jim-jam bongs
Member
Why?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Should players be able to "choose" their way to a bad ending?
- Thread starter Datwheezy
- Start date
Why?
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I am referring to Act 2, yes. Like I said, I do not want to be forced to replay the game in order to see the entire story.
I'm assuming your reaction was because I put Dragon Age 2 and The Witcher 2 in the same sentence. I was not saying that one had more meaningful choices over the other. I was saying that kind of storytelling narrative in video games is stupid. As a writer, I can't wrap my head around it. It took balls, that's for sure, but I don't think it is the right path that games should be going down.
jim-jam bongs
Member
I put it to you that this is, in fact, the heart of the problem.
Sure. It'd be ideal with multiple save slots or the ability to replay portions of the game so I can see the rest that way, but the most important thing is if the bad ending is a good ending, so that it's interesting to get without being a kick in the balls. Plus it makes some of these games more memorable when going in blind, though admittedly it also helps for those if, yes, they're short.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
That's a large chunk of it.
But like I said. I don't like it when a game doesn't give me the full story on the first run. It would be like having to do Chrono Trigger's New Game+ in order to see the lizard folk.
So please don't act like it's because I'm a writer or anything else that I didn't like the game. If I didn't like it, I didn't like it. It's not like I would magically like it if I were not one. That's just condescending.
I will definitely agree that splitting the game like this isn't something I'd like to see in every game. Hell, I don't even know if I necessarily want it in The Witcher 3. But I think that it's a very interesting part of the game that really adds to the sense that the choices you make have real meaningful impact on the game. If it became a large trend where every game required you to play through it twice the way The Witcher 2 does then I'd probably look at this differently. But as a rather unique mechanic it felt refreshing.
Since Clover had gone missing even in the knife ending, one could assume that Ace still killed her, only they didn't find out since Ace started getting the drop on the others, Junpei included, before they could. For certain, there was an opportunity for Ace to take the gun in that ending as well, since Junpei, June, and Santa left it where it was then. What followed as a result of many of the group's actions seemed to had been a matter of chance, hence all of the trouble it took to find the way out.
Not sure if that helps, but that's what I got from it. Admittedly, I could stand to go through the
safe ending
To be honest, as much as I loved the game, I thought the points with the least emphasis on theepmode said:
supernatural elements
pseudoscience aspects
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Storytelling in gaming is severely limited for the medium. Why should the ending be good or bad? It should just be an ending appropriate for the story you chose to unfold. The small mindedness of combat and dying has also hampered developers imaginations with what could be possible. Its one of the reasons i love Planescape.
jim-jam bongs
Member
We're all the product of our experiences and environment, I don't think there's anything condescending about pointing out that one's perspective informs their opinions.
Fixating on the idea of there being a single "full story" in an interactive non-linear narrative just seems to be missing the point of the medium. Obviously I'm not saying that every game should have a branching narrative with a range of outcomes, but, since we're discussing absolutes here, I'm glad that there are games which do.
texasairhead101
Member
definitely agree.
Catherine had some "bad" endings that i thought were pretty good. the only game i can think of that can apply as a argument
check this tv tropes page for a list of video games that do the multiple endings
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Just because it is interactive doesn't make it any less linear.
Even Skyrim has a main quest that you can't just skip.
But now we're getting too far away from the OT, I believe.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Bethesda games are horrible for any narrative let alone non-linear ones.
Yes, but why couldn't other pieces be added and removed from the main quest based on your actions? And I don't mean side quests. There could easily be multiple paths to complete or not complete the main goal of the game.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
That wasn't the point.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Not to be an ass, but we're talking about something that actually exists. We're not discussing what could have been done.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
No it kind of is the point. Almost the entirety of the games industry treats video game narratives like movies. They all lack vision for what the medium could do. Bethesda, despite having huge hand-crafted worlds, still relies on the industry standard for storytelling so when you say "even Bethesda" that really doesnt mean anything.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Okay.
If we're going to move this side topic into the realm of what games could do instead of what they are doing, I can't be a part of it anymore, because that wasn't my side of the discussion in the first place.
