So, I recently finished playing the adventure game Syberia, which in general is a beautiful and moving game with strong characters, decent puzzles and a great sense of intrigue and wonder. However, the ending of the game really bothered me. I don't want to give away the ending, so I will leave out the details, but essential the games ends without completing the arch of the story.
In the end, the main character, Kate Walker, comes to a realization and decides to follow the path the game has been leading her down as opposed to deciding to return back to her old life in New York City. None of the mysteries of the game are revealed, the train continues on it's journey and the player is still wondering where the hell do mammoths and Syberia fit in. How is it that movies and computer games are allowed to be considered complete without good endings?
Even if a game is planning to come out with a sequel, I prefer it to tie up the main arch of the story in the first installment. From the beginning Syberia seemed to promise this trip to Syberia and uncovering some interesting secrets about mammoths, but it the end we are left without answers.
So, what do you all think? Am I just uncomfortable with loose ends and ambiguity or is this an egregious insult to the time the player has spent finishing the game?
Leaving the game's questions unanswered just for the sake of a sequel is not kosher. But maybe it's about the journey and not the destination. Sometimes anyway. Sounds like Lost.
ReplyDelete