Player as self-sacrificing Jesus who dies at the end

[Greymail]

An endgame where you become a self-sacrificing Jesus who dies at the end.

Also to avoid:

* Deus Ex Machina magic.
* An endgame where all my choices seem to have no massive effect.

[b0rsuk]

Also avoid:
any NPC acting as a self-sacrificing Jesus. So cliche.

[Mandemon]

Also note: Game is party based. There is no "player character", there are "player characterS"

[Infinitron]

Also note: Game is party based. There is no "player character", there are "player characterS"

True. But an NPC can do it too. If you played Icewind Dale, do you remember Everard? Yep, even Icewind Dale is guilty of this!

[PseudoBen]

An endgame where all my choices seem to have no massive effect.

Yeah, like Mass Effect 3!! Awesome game ruined by the worst ending ever!

If Wasteland 2 is to be a great game, it must have a great ending. Don't screw-up the ending, please!

[TheEmissary]

An endgame where all my choices seem to have no massive effect.

Yeah, like Mass Effect 3!! Awesome game ruined by the worst ending ever!

If Wasteland 2 is to be a great game, it must have a great ending. Don't screw-up the ending, please!

A lot of AAA developers seem to think they can skimp on the ending because a certain percentage of players quits before the ending to play something else. I think that speaks to two things one they don't put much stock in to their game and they don't care that their game couldn't hold a persons interest to completion. Mean while the people that did enjoy the Mass Effect game series for instance are left with a ending that just abruptly ends.

I don't think we have much to worry about Wasteland 2 being released with a nonsensical or incomplete ending. The project is pretty much a "it is done when it is done"type situation.

Back on to the original topic, Things like Heroic sacrifice is pretty much a plot device that is about as old as recorded history. It has a place in story telling but I think for this type of game it is bordering on cliche and has been overused. That said they could allow the game to have a branching endings to allow for different endings. In Dragon Age: Origins for instance allowed you to make the ultimate sacrifice or have a party member do it or opt-out of it entirely by doing a dark ritual.

[TΛPETRVE]

Also avoid:
any NPC acting as a self-sacrificing Jesus. So cliche.

Well, it could be used for a nice ironic twist, where an NPC wants to play hero and ends up dying for absolutely nothing, and instead of earning posthumous glory, his obituary becomes the tale of a worthless nincompoop who totally deserved getting killed.

[Drool]

Things like Heroic sacrifice is pretty much a plot device that is about as old as recorded history. It has a place in story telling but I think for this type of game it is bordering on cliche and has been overused.

It's generally overused in games that feature a single, "chosen one" type of character. Wasteland 2 will be party-based; there's no "main character" to sacrifice him/herself. I highly doubt Fargo's vision involves the entire party killing themselves to beat the game.

[SniperHF]

If Wasteland 2 is to be a great game, it must have a great ending. Don't screw-up the ending, please!

Meh, lots of very good games have horrible horrible endings. I'm not really sure where the huge focus comes from on endings. You spend 20-100 hours playing something and the last 2 hours suck. Big whoop.

[Tweed]

Reminds me more of Fallout 3 than Mass Effect 3, good lord what a bad ending. I don't mind a self-sacrificing ending so long as it actually means something, but the protagonist's death in Fallout 3 was entirely pointless especially when there were several other characters who could have done the same thing and not died.

Meh, lots of very good games have horrible horrible endings. I'm not really sure where the huge focus comes from on endings. You spend 20-100 hours playing something and the last 2 hours suck. Big whoop.

Those last 2 hours spoil the entire ride, games are an investment of time (and money) and when all of that leads up to a tremendous disappointment you (or at least I) feel cheated and the replay value becomes greatly decreased because you know how terrible the ending is going to be.

[SniperHF]

Can you explain why? Because I just don't get it.

If the game has good gameplay, mechanics, story(except the ending obviously), level design, characters, and everything else you can think of who cares if 2 hours of it are shit. It just seems to me that gameplay should trump everything yet so much of the discussion of games revolves around everything else.

[Tweed]

Maybe the ride is more important that the destination for you, that's fine, but for a lot of people none of those things will matter if the final taste of victory turns to ash in their mouths. It'd be no different then sitting through a movie only to have the last twenty minutes undo everything the movie had been leading up to. Endings don't need to be happy, but they need to make sense, they need to explain things and they must have closure or you end up with the Mass Effect 3 disaster.

Bioware trained their players to expect everything they did to make a difference, to have some kind of impact in the world and that's not just in the writing, that's game play mechanics and the outcome is affected by what you do. Yet, when you reach the end of the game you're given one of three endings with little variance, a vague and very brief cut scene and absolutely no closure because nothing is explained. So the player is completely unsatisfied unless the actual game play sans story is the only thing that matters.

