Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
[POLL] WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MULTIPLE ENDINGS?
Poll
Do you like games with multiple endings? - Results
|
Yes, I do
|
|
35
|
40%
|
|
No, I don't
|
|
5
|
5%
|
|
It depends
|
|
47
|
54%
|
|
I don't know
|
|
0
|
0%
|
Posts
DR1988
0
DR1988
View playlists
CloseI hear someone enjoys "multiple endings" when playing, but that's never me :o
TBH when it comes to videogames, I don't see any benefit.
Most of the time, you will have to go over the whole game (depending on the genre, dozens of hours) again to only make a few (like 10 or less) different decisions, that do not influence the game content (other path on your journey? new/different maps and areas?) itself. Although many reviewers state things like "And the 10 different endings certainly add to the replay value/ keep you busy for hours", I don't think they do. If your behaviour effects the game, it should do so more than just in terms of a different ending. Sometimes you end up saving somewhere near endgame before "that" decision, finish, reload, make another decision, finish...
just for another ending cinematic? If so, you might as well watch all endings on YT :X
as far as the poll is concerned: I voted "no" simply because I wanted to :p
It's obvious that "it depends" is more accurate. It always depends on how good it's worked out.
If you get to choose between good and bad at the very begining of a game (or even form a complex personality throughout your journey and influence the experience), and THE WHOLE game experience massively alters - than it's necessary to have a different ending as well, I guess.
If you get to chose "save the world, or destroy it" in the very end and the cinematic relates to this... it's good for kicks, but nothing massively adding to the game.
The endings themself don't add. Maybe 0.001% but nothing major.
TBH when it comes to videogames, I don't see any benefit.
Most of the time, you will have to go over the whole game (depending on the genre, dozens of hours) again to only make a few (like 10 or less) different decisions, that do not influence the game content (other path on your journey? new/different maps and areas?) itself. Although many reviewers state things like "And the 10 different endings certainly add to the replay value/ keep you busy for hours", I don't think they do. If your behaviour effects the game, it should do so more than just in terms of a different ending. Sometimes you end up saving somewhere near endgame before "that" decision, finish, reload, make another decision, finish...
just for another ending cinematic? If so, you might as well watch all endings on YT :X
as far as the poll is concerned: I voted "no" simply because I wanted to :p
It's obvious that "it depends" is more accurate. It always depends on how good it's worked out.
If you get to choose between good and bad at the very begining of a game (or even form a complex personality throughout your journey and influence the experience), and THE WHOLE game experience massively alters - than it's necessary to have a different ending as well, I guess.
If you get to chose "save the world, or destroy it" in the very end and the cinematic relates to this... it's good for kicks, but nothing massively adding to the game.
The endings themself don't add. Maybe 0.001% but nothing major.
I think it completely depends on the kind of game your playing. Most RPGs
are story driven and as a developer I think I want my story to be strong.
Allowing players choices will probably lessen the impact of the story or
the feeling I want players to have after beating my game (even if its a bad feeling.)
Think of the number of real games that have done well with
multiple endings. And each ending is decent. (ie. not breath of fire 4
or final fantasy 10-2.)
DR1988
0
Hmmm, that's an interesting contribution. One game I remember to have different endings, and where I actually enjoyed this very fact (so again, it depends ^^) is Silent Hill 2. Story is one of it's strongest points, and confusion/wondering makes most of the story ^^
RyaReisender
200
The same reason people like open world western RPGs. People want to decide themselves what to do in the game.
I think a game that managed to execute it perfectly is Avernum - Escape From The Pit. It's basically about that there are huge underground caverns below the world and the Empire throws criminals down there even for minor offenses and you just get the background that you did some kind of minor offense and are thrown down there and one of the more important NPCs down there asks you what you actually want to do now that you are down there and presents you with three options, which are basically the 3 options you can imagine to begin with:
1. Find a way to escape from the caverns and go into hiding.
2. Revenge! Find a way to fight the empire.
3. Stay inside the caverns and try to create yourself a comfortable life by improving politics and other situations.
You aren't really forced to follow whatever you choose back then, though the NPC will give you some pointers where to go next. It allows you basically to do everything as long as you are strong enough.
Multiple endings aren't really necessary if the whole game is linear, though. That's hard to understand indeed. They claim it's replay value, but it actually isn't. Why would I want to play a 30 hours game again when everything is the same except for a few dialogues and a different ending scene?
And even if you have the choice to follow completely different paths, why not just make two games out of it?
