Bad Endings Options

[Shaddow]

Actually an XBOX360 series of turned based strategy games handled this pretty well, IMO, Record of Agarest Wars. Now, this is advertised in the games, so no worries about spoilers. It's a multi-generational game, and each 'chapter' is a generation, in it your main character must choose a wife, have a kid, then die to save that area from corruption.

This is sad, also the fact that any human or non-long lived character doesn't go with you to the next generation as they obviously die. The game really builds up every character and it is pretty sad to lose a lot of them, but the story is so intense and they die for such a good reason that it's something you can cope with.

I think it's an excellent way to handle 'sad endings' even though it's not actually the end of the games, though you do have multiple endings so I'm sure there are some 'sad endings' too.

[bulmabriefs144]

I haven't a problem with human death of old age. I just feel for it to be a good ending, their hopes and dreams can't die with them. They should have a kid or something who will then take up the new quest, or is assumed to.

A bad ending is good if it's so much a downer it forces you to think. Which is why there's a distinction between downer endings and bad endings. A downer ending can be the best ending, if it adds depth to the series. Or it can add to the horror of the situation. Or if played for dark humor, can even be funny.

A bad ending is just bad. It can be bad simply by being a bland and predictable happy ending.

[rewells]

Romeo and Juliet is probably the best known Ending where almost the whole cast of the Main people in the story die. That's one story that I both Loved and Hated because of how well it was told.

I don't much care for Bad end games that have pointless deaths (if any death could truly have a point) much if the Story escalates to the point that death is the only possible outcome or Best possible outcome, it could work if the Story is well written. This could work in books and movies but yeah, like it's been said, it would be hard for something for a player to handle...

And pray that anyone who does play it does not have any personal demons of their own; that may take such a game a little bit personal.

The 1996 version of Romeo and Juliet with Leoanardo Decaprio and Claire Danes is AWESOME! It is set in modern times but the dialogue is still 16th century, and it begins with a shootout at a gas station.

Back on topic, I think stories about death help me cope with death better. Seeing other people (even if they're video game characters) deal with the emotions that come with losing someone makes me feel less alone when it happens to me. In real life, everyone guards their emotions to some sense, but as a player/viewer you get to actually see the characters at their best and worst (if it's an interesting story). I just accept that when I watch/read/play something it might make bring up some repressed emotions of mine...but isn't that the job of good stories? To make the player feel?

[Jens of Zanicuud]

Back on topic, I think stories about death help me cope with death better. Seeing other people (even if they're video game characters) deal with the emotions that come with losing someone makes me feel less alone when it happens to me. In real life, everyone guards their emotions to some sense, but as a player/viewer you get to actually see the characters at their best and worst (if it's an interesting story). I just accept that when I watch/read/play something it might make bring up some repressed emotions of mine...but isn't that the job of good stories? To make the player feel?

<Jens emerges from shadows again after having solved a circuit with Kirchhoff's laws>

I completely agree with rewells. Why should not a game end with the death of any characters? RPG games, as well as novels, can express emotions as well. I'm not for a statement like "the world is an ugly place, so we must suffer and die, and...". I'm just saying that sad ending can be actually good if they're able to bring up emotions.
Whoever told that the player has to be rewarded for his/her playthrough, well, had a good point.
You should reward the player a little in the ending, just to make them feel they accomplished something... or at least, give the player a hope that that won't be the real ending, though in your mind that was exactly so...
something like deceiving who play to make them comfortable with the ending

<Jens come back to shadows again, attempting to finish his third issue for his degree>

This post has been edited by Jens of Zanicuud: Sep 12 2012, 12:15 AM

[Clord]

Corpse Party is a good example. In the final chapter, all the endings has something "bad" in them by design. Even in the best case scenario, survivors are tortured by the fact that nobody remembers those who died in the closed spaces. In one of the endings where sequel was based on basically led to fact that they repeat the same mistake which happens at the near beginning of the story and only one remembers the previous time.

Problem is that I didn't find the intended ending as the best one.

This post has been edited by Clord: Oct 1 2012, 06:05 AM

[LockeZ]

A lot of this is Game As Fantasy vs. Game As Drama.

If your game is designed primarily as a fantasy (by fantasy I mean make-believe, I'm not using the word to talk about magic) then the player is putting himself in the shoes of the hero. The player is living out his fantasy of becoming a hero and saving the world. In these kinds of games, to not allow the player to actually save the world in the end would be kind of horrible - you would be failing to create the kind of game the player came wanting to play.

If your game is designed primarily as a drama, however - the player is watching a story unfold, and though he can influence it and control things in the world by playing the game, none of the characters actually represent the player - then you can do pretty much anything in your story that you think makes it a better story. If you're crafting a tale for the player to watch, rather than an identity for the player to assume, you shouldn't feel constrained to allow the player to achieve total success at everything he does. The player has a different mindset - what he's trying to do isn't "save the world," it's "direct this team of heroes to save the world." There's a big difference. He's not the hero. He's the player.

