Thursday, February 3, 2011

"Did You See That?!" Getting Recognized By the Game World

Endings in games are a funny thing. Depending on the game they could range from a thirty-second cutscene that's practically meaningless to a twenty-five minute short film with interactive sections. Most of the time though these endings roll right into the credits and then fade back to the main menu. Other games - most of them being Western RPGs - fade back into the game, allowing you to keep playing, finish up any side quests, and play DLC. I feel that this works against games more than it works for them.

I own a lot of the games that do this. Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 2 are the big ones. Oblivion, Batman: Arkham Asylum, and inFamous did it as well. One can assume that at some point Obsidian will release a DLC pack that will allow you to keep playing in New Vegas. Red Dead Redemption allowed you to keep playing as well, albeit as a different character. So this is obviously a very popular thing among game makers.

My problem is that it makes the world feel static. As if everything you've done hasn't effected anything in the grand scheme of things. Take Red Dead for example. It has the most glaring issues. You play as *SPOILERS* John Marston's son Jack Marston at the end of the game. Despite roughly twenty years passing the world is exactly the same. All the same uncompleted quests are available to you. Everything looks the same as it did when John Marston was alive. Did everything I just accomplished as John mean anything? In the story, sure it does. I've completed the great western tale of John Marston. But the world didn't move on. Time stood still.


I'm not saying Rockstar should have created a whole new world to accompany the shift in years. What I would have preferred them to just fade to black and return you to main menu. Either give us a new game + option or reload our save before the ending in case we wanted to complete extra side quests. That way my actions feel like they had some sort of lasting consequences.

This all ties into another issue I have with games, primarily ones like Fallout 3 or New Vegas which is that even before the credits roll, I'm never recognized for anything I've done in the game. Sure a quest giver will reward me with an item and some EXP, but other than that the rest of the world doesn't notice it. Hell, my companion who was standing right next to me didn't notice me shoot Ghouls into space. She just looked around as if nothing had happened and when I went to talk to her, I got the run of the mill responses that happen every time I talk to her. 


At the same time, Mass Effect 2 did a good job of handling the consequences of my actions. When returning to the Normandy, I could talk to my crew members and each of them would have something to say about what happened on the Collector ship. This helped me feel like what I'd just done meant something not only to the people around me, but in the overall world of the game. Of course that feeling doesn't last long, but it's something.
 


You're probably thinking I'm asking a lot. In truth, I am. I feel that if the developer can't think of some way for what I've done through their story to effect the overall world, then I should just go to the credits and end the game. The same goes for side quests. If no one else except the characters in that side story see or feel the effects of what's happening, what is the point? It's a nice story, but it feels weightless.

What are your thoughts on playing after the credits roll? Do you feel like side quests should have more of an overall effect on the game world?

1 comment:

  1. Personally, I like the feeling of finishing a game. I think it's possibly the most rewarding part of the whole experience; the feeling of completion.

    That being said, I think whether or not you continue the game after the credits depends on the type of game. Games like Halo or Call of Duty, not being open world games, make sense that they finish. But with games like Red Dead and Oblivion, I don't want it to end, because inevitably I'm gonna want to play it again.

    For me, I don't like beating a game, then having to load a save right before the end if I want to play again. It cheapens the end to me, it kind of takes away the accomplishment, and I generally end up not taking the game or what I'm doing seriously anymore, I just screw around.

    I like the sense of accomplishment, and I like a game like Red Dead where it gives you the option to keep going. I do agree with you about the static world, however. If the game actually changed after the end, and not everything's the same, I think it would make it last even longer and be more enjoyable. But then again, it's basically a whole new game at that point.

    Good post.

    ReplyDelete