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.
All My Hard Work and I Get This Ending?
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
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.
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.Thunderous Cacophony said:
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?".
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).
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).
Every old game ever where you get "Well done" or "Congratulations" and thats it. Weird thing is those were awesome because it showed you did it. 
I guess I sort of disagree. Only kind of really. There really are games that a bad ending CAN ruin. But games (as well as lots of other entertainment media) can satisfy in a lot of different ways, and frankly for some the ending just isn't important at all. And they can still be pretty good games even with a bad ending. A bad example, Watch Dogs. I loved the gameplay, the sandbox world, and all the different challenges and side-mission stuff. The story and characters were awful, but I really did have enough fun with the sandbox that I didn't really care less about the ending. Perhaps it would have been different if the story had ever gotten good enough to make me invested, but that just wasn't where my enjoyment was.
A better example, Masters of Orion 2. The ending, woo you won or aww you lost... now play it again. And I did. Time after time after time. The ending wasn't the reward at all, the gameplay was entirely the reward. Lots of games are like that, and ending just isn't necessary at all. Like Chess.
Sure, if the Telltale Walking Dead had a crummy and cliché ending that would have been a nightmare. But in that game, gameplay itself was the unimportant and forgettable part. Borderlands' crappy ending didn't seem to hurt its sales or franchise launch very much. Because the story is far less important to Borderlands' experience than shooting and looting is.
That's why I tend to agree with the "gameplay is the important part and a bad ending can't ruin a good game" crowd. That's not to say that critiquing an ending isn't a valid critique. But for a lot of games, it is a critique that doesn't factor much into the "did I enjoy it" equation.
A better example, Masters of Orion 2. The ending, woo you won or aww you lost... now play it again. And I did. Time after time after time. The ending wasn't the reward at all, the gameplay was entirely the reward. Lots of games are like that, and ending just isn't necessary at all. Like Chess.
Sure, if the Telltale Walking Dead had a crummy and cliché ending that would have been a nightmare. But in that game, gameplay itself was the unimportant and forgettable part. Borderlands' crappy ending didn't seem to hurt its sales or franchise launch very much. Because the story is far less important to Borderlands' experience than shooting and looting is.
That's why I tend to agree with the "gameplay is the important part and a bad ending can't ruin a good game" crowd. That's not to say that critiquing an ending isn't a valid critique. But for a lot of games, it is a critique that doesn't factor much into the "did I enjoy it" equation.
Wait, DLC in general or the Extended Cut in particular? Because the latter would actually make sense (a "hey, if you didn't like the ending there's an optional fix out there" message would be a valuable service for fans who don't keep up with gaming news), but the former is just a dick move par excellence.zinho73 said:
I just think they missed out on some of the other ideas they had in the game, like the things the band of three where searching for, the thinning of the veil the magesters of old had done and so having a circle there was a terrible idea.Thunderous Cacophony said:
Just want to preface this by saying I've read/watched your content for a while Shamus and I feel you've fundamentally missed the mark with this statement:
As for the topic itself, I think both are valid perspectives to have (so long as you aren't throwing out garbage like "entitled"). I still have not bothered with Mass Effect 3 despite playing the first Mass Effect game countless times simply because I don't really want to go through the slow decay of a story that already felt like it was crumbling with the second installment, but I wont get on someone's case if they like the rest of the game to the extent that the troublesome bits can safely be ignored or excused. I will argue with them endlessly about the overall quality of the game however.
And as for Fahrenheit, that's still the best first half of a crime drama and worst second half of a DBZ fanfiction I've ever had the opportunity to slightly interact with.
The "Craft" of an interactive medium should be the way in which the user interacts. The design of gameplay is to games what cinematography is to film. To compare it to stunts in a film is to suggest that cinematography is film's "QTE". The story and its resolution are important, but they're not the core tenant of the medium. I'm sure this isn't a comparison you necessarily meant to make (judging by a few of the conversations I recall from Spoiler Warning) but it's a sentiment I've seen disturbingly often over the past few days.
As for the topic itself, I think both are valid perspectives to have (so long as you aren't throwing out garbage like "entitled"). I still have not bothered with Mass Effect 3 despite playing the first Mass Effect game countless times simply because I don't really want to go through the slow decay of a story that already felt like it was crumbling with the second installment, but I wont get on someone's case if they like the rest of the game to the extent that the troublesome bits can safely be ignored or excused. I will argue with them endlessly about the overall quality of the game however.
And as for Fahrenheit, that's still the best first half of a crime drama and worst second half of a DBZ fanfiction I've ever had the opportunity to slightly interact with.
