How multiple endings can ruin a game.

With each generation of video game consoles we see new ideas and implementations. Customizable controls and save points are two rather recent options that most gamers agree have been very beneficial for gaming as a whole. However, the recent spasm of games with separate playable story arcs is one trend that I'm not sure I can get behind.

On its' surface the idea of multiple story arcs seems like a win for me the gamer. In theory, multiple stories bring multiple play throughs, which equate to multiple bang for my buck. However, multiple stories do not equal multiple fun, and end up being a waste of choice. The dream of making the ultimate computer generated choose your own adventure novel is flawed at its very core, choose your own adventure novels are terrible!

To better help make my argument I'm going to talk about a few games that have multiple story pathways; Infamous, Bioshock, and Fallout 3.

What was great about Bioshock was that they found a way to tell the story without needing cut scenes. By doing this they gave the player a greater sense of immersion. It truly was a huge step for video games and hopefully inspires developers to tell their stories in a similar fashion. That being said, the weakest part of Bioshock was the very end. A true ending couldn't be given to Bioshock. We have a great game telling a great story, without the use of cut scenes, and at the very end they have to resort to using a cut scene in order to be able to account for how the Little Sisters were treated throughout the game.

Did I really need a choice? Actually choosing to save or harvest a Little Sister didn't enhance or dampen the emotional experience. It was the look on her face. and the inflection and tone of her voice that made it a powerful bond of gamer and game.

The actual playing of the game was virtually unaffected as well. While it is true you receive more Adam for harvesting the Little Sister, you are provided with gifts of Adam throughout the game if you chose to save them.

May be they could of worked out one solid ending if they had done away with the multiple story element of the game.

Fallout 3, is a bit more complicated as it implements the multiple story arc to a much larger degree. Throughout the main quest you are given many choices that effect the outcome of the game. These choices are then recognized at the end with a lame voiceover repeating the choices you made. While these choices you made had some actual cause and effect while you played, in the end nothing is different. For instance, you either poisoned the water or you didn't; You either went in and tried to stop the explosion yourself or you sent in the lady. In the end the only difference is the voice over.
It truly was a waste of choice, you didn't get to see your choices effect the world.
What saves Fallout 3 is the side missions. Each side mission was a mini story in itself and actually did a better job of choice than the main mission. Blowing up or saving Megaton was an actual game choice that actually effected the game. If you chose to blow up Megaton, it was gone...there wasn't just a voice over telling you that you had chosen to blow up Megaton...roll credits.

Infamous is another game that gives players the perception of choice. Infamous, perhaps more than the two previous titles, could have benefitted from one solid story line.

While I prefer Bioshock's method of telling story, the comic style cut scenes in Infamous are beautifully done and the story itself is not without merit. Where Infamous struggles is with the two story arc system. Sadly the choices you make have no impact. A true evil badass would never be bossed around by a lady on a headset. Besides how you look on posters, or whether people cheer or scream when you came down the alley, the choices made have zero effect on the game. Whether good or evil, everyone you interact with treats you the same. No matter what, your girlfriend is a b**ch, your buddy is annoying, and you do the same missions. The choices have no emotional connection, like the anguish of a Little Sister in Bioshock. In an early mission you choose whether to give a box of food to the people or to take it all for yourself. Your only interaction with this choice is pressing O or X. You don't swoop in and take the food from the masses. You don't take it and distribute it...you just press a button. Then it's done. You don't even eat in the game. Since it's the same game, with no emotional tie downs, the only reason for choosing good or evil is because of the powers. If you are evil you get red powers and if you are good you get white powers. Some of the powers are different and there is no way of getting both at the same time. This is not reason enough to play the game twice.

Many things could have benefitted if extra time and money wasn't wasted on two story arcs. First the enemies could have been more varied. With a for sure set of available powers the enemies could have been made to interact with the player in a more satisfying manner. Instead of 3 different colored gangs that all shoot you from a far away rooftop, there could have been more personal, and yes linear, firefights. There could have been more side missions or at least more varied side missions. A mission where you shoot a group of people and a mission where you shoot a group of people while turning off blinking red lights are not different missions.

Games can be a great story telling device. In order to do this properly, story needs to be treated like it matters, not like it's a simple choice like what color hat you choose for your avatar. If developers want to tell two different main stories let them make two different games.

Problem? Report this post

Mike Hawkins

July 17, 2009

It seems to me that your problem isnt with multiple story arcs, but with the execution of multiple story arcs. One day they will be able to make games where you interact with the world the way you want, and still get worthwhile consequences and conclusions no matter what. That day wont come without growing pains.

