It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
I remember when Unreal 2 was released and there was a huge outcry over how it ended - by killing your entire crew. With the Last Of Us now just released (no spoilers here), it got me thinking: can developers get away with killing off people in the end?

Another example is Fallout 3 where you sacrifice yourself - massive outcry once more. Personally, I didn't mind and the DLC gave you an alternative ending anyway but it goes to show that gamers are less willing to accept a negative ending than, say, a movie goer.

I guess there's a large difference between having just an hour and a half of your time invested and actively fighting for survival for 10-20-30-... 100? hours only to be rewarded by having heaven's door slammed in your face. We like to be rewarded for our hard work - whereas some of the best movies had a negative ending, I wonder how far this will ever be possible with games?

I myself don't mind a negative ending if it makes sense - and if it doesn't feel like it undoes all the hard work you've done so far. The worst ending a game could have, is fighting a great evil only for you to die in the end and then discovering the evil hasn't been halted at all (actually, didn't Divinity II do something like that?).

Opinions?
Yes Silent Hill 2 has probably best bad endings ever and they just make the game better. It is important that bad ending makes sense and is not just a random afterthought to make the game more edgy or something.
I think you pretty much summed it up.

I think the trouble begins when your character's ending is undeserved. If you build your character to be (almost) unbeatable, to be rich, famous succesful, whatever you fancy, you have trouble letting him go in the final cutscene sequence.

If you know that your main character is doomed you probably can live with a bad Ending.

I prefer endings where the main character survives. I don't care if he turns out to be the bad one or if he dooms the universe in that process...
Post edited June 17, 2013 by Khadgar42
avatar
Red_Avatar: I remember when Unreal 2 was released and there was a huge outcry over how it ended - by killing your entire crew. With the Last Of Us now just released (no spoilers here), it got me thinking: can developers get away with killing off people in the end?

Another example is Fallout 3 where you sacrifice yourself - massive outcry once more. Personally, I didn't mind and the DLC gave you an alternative ending anyway but it goes to show that gamers are less willing to accept a negative ending than, say, a movie goer.

I guess there's a large difference between having just an hour and a half of your time invested and actively fighting for survival for 10-20-30-... 100? hours only to be rewarded by having heaven's door slammed in your face. We like to be rewarded for our hard work - whereas some of the best movies had a negative ending, I wonder how far this will ever be possible with games?

I myself don't mind a negative ending if it makes sense - and if it doesn't feel like it undoes all the hard work you've done so far. The worst ending a game could have, is fighting a great evil only for you to die in the end and then discovering the evil hasn't been halted at all (actually, didn't Divinity II do something like that?).

Opinions?
Here is an opinion. Use a spoiler tag next time:(
avatar
Red_Avatar: I remember when Unreal 2 was released and there was a huge outcry over how it ended - by killing your entire crew.
How the crap is that a bad ending?
The concept of finishing a game is alien to me.
The one kind of ending that's really unsatisfying is the "We-meant-to-make-a-trilogy-but-the-publisher-axed-the-series-after-the-first-installment"-ending. Advent Rising, I'm looking at you.
that Fahrenheit ending really ruined it for me, I couldn't write such a shitty ending even if I tried, it's almost like they did it on purpose to piss people off.
Well, older games used to have some pretty nonsensical black screen endings such as the infamous "Conglaturations". As for newer games, it depends on the games in question. Mass Effect 3's infamous ending horribly backfired, forcing the developers to release a revised one. Other games don't seem to have suffered particularly like Prince of Persia (2008) for example.
Yes, as long as the ending fits in well with the game. danteveli mentioned Silent Hill 2; I thought Silent Hill 1's best ending was also the worst ... ??? ... I mean the worst ending was the best ... I mean that I liked the bad ending more than the happy one. But a bad ending works pretty naturally in a survival horror context.
Post edited June 17, 2013 by BadDecissions
avatar
TwisterBE: Here is an opinion. Use a spoiler tag next time:(
Yes, please.
Spoiler: the forum doesn't have spoiler tags. Ridiculous, I know.
Well made bad endings won't be hated by people. It's just easier to make a good ending than a bad ending is all (well actually, it's pretty damn hard to make a good good ending, but people usually don't mind a bad good ending, whereas a bad bad ending pisses them off. Ehm.)
IIRC, each next game in the Koudelka/Shadow Hearts series was built upon the bad ending of the previous one. The good endings were sort of a bonus for the player. Worked out quite nicely.
Forgive but I assumed the title means bad endings as in they were crap not the kind where the protaginist "lose"