pure.Wasted: I have to disagree about ME2, though. The Suicide Mission, despite some mediocre action and a hohum final boss, is still excellently done from a character and consequence POV. All of your decisions come into play, you get to choose who to entrust with the critical assignments, and at the end Miranda tells TIM to go screw himself. Plenty of drama if/when some of your squadmates die, especially on the first playthrough when you have no metagamin knowledge.
I agree with this so much, the ending cinematic especially made the ending, with both its foreboding to the next game and its sense of accomplishment. too bad about the reaper boss battle thing though...
Well one of the earlier concept arts for the proto human reaper was going to be what looked like a human fetus, where it was a child growing in a sack. But the developers didn't really know how to work with that to make it a good final boss. Also shooting a space fetus probably wouldn't have generate the right response with the press...
Proto Fetus Ho!PHA+PGltZyBzcmM9Imh0dHA6Ly9pbWc5NC5pbWFnZXNoYWNrLnVzL2ltZzk0Lzc4MzUvdHJ1ZXJlYXBlci5wbmciIGFsdD0iaW1hZ2UiLz48L3A+
huh... thats... um
i see why they went with the protoreaper they did then, i cant see how thats controversial at all
TizzytheTormentor: I'm still pissed at Alan Wakes ending, It expained nothing to an otherwise very fun action game, they left it to DLC but I wasn't that stupid, I'll watch on youtube later.
>Opening cutscene directly states that horror writers shouldn't try to explain everything in their story >Surprised and outraged when the game doesn't explain everything
TizzytheTormentor: I'm still pissed at Alan Wakes ending, It expained nothing to an otherwise very fun action game, they left it to DLC but I wasn't that stupid, I'll watch on youtube later.
>Opening cutscene directly states that horror writers shouldn't try to explain everything in their story >Surprised and outraged when the game doesn't explain everything
wut?
The fact that they left it to DLC to finish the story is what sucks, the ending of the main game was like they ran out of time half-way through the final cutscene.
I don't mind DLC, but having you buy the fucking ending is what pissed me off.
I think a major part of the problem is that videogames don't want to just come out and say THE END in case there is a market for a sequel. This means that the endings tend to lack finality and quite deliberately don't wrap up all the threads in the story. Because if they do, they can't have a potential sequel. That's why endings like inFamous 2 and Bioshock 1 (which I thought ended quite well, but apparently some disagree) tend to be better, because they aren't leaving the question mark. They aren't saying "THE END?" they finished the story on a satisfying note (your mileage may vary on the level of satisfaction, but the point is the story elements and character arcs are resolved).
Of course if you do that on an UNsatisfying note, then the rage begins (I'm looking at you Mass Effect 3!).
So for the people that say it's due to the time constraints, why don't the developers make the ending scene/gameplay first then develop the rest of the game. Don't most movies get filmed backwards like this?
Erana: Think of the movies you've seen in the past year, and count how many of them had good endings. Then go look at the general offerings in that time period.
Endings are really tough to do right. They are. Before we didn't notice the shitty endings because the rest of the game was shitty, too. Now the rest of the game is awesome, but the ending is off, and we pay attention.
This is very true, and I'm not saying that you should just lower your standards, but when looking at the movies I've seen recently, its not that bad, just more disappointing to me because you've spent possibly days of your life in this world. If they did anything right, you care.
Pretty much this, minus the movies with bad endings (seriously, Erana, what movies have you been watching? It's rare to find one in an otherwise good movie that's /not/ either satisfying or a sequel hook or both). Videogames have always had bad endings, it's just that they used to be almost impossible to reach, so nobody saw them. Mass Effect 3 is a special case, because it was advertised and sold almost solely on the ending, which Bioware failed to deliver as promised.
They're also important. Especially for companies that stake their livelihoods on the long term health of franchises like this. Simply because the ending is the last thing anybody is gonna remember about your previous foray into gaming, and if it was shit nobody's gonna be in a hurry to pay for the privilege twice.
Irreducible Sohn: Guess i'm the only person here who didn't think Bioshcok's ending was "shit".
Endings are hard to pull off.