Signing out.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
i am talking about what they are doing but take your ball or whatever.
OneHitWonder
Member
Valkyrie Profile has 3 endings, but only one is satisfying and you pretty much need a FAQ to get it. I would hate if games did more of that.
I kind of like the idea of subtle things changing like in FF7 with Don Corneo or the Golden Saucer date. You still get a main focused story but you also get a couple scenes that play out a bit different depending on your choices.
Overall, I prefer a set story arc, but if certain scenes changed based on my interactions with characters throughout the game (but didn't mess up the main story), I would be fine with that.
I kind of like the idea of subtle things changing like in FF7 with Don Corneo or the Golden Saucer date. You still get a main focused story but you also get a couple scenes that play out a bit different depending on your choices.
Overall, I prefer a set story arc, but if certain scenes changed based on my interactions with characters throughout the game (but didn't mess up the main story), I would be fine with that.
Yes, but you are saying you have problems with only receiving "part of a story/game your first run through". I'm asking if you have a problem with something adding and taking away elements as you go. Do you consider that not having a "full story"?
Neuromancer
Member
Absolutely. I think it'd be great if, say in the context of modern military shooters, if you could fail missions but still continue on with the game. Kind of similar to how things can go real sideways in Heavy Rain but you can always finish it out.
More Fun To Compute
Member
Strategy games are a thousand years more evolved at this sort of thing than choose your own adventure games.
Disagree. Strongly. If the story as experienced within a single play-through is nonsensical or lacking because certain parts of the game were not explained then it is badly designed. If there are plot threads that are never even begun because they aren't part of this path through the game then that's fine and just because you didn't get to be there for every moment that existed in the game world doesn't mean you got a bad story or a bad game somehow.
Forecasting that 'THIS IS GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT STORY EVENT' is bad too though. you're basically asking to be told the story before you play it so you can get the ending you want. That's not how it works for anything else so why should it work that way here? I think there ought to be a tone set by your actions that is reflected in the path your character takes, that is to say no surprises out of left field, always prepare the audience etc etc. If you play a character trying to be a good guy and help people but the plot twist is that these people you're helping are actually fantasy space nazis and really you'd be doing the world a favor by not helping them, then THAT concept needs to weave it's way into the game world before you get to 'the twist'. To have a prompt when you got save one of these space nazis that says "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO SAVE THIS GUY? IT'S KIND OF A BIG DEAL" sort of ruins the moment.
As long as there is no best ending. Choices should be difficult and not completely obvious in outcome. You shouldn't be able to FAQ your way through to the good ending, nor should you be able to say 'this is my good
guy play through' and have every choice spelled out with blue coloured conversation text.
paragon
jim-jam bongs
Member
BioWare have this down with Mass Effect. They give you important decisions like "do I kill this evil asari succubus or this nice friendly one?" and even colour-code the choices so you know what you're doing. And, just in case you decide later on that you really don't want to explore the far reaches of the galaxy with a succubus, they have a contingency; the two characters behave completely identically to one another outside one-on-one conversation.
Perfection in storytelling.
Manmademan
Member
I remember this. definitely NOT the way to do the multiple ending thing.
Second poster pretty much nailed it with heavy rain though. Lots of different ways to play that game- you don't even have to "pass" all the trials and can end up with just about everyone dead, but still get a satisfying ending out of it.
That game allows you to easily obtain all the endings without a complete restart- which is probably the key to pulling it off without pissing off the player.
I'm split on this, really. On one hand, it's one of those things that are fairly unique to video games, so yes, I do want to see choices affect the ending of the game, but on the other hand, if a seemingly inconsequential choice leads to a bad ending, the game might just as well toss a Game Over! my way right then and there and get it over with. I really don't have patience for that. A bad ending is just an elaborate Game Over sequence with a credit roll afterwards. Just do a quick montage of what I did wrong and set me back on track towards a better ending.
This is why I kind of like the color coded responses in Mass Effect. I DO want to be able to say this is my good guy playthrough and just pick blue all the way. It's good interface design to give at least some foreshadowing as to what your choices mean. I do, however, also want side stories where I can pick whatever without having to worry about the main ending. See Fallout and the individual town stories in the epilogue or paired endings for supports in Fire Emblem to see what I mean.
