The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
There has been a lot of talk lately about games introductions, FMVs, stories and so on, but what about game endings ?
I feel that these are every bit as important as the other constituent parts of any game that we play.
If we are reading a book, or watching a movie, the start has to be good to grab our attention, the middle has to be good to keep us interested, but the end is what gives us the lasting impression.
For example, I read Hannibal (before the movie came out). Very good book, in fact I am a big fan of all books in the Hannibal series. But my God, the ending was crap. And purely based on that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
So why then do developers not put something special in game endings for us ? Why not include something in the ending that really makes us feel appreciated for all the effort we've put in to completing a game ? Why not reward the player, and give us a sense of accomplishment ?
Lets take a few examples of game endings that could've been done better (or worse):
ZOE: Zone of the Enders was a very good PS2 title, with a very involving storyline that played out nicely as you completed more and more of the game. But suddenly after, yet another, battle you get a cut scene saying that you hsould not carry on fighting and that your precious robot that you did your best to protect was going to go off and self destruct. To add insult to injury there was still a boss enemy to beb defeated. But no, we weren't given the chance. Thet game was over. Personally I felt cheated by this. The story game to an abrupt stop, and I was left feeling cheated.
Soul Reaver: This was a very difficult game to complete, with a lot of effort required by the gamer in order to progress to the bitter end. And what was the end ? You're worst enemy jumps through a portal and you run after him. Again, I needed closure, but didn't get it. I was left thinking 'why did I bother?'. OK, it leaves things wide open for a sequel, but surely they could’ve done something more ?
MGS: A good point for Metal Gear Solid was the fact that you could get a different ending depending on whether you saved someones life or not. That gave a lot more meaning to completing the game.
Zelda (Ocarina of Time): Great story played out over a very long game. In this case the ending was really good. A nice wrap up to the story, you return to being a kid again, plus a long cinema showing all the characters you'd encountered. Although, it seems that a lot of Nintendo games end in the same fashion... with a musical number and shots of the game characters. Getting to be a bit of a tired formula that.
Zelda (Majoras Mask): On the other hand, Majoras Mask was a lot harder to complete (it was a confusing game at times), but the ending was terrible. It was almost like Nintendo decided, 'Ah we're bored with this. Let’s just finish it off quickly'. That cheated feeling has returned.
These are just a few examples of how games should and shouldn't end.
So, how can things be improved ?
In their very early days, Rare did this very well. At the time they were called Ultimate.
They produced a game called Atic Atac on the ZX Spectrum. If you managed to complete the game properly (collect 3 parts of a special key) you were then given a special ending screen that you could photograph and send back to them. In return you were given a T-shirt.
At the time this was really great. But I haven't seen it since.
If game developers place an added incentive for game completion into their games, I reckon that they would sell way way more copies.
Imagine if GT3 came with a competition where you could win an actual prize for being one of the first ten people to complete the game ? That could only add to our determine to complete the game, and generate fiercer competition between gamers.
Some games were developed back in the 80’s that were played purely to get a reward at the end. One of these, I cannot remember the name, was an adventure game with very complicated puzzles, the point of which was that if you completed it you would win £10,000. Can you imagine how many copies of that sold ?!
I just feel a bit let down after spending my hard earned cash that developers seem to neglect an important facet of a game in order to get a release as early as possible.
Thanks for reading.
Opinions welcome.
I feel that these are every bit as important as the other constituent parts of any game that we play.
If we are reading a book, or watching a movie, the start has to be good to grab our attention, the middle has to be good to keep us interested, but the end is what gives us the lasting impression.
For example, I read Hannibal (before the movie came out). Very good book, in fact I am a big fan of all books in the Hannibal series. But my God, the ending was crap. And purely based on that I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.
So why then do developers not put something special in game endings for us ? Why not include something in the ending that really makes us feel appreciated for all the effort we've put in to completing a game ? Why not reward the player, and give us a sense of accomplishment ?
Lets take a few examples of game endings that could've been done better (or worse):
ZOE: Zone of the Enders was a very good PS2 title, with a very involving storyline that played out nicely as you completed more and more of the game. But suddenly after, yet another, battle you get a cut scene saying that you hsould not carry on fighting and that your precious robot that you did your best to protect was going to go off and self destruct. To add insult to injury there was still a boss enemy to beb defeated. But no, we weren't given the chance. Thet game was over. Personally I felt cheated by this. The story game to an abrupt stop, and I was left feeling cheated.
