Games with Multiple Endings

I've been perusing the interwebs, but can't seem to find any solid opinions on this. All the polls I seem to find just ask questions like "Will you replay a game to see the different endings?"

So I'm posing the question here. Do you like games (specifically RPGs) with multiple endings? Is there a limit to this? Vote and let me know why in the comments. Thanks!

 

Some games I've gone through and gotten them all and for others, I've left the endings to be unknown to me. All of this just depends entirely on how I feel about the game and how I have to go about getting those multiple endings.

If it's the ending of Deus Ex: Human Revolution with all of the endings presented as a choice at the very end, I will check all of those out, absolutely. It's right there. Why not?

Other times when it's an ending that is determined by the choices you make, often at times I play the game as I would making the choices that I (or as I see my character) making and let the ending be an outcome of those choices.

 

I prefer one ending. Minor story branching during the main story is okay, and at the end, I want it all to come to a close. I don't like feeling that, "I missed something cool, because I chose left vs right". I do like games that have replay, like Diablo, or MMO's, where the story ends, and yet the gameplay continues.

Gigi

 

Can't say I really care one way or the other. I suppose my bigger argument is whether the game itself actually needs different endings. Dark Souls is an interesting example where there is an entire secret plot line running behind the scenes, waiting to crown the new dark lord. Otherwise, most endings don't really matter. Most either just wrap up the bland story or give you the usual douchebag or cool guy ending choice.

 

I guess it really depends, for example if you play Beyond two Souls it has more than one ending and it's pretty amazing.
But it would not be good for a game like Super Mario haha. But in general I prefer 1 ending

 

Multiple endings are fine, but it's really unlikely that I'll ever see more than one. I barely have enough time to play games as it is, if I actually make it to the end, that's the end...

For instance, I loved how many different ways Dragon Age Origins could end. The end I got was the end that happened, for me it's definitive. It's very unlikely I'll play the game again for a different ending.

I also don't mind not experiencing everything in a game. I don't have the time.

 

My view is ... I have never cared much about how a game ends. I care about how it plays.

For example, if it doesn't play well I won't care about how it ends and I won't try to get to the end to see it.

And if it does play well enough to merit replays, then it's more about the journey than the destination.

With the original Diablo, I could have cared less about the ending. I'm not sure I even remember it. But I found the play itself engaging enough that I played each class one right after the other.

Now sure ... if you are writing a story it is possible to have an ending that is nonsensical and dissatisfying, one which leaves a bad taste in the player's mouth. So endings do matter. But to me that is a separate issue from multiple endings. A bad ending can be avoided by being consistent in both game mechanics and storytelling, so the player can to some degree predict the ending and play to a satisfying conclusion.

 

Thanks for all the responses so far. My reason for writing this is that I'm beginning work on an RPG. My original idea was to have a few points in the game (around 6 or so) where the player makes a choice that drastically changes the events in the game. For a broad example, one choice in the beginning may have a character become your best friend and permanent party member. Making choice B, on the other hand, will result in that same character becoming the primary antagonist in the story.

Obviously, this means a great deal more work for me. At it's most extreme, that's 36 stories and a pile more art assets, dialogue, etc. Now, it won't be quite that crazy, as each branch won't be entirely unique from each other, but you get the idea.

Of course gameplay is my primary concern, and I think I've got some solid ideas on how to make the game fun and exciting. And I'm a dyed-in-the-wool storyteller, so creating a great story with interesting characters is obviously a large focus for me as well.

So! I think the gameplay will be enough of a "hook" to stand on its own, and I'm wondering if the added element of a drastically branching story would be worth the additional work.

 

I've seen something similar written (here?) by someone else so it's not my original thought but still true: Most players will not get to see all different endings / branches. As you say, it's a lot of work you're putting into them, but each branch is only seen by a fraction of your player base. It would be more effective to put in the same amount of work into stuff that more of your players get to experience. If your time and the amount of work you're willing to put into the game is infinite then by all means do as many endings as you want but if it's not, I'd rather try to keep the myWork/theirFun factor as high as possible for as many players as possible.

Personally, I like multiple endings and freedom, in theory. In reality, I hardly ever finish any games and the only factor in me going for multiple endings is if the game play itself is so cool that I still want to play - the multiple endings are just a means to do it, not a motivation.

 

One thing to be noted (if it would make any difference), is that after completing the game, the player would be shown a line with points where each significant decision was made. They would then be able to select any one of those points to replay from there, and make a different decision (and, of course, unlock other decision points).

 

This is a huge difference. Could work if it's a built in mechanic from the start.

My biggest concern echoes what's been mentioned before. How much content will you be creating that will never be used. And RPGs are very content heavy.

 

I'm not going to be creating a game with multiple endings anytime soon - making a game with one ending at all decent is a challenge for me - but I like multiple endings. It reinforces that my choices actually affect the game world.