In Soul Nomad & The World Eaters I really enjoyed the demon path, but you first had to play through the good path (though that's kind of important, the demon path wouldn't be as funny if you didn't know how the story would normally go). It's basically two games, though.
Well most games don't even manage to allow you being the bad guy properly. Either they punish you for being the bad guy, that it's not really a benefit at all or the consequences seem too little. Even if you destroy a whole village, why doesn't the king deploy an army to hunt you down?
I kinda liked in Soul Nomad that you get to be really evil, so evil that even the demons are scared of you. And you even get a proper ending and nothing like "oops you killed all NPCs, now nobody can give you quests anymore and you can't finish the game".
I think a game that managed to execute it perfectly is Avernum - Escape From The Pit. It's basically about that there are huge underground caverns below the world and the Empire throws criminals down there even for minor offenses and you just get the background that you did some kind of minor offense and are thrown down there and one of the more important NPCs down there asks you what you actually want to do now that you are down there and presents you with three options, which are basically the 3 options you can imagine to begin with:
1. Find a way to escape from the caverns and go into hiding.
2. Revenge! Find a way to fight the empire.
3. Stay inside the caverns and try to create yourself a comfortable life by improving politics and other situations.
You aren't really forced to follow whatever you choose back then, though the NPC will give you some pointers where to go next. It allows you basically to do everything as long as you are strong enough.
Multiple endings aren't really necessary if the whole game is linear, though. That's hard to understand indeed. They claim it's replay value, but it actually isn't. Why would I want to play a 30 hours game again when everything is the same except for a few dialogues and a different ending scene?
And even if you have the choice to follow completely different paths, why not just make two games out of it?
In Soul Nomad & The World Eaters I really enjoyed the demon path, but you first had to play through the good path (though that's kind of important, the demon path wouldn't be as funny if you didn't know how the story would normally go). It's basically two games, though.
Well most games don't even manage to allow you being the bad guy properly. Either they punish you for being the bad guy, that it's not really a benefit at all or the consequences seem too little. Even if you destroy a whole village, why doesn't the king deploy an army to hunt you down?
I kinda liked in Soul Nomad that you get to be really evil, so evil that even the demons are scared of you. And you even get a proper ending and nothing like "oops you killed all NPCs, now nobody can give you quests anymore and you can't finish the game".
I think people enjoy multiple endings out of curiosity for the multiple ways a certain story could end, depending on several factors, which can range from long-term choices done over the course of the game or simply finding out whether everything is worse off if you die during the final boss/battle/whatever.
If done right, it can really add quite a bit to a game and make it seem more meaningful, though the "meaningful" bit is up to personal perspective on the context of the game's chain of events and the resulting situations that come with them. Hell, they're fine to just add in for fun if they at least make some sort of sense logically or if you make them entertaining enough. I'd highly advise adding them in SOLELY for the sake of extra content, though; that's pretty unnecessary, and there's no point in adding multiple endings if you put no effort into making them engaging or making them have a lick of sense.
If done right, it can really add quite a bit to a game and make it seem more meaningful, though the "meaningful" bit is up to personal perspective on the context of the game's chain of events and the resulting situations that come with them. Hell, they're fine to just add in for fun if they at least make some sort of sense logically or if you make them entertaining enough. I'd highly advise adding them in SOLELY for the sake of extra content, though; that's pretty unnecessary, and there's no point in adding multiple endings if you put no effort into making them engaging or making them have a lick of sense.
Jonnie91
486
I agree with Zachcheatscrackers
if you want to have an additional ending, it needs to have a reasoning for it.
If, when you developing your game you go, "ooh I should put another ending in there because it will make my game longer..." then it might be that you are concentrating more on adding bulk to your story when it shouldn't have it...
however, if you are looking at your story which is almost completely developed and you see an idea that would add more to your story and they engage the game further, and provide another way of developing your characters or world without causing more hell. Then go for it :)
just make sure that it is canon to the rest of your story, and it makes sense, nothing worse than an entirely random ending coming out from nowhere and ruining what is a brilliant single ending story ^_^
if you want to have an additional ending, it needs to have a reasoning for it.
