[Ninja Dodo]

How should endings work?

What do you prefer?

Multiple choice - like Deus Ex, where basically at the end you're given a clearly defined choice between a number of endings.

String of pearls - a game that allows some or a lot of choice as you're going along, but has one or more clearly defined story points (including the end) that are the same regardless of what you do. Basically like Deus Ex, except for the ending.

Dynamic non-linearity - anything you do during the game may affect the ending.

Linearity - The story is set all the way through to the ending. Every event is predefined for you to tackle.

[Jackal]

String of pearls all the way, baby!! Narrative linearity with gameplay design options. Yum.

(All things being equal - time, money, staffing, etc. - multiple endings would be great, but since all things are NOT equal, I just don't think it's worth the effort).

[SOG-Karimi]

While choice is great i think a linear defined ending is the best since the writers and developers can concentrate completely on the story and make it great while multiple endings can sometimes be lacking .

[mag]

Depends on the game. Most of my favorite endings come from games that are extremely linear. I like the idea of having multiple endings that might be effected by a variety of decisions made throughout the game. Unfortunately, much of the time all those endings turn out to be crap. I'm not sure they've really mastered the technique yet. But I think designers have to think about what kind of game they're trying to make and what type of ending will best suit that.

mag

[Kingzjester]

Not too many endings if there are multiple endings. I really like the semblance of non-linearity, like a good and evil path that may intertwine. It is a sign of a good designer when you feel like something you did led you where you are when in fact the designer tricked you into doing his bidding.

For example, the designer may present you with an option: doing the good thing and doing the bad thing. A stupid RPGesque example: A little background first. Your mentor character has been really hard on you during the training, he has beat you unconscious with a poisoned bludgeon and then sent you with hardly any health and slowly dying across the world to the which doctor that will administer the cure. Along the way you beat a whole lot of monsters, gain experience, survive. Upon return he gives you a mythril loincloth because, by god, you deserved it and teaches you something really, really cool. Along with the clever writing of the designer you gain some sort of respect for the fellow.

Back to our fake good/bad choice: your mentor falls in a fight with a giant squid-weiner monster from the lower maleborges of hell. Whatever you do he dies. You may pick him up and run to the exit of the dungeon, and run to the which doctor but he dies from the wounds along the way. Or you may finish him off yourself, bitter that he beat you before, or out of pity euthanise him, or leave him somewhere along the way to the which doctor to die, drown him, whatever. In each case he dies, you loot his body to find---or he gives you with his dying breath something. A lot of places where it seems there is choice but there really isn't.

The endings can work similarly.

[Bastich]

I think the answer to your poll is going to depend somewhat on the type of game being played. There is no one correct answer for everything.

The choices that best serve storytelling are obviously linearity and then string of pearls.

The other two could be described as story making.

They are opposite goals.

[Starflux]

I think they all can work out brilliantly when used skillfully. I do agree that I'd rather have just one ending when working with a story-heavy game. It gives more closure, like, "this is the real ending the way the writer wanted it".

[Maquisard]

Originally Posted by Kingzjester

Back to our fake good/bad choice: your mentor falls in a fight with a giant squid-weiner monster from the lower maleborges of hell. Whatever you do he dies. You may pick him up and run to the exit of the dungeon, and run to the which doctor but he dies from the wounds along the way. Or you may finish him off yourself, bitter that he beat you before, or out of pity euthanise him, or leave him somewhere along the way to the which doctor to die, drown him, whatever. In each case he dies, you loot his body to find---or he gives you with his dying breath something. A lot of places where it seems there is choice but there really isn't.

How about I throw him down a cliff, and DON'T get to loot his body, thus missing a vital story-progressing object?

[Moron Lite]

Agree with Bastich and Flux. There's no reason to choose one kind of end-structure as 'the best'. Although I would prefer it if game developers did more stuff with string-of-pearls and dynamic non-linearity, since linearity has already been well explored and the multiple-choice ending is easy to do.

[Kingzjester]

Originally Posted by Mares

How about I throw him down a cliff, and DON'T get to loot his body, thus missing a vital story-progressing object?

I'll make it so that there is a hint that the guy has something you may need later on. I will also make sure the cower end of the cliff is a place where the player can get to.

[Ninja Dodo]

It all depends, but I think it's still worth asking the question...

Kingz, I think you make a good point... the illusion of choice is more important than actual choice. This is really where the string of pearls comes in. You're allowing the player to mostly do as he pleases, but at the same time you subtly nudge him in the direction of the intended narrative, often severely restricting his path. The interesting thing about the pearls is that it can sit very close to dynamic non-linearity. You could have a game that is completely free except for the beginning and the end, with perhaps only some subtle details varying depending on the player's actions. Although in theory I like the idea of the ending being a result of my decisions, in practice it tends to feel tacked on. If an ending is not set, it should not be something you consciously pick like in Deus Ex... it should be the final outcome of your actions.

Personally I'm very interested in truly dynamic narrative but it's unfortunately easy to lose a sense of direction and purpose which is very noticable in most RPGs.

The best non-linear game I've played (Gothic) had a set ending, but a whole variety of ways to get there... because there were a number of set events that happened to and around the player, the narrative did not suffer, instead rose to the occasion. As a player you felt free, but at the same time part of a great story.

In Morrowind I just feel free and in Grim Fandango I just feel part of a great story. It would be awesome if more games could find a comfortable spot inbetween.

