Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Are people ALERGIC to happy endings?

I think we're just sick of them.  I know I am.  The expectation for them is still pretty damn strong in mainstream media.  I know plenty of people who believe that they're entitled to a happy ending in any story, and if they don't get it, the story is automatically crap.

I get the exact opposite. Where if the ending isn't sad and depressing then the story wasn't "Deep enough" or worth anyone's time.

I am drowning in saddness and depression and I just want one of my GOOD games to just have the big dang happy ending. I was tempted to make a thread just ASKING people to give me three games where one of them had an untainted happy ending.

It is to the extent where it seems like if anything "cares" about the story. It will at least have a bittersweet ending. It is just getting too much for me right now.

I actually have several games shelfed pretty much because the game is too depressing and if I kept playing I'd just be crying.

Though I will say most "sad endings" are just there to make you feel empty. As in they are there to play on your expectations of a happy ending.

[SalmonGod]

Interesting stuff.  I'm definitely not as affected by unhappy endings as you guys are.  Like I was just a little bit down for a while after watching The Road.  Not in the sense that I was actually depressed by it, but it was just a lot to emotionally process. 

I think it comes down to differences in perspective.  I believe art is about expanding one's own richness of perspectives and emotions.  It's about growing.  Entertainment and beauty are secondary, and examination is a component.  A large part of it for me is about tempering myself -- improving my ability to emotionally comprehend the world without being desensitized or crushed by it.  The following describes it pretty well.

Compassion hurts. When you feel connected to everything, you also feel responsible for everything and you cannot turn away. Your destiny is bound with the destinies of others. You must either learn to carry the Universe or be crushed by it. You must grow strong enough to love the world, yet empty enough to sit down at the same table with its worst horrors.

I have felt for a very long time like mainstream media is over-saturated with happy endings, and I do tend to backlash against that.  My biggest problem with them, though, is I often feel cheated by them.  Like they're just not believable.  The vast majority of endings can be summarized as "the mysterious power of love swoops in and magically fixes everything without any real explanation" and/or "the protagonists are beaten beyond all hope until the main hero suddenly performs some impossible feat by the power of gritting his teeth."  It's not that happy endings are unrealistic.  It's that not many people seem to know how to write a happy ending without making it unrealistic.  Realism isn't even the problem, it's... inconsistency.  Like the story is going in a certain direction and then there's this massive break that feels like invalidates everything that was building up to that point.

[Frumple]

Ha, yeah, bad writing is bad writing pretty much regardless as to emotional content, and, well, sturgeon's law. Mainstream media isn't exactly exempt from it Massive understatement is massive.

As for the growth... yeah, that's pretty much one of the primary reasons I don't have much tolerance for the more negative media nowadays. I've grown all I can grow from consuming media related to it, near as I can tell*. More positive stuff doesn't have much more in the way of that sort of gains, but hell, if I'm going to be doing something relatively useless anyway, might as well be something cheerful, y'know? Or at least interesting. And outside of the sciences, the world's just... not terribly interesting to me anymore, yeah. Interesting enough to keep at it, and do what I can to make it more interesting**, but not to choose it over something else when there's an option involved.

I do have more tolerance for negatives when there's interesting world building going on. My stomach for non-sci-fi/fantasy stuff tanked years, years ago. Little bit of wiggle room for alt-history stuff, but... I got tapped out insofar as near-reality stuff goes when I was much younger. Being who I am, I still give it a go every once in a while (couple times a year or thereabouts, in regards to various medias), but the pattern's been holding pretty steady. I get enough of the world when I go outside and get involved with it. Media's for other stuff, for me. Generally something more interesting (that doesn't involve craploads of math to be able to comprehend, as most of the interesting stuff we're doing in real life does.).

*And what little gains I occasionally notice myself getting from it, I notice with considerably higher frequency reading philosophy, psychology, or sociology, and with considerably higher efficiency in terms of time investment. They tend to be considerably more direct and to the point.
** It's a fairly fundamental thing. What is more pleasing is more interesting, yes? More attractive. Unless something has gone particularly wrong, or there's some functional benefit from it, we don't inherently seek unpleasantness or less pleasing things -- it doesn't draw interest. Improving peoples lives, helping out, etc., so forth, so on -- just as much as humor and suchlike goes, doing such things makes the world more interesting. Negative emotions are low energy or self-destructive (and thus unsustainable), positive ones high energy or self-reinforcing (and thus sustainable). It follows that enhancing and reinforcing positives makes the world a higher energy place, for a longer period of time. More interesting, yes.

