What do you want to see in an AGS game?

[Babar]

Progz, while it's true that it's ultimately the author's choice on what the end of the game would be like,  I kinda agree with Vince, and could easily use the game you mentioned as an example. I finished your game with the lesser ending, and for the longest time, thought that it was the only ending, and it was one of "those" type of games. I mean...

Spoiler

basically you die, and I was surprised, because the death wasn't much different from other deaths in the game. It was only later that I found out that there was a "proper" ending, and it took a long time before I felt like repeating the game (because I had saved too far ahead to restore)

[close]

I think that the problem with multiple endings in adventure games is that unless the fork is very early on (or maybe with some warning or autosave feature before you go down one path), the rest of the game is pretty much the same. Unless you've forgotten most of it, it could get boring very fast. And if the fork wasn't chosen by the player (like Indiana Jones), and has no warning at all (like in KQ6, where it's generated by an almost random action), it could be very irritating.

About the original topic, I'd create the story, and then as it pans out, create some puzzles. I think Rodekill had an interesting doc on a nice way of doing it. I've not really succeeded in this, though. All stories I come up with end up being very resistant to puzzlifying, and seem likely to have been better if I made them interactive movies. I suppose you can't really make the story as you would fora book, but instead have the idea of interactiveness and exploration in it from before.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

Actually, your response reinforces my point.  You thought that the ending you got was the proper ending to the game, which means that the information you collected up to that point worked to convince you that that was the way things should be -- and guess what -- it was the proper ending for that game.  People need to look outside the box sometimes and realize that sometimes there is no 'right' ending, just different ones.  For you, the ending you received (based on what you discovered) was the right one.  For someone else playing that learned a few different things the ending they received was right for them. 

That's how endings should be handled, really, so great!

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Re multiple endings - Blade Runner had about, what, 6 of them? Maybe a couple more. They were all grand, they were all satisfying.

Just wanted to point that out. Maybe *that* should be what we should aim for when making multiple endings.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

They were all grand, they were all satisfying.

To you, and that's part of the problem.  Satisfying is very subjective, so who can say how one ending will impact 'everyone'?  You can't, really, so all you can do is create the game you envisioned and accept that not everyone will like it or 'get it'.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Well, have you seen all/most endings? If so, then you can talk. If not, you can't understand how it felt like, no matter what the outcome was, it was a satisfying experience.

[LimpingFish]

Multiple endings can sometimes be hit and miss, detracting from the story and the core of the game itself.

I really liked Shadows of Memories/Destiny, which has five radically different endings which are dictated by a large number of variables within the game.

There aren't any sign-posted clues to guide you along the correct story arc to get the ending you desire, and something a simple as scaring 16th century locals with your cellphone rather than your lighter can have an impact.

The game itself has a really mindbending plot and, to be honest, it's very clever how it's all tied together. The player can experience an entirely different series of events within the game itself, based on how they play it.

But here's the problem.

Once you have played through to one of the five endings, you really have no desire to go through it again, regardless of the other endings. It was just too much work.

And the fact that the story itself has to be purposely vague to allow for the differing elements needed to alter the plot arc over the course of the game, you're left unsatisfied by the lack of a concrete denouement.

In my experience, anyway.

[blueskirt]

Actually, your response reinforces my point.  You thought that the ending you got was the proper ending to the game, which means that the information you collected up to that point worked to convince you that that was the way things should be -- and guess what -- it was the proper ending for that game. People need to look outside the box sometimes and realize that sometimes there is no 'right' ending, just different ones.  For you, the ending you received (based on what you discovered) was the right one.  For someone else playing that learned a few different things the ending they received was right for them.

If by "that game" you mean Babar's game, where he did not discover the entire truth and ended screwed up at the end, then yes, I guess it was the proper ending for that game, however I do not think it was the proper ending for the entire Mind's Eye game.

Once you have played through to one of the five endings, you really have no desire to go through it again, regardless of the other endings. It was just too much work.

I guess at some point they had to choose between making the game shorter, easier and less exhausting to replay (and people who are not interested in replaying it would have thought they got less for their bucks), and making the game long enough so people wouldn't feel cheated by the short lenght (and exhausting the people who wanted to replay the game). Maybe they should have opted for the first option. I guess it all come down to what we said on the first page: "We never said it would be easy to implement." But it sound like an interesting game, I'll have to try it.

-edit-
Removed a big chunk that was possibly off topic, or out of place or something.

[Sparky]

Off of the 'multiple endings' subject, I'd really like to see more games that simply do their own thing without worrying about pleasing anyone. In commercial game development I can see why people feel they have to use tried and true formulas. But if an amateur developer isn't going to make any money anyway, they have all kinds of freedom. I love games that pick a goal, even if only three people in the world are going to like the end product, and then earnestly try to reach it.

