Multiple branches/endings in RPG

[Don]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Wouldn't it be cool if you can actually branch in a way that actually matters? For example, instead of going around and save village X from being killed by the local whatever you moved on because saving the world is more important? What if Aeris didn't die in FF7? In these days where bigger is better, it's rather surprising that multiple branches/endings hasn't been used extensively. When you've multiple branches you automatically can claim more replay value, whether the branches/endings are meaningful or not. And please make endings that are actually different but equal. In games that do have more than one ending, you usually have an ending, a better ending, and if there's more it's an even better ending. That's not variety. That just means before you beat the game you should consult a guide to see what you missed. The only game I can think of in recent memory is Front Mission 3 with the two scenarios, even though the branching point is completely meaningless.

Oh yeah, and why not have some bad endings, not like BoF3 where you watch an hour of dialogue and choose the wrong option and the game laughs at you for being stupid. I mean suppose you're defeated by the evil whatever why not show the consequences of what happened. Chrono Trigger had something like that. If you lose to Lavos you see Lavos blew up the world. If people don't care about these things, they can always reset.</div>

[Derithian]

<div style='font: italic bold 14pt ; text-align: center; '>if a game is lacking in the story department, having multiple endings and paths can make it more intriging than it is. the last game I can remember doing that was True Crime where you could do any of 3 endings and alternate levels and stuff. Not a great game but it did have branching paths. and bad endings galore. I do want another game where every choicec I make changes events. You know choosing between stopping a bad guy for good or rescuing a hostage and letting the bad guy escape so yo have to fight him later. Not branching paths but decisions that effect what happens later in the game. But these are merely the usual drunken ramblings of a fool. And god forbid I actually find myself agreeing with you :p</div>

[Eric]

<div style='font: 11pt ; text-align: left; '>Chrono Trigger pulled it off concerning Magus. :)</div>

[EsquE]

<div style='font: 10pt Baskerville; text-align: left; '>...only if it is done right. You already gave the examples of where it is done wrong. Slightly better and better endings if you find every stupid little thing in the game is annoying. At the same time feeling as if you have little control over your fate can make a game feel like a waste unless the story is very strong.

There is very little I would want to change about FF7 seeing as it's one of my all time favorites, but I always thought it would be cool if you could save Aerith. In choosing to save her though, you condemn the planet to destruction. One branch, two distinct endings caused by a real decision.

One game recently that got multiple endings right was Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic. While the choices and consequences were obvious, the availability of those choices gave you two distinct playing experiences. In this case, the options of two endings that are obvious from the beginning change the way you play the entire game. It kind of reverses it so that instead of your actions affecting the outcome, the outcome affects your actions.

I was never really a fan of the multiple endings in Chrono Trigger. I found most of them tedious to get and pointless to see. It was cheap replay value. The one thing they got right was Magus and your option to make him a hero. That had meaning; the other ending options were filler. A good branch in a storyline that may not effect the end of the game is usually a lot more powerful that a different ending. Even a hidden playable character can have more of an impact. I certainly got a lot more out of FF7 having Vincent in the party and exploring his past than I would have got from a few more seconds of CG at the end.

To sum up, I like multiple endings as long as they feel real. That they fit the context of the game, that they change the game, that they are meaningful to the storyline. I would prefer branching storylines though, or extra characters that make real contributions...</div>

[Zeus]

<div style='font: 9pt ; text-align: left; '>Didn't Phantasy Star 3 get slammed for it's branching? It changed things around a fair bit, if I remember</div>

[EsquE]

<div style='font: 10pt Baskerville; text-align: left; '>Not really...pretty much just changes the hero's hair color...no real gameplay or storyline changes...</div>

[Don]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>If you change something significant along the way it should have an adverse effect on the outcome of the game.

FF7 that you brought up is a good example. I don't have a problem with FF7's story either but an option where you save Aeris and ultimately have the planet destroyed would be a good second branch, but it has to be presented so that it doesn't look like a 'you lose' branch.

One of the best branches in Fate is when you discover Sakura (generic not-your-love-interest-but-still-close girl, like Rikku) is the Dark Avenger and she's unconscious from absorbing too much soul energy from the heroes she has killed. You could kill her right then and this ends the game immediately, or you can try to save her despite the fact that she's going to become much, much stronger in about a day or two when she has time to integrate the power she consumed and then resume destroying the world. Of course, the right choice is to not kill her, but you can actually kill her there, and if you do you see the hero reminsices how killing Sakura that day made him realize that absolute power cannot be entrusted to anyone, so he went on and killed all the other girls too, to make sure none of them would ever attain the power Sakura tried to, and this is his price to pay to uphold Justice (and he's actually right, all the other girls in the game aren't people you can trust with absolute power either). Even though it's clearly meant to be a bad ending, it's certainly a very powerful branch. RPGs are riddled with fairy-tale save every stories and sometimes I really wish you can choose NOT to save some people.

