How Games Tend to End

James Bishop of TheGameReviews writes: "You did it! You finally managed to kill the diabolical villain who had been plotting against the government in secret. Or you found out that you were the one who infected yourself and then caused the plague. Or perhaps you've finally realized that you're actually a genetic experiment bred to follow commands triggered by certain phrases. Or any number of things, really. Then the credits roll. Wait, what? It seems that a lot of games are unable to provide adequate epilogues to their otherwise decent narrative experiences. All games (excluding persistent worlds) must come to some sort of ending. So the question is: if they don't have traditional epilogues, what exactly do game endings do? (Spoony Bard #10)

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
Krud3280d ago

[Fallout 3 spoilers ahead, but nothing that isn't in the article. (Also a spoiler for "Stranger Than Fiction.")]

Though I've yet to play any of the additional content for Fallout 3, I personally was fine with (if somewhat shocked by) the sacrificial ending* of the game, which is why I didn't mind the "tell you what happened" epilogue method. (Especially since that's what I'd come to expect from Fallout 1 & 2.)

(* - Though I have to add that neither the cowardly self-serving option nor the flat-out diabolical option were particularly rewarding.)

All I care is that there is SOME sort of payoff at the end, even if it's just foreshadowing for the next game. As long as there's closure of some sort. (From the sound of it, Broken Steel tweaks the ending a la "Stranger Than Fiction." [Oops, spoiler for that movie if you haven't already seen it.])

SlamVanderhuge3280d ago

I feel as if the interactive end segment is far more important than the video that follows. Can't think of many non-interactive endings that satisfied.

shoinan3280d ago

A very good ending, no?

mr durand pierre3280d ago

I second Uncharted 2. The final boss was okay, but one of the worst parts of the game, imo. The final 5 minutes of cutscenes more than made up for it.

Ico is another prime example of this. The final boss with the Queen was only okayish and a bit frustrating, but everything that followed, interactive or not, was wonderful.

mistajeff3279d ago (Edited 3279d ago )

He kind of says this, but I think a lot of the problem is that games end at or directly after the climax, instead of allowing the climax to sink in with a properly-paced resolution. Most games offer resolution in the form of one or several cutscenes, which can sometimes be done very well (MGS4, in my opinion), but is usually rushed and brief. I think more games need resolution in the form of gameplay, but I think it's hard for developers to find some type of gameplay sequence that would work in that regard. If you're playing a shooter and you finally defeat the people you've been shooting for 12 hours, you can't really include more gameplay that involves shooting to resolve the climax and the story arc.

The most recent Prince of Persia is in my mind right now. ((Spoilers for PoP ending and kind of AC2 ending))
The scene during the credits where the Prince carries Elika out of the temple, and then the following gameplay sequence where you re-release ahrhrhrhihmhahn, really made an impact on me. I wouldn't call the game revolutionary by any means, but I really enjoyed the gameplay segment they used to resolve the arc after the climax of defeating the final boss. Not perfect, but hell, they tried, and I'm really glad that they did. Even AC2's credit sequence made a good stab at this. The credits started directly after the climax of the game, but they managed to provide a satisfying resolution to the game's story arc via gameplay and they were able to do it using the same mechanics that were used throughout the entire game.

just my thoughts on the matter. my unplanned and un-proofread thoughts.