[SniperHF]

Bioware trained their players to expect everything they did to make a difference, to have some kind of impact in the world and that's not just in the writing, that's game play mechanics and the outcome is affected by what you do. Yet, when you reach the end of the game you're given one of three endings with little variance, a vague and very brief cut scene and absolutely no closure because nothing is explained. So the player is completely unsatisfied unless the actual game play sans story is the only thing that matters.

Keep in mind that I have not nor will I ever play a Mass Effect game.

But if the way you describe is accurate then as you say that IS a mechanic. That doesn't just make the ending shit but the whole game shit. Thus your whole issue with the game isn't that the ending was bad, but that you were sold a bill of goods and only found it was a lie in the end. I don't consider that a bad ending. It's a bad game.

A bad ending to me is something like Risen 1. Where you play through the whole game in one method and then the last stage is rail roaded toward fighting the final boss in a zelda style battle. But unlike your ME example, the work you did earlier in the game wasn't undone or bastardized in Risen.

[Gennadios]

An endgame where all my choices seem to have no massive effect.

I see what you did there OP, clever.

However, WL2 won't really have a massive AAA budget for a cinematic experience, I doubt the narrative will be so tight that a self-sacrifice ending could be very feasible since the devs will have to pad out their game with actual gameplay and not emotional anchors. Thank the gods for budget constraints, eh?

[Tweed]

I think it's more a difference in philosophies than anything. I mean, for me the whole game is about the experience and when that end doesn't meet the standards I think it should, then the whole experience is marred for it. Not everyone sees it the way I do, I felt like Mass Effect worked fine right up to those last few moments, but then hundreds of hours of playtime suddenly felt pointless as the developer trapped me inside the worst kind prison, the one with the ILLUSION of freedom.

All I can really say is please try to make a cohesive ending, no matter the method, no matter the final outcome, let me know what the impact of my actions were in this world for wield or woe, my lasting legacy.

I'd just as soon speak my peace on this subject and be done with it before it becomes a whiny rant about Bioware which I'm sure people are already tired of seeing everywhere.

[clippedwolf]

Bioware trained their players to expect everything they did to make a difference, to have some kind of impact in the world and that's not just in the writing, that's game play mechanics and the outcome is affected by what you do.

Worse, actually. The project manager lied when he told the fans stuff like that up to the games release.

Back on topic, I don't mind the 'self-sacrificing' hero thing one bit, it depends on its execution in the story. I value the illusion of freedom more than a well-trodden ending.

I found this list after a brief search: http://www.homeofheroes.com/moh/war/1_a_main.html.
Notice that during WW2 the mind set changes and the majority of recipients since have been posthumous.

But maybe OP is right in developers trying to squeeze emotion out of the players by forcing the characters into an un-winnable situation is lame.

[suz]

I think FO3 had the worst possible case of the topic.
There's a mutie standing right near me, who could trot in and press the right button without dying, right? Nope, let us sell you some brotherhood of steel DLC.

You can assemble a very long stick and press the right buttons from a distance, right? Well, nope, we really need to sell that DLC.

Stuff like that sucks badly - it doesn't even trigger emotion it's downright retarded.

[Rhyzard]

I'm mixed about this. I mean in Fable 2, I *knew* the dog was going to be killed, which just annoyed me. But in Ultima 7, Part 2: The Serpent Isle this happened at the end when Dupre takes your place as a sacrifice. It was completely unexpected, and worked ok for me.

[Infinitron]

I'm mixed about this. I mean in Fable 2, I *knew* the dog was going to be killed, which just annoyed me. But in Ultima 7, Part 2: The Serpent Isle this happened at the end when Dupre takes your place as a sacrifice. It was completely unexpected, and worked ok for me.

It was still kind of a novelty back in 1993.

[Woolfe]

The ending should be based on your actions throughout the game, and your final choice at that point in the game.

Assuming there is a point at the end where sacrifcing one or all of your party members could affect the way it ends, then that is an option open to you. Just don't make it the only option.

Whats that, by Dying I can save the mayor and all the children and defeat big bad.... Ok sure... but are there any other choices? Oh by trying to do this very difficult thing, I will definately beat the big bad, probably save the children, but lose the mayor for sure. Ok, sorry mayor, But I am going that option.


its all about choice. If I choose one path, then I should get an ending appropriate to that, than if I chose another path. Something that makes sense, doesn't miraculously save people who should be dead, and denote a simple change of colour, oh and advertise a completely different game as well.