Do you prefer a Sad Ending, Heroic Ending, or a bad ending?

[AwesomeCool]

Keep in mind that "Game Over" is an ending. Usually a bad one.

Other than that, my favorite ending is a bittersweet one. Pretty much all of my favorite games and shows have a bittersweet ending (Death Note, for example). It's like two emotions wrapped up into one!

-Wallace

Yep, bittersweet endings are the best endings!

 

[Stridah]

I like darker fantasy writing like joe Abercrombie, or George r.r. martin. 

I like the type of ending where things don't necessarily work out for everyone.  Maybe some characters die, some life is no different and 1 or 2 advance.

 

[Chaos Avian]

I'm a bit of a harsh and dark tosser when it comes to anything but romance. Happy endings for me aren't as high up in there for me as are bitter sweet and bad endings. I'm all for the anti-hero type. Sacrifices help add depth, but really an truly an ending comes down to execution.

 

[BlissAuthority]

May as well ask if I prefer pie or hamburgers.

If you answered "depends on the context," yeah.  I prefer the ending that the story demands.

i like the endings where the protagonist wakes up. it was just a dream.

Dude, that's mean.  What if the poster believes you?

 

[Kyutaru]

I like endings with huge consequences, ramifications, or just POTENTIAL being put into a deciding moment.  Evangelion was my favorite anime series for that reason, the entire story seems like a normal Gundam style until the fate of humanity comes down to what some teenager feels like doing.  It's almost like the Mass Effect 3 ending... just less stupid.

So in this case, I would go for the sad ending, but it would have to come with an extremely pivotal moment where all of existence is on the brink of annihilation.  It's not enough that the hero just stabs the bad guy and dies in the process, the hero has to really suffer just getting CLOSE to that point.  There needs to be moments where I honestly believe it's going to BE the bad ending option.  Then everything swings around.

My favorite Final Fantasy is 8, where a sorceress from the future threatens to destroy the past, the present, and the future just so she won't die herself.  That's true evil right there, screw the consequences, I'm blowing up the universe.

Kingdom Hearts had MULTIPLE great endings, with the original being like "grats you beat the boss... now go die in a fire".  (not literally)  The second was the happy ending type but it came after the apocalyptic battle thing with the hero seemingly doomed to never see his friends again.  Make us worry THEN make us happy.

In short, the more that's at stake, the more you stand to lose, and the more the heroes actually DO lose, the more powerful the story becomes.  IMO.

 

[Vassim74]

The way I see it is that it wouldn't matter what the ending is like as long as it fitted the theme of the game and it wasn't just something the developer threw together at the end. It also has to make sense as well, and should avoid having a Deus Ex Machina (castle is crumbling and the only escape path is blocked/destroyed, party has feels hopeless, and then all of a sudden a character whom you thought was dead comes flying in with a dragon just in time to save everyone).

If the game was going to have a sequel with the main villain returning in it, I guess it would make more sense to give the game a bad ending of some sort. I don't like how a story explicitly states that the villain has been killed, only for him/her to return in the next game because of some magical mumbo jumbo that revived them from the dead or whatever. The ending to this kind of game could be that maybe the main villain was too powerful for the party to kill, and so they are locked in an eternal battle. It is then resolved in the next game where the sequel party finds out what has actually happened at the end of the first game, and so they find a way to kill the main villain, arrive at the site of the final battle afterwards and help the previous heroes kill the villain.

 

[Kyutaru]

...and should avoid having a Deus Ex Machina (castle is crumbling and the only escape path is blocked/destroyed, party has feels hopeless, and then all of a sudden a character whom you thought was dead comes flying in with a dragon just in time to save everyone).

You didn't like how the Lord of the Rings ended?  (granted, they were eagles, not dragons, but escape path blocked, everything's blowing up, character who was dead shows up, etc)

 

[Bonkers]

I enjoy the type of ending that doesn't leave off on an obvious cliffhanger or set up for a sequel.  Other than that, almost any type of ending will be satisfying.  

Tragedy is something I enjoy for the sake of watching others try to counteract failure.  When a story ends it's usually with death, and I would have known the character was going to die, but they still did something worth their life.  Even in the sense a character didn't sacrifice themselves for the greater good a decent ending can give a player an experience.

 

[Omnimental]

Inevitable bad endings shouldn't even be an option. (curse Shadow of the Colossus for doing that) It's not a good plot twist to the story, especially in horror-themed games since it's too cliche and it's the equivalent to getting a 'Game Over'. As a friend told me in a conversation about horror games, 'Nobody plays to lose.'

The thing with Shadow of Colossus is that Wanderer knew from the get-go that what he was doing would cost him, and his gradual change over the course of the game only cemented that the ending would be a tragic one.  Given that SotC is a prequel to Ico, a bleak game in and of itself, I never really expected a happy ending.  The entire point of the game is that Wanderer sacrificed everything to bring back Mono.  Over the course of the game he abandons his people, his body becomes corrupted, he sees his horse (apparently) die, then finally he loses his life.  If anything, his rebirth as the first Horned Child makes it a bittersweet ending.

