Did endings decrease replay value?

[7800Lover]

I've come up with a theory about video games. In the beginning, games like Pacman and Donkey Kong went on and on. You played the levels over until you lost all your lives, you got tired of the game, or the arcade operator tossed you out. Then, games like Super Mario Bros., The Legends of Zelda, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Final Fantasy came along. These games had actual endings. You could actually reach a final level, complete it, and truly finish the game.

 

However, I wonder: When these games started having endings, did their replay value drop? With many classic games like Pacman, it was addictive because it was fun and you could always go for a higher score. But when you beat Final Fantasy or Doom, why go back? You've already seen what the game has to offer.

 

Do you agree? Do you think endings hurt a video game's replay value?

[figgler]

With many classic games like Pacman, it was addictive because it was fun and you could always go for a higher score.  But when you beat Final Fantasy or Doom, why go back?  You've already seen what the game has to offer  

 

I don't think it adds up. It's arguable that you've seen everything that Pacman has to offer after looking at the screen for three seconds. Unless changing numbers and different fruit are what is supposed to keep you hooked. It's all about gameplay here, if it's good you'll continue to play it forever, whether it has an ending or not. Anyone here finish Super Mario Bros only one time? Not likely.

Also, games like Space Invaders, Circus Atari etc, that don't have a "true ending", do have a final goal, being rolling the score over and this is what everyone is really shooting for anyway

 

If anything I'd suggest that an ending provides more replay value over time as you'll want to see the end again / see the alternate endings / try to do it faster, or with less men and so on.

[SteveW]

I agree with that. A game with good gameplay will get me to play it again, but a game with an ending provides me with a sense of accomplishment. If the game was fun, i'd play it over and over. Like Adventure on the 2600. I've played it over and over, but I still go back. Or something like Midnight Mutants on the 7800. It doesn't have a very good ending, but the fantastic gameplay leading up to it makes me want to play it over and over. But i've also played a lot of games with endings that i've never touched again. Difficulty level is maybe a little too high, frustrating level design, bad camera angles, that kind of thing. When it comes down to it, good gameplay always makes a game replayable.

[Mr Egg]

i agree that a good ending gives you a feeling of triumph and that if the game was good you will play it over and over again. that happened to me with Mafia and Hidden & Dangerous and on console with resident evil; codename veronica but lately i have noticed thas specially for pc games, story and ending are not as important and that the single player portion of the game is just filler for the multiplay capabilities , some like battlefield 1942 dont bother with story at all , they just put a bunch of missions together with no ending

[ubersaurus]

I've played through the super mario bros games, Sonic games, mega mans, r-type final, star fox 64, halo, and many others so many times I can't even count. They all have endings

[moycon]

I'll agree. Most times I play a game through to the end... I put it away.

In some cases ....years later I have gone back and replayed them... Legend of Zelda, Tomb Raider 2, Dues Ex come to mind. But there are many many more that Ive never picked up again just because I know I've already "beat them"

 

All except Adventure...That one never gets old!

[farfel]

When these games started having endings, did their replay value drop?  With many classic games like Pacman, it was addictive because it was fun and you could always go for a higher score.  But when you beat Final Fantasy or Doom, why go back?  You've already seen what the game has to offer.

 

Good theory. I agree. Many people play a game once and then sell it. Games with endings rarely are worth playing again.

[Nukey Shay]

Depends on the genre, I guess. Arcade-type action games I PREFER them to go on infinitely. But with adventure/RPG's, it's almost expected that there's a happy ending in there someplace. And sports titles have to end if they are to remain true to the real thing.

[Dav]

I don't think it was the endings that hurt them. About that same time in order to help people get to the end they added the continue option. A lot of people feel that is what went wrong with arcades. They got greedy and quit giving people value for their quarters. It seemed like no matter how good you were you were only going to get your 90 seconds per quarter. In contrast you knew if you kept playing pacman you'd be able to keep playing longer.

