Slashdot Mirror
Game Endings Going Out of Style?
An article in the Guardian asks whether the focus of modern games has shifted away from having a clear-cut ending and toward indefinite entertainment instead. With the rise of achievements, frequent content updates and open-ended worlds, it seems like publishers and developers are doing everything they can to help this trend. Quoting:
"Particularly before the advent of 'saving,' the completion of even a simple game could take huge amounts of patience, effort and time. The ending, like those last pages of a book, was a key reason why we started playing in the first place. Sure, multiplayer and arcade style games still had their place, but fond 8, 16 and 32-bit memories consist more of completion and satisfaction than particular levels or tricky moments. Over the past few years, however, the idea of a game as simply something to 'finish' has shifted somewhat. For starters, the availability of downloadable content means no story need ever end, as long as the makers think there's a paying audience. Also, the ubiquity of broadband means multiplayer gaming is now the standard, not the exception it once was. There is no real 'finish' to most MMORPGs."
For MMOs, I think this is forgivable. After all, they're supposed to be persistent worlds. That said, a competent MMO developer will set up storylines for players to work through (either at their own pace, or a pace forced by in-game world events). The two MMOs I've played both do this; WoW and Final Fantasy XI. I understand that the real masters in this field are Codemasters, with Lord of the Rings Online, but a variety of other factors have always kept me away from that game. Interestingly, I understand that Blizzard will actually be adding a proper ending cutscene in the next WoW patch, for guilds that manage to take down Arthas. Given this will be the culmination of a major plot arc that kicked off years ago in Warcraft 3, I heartily approve.
For non-MMO story-based, however, I do want a story with a definite beginning, middle and end. This isn't to say that the game can't continue after the story has ended; I much preferred the way the Broken Steel DLC allowed you to continue exploring the Capital Wastelands in Fallout 3, after you'd beaten the original game and the continuation story. However, if your game has a story, that story needs an ending, even if this ending is open enough to allow for continuation.
My real bug-bear are the games which eschew a real ending because they're angling for a sequel (or even an entire franchise), but never deliver on this. In my opinion, unless you already have funding in place for a sequel, you should avoid tagging a cliff-hanger ending onto your game. Doesn't mean you can't continue the story later if you want to; look at the first Star Wars movie - it has a perfectly satisfactory ending in itself, but still allowed for sequels. Then with funding secure, Empire was able to have an appropriate cliff-hanger ending. But if your ending is "the real story is just beginning" and then you never do continue it, then I'm definitely not impressed.
It's not just games that suffer from this. So many TV shows are developed these days with the philosophy that you should continue making series until your audience figures fall low enough to shut you down. If there's an ending at all, only a tiny number of ultra-hardcore viewers ever see it. We're being bombarded with stories that have a beginning and an endless middle, but no ending. Sometimes, ending a show can be the best thing that's ever happened to it. I understand this was the case with the original Mobile Suit Gundam, which flew completely below the radar (probably because it wasn't very good) until the staff were told that they were being terminated, at which point they gave it a proper storyline and ending. The result - the show got noticed and went on to become a genuine cultural phenomenon in Japan (and attracted a good bit of nerdly attention in the wider world), with sequels and reimaginings running for decades.
To MMORPGs you can also add "sandbox" games, where the player would probably prefer being able to roam around rather than being forcibly kicked out.
But other than that, I struggle to think of games that lacked a real ending. Fable 2? MGS4? Dragon Age? The concept of endings still seems pretty entrenched.
All arcade, most Atari 2600 and some NES games had no ending and consisted of stacking more and more points, until your thumbs bled or the PCB fried. That was the whole fun of it. The old school-way to do it.
It's when games started telling stories (example, Final Fantasy) that we had elaborate plots and game endings.
But now with the MMORPG craze, every publisher wants a piece of the action (and profit). Game endings are out, micro payments, subscriptions, DLCs are in.
It'll be a truly sad day when all we have to play are Disney MMO, Star Wars MMO, Warcraft MMO, Sonic MMO, Tomb Raider MMO, Halo MMO, etc.
My memory of classic games is of games that you'd have to be superhuman to finish.
Games like Thrust, that do have a set number of levels - but then you play through again with reverse gravity, then with invisible landscapes, then with both at once.