P.S. Past midnight makes my head fuzzy some days. Really should be sleeping

[Neonivek]

There is nothing wrong with a sad ending but remember that a sad ending is meant to make you feel empty and reflect.

Eventually if you get enough sad depressing things... you are just left with nothing.

Yet because saddness is the easiest thing to cash in on, it is constantly used. (Good happy endings are easier then good sad endings.). Yet because Happy endings, GOOD ones, are harder to do it means that to get a satisfying happy ending is nearly impossible.

and/or "the protagonists are beaten beyond all hope until the main hero suddenly performs some impossible feat by the power of gritting his teeth."  It's not that happy endings are unrealistic.

What makes these good or bad depends on whether or not it negates the danger involved. For example in one show I saw the hero, after losing an important battle, is suddenly dealing with every villain he ever fought in the entire course of the show, many of which are more powerful or as powerful as he is and some have defeated him before.

Yet it is probably the most glorious battle I have ever seen and they didn't pull out any cheap victories. Using every trick he has learned and inventing several new ones. None of the villains are suddenly less competent, powerful, or unlucky. It was OOZING with epic!

We can also see this done badly with just... well... The anime steriotype of "Hero mad and summons a big giant attack that wins".

As well my favorite ending of all time is a Bittersweet ending but where the bitterness is just on how much had to be sacrificed to get to its glorious ending and how much needs to be rebuilt.

Also I realise sad endings can be non-cheap. For example often a sad ending is created simply because the right thing to do was more important then the goal.

It is like the art of the Happy Ending is completely lost sometimes... So I REALLY need to play something that isn't just trying to depress me.

-The Void: A game about life and death and the concept that we are born dying and the idea of cheapening of life in order to prolong it
-Blackwell: Everything sucks and everyone just wallows in self-pity because no one wants to own up to their responsibilities
-Whispered World: Everything sucks and it doesn't matter what you do because you will always fail
-Gemini Rue: You fail
-Whatever: You suck, the world sucks, and the only thing you can do is just sit at home and do nothing

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

[alexandertnt]

Yet because saddness is the easiest thing to cash in on, it is constantly used. (Good happy endings are easier then good sad endings.). Yet because Happy endings, GOOD ones, are harder to do it means that to get a satisfying happy ending is nearly impossible.

Perhaps I misunderstand, but in one place you stated that "good happy endings are easier" than next you said "Happy endings, GOOD ones, are harder", which seems like a contradiction.

It would be the easiest to cash in on because it is what people (including myself) seem to be willing to pay money for at the moment.

[Neonivek]

Odd, I must have misphrased. I do that sometimes.

Also Saddness is the easiest to cash in on because a sad ending at heart is fulfilled simply by cashing in on people's expectations and doing the opposite.

While a happy ending, a good one, cannot just do that cash in.

Though I am really oversimplifying. I forgot an old observation I made: The ability to write endings seems to be an entirely seperate skill from writing a story

[fqllve]

Also Saddness is the easiest to cash in on because a sad ending at heart is fulfilled simply by cashing in on people's expectations and doing the opposite.

That's a really terrible way to end a story though. A good ending is a good ending regardless of whether it's happy or sad because a good ending must not only evolve naturally from all other parts of a story, but it must also be unexpected.

Basically if you're ending is just "Hey let me make everything horrible for no reason other than SURPRISE!" you suck at writing.

*And what little gains I occasionally notice myself getting from it, I notice with considerably higher frequency reading philosophy, psychology, or sociology, and with considerably higher efficiency in terms of time investment. They tend to be considerably more direct and to the point.

That's a pretty narrow view of things though. Sure you can get the same information, but fiction that examines life isn't about giving you information, it's about synthesizing it and showing you how it applies. You can't just pick up a philosophical revelation and truly grasp its implications, you have to see them for yourself in action. And that's what I think the primary purpose of such fiction is.

It also allows you to examine facets of life other than what you experience in your own. It shows you the world from a different perspective and engages you empathically, both of which are highly important to being well-rounded.

All that said though, I'm personally more interested in the things that are beautiful about art, rather than what it has to say.

[Leatra]

This post contains TvTropes links. You have been warned.

I tend to dislike good endings too mostly because it's unrealistic. The stereotypical idealistic and optimistic stories with a good ending usually has these traits:

Power of friendship/love/trust seems to overcome every challenge. Protagonist occasionally thinks of an idea that has %0.00001 chance of working but it's so crazy, it just might work. The villain is hated by everyone and is obviously evil, even if he (it's almost never a woman) never commits evil acts. Even if he does, he usually does them without a purpose and for the sake of being evil.

