All My Hard Work and I Get This Ending?

[Sniper Team 4]

Glad to see I wasn't the only one hearing "MASS EFFECT 3!!!!" the entire time I was reading this. Yeah...that ending was bitter for me, so I just accept The Citadel DLC as the new ending. Much better.

The worst ending in a game I can think of is Knights of the Old Republic 2. You beat the boss, and then without further explanation or exposition, you get in your ship and fly away. Roll Credits.

That one is pretty bad, but I can accept it because the game itself was incomplete. Huge parts were missing and the ending was just pulled together from scratch. So while I was disappointed, I was also able to not get too upset about it.

I think the other ending that I hated would be the campaign ending for Call of Duty: Ghosts. Granted, I despised the entire campaign and only liked Keegan out of everyone (probably because he barely talked), but that ending was just crap.

Spoiler

I'm supposed to believe that the bad guy survived getting the snot beat out of him, his head hit with a fire extinguisher, a shot all the way through his body, plunging off of a cliff in a crash, and then drowning, and yet somehow he has enough strength to overpower Logan and Hesh and drag Logan away? Mind you, the enemy army had just been annihilated and there was no doubt a rescue team was on their way to the brothers' location. How the hell did he do any of that?

I get that Call of Duty isn't very realistic. I get that the story is supposed to be a certain level of dumb, and that if you start poking at it, it completely comes apart. But that was just too much, even for Call of Duty.

 

[Bigeyez]

The worst ending in a game I can think of is Knights of the Old Republic 2. You beat the boss, and then without further explanation or exposition, you get in your ship and fly away. Roll Credits.

Modders fixed that in the giant content restoration mod for the game. They fixed a lot of other stuff as well. Still not the best ending but now at least you get dialogue explaining what happens to all your party members.

Anyways I agree with this article 100%. Not to beat the mass effect horse any further but that's why people were so angry about it. After playing these games for YEARS with some people investing hundreds of hours into the series to cover all possible choices the ending gave them 3 very similar choices and a mystical deus ex machine ai that made people feel like all that time and effort was pointless.

Someone playing only the third game in the series once got the same ending as someone who spent 1000 on the series across all 3 games.

Mind you I still like the ending better then most but I can understand the anger.

 

[Sanunes]

I am glad there wasn't Mass Effect 3 mentioned the article, I have no problem with people being upset at the ending of the game for anyone has that right I am just tired of it being "its different because..." when it comes to Mass Effect 3 and seeing other games in an article about bad endings is a welcome change.

I think the game series that had an ending that bothered me the most was Assassin's Creed 3, for that ending to me should be remembered just like Mass Effect 3's. At least BioWare attempted to salvage theirs.

 

[Vault101]

I'll have to mention it

I think people were so enraged and upset over mass effect 3 not just because of the work but the emotional investment, which was (IMO) on levels that faaaarr surpassed many other games

thease are characters we "hang out" and talk to, character we romance, makes memes about, write fan-fic about, characters that we've become attached to over the coarse of 3 decently sized games

we fucking [I/]cared[/I] like really fucking cared I think that's why

 

[megaflash]

As a medium, I can't think of anything that engages the user as much as this one. (Except for maybe LARPing, but different strokes for different folks and has more hard limits than video games). We can invest in a movie, or a book, or a TV show, but that pales to the level of control you get when your actions physically change what is going on. From swinging a sword to defusing a bomb, all these things wouldn't of happened if the USER hadn't decided to make them happen. This can bring video games to a level of personal that is hard to match and easy to squander.

That's my take. Thoughts?

 

[Sanunes]

I'll have to mention it

I think people were so enraged and upset over mass effect 3 not just because of the work but the emotional investment, which was (IMO) on levels that faaaarr surpassed many other games

thease are characters we "hang out" and talk to, character we romance, makes memes about, write fan-fic about, characters that we've become attached to over the coarse of 3 decently sized games

we fucking [I/]cared[/I] like really fucking cared I think that's why

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that people were probably more attached then other video games. The issue I have is when if I mention that I felt BioShock: Infinite or Assassin's Creed 3 endings were bad to me, I am just outright dismissed because Mass Effect 3's issues were that much more of an issue. Since I was never that attached to Shepard or Crew it didn't bother me like it did with others and that is where the problem lies I think, for some reason people have a hard time empathizing with another's point of view on a subject like this.

