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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Games these days generally have mid-level checkpoints and infinite continues, so there's no satisfaction in reaching the end.
For *YOU* there's no satisfaction. Other people have different attitudes about gaming. Me, I hate having to redo an entire level and by the time I get back to the point of fail, I forget what the hell I did wrong the first time.
The archetype of that, for me, is the quadruple pillar jump in the first Tomb Raider. It was really twitchy, but doable as you figure out the precise sequence of moves. You fail and get sent not back to the entrance of the room, but about two miles away. You had to run back through a completely eventless set of corridors just to try the jumps again. I beat it eventually, but I wanted to hunt down every programmer of the game and punch them all in the face. That's fun? How can that, in any way shape or form, by even the loosest definition, be considered fun?
Although even that can vary. With Batman Arkham Asylum, even if I beat an area successfully, I would sometimes think "I could have done that better" and go back and replay. But it's at *my* discretion. *I* decide what is fun for me.
The end user should be treated as king by the developers. I want to save anywhere at any time. I do not want to be subject to someone else's Grand Unified Theory of Gaming Challenge, especially if it's someone whose career is games and they have forgotten what it's like to have a life and career where gaming is just a hobby and time is precious. If you don't like "save anywhere" then DON'T USE IT. Let those of us who have to answer a phone or go to the bathroom have things our way, too.
I actually hope the next gen of consoles implement a system level game save, sort of like hibernate on Windows, where it just dumps the state of the machine to the hard drive, and it can power up back to that state.