[Vince Twelve]

You thought that the ending you got was the proper ending to the game, which means that the information you collected up to that point worked to convince you that that was the way things should be -- and guess what -- it was the proper ending for that game.  People need to look outside the box sometimes and realize that sometimes there is no 'right' ending, just different ones.  For you, the ending you received (based on what you discovered) was the right one.  For someone else playing that learned a few different things the ending they received was right for them. 

That's how endings should be handled, really, so great!

I definitely agree with this, Progz.  When I talked about multiple-endings not adding to the overall value of the game I was talking about the kind of endings that do just the opposite of what you're describing. 

If a game has multiple endings where a meaningful choice leads the characters to a new ending that is "satisfying" and feels like I played a significant role in guiding the characters to that ending, then nice job, creator!  By "meaningful," I mean not randomly picking up an inventory item halfway through the game, for example.  I mean choices involving the player consciously making a choice about a major plot point and then guiding the characters' actions towards that end.  And by satisfying, I mean it adequately wraps up the story -- could be happy, could be sad, could be somewhere in between.  That kind of an ending would definitely excite me and lend added value to the game.

I would love to see some games that posed moral or philosophical dilemmas and the player would have to decide how to direct the story by guiding the characters' actions.  Maybe you want to stop those bad guys because they're breaking the word of the law, or maybe the cause that they are fighting for is just and you want to join them...  The story would change greatly depending on the player's decisions.  Unfortunately, this kind of thing adds a great deal more work for the developer.

Easier to do are endings that keep the same basic ending, but change the specific fates of certain characters.  Maybe two characters will end up with a romantic kiss.  Maybe someone dies.  The major story arc is the same but the characters' stories can change slightly.  These can be nice, too, and I don't have to bother going back and replaying the game because I've seen the satisfying end to the main story and I feel that the characters ended up in the fates towards which I directed them.

[Tiki]

Splinter Cell: Double Agent was a step in the right direction regarding multiple endings and moral choice, but it left something to be desired in the end.  There was very obviously a "right" ending, with an extra mission tying the story up.  If you chose one of the other endings, then you got a much, much shorter ending with little to no closure.  These endings were one of the major selling points of SC:DA, but they felt like an afterthought.

Myself, I don't want a "led-by-the-hand experience."  I want my personal choices and actions to be reflected by the game as I progress, and to not feel like I'm just going from A to B to C...

Some games work very well as "playable movies" (BG&E, FT) I'd just sure like to see a game that pulls off this freedom.

[radiowaves]

What I would really like to see in AGS or any other adventure game, is infinity action. Something fun you could do in the game that doesn't necessarily progress the story, but is just fun. And guess what, you could do this any time once the certain level is passed. Sort of like minigames in the first Sam & Max series, but more implemented into the story, so the action could be part of certain room or situation.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

If by "that game" you mean Babar's game, where he did not discover the entire truth and ended screwed up at the end, then yes, I guess it was the proper ending for that game, however I do not think it was the proper ending for the entire Mind's Eye game.

It was the proper ending based on the information gathered up to that point.  Game endings don't need to be wonderfully positive, and as I said before, it is often the negative endings (even the unsatisfying ones) which make you actually think and impact you the most.  Tragic heroes, defeat just when you thought you'd won, these sorts of things stick with you because we're not used to losing and we don't like it.

[ManicMatt]

Let's talk about Deus Ex in this thread too!

The choices often had consequences, but the end sequence all came down to what you chose to do in the last half an hour or so. Anything else you did before that didn't matter. You could have killed everyone you could kill throughout the entire game, and then be a nice hero and save the day. (I'm speaking of the PS2 version, but I imagine the same applies to the PC version)

[blueskirt]

Game endings don't need to be wonderfully positive, and as I said before, it is often the negative endings (even the unsatisfying ones) which make you actually think and impact you the most.  Tragic heroes, defeat just when you thought you'd won, these sorts of things stick with you because we're not used to losing and we don't like it.

Yes, but usually they lose just after they stopped the bad guys, or after they got their vengeance, or while/after saving the loved ones. Or they lose as soon as all their problems are solved and karma simply came back to bite them in the butt or because they were simply themself. Or they lose heroically, knowing their exploits will be told until the rest of time, knowing their ideals will survive, knowing they were fighting a just cause, knowing the bad guys might take their life, but they will never take their pride.

And if they die, it's with a smile on the lips, kinda happy that all their troubles, all their torments are now over. Or they die but not before they told everything they had to tell to their loved ones. If their friends or loved one die, it's to make them realise how foolish the main characters were, and make them progress in their life.

There is always a redeeming note in bad endings, to make them easier to swallow, may it be one of those I listed above, or may it be a cool or funny bad ending.

The choices often had consequences, but the end sequence all came down to what you chose to do in the last half an hour or so. Anything else you did before that didn't matter. You could have killed everyone you could kill throughout the entire game, and then be a nice hero and save the day. (I'm speaking of the PS2 version, but I imagine the same applies to the PC version)

I think they aimed more on giving us non-linear gameplay, not non-linear plot with tons of story affecting moral dilemmas. If they really wanted to give us moral dilemmas, it would have been possible to work for the bad guys, and important NPC wouldn't be immune to damage.