Or Chuckie Egg, where you end up contending with all the enemies at once, turned invisible.
Elite didn't stop when you reached Elite status. You could play on and on.
Yes, there were also games on home computers and 8/16 bit consoles with a beginning, middle and end , and a "Congraturations" page.
But open ended games came first, and since then it's always been the case that both types of game were out there.
So MDK is out and Tetris is in?
You can't handle the truth.
I have a PSP with custom firmware and I went back and played some of those old games and, for me, the "patience, effort and time" needed to play the same damn levels over and over again (because I kept dying at the same key spot!) began to wear very thin very quickly.
Sometimes I think we look back on old games with too much nostalgia. Whilst there are undoubtedly some really good games, a lot of them were just an exercise in frustration and slow methodical progress - something I don't derive much enjoyment from any more.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
What the article fails to mention is the underlying reason for this: resale. If a gamer finishes the game it is done, a coaster in a pretty box. If the game always has something left to do, whether in the form of downloadable content, achievements, replayability or open endedness, it will retain some value and not end up traded in for a new game quite so soon. The game resale market may seem pretty small (mostly because stores take a huge second profit margin on them), but add to that the number of copies lended to a friend or rented for the weekend. In the end significantly more people will buy their own box if it provides limitless enjoyment.
In my opinion adding more value to a game is the most customer friendly way to do it. Far better than strong arming stores to not take trade ins or locking installations to hardware, creditcard and so on.
Depends on the MMO... The one I am currently playing has LOTS of endings... and also lots of beginnings. As with any good game or story, it is composed of a whole bunch of substories, each of which can (somewhat) stand on its own to some extent, within the framework of the overall game.
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
Another dumb article proclaiming the death of something. Counter-examples would include Half-Life 2 and the episodes, and single player in Modern Warfare. In fact Modern Warfare 2 is quite short, this seems to be the way many mass-market games are now going. And really it's not that hard to get the ending in SMG (as opposed to 120 stars). Some people don't have time to play all the games they want (myself included), so I try to be selective so the games I do play so I get a conclusion to the story. On the other hand I didn't like Bioshock so much, so didn't complete it, this is no different to the situation in the past.
The "ending" is not going out of style. But instead of one "grand ending" there are now more smaller ones. While reaching a big ending may be quite satisfying, not all players are able to achieve it with 20-40 hours of gaming time. So several small endings may help them to enjoy games more. If this is good or bad depends on the individual taste.
I remember from my WoW-times, that killing Ragnaros or Lady Vashji (which were only small endings) for the first time was vastly more satisfying than any other game ending. Small endings does not mean small satisfaction.
CU, Martin
There is no real 'finish' to most MMORPGs.
Duke Nukem 3D was one of the last multiplayer games to feature a cool ending. 3D Realms then decided to set a new trend of never-ending MMORPGs with Duke Nukem Forever. Playing other MMORPGs while waiting for the release of Duke Nukem Forever is the first never-ending MMORPG.
One big change in modern game endings is the fact that it doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment to finish a games. Games these days generally have mid-level checkpoints and infinite continues, so there's no satisfaction in reaching the end. You just feel like endlessly grinding to the end. Also, the concept of "completing" a game has changed. Whereas it once meant clearing all the stages in a game, completion might mean unlocking all the game content (e.g. 100% completion levels in Gran Turismo, or getting all the "achievements" in some titles).
Freedom is drinking a beer in the park when you're supposed to be at work.
I guess games switched from book to comics style. Always save a room for a sequel, or a spin-off, or even a mix-up with another game (Mortal Kombat vs DC Universe, for example). But it doesn't mean a single release won't have an end, that's impossible. What can really disappear, is games with multiple endings like Deus Ex or Fahrenheit, because they give sequel makers a pain in the ass (think Deus Ex 2).
You can compare gaming to the movie and TV industry. Games designed with no end in sight are like TV shows whose life is controlled by the interest of the public, where other games with definite endings could be compared to movies. Sure TV shows do give you that feeling of really getting to grips with the characters and the story, and lore.. But who turns down a great Movie for that dose of fast paced intense action? If gaming with set endings ever came to an end, it would truly be a horrible state of affairs for the gaming world. IMHO that feeling of "clocking" a game should never vanish.