Soul Reaver: This was a very difficult game to complete, with a lot of effort required by the gamer in order to progress to the bitter end. And what was the end ? You're worst enemy jumps through a portal and you run after him. Again, I needed closure, but didn't get it. I was left thinking 'why did I bother?'. OK, it leaves things wide open for a sequel, but surely they could’ve done something more ?
MGS: A good point for Metal Gear Solid was the fact that you could get a different ending depending on whether you saved someones life or not. That gave a lot more meaning to completing the game.
Zelda (Ocarina of Time): Great story played out over a very long game. In this case the ending was really good. A nice wrap up to the story, you return to being a kid again, plus a long cinema showing all the characters you'd encountered. Although, it seems that a lot of Nintendo games end in the same fashion... with a musical number and shots of the game characters. Getting to be a bit of a tired formula that.
Zelda (Majoras Mask): On the other hand, Majoras Mask was a lot harder to complete (it was a confusing game at times), but the ending was terrible. It was almost like Nintendo decided, 'Ah we're bored with this. Let’s just finish it off quickly'. That cheated feeling has returned.
These are just a few examples of how games should and shouldn't end.
So, how can things be improved ?
In their very early days, Rare did this very well. At the time they were called Ultimate.
They produced a game called Atic Atac on the ZX Spectrum. If you managed to complete the game properly (collect 3 parts of a special key) you were then given a special ending screen that you could photograph and send back to them. In return you were given a T-shirt.
At the time this was really great. But I haven't seen it since.
If game developers place an added incentive for game completion into their games, I reckon that they would sell way way more copies.
Imagine if GT3 came with a competition where you could win an actual prize for being one of the first ten people to complete the game ? That could only add to our determine to complete the game, and generate fiercer competition between gamers.
Some games were developed back in the 80’s that were played purely to get a reward at the end. One of these, I cannot remember the name, was an adventure game with very complicated puzzles, the point of which was that if you completed it you would win £10,000. Can you imagine how many copies of that sold ?!
I just feel a bit let down after spending my hard earned cash that developers seem to neglect an important facet of a game in order to get a release as early as possible.
Thanks for reading.
Opinions welcome.
Page:
Great idea, I'm all for it.
A problem this could cause though would be that games developers might release rubbish games, with the selling point of winning a prize for completing it.
But I think there should be some kind of decent reward for completing a game. It's sort of happening with multiplayer gaming competitions where there's big money prizes, but that leaves out those who prefer to compete against a computer opponent.
A problem this could cause though would be that games developers might release rubbish games, with the selling point of winning a prize for completing it.
But I think there should be some kind of decent reward for completing a game. It's sort of happening with multiplayer gaming competitions where there's big money prizes, but that leaves out those who prefer to compete against a computer opponent.
I played and played on Syndicate Wars until the near death of my fingers. That last level nearly killed me. Oh the disappointment when I found out the end sequence was the camera spinning around your man on the moon. And Metal Gear Solid and Resident Evil must have been some of the best endings ever. Have you ever seen a film with such a good twist? Or in MGS's case so many twists. That game left on a high and just when you think it's all over, 'Goodbye Mr President', almost sends a shiver down your back. Then Wesker that evil good for nothing blah blah blah. Great endings from great games. So why can't we get such things in other games? I'm definetly looking forward to MGS2 though.
*Starts going crazy thinking about the delay of it*
*Starts going crazy thinking about the delay of it*
MGS wasn't a too bad ending, got a very cinematic feel to it even if it's very corny :)
Excellent idea. Put my name on the petition, ta.
Every game should have an unique code number screen that appears when you complete it. Let's say the game was published by Ubisoft, you'd email them with your code number to prove you've finished the game, and they would send you a 5 quid voucher. This voucher would enable you to get a fiver off another game published by Ubisoft.
Game endings are definately as important as the beginning. If The End of a game doesn't have a cut-scene that lasts at least 5 minutes - so I can sit back and spark a Benson - I feel totally cheated. I know it's all an illusion, but I wanna feel like what I just campaigned through meant something.
I think every game should reward the player on completion. I don't really care how or which way they do this, just as long as they do. - Obviously a cash prize would be more than welcome.
I think every game should reward the player on completion. I don't really care how or which way they do this, just as long as they do. - Obviously a cash prize would be more than welcome.
Page: