Please no Good and Bad endings

[b0rsuk]

I don't want a game where the ending I get is basically a score. Bad endings are a wasted effort. Almost no one wants a bad ending, they'll just reload or reach for spoilers. Make players think which ending is actually better. I would enjoy arguing with others which ending is better.

Example:

In early designs, the results of dealing with Gizmo and Killian were intended to be less black and white: in the cut endings, a victorious Gizmo would turn Junktown into a flourishing trading center, albeit for entirely self-serving reasons, whereas a victorious Killian would gradually become a well-intentioned tyrant, grinding the town slowly into the dust. However, this original intention never made the final cut.

(Fallout 1)

[TΛPETRVE]

I don't want a game where the ending I get is basically a score. Bad endings are a wasted effort. Almost no one wants a bad ending, they'll just reload or reach for spoilers. Make players think which ending is actually better. I would enjoy arguing with others which ending is better.

I still believe in the idea of a single, inevitable ending that cannot be changed or averted whatsoever, but instead your actions throughout the game decide the actual role you play in the end. Let's just say, for the sake of shits and giggles, the whole story leads towards the rebirth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Depending on your efforts, you might end up part of the cult that summons the FSM, or you might end up uniting the people to help them prepare for (or against) the FSM's resurrection - or, you might learn that YOU (the player) actually ARE the FSM that pulled the strings all along, and the seemingly incoherent and pointless actions of your party were far from pointless in the end.

[Color Blotch]

In a game that embraces gray morality good or bad endings shouldn't be possible in first place. If everyone dies but nobody is saint, this isn't entirely bad, is it?

[b0rsuk]

In a game that embraces gray morality good or bad endings shouldn't be possible in first place. If everyone dies but nobody is saint, this isn't entirely bad, is it?

"Everybody dies" can be called differently: "You survived !" Or even "You're the happiest man in the world !". Credits to Robert Sheckley for that one.

[Oerwinde]

I like the idea that "good" endings don't necessarily mean "good" results. Examples being Fallout 3, the "good" option was to convince all the residents of Tenpenny tower that Ghouls aren't by definition bad and should be allowed in, vs the "bad" option of murdering all the ghouls. Good option results in the deaths of everyone in Tenpenny tower after the ghouls murder them all.

Also, in Dragon Age Origins, Bhalen is the treacherous younger brother of the Dwarf Noble and one of the claimants to the throne. He's a slimy douche who will do anything and step on anyone to get the throne. While Harrowmont is a man of honor who doesn't really resort to trickery. If you aid Harrowmont, the obvious good choice, he turns out to be an awful ruler that weakens the dwarves. Bhalen on the other hand, the obvious "bad" choice turns out to be an excellent diplomat and reformer, advancing dwarf society, making allies, and strengthening the dwarven kingdom pushing it to its greatest extent in a thousand years.

These kind of "the right thing doesn't mean the best thing" are excellent types of decisions to make. Either you get the shock of the results later, such as with the FO3 one, or you can get some really good ambiguous decisions where you know the outcome of the "Evil" act will be better in the long run, but you have to sacrifice your ideals for the greater good.

[Equidistant]

Agreed. No good or bad endings please, just Red/Blue/Green.

[Interloper]

I like the idea that "good" endings don't necessarily mean "good" results. Examples being Fallout 3, the "good" option was to convince all the residents of Tenpenny tower that Ghouls aren't by definition bad and should be allowed in, vs the "bad" option of murdering all the ghouls. Good option results in the deaths of everyone in Tenpenny tower after the ghouls murder them all.

I agree to a point - the most peaceful or alturistic option might not always pan out the way you planned, but the result should still be telegraphed ahead of time. I have no desire to finish a quest and think everything's going to be OK, only to find out everybody died and there was no way I could've known that would happen. If on the other hand I secure some food for some starving raiders I should be prepared to hear about them going onto attack a nearby settlement. By the same logic if an NPC lies to me about being a refugee and is in fact a raider that's fine too, though I'd appreciate the courtesy of being able to call them out if I catch on.

[Color Blotch]

I agree to a point - the most peaceful or alturistic option might not always pan out the way you planned, but the result should still be telegraphed ahead of time. I have no desire to finish a quest and think everything's going to be OK, only to find out everybody died and there was no way I could've known that would happen. If on the other hand I secure some food for some starving raiders I should be prepared to hear about them going onto attack a nearby settlement. By the same logic if an NPC lies to me about being a refugee and is in fact a raider that's fine too, though I'd appreciate the courtesy of being able to call them out if I catch on.

You don't want unexpected results and so you'd rather have game hold your hand so you don't make any mistakes?

[Nephilim]

I agree to a point - the most peaceful or alturistic option might not always pan out the way you planned, but the result should still be telegraphed ahead of time. I have no desire to finish a quest and think everything's going to be OK, only to find out everybody died and there was no way I could've known that would happen. If on the other hand I secure some food for some starving raiders I should be prepared to hear about them going onto attack a nearby settlement. By the same logic if an NPC lies to me about being a refugee and is in fact a raider that's fine too, though I'd appreciate the courtesy of being able to call them out if I catch on.

You don't want unexpected results and so you'd rather have game hold your hand so you don't make any mistakes?

I don't know why people feel the need to misrepresent an argument someone is making.

If there's absolutely no foreshadowing of the result, then it isn't a choice at all. If you follow through on a quest you should have some expectation about how it ends. If it twists at the end and the whole game is over without any prior indication, this doesn't make the story badass, it just makes the story bad. It becomes clear that you choices don't matter because there is no indication of future events and you might as well just pick randomly because there's no way of knowing the end result.

There's nothing old school, nothing deep and nothing hardcore about pointless endings with no foreshadowing that are utterly arbritrary. Pretending that he's asking for hand holding is demeaning and shows you don't know wtf he is talking about.