This is why I kind of like the color coded responses in Mass Effect. I DO want to be able to say this is my good guy playthrough and just pick blue all the way. It's good interface design to give at least some foreshadowing as to what your choices mean. I do, however, also want side stories where I can pick whatever without having to worry about the main ending. See Fallout and the individual town stories in the epilogue or paired endings for supports in Fire Emblem to see what I mean.
Only if:
Bad example: You kill the big bad before he is revealed as the big bad, the end.
Good example: The castle's gates closed before you could enter and hence the dragon ate the princess. The king gathers all of his men and fights you for revenge (bonus: you can either submit or kill them all for alternate endings).
- It only appears after you complete ~90% of the game, otherwise it would only be a fancy game over screen and everyone would hate it if you can't go back and continue.
- All endings are as climatic and elaborate as the best one, otherwise people would rather cheat their way to the best one.
Bad example: You kill the big bad before he is revealed as the big bad, the end.
Good example: The castle's gates closed before you could enter and hence the dragon ate the princess. The king gathers all of his men and fights you for revenge (bonus: you can either submit or kill them all for alternate endings).
Fair point, but look at it from the other side of the spectrum. I'll use the Witcher 1 as example act1 and 2 spoiler:
You are just following the main quest in act 1 meet an arms dealer he needs some time to get ready inside his house. Then you seem some elves here to pick up their weapons, they seem to have an agreement with the arms dealer. You are presented with 2 choices. Kill them or let them take the weapons they paid for. There's nothing that indicates that they are bad next to unproven rumors. I let them take the goods, since as a Witcher it's not my place intervene with the general populace without a good reason. Later the arms dealer does indeed confirm they had a deal. All is well, then you are the next act you are trying to solve a murder you need to talk to someone who might prove critical to solving the case. You find out he was killed by those elves who you sold the weapons to. Next the screen fades and goes into an internal monologue how "I" as a Witcher shouldn't interfere with the general populace. This made me go fuck you game, I did exactly that and not interfere, but somehow that's wrong? Really? Choices for the sake of being random might as well not be a choice at all. Since either choice has a random effect what's point? If choice means something random happens why even present a choice at all since it means random shit anyway. I want to be hero and have the power to decide things.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
I feel the most direct way to handle this issue is to merely get rid of the simplistic, heavy handed, and overly idealized plotting in most games.
Here's an example. For all that Mass Effect is lauded for its plot choices and its "amazing" hard sci-fi story, it's a children's cartoon compared to the print sci-fi franchise it largely rips off: Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series.
Compared to Mass Effect, those books are the definition of challenging, non-binary ethics, morality, and themes. Just about every character in the plot is, at one point or another, a hero, villain, monster, or savior. Mass Effect super simplifies the style down to the typical "evil space monsters want to blow up Earth, and you, the square jawed hero, must stop them. At most, you can choose to be a slight asshole to a few NPCs along the way."
If Mass Effect were written with more nuance, it would display no fear of offending or disturbing a perceived 20-something white male with short cropped brown hair that just wants to be told he's the hero of the universe. That would naturally lead into the potential for multi-faceted story branches with multiple resolutions that really mean something and aren't simply "the good ending" and "the bad ending".
But ME is just the example here. Generally, the problem with supposed "freedom" in this generation of games is that designers and script writers still feel the need to funnel the player down a narrow corridor to insure that they either feel like a heroic bad ass who saves the universe with his gun/sword/gunsword, or a bad ass bad ass who saves the universe with his gun/sword/gunsword. In order to preserve the illusion that you could have different endings, there's typically the "bad ending" that you're not really locked into by the weight of all your decisions - just an obvious gate near the endgame, that most of the time, you'd only choose to go through out of morbid curiosity of seeing how the Earth gets blown up in that particular game's CG ending scene.
Here's an example. For all that Mass Effect is lauded for its plot choices and its "amazing" hard sci-fi story, it's a children's cartoon compared to the print sci-fi franchise it largely rips off: Alastair Reynolds' Revelation Space series.
