]

We could all list of games with good story lines that actually end. What I'd like to know is how prevalent this trend is becoming with games and whether or not it's actually that bad of a thing. I liked Beyond Good & Evil even if the ending had "TO BE CONTINUED" written all over it.

I don't mind if a game is not the end of the series, I just want it to end its part well, whether there's a sequel or not. To go from games to films for a moment, I consider both Lord of the Rings & The Italian Job to have good endings, even though one had everything wrapped up with a bow on top and the other with a (in)famous cliffhanger. Point is, it's the execution that matters.

[18-Till-I-Die]

And 18, you use the word 'SHUMP', ergo you are a fat listless unimaginative trendster idiot. You're exactly the kind of 'I like that, simply give me more' person that makes everyone from EA to Paramount churn out lifeless rubbish every year.

If i knew what a trendster was i'd be offended...i think. Maybe not, i can't be sure because i have no idea if that was supposed to be an insult, so i'm just going to play this one by ear.

At any rate, i'm going to go play Gears of War and laugh at the faux intellectual posers who think Braid has a deep story because the last level is played in reverse.

[Darth Wong]

I see nothing wrong with leaving an opening for a sequel, as long as you don't have a cliffhanger. That's just lame. The story should have a climax and an apparent resolution, but the game universe should permit the creation of another subsequent story if the developers want to retain the option for a sequel.

Frankly, that's the best way to do sequels anyway: set it in the same universe but take it in a different and unexpected direction. Everyone hates it when sequels retread over the same ground. To take one well-known example, the Halo game sequels basically recycled the premise of the first Halo game, except that they stretched it out over two episodes. They even ended with an almost identical climactic chase sequence. Lame.

[Stark]

I've always seen the 'to be continued' thing as an attempt to drum up popular expectation for a sequel and put pressure on money-men. They can then say 'look at this upsurge of demand for a sequel!'

And 18, don't forget how arty Braid is. It's better than REGULAR platformers with their puerile 'shooting'.

[Dooey Jo]

I have at least one game development book that explicitly advises to plan for sequels, and there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. The problem is of course unimaginative stories and sequels. I'm not sure whether it's marketing or developer idiocy either. The old Bond films managed to be self-contained stories yet spark interest a sequel by simply writing "James Bond will return", so if the developers actually were capable of writing a satisfying ending, yet had pressure from the marketing department/management to hype a possible sequel, surely they would do something like that instead. Or can they really think that a stupid cliffhanger will make people go "oh man I can't wait to buy the sequel" instead of "oh man I can't believe I almost paid 20 bucks for this shit"? Then again, their target demographic might actually enjoy that kind of thing, or don't care due to fanboyism...

[Zixinus]

Sequels are, by themselves, not the problem: the problem is relying on them.

It just works so well with the VG industry's marketing mindset: the most likely to be successful game is the one that resembles an already successful game.

You made a successful game. How do make another successful game? Make the successful game again, just with just enough difference to give the illusion that its a different, better games.

Far Cry 2: it has nothing to do with Far Cry 1, except perhaps the playing environment has some distant resemblance. So why name it Far Cry 2? Because Far Cry 1 was successful and there is enough on-first-sight resemblance to market it as a sequel. People know that Far Cry 1 was semi-good, so people will buy it.

[Edi]

All of the Thief games were self-contained and quite satisfying after the ending. They all leave room for more sequels, though less so in the case of the third one than the first two. They are all narrative games and while you can play each of them on their own, having played them in sequence enhances a lot of atmosphere stuff because there are in-universe references that help make sense of the plot.

The AvP series was also good with the sense of endings, the second more so than the first because the first did not have as involved a story arc.

The Witcher seems to have been done well, though I have yet to finish it due to various reasons.

[General Zod]

Say what you will about Metal Gear Solid's style of storytelling, but on the whole the games did a fairly good job of wrapping up all the important plot points in each title while leaving just enough room for a sequel down the road.

[Eleas]

All of the Thief games were self-contained and quite satisfying after the ending. They all leave room for more sequels, though less so in the case of the third one than the first two. They are all narrative games and while you can play each of them on their own, having played them in sequence enhances a lot of atmosphere stuff because there are in-universe references that help make sense of the plot.

Indeed; I was about to mention them but didn't, being wary of gushing beyond reasonable limits. Having said that... a particularly nice touch in the final chapter (which was, after all, the riskiest venture given the upheavals caused by Looking Glass' demise) was, I think, the denoument, in which Garrett echoes the words of his teacher from the first game in a sort of passing-the-torch moment. Scenes of this kind are a delicate business, and I think it a testament to the skill of both Stephen Russell and the team at Ion Storm that they managed to pull it off.

[Nephtys]

I think games don't really need too elaborate of endings if the process of getting there was good enough storyline wise, and not just wandering into the next corridor to blast some enemies with your bullet time dual wielded rocket howitzers.

One game that comes to mind is Vampire: Bloodlines. It had a pretty detailed storyline, interesting NPCs, and generally wrapped things up well after introducing you to a pretty notably detailed world. The ending(s) are pretty bare and minimal, but they get the job done in wrapping things up.

[Starglider]

'Lost Odyssey' (on the Xbox 360) had a good ending, quite detailed and wrapped everything up. I don't play the Final Fantasy games but I get the impression that they have decent endings too, because the sequels aren't required to use the same world and characters.

[General Zod]

'Lost Odyssey' (on the Xbox 360) had a good ending, quite detailed and wrapped everything up. I don't play the Final Fantasy games but I get the impression that they have decent endings too, because the sequels aren't required to use the same world and characters.

The earlier FF games wrap things up neatly in their endings, but later games (I'd say from 7 onwards), tend to be a mixed bag.

[Nephtys]

I think a cause for general dissatisfaction with a lot of newer games is a change in emphasis.

Back in the day (Nostalgia may as well be clogging everything I say), games that succeeded changed something. Everyone tried to make a new, innovative concept or simply and execute an older idea well with newer innovations. That gave you stuff like Jagged Alliance, X-COM, Total Annhilation, System Shock, Star Control 2, Wing Commander 3, Magic Carpet, Terra Nova, Homeworld, and other immortal classics.

Nowadays, most games require such a large budget that only massive entertainment companies can produce them. They take less risks, making the same shit with newer graphics and some gimmick mechanic (It's an FPS with BULLET TIME!) or somesuch (You gotta shoot their limbs off!). This also means that flashy first appearances are more important than delivering through on the experience with depth (Bioshock, Spore, etc).

Even if I suppose I do enjoy a few newer titles, but largely for other reasons. Supreme Commander for being a modern-esque TA, CoH for it's gameplay, and Dead Space for it's atmosphere come to mind.