Worst possible scenario

[laffer]

I just had a horrible thought - what if DNF ends with a cliffhanger??
That would be pretty horrible if you ask me (for obvious reasons)

[Echo Black]

It was confirmed to have a satisfactory ending.

[cladinshadows]

Echo Black said:
It was confirmed to have a satisfactory ending.

Where? Link please!

[Mr.Sociopath]

cliffhanger ending is an ending saying that there will be a follower?

[Tim. Just Tim.]

Not in our lifetime.

[avatar_58]

laffer said:
I just had a horrible thought - what if DNF ends with a cliffhanger??
That would be pretty horrible if you ask me (for obvious reasons)

Please god no....

[hell-angel]

cladinshadows said:

Where? Link please!

I believe it was in the faq. But I am also pretty sure that there will be no cliffhanger, no Duke game had it before.

[Spyd]

I don't think the Duke games makes for cliffhanger endings.

[Cerberus_e]

no game should have a cliffhanger.
every game with a cliffhanger before FAILED.
if a game has a cliffhanger, it automatically has a bad story.

[FireFly]

Why?

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:
Why?

if games have a very satisfying ending, and cool plot twists during the game, then I'm very satisfied, and will keep boasting about how good the story is
look at prince of persia: sands of time.
awesome plot twists.

[jimbob]

i think kingpin is a nice example for why games should not have a cliffhanger ending

[Suppressor]

SW had a cliffhanger-ending too. It was horrible...

[FireFly]

The aim of all game endings is to be satisfying. Cliffhangers simply take a different approach; they aim to peak the player's excitement level - about the story, the universe, about what will happen next. I would say Half-Life had a kind of cliffhanger ending. You don't have to leave everything unresolved, just enough to keep the player's excitement level up.

[SyntaxN]

Cliffhangers are very usefull when developers want many games in the same universe, see Half-Life, Halo etc...
I don´t think a cliffhanger is a bad thing, it depends on how good it was made and implemented, Halo 1 and HL1 for example had cliffhangers, but they were cool and not annoying
While Halo 2 and HL2 had also cliffhangers, and both weren´t pretty good and satisfying!

[Cerberus_e]

SyntaxN said:
Cliffhangers are very usefull when developers want many games in the same universe, see Half-Life, Halo etc...
I don´t think a cliffhanger is a bad thing, it depends on how good it was made and implemented, Halo 1 and HL1 for example had cliffhangers, but they were cool and not annoying
While Halo 2 and HL2 had also cliffhangers, and both weren´t pretty good and satisfying!

how in the world can a cliffhanger be satisfying?
cliffhangers are a poor excuse to spread one story over multiple games, see both HL games.

FireFly said:
The aim of all game endings is to be satisfying. Cliffhangers simply take a different approach; they aim to peak the player's excitement level - about the story, the universe, about what will happen next. I would say Half-Life had a kind of cliffhanger ending. You don't have leave everything unresolved, just enough to keep the player's excitement level up.

you look at cliffhangers with pink glasses, if they were only as cool as you describe them!
you will NEVER hear me say the HL universe has a good story, but you'll keep hearing me say how good the story is of prince of persia: sands of time

jimbob said:
i think kingpin is a nice example for why games should not have a cliffhanger ending

kingpin has a cliffhanger or not? without spoiling anything
because I plan on checking out that game once.

[SyntaxN]

how in the world can a cliffhanger be satisfying?
cliffhangers are a poor excuse to spread one story over multiple games, see both HL games.

I don´t say cliffhangers are awesome, but they can be ok and a little bit more than that...see Halo and HL1!
The implementation is the big problem, how can you tell the player that he has to wait for the next game, and it looks like many companys fail to do it right

[FireFly]

Cerberus_e said:
you look at cliffhangers with pink glasses, if they were only as cool as you describe them!

That is, rose tinted glasses. I thought you might want to borrow my pair. My point is simply that developers should make games not for one single perspective, but for hundreds of them. Just because you can't appreciate cliffhangers doesn't mean everyone is the same, or that they're a poor tool. In other words it's good that games use different storytelling techniques, because people are different, and different storytelling techniques are effective for different people.

For what it's worth I thought HL2's ending was the most satisfying I'd ever experienced.

[hell-angel]

FireFly said:

That is, rose tinted glasses. I thought you might want to borrow my pair. My point is simply that developers should make games not for one single perspective, but for hundreds of them. Just because you can't appreciate cliffhangers doesn't mean everyone is the same, or that they're a poor tool. In other words it's good that games use different storytelling techniques, because people are different, and different storytelling techniques are effective for different people.