[Moron Lite]

Ninja: keep an eye out for Facade, when it gets released for free later this year. This is a fantastic example of dynamic non-linearity that's also focused. There's a couple articles on Ludonauts that should give you a decent idea of what's going on there (my GDC impressions and William's Guiltier Pleasures). Facade was an IGF finalist and also procured much interest from major game designers at the show (I was there when a person from Ion Storm expressed an interest in using the technology, but Warren Spector himself also keeps in touch with Facade's creators, afaik). It's very much where the future of videogames is headed, imo.

[Ninja Dodo]

I've read a bit about it before and it sounds very interesting indeed. I'll definitely stay tuned.

[Bard09]

One of the kind of game endings I've been missing for a while is the accomplishment-based ending. For example, during the course of the game you've rescued a bunch of people, made some good/bad, difficult choices, etc. So at the ending you get to see some of the ramifications of your actions. Did you rescue that stranger in time? Perhaps he's the king's assistant at the end of the game, and you see him waving. Or perhaps you neglected to save the princess fast enough that her castle was destroyed? Then the end of the game would take place in the rubble of the castle, rather than the throne room.

I'm trying to think of a game that's done this in recent memory, but I can't think of any. Come to think of it, I can't think of any in older memory, either. Quest for Glory and Chrono Trigger come to mind for some reason.

I was disappointed by the ending of Star Wars: KoToR for this very reason. I would have appreciated an extended ending based upon how your "love interest" turned out. And it would have been nice to see how each of your NPCs resolved the story based upon how you'd treated them.

Did you patch things up with Carth and his son? Wouldn't it have been awesome to see them reunited at the end if you went out of your way to do this during the game?

I really like games that give you "extra" based upon your decisions, I guess.

So while in essence there may only be 1-2 endings, each one would be different based upon the decisions you made in the game.

Can anyone think of games that have ended this way? It bugs me that I can't think of any.

[Moron Lite]

Hm, I dunno if this is quite what you're talking about, but in Metal Gear Solid, if you submit to the torture, you don't get to save Meryl, and hence don't get to ride off with her into the Alaskan sunset.

[Bard09]

Originally Posted by Moron Lite

Hm, I dunno if this is quite what you're talking about, but in Metal Gear Solid, if you submit to the torture, you don't get to save Meryl, and hence don't get to ride off with her into the Alaskan sunset.

I've never played MGS, but does that occur later in the game or in the final bit at the end?

I just remembered why Quest For Glory stuck out. In the second game, the lion-paladin (forgive me-- it's been a while) describes your accomplishments. People whom you influenced in the game, if you DID influence them, come out to thank and salute you. I really liked that. Also, if you do the extra quests to become a paladin yourself, he will officially mark you a paladin then and there.

I liked how the ending was a linear one, but had "extra" parts to it based on your actions during the game.

Any other games end like this? There has to be more than one...

[mycroft]

Illusion of choice, illusion of freedom, illusion of depth, illusion of intelligence. Smoke and mirrors. That is the key.

Frankly, I don't understand the fetish people have for multiple endings...

EDIT: I voted string of pearls, by the way.

[remixor]

I expect Marek will have a thing or two to say on this subject, given the topic of his graduate thesis.

For my part, I chose the string of pearls option. It seems to be the favorite of the people who have already posted in this thread, so I won't go into much detail. Essentially it seems to me that it allows the tightest storytelling while not making the player feel like he or she is progressing down an utterly rigid path.

[Ninja Dodo]

Originally Posted by Bard09

Any other games end like this? There has to be more than one...

King's Quest 6!

Ignoring for a moment the two entirely separate endings, depending on whether you did or didn't do certain things, the final sequence was slightly different.

Spoiler:

...like saving the genie or killing him, befriending the clown, solving the mystery behind the conflict... all this had an effect on the end.

[Anvilsmith]

There are times in standard adventure games when multiple endings actually benefit the story, provided you can get the player to go through the game several times. If done well, each ending can improve upon all others by showing a side of them that was not immediately apparent to the player. This means the endings would practically interact with each other, creating an intellectual puzzle of their own. There's another advantage to having multiple endings... If each ending is suggested through the course of play, or if the player already has one in mind by the last chapter, he should be given the means to carry it out. If it's against the game's morality, success might not be possible... The player, however, should not be forbidden from the actions he wishes to carry out, unless there's a good, stated reason for it.

The "string of pearls" (I prefer to call them knots) approach doesn't help as much as more complex systems that study past knots and apply their consequences on new ones. This would lead to something of a "cone" for the designer, though the player obviously wouldn't see it as such. Why is this effective? Because it makes the player seem involved in the game. When you're going through a puzzle-based adventure, you might easily forget the reasons for your mucking about (unless the game's puzzles are set out to use such information), so a reminder about how you did something in the last "chapter" and why you did it for might help refresh things. The "cone" approach is also easy to use, at least in subjective IFs: I can always place an infix somewhere in a paragraph, and ask the game to fill it up with inner monolog. It might take twice as long to write half of the paragraph, but the entertainment value will more than make up for it.

Plot and entertainment value don't matter that much, though. When it comes to the purpose of a game, the designer will have to decide whether a linear approach is more useful or not. In Torment,

Spoiler:

I felt the ending was a bit too varied, in that you could ressurect your dead companions after you've gotten them killed. Since I kept no savegames prior to the fortress, the end would have been far more tragic if I was given no choice. However, if I couldn't talk the Transcendent one into joining me, the game would have been far less entertaining even if I could magically ressurect everyone after the battle.

In essence, it's not so much about how many choices to allow, but which.