 

Oddly enough, I'm actually a big fan of creating content that will never be seen. Okay, well maybe not "never", but rarely. I think it adds a great sense of depth to a game. For instance, in the game Alpha Centauri, normally you would just log out for the day and be done. However, every once in a great while, when you went to logout, a voice would say "Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you."

It's nothing spectacular, but when you've played a game for so long, and you think you've seen all there is to see, it's awesome to have something new come up. It makes it feel new again, and makes you want to come back.

 

As a player I prefer one ending because I want to experience the entire thing. not missing out. I am not the kind of player to replay an entire game to experience a small fraction of the game.

As a developer I avoid multiple endings, just because I will be spending more time fixing plot holes and bugs than adding to game play value.

But a small side story without relevance to the main story that is taken at your leisure is perfect. and in my opinion adds to the flavor of the world you are playing in. Something I feel is missing in many games are secrets areas that have some form of environmental storytelling(and a +5 holy avenger hidden in a barrel).

 

I SOOO agree with that last part. What happened to secret areas and hidden goodies!? My game is going to bring some of that back. Hidden locations that have side quests and stories, secret characters that require some skill and luck to find and acquire, etc.

This is absolutely something we've lost in today's spoon-fed games. (And probably something that deserves its own forum post...)

 

How will you finish? Most replies say something like, "Such content. VERY hard. OMG!". To 'bring some of that back', it needs to be seen by others, which likely means reducing scope, so you can finish.

Gigi

 

I'm in two minds about this as someone who is attempting different story lines, the consumer in me says YES! I want to decide my own fate. But the games developer in me doesn't want to dig myself into a whole where I can't follow up in the second act, also if you're going to offer choice it has to be in some way meaningful or it's just a waste.

 

You could always expand the story after the release. By Expansion or DLC. Your project is looking so promising I dont want you to burn out

 

Yeah might be the way to go, I think at this point the plan is just get something released ..

 

If a game offers me choices, then it must sustain the act that my choices have an outcome, it could be an illusion, that is fine, but it must not break the suspension of disbelief (aka, mass effect... ...) .

So for me, and I believe this is what good storytelling in interactive media, is not not amount of choices, but how realistic the player perceive the consequences of them.

 

In the Fable series, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age the multiple endings always seemed disappointing. It's nice when the entire game is changed based on actions. But to briefly mention how your choices affected the world at the end is just a let down to me. I only even bothered trying the other ending options in a couple fable games to see if anything interesting came of it.

If anything I would make multiple game paths instead of multiple endings. But even in Dragon Age and Mass Effect, the choices made during the seemed to have very little affect on the game after you left whatever area you made the choices in.

I've never found a decision based game to be great because you get choices. It really comes down to the game itself being good or bad. I'm sure branching paths can be done well. I just haven't seen it happen personally.

 

Multiple ending is usefull to add some replay value.
But be aware that only a small portion of player are going to finish your game. And from them, a small portion are going to do the game twice to get all ending.
So you will spend times on something most player won't see.
If you don't have a AAA game, in my opinion, you should postpone alternate ending to a game update.

 

If your game is linear as hell, narrow the number of endings. People can only watch your movie so many times...

The best design I've seen is open world sandbox-ish games that give little direction but have multiple goals to choose from that all result in some form of game end. Do you want to immerse your players in an experience or tell them a story?

 

I think its important that you have enough gameplay variance to support multiple endings, if you go that route. I'm much more inclined to replay a game for a new ending if I also am able to completely change my character's build and playstyle, or party up with a whole new cast of characters for those boss battles.

 

In the past multiple endings seemed really compelling but today I'd have to agree with others here and say I'd only have time for one IF I actually get to the end of the game. It's sad how many games I get to play all the way through nowadays and if the story is linear it's very unlikely I'd play it again just for an alternate ending. More intriguing is the hidden gems of content to provide that depth during play especially if there is replay-ability built into the design.

From a designer standpoint I personally feel the effort is better spent on content that players might actually see throughout the game rather than a branch at the end that most players may not get to.

 

Alright, well I've decided to go with a single storyline... kinda. There will be one story, which only branches slightly in the middle based on your decisions, but ultimately comes to the same conclusion. The only exception is that there is a "bonus" to the ending if you perform certain actions during the game.

NOTE: It's actually harder to write a branch in the middle and come to the same end than it is to write a completely different story arc.

 

As a lot of of people above have be telling you, I again will say. It is dependent on the game type. multiple endings should be used to improve game play and the users experience. It is also dependent on your story. I personally feel that a lot of AAA company's just add really badly done ones to try and milk as much time out of you as possible. People may disagree with me here but for example, in mass effect you choice your dialog, your team, the order you do stuff and it has little to no impact on the game play. where as in fallout 3, you can blow a whole town up, but this will then effect how people react to you, locking out some quests, people coming after you. stuff like that adds reputability, without making you feel like your choices don't matter.

 

Sorry to jump in on the conversation.

Just to put in my $0.02, I always like games that make the world a sandbox with multiple storylines going on and they each have their own end, but the game keeps on going after they are done. Like Elder Scrolls.