For what it's worth I thought HL2's ending was the most satisfying I'd ever experienced.

In some cases cliffhangers are nice, but mostly they just feel like a cheap way of getting more money. Only if the story and the gameplay is really good (and with that I mean really really really good) I will not mind a cliffhanger.

Of course, the rest of the story should be told not so much later (1 year max) IMO.

[X-Vector]

I prefer the grey area between a cliffhanger and "they all lived happily ever after".

The ending of Half-Life worked for me, because it offered closure to the player's journey through the gameworld, but also mystery about the machinations behind it and the continued involvement with the G-Man.
I like that kind of duality, but I don't know if it would work for a game with such a dominating flat character as Duke's.
Duke3D's Bondian ending seems more appropriate.

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:

That is, rose tinted glasses. I thought you might want to borrow my pair. My point is simply that developers should make games not for one single perspective, but for hundreds of them. Just because you can't appreciate cliffhangers doesn't mean everyone is the same, or that they're a poor tool. In other words it's good that games use different storytelling techniques, because people are different, and different storytelling techniques are effective for different people.

For what it's worth I thought HL2's ending was the most satisfying I'd ever experienced.

I wonder what is so satisfying about cliffhangers.
satisfaction is thinking "now that was really cool! I have enough!"
but cliffhangers are the opposite: it still has to be cool, and you want more
a game with a cliffhanger has an unfinished story.
HL2's story ends with

<table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">
Gman stopping the time while the citadel explodes
</td></tr></table>

and there it ends, so that's unfinished, I don't feel satisfied, because for a good story, you need a good ending (creating a good ending is hard, so a cliffhanger gets around that).
prince of persia: sands of time ended with:

<table><tr><th><font size="-1">Spoiler below:</font></th></tr><tr><td class="spoiler">
seeing the prince at Farah's house, telling the words you already heard in the intro cutscene, so you realize the whole game you played with all prince's remarks was just everything you tell to Farah, and not to the player. that's why the prince said: "wait, that didn't happen!" when you die in the game.
then he says: "just call me, kakolukia", and the prince hereby proved the story was real (if you played the game, which you should have done if you read this, you'll understand)
</td></tr></table>

and that was very original, and an unexpected twist, so good I can not shut up about how good the story is. if you can't read it because you still have to play the game, well, take my word for it the story is good
now if there were huge revelations after the citadel exploded, maybe I could say the story was good too.

[FireFly]

Cerberus_e said:
I wonder what is so satisfying about cliffhangers.
satisfaction is thinking "now that was really cool! I have enough!"
but cliffhangers are the opposite: it still has to be cool, and you want more

So you're saying you're only satisfied if you don't want any more? In which case after playing the most satisfying game ever, you'd hear about an expansion and think "no, I don't care about that", then someone would reveal something about the story and you think or say "no, I'm not interested". And then if we're to continue your logic someone would mention a sequel and you'd scream "I've already told you, I was satisfied with the first game!"

The point is satisfaction applies to each game at a time, and as a concept all it means is you're happy and content with what was delivered. For those that want to think about the story outside the game, open ended endings are the most satisfying because they force you to use your imagination, and they create a permanent connection between you and the universe. So when the next game comes around you'll be exited in a new way, because you'll really care about what happens.

a game with a cliffhanger has an unfinished story.

No story is ever finished because there is always more to be told, unless the story ends with the closure of the universe.

and there it ends, so that's unfinished, I don't feel satisfied, because for a good story, you need a good ending (creating a good ending is hard, so a cliffhanger gets around that).

A cliffhanger is just another type of "good ending". It doesn't solve the problem because you still have to make a good cliffhanger, in fact if anything it makes things more difficult because the developer has to reveal not too much and not too little, where as in a conventional story everything can be wrapped up.