The article mentioned something about open ended worlds, score grindeing, and top scores.
This has nothing to do with an ending. If a game has a story (MMOs excepted), it will most likely have a clear cut end of the story, but if you get a chance to continue after the end is a completely different thing. Its called replay value. Take Fallout 3 as an example, it has a clear cut end, but is has a DLC that unlocks gameplay after your done. This is not to continue the story, but rather give you the opportunity to extend and fill the gaps you miss if you don't do every side quest there is in the game. I would call it a rich story with the unfortunate side effect of having to much detail for the average gamer joe to be playable if mandatory.
Most open ended games are like this.
NT
"It's incredibly frustrating to READ through to the end OF A POST and have no conclusion, and have no real idea whether the end will be in sight at all.
---
Sig voted off the show: "+1 Funny is a battle between writing something smart enough to earn it vs. a mod who didn't get it."
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The ending, like those last pages of a book, was a key reason why we started playing in the first place.
Really? I don't recall this. For me the pleasures in the play. While certain games need to work out to some kind of resolution I do not play just to get to the end. Nor have I ever read a book just to get to the end. A few movies out there are pretty mediocre until the end but I rarely find the ending so good that I'm willing to put up with 1.5-3 hours of crap for a fantastic 5 minutes at the end.
For some games, I can see that there's no need for an ending (the 'arena' styles). For many (personally, I'm an RPG fan, and love story), there needs to be an end. Or at least a 'volume end', where you can say a subplot has finished, though the world goes on.
With DLC, I think it may well be that the world does carry on, and producers will make the longer episodic content where the 'end' of the main story still has the characters with 'loose ends' to tie up, and hints that more will be going on.. That will allow greater engine and world reuse, giving more content per release, and longer story arcs than possible with individual releases.
'Ends' meet a nice psychological satisfaction point. You've seen the trials, tribulations and interplay that creates an end point, and you get to reap the rewards of your endeavours (so, multiple endings should be de-facto these days; play the way you want, and get the reward you deserve). You get the 'payoff' that keeps people striving for something. Nothing wrong with having sequential 'ends' and ongoing subplots, but in a lot of games, certainly for the story minded (which is quite a few), I don't think true 'endless' games, especially in single player, would work that well in the long term..
Games should be about the journey, -not- the ending. If a bad ending can ruin the entire game for you, then you're playing them wrong.
Personally, I prefer games that have an 'ending' but then allow you to continue playing anyhow. End of the storyline shouldn't mean end of my playtime. Fallout3 made this mistake, then fixed it with some DLC. There were a -lot- of complaints about the game ending after the final quest.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
Whatever happens, even if they stop doing it right now... I could be playing and finishing games 50 years from now and I will still wait for the credits to finish rolling on the off chance there is something at the end. I will no doubt get that awkward, "so.... do I turn the console off now then or?" feeling as well.
..my ADHD stops from getting even close to the end of a
This is the ending from Eye of the Beholder, fast forward to 4:45
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmbryaF6pU
After killing Xanathar, you get 2 pages of text and throw out into C:\>
Slashdot is my favorite MMORPG with no ending and I'll keep playing it as long as at least once a week someone here ask to subscribe to my newsletter. Ok, now gimme some lovin', group hug!
Video game endings have always been of interest to me. Ever since my siblings and I first starting Super Mario Bros. in the 1980s, that and subsequent game completions were fun to discuss and play around with. We discovered that turning the volume all the way up on the TV during the ending song produced a much different sounding song and purposefully annoyed the adults around. Then one of us beat Castlevaina 2: Simon's quest and I discovered not only that game endings could have awesome, uplifting music, but that there could be alternate endings!. The simple fact that there were 2 endings gave the game great value in re-playability. Fast forward to today and game endings have less of an impact. More emphasis goes to the 'completion' of a game, as in getting 100% achievements or the equivalent. You also have to factor in the cliff-hanger endings. Too many games leave it open to a possible sequel. As the area matures even further I'm sure things will continue to change.
Not all books, films, or games need to wrap everything up in one installment. Pick up Fellowship of the Ring sometime and let me know how much you would enjoy the series if you stopped right there. Do the same with any other famous trilogy or long running series. The Empire Strikes Back certainly didn't end with everything tidied up in the story-arc department.