Almost any game where you control a party of characters falls into the "game as drama" category. Most single-hero games where the hero has a pre-defined personality also do so. To actually step mentally into the shoes of the protagonist in the game, it often needs to be a blank slate to a degree - though if it were truly a TOTALLY blank slate, there'd be no fantasy to step into. When playing a game like Fallout, World of Warcraft, Zelda, Dragon Warrior, Call of Duty, Rock Band, etc., you either go in with an expectation of what role you get to play as in this game, or you develop a sense very early on as to what that role is. If you're making a game like this, don't yank the carpet out from under the player at the last minute, and tell them, "Oh, sorry, you got 99% of the way there, but you can't actually be a hero." The equivalent of that in a game as drama would be getting almost to the end of the game, and then showing a message saying "For the rest of the game, just imagine the plot as whatever you want." In both cases, you're not following through.

[markchapman10]

to reply to the OP, it don't matter to me as long as it goes along with the story line, I mean if you make it blend and they don't all die at once it would be fine with me.

[Naridar]

If you're making a game like this, don't yank the carpet out from under the player at the last minute, and tell them, "Oh, sorry, you got 99% of the way there, but you can't actually be a hero." The equivalent of that in a game as drama would be getting almost to the end of the game, and then showing a message saying "For the rest of the game, just imagine the plot as whatever you want." In both cases, you're not following through.

And Mass Effect 3 did both of those at once. Sorry. Had to get that out of my system.

As for the topic in question, I think when the player has any significant amount of choice in the game, forcing them into a single tragic ending is conveying the message "Screw you. No matter what you do, these people will die. And you can do nothing to prevent it. Loser.". Which is, frankly, the last thing you would ever do to your audience. Not even games with downright Lovecraftian settings get away with that unscathed: almost every Megami Tensei game (Persona 3 is an exception but Atlus indeed backed off with P4) so far has at least one ending where the hero gets the chance to be a hero and save his/her comrades (mostly the neutral ones).

Now, giving a choice between having one person or another die, that's fair game if it doesn't completely come out of left field. For example, in Chrono Trigger, which was ultimately a cheerful and optimistic romp through time, forcing the player to either kill off Marle or Lucca permanently at the 80% mark in the game would have been an unnecesary, sadistic choice that disregards the game's spirit. The same in Mass effect 1 with killing either Ashley or Kaidan, however, only drives the message home, that yes, this is war and you can't save them all. It fits into the game.

What I'm planning on doing in my game is having a main character with his own personality but giving some degree of control over his actions to the player. Over the course of the game, many tragic events happen to this character (death of friends, family, rejection and lack of recognition for his genuinely heroic deeds), and the only way he can have good things happen to him if he acts villainously, such as manipulating people, choosing to murder defenceless and defeated villains in cold blood and even committing the game world's equivalent of rape (however, to keep some moral standard, the last one immediately pushes him over the moral event horizon and prevents getting the good ending unless extra-difficult special conditions are met.).
Now, how the protagonist acts is mostly determined by the player. Play too altruistically and not demand anything, and you'll end up with the protagonist having less power (in-game!) due to apathy or getting fed up with being the hero and betraying the party (leading into the bad ending). Conversely, acting evil and demanding a reward for being a hero too many times, while boosting power, leads him into villainy as well (same bad ending).
Even if the protagonist betrayed the party, the player can save him by first getting the bad ending (which involves the seemingly main villain defeated, but hints at the party's demise and keeps the world in a devastated state, with the protagonist dead), and then unlocking and completing an optional dungeon, meeting a plot-important figure and then fighting the final boss again. This eventually leads to the good ending (with the protagonist alive and finding the reward for his courage and heroism).
My intention with these endings are to give a sense of consequence to the player and remind them of the importance of the "Aurae Mediocritas", the golden balance.

[Gospel Knight]

As far as how bad endings go in Video Games, I know a lot of is based on more than just the Good Guy vs Bad Guy thing where you are either all the way good, or all the way bad.

When it comes to a bad ending, you have to make it clear throughout the game that if you do not take a certain action, consequences will be met. Gamers never take this seriously at first, so it has to be reinforced.

Say, for instance, you were playing a game where you had to pilot a mech through a warzone to defeat the big boss. You are told at the beginning "Maintaining and upgrading your mech is essential. Without doing so properly, you will fail."

Then, about maybe halfway through the game, a person asks you, "Have you been maintaining your mech? I hope so. I hear the enemy will wipe you out if not."

Then a couple more times before the end, have someone say something along the lines of, "I hope you've been upgrading your mech. We are going to needs it's increased firepower to take out the enemy."

Then, at the end, say something like, "Before you fight the enemy, is there anything else you want to do to your mech?"

This way, if the player bombs the boss fight and gets the bad ending, it's their own fault.

[Shaddow]

I think some people are misunderstanding what this topic is about. It is not so much about a 'bad ending' as you fail and get an alternate ending as it is more about a 'tragic ending' in which the hero does not win, does not live, does not rescue the princess.

I believe this can be portrayed well and it can be a very moving story. The key element here is to enforce the telling of the story. For example I just went and saw Les Miserables for the first time, it is very tragic and you see that throughout the story, but it is still really good and the ending, while tragic as well, was acceptable and made sense for the story.