[Cerberus_e]

FireFly said:

So you're saying you're only satisfied if you don't want any more? In which case after playing the most satisfying game ever, you'd hear about an expansion and think "no, I don't care about that", then someone would reveal something about the story and you think or say "no, I'm not interested". And then if we're to continue your logic someone would mention a sequel and you'd scream "I've already told you, I was satisfied with the first game!"

with "I have enough" I mean, I was satisfied
it doesn't mean I would get tired of it if it continued, it means I'm not left wanting more.
of course having more would be cool, but it's not necessary to keep me satisfied
HL2 had only 12 hours of gameplay, I wanted more.
HL2's story didn't end, so I want to know how it ended, and guess what? I don't know, so HL2 has a bad story.
it may be explained in the sixth overpriced HL3 episode through steam, but that's not HL2's story anymore
I see games as single experiences, not as episodes like you have to watch on TV each particular day on the same hour. if you want to follow the story.
it's much more satisfying if you have a story "that doesn't leave you wanting more".
that doesn't mean I'm not excited about expansion packs and sequels.
look at prince of persia: the sands of time, the story ENDED, no cliffhangers, but the story in prince of persia: warrior within (the sequel) is still interesting.
it continues the sands of time story, and it adds new elements. the story also ENDED (altough there is a mild cliffhanger at the end, but it's more an introduction to what to expect in prince of persia 3, which will be released later this year if everything goes well, than an actual cliffhanger that makes you wonder what is next like in HL2).
I'm excited about prince of persia 3, and it STILL continues the sands of time story, which ended in the sands of time

FireFly said:
The point is satisfaction applies to each game at a time, and as a concept all it means is you're happy and content with what was delivered. For those that want to think about the story outside the game, open ended endings are the most satisfying because they force you to use your imagination, and they create a permanent connection between you and the universe. So when the next game comes around you'll be exited in a new way, because you'll really care about what happens.

I also cared about what will happen in warrior within as soon as it was announced, and the sands of time story ended.

FireFly said:

No story is ever finished because there is always more to be told, unless the story ends with the closure of the universe.

there is a difference between universe and story.
the story of prince of persia: sands of time ended in sands of time, but the universe continued in warrior within.
it's a new story, but not ignoring what happened in sands of time, it continues the adventures of the prince after what happened after pop: sot.

[Beelze]

Duke Nukem Forever should end with a strong closure; when Duke gets the job done, he gets it done. Sure, there may be a hint at something which might happen in the future, but it shouldn't end in the middle of things à la the Half-Life games.

Cerb, one of the reasons why Half-Life games should end with cliffhangers is because the games are each strung together and immediately follow each other. Just like Tarantino suggests you view Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Kill Bill Vol. 2 as one movie, I imagine Valve to think of the Half-Life series as one big journey.

Half-Life has not ended yet.

But what if Half-Life 2 had not ended where it did, and not before you had escaped the exploding citadel? What if Alyx would pat you on the back, and Kleiner would come out of nowhere and answer all your questions? Not only was it not time for such things (it would've been like eating an unripe fruit, or not letting the wine reach the intended age), but it would've stolen the thunder belonging to the meeting with the Gman. It would've been rushing out the story.

If a Half-Life game is preceeded by a game with a strong closure, it will get a less interesting start. The way they are doing it should mean that each games starts in the middle of things, and there's no time for relaxation. They end on a high note, they begin on a high note. I for one do not want the Half-Life games to end with a false sense of security or closure, until it's all over for real.

Even if you don't favor the approach, I had at least hoped you'd be open-minded enough to aknowledge its merits and advantages. Alas, that does not seem to be the case. Sometimes "I don't like it" is enough... As long as you remember that it is a useful narrative tool, whether you like it or not.

Sure, you might view it as a cheap way to avoid having to think of a good way to end a story (but with a professional writer like Laidlaw on the team, I'm sure they already have a bunch of ideas). Well, even if you do, you can still hope they're saving the best for last.

[Cerberus_e]

of course the half-life games are a big journey, and I'd be really pissed if the story never ends

[Kalki]

Are they aiming for memorable characters who reappear in future titles?

[FireFly]

Cerberus_e said:
of course having more would be cool, but it's not necessary to keep me satisfied

But that is the same situation with cliffhangers. Just because large parts of the story aren't resolved doesn't mean the game can't stand on its own. The feeling of uncertainty, the sense of mystery, the ability to continue the story in your imagination - these are all elements which work whether or not the story is to be continued.

In fact I think the best stories have that element of openness at the end. They're saying "here, you finish things off yourself", and in an idle moment you can wonder what happened after the story ended. What you're saying only seems to stand because you're talking about stories in computer games, which typically just serve to accompany the action.

Can you imagine these sorts of debates if we were talking about books? "Yeah, this book has more story - it's got 50 more pages, see" "Yeah, but look, everything wasn't tied up at the end, so the story sucks". Some of the most critically acclaimed books ever written have plain bad stories according to your definition. Yes, it's a different medium, but we're talking about stories, not games here. A book that leaves things open can be satisfying whether or not you read the sequels, and the same is true for games.