Just because we've become used to single, stand-alone, do it once and be done with it video game packages, doesn't mean they all have to be that way, or that entertainment in general is best appreciated in that format.
I personally enjoy when a game remains open-ended. I don't mind cliffhanger endings as long as the experience is rewarding. The key is making the experience rewarding. That's the reason I purchase games like Dragon Age. I want the game to continue. I want the expansions and extended content. It's the same reason I read series like Game of Thrones. I like my characters and established universe to keep going.
That isn't to say you can't have story in there with pivotal points, such as the climax of Dragon Age, or the end of A Song of Fire and Ice, but I know in each case that there will be more to come, and it isn't over. That's a good thing if done properly.
There's room for both sorts of stories. There always has been and there always will be.
End games pretty much died when they decided to have franchises that constantly regurgitate the same story. This goes back for as long as I have been playing games. Wing Commander, Wolfenstien, Donkey Kong, Pac Man.... there is always a sequel, story, and never ending story.... Now games are have no ending because the dev cycle has shrunk and demand is the same..
It isn't the ending that's going out of style, it's the plot.
The reason we had an ending before, is because we had a plot. There was a beginning a middle and an end. Exposition, rising action, climax, and resolution. These days a lot of games don't have much of a plot.
Instead, you'll have a setting... You're some random soldier in WWII, or a grunt running around World of Warcraft... And there really isn't any exposition or climax or anything like that... It's just kind of a day in the life of...
And that's fine for something like an MMO or a multiplayer-oriented FPS or something...
But I'm starting to see single-player games that don't have much of a plot either. Individual missions/levels/whatever might have some kind of plot to them... Maybe you're trying to keep the enemy from capturing the fuel dump or whatever... But the game as a whole is just kind of a collection of random missions strung together. There isn't any real story being told - other than these are the things that this guy did.
And when you have no overall plot, you can't really have much of an ending.
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
How do you keep open the possibility of making more movies using the same characters.... ...a bit like Chevy Chase back in the day...)
a small but not very finished ending.
Take for example the hardcore movie Wolverine Origins (XMen). The ending with deadpool's head being severed but then his eyes still opening after it takes a fall down the 100feet high silo....makes me think they might want to imply that they technically could do some
Deadpool movie should there be an interest, as we all know how hard Deadpool is to kill. I actually liked deapool and thought the director made a very successful attempt at introducing him as a sort of interesting character. As for using ryan renolds to play him, well that does have merit (when you think of which comedian could actually pull off his comic awareness ability...speaking to the camera
Anyways, video games are now more successful then movies, and grossing so much revenue that really, this was the next logical step...
splinter cell 3,4,5,6,7....11,22,33....105,106... it does not matter as long as there is an audience.
Japanese TV stations put their most high profile dramas on at popular times just like American TV stations. But what's interesting from an outside perspective is that these are constantly new stories, usually either 13 or 26 episodes long, with beginnings, middles, and ends.
Yes, there are sequels sometimes, but usually these involve the same characters with a completely new problem/story that also has a beginning, middle, and end.
While I'm not a huge fan of TV dramas, a few of these have sucked me in because the writers move the story along, and it makes it a lot more interesting to know that questions will be answered, and things do get resolved somehow. What gets the audiences to watch the new shows is that they often recycle the same popular actors, just in different roles.
In contrast, I've seen very little of this on American TV, except from things like "special series" on HBO. And yes, Japan has it's share of never-ending stories, but it's interesting that the most popular time slots are often filled with these "complete story" dramas.
Single player RPGs also seem to be more popular when I look at the game isle in Japan, than when I look in America. And I'll often see advertisements for them (more than when in the states). I think this is where we can still find the complete story arches and the big endings.
Just like TV, there's a following of certain people involved in the games (like Akira Toriyama doing the art for example).
In Japan, there seems to be more of an emphasis on who is involved in these projects (TV or game), and perhaps that's what leads to more completed stories. With a famous person involved, they can always make a new story with confidence that it will sell. There is also more control over these famous people as they are much less like free-agents, and more like company people, doing the projects the company sets up for them. And there's an audience willing to pay for a new story when someone they like is involved in making it.