 

Also with an older game like Pacman when you got to a high level you'd really done something, everyone knew you'd done something. With later games a monkey with a bag of quarters could do just as well. My 4 year old neice has all the high scores on my stun runner. I don't play it much since there's no point in trying to get a good score.

[sega saturn x]

I dont think endings hurt games i think they heleped them if a game has a beginning a middle and an end. Games like a pac man are fun for about a half hour but with games like that you never feel like your getting any where or inproveing in the game. What do you have to show for your hard work? Not much but in games with endings you get a good felling of im getting better im father i want to play more. Endingless gmaes after a while just arnt very fun.

[JB]

I dont think endings hurt games i think they heleped them if a game has a beginning a middle and an end.  Games like a pac man are fun for about a half hour but with games like that you never feel like your getting any where or inproveing in the game.  What do you have to show for your hard work?  Not much but in games with endings you get a good felling of im getting better im father i want to play more.  Endingless gmaes after a while just arnt very fun.

I get much of what you attribute to games with endings off endless games.

 

If I make it through more levels than usual on, say, Asteroids, I think I did pretty good. I'm getting better. Let's see if I can do better still next time.

 

 

I think endings were the beginning of the end, actually.

 

In the beginning, there were no endings. Games were a test of skill. People knew this, and attempted to better themselves. Improving your score was the thing to do.

 

Then, suddenly... Games had endings.

People knew it, but many couldn't get there.

They got mad, and started complaining that the game was "too hard."

So game manufacturers started making easier games.

 

 

Once, seeing the ending required skill.

Now it's expected that a mildly retarded, one-armed chimpanzee can beat the game. The "game over" screen is more a mark of shame than an expected part of the experience. And it doesn't even set you back that far, since there was likely a save point not 2 minutes ago.

[Adrian M]

I actually welcomed games with endings back in the day.

While I liked my Atari 2600, one could only play a game so much which featured endless stages or infinite waves of enemies. The absolute worst thing were games that ramped up their difficulty to near insane levels as you progressed...you literally would only get by on sheer luck and things only got worse the more you advanced.

 

That is why I enjoyed playing through 32 stages of Super Mario Bros and having my hard work rewarded with a brief ending sequence. Difficulty increased gradually, but within reason. Replayabilty was boosted since you didn't feel the frustrating dread of those near impossible later stages so prevalent in the Atari 2600 (and arcade) games of the era.

[Nukey Shay]

Ah...but in games of that type, you still had bragging rights

("Did you see all that stuff that gets thrown at you on wave 64?? Insanity!"). And if a glitch pops in on one of those higher waves (like level 0 due to 8-bit rollover), so much the better. You still have seen something that lesser mortals haven't I agree that the continue option pretty much killed that deal.

[JB]

That reminds me...

The big problem I find with endless games is once you get good at them the early levels are just slow, and most don't have a skip-ahead option.

[+kisrael]

My first thought was, it might decrease replay value, but I think being able to generate worlds with content, enough varied (not just randomly generated) stuff to explore, was a tremendous boon to plain old PLAY value. In that once the technology supported it, it really opened up new worlds for game designers, even if it meant there were fewer simple replayable games.

 

My second thought was, I'll be we look at the replay value of the old school, pre-crash games with rose colored graphics. I mean, by-and-large, the games that STILL get replayed are the all time greats...there were tons of old games that mighta been ok for a bit then, but really didn't have the replay value, and by and large they've been forgotten. With a complex "ending"-able modern game, a lot of 'em still have replay value, though admittedly it's not quite as much of a "just pick up and play" situation, you have to make more of a commitment.

 

Finally, in modern gaming, there are two ways of really getting replay value: fun, sandbox-world type games, like GTA3 and VC, where it's just fun to tool around, and then multiplayer, where your friends provide the replay value...

[ClassicBoy]

I enjoy the reward of ending a game. However, more and more I've noticed that I feel guilty for not "finishing" a lot of the games on my shelf. Time doesn't permit me to play enough to finish them all. I feel like I've got a shelf full of unread books or something....which keeps bringing me back to the simpler games of the eighties...all of the fun, none of the guilt.

