Could it be the end for game endings?

[Shrygue]

via The Guardian

There are few things in life more satisfying than finishing a long, difficult book. The payoff, both in reaching the conclusion of the narrative, and the sense of accomplishment at having fulfilled such a large commitment, can be immense. It would be remiss of me to brag about the heavyweight titles I've ticked off over the past few years, but my most recent undertaking was probably one of the most rewarding things I did all last year. Especially as it was mostly about whales.

And so, it was once the case with video games. Particularly before the advent of 'saving', the completion of even a simple game could take huge amounts of patience, effort and time. The ending, like those last pages of a book, was a key reason why we started playing in the first place. Sure, multiplayer and arcade style games still had their place, but fond 8, 16 and 32-bit memories consist more of completion and satisfaction than particular levels or tricky moments.

Over the past few years, however, the idea of a game as simply something to 'finish' has shifted somewhat. For starters, the availability of downloadable content means no story need ever end, as long as the makers think there's a paying audience. Also, the ubiquity of broadband means multiplayer gaming is now the standard, not the exception it once was. There is no real 'finish' to most MMORPGs.

Whereas once the only reason I wouldn't complete a game would be because it was too hard, now small piles of games lie scattered around my television unloved. They will never be finished. Bioshock. Assassin's Creed. Super Mario Galaxy. I even lost interest in Dragon Age, which captivated my imagination for a good three to four weeks. What incentive is there? The fact that I have more games available to me, and more of a higher quality, than I did as a child is certainly a mitigating factor. But is it just me that doesn't care whether or not I 'complete' a game anymore?

Taking Modern Warfare 2 as an example, what does it even mean to 'finish' the game? To complete the narrative 'For the Record' campaign? How about to complete it on the hardest setting? Or perhaps it should be to get 100% in all the different game modes? But then what about Prestige mode, and all that entails?

Remember some of the classic game endings from the days of gaming yore on this list. How many releases from the current generation of consoles would make it on there? Are endings something today's gamers care about?

Games have become so huge, that even story-led titles need scores of subplots and diversions to keep things interesting. It seems nowadays developers are stuck between a rock and a hard place - make a single, satisfying narrative and the game will be accused of being too short. Make something sprawling and huge, and any sense of momentum of the primary narrative is completely lost.

The cutscenes that rewarded finishing Fallout 3 and GTA 4 - two games I did actually manage to complete - were scant reward for the hours of time invested. The satisfaction felt paled in comparison to that with the games of my childhood. Has the great ending been consigned to gaming history's dustbin?

[symbal]

Yeah i just finished MW2 and was just so underwhelmed with the ending it just killed my sense of accomplishment, not to mention how short the single player campaign is.

[bumfacekilla]

When I used to play Snes and Mega Drive classics in the nineties I would make it a point to finish it even if the game wasn't that good. It was all for the sense of accomplishment that came from putting in the effort. On current consoles I have difficulty finishing even the best of titles.

I could blame a few things including my lack of time/patience now compared then, also how many games now have mandatory tutorials and lengthy cut scenes. I miss the days of wanting to finish games, I now often resort to Retro remakes, and Xbox live arcade or Wii ware type releases rather than the full price "block busters" for a simple fix of solid gameplay fun.

Games focus today is on major franchise titles, sequels, casual gamers and making suited types huge amounts of £££/$$$. Games have lost a lot of the personal touch and I think that's kinda sad.

[Gamefreak116]

I totally get what you mean, symbal. I sold my Pokemon
Diamond a year ago because, after the LONG credits it says FIN.I think games without endings would be better

(\__/)
(*X*)

[Sonny_Jim]

People are missing the point a little with this I think.

There have *always* been games that have a definite ending and games that don't, even in the Arcade. And yes, some game endings were better than others.

Robotron is one example of an endless game, Outrun could be an example of one that does.

The endless games, the satisfaction came from getting the high score. Unfortunately in this day and age, the whole concept of points scoring is being ignored and the focus is on 'completion level'.

With games that have an ending, it seems that nowadays it just doesn't seem as satisfying, knowing that even though that you have seen the end credits, there's still a million different challenges still to complete (get to 100% etc).

I can't remember that last time I *fully* completed a game.