Since the early days of video gaming writers have used the interactive medium as a flagship for multiple endings. Usually these story mechanics show themselves half-way though a title with one arbitrary choice deciding which ending you will receive. These ending affecting choices are for the most part black and white, and for all intents and purposes spell out exactly what ending you will get to watch. A simple "save or not" or "kill or let live" choice is an example of this decision practice.

Quite possibly the first instance of a multiple endings in a game is 1986's Bubble Bobble. Different endings were derived depending on how many characters survived to the end. If you beat the game with only one player you get an ending that the game calls "Not the true ending". In order to get the "True Ending" you must beat the game twice with a friend. The actual differences in the endings are minuet. Beating the game with a single player nets you both of the dino girls that have been kidnapped, while a two player run though grants both of the dinos a lady. Surly this game design decision was implemented to extract more quarters out of arcade attendees, but as we all know arcades are dead. There is no instant incentive for the game developer to produce multiple endings for money's sake, so why do they all do it?

Perhaps multiple endings are for marketing. Company "A" can tout that their game has "over 100 hours of game-play". A number resulting from adding up all the play-throughs needed to get every ending possible. Sure 100 hours looks like a long time from the outside, but if you are breaking that up in to five 20 hour chunks the perceived value dwindles. Maybe it's us the gamers. Are we unwilling to buy an RPG with out multiple endings, or a survival horror with a scant one outcome? While these theories are each valid in some form a more convincing conclusion is that video game companies are trapped with-in a design prison of their own making.

Since the inception of our Bubble Bobble friends Bub and Bob game companies have been geared toward the road of many paths. For every game supplying one ending, there are six others with endings so ADD a 10 year old Ritalin junkie would have trouble following them. Each one of these multiple ending titles has a plot deciding action. Did you shoot that monkey? Was the evil prince's life spared? Did you press the buttons fast enough? These are the deciding factors in your electronic tale. And much like the Choose Your Own Adventure books, 4 out of the 5 available endings are garbage.

One of the main problems with having multiple endings is deciding what is canon. Canon is simply defined as the accepted truth out of all possible outcomes. A gaming scenario that can easliy describe this is the original Metal Gear Solid for the Playstation 1. The two available endings see either Meryl dieing, or escaping with Snake. But wait! Even casual observers of the MGS series know that Meryl is in the fourth installment, so how is she alive if she died? Well here is where canon comes into play. In MGS 2 it is confirmed that the ending where Meryl escaped is the correct ending story wise. This completely invalidates the second ending, which some believe (myself included) is much better. Over the course of a series with multiple endings it becomes very difficult to ascertain what is canon, and what is not.

In my eyes it would be perfectly acceptable for a game to have alternate endings if the same amount of attention was paid to each. Unfortunately, this is not the case in the gaming world today. For the most part games use the "Good Ending" and "Bad Ending" scenarios. The good endings are just that; a nice wrap-up of the events that took place followed by a bit of story and hope for the future. All in all a great way to close the cover on a good game. The bad endings however are where my ire lies. Bad endings fall in to two categories. They can either be just as well thought out as the good ending, or more commonly a short meshed together mess of what was going to happen in the good ending but didn't. It's these superfluous sub-par endings that spoil the whole idea of multiple endings, as not many are willing to play though an entire game just to see a short unsatisfying finish.


So I pose this question to you the gaming public:

Would you rather play a game with one amazing ending, or a game with 3 decent endings?


Ending 1:

Choice: Pressing X as fast as possible during the torture scene of Metal Gear Solid 1 was the pinnacle of my gaming world.

[spoiler] You walk off into the distance toward the mall on the horizon; there are many games with many different endings in your future. [/spoiler]

Ending 2:

Choice: Accepting to be the G-Man's puppet was a forgone conclusion.

[spoiler] You casually stroll down the laid brick path towards Gamestop, knowing exactly the outcome of your game buying options. [/spoiler]

Ending 3:

Choice: Little sisters are for Adam and saving.

[spoiler] You blissfully run to the KB toy store picking up a title. All the while not caring about possible endings, but focusing on playing the game. [/spoiler]



Fin!