[sega saturn x]

I to get that "i should try and beat that game" felling every now and then. But i think its time to face facts games need endings i think galaga is one of my favorite games and im very good at it. But like some one already said the first stages are boreing. Number 2 after play a no ending game for about an hour or to you feel you have seen all the game has to offer. Not so with an ending game you get "rewards" for getting farther. Mega man is a good exsample you get farther you get better. Even if your skill hasent changed your game has. Im sorry but i find play a game that never changes to be boreing after to long i love galaga but its best in small doces.

[AtariDude]

Didn't Phantasy Star III have multiple endings depending on the choices of the player? I am sure that this must have added to the replay value as someone would want to see what would happen if they took another path.

 

Also PacMan does have an ending. There is a perfect score possible to achieve after which it is no longer possible to play. Billy Mitchell was the first person in the world to get a perfect score then he tried to beat his own record by trying to achieve it in less time.

[+Random Terrain]

It's not whether it has an ending, but if the game contains Controlled Randomness or not. E.T. and other Atari-made adventure games had an ending and they were replayable.

 

Having an ending doesn't mean a game can't be replayable. It's just cheaper and easier to make a 'toilet paper' game that you use once and flush, so that's what most companies make. There are also a lot of filmmaker 'wanna-be' dorkwad game designers out there who have made crappy 'interactive movies' and called them games. 'Games' like that contain hardly any playability, so forget replayablity.

 

Here's a semi-related quote:

 

http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/FREEFALL.HTM

Jon, what made you decide, in "Murder on the Zinderneuf," to take the more difficult "murderer is different each time you play" approach rather than having one set outcome?

 

Jon: The biggest single reason was its genesis as an attempt to re-create the experience of playing "Clue"--one of my favorite games--by imagining what "Clue" might have been like had it been designed originally for a home computer. A variable mystery was inherent in the notion. Neither Paul Reiche nor I was an enthusiast of adventure games, and maximizing play value seemed to us to imply replayability.  

 

How did you algorithmically generate a complete "plot" every time you play?

 

Jon: We created eight distinct scenarios or master plots, each of which had between two and four independent subplots: e.g., a love triangle, blackmail, secret agent vs. spy, even a vampire. When a scenario was played, one subplot was randomly selected to be the real plot--the one involving that session's murder. The others automatically became red herrings. On a different occasion, one of the red herrings might become the real plot, and vice versa.  

 

Additionally, each subplot had three or four roles and typically four sets of alternative casts to play them: for instance, philanderer, jealous spouse, lover, lover's jealous spouse. By reversing sexes and extending a "spouse" role to include a Significant Other, quite a range of characters could occupy the roles at different times. Further, within the same subplot, any role could be victim or murderer: the jealous spouse might kill the lover or the straying spouse--or be killed by either.  

 

Half the dialogue was based on the nature of the characters, permanent relationships, and the general flavor of the scenario; the other half was assigned to specific roles. Since many statements referred to a character who might be male or female, alive or dead, even the simplest lines could get complicated: e.g., "He/she hates/hated her/him." Since we made heavy use of tokens to adjust verb tense and pronoun gender, the resulting encoded dialogue bore only a slight resemblance to normal English; it was hard to read, harder to proofread, and almost impossible to debug thoroughly.

[Adrian M]

Didn't Phantasy Star III have multiple endings depending on the choices of the player? I am sure that this must have added to the replay value as someone would want to see what would happen if they took another path.

 

Yes, it does have slightly different endings depending on the choices you make in the game (who you marry, etc). Too bad the game itself is absolutely dreadful which pretty much kills the desire to replay it.

[+kisrael]

It's not whether it has an ending, but if the game contains Controlled Randomness or not. E.T. and other Atari-made adventure games had an ending and they were replayable.

The Controlled Randomness is an interesting idea, but it's harder to pull off. It's really the engine that carries the load; ET/Adventure put things in random places, but that's about it.