 

For strong linear story RPG, just one, because i hate it forcing me to play it again
For sandbox RPG, as many as possible, so that the players can choose their destination

 

Yeah, that's true. I'd just assume read a book or watch a movie for linear stories though. I'm not saying people are wrong for liking games like that, I just don't think it's my favorite medium for that narative. It makes you play something to get to what you really want; a story. Where as non-linear you make your own story, and save for Chose-Your-Own-Adventure books there aren't many options outside of video games.

 

For me multiple endings are fine as long as you havet the option to just watch the endings after you've completed the game. For exempel I usually play the game normally ones and let the ending I get just come, that will then be my ending. After I've got my ending I just watch the other endings to see what they were like and sometimes if I thought the game (not the ending, the game) was really good I would replay it and strive towards getting my new desired ending. But that's just my opinion.

 

We haven't yet touched upon the length and intended replayability of the game. It sounds like you're going for the (nowadays common) approach of an epic game that takes you weeks/months to go through, and then (as many here have said) is unlikely to be played again. But there's a big part of me that yearns for the games that were designed to be played in one sitting, and then replayed again from the beginning at the next sitting, etc.

Yes, I'm thinking of Super Mario Bros 3.

This game world was huge, both at the time, and (in my opinion) by modern standards. Many casual players never got to the end, but they had lots of fun exploring it and taking different paths each time they tried.

Then there players like me and my buddies, who spent embarrassingly large amounts of time acquiring god-like Mario skills, and could complete the whole game in 20 minutes. And we still kept coming back, to find those secret areas, hidden treasures, and special tricks (like the one place where you could acquire unlimited extra lives).

This game didn't have multiple different endings, but it could have. That would've been cool, and it would work because nobody plays this game just once; you play it many times, and if you get hooked on it, you play it thousands of times.

I guess we could also bring up Roguelike games (Nethack was my favorite), also designed to be played thousands of times. In a sense, there were a great many different endings there, because you could die by poison, or by being eaten, or of sickness, or by frying yourself with your own wand, or by angering the gods, or by falling down a pit, or or or... Legends say there was a "successful" ending too, though I never managed to reach it. But Roguelike games are quite different in that the whole dungeon is randomly generated. So it's not just different endings — it's a different world each time you play. And I'm not entirely sure that different ways of dying should count as different "endings" anyway.

 

I think it is possible to have multiple endings to a game and RPGs give themselves over quite well to that. Here's the current approach I am taking with a game that has leanings towards RPG but not quite.

The game is both single and multiplayer. The choice of character in the game all exist in the game world anyway and have specific roles within that world. The default situation is to have AI for all the potential player characters i.e. those not being played. Then within the game world each playable NPC and the player character is given an overall objective in the game that is specific to that character, and during the game the player and NPCs may co-operate but at some point their agendas will diverge.

As these character objectives are mutually exclusive the player will have a different experience depending on the character being played and as the overall objective of each character is only revealed to a player when that character is chosen, the game has potential replayability without it being shoved down a player's throat as a must, and there could be radically different endings depending on which character a player chooses. The object component systm of Unity lends itself to this type of game better than most engines, I find that once one really understands how Unity works that it creates new game designs more easily.

 

@sicga123 Sounds like a really interesting concept, how long does you game last for. If it is a shorter playtime I feel like the concept could be really interesting.

 

It's hard to say, it depends on the player. The game has set boundaries and a variety of objectives and NPCs etc. but it's far from complete although all the elements have been playtested and the project is fully prepped and I'm putting the various gameplay systems into it, but I'm a lone developer and I'm treating this as a pet project whilst I do other stuff.

 

@sicga123 Sounds quite interesting, please keep me posted

 

Sure, will be some time until I have enough to showcase though.

 

There was a movie that did this quite well. I don't remember the name, but it showed the last few minutes leading up to an assassination from a dozen different characters perspectives. Each time you got new information as a viewer, and eventually built the full picture.

I would to intrigued by something that took this approach. Play through the characters one at a time, in order. Learn some new clue as to what is happening each time.

 

Vantage Point

 

The movie "Go" is also interesting in that regard. It tells the same story three times; each time from the point of view of a different character.

Also the movie "Clue"... which gives you like 8 possible endings.

 

Hopefully it will get done, it's a bit difficult to describe exactly how the game is designed to play because it would take too long, and there's no point it not being a thread about any particular game.

 

I prefer multiple intros to multiple endings. Like the different starting scenarios you could choose in Dragon Age: Origins. Those were amazing. Or Seiken Densetsu 3, where your choice of characters gave you different beginnings. I don't really remember any game with multiple endings that made an impact on me. Maybe because I'm really bad at finishing games.

 

I like this idea. While I'm loath to play through the entire game again to hit different endings, I'll probably end up restarting a dozen times to see new content.

 

I was playing the wolf among us but didnt find that there was enough different endings to replay any of the episodes.