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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Love Stargete, and SGU is ok but I think it is trying way to hard to mimic the BSG look and feel.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
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.