There was an odd permutation in a game I loved but had a weird ending issue, and I can't explain it without massive spoilers that kind of ruin the whole thing, so be forewarned if you plan on playing Bravely Default:
So, all throughout the game you keep getting hints that you need to "Never be afraid to disobey", and get subtle clues that the quest you're on is probably not the right way to go about things. You're awakening a set of 4 crystals then activating "The Holy Pillar" that is supposed to cleanse the land and close the "Great Chasm", but instead keeps teleporting you to alternate worlds where everyone is slightly different and you have to awaken the crystals yet again. Every time you do so, the Navi-like support character will warn you not to overcharge them or they might explode and doom the entire world.
Later in the game, it becomes almost explicitly clear that the little annoying fairy is actually evil and you should blow up the crystal. When you do, you start the final chapter, but instead of fighting the final boss, you merely fight the evil fairy's 2nd form and the game ends with everyone going their separate ways, having bought the universe a few thousand years of peace before she rises to try again. This ending sucks.
To get the real ending, you have to awaken all the crystals 5 times (20 crystals in total), then watch as your characters, who have seemingly ignored all the hints and even the pretty much explicit revelation that the fairy was evil, act utterly surprised and shocked by her inevitable betrayal. NOW you get to fight all 3 of her forms and the final boss and get the "true" ending from which the sequel picks up.
WHY? Why does the game punish you for following its hints and figuring out the plot ahead of time with a shitty, shitty ending? Shouldn't that be the REAL ending?
I mean plotwise, it kind of makes sense: the only reason the final boss showed himself was that all the crystals on every single alternate world had been activated, so if you blow one up he has no reason to reveal himself, but still, there's a billion narrative ways around that. I still love the game, the normal ending is just fine, but it really bugs me that I figured out the big mystery early and wasn't rewarded properly for it.
Later in the game, it becomes almost explicitly clear that the little annoying fairy is actually evil and you should blow up the crystal. When you do, you start the final chapter, but instead of fighting the final boss, you merely fight the evil fairy's 2nd form and the game ends with everyone going their separate ways, having bought the universe a few thousand years of peace before she rises to try again. This ending sucks.
To get the real ending, you have to awaken all the crystals 5 times (20 crystals in total), then watch as your characters, who have seemingly ignored all the hints and even the pretty much explicit revelation that the fairy was evil, act utterly surprised and shocked by her inevitable betrayal. NOW you get to fight all 3 of her forms and the final boss and get the "true" ending from which the sequel picks up.
WHY? Why does the game punish you for following its hints and figuring out the plot ahead of time with a shitty, shitty ending? Shouldn't that be the REAL ending?
I mean plotwise, it kind of makes sense: the only reason the final boss showed himself was that all the crystals on every single alternate world had been activated, so if you blow one up he has no reason to reveal himself, but still, there's a billion narrative ways around that. I still love the game, the normal ending is just fine, but it really bugs me that I figured out the big mystery early and wasn't rewarded properly for it.
I'm going to have to paraphrase/butcher Yahtzee here, since it's such an easy and logical sentiment that I truly can't comprehend why game developers don't employ it...
Captcha: half done
Well...that's absolutely perfect and apt. Thank you, robot overlord.
It's a ridiculously easy thing to do and yet we keep getting rushed endings because...poor planning?
Captcha: half done
Well...that's absolutely perfect and apt. Thank you, robot overlord.
How is that any different then the message at the end of Mass Effect 2?zinho73 said:
Edit I found the one from the original ending off a screenshot at Gamefaqs.
I really don't see them urging people to buy DLC with that message, it just says that they will have some in the future you can play.
Edit #2
I found the message from Mass Effect 2 from a YouTube video
To me the message is almost identical, but people only got upset with it in Mass Effect 3 to the point they changed it with The Extended Cut.
My question whenever this issue comes up is what happens when people expect something different from what you were trying to make.
You make a fantasy RPG who's story is effectively entirely about how the player character is lost in the middle of events that are beyond their control, and shows how whatever choices they can make may effect things personal to them but will still be incapable of changing the larger course of where the story is headed. They can fight their hardest and maybe make some kind of small difference, but in the end they won't be able to single-handedly stop a war or prevent the king of the demons from rising or whatever the plot is about.
And everyone hates it because fantasy RPGs that give you choices are 'supposed' to be about empowering you and giving you choices with complex, far reaching consequences because you are the hero that will save the land etc. That's what all the popular games that everyone likes did.
So did the writers fuck up or is it possible that you actually just aren't on the same page as them? Is it bad or is it just not what you wanted?
You make a fantasy RPG who's story is effectively entirely about how the player character is lost in the middle of events that are beyond their control, and shows how whatever choices they can make may effect things personal to them but will still be incapable of changing the larger course of where the story is headed. They can fight their hardest and maybe make some kind of small difference, but in the end they won't be able to single-handedly stop a war or prevent the king of the demons from rising or whatever the plot is about.