 

[Vault101]

Don't get me wrong, I do understand that people were probably more attached then other video games. The issue I have is when if I mention that I felt BioShock: Infinite or Assassin's Creed 3 endings were bad to me, I am just outright dismissed because Mass Effect 3's issues were that much more of an issue. Since I was never that attached to Shepard or Crew it didn't bother me like it did with others and that is where the problem lies I think, for some reason people have a hard time empathizing with another's point of view on a subject like this.

well I don't mean it like that certainly...I was just trying to express why it was such a big deal

but yeah other endings can be crappy too

although the funny thing is after ME3 Bioshock Infinites ending seemed good, I thought that was how you did a "weird" ending, because at least it was consistent

 

[RicoADF]

Captcha: Modem love

I think my computer is hitting on me.

May I be the first to encourage you to boldly go where no man (or woman) has gone before....








.... what? Atleast computer's don't play around, logic has it's perks

OT:
My favoriate games are ones with enjoyable stores concluded with satisfying endings, heck one of the best I've seen was Colony Wars on Playstation 1 (so wish they'd do a new one), In CW 1 and 2 the game had a branching story and you'd go down the tree dependent on how you performed in game, so if you failed in a mission it wasn't necessarily game over but rather "Now you go to this other system because your faction is fighting to survive due to your failure, fix it". Wished more games went that way, makes you feel like your actions actually matter since they dictate what ending you get and how you get there.

 

[Michael Dunkerton]

I agree that endings are extremely important, and making them thematic rather than throwing in an unnecessary boss fight (Gears of War 2, Bioshock, and Arkham Asylum spring to mind) does make the game better. But game devs have a unique challenge here, because what people want from a video game is different than what they want in a story. Grim endings full of loss, or bittersweet endings where a victory is won, but at great cost, are often very powerful in a story that has built up to it. But most people don't want that when they are the main character. They want to win and feel empowered even if a great story could be built out of loss of power. I run into the same problem with tabletop gaming (I never enforce loss, since the story is up to the players. But I feel more obligated to help them get a victory in the end than I would for characters in a book I was writing, whom I tend to be pretty unforgiving towards).

Also, endings in non-video game media are rarely good when they amount to "boss fights". If a story has been building to a conflict between the hero and the villain, in the best stories the hero beats the villain through strength of character, not raw force--Luke Skywalker refusing to fight, Sherlock Holmes outsmarting his enemies, Sam on Mount Doom, etc. But how do you incorporate that into a game? People want the ending to culminate the story, but also culminate the gameplay. That's why random boss fights tend to be frowned upon--because people want the final sequence to be an ultimate expression of what the game has been about mechanically--stealth in a stealth game, action in an action game, etc. People want to play the ending, so the hero can only win by strength of character in a game with dialogue options (which don't fit every story-based game), and then you run the risk of only "winning" by picking the right answers instead of having true choice. (That can be another big problem with story based games that include choice. To me, a good story would let you get a BAD ending if you make a BAD choice--you don't get the game excusing your behavior if you side with bad guys).

I'd also argue that we shouldn't let our entire perception of a game be based on its ending. I had no major problems with ME3's ending--if I could have had the Destroy ending minus wiping out the Geth, that would have been the perfect culmination of my story (that's my new headcanon anyway). But in the end, I could care less about the ending. Because ME3 gave me such a perfect sendoff to every single character. The ones who got brief moments used those moments perfectly (I am Urdnot Wrex, and this is my planet!). The ones who got extended time used it great too (Shooting beer cans with Garrus, going on a "date mission" with Tali with Garrus as third wheel, saying goodbye to Tali as she boarded the gunship). The series has always been about the squadmates to me. The ending was there to wrap up the plot--but the plot was a secondary concern to me.

 

[Sanunes]

well I don't mean it like that certainly...I was just trying to express why it was such a big deal

but yeah other endings can be crappy too

although the funny thing is after ME3 Bioshock Infinites ending seemed good, I thought that was how you did a "weird" ending, because at least it was consistent

I didn't take what you said that way, that is just the attitude I can get from people and that bugs me from any conversation about "bad endings".

For me it was the other way around, for what I remember from BioShock (I only played it once at launch) was that there are basically an infinite number of possibilities for every outcome basically can happen, but the end of the game said there are finite possibilities because Elizabeth can go back and change it so certain events will never happen ever.

In all honestly though I felt out of the three endings Assassin's Creed 3 butchered game lore the most.