Villains end up dead because when they can easily kill the hero, they never do it. For example, the hero is defeated and can't stop the villain, all hope is lost. However the villain spends 10 minutes monologuing which gives enough time for hero's previously thought to be dead friend to show up and kill the villain or give the hero an opportunity to get up and kill the villain. Oh sorry, most of the time heroes will never kill the villain because they aren't murderers even if they spent half of the story with killing every mook the villain sent after him (more common with video games). So they usually make the villain see the error of his ways or put the bad guy to the jail. Hero might even end up with trying to save the villain at one point. Even if the villain is a genius who plans everything, they seem to get incredibly stupid at the worst times. Just like how hero's ideas always work even if it's impossible to work, villain's ideas will never work even if they have like %99 chance to work.

I exaggerated and stereotyped everything incredibly but I blame Tv Tropes for making me do this.

Also, that's why I prefer stories in which the protagonist isn't full good, and the antagonist isn't full evil either. It's even better if both of them have a gray morality.

It's not like a happy ending automatically makes the story bad. Most stories with a downer ending happen to have a good and deeper story when compared to stories with happy endings, that's all.

By the way, what was this thread about again?

[Neonivek]

Sometimes Leatra the happy endings are good because of those reasons.

Because you have a protagonist who fights the odds and somehow through adversity succeeds.

I actually have harder times getting into series where the hero is invincible at the start and continues to be uttarly invincible. Well except Cooking Master Boy but that is because it is one of the VERY few things I just don't take seriously (And yet I still analysed it) and Akagi, which I dislike for other reasons but is otherwise a good anime.

Even if the villain is a genius who plans everything, they seem to get incredibly stupid at the worst times.

It usually has to do with the villains philosophy. A lot of the time the hero is a clear abberation of their world view and they cannot fathom them actually using ideas they long since discounted.

Or something unexpected.

Honestly villains who can plan EVERYTHING are a bigger issue. What is the best tactic against someone who plans for everything? The most obvious and dirrect course of action.

It's even better if both of them have a gray morality

Not always really. A lot of the time this just devolves into a war of "who cares".

By the way, what was this thread about again?

Cashing in on videogames. Which is related.

It's not like a happy ending automatically makes the story bad. Most stories with a downer ending happen to have a good and deeper story when compared to stories with happy endings, that's all.

Which is really where the crux of the issue is. People just don't take "happy" seriously and consider it shallow and banal.

Yet Depression and saddness? treated like it was as deep as the ocean.

Though that is because a sad ending is meant to make you feel reflective. A good sad ending is supposed to make you think.

That's a really terrible way to end a story though

90% of all sad endings disagree with you. They are almost ALWAYS "The Hero tries to succeed at a goal. Yet fails".

---

MIND YOU

If you want to see a stark difference in quality between happy and sad endings... Disgaeas happy ending and its worst ending is probably the best example.

[Leatra]

Well, that post was mostly sarcastic and I wasn't expecting a reply like this actually. Okay, SERIOUS TIME!

I just don't like stories which has an unrealistically good ending where everyone manages to beat the evil and save the universe by sacrificing nothing at all. I'm okay with phyrric victories.

I like it when both sides are gray because it usually produces a more interesting and engaging story. It's a lot difficult than making the protagonist good and making the antagonist evil. It doesn't devolve into a war of "who cares". It makes the readers question the very concept of morality. It makes the readers feel both sympathetic and unsympathetic to the both sides at different parts of the story, rather than making the reader hate the bad guy and love the good guy.

When you see a guy who murders children for fun and a guy who saves the world regularly as a hobby, it doesn't really make you think and question the morality of these characters. You know who to hate and who to root for from the start. You can maybe even figure out what happens in the next chapter if you are genre savvy. In gray vs gray stories, it's usually much more difficult to predict what is going to happen and which side is going to lose, since there isn't a clear good guy or a bad guy.

I always think of Dragon Age 2 whenever I discuss gray vs gray morality. Both Templars and Mages have their dark sides. It's not clear which side is going to win because none of them are good. The ending was totally unexpected for me and I loved it. I would play the game again just for the sake of it's story. Dragon Age: Origins, on the other hand, wasn't really for me. You are just saving the world by killing monsters. Also, In Dragon Age 2, the protagonist isn't out to save the world. Even if you play a diplomatic Hawke, what he tries to do is usually about trying to settle down after being forced to leave his hometown. He tries to increase his social status within the city by reclaiming his noble status and getting his family's mansion back. Another thing is, the world doesn't revolve around the protagonist. The setting grey vs grey but it isn't Hawke vs Mages and Templars. It's Templars vs Mages. Hawke just try to live by and gets involved in the affair only at the ending. Hell, there isn't even an antagonist in the game.

