Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within this column are those of the participants and the moderator, and do not necessarily reflect those of the GIA. There is coarse language and potentially offensive material afoot. It's not like it's that big a deal, you know? Don't say we didn't warn you.

I'll be your Double Agent host for the next couple of evenings, so, like, I think I should introduce myself. Or re-introduce myself, depending on your perspective, I suppose. I'm Andrew Kaufmann, former weekend host of Double Agent. I have quite a checkered videogame past, having been a co-maintainer of the Unofficial Squaresoft Home Page, starter of the Q&A column and news reporter over on RPGamer.com, co-founder/co-owner of the GIA, and occassional writer for the likes of IGN, Official Dreamcast Magazine, and EGM.

That having been said, I know next to nothing about video games. I mean, seriously. I haven't played an RPG since Final Fantasy IX -- which I didn't even have a chance to finish. My life is pretty busy with everything but video games. So I'm going to have to humbly ask that you forgive me for my ignorance. But we all know that ignorance is no substitute for humility, and it's sure as heck not going to stop me from spreading my cockamamie "knowledge" about the fruited plain like tree pollen! So let's have some fun, shall we?

Good points you make. Here's another viewpoint on the subject, before I give my own.

There aren't many occassions in which I can say "I agree with the Water Buffalo," but this is one of them. Read on, though, because I agree with the next guy too, even though his stance is essentially the opposite.

Both of you fine men (I'm guessing from your signatures that you're men. I apologize if you're a lady) make excellent points. The point you both make is that you don't want to be treated like an idiot -- you want an ending that's satisfying, but at the same time thought provoking.

Early games were fine examples of terrible endings. At a party we had the other night, someone whipped out the NES and insisted on playing Super Mario Brothers. He went through the game (while a touch intoxicated -- I let the guy down, because friends don't let friends stomp on goombas drunk) and saved the princess. There was no hint of what came next -- did they get married? Did the princess realize she was saved by a plumber, and then pushed him into a lava pit because she's a snotty priss? Did Luigi come along and steal the princess right out from under Mario's nose, because he's the womanizer of the two brothers? We can't tell, but at the same time, the game didn't even hint at any direction, so it didn't even begin ignite the imagination. No one cares what happened next. No one cared about Mario as a character, and no one cared what happened after the princess gave him that peck on the cheek.

On the other hand, more modern endings have the right idea, but none have been executed to perfection, if you ask me (out of the games I've played through, that is). They get you at least vaguely interested in the main character, then have an ending about him. But what should that perfect ending be?

In my eyes, though it's not my personal favorite ending, I think that pragmatically, Final Fantasy VI has one of the best endings. It ties up what happens to each character, but also leaves some loose ends to get your imagination stirring. A good ending is both satisfying and intriguing. Most games' endings veer too far in one direction or the other -- tie the package too nicely (such as Final Fantasy 4, which is my favorite ending but that's a reflection of memories seen through rose glasses and a preference toward shiny happy closure) or leave it too open ended to be satisfying (such as Final Fantasy Tactics, where not everyone even agrees on what happened). Final Fantasy IV, like our friend Drakonian points out, does leave some doubt as to the outcome, but not enough to really stir enough debate to make readers such as Water Buffalo happy.

Final Fantasy Tactics type endings are interesting in their own way -- they provide for raging debate, discussion, and thinking. Sort of the intellectual's ending. But after plowing through the thick of an RPG, a gamer generally expects a reward of some sort, even if it's just a little satisfying closure. In every solution there's balance between extremes. The video game industry is still fishing for it in endings.

Hey there Efrate! I'm glad you seem happy to see me, because I'm happy to be here and hear from good guys like yourself. You bring up side one of the replay debate... here's a letter representing side two.

The other side of the replay topic

Hey Fritz, AK, Just had to write in, since you're hosting. We miss you. Anyway, a game calling for replays is a BAD thing. I've currently got a backlog that would make Chris' paltry three games cower in fear. However, I'm still thinking about going through Persona, FFT, Vagrant Story, and Xenogears again. So, demanding replays for the game to make sense? Bad. Making a game that's enough fun and/or has enough depth to the gameplay to sustain a second glance? Definitely good. As for closure....well, Vagrant Story was just about perfect in every way I can think of. Only ending that's left me satisfied in years. I really mean that. -The Neocount of Merentha, thinks he should found a troupe of dancing ninja.

What's up Neocount! I'm glad you wrote in. Don't worry, I miss all of you guys too -- it's why I had to come in and guest host for an evening or two. It's always a lot of fun to be able to interact with a site's visitors in such a close way. Always my favorite part of the whole gig, and the thing I miss most about not doing this thing every weekend.

Now, you've both pretty succintly summed up the dilemma that must face gamemakers as they make their games. On the one hand, I just love going through an RPG and spending hours and hours finding every secret and nook and cranny until I know every last secret of the world and the characters. That's one of the most satisfying elements of games like Final Fantasy IV and Wild Arms. On the other hand, who in the world has time to play through games over and over finding out every secret?

The last game I replayed was Final Fantasy Tactics -- it was a great game and fun to play back through, but was also thorougly befuddling at the end that it really needs a second play through to understand. Game designers are actually doing a pretty good job of finding balance, for the most part, on this subject. Games today you can generally floor through if you're in a hurry (like I always am), but you can also slow down and smell the roses and replay to find secrets if you have the time and desire. Again, it's all about balance -- walking the fence to try to make the most people happy. It's how politicians survive!

I think a fascinating game as far as replayable is Vanguard Bandits. While the game is heavily flawed, the option to play back through the game from a different perspective is a great idea. I'd like to see more games try it. Another game that did replayability well is the original Legend of Zelda -- it threw in an entire second game! While that must have been a huge chore for game designers, it did use the same sprites and tiles, so it was all about drawing new maps. It'd be harder to implement in today's gaming environment, but might be worth trying sometime.

A fine question! Perhaps the priest adopted? The ole "baby on the doorstep" method of fatherhood? Just a guess.

Dude, we're totally lazy about proof reading this column. Sometimes people do, sometimes people don't. It's kind of an informal area, so a screw up here or there isn't the end of the world. But I dig the irony, man. I'll be sure to make fun of Chris. Like right now! Chris is a silly mumu head. Take some of that, big tiger!

Closing Comments:

-Andrew Kaufmann