I want something like Rin forcing the main character to watch Ilya die so she can observe Gilgamesh's battle abilities, because she knew that there's no way to fight Gilgamesh head on, so you get to see Gilgamesh rip out Ilya's heart, but this is needed because eventually Rin figured out Gilgamesh's weakness from watching how he killed Ilya. Why shouldn't you have the option of leting someone become the Final Aeon to fight Sin (you could just defeat Jecht and then kill the new Final Aeon too, and save a lot of trouble)? There are many games I can think of where just the branch between fairy tale stories where you can go save village X from a fire while the world is about to be destroyed, to more realistic scenarios where you actually have to make some sacrifices to save the world. Or what about Xenosaga letting the option of not letting a ditz like Shion in charge of saving the world? Or FF8 where you have the choice of letting a guy who doesn't want to be a leader at all continue being a lone wolf? After all it's not like he makes a convincing leader in charge of SeeD anyway.

The problem with current branches is that they're not really branches. You don't get to have any signficiant effect on the outcome and often the branches themselves aren't even meaningful. Front Mission 3 is the only game I can think of where the 2 paths are different enough, but then FM3 looked more like two games with a rather arbitrary branching point at the start.</div>

[Don]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>And if the choices are truly meaningful, they should affect the ending too.

I don't see branches/endings there to replace a good story. There's no reason why the story can't be good even if there's more than one way to end. It's true a lot of game approaches endings as normal, better, even better, and of course you'd expect the 'even better' ending to be the best, or in some sense normal ending is the worst. But that's just a design flaw.

There's no reason why a good story can't have branches.</div>

[Don]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Oh yeah and the ending text changes by 3 lines depending on who you are at the end.</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Which has good and bad endings, but also different endings depending on the sorts of decisions you make throughout the game.

Fire Emblem 7 on GBA is a little unique, first of all, the game begins with the main character Lyndis, she is the main character for the first ten chapters, then chapter 11-31/32 is either Hector or Eliwood depending on the sorts of decisions made, this chapter is essentially a new story linked to the one in the first 10 chapters, but taking place in the future from it. Then there are two main branches, Hector or Eliwood. There are also a number of side quests in the game, Hector's version has probably 4 or 5 more Chapters total than Eliwoods. Then of course, Fire Emblem is the type of game where you can gain a large number of characters, and the story will be different depending on which characters you gain, which characters you kill, which side quests you do, etc....

As for Ogre Battle, the game has a million endings it seems, the only problem is the game also takes about a million hours to complete, and it is far more difficult than your typical RPG. However, at almost no point in the game will it become impossible; like Fire Emblem can be, for example, if you don't level up your main characters who begin as weaklings, green in the ways of fighting, and instead let your starting Knights do all the work, stealing all sorts of experience. Also, the story during the game is different depending on which characters you match up with each other. Fire Emblem on GBA is about

Very off topic, but: I guess Fire Emblem is sort of along the lines of the RPG system you described earlier where you begin with a very powerful character and several weak ones who work their way up towards becoming powerful. The only difference here is that while playing Fire Emblem I used my powerful starting characters only for the purpose of covering and making the save for my weaker characters (lets face it, Marcus is like a God in the early game whereas Eliwood is a wimp), but I let Eliwood and my other weaker starting characters get the kills nd experience, in the end the weaker starting characters have much more potential than the characters who are already powerful (since their levels are much closer to being maxed out, and weaker characters get way more experience, for an enemy Eliwood may gain 80-90 experience points from, Marcus might only gain 3 or 4).</div>

[Don]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>It's been done way too many times. They usually don't even try to have it make any sense in terms of story. It's like you kill a bunch of stuff, then kill more stuff, and suddenly you're more powerful. Something like Suikoden I don't mind, where the main character's growth is in distinct phases (granted, McDohl would still be overpowered even if you didn't have the Soul Eater). Perhaps the best example I can think of is Xenogear's final battle, when KOS-MOS says she will use all her power now, and she is EXACTLY the same as any other time.

Now, I like leveling up, but that's different. I don't see leveling up a character as progression for them.

Actually, RPG's character development is a lot of cheap Chinese martial arts fiction. The main character is always a weakling, and then through some large number of miracles (or in case of RPG, leveling up) becomes godlike at the end. Depending on the game, the main character might not be the most physically capable character but it's obvious he is supposed to be. Why not have a main character that starts out as a high level? I mean you're controlling elite squad SeeD and you're still only level 5? Why not have a game like Lufia where you get the level 90 Maxim and party to start off? Maybe you shouldn't be doing that for the entire game, but at least some of the game?</div>

[Julius Seeker]

<div style='font: 12pt ; text-align: left; '>Well, in the case of Fire Emblem I think the main explanation is experience on the battlefield, constant sparring with the other characters, and the time factor (the game takes place over years)</div>