Maybe it was just me, but I felt like Far Cry, throughout most of the game, maintained a thin, faster-paced storytelling style. Then, suddenly, you're introduced to a plot twist after a 'boss' encounter, thrown into a ridiculously difficult situation (the final battle on the volcano), and...it ends. That's it. You get your bad guy, a brief movie, and then it's over. Needless to say, I was pissed. If you couldn't tell from the timing in the post, I only recently beat the game (about 2 months ago), and I've been dwelling on the ending. It's not fair. I worked hard abusing the door glitch to get past the final battle, unloaded all of my ammo at the puny guards with their "rocket launchers", and shot that-one-guy that-one-time with that-one-gun (pistol) for nothing. What would you have done to make it better (assuming you saw it)? What about other games that have similarly "dropped off" around the ending? I used to talk about having a problem with beating games, and I assumed it was myself; I'd always get close to beating games and stop once I realized it was the end. Maybe, I'm starting to think, it's because several of the games I've played have gotten progressively less-interesting post-climax? Maybe this is true of all stories, but I only notice when immersion is a real factor? Discutan.

You think that was bad? You obviously never played Eye of The Beholder. After delving deep into the sewers, fighting your way past hordes and hordes of critters, and finally defeating the titular Beholder mastermind at the end...

... you're dumped to DOS with a 'Congratulations!' message.

The Sentinel had thousands of levels, but you didn't even get a Congratulations! message it booted you out. The game's designer when questioned about it said something like he didn't think anyone would actually play ALL several thousand levels.

OK, just my two cents. ;-)

- It is not very fair to expect anything post-climax with plot-deprived games. These games are consciously designed to have you climax or despair continuously; take Elastomania, for instance.

- Beating a mainstream game should not become a problem, although it often does, for many reasons. The more reasonable approach seems to create an assessment system continuously analyzing player's progress in order to bring the game difficulty to this player's individual "hard-but-doable" level.

- Many games have failed endings due to poor design/writing. Personally, I couldn't care less for endings in games like Strayfire. Story-driven games, on the other hand, are more prone to failed endings, because we expect the ending to be fulfilling in many senses.
First, there has to be an ending. :)
Second, it must click well with the story overall, seem just right for it. This click isn't always obvious. I found the open, philosophical, even PKDesque ending of HL2 quite suitable for this installment, although many other people didn't. Endings deviating from general public's expectations often don't click [for some of us]. This does not mean you cannot have an expected, yet clicking ending.
Third, an expected ending must give the player a perspective on the future of the game world or the game characters the player has been identifying with. Thief, a nearly perfect game in storytelling, is a good example. "They lived happily ever after" and "...but that's a completely different story" are two other famous examples.

P.S. Big movie fans can probably enjoy the rolling credits after the final battle in any game. ;-)

I'd say the final goal (the true final goal, with all twists already accounted for) has to be introduced sufficiently early, so that you build anticipation for it. Also, the very final gameplay task you have to accomplish should be challenging or exciting at least in some way. With those ensured, the experience could be satisfying even if the actual congratulations/ending cutscene/credits sequence is somewhat a letdown.

Far Cry fulfills neither of these. I was expecting something like Halo's escape part for the end. After all, the game had vehicles... But all the most exciting parts of the ending (with everything blowing up) were made into a cutscene instead!

IMO it's always dangerous if a game changes suddenly near the end. HL2 gets excused because it gives an awesome feeling of R.U.P (TM), but I think even it is treading a fine line because of simplifying the rules so radically. One that comes to mind is The Thing from a few years back: after some quite hard outside battles you get a boring air-to-ground shooting part that bears no connection to the rest of the game, and then a quite mediocre ending cutscene (though with a nice tie-in to the movie)

[Edited by - AgentC on May 19, 2005 2:16:10 PM]

Quote:

Original post by Boku San What about other games that have similarly "dropped off" around the ending? I used to talk about having a problem with beating games, and I assumed it was myself; I'd always get close to beating games and stop once I realized it was the end. Maybe, I'm starting to think, it's because several of the games I've played have gotten progressively less-interesting post-climax? Maybe this is true of all stories, but I only notice when immersion is a real factor?

I just finished playing Tron 2.0 and started wondering the same thing. It's a beautiful and fun game, but the end left me with a sour taste.


This may be a stretch, but is an ending supposed to convey some greater impact in the world in which the story takes place? "And they lived happily ever after..." assumes that there's a good world in the future where the characters you've grown to care about can live.

In the Tron movie, our heroes prevent an evil force from taking over, saving two worlds in the process. Flynn we expect probably becomes a captain of industry; all the little program people face a bright future without the Master Control Program on their back. In short, the future has a lot of positive possibility, which is something that resonates with everyone on a fundamental human level.

In the Tron game, OTOH, it seems like after doing great deeds the heroes are destined to ho-hum futures. Jett will probably go back to school, Mecury will be a screensaver, and Alan will go back to researching something or other. :(

---

I'm wondering if bad endings are those endings which don't leave the player with the appropriate sense of future possibility for the characters you've come to care about. It doesn't have to be positive, as in a horror story where the evil will continue lurking or whatever, but the future does have to be implied by everything you've played and experienced up until that end-- without giving away the specific form the end will take.