HL2 had only 12 hours of gameplay, I wanted more.
HL2's story didn't end, so I want to know how it ended, and guess what? I don't know, so HL2 has a bad story.
it may be explained in the sixth overpriced HL3 episode through steam, but that's not HL2's story anymore
I see games as single experiences, not as episodes like you have to watch on TV each particular day on the same hour.

And that's just your perspective. What if others see games as part of a greater universe? What if game developers want to market to that audience? I don't see why game developers should solely favour your perspective at the expense of everyone else's.

that doesn't mean I'm not excited about expansion packs and sequels.

If you're excited then you want more.

I also cared about what will happen in warrior within as soon as it was announced, and the sands of time story ended.

I didn't say that the only way developers can make people care about their stories is to use cliffhangers, just that it's an effective tool. And my point was that you can be satisfied with an ending because it doesn't tie all the loose ends up, because it makes you want more. Satisfaction as a concept can be applied to anything. Some people enjoy having to use their imagination so an experience that doesn't explain everything is more satisfying for them.

Ultimately there can be satisfaction even in knowing that you want more.

there is a difference between universe and story.
the story of prince of persia: sands of time ended in sands of time, but the universe continued in warrior within.
it's a new story, but not ignoring what happened in sands of time, it continues the adventures of the prince after what happened after pop: sot.

What is the difference between a universe and a story? Can each story not be broken up into seperate sub-stories? In which case perhaps what's in SOT is just another sub story, a part of the princes greater "adventures".

[Mr.Sociopath]

I kind of liked Painkiller ending.. which was a cliffhanger I think.. also the doom 1 ending which was kind of a cliffhanger..
though.. the doom2 game wasn't related to the doom1 ending..
and the painkiller expension..well..I haven't played it

if it's good or not probably only depends of how it's used..
Personally I like being intrigued.. so if there,s a cliffhanger it can be good..
unless the game is to short.. now that would be different ( like star wars: republic commando, which felt almost like a demo version )

[Altered Reality]

laffer said:
I just had a horrible thought - what if DNF ends with a cliffhanger??
That would be pretty horrible if you ask me (for obvious reasons)

Yes, I completely agree. Playing the whole game and seeing that its end is a cliffhanger would be like getting in bed with the girl you lusted after for your whole life and seeing she has a penis and testicles.

[Cerberus_e]

you like cliffhangers because you can continue the game in your head. I hate cliffhangers because I want to be sure about facts in games.
that settles it

suck this FireFly:

Altered Reality said:

Yes, I completely agree. Playing the whole game and seeing that its end is a cliffhanger would be like getting in bed with the girl you lusted after for your whole life and seeing she has a penis and testicles.

you now

[FireFly]

Where did I say that I wanted DNF to have a cliffhanger?

[Emultra]

Mr.Sociopath said:
and the painkiller expension..well..I haven't played it

And you think the original has a cliffhanger ending.

[Micki!]

I CERTANLY don't want Bombshell to have testicles..!

[Cerberus_e]

you didn't, but you like cliffhangers

[FireFly]

That's why she isn't attracted to Duke.

[Micki!]

FireFly said:
That's why she isn't attracted to Duke.

Maybe Dr. Proton is secretly attracted to Duke, thus using a whole alien army to capture him, and force Duke to live together with him...

Now THAT'S what i call plot twist...

[December Man]

Ehem... Me thinks Warrior Within has better plot twists than Sands of Time...

The best ending is the, what I call, 'half-cliffhanger ending'. It's an ending that can be the final one or can be a good entry into a sequel.

WW has a definite cliffhanger, though...

[December Man]

Micki! said:

Maybe Dr. Proton is secretly attracted to Duke, thus using a whole alien army to capture him, and force Duke to live together with him...

Now THAT'S what i call plot twist...

OMFG xD

Ugh...

[Otto von Keisinger]

December Man said:
Ehem... Me thinks Warrior Within has better plot twists than Sands of Time...

The best ending is the, what I call, 'half-cliffhanger ending'. It's an ending that can be the final one or can be a good entry into a sequel.

WW has a definite cliffhanger, though...

That's just a plot twist to set up the next installment--versus leaving the story hanging. WW's story concluded with the boss fight.

I felt that yes, WW's plot twists may have been "better," but the overall story failed where SoT didn't. Why must every story dealing with time travel involve some obscenely complicated Hollywood plan to reverse everything that is entirely illogical?

[Mr.Sociopath]

Emultra said:

And you think the original has a cliffhanger ending.

dunno..what is the expansion's ending?.. I don,t care much for spoiler , at least not for that game