But I digress to way off topic land.

 

[Ferisar]

snip

It's not even head-canon, it's actual canon. The introduction cinematic for that game and everything Flemeth ever told Hawke essentially said "You can try to deny destiny and fall to its whims, or you can embrace it and achieve greatness."

It didn't matter what you did in the major plot points of the game, Hawke was in the middle of a shitstorm he/she had no control over. The character was destined for greatness, but not for greatness of championing a cause or furthering the ends of a group, but greatness of self. The way you swung your own weight around determined some important factors in the conflict, but you were always going to be in the middle of it. It was a game that dealt with inevitability. The shit part is that the game was completely rushed and didn't communicate that as well as it could have, on top of having some faults with its mechanical execution and lack of backdrop. I really liked the idea of what the game was trying to say, but it just didn't have enough room to nurture that idea.

Either way, it's the legit interpretation, or at least very high up there.

 

[Pyrian]

...Fahrenheit and Bioshock, games which clearly found and jumped their respective sharks in the middle, long before the ending. Once the shark had been hurdled, though, their endings followed in kind; their endings were inconsistent with the first half of the game, but not inconsistent with the post-shark period.

What was the shark moment in Bioshock? I thought it seemed pretty consistent up until that last bit.

The villain switch. Andrew Ryan was a great villain. Fontaine - not so much. A boss battle seemed perfectly suited to taking on Fontaine, to me.

 

[DarthAcerbus]

Yep, DA2 may truly be one of the most atrocious endings I've experienced in a long time. I actually enjoyed that game more than most people seemed to, but when I sided with the mages, only for that fucker to use blood magic OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE INVALIDATING EVERYTHING I HAD TRIED TO DO THE ENTIRE GAME AND PROVING THE INQUISITORS RIGHT GODDAMIT it was an outright betrayal.

Now I'm not one to defend DA2 (even though I quite liked it I admit its flaws and all that jazz), but there are suggestions that Orsino is into some dirty stuff earlier in the game, particularly his secret aid and encouragement of Quentin, the blood mage that kills Mama Hawke. I think the ending was kind of lazy, but it did show that neither side is "right" and the entire thing has spiraled out of control.

 

[The Feast]

I've hated this problem for so long, games with bad endings... it really does feel like a waste of time when a game plays out so perfectly for most of its time, then stumbles and drops its pants right at the end.

So, I'm going to list a few games that had awesome endings.

Final Fantasy 6.
Big dungeon leadup to one of the most despicable final bosses ever? Awesome.
Big escape from a crumbling tower as the final cutscene? Awesome.
Final shot of the airship, symbol of freedom and hope? Still awesome!

Halo.
Escaping the Pillar of Autumn was SO INTENSE. One massive case of the gameplay and story working in harmony to cap off an amazing game.

Bastion.
BASTION.
I've never seen a binary choice1/choice2 ending where, on the first playthrough, one ending is obviously the "good" ending, while on the second run, without changing a single thing, the other choice feels like the "good" one. There was so much thematic buildup to the climax that I could barely sleep afterward for days. Flawless in every way. Can't say more, though; still feels like a spoiler after 3 years.

I think game developers are learning to do better endings, overall. I remember some punishingly awful endings from pre-2000, so while Devs obviously haven't all learned from the greatest endings (see above), disappointing endings are at least better than the ones that end in crushing despair and an apparent loathing for the player.

I like to say most of the early Final Fantasy games, or JRPG in general, have satisfying ending, because they know at least, how to make a satisfying ending. When talking about game endings, I always question on how the western developers, decided to end their story, because most of the time, it doesn't feel as satisfied as I want it to be (Not all of them by the way). Most of the FPS, story RTS, open world, western RPG always gives me a very "That Is All" ending, it's not even funny. It really makes me wonder if they really care about the games they worked on or maybe they did care, but I just not completely feeling it. Like comparison with this two games for example:

Spoiler

For example, I know Skyrim isn't a very good example of a story driven game, but I feel more impact in Oblivion's ending when Martin sacrifice himself and given a farewell speech in the end, it felt good. Skyrim however, kills ALduin, no ending cinematic or whatever to congratulate my achievement and its just you finish the main quest and done, even the guild's endings feels lackluster when compare to Oblivion. I know it's hard to make that game, but at least give me a feeling of joy and finishing a "Main Quest", instead of just giving me two new shouts.