You're not, and it's not "shit." It was just a typical, if competent, ending to a very atypical game.
The game peaks with Andrew Ryan's death. It's shocking, it's horrifying, and it immediately follows one of the greatest plot twists in video game history. They decided to keep going, but never managed (or attempted?) to surpass it. We didn't need another crazy plot twist, but we did need SOMETHING that would hit us just as hard. Otherwise the game feels frontloaded.
Elmoth: Terminator reaper made out of human milkshakes ring any bells?
I completly forgot about that....
TBH I didnt find it all that stupid *shrug* also that was the "ending" per se it was the boss/climax...the better part was working with your squad members and seeing who survives
the actual ending is shepard doing the "mad dash to the exit" before the place blows up...*dramatic leap* and then the normandy rised the explosion
then shepard sees her crew, all alive with a triumphant smile they rise off into the galaxy
Irreducible Sohn: Guess i'm the only person here who didn't think Bioshcok's ending was "shit".
Endings are hard to pull off.
You're not, and it's not "shit." It was just a typical, if competent, ending to a very atypical game.
The game peaks with Andrew Ryan's death. It's shocking, it's horrifying, and it immediately follows one of the greatest plot twists in video game history. They decided to keep going, but never managed (or attempted?) to surpass it. We didn't need another crazy plot twist, but we did need SOMETHING that would hit us just as hard. Otherwise the game feels frontloaded.
To be fair toward Irrational, it wasn't going to be easy to re-capture the twist mid game. No matter how good the ending was, nothing could live up to the twist and Andrew Ryan's death.
Yes they could have ended it right there but then people would have been complaining that they cut it short or was too adrupt. I also think they ran out of time during development so that could have been hurting the ending as well.
I think my own personal problem for me and only me is that I begin to get this idea of how the story is going in my own head, and when it fails to do that, I feel let down. Gears of War 3, I had this whole idea of how everything fit together--where the Locust came from, what the Lambent was, why the Queen looked the way she did, where Prescott went--it was all very convoluted, but it answered everything. After reading the books, I was all set for Gears 3 to start answering questions, both from the previous games and the books. And then it came out and nothing happened the way I thought it was. My grand story ideas turned to ash and I watched as what could have been a great story get slaughtered into that ending. Same with Resistance 3. Both Resistance Fall of Man and Resistance 2 hint at another, more powerful race out there. I was all set for the 3rd game to finally reveal that race at the end, but no. Instead, again, I got something that felt rushed and, "Oh, we're done? Crap, better wrap this up." I'm fine with cliffhanger endings because it means there's going to be another game--or at least there better be. I'm also fine with endings that don't answer everything, but answer the main stuff (Diablo II). I'm also fine with sad endings (InFamous 2, Hero ending). It's when the ending falls flat, that the storytellers forget all these questions that they raised throughout their story, that I'm left with a feeling of, "Wait, that's it?" Writing a good ending is hard because everyone wants different things. Writing a satisfying ending shouldn't be.
tendaji: Well one of the earlier concept arts for the proto human reaper was going to be what looked like a human fetus, where it was a child growing in a sack. But the developers didn't really know how to work with that to make it a good final boss. Also shooting a space fetus probably wouldn't have generate the right response with the press...
I think the main problem is that game developers feel they must include an ending lacking ambiguity, where the hero wins, and that arguably creates weaker endings. I think what game developers need to do is be willing to fuck the player over. To give them a pessimistic ending etc.
Terminator reaper made out of human milkshakes ring any bells?
It needed more obvious foreshadowing about the Reaper's method of reproduction. But Harbinger does mention humanity's ascension often during battle, and it was established that the Collector's collect specimens with unique genetic structure. I thought it was obvious they were making SOMETHING with all the DNA they were gathering. I just didn't expect it to be that.
Launcelot111: I legitimately disliked Bioshock's ending though. I was fine with the Little Sisters all being saved and growing up (I never saw the evil ending) but the whole escort part and the sudden final boss were so out of tone with the rest of the game, and the game as a whole really ground along after the big reveal in the middle. It wasn't a story issue for Bioshock as much as the game came on strong and then went out with a mighty whimper
My reasoning for including it, too.