I'm not trying to prove that gray vs gray stories are unarguably better than any white vs black story. I'm not presenting an argument, I'm just explaining why I tend to like gray vs gray stories better. Of course, poorly written gray vs gray stories exist too and there are white vs black stories which I enjoyed.

[Neonivek]

Then what happens when you have two sides with a perfectly valid point but not the drive to really make us cheer them on. You get "Who cares". Similar to how I feel about Skyrim where they tried so hard to make both sides valid that they ended up making neither of them so.

It makes the readers question the very concept of morality

Ahh now this is where we differ. I have a very strong sense of morality and an understanding that when looking at history it is often better to treat it entirely in a shade of grey.

It cannot make me question my morality because in a grey world there is no morality.

There is NO morality in a way against two greys. It just makes everything such a waste.

When "Chaotic" actually is the best "Grey Versus Grey" I ever seen (Where ALL the factions are equally evil and good) that is something. You know why it was well done? Because it wasn't creating conflict for the sake of conflict. It understood there was an eternal deadlock but within the writing there is an idea that peace (a happy ending) could exist. This is good because it isn't grey it is two GOOD factions against eachother. White Versus White.

WHY would I care who wins in a grey versus Grey? White Versus White is a much more worthwhile experience.

[anzki4]

WHY would I care who wins in a grey versus Grey?

The same reasons why you care which side wins in a real life conflict?

[Neonivek]

WHY would I care who wins in a grey versus Grey?

The same reasons why you care which side wins in a real life conflict?

Usually one side has a claim or a possible way both sides could win. Otherwise... No... Even in real life I could care less of which side of "Grey" wins.

It is like asking me to care which marshmellow is more delicious. They are both marshmellows!

---

Anyhow I understand you don't like "Happy ending" to be the default.

Yet I state that just because something is ambiguous and depressing it doesn't make it any less shallow.

So with games you either get a phoned in Happy ending or a phoned in Ambiguous Sad Ending. Yet because Sad endings are the default "serious ending" because your feelings on storytelling is actually common, MORE common then mine, it is only seen in games that included deep stories of any sort (since happyness is considered shallow... As you demonstrated unfortunately).

So you know what? He is right. Anything trying to pass itself off as deep is going to have a depressing ending because as TVtropes tells us "Depression is Deep" and if the story had ANY SHRED of happyness it would lose its credibility. It COULD have happy scenes but only to destroy it.

[frostshotgg]

I like Happy endings. I've grow very, very, very, very etc weary of the constant "A huge douche won, but it wasn't really a victory for good. Go figure out what exactly happened for yourself, I'm too lazy to write a proper ending" and "grey vs grey vs gray" and "everything is brown and gritty". I want a proper story. Not maximum edgy.

[Leatra]

@Neonivek, I don't really want to enter an argument about this because it's mostly a matter of preference but how can you say there is no morality? Morality exists in everything. Don't take morality as a narrow term. Morality isn't only about deciding that killing is bad or charity is good. Again I'm going with Dragon Age 2 as an example, do you think a religious group who hunts down every mage and sends them to a prison where they can't hurt anybody is justifiable? Do you think mages should be free, even if they can turn into crazy murderers any minute? This is something that makes us question our ideas about morality when it comes to Order vs Freedom.

In a grey vs grey story, readers usually tend to be more sympathetic towards a side which they perceive as the lesser evil. This is why people are arguing if the Stormcloacks are better or Imperials are better on the internet discussions about Skyrim. How can it make you question things? Well, it's not like a scenario like this didn't happen in real life.

A person might be in the favor of executing evil people and they are more likely to be sympathetic towards a character like, let's say, Punisher. They might even be in the favor of death penalty. However, some people might outright hate that kind of mindset because, for example, they think giving a person or a government power to kill will eventually be abused by the said person or government.

You see gray and gray morality, a story where both protagonist and antagonist isn't clearly good or evil, as deciding between two identical marshmallows. Just because it's a grey vs grey morality doesn't mean every moral idea is equally flawed and you shouldn't care about them because there isn't anything that can be considered ultimately good or evil. Grey vs grey morality isn't X vs X morality which everyone's idea sucks. It's a X vs Y morality which has a blurred line between black and white. If you really believe that it's like asking you to care which marshmellow is more delicious, you must really have a strongly set black and white moral code or maybe I can't comprehend your idea of morality.

And frostshotgg, leaving the people with a cliffhanger has nothing to do with grey vs grey morality.