It may be a simple message but at least it is an effective way of saying "You Did It". But mostly the ending that I always see are the "Until Next Time" or the sudden ending a.k.a "What Happens Next?", I hated those endings and wish they could make at least, that one single game a complete experience rather than feel like it's begging for a sequel.

 

[DFish]

I noticed recently that I tend not to play long, story-driven games all the way to the end. Call it lack of time, call it guilt at a long list of unplayed games in my Steam library (praise you and curse you, Gaben), but I'm beginning to wonder if I just fear disappointing endings.

Anyone have a similar situation?

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I remember being disappointed with C&C Renegade's ending. I don't remember what it was, but I was disappointed with it. C&C Generals too, China and America anyway, never finished the terrorist faction. The Wolverine Origins game.

 

[Kathinka]

I know it has nothing to do with the content, but I gotta say something..Is that a new picture of Seamus? Holy mother of weightloss! Way to sexy it up D:

 

[wizzy555]

I'd add to the idea that in the case of Mass Effect 3 it wasn't so much the "work" as the investment in the story and characters. The game encouraged you into make huge world altering decisions with the characters and then left all the consequences and questions unanswered. Which may have made sense from the point of view of not writing yourself into a corner for any sequels but from the player's perspective it was very unsatisfying.

 

[zinho73]

Also, I think that Dragon Age 2 might have been at least slightly better recieved if it's ending, clocking in near the 40 hour mark, hadn't been an obvious railroading to make sure everyone fought the same bosses. It still blows my mind they did that, even among all the other bad decisions in that game. I get that they were trying to set up the mage rebellion, but that happens regardless of which side you choose. Why the fuck did they force us to choose, and then immediately neuter that decision by making us fight both factions?!

Yep, DA2 may truly be one of the most atrocious endings I've experienced in a long time. I actually enjoyed that game more than most people seemed to, but when I sided with the mages, only for that fucker to use blood magic OUT OF FUCKING NOWHERE INVALIDATING EVERYTHING I HAD TRIED TO DO THE ENTIRE GAME AND PROVING THE INQUISITORS RIGHT GODDAMIT it was an outright betrayal.

I like what I think DA:2 was trying to do. You commit to one side or the other, fight for them, empathize with them, and realise that just because you are on their side does not automatically make that side correct. People are justly worried about the mages because some of them do take the low road and succumb to the power they have. The Templars really are reaching too far in their exercise of authority in the name of safety. For DA:2, it was a pretty good thematic fit; you're not the omniscient hero for whom everything works out and you save the world, you're an adventurer who got lucky, worked hard, but still can't fix everything with a swing of the sword. Your choice still tells you a lot about what your Hawke believes in and stands for, it just doesn't guarantee that your choice will be totally validated.

I'd say the problem was more one of execution than of concept, and playing the game I did like how it turned out. I definitely wouldn't call it a betrayal.

That is actually a very good rationalization of what happened. What actually happened was lack of time and money. The idea that the protagonist is not as influential as normal RPG heroes is great, but, as you said, the execution is very bad and everyone just look like a bunch of idiots at the rushed end.

It is so bad that I don't even know if that lack of agency is what they were aiming for or if it was just what they managed to do. I think at some point they just said: "You know what? We will have to go with the same ending for everybody. How can we twist the story to accommodate that?".

 

[RonHiler]

In some respects I have to disagree with the premise. Not that I'm defending the "Bad Ending" when it involves truly poor writing or plot holes or that kind of thing. Obviously that's not desired. Rather, I think games need to come out of the 40s-50s era bubble gum mode they've been stuck in.

I think right now games as a story telling medium are still in their infancy, and because of that they always end with the "happy ending", much the same way movies did up through the 50s. But as movies as a medium evolved, we started getting endings where the good guys didn't always win, or the protagonist died in the course of saving the town, or what have you. Which only made them better, because you didn't always know that everything would turn out alright in the third act. It gave a sense of peril to the medium that it didn't have before, which served to heighten the drama. I don't think games need necessarily always end with a happy ending. As the medium matures, I'd actually like to see a game or two try to push beyond that and try to give us something a bit different. Not necessarily a complete downer ending (you did after all spend 40 hours or whatever trying to get to that end point), but enough with the the "sugary sweet we win the universe is saved!!!" stuff. Life isn't like that, and I'd like to see games move in that direction a bit more (I think they are, albeit quite slowly).