If, when you developing your game you go, "ooh I should put another ending in there because it will make my game longer..." then it might be that you are concentrating more on adding bulk to your story when it shouldn't have it...
however, if you are looking at your story which is almost completely developed and you see an idea that would add more to your story and they engage the game further, and provide another way of developing your characters or world without causing more hell. Then go for it :)
just make sure that it is canon to the rest of your story, and it makes sense, nothing worse than an entirely random ending coming out from nowhere and ruining what is a brilliant single ending story ^_^
Crystalgate
694
I'm not very found of multiple endings. Usually, it doesn't really add much to the game for me. Either there's one "best" ending and often some are premature endings meaning you're expected to reload the game and avoid said ending. If the game's going to have multiple endings, I would prefer if the endings are such that there's a big disagreement regarding which ending is the best (both in terms of story telling and in terms of happiness.)
One thing I would like to see a lot though is endings with minor variations. You optionally save one person and that person shows up in the ending. If you don't save her/him, that person just doesn't show up and nothing big changes.
One thing I would like to see a lot though is endings with minor variations. You optionally save one person and that person shows up in the ending. If you don't save her/him, that person just doesn't show up and nothing big changes.
ubon
66
author=Crystalgate
If the game's going to have multiple endings, I would prefer if the endings are such that there's a big disagreement regarding which ending is the best (both in terms of story telling and in terms of happiness.)
this is pretty much the ideal for me, too. a well-done branching ending will give the player an ending that feels natural, logical, and appropriate to their experience in the game so far. like Silent Hill 2 branching based on James' strength of character and Dark Souls branching based on who the player believes (and not being an obvious branching choice, either -- only someone who wants to challenge the artificial status quo created by the (x) will even try leaving the (y) in the first place), and so on. that's excellent personalization and excellent control, respectively.
thatbennyguy
1612
What about the Walking Dead-style ending, where there is one ending but several eventualities leading up to that single ending? That is what I believe a lot of games should be like, because some games include multiple endings as unnecessary addons to "entice" the player. However, I'll be honest, I'm unlikely to play through your game more than once unless it's *really* good. Maybe I'm weird, but that's just how I feel.
Aegix_Drakan
6037
author=thatbennyguy
But here's something I don't understand... why is the possibility of multiple endings more exciting to people than a single ending? Is it the feeling that you have control over the eventuality of events?
This. People like to feel like they have the power to make a meaningful decision so they can look back and go "Yeah, that ending was MINE. I chose it.".
On the subject of multiple endings, I'm neutral on the subject. I think it can be really good, or really bad depending on how they are implemented.
Personally, I tend to dislike straight up "good or evil" morality bars that decide everything. So few games get it right (say Infamous 2).
I prefer keeping straight up morality out of my choices, and instead having smaller consequences happen based on your choices (still don't have a game done that utilizes these, though). Either that or a "faction" system, where your choices impact how certain groups see you, and that changes things up. That way it's not "Be a hero or be an asshole", but rather a gradual shifting towards several ways of thinking and way from others until you know which one to side with fully.
Then again, the only game I have done so far has 3 endings...which amounts to basically "Here, you have 3 choices to pick. Choose one, and you get your ending. 2 of which are 'bad', and one that's supposed to be ambiguous, but since it's not as depressing as the first two, it'll feel like a good ending". >_> Not my best work. But I did most of the game in 2 weeks, so...
Anyway, I don't want to judge RPGmaker games for not having super deep choice mechanics. It requires whole new amounts of content to be made, which takes a lot of time, and most people won't replay RPGmaker games anyway, so they'll miss out on the extra content you worked on.
amerk
2539
I had an idea for a game I was going to make, and may still. Basically, if the heroes run off to face the first of their villainous foes before getting a special weapon, they'll die and get a bad ending. Likewise, afterwards, the player must consult with the same mystic where they got the previous weapon on defeating the final boss. The player also has the option of completing a side quest.
If the player doesn't do either of them (consult with the mystic or complete the side quest) they will get a bad ending, since it's all tied into the story. If they choose to do the side quest but not consult with the mystic, they will get an average ending. If they choose to consult with the mystic (whether or not they complete the side quest), they will get a good ending.
So it really depends. But for me, I like the ending tied into the choices I made, since it gives me a reason to replay the game and make new choices. Likewise, I only like to have about 2 or 3 endings to achieve (usually good, bad, average). Anything more just appears redundant, and I probably won't bother getting them anyways.
If the player doesn't do either of them (consult with the mystic or complete the side quest) they will get a bad ending, since it's all tied into the story. If they choose to do the side quest but not consult with the mystic, they will get an average ending. If they choose to consult with the mystic (whether or not they complete the side quest), they will get a good ending.
