Beyond Two Endings

Upon completion of Beyond Two Souls cinematic climax, satisfied with my moral choices that led to this powerful, frenetic finale I began to collate all existing alternations to this conclusion to discover whether other endings provided similar or exceeding satisfaction. I don’t intentionally seek to refute choices I’ve made in games, particularly ones that are implicit in coercing you to repeat elongated exposition, but due to the enormity of the finality (to which I won’t disclose) I felt deferred resources were necessary to clarify whether an alternate juncture could have provided a more riveting continuity. And it was–by a considerable margin–a repetitive delineation for what is essentially an aberration of emblematic good/bad synopsis, or at least abbreviations of these dualistic colloquial’s. The decisions I make in a game–unless regimented to a strict linear narrative that can’t be broadened–should feel as though the empathetic choices I’ve made have impacting consequence’s to the development of characterisation, story and finality. The advantage of allowing a story to traverse alternate tangents you would presume, is to permit an expansive intimacy of the events, to gain visual confirmation that the tough decisions you have made are conducive to your portrayal.

“Jump, get captured, it really doesn’t matter. You’ll escape regardless.”

The abstract nature symbolism of multiple endings does dilute the expressive immediacy of delegation, allowing you to alter previously resilient accords with less favourable results. Your mediating your instinctive spontaneity that isn’t contributory to the narrative your attempting to convey. This abject approach differs from your initially visceral resolution to myriad of frenetic differentials, by negating the potency of expressed acuity of a situation. This is exemplified in Beyond Two Souls during a pursuit on a commercial train whereby I had to evade apprehension from the local authorities. Successful evasion required concise precision, leaping from the still mobile train to avert imminent capture, traversing through dense woodlands with cursory awareness of both the surrounding foliage and my pursuers location, before evading detection by ascending a vertical surface and requisitioning an officers motorcycle. The alternative reaction to this exhilarating premise is to, well, do nothing at all. Simply stop allowing your character to evade and become stationary in some vegetative state of dystrophy, allowing pursuers to apprehend you, or canine unit to masticate on your immobile flesh. Just place the controller on the ground as if being authorised by some ethereal cop and regulate no mobility. This to me is contraindicative motivation and devaluing the conceit of immersion.

“Beyond Two Souls is better when played the way you want.”

Now you could argue that such exposition is an optional one, motivated by exploratory inquisition of “what ifs”. Perhaps games should instead  accentuate the relevance of decisiveness, rather than separate decisions that lead to similar conclusions, focus on the fluctuating variables that require concise decisions to determine the appropriate retaliation. These tangent aberrations in narratives are evident of our own curiosity with a need to clarify that the finality expressed is our most desirable one. But life doesn’t work like that, so why should a game that attempts to emulate the remorse of human endeavour and consequence of specified actions exempt these restrictions? Now ordinarily this would be a rhetorical question, posed to spark debate and editing of proposed ideals, but for the purposes of my own sanity I will answer it: because we don’t want to be blocked by the imposed restrictions of reality. Who wouldn’t like the opportunity to right a wrong, alter misdeeds or retract ill-conceived statements uttered in contempt at heightened emotional states? We want to know that we can defer from the perceived invariable road, but life isn’t symmetrical, so why would a game?

Life is evanescent, mailable and games should be reflective in that brief, if not marginalised variant of embellishment. You try to rationalise your decisions as you would in life, reticent in your next divergence. You want to be capable of manipulating the predictive constance, mould the shifting variables to suite your own experience. Now that–to me–is captivation.

Should games just incorporate static endings rather than multiple ones? Let me know your thoughts. Cheers.