Reverend Anthony at Destructoid wonders out loud how it's possible to have a satisfying ending to a game narrative that isn't just a boss battle without taking the sense of control and identification away from the player. He's got a good point.
The article mentions a wide variety of games, but the Halo series does get mentioned:
To put it bluntly, there will not be a game made in the next decade that cannot be sequelized. In our current "evolution, not revolution" gaming climate, we opt for sequels and spinoffs and clones more than we respect the standalone work of art, in the same way other genres do. As a result, games are almost required to have some sort of open end, which usually involves (A) the protagonist surviving, and (B) the possibility of conflict remaining. Gears of War ends with absolutely nothing solved. Halo 2 ends on a cliffhanger.
Halo 1's open-ended ending also is mentioned by some of the comments left on this article. Most users felt the combination of The Maw, as a level, and the understated cutscene that ended the game was pretty satisfying. So, Halo 1's non-ending ending was okay, but Halo 2's non-ending ending wasn't.
How will Halo 3 end? A little less than a month left before we find out.
- You can't post comments