It didn't fit atmospherically, it was incredibly poor from the gameplay side of things, and, most importantly, it made zero thematic sense. The showdown with Andrew Ryan was executed beautifully. The moment you realize that you've had no control since you started playing the game, the game literally wrests control out of your hands. But after that, when the game apparently gives you control back, you... still have no control? I mean, sure, you have to work to beat Fontaine to death instead of watching it in a cutscene, but still. You can't talk him down, you can't tell him to go screw himself and just leave Rapture.
The linearity just doesn't mesh with the idea of your character suddenly having freedom in a way he never had before. It really shows that the game was built from the programming side of things. The writing and everything else came in later, to "excuse" the gameplay. It would have made more sense to conclude the game on a downer note with Ryan's death, but instead we had to have something much more standard, much more typical, with no clever deconstruction this time to elevate it from the plethora of other games with bosses exactly like that one.
What?! Your complaining that a game, where the only story-based choice you were given up till then was whether or not to eat the slug out of little girls chests < kinda a reverse aliens deal>, didn't give you the option to suddenly tell the final boss he wasn't worth your time? You're complaining that the ending breaks flow while wanting it to break flow with a choice system the game never had or pretended to have. Besides that point, your character is mute, or at the very least has been playing and winning "the quiet game" since his head breached water. It wouldnt even make sense story-wise, i mean he has been controlling you this whole time, twisting your emotions, forcing your hand after blowing up your plane and making you come to the unhappiest place on earth. Then after he forces you to kill your dad, which isn't upsetting cause he was a prick but rather that you were a tool, he then decides to send his army after you because you served your purpose. I can't imagine thinking "meh stuff happens, lets talk him down and/or just leave him alone and leave rapture". I would want revenge, and even if not, he was becoming a super villain and was going to take over the world, good or evil, I'm pretty sure you would still live in the world.
The argument that the escort and boss battle didn't mesh ignores how the story was evolving at that point. Everything was becoming frantic because it was all coming to a head, you had no where else to hide and couldn't just do as you please anymore. I played sneaky wrench god style so it became more difficult, but at no point did i feel the story suffered from the escort or subsequent boss battle. They raised the tension level for the ending that felt very climatic and the end cut scenes are perfect<well the good one is, the evil ones not bad tho>
As for fallout3, if they had just made it so that fawkes got headshot in the final boss battle there would be no disappointment to be had since the whole thing was the perfect end to my hero's career as savior of the wasteland.
I absolutely disagree. There will always be good and bad endings, and right now, I'm experiencing more satisfying endings to games than before.
Red Dead Redemption, Singularity, War for Cybertron, New Vegas, Dead Space, God of War, Resistance, Space Marine, Uncharted, Medal of Honor, inFamous... all games or series whose endings left me more than satisfied.
Sure, we get the occasional dump, but claiming it's a trend is pushing it.
Iwata: I absolutely disagree. There will always be good and bad endings, and right now, I'm experiencing more satisfying endings to games than before.
Red Dead Redemption, Singularity, War for Cybertron, New Vegas, Dead Space, God of War, Resistance, Space Marine, Uncharted, Medal of Honor, inFamous... all games or series whose endings left me more than satisfied.
Sure, we get the occasional dump, but claiming it's a trend is pushing it.
Word !
And accept this internet for one of the best avatars i've seen in a while.
Iwata: I absolutely disagree. There will always be good and bad endings, and right now, I'm experiencing more satisfying endings to games than before.
Red Dead Redemption, Singularity, War for Cybertron, New Vegas, Dead Space, God of War, Resistance, Space Marine, Uncharted, Medal of Honor, inFamous... all games or series whose endings left me more than satisfied.
Sure, we get the occasional dump, but claiming it's a trend is pushing it.
Word !
And accept this internet for one of the best avatars i've seen in a while.
Wow, thanks! I have so many people to thank to! Umm... my girlfriend, Kat, I love you, my unborn child, can't wait to meet her, my friends and family, the good people at the Escapist, and of course, the community, I'd be nothing without you, and uh... oh, jeez, it's time already?! Ok, God bless you all, and thanks for the best day of my life!