The 2 games the article mentions for having scant endings are Fallout 3 and GTA 4. These were made by American companies using a popular name for their game. The names were the selling point, not the studio or the people that made them. Most of the games from the 8, 16, or 32-bit eras the article has nostalgia for were made by Japanese companies.
While I can think of exceptions on both sides of the Pacific, there seems to be more of an emphasis on the completed story in entertainment from the Japanese side. At least that's my anecdotal impression.
I've been playing the recent Tales of Monkey Island WiiWare games/chapters, and they most definitely have clear cut endings.
For us it's been a great way to have some friends over and get back into adventure gaming. The endings are welcome, a chapter can be completed in 3-4 hours, giving a great signal when to stop, get to bed, and schedule the next time.
I believe there has always been and will always be games with and without endings. And there are hybrid approaches too: For example in Super Mario Galaxy you keep playing after you've rescued Princess Peach from Bowser. The credits roll, the game ends in a sense, but you still get to go back and unlock more stuff and look for hidden levels etc...
.: Max Romantschuk
I have to say, COD: Modern Warfare had one of the most satisfying endings I've ever played through. Part of it was the fact that you knew you were near the end when you were playing it - it wasn't an abrupt "Mission Accomplished: Game Over!"
One of the things that was perhaps best for the Stargate Atlantis and SG-1 series was that they were fairly faithful to their "meme" throughout the series, and then came to a fairly definitive conclusion.
OK, well actually in the case of Atlantis the wraith are still out there etc - which might leave room for a movie - but the series was "completed" rather than be allowed to trail off until it was just a murmuring gurgle as it was pulled off life support.
IMHO, Atlantis was a fairly successful way to "conclude" one series (SG-1) and start another. There's a definitive relation between the two, and even cameos and intersecting plot-arcs, but the overall focus of the two series was different enough to lend it some uniqueness, and the characters were different between the two.
Unfortunately SG-U seems to break-down because, while having a new setting and characters, it also tries was too hard to focus on some fairly tired memes and doesn't seem to have nearly as strong a plot base as its predecessors.
It depends on the gamers but endings really don't mean much to me. The first game I ever completed personally was Nonterraqueous on the Spectrum... it took ages, I had my father/brother mapping my progress as I went (we were going to send it in to a magazine but, the next day, they published someone else's map of it!) and, yes, it was fun to finish it. But since then, an ending doesn't really mean much at all... I don't think I really complete the majority of games I play that *could* be completed... at some point, it stops being entertainment and starts being "training" and that's not why I play games.
My family have completed just about every Mario game in existence (including those stupid 100-levels things in the Paper Mario's) but we don't get satisfaction from finishing and frequently it's a curve - our excitement builds as we go through all the levels and unlock the last worlds and then when it gets to the tedious "You must have 50 stars / do 100 levels / beat these last ten extraordinarily difficult levels" part, our enthusiasm drops off and it becomes a chore. We usually push past that, mainly because we play those games as a family, but there's little sense of achievement when we do finish things.
And we play a lot more games that don't have any ending at all... this has been true for *years* - Gauntlet never had an ending (except on NES, I believe) but it's still a brilliant game to play. You do find yourself setting little "achievements" in those sorts of games sometimes ("Let's get to level 100 and then leave it", "Let's get further than last time", "Let's do it without skipping levels", etc.) but they are just entertainment. I can't remember the last time I *didn't* skip a cutscene / end sequence when it was possible... possibly Half-Life 2, but I had a lot of time on my hands when I was playing that and did the full HL2+Ep1+Ep2 run through in a couple of days.
Endings are really finalisations of plot and reward for those players dedicated enough. I get my reward from my own achievements (which sometimes include things like "I'll see if I can get that Steam achievement this time", admittedly) and from just playing the game. Plot is really secondary to me because even when it's excellent, it gets in the way of my freedom and play-time. To me, games for play-time, I'm under no illusion of that as an adult... I don't consider them artwork, or anything else, they are just some play-time. If I want plot, I watch a movie or (better) read a book. When I pick up a game, I just want to play.