So it really depends. But for me, I like the ending tied into the choices I made, since it gives me a reason to replay the game and make new choices. Likewise, I only like to have about 2 or 3 endings to achieve (usually good, bad, average). Anything more just appears redundant, and I probably won't bother getting them anyways.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
That is a perfect example of the type of superficial system I don't like because it adds nothing to the game. The extra endings aren't things anyone would ever intentionally get; they're just Game Over screens. Giving the player a game over because he skipped something that you told him was optional is bullshit. If you simply locked the player out of continuing the game until he did those things, instead of making them "optional," the only difference would be that I wouldn't waste an hour fighting bosses before I was supposed to three different times.
amerk
2539
In the real world if I take my fists to a gun fight, I'm likely going to wind up with a bad ending (I'll be killed). But if I make sure to go out and buy a gun and load it up with bullets I have a chance at a good ending (I may actually live to see another day).
While I don't think gaming needs to incorporate every aspect of the real world, giving the player a bit of free will that could change the outcome of the story sounds reasonable. Not everything has to follow a strict linear path.
When you're playing it, you're free to get the best ending possible by completing everything you can do. You're not being forced to go back and get the bad and average endings, if you don't want. Others who wish to see all the endings have that choice.
While I don't think gaming needs to incorporate every aspect of the real world, giving the player a bit of free will that could change the outcome of the story sounds reasonable. Not everything has to follow a strict linear path.
When you're playing it, you're free to get the best ending possible by completing everything you can do. You're not being forced to go back and get the bad and average endings, if you don't want. Others who wish to see all the endings have that choice.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
That's not freedom. That's just giving them a game over for not reading your mind.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
author=amerk
When you're playing it, you're free to get the best ending possible by completing everything you can do. You're not being forced to go back and get the bad and average endings, if you don't want. Others who wish to see all the endings have that choice.
The way I can see this going south is that your typical player, even if they should complete all of these "optional" side quests, would do them regardless if its implied that they would benefit greatly from doing them as it affects the story in a way that seems mandatory. Making them "optional" seems redundant if you straight up tell them "hey, you should probably do these" with the intention being the means to unlocking the game's only true "good" ending. If I play the game through to completion, I'd expect an ending that satisfies how the story played out instead of an ending where it's clear nothing I could have done instinctively would have made it better (The Way had this).
J-Man
4684
I don't mind the thought of multiple endings, the only way it kills my motivation to continue the game is if you miss a part in the game so vital that the ending you receive is more or less meaningless.
I like to end a game with a ending that's satisfying, not an ending where it just makes me wonder why I bothered putting in ye amount of time to complete.
I like to end a game with a ending that's satisfying, not an ending where it just makes me wonder why I bothered putting in ye amount of time to complete.
LockeZ
I'd really like to get rid of LockeZ. His play style is way too unpredictable. He's always like this too. If he ran a country, he'd just kill and imprison people at random until crime stopped.
5958
Yeah, this thread made me start thinking, and as a result I've decided that a "bad ending" and a "game over" are actually exactly the same thing. And so you should treat the requirements for the player to get them the same.
In other words, if you gave a player a game over because they didn't talk to a hidden NPC who was invisible to the camera in the final dungeon, or because they accidentally killed one of their own characters 40 hours earlier in the game when they had no way of knowing they weren't allowed to and doing so was tactically useful, or because they missed pressing the X button during a 0.5 second phase of a game where that was the only reaction-based gameplay in the entire game and there was no prompt to tell them to press the X button at all, that is utter bullshit and you should be fired as a game designer. Giving them a bad ending for doing those things is no different.
(bad ending requirements for FF9, Disgaea, and Suikoden 2, respectively)
In other words, if you gave a player a game over because they didn't talk to a hidden NPC who was invisible to the camera in the final dungeon, or because they accidentally killed one of their own characters 40 hours earlier in the game when they had no way of knowing they weren't allowed to and doing so was tactically useful, or because they missed pressing the X button during a 0.5 second phase of a game where that was the only reaction-based gameplay in the entire game and there was no prompt to tell them to press the X button at all, that is utter bullshit and you should be fired as a game designer. Giving them a bad ending for doing those things is no different.
(bad ending requirements for FF9, Disgaea, and Suikoden 2, respectively)
Crystalgate
694
A game over is practically a bad ending, the bad guy wins, world is destroyed and so on. Most players would feel cheated if they got a game over for other reasons than failing, say you get to choose between two doors and picking the wrong one gets you a game over. So, it makes sense if people also feel cheated if they get a bad ending for other reasons than failing.