Endings are difficult, period. Any writer will tell you that the ending of a book or script is the part that gets redone the most, over and over again. Sometimes they nail it, sometimes they don't.
Terrible endings do happen, people. Its not nothing new (in fact, I would be hard pressed to find worst endings that those of the NES era, even good games).
Jove: So for the people that say it's due to the time constraints, why don't the developers make the ending scene/gameplay first then develop the rest of the game. Don't most movies get filmed backwards like this?
That is a weird misconception. People seems to believe games are developed the same way they are played, which is just not true. The real way is closer to movies, where scenes/stages are disjointedly done, sometimes even concurrently, and then edited to fit together like a puzzle.
The difference is that movies get started with a clear script, while games' script is often written at the same time as the development. Because of that, many games has disjointed stages and the end is just there when they run of ideas/money to make more.
hermes200: Endings are difficult, period. Any writer will tell you that the ending of a book or script is the part that gets redone the most, over and over again. Sometimes they nail it, sometimes they don't.
Terrible endings do happen, people. Its not nothing new (in fact, I would be hard pressed to find worst endings that those of the NES era, even good games).
Jove: So for the people that say it's due to the time constraints, why don't the developers make the ending scene/gameplay first then develop the rest of the game. Don't most movies get filmed backwards like this?
That is a weird misconception. People seems to believe games are developed the same way they are played, which is just not true. The real way is closer to movies, where scenes/stages are disjointedly done, sometimes even concurrently, and then edited to fit together like a puzzle.
The difference is that movies get started with a clear script, while games' script is often written at the same time as the development. Because of that, many games has disjointed stages and the end is just there when they run of ideas/money to make more.
At least NES games can use the excuse that they were constrained by the available (or lack thereof in today's terms) technology.
Iwata: I absolutely disagree. There will always be good and bad endings, and right now, I'm experiencing more satisfying endings to games than before.
Red Dead Redemption, Singularity, War for Cybertron, New Vegas, Dead Space, God of War, Resistance, Space Marine, Uncharted, Medal of Honor, inFamous... all games or series whose endings left me more than satisfied.
Sure, we get the occasional dump, but claiming it's a trend is pushing it.
Word !
And accept this internet for one of the best avatars i've seen in a while.
Wow, thanks! I have so many people to thank to! Umm... my girlfriend, Kat, I love you, my unborn child, can't wait to meet her, my friends and family, the good people at the Escapist, and of course, the community, I'd be nothing without you, and uh... oh, jeez, it's time already?! Ok, God bless you all, and thanks for the best day of my life!
Thank you!
You deserve it, now go forth and spread some wisdom.
hermes200: Endings are difficult, period. Any writer will tell you that the ending of a book or script is the part that gets redone the most, over and over again. Sometimes they nail it, sometimes they don't.
Terrible endings do happen, people. Its not nothing new (in fact, I would be hard pressed to find worst endings that those of the NES era, even good games).
Jove: So for the people that say it's due to the time constraints, why don't the developers make the ending scene/gameplay first then develop the rest of the game. Don't most movies get filmed backwards like this?
That is a weird misconception. People seems to believe games are developed the same way they are played, which is just not true. The real way is closer to movies, where scenes/stages are disjointedly done, sometimes even concurrently, and then edited to fit together like a puzzle.
The difference is that movies get started with a clear script, while games' script is often written at the same time as the development. Because of that, many games has disjointed stages and the end is just there when they run of ideas/money to make more.
At least NES games can use the excuse that they were constrained by the available (or lack thereof in today's terms) technology.
Really, because having the same ending as every stage with a different sprite, forcing you to replay it, or having black screens with such horrible lines that would make an dyslexic kid cry, like: "Congratulation!!! You have completed a great game. And prooved the justice of our culture. Now go and rest our heroes !", or "you are champion" can only be attributed to being constrained by the available (or lack thereof) competence or care.
endings didn't get worse, we just started paying more attention to them.