The only way I've seen it work is to end the game for everyone in the MMO. For example, there was a web-based MMO called "FaitH" that ran roughly 2000-2007. It was a real time strategy game where people had abstract kingdoms (the group was a "kingdom" and the individuals were "emperors", I kid you not) and launched various "attacks" on rival kingdoms. The game ran in cycles called "eras" about 2-3 months long. The goal of the game was to harm other players. You could receive points for growing big (that was a valid strategy), but most of the time, the real points were in hideously bloody battles (the bloodier, the better). At the start of an era, everyone grew up as fast they could. Then the middle stretch (which lasted most of the game) involved a long, brutal grind of coordinated attacks and spells (usually some sort of speed up or war boost) among members of the kingdom. Finally, there was "Chaos" (I'm not spelling it right) where score from anything bloodshed-related was doubled or tripled. A lot of stuff was saved up for that. Then the era end, scores were calculated, and a huge list issued of everyone who played - sorted by score. Shortly thereafter, a new era would start.
A second approach was used by a web-based game called "Kings of Loathing", a parody of fantasy RPGs like WoW and Final Fantasy series. The player levels up, defeating more and more powerful monsters. At some point, they reach the final stage where the big boss (called the "Nasty Sorceress") is finally defeated and then the player reincarnates as a new player. As a reward, the player gets to keep a single skill permanently throughout the rest of their career (their stuff can be carried over, depending on the difficulty the player chooses).
To be honest, I can't think of other natural ways to end a player experience in an MMO except to end it for everyone in a big bang or to have some sort of reincarnation as a new player with a little something carried over from the old character. The fundamental constraint of MMOs is that they want the player to come back and play again. If you play through and finish, then what's going to draw you back?
In terms of profitability, an MMO etc makes more case because it requires continual investment. However a game with an ending also makes cash because what do you do when it's done... well, buy another game. Look at the Final Fantasy series. Some very basic relation between them all, but - ignoring the MMO - they all for the most-part had stories, fixed endings, and successors that sell very nicely.
As a general fan of the series, I can attest that those that have been long-term players of the series *salivate* at a new title, and certainly don't mind when one reaches the ending. That a given plot is done and is no longer to be milked is NOT a bad thing. Yes, there are crappy spinoffs like FFX-2 or "Revenant Wings," but even if they never occurred you'd still have a fairly defined ending to the originals.
Yes, I'm sure that monthly payments of $9.99 and a few shots of $30+ for addons is nice in MMO-land. But having a veritable army of geeks salivating over your next RPG (non-MMO) release with pre-orders starting at $60 is probably a pretty good sell as well.
There's also STILL a good market for remakes, for example the older NES/SNES Final Fantasy series updated for the Nintendo DS, or a good many other games that have received facelifts. I know there were a lot of people rather ticked at the unfulfilled tech demo of the PS3 (a clip from Final Fantasy VI that never actually became a full game remake), which if actually produced into a game would like have been another big money-maker.
Yes, I'm concentrating on games like Final Fantasy in particular, mainly because RPG's tend to have more in plot-land, but there are plenty of others like Zelda (heck, they sell well even though often enough the essential plot was the same), Dragon Warrior, and even Mario Bros.
An MMO that creates a continual system of revenue is a good cash-cow. It does require some maintenance (hosting, etc, see especially the issues with EVE) though and can eventually die as new MMOs come out. A solid play-through game (or movie) is a one-time investment that can still rake in a whole lot of cash, though, and a definitive ending doesn't mean that the game as a concept dies, or even that a series with a different "spin" can't evolve from it.
Tetris has an ending, but fewer than a dozen people have seen it. For one thing, you have to be good enough to move three pieces into place per second or more, even when they disappear after locking into place. Watch this video and fast forward to five minutes in.
In Prototype there was a full story with a satisfying ending. After the ending, you still had the whole world to continue playing in much as before. Gathering more secrets, killing more bases, improving your character etc.
I didn't play TOO much after the ending but it was still fun.
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
I've never played any of the MMOGs out there for one reason: When I play a game I'm looking for entertainment, not commitment.
Between career, marriage, kids, and trying to be involved in the community, I don't have time to sit down and dedicate hours a day to a game. If I did, then I would be doing it to the detriment of those other things. A game is just a game. Those other things are real life.
So when I look for a game to play, I look for a game that doesn't demand you spend a minimum amount of time with it in order for it to be enjoyable or has a large learning curve before it becomes enjoyable.