In this particuliar case of knocking/killing everyone, civilians and allies could be very well killed in cross fire, accidentally, in cold blood, or could often be in the wrong place, wrong time, being witnesses of morally questionable action you could do. So there's no way to tell for what reason you could have killed or knocked them. Also not every tiny minor moral choices must have an impact on the final ending or the story.

[LimpingFish]

The point about Deus Ex is interesting.

It also raises the question;

Should the player be rewarded with an ending based on their actions over the entire game?

Or, in the case of Deus Ex, should the player be allowed a presto-chango A, B, or C type deal just before the final curtain?

Would we, in the case of the former, continue playing if we found our character following a path, moral or otherwise, that we weren't happy with?

Would we, in the case of the latter, feel cheated by the ability to negate our actions during the game with a simply multiple-choice ending?

Hmm...

[radiowaves]

Let's talk about Deus Ex in this thread too!

The choices often had consequences, but the end sequence all came down to what you chose to do in the last half an hour or so. Anything else you did before that didn't matter. You could have killed everyone you could kill throughout the entire game, and then be a nice hero and save the day. (I'm speaking of the PS2 version, but I imagine the same applies to the PC version)

Hah, this reminds me of some Hitman game that was so hard that it was easier to go on a rampage killing spree than sneak and steal. But the main thing that still kept me motivated to go with sneak and steal, was that the atmosphere and theme of the game was really good, I just didn't want another shooter...
So the looks of the game, what creates the mood, is quite important for gameplay style. Game should always provide enough motivation. Unfortunately, I haven't seen much player motivation (besides the motivation that it is AGS and actually "there") in AGS games that tend to have multiple endings, even reactor 9 was somehow failure in that point.

[ManicMatt]

So there's no way to tell for what reason you could have killed or knocked them. Also not every tiny minor moral choices must have an impact on the final ending or the story.

Good point, this reminds me of when I was playing Morrowind. I was helping a band of people defend their homes against werewolves. It was a messy fight, and as I thrusted my sword at the beast in front of me, an ally ran in front of me and found himself on the end of my sword. This caused every ally to turn on me and hunt me down to kill me. They ignored the beasts still trying to kill them and focused on me. I just stood on a house so they couldnt get me, and they just let the werewolves wipe them out.

Stupid AI aside, one way you could identify the actions of the player could be...

Two men are in front of you. You fire a shot off at one of them and kill them. The other man can assess that there was no enemies nearby, therefore the PC must have had bad intentions.

Alternatively, you shoot one of the two men, and there are enemies attacking everyone. The other man becomes suspicious of you and keeps his eyes on you whilst attacking the enemies. Once the enemies are dead he asks you if you did that on purpose or by accident.

What do you think? Bit messy though maybe, but it's a start...

EDIT: Or perhaps the computer can calculate the trajectory of the shot, how many shots were fired etc to assess the likelyhood it was a mistake. Like when I told my man in morrowind to attack I'd already pressed the attack button when I was facing the beast, but by the time I'd struck the man got in my way.

Limping fish: The ultimate moral game could let you change your mind about joining the evil people (for example) and defect at any time. This sort of thing could probably only be done with incredibly advanced AI that can communicate with almost lifelike conversations on the fly. In doing this however, you can't really have a story or an end of game occurance.

Radiowaves: Heh, that couldn't be the latest one though, they made it harder to shoot everyone up! It usually results in death now!

[JD]

This discussion reminds me of Knights Of The Old Republic. I loved doing evil things, and thus going dark side. Had quite a satisfying ending as well if I remember correctly.

[Shane 'ProgZmax' Stevens]

There is always a redeeming note in bad endings, to make them easier to swallow, may it be one of those I listed above, or may it be a cool or funny bad ending.

Not always, and there doesn't need to be.  Life isn't all happy endings and I don't see why games should be all happy endings either.  A game is the sum of its parts, a beginning, middle AND end, and I see no reason why an ending that doesn't make you feel all warm and sloppy should nullify the journey.  This is why people need to look outside the box at the bigger picture, the game as a whole, and not just pan a game because the ending wasn't an immensely satisfying sequence of heroic victory or 'at least I killed the bad guy'.  There's no reaching being made on the part of the storyteller with such concepts because they're giving in to this idea that everything has to work out in the end, and as a result, we are overwhelmed by media that supports this notion -- which has led many people to call the works trite and overdone. 

We really need more bleak (or at least neutral) outcomes to bring up a balance and an appreciation for the positive outcomes in games, etc, imo.

[blueskirt]

We really need more bleak (or at least neutral) outcomes to bring up a balance and an appreciation for the positive outcomes in games, etc, imo.

I guess you're right. Good ending, bad ending, as long they are cool or great, well done and not rushed, I guess it will be ok. Unless if this too is subjective.