Compared to Mass Effect, those books are the definition of challenging, non-binary ethics, morality, and themes. Just about every character in the plot is, at one point or another, a hero, villain, monster, or savior. Mass Effect super simplifies the style down to the typical "evil space monsters want to blow up Earth, and you, the square jawed hero, must stop them. At most, you can choose to be a slight asshole to a few NPCs along the way."
If Mass Effect were written with more nuance, it would display no fear of offending or disturbing a perceived 20-something white male with short cropped brown hair that just wants to be told he's the hero of the universe. That would naturally lead into the potential for multi-faceted story branches with multiple resolutions that really mean something and aren't simply "the good ending" and "the bad ending".
But ME is just the example here. Generally, the problem with supposed "freedom" in this generation of games is that designers and script writers still feel the need to funnel the player down a narrow corridor to insure that they either feel like a heroic bad ass who saves the universe with his gun/sword/gunsword, or a bad ass bad ass who saves the universe with his gun/sword/gunsword. In order to preserve the illusion that you could have different endings, there's typically the "bad ending" that you're not really locked into by the weight of all your decisions - just an obvious gate near the endgame, that most of the time, you'd only choose to go through out of morbid curiosity of seeing how the Earth gets blown up in that particular game's CG ending scene.
The Witcher 2 was great at not doing that. At the end of the game on my first playthrough
All of the kings other than Radovid were dead and I let Letho go free since it seemed pointless to kill him as his scheme was already complete anyway. I didn't feel like I had accomplished much of anything. Sure I unraveled the scheme of the 'bad guys' and put all the piece together, but I didn't actually stop them, so it didn't matter.
Revolutionary
Member
I consider Suikoden 2 to be one of my favorite games ever and I did not know this. Amazing.
I think every ending should be written in a way that is good. That can include endings that are bad in the sense that the main character dies or bad in that nothing really happens. But in a nothing really happens ending the designer should make an interesting point about that.
This game has a really good branch and some really bad ones.
I hate that in the hospital scene you get the "meh" ending by not picking a very specific series of conversation options. IE
you choose not to throw him in, because that is obviously not going to end well, but don't say the thing that is interpreted most directly as there being some deeper mystery. The first time I did it I was more concerned with just calming people down and not murdering anyone, and that locks you into the "nothing happens" ending.
I love that you get the nothing happens ending if you can't figure out who the culprit is when it literally just gives you a list of all the characters in the game since it requires you to actually think about the mystery that the whole game has been about.
I dislike that in order to get the true ending you have to ignore the game telling you it is time to go home. It is just a silly example of the game trying to make the true ending harder to find than it should be.
Random in the sense you never know what any choice does. You are never informed what they wanted to do with the weapons. You are effectively removing power from the player by doing this. While it's great for life lessons and such, that you never know what each choice does. While some people might enjoy that, but I like to have control and be the hero in my games. If your choice being a dick or doing the right, but bites you in the ass anyways. Is it really a choice if both choices have bad endings? That's not control to me. That just means I have a certain effect on the world, but am never given the chance to do the right thing.
I think ME's greatest flaw, isn't that the choices are straight forward. But that all the choices essentially lead to the same thing there is little variation in either choice.
jim-jam bongs
Member
So it sounds like CDProjekt did a good job of making you feel what Geralt does constantly.
Yeah, but for a game that present choice, I'd like at least like to have the choice to do the right thing. It doesn't have to be clear as day, but at least some direction would be nice. The Witcher(from what I played) only presented you with the options to be bad, or think you are doing the right thing, but after carefully examining the world it's a dick move anyway. The game refuses to give you the option to do the right thing. Which makes it a pretty linear experience for me. You are never given the satisfaction that you are doing the right thing except for the places where the game is linear and makes the choices for you.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Yes, which is completely appropriate to a game about a Witcher. I'm sorry it didn't resonate with you but in this instance here you're complaining about a very deliberate choice by the developers which is used to elicit a particular response from the player.
Yes, but my point is that it's not really good expression of freedom and choice. Since all the choices are pretty much designed to make you feel like shit.