Recently, nearly all of my gaming (maybe 3 hours a week) is spent playing ROMS of old 8-bit and 16-bit Nintendo games. One exception to this is Wii Fit Plus. But I don't consider that a game as much as an exercise program.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
Fallout 3's and Dragon Age's endings were both disappointing. But, Bioshock's was good. I think a couple of weak endings isn't enough to say that companies are moving away from endings. They still had endings. Using DLC as an example of a movement away from endings seems off. First, they don't usually stop the game from having it's original ending. Most DLC packs that add quests do so in the middle of the game. Those packs even have a "mini-ending".
Packs like Fallout 3's DLC that allowed people to play past the "ending" might redefine the word "ending" a little(since it doesn't really END the game). But, the big boss you beat is still there. So is the cutscene. And, actually, if you compare Fallout 3 to Fallout 2, the DLC is a movement BACK to the older style. Fallout 2 allowed one to play after the "ending".
However, really, considering games as a financial enterprise: I invest most of my time throughout the game. I don't want a huge investment at the end. Sure, maybe the coolest cutscene could go at the end, but I don't want the investment in the rest of the game to suffer because of the investment in the ending.
Dragon Age's ending had a solid hint at a sequel, but it was nicely done. It had a definite ending-it just said something like "Other things happened, but that's another story..." There were some plotlines open, but the main story was pretty much wrapped up. That's good. In the real world, you solve problems, but there are always more problems. Nothing ever completely ends. Movies sometimes do that too-I remember one of the Conan movies ending that way. I don't know if I'll like the way Starcraft 2 seems to be coming, though. They present the first Starcraft 2 as the first 1/3 of the story.
Although the ending leaves a possible sequel, it seems a whole lot more like a 'whoops - ran out of money' ending.
Congraturation!
A Winner is You!
...Is a prime example of this.
One where at the end you gun down your ally from the first half of the game like a punk when you think he has betrayed you, then you get surrounded by soldiers and the credit take over with gunshots being heard behind them....
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
end of story = end of cashflow. pure and simple. mmorpg's have to be set up this way... keep people playing, keep them paying. only a matter of time before pretty much all games are like this.
And all that stuff expires IE: gets deleted!
If the stuff expires IE and deletes it, at least he got something worthwhile for those U$ 50.
The Guardian obviously hasn't been playing any adventure games.
Small endings, but multiple ones.
New Economic Perspectives
Games have never been strong on story and no so many companies rely on sequels. An ending would just be a waste of time because it can't ever be a true ending when the publisher has 5 sequels in the works already.
Gaming certainly hasn't evolved much in the past decade and in fact I'd almost say this generation was a step backwards.
Gaming is coming out of the hands of the Japanese and into the hands of westerners and it's becoming shit again. I do hope we see a repeat of Atari's history.
I recently dug out my old copy of Deus Ex- this year marks its 10th anniversary. And there's still nothing like it for putting the player in control, infinite replayability (I discovered a few new areas in the Paris level that I'd missed before),philosophical debate, and a plausible world made real by newspaper commentary, public computer bulletins, hackable workstations and emails etc. The 3 separate endings were not influenced by the gameplay however, you get to choose the outcome only in the very last level. Still- it had satisfying cutscenes and superb ending quotes:
* "It Is Better To Reign In Hell Than To Serve In Heaven" - John Milton, Paradise Lost
* "Yesterday We Obeyed Kings And Bent Our Necks To Emperors. Today We Kneel Only To Truth." - Kahlil Gibran
* "If There Were No God, It Would Be Necessary To Invent Him." - Voltaire
10 years later, nothing, not even its rather poor sequel, matches up to the immersiveness and perhaps also replayability. Go in with guns blazing, or sneak around hacking terminals and disabling security cameras, doing side quests for NPCs who help you out in return etc. etc.
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."
This is obviously because games are worth playing now. Back in the old days, games were mostly repetitive crap with the ending breaking the monotony. Now games are rich varied experiences and don't need gimmicks to keep you playing. One example that has me hooked is Left 4 Dead, which only has 5 main levels (each 1 hour long) but the play experience is ALWAYS different, especially since you play with other real players.
Classic games like Pac-Man really don't ever end (unless you call score/level roll-overs or freezes "endings"). A timely Pac-Man remake with a proper ending might cut to his guest appearance on "The Biggest Loser"... ..not sure if that refers to the player who keeps going until the end...or...