[Color Blotch]

I don't know why people feel the need to misrepresent an argument someone is making.

If there's absolutely no foreshadowing of the result, then it isn't a choice at all. If you follow through on a quest you should have some expectation about how it ends. If it twists at the end and the whole game is over without any prior indication, this doesn't make the story badass, it just makes the story bad. It becomes clear that you choices don't matter because there is no indication of future events and you might as well just pick randomly because there's no way of knowing the end result.

There's nothing old school, nothing deep and nothing hardcore about pointless endings with no foreshadowing that are utterly arbritrary. Pretending that he's asking for hand holding is demeaning and shows you don't know wtf he is talking about.

And where did I say anything about "absolutely no foreshadowing of the result"? Didn't you just misrepresent the argument that I was making?

My point is that game should not necessarily shove that very "foreshadowing" up your face. You might find indications of what's going to happen, or you might not. Always "telegraphing result ahead of time" so there was no way you miss any of the possible consequences means pretty much removing possibility of failure. And this is what hand holding means in the strictest meaning of that term.

[Marty Czosnyka]

Agreed. No good or bad endings please, just Red/Blue/Green.

That's just plain evil, I don't think I could handle another game pulling that one on me again.

[SniperHF]

Regarding that Fallout 1 ending though, changing it actually did make sense. Unless the Killian character was totally re-written, that ending doesn't make sense and would have annoyed me because of it. Not because it was "bad".

The game needs to drop the hint somewhere that Killian could become a tyrant type. Like you find a journal when you break in and steal his stuff (always did this ), or maybe a quest he gives you takes you down the authoritarian side, or one of his lieutenants talks bad about him. I agree with Color Blotch though in that you should be able to miss these clues and they shouldn't be in your face. Sometimes you are in fact wrong. But in the Fallout example there was no chance at all to perceive this.

Moral ambiguity is real, and should come into play sometimes. But so should moral unambiguity. Somethings in life ARE clear.

[Tweed]

This is a tricky one to handle, I've grown tired of games that try to hold your hand or make every decision so very very clear that there's no possible way you can make a "mistake". I have to agree with Sniper, not all things are clear, but neither should every choice in the game be blatantly obvious. It seems to me that Obsidian revisited Killian's original character in New Vegas with Sherrif Meyers, but the game does drop a few subtle hints to indicate what kind of person he is before you ever make the choice and that's the way it should be.

[Fuzi0n]

Well, the game should imo have a good and an evil ending (this would improve the replay value). A fallout type ending is also fine though.

I just don't want a "neutral" ending where you can choose from 3 different colors...

[Corran-Cain]

I could never understand why they did the Gizmo/Killian ending change...

The "alternative" endings are far more logical.

Yea sure Killian had good intentions, but in such a new world his kind of "law" enforcement would keep the town smal/stagnating.

take a look on Iraq.. Good intensions, f**king bad outcome (damn... why isn't there a quickload option in real life) and you have to live now with it.

I really want to see good/bad kind of endings, if it comes in a good storytelling way.

[Mandemon]

They were changed because testers felt they were wrong. SniperHF pretty much summed up, there is no foreshadowing how Killian could become a tyrant.

[Corran-Cain]

it never said anything about he became a tyrant

"With Gizmo out of the way, Killian enforces his brand of frontier justice on Junktown. The city remains orderly but small, as travelers steer away from his rigid sensibilities."

and he was strict with his sight of law.

[zRedShift]

I like the idea that "good" endings don't necessarily mean "good" results. Examples being Fallout 3, the "good" option was to convince all the residents of Tenpenny tower that Ghouls aren't by definition bad and should be allowed in, vs the "bad" option of murdering all the ghouls. Good option results in the deaths of everyone in Tenpenny tower after the ghouls murder them all.

Also, in Dragon Age Origins, Bhalen is the treacherous younger brother of the Dwarf Noble and one of the claimants to the throne. He's a slimy douche who will do anything and step on anyone to get the throne. While Harrowmont is a man of honor who doesn't really resort to trickery. If you aid Harrowmont, the obvious good choice, he turns out to be an awful ruler that weakens the dwarves. Bhalen on the other hand, the obvious "bad" choice turns out to be an excellent diplomat and reformer, advancing dwarf society, making allies, and strengthening the dwarven kingdom pushing it to its greatest extent in a thousand years.

These kind of "the right thing doesn't mean the best thing" are excellent types of decisions to make. Either you get the shock of the results later, such as with the FO3 one, or you can get some really good ambiguous decisions where you know the outcome of the "Evil" act will be better in the long run, but you have to sacrifice your ideals for the greater good.

What does it say about me if I chose both to aid the ghouls and Harrowmont?
I may have caused mass murder, but at least my conscience is clear.

I died a little inside after I found out the ghouls killed everyone, including Herbert Dashwood.

[BentSea]

I'll be honest, that sort of thoughtful outcome to different endeavors is exactly what I was hoping for in this game, and one of the reasons I'm so excited about it.

[zRedShift]

To topic:
Worst kind of ending would be DXHR/Mass Effect 3/RGB ending, aka, all the choices you made, all the paths you've taken don't matter, choose your ending right now!
In DXHR you actually had a wide spectrum of possibilities, and you had to go the extra 10 feet to unlock 2 of the 4, but still, I preferred the Witcher 2 system, where you have branching paths and you can want lots of things like saving saskia, getting triss to avoid a witch hunt, saving foltest's bastards etc but you can choose only one during one gameplay, and you cannot travel between branches at will. Like said in toggles thread, roguelike mentality, what you choose is what you get, no switching in the middle. However, I'm not sure if it can suit this kind of game. Here I'd like the fallout formula: for each major choice you get several ending pictures with narration telling "what happened after".