I was thinking about game stories and the problem they can have with multiple endings. Some movies and books I have seen/read have a hero who endure trials and then when they come to the end save the day and triumph. Generally stories like this are a predictable formula, they take the viewer on a rollercoaster ride whereby they have the viewer identify with the hero and then have him beaten down humiliated, and at the end defeat the bad guy. Their are a few games that emulate this formula and some even have multiple endings, and there is the problem. The trouble with these stories is that you are so with the characters on this ride that if anything happened other than the good guy winning then people (I know) would be really annoyed. The way they create these stories means that anything other than a complete win would be a let down. Now most games that have multiple endings have the good ending, bad ending and neutral ending. So what happens when I am put in the place of the hero and then come to the ending and get the bad ending, you've come all that way then they say "Ha Ha you lost". For whatever reasons you did not complete the criteria for the best ending but they way the formula plays they made you want that ending, so its like a kick in the teeth. The only way in some games, to get the better ending as well is by playing through it again, when that happens I usually cannot be bothered. So in that scenario of multiple endings where one is better than another would it be best not to bother. How do you make a story where you are the hero, but it doesnt create an expectation for an ending. What would be a better choice of endings.

If the hero has finally rescued the princess and he accidentally knocks her off the cliff as he reaches for the bag of gold, shrugs, and walks off smiling with the bag over his shoulder, is that a bad ending?

If the game has a game plus feature, I could enjoy getting a tragic ending the first time which you have the (not too difficult) chance to fix the second time. Then it means twice as much when you do dave the day, because you saw what terrible things happen if you don't. There's also game length to take into consideration. If the game takes more than 20 hours to play, it would have to be amazingly variable to induce many people to replay it, especially more than once. Games with a lot of SIM/strategy gameplay seem to be the most replayable, while those with a lot of turn-based combat seem to be less replayable because people are usually sick of it by the end of the first game. Anyway my point was that if a game is intended to be played multiple times it could be okay to get a bad ending the first time, but if a game is only intended to be played once there's no point in having a bad ending.

Not all games with multiple endings have a bad ending, or multiple bad endings.

When I first finished Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines, I had chosen the ending where I had no choice but simply to die... A rather lousy end, and a big letdown after such a great game experience. The second time I played through the game, I did live through it, victorious and all. More satisfying, but still not too great, because the same thing happened, it's just that I was on another side. The 'bad' guy blew up, but this time I wasn't his right hand.

The Deus Ex series do a much better job at multiple endings. In the very last level of the game, three (or in DXIW, four) factions tell your their philosophies and what they think is a good way for the world to progress; you, as the player, have to decide between them. Do I want the Illuminati ruling the world as in ye olde days, do I want a benevolent AI dictator or do I want to get rid of all communications devices in the world, to make it free again?
(And in DXIW, that last option has been replaced by removing all biomodifications from people, or just killing all three other parties, and see what happens to the world)

Arcanum also has multiple endings; the final boss believes life is a bad thing, that it's much more fun to be dead, and that everyone had better be dead, because it's so peaceful. If you listen to his speech, it might even sound appealing (he's been dead, so he knows) and you can help him kill his enemies, after which you're told that afterwards, you and him made an end to everyone, and that you're the last living creature left.
The other end is, of course, to just beat the hell out of him, which is probably the most chosen ending. Ye olde good satisfaction of beating up a big guy.
The third, and most awesome possibility by far, is only possible if you have a high Persuasion skill and a specific NPC in your party. You can just talk the bad guy out of his plans, and he'll ask you to just kill him because he's been such a bastard. Convincing the endboss that his plan isn't cool is one the greatest endings in videogame history, IMO.
After either of the second two options, a narrator tells how the world progresses, based on what sidequests you've done. If you convinced the Dwarven king to come out of exile, the narrator will tell you that the Dwarves got rich and happy and all, whereas if you haven't, you're told the Dwarves made war and never got back to their old strength. Even a simple get-a-package quest is referred to, as the package contained the recipe for lead-into-gold, making your questgiver very rich. As a result, even chosing the same ending can work out totally different on another playthrough, because you might've done the sidequests differently.

It's just that Good/Neutral/Bad doesn't really work, especially not in a game that is set in a continued universe, and thus can't have any changes that you'd notice in a next game.

Just to add to the list of good games with multiple endings SMT Nocturne, in that the world has been destroyed and its up to you to decide the form that the new world will take, some of the endings I know of are where in the new world only the strong survive another where order is supreme and others like that, instead of the cliched good bad and neutral.

Thats another thing I wanted to mention most western fiction seems to center around clear good bad moral choices especially in games. Bad guys are very theatrical, with no redeeming features. The good guys are selfless and usually tormented over any bad choices they've made. I've noticed some eastern fiction does not follow this form so much, the characters are like real people, and they have unexpected endings. When I watch them I'm not dissapointed that good did not triumph because they portayed events as realisticly as they could and let you judge for yourself.

That sort of approach would be interesting in a game, you couldnt really be certain wether the choice you made was the good one, and whatever ending should satisfy because it fits and doesnt create an expectation.

Quote: Original post by GameCreator
If the hero has finally rescued the princess and he accidentally knocks her off the cliff as he reaches for the bag of gold, shrugs, and walks off smiling with the bag over his shoulder, is that a bad ending?

no it is a funny one

i always try to make the ending predictable but it never happens how you would predict

like one i wrote where the hero is normaly patient and only kills because it is interstellar war, nothing personal, but at the end it gets personal and he goes darker then Anakin Skywalker for 2 minutes.

completely unneeded violence, he could have just shot the guy or leave and let the guy die when the station explodes but no he ramed the bad dude's head into the shields of the main reactor until it looked nothing like a head just to make him suffer for his cruelty to others