What I would say, is basically that your ending must match your story. If it is a sad story, a sad ending is acceptable. If it is a happy go lucky, the hero saves the princess story and at the end you kill him...it is a nice twist, but the player will be very angry.

[Jens of Zanicuud]

I think some people are misunderstanding what this topic is about. It is not so much about a 'bad ending' as you fail and get an alternate ending as it is more about a 'tragic ending' in which the hero does not win, does not live, does not rescue the princess.

I believe this can be portrayed well and it can be a very moving story. The key element here is to enforce the telling of the story. For example I just went and saw Les Miserables for the first time, it is very tragic and you see that throughout the story, but it is still really good and the ending, while tragic as well, was acceptable and made sense for the story.

What I would say, is basically that your ending must match your story. If it is a sad story, a sad ending is acceptable. If it is a happy go lucky, the hero saves the princess story and at the end you kill him...it is a nice twist, but the player will be very angry.

Right, the OP was just about this. I was thinking of a game with a tragic / apocalyptic setting in which the player is given a hope... and in the end the hope he was looking for is completely different from his expectations. In addition, in the ending the whole party is going to die due to natural phenomena on which the player has no control.
In practice, I've planned a game in which you can expect a bad ending from the beginning and I wondered if this is actually against some unwritten rules about RPG games...

Jens

[LockeZ]

It kind of is against the rules, is the thing. There are tons and tons of games where the hero fails. You know what happens when he or she fails? The game says "Game over. Would you like to load your most recent save?" And the player gets to try again, and do things differently. You had a goal, and didn't accomplish it; according to the rules of the game, that means you lost and must try again.

If you're going to break that rule, you need to not only have a very good reason for it, but you probably also should do it in such a way that the player becomes trained to understand that "if you fail, you go back and try again" is actually NOT one of the rules of your game. You would need to reinforce this idea repeatedly over the course of the game somehow. So that it doesn't seem like the game is just acting unintuitively bizarre and inappropriate at its most critical point. Perhaps have the player control a number of different characters during the game, who all inevitably die. Perhaps let the player control the manner of these characters' deaths, let him choose whether to fight or flee, but make it clear that death is inevitable - build this into the theme of both the plot and the gameplay. Perhaps have autosaving, so that those deaths can't be undone, or perhaps allow him to see both ways, via time travel or via forcing him to reload until he's done every possibility (and seen that they all fail). I'm imagining free will vs. fate being the major theme of a game like this.

Or perhaps you could simply shift the player's perspective and control to whichever side wins. Warcraft 3 does this excellently. You play as the humans and win some battles, but when the human kingdom falls, the player takes control of the undead army and fights against the humans. Then the player controls the orcs as they become demon-corrupted and destroy the Night Elf homeland, but when the elves regroup and start to turn the tide, the player controls the elves. Then you play as the blood elves and the naga as they join together under Illidan, and help him build a new home. Ultimately, Illidan attacks the undead army and fails - but at that point you're controlling the undead army again. The game ends with the failure of the mortal races of Azeroth to stop the Lich King - but it was the player's success that caused this tragic ending.

This post has been edited by LockeZ: Jan 4 2013, 05:00 PM

[Jens of Zanicuud]

@LockeZ

Okay, what I meant to say is: during the game, your characters have a hope. This hope is the main point in the whole story, a hope to escape a dying planet. In the end, the hope does really exist but is totally different and the one way the characters can leave is by means of a spiritual ascemption (or something like that) - i.e. they have no chance to survive.
The game I had planned was based on the fact that the player is conscious that the search is desperate and has just a thin thread of hope to follow, a hope which becomes everytime thinner.
I'll be more precise.

The characters are on the Earth, while the Sun is going to explode. Their last hope is the Ark, a said starship located somewhere near the city they took shelter in. You'll notice that even if they find a starship, what can they actually do, since the whole Solar System is to collapse?

I think these premises would make the player understand that said "hope" is purely fictional... but the ending was planned to be rather surprising, though almost bittersweet (more bitter than sweet).

Jens

[LockeZ]

Ah, hmm. The thing about an ending like that is, I have to wonder why dying before I get to it is a game over. Because it seems like it's no worse than getting to the ending. Losing at the beginning doesn't change anything. If a zombie kills me in the tutorial dungeon, should you show the end credits and act like I won? I actually kinda think maybe you should. Because shit, I accomplished every goal in the game that's possible to be accomplished.

For that reason, I feel like a pure shakespearean tragedy is not really appropriate for a video game. But what about a partial tragedy? Even a 99% tragedy could let you accomplish SOMETHING at the end.

In my old RPG Maker 2003 game, the hero gives up all but one of his goals and dies in the ending, but he saves his daughter's life in the process, who's been kidnapped by demons for the entire second half of the game. It's not done very well, but at least you feel like you beat the game. (Plus, the rest of your party was really trying to stop him anyway.)

I don't think the exploding sun thing strictly needs a different ending. I do think it could strongly benefit from a secondary goal which does get achieved. Perhaps the space station does not have a ship, but it has a communications device. So even though in the end your characters all die, they can transmit one final piece of information to Federation Command that will save other planets from destruction or help them catch the terrorist who blew up the sun.