 

In modern times, GTA3 and VC have the same controlled randomness on the city streets, with an interesting enough "sandbox" to make it fun to just tool around in. The brilliance in these games lies in overlaying a slightly branching scripted adventure on TOP of a world that's fun enough to just fool around with (stunts and violent mayhem) with only cutescenes and a few random "gunner" missions to differentiate it from the normal Controlled Random play.

 

Having an ending doesn't mean a game can't be replayable. It's just cheaper and easier to make a 'toilet paper' game that you use once and flush, so that's what most companies make.

I think you're being unecesarrily negative with the term TP; there are a lot of great "one shot" games out there. It's definately very hard to make a game environment interesting enough to be fun without much of a plot...

 

There are also a lot of filmmaker 'wanna-be' dorkwad game designers out there who have made crappy 'interactive movies' and called them games. 'Games' like that contain hardly any playability, so forget replayablity.

 

Here's a semi-related quote:

 

http://www.dadgum.com/halcyon/BOOK/FREEFALL.HTM

Nice Quote! I never got a chance to play the game...

 

I bought Halcyon Days way back when, with it's floppy only release...it's great that it's online now.

 

Anyway, that's a great example of how hard it is to make a twisting plot like they did; they had enough problems just with the grammar of typed text...could you imagine how much harder it would be to make a modern game, where people expect spoken dialog?

 

(I once read a good article, again on GTA3 and VC, that explained they feel more realistic than, say, Shenmue, because they don't let the main character have verbal interactions, just canned crowd responses. Shenmue really points out how pisspoor games are at making realistic feeling interactions)

[Snoopy]

I think that ultimately, yes. Endings do effect the overall replayability of a game to an extent.

 

I'm basing this argument more so on modern games...but the same rule can apply for many older games as well.

 

Just think of how many games are very difficult, if not impossible to finish WITHOUT the help of a strategy guide. This goes along with the theory that some of you already mentioned, about the video game companies getting too money hungry.

 

But the replayability of the game is going to depend mostly on the initial playability. If it's fun to begin with, and not impossible, people will want to play it again and again regardless. This is why titles like the Super Mario Bros. series are still popular to this day. They were fun, and while there were alot of hidden things (warp zones...etc) one could easily find them WITHOUT using a strategy guide or hint book. I think this is why I loved playing those games so much, because I always felt like I discovered something great each time I found something hidden in one of those games. If this were't the case, I don't think that they would be porting alot of the classics on GBA.

[+kisrael]

Just think of how many games are very difficult, if not impossible to finish WITHOUT the help of a strategy guide.  This goes along with the theory that some of you already mentioned, about the video game companies getting too money hungry.

I know I personally a "wussy gamer"...I have few qualms about turning to a FAQ or guide as soon as I get stuck. In fact, if I'm not enthralled with a game I play it guide in hand.

 

Personally I blame it on the wonderful Metroid map from the old black-covered Nintendo Players Guide...in fact, that map and description of Metroid is why I got a NES...I just didn't see anything like that coming out on the C=64.

 

But I'm not sure if I view the need for a guidebook as a money-hungry thing. (I mean, does Prima give payouts to the companies? Hmm, actually they might, at least to get some of the artwork...) I think it's more a by-product of trying to provide stuff for two audiences: hardcore young gamers who want a game complex enough that it'll take a long time to figure everything out on their own, and more casual gamers who have more money than freetime and still might want to see everything or at least get through it, and ain't too proud for a cheatbook.

[JB]

Just think of how many games are very difficult, if not impossible to finish WITHOUT the help of a strategy guide.  

One?

Only game I ever saw where some sort of cheat book was REQUIRED was Tales of Destiny. And that's only because one puzzle is unsolvable due to a translation goof.

[+kisrael]

Just think of how many games are very difficult, if not impossible to finish WITHOUT the help of a strategy guide.  

One?

Only game I ever saw where some sort of cheat book was REQUIRED was Tales of Destiny. And that's only because one puzzle is unsolvable due to a translation goof.

Well, there's "impossible" and then there's "unlikely" and then there's the much bigger "not going to happen in a reasonable amout of time if you have anything resembling any kind of job or social life"...