---

As to the OP, I prefer the ending that suits the narrative of the game.  If I had to choose, I would definitely go with Earn Your Happy Ending.  The protagonist makes hard choices with actual consequences, but in the end they achieve their goal.  Whether or not the protagonist survives to see the fruit of their work depends on the narrative of the game.

 

[Vassim74]

You didn't like how the Lord of the Rings ended?  (granted, they were eagles, not dragons, but escape path blocked, everything's blowing up, character who was dead shows up, etc)

I never saw Lord of the Rings, actually. I was describing a generic final battle escape scene.

 

[Eschaton]

I like the option of having any of these endings.

 

[Alexander Amnell]

I enjoy the type of ending that doesn't leave off on an obvious cliffhanger or set up for a sequel.  Other than that, almost any type of ending will be satisfying.  

This I agree with strongly. A truly good ending nowadays is really hard to come by because in major companies there always seems to be this mentality of "make sure you leave the ending open-ended so that if the game/movie/tv show is a success we can turn it into a franchise and go on and on and on until people become so sick of it it get's cancelled". So many great stories have been ruined for me like this, it's even worse when I can discern where the original canon was clearly supposed to end at as I can see the wasted potential it had for ending greatly.

 

[Mike]

Scenario:

Hero reaches the the final boss (Demon King) after fighting countless battles. 

He fights the boss for a long time and a conclusion happens.

I enjoy multiple endings and multiple path game. It's hard to make since it puts much constraint on the writer, but I believe this is just another path for writer to shine over other writers, because feeding the majority groups of fans is important. : x

Anyway, one of my favorite conclusions would be:

The hero and the demon lord join hand to build a better world, and they also have more than 10 children.

The last part is not necessary, but hey! : p

Methinks cliffhanger is quite user-friendly if you see it on different light, you don't want your fav. story to end, yes, it can reach to a conclusion, but it could also provide new trouble on different wave / level. And a good writter won't use the same material subject to cliffhanger the story, that would be dragging, and it's baaaaaaadddddd.

 

[RockemKnockem]

I definitely prefer Bad Endings in most games. Take Infamous 2 for example. While the Good Ending was OK, the hero dying to save the world, etc. The Bad Ending was way better in my opinion, in which it was much more emotionally tolling. The Endings that almost always stick are the Bad ones. Walking Dead is a good one, Infamous 2, etc.

 

[Deep Thought]

It's not about "good" or "bad" or "heroic". It's about "satisfying". All in all, the player should feel happy that he played the game to its completion.

Exhibit A: Sonic '06 (the epitome of what not to do with big-league game design) technically had a "good"/"heroic" ending, but it was unsatisfactory (to many) because it retconned itself out of the series' storyline. That's right, surviving the stupid programming bugs, crappy level design, and overall badness of the game is all for naught in the end. Ouch. Then again, the game's insane, inane plot makes no sense to begin with, so it fits...kind of.

• Point A: An ending should make as much sense as its plot. Gainax Endings are not for everyone. The last thing you want the player to say after playing the game is "BS!"

Example B: In Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Fellowship of the Ring; the movie just ends after one of Gimli's lines. Gimli just says "I hope they're all right" or something (I've forgotten most of the movie) and CUT! We're done here. Abrupt cliffhangers can kill immersion. That said, The Fellowship of the Ring is excusable because A: an adaptation of The Two Towers was practically guaranteed and B: segueing right into The Two Towers and Return of the King would make for an impossibly long movie.

• Point B: But for an RPGMaker game, sequels are not a guarantee, so ending on a cliffhanger that may never be resolved is a proverbial kick in the proverbial balls. It's better to wrap up the loose ends in-game than force the players to wait for an entirely new game.

Example C: As for "bad" or "sad" endings in video games, look no further than Spec Ops: The Line, one of the few games that berates the player for playing it. Even the lead writer had a nervous breakdown. The game wants you to feel like $#!+ for playing it, and for playing brutal shooters in general. And it does this with all the subtlety of a tank rolling through Tienanmen Square. The only winning move is not to play. Deconstructing the realistic shooter genre is the game's point.

• Point C: Odds are, your game is not intended to be a savage deconstruction of the RPG genre. If so, congrats, I guess. But unless the players are well-attuned to the idea that their actions will only make things worse, they will likely end up disillusioned, or in Spec Ops' case, insulted. Of course, since your game isn't intended for mass release, you can also make things more grimdark than Spec Ops. Just don't expect it to sell well...

 

[arekpowalan]

I don't see a reason in playing for a bad ending. Unless it's one of the many endings where I achieve because of completation or because I have done something wrong, there's no point in torturing myself with stories that would lead to bad guys winning no matter what I do. I don't play 60+ hours watching the heroes develop and fight for their ideals yet fail at the last minutes because of some "artistic values".

There are differences beween "sad" and "bad" endings, Sad ending can still end with a happy note for a better future. It can create even greater impacts toward a player than a happy one. Though I prefer the classic happily-ever-after endings in any given situation.