Report | Reply

Pete

I agree with you. I prefer games with only one ending. I love Chrono Trigger, but I wish it had one ending instead of 12 or 16 or whatever. I want to know what actually happens to me after going through the whole game. Be able to eat the fruits of my labor instead of some virtual fruit y'know? that's just the way I see it.

Toby Davis

July 18, 2009

So does this mean your not buying Dragon Age: Origins?

Jon X. Porter

July 19, 2009

There are many problems with the ending to Bioshock, but I don't think further limiting your choice would have helped anything. [[[[SPOILERS]]]] Throughout the first three quarters of the game you're shepherded through a linear narrative, until finally you come face to face with Andrew Ryan and find out you've been his pawn all along. The problem is that after this encounter, you continue along your linear path, even after you've supposidly broken free of his control. I think Bioshock [i]needed[/i] its multiple endings to give you what little choice it could. Coming out the other side of that game having had no impact on the story, no [b]choice[/b] whatsoever would have null and voided its artistic message entirely.

Dirk

I dont get your article. You claimed in the beginning that "...multiple stories do not equal multiple fun, and end up being a waste of choice. The dream of making the ultimate computer generated choose your own adventure novel is flawed at its very core, choose your own adventure novels are terrible!" So, I am supposed to believe that lambasting three highly flawed games for their lack of creativity in implementing multiple story arcs proves that [i]all[/i] games with multiple story arcs will invariably be broken at their core? That seems like a bad argument to me. You would have had to show, at the very least, that all games with multiple story lines have the same flaw, and that flaw was at the foundation of the very [i]idea[/i] of a game with multiple story arcs. As it is, you succeeded only in pointing out the problems with these three games and nothing more. You also forgot to talk about Heavy Rain. Every playable character in HR can be permanently killed, each death changing the course of the narrative. This does not seem like a game with multiple story arcs that is broken at its core.

Glen Haupt

July 20, 2009

I think that comparing games with multiple story arcs to "choose your own adventure" books is an unfortunately valid one. But it's the fact that the comparison is valid that is the issue, not the concept of games with multiple endings itself. One of the primary things that separates games from movies or books or music is the interactivity. The problem we have is that it's difficult to effectively utilize that interactivity due to time, budget, and other constraints, [i]especially[/i] with respect to the story. Developers, I think, just simply don't have the time to make every decision you make have an effect on how the game turns out in a significant way (even if they like to say their game does). As a result, instead of having a truly interactive experience where the player is the one writing the book himself, we get a game that plays like a "choose your own adventure" story. You might be able to pick the ending, but it's already been written by the author, not you. The chasm we have to cross is the one where developers turn over the script and gameplay creation to the gamer in a way that allows our decisions in the game to shape that creation in a dynamic and free-form way. I have absolutely no idea how that can be accomplished, but I think that is the crux of the problem, not the fact that developers haven't been able to do it right yet.

Derek Amundson

Peter- May be I was too harsh but really it's just a topic of discussion. Bioshock is my favorite game of all time even with the ending, and I played the hell out of Fallout 3. Still, I stand by my statement that the stories of these three games would of benefited from 1 solid main story. As for Heavy Rain I've never played it so I really can't comment on it. Thanks for the input though, it's nice to see people comment even if they think I'm wrong or an idiot.

July 29, 2009

I dont think you're an idiot, in fact I agree with some of your criticisms of the games you listed. But, like I said, the argument is invalid. Its of the following form. Say I was looking to argue that ALL citrus fruit tastes terrible. My argument for that conclusion is that I tasted a lime, lemon and grapefruit and found all of them much too sour. Clearly, I can't argue that ALL citrus tastes terrible because lemons, limes and grapefruits taste awful. I mean, what about oranges? Heavy Rain hasn't been released, but you should look into it.

True enough...although I would point out the title is "How multiple endings CAN ruin games" not "WILL ruin games" With that in mind I tried to come up with examples supporting that theme as examples not supporting that theme would not make sense in this article. I still believe that if a game is going to have a story, that story should be important. What makes a well done story are the interactions and decisions the characters make. For good or bad, that is how the story goes and that is what adds depth helps you relate. If you can't say what heppened in a story, then that is a story you can't tell, and a story you can't tell is not a story at all. I am interested in Heavy Rain and will play it when it comes out. May be it will blow my mind but I fear I may be playing the game trying to find the "best" or "true" ending and I'm not sure that's beneficial. I think a game can still be good with multiple endings, I just think they are better if I can relate the story to others.