And everyone hates it because fantasy RPGs that give you choices are 'supposed' to be about empowering you and giving you choices with complex, far reaching consequences because you are the hero that will save the land etc. That's what all the popular games that everyone likes did.
So did the writers fuck up or is it possible that you actually just aren't on the same page as them? Is it bad or is it just not what you wanted?
You, sir, are a man with a good, innocent heart. Don't you ever dare change.Sanunes said:
Context is everything. Mass Effect 2 does not feel rushed or insane at the end. You actually want more content and the story is quite open at that point - you kind of expect a continuation. It is still ludicrous marketing - but it is ludicrous marketing after a good thing (so less complaining).Sanunes said:
Telling you that that there is more DLC to come after Mass Effect ending is adding offense to the injury. The first thing I thought was: "don't you guys want to proper finish the game I just played before dumping more content?". Also, that was the final chapter, planning to launch DLC after the story conclusion is ridiculous from a consumer point of view (unless it was an epilogue)- but nowadays all games must have DLC, even if it hurts the experience.
I guess there is some amount of frustration that can build up when the end of something is not what you are expecting. I would put SPec OPS- the Line in that category. (Great game, by the way).Mike Richards said:
But the sad fact is that most endings cited here are just really bad: convoluted, out of character, bad planned, badly written, badly executed, bland and so on.
When the problem is isolated (like a bad boss battle or an uninspired cutscene) we can get around it and it usually do not hurts the experience too much. I guess the problem is accentuated in narrative heavy games, which requires a lot of skill and planning to wrap up.
Naughty Dog, for example, knows how to structure the narrative in their games. They are not always fantastic, but they are always solid.
Bioware, on the other side, seems to have lost its touch and lately is letting external factors interfere too much on the creative process (cutting things to put in DLC, rewriting things at the last minute, moving key writers around mid project and so on).
The problem with making a game like you've described, where all your choices are meaningless and nothing you try to do matters in the long run, is that for most people this is just normal boring life. Like, I get what it's like to be completely impotent and have no influence over the greater events that happen in civilization; I don't need a game showing me what it feels like to live my life, I'm obviously well acquainted with the experience.Mike Richards said:
Not to mention the time commitment most games require. There aren't a lot of people that want to spend 20-60 hours working at a game only to find out at the end that nothing you've done matters anyway. Being completely powerless to change anything also isn't a very good feeling any way you look at it, and I don't know why anybody would want to do something that makes them feel bad. Pretty much, what is the point of simulating the experience of pointless existence with the pointless exercise of playing a video game.
Actually, when you think about it this is basically the game just saying "Yes, you did just waste all that time that you spent playing video games rather than doing slightly more productive." It's not really in the mediums best interest to make people believe this.
OT: This really isn't only a problem with interactive mediums like video games. I think it's really about time commitment. A perfect example is the TV show Merlin: after 5 seasons the ending managed to invalidate pretty much every single thing that happened throughout the show. For all that it was worth Merlin may as well have let Arthur die in the very first episode. Total run time of the show comes to about 43 hours and I was every bit annoyed with that as I was with Dragon Age 2.
Also, I sympathize with Shamus, I'm still annoyed about Fable 2 as well.
I don't really buy the idea that all games have to be the same kind of escapist fantasy reinforcement. There's a place for it sure, but there's a lot of different kinds of narrative out there that can make a lot of different kinds of points. We don't need the same one every time. Not to mention there's a lot of variables of execution that need to be considered in an example like that. Spec Ops The Line had several moments of choice scattered through it's campaign and none of them effect where the story moves to next, you're still presented with the same set of endings no matter what you did the rest of the time. But it works because of the way its a part of the themes and the idea on a whole.Drathnoxis said:
In fact, that entire game was basically about being as not-classically-fun as it is possible to be, that was the entire point and for my money it was all the more amazing for it. Like Yahtzee said it was essentially a psychological horror game wearing a modern warfare shooter hat, 'fun' or making you feel like you accomplished something worthwhile isn't exactly on the menu. That's not what this story is for.
In any case I wasn't really trying to talk just about how much impact choices should have, I was making an example about what happens when people have different expectations from what you made. If I only ever enjoy strategy games and someone hands me Half Life, I can't call it a terrible game because it doesn't play like Company of Heroes. I can say I don't enjoy it but that's not the same thing as saying it did something wrong. Maybe the problem wasn't that ME3 had a terrible ending, (at least as far as the EC goes, the original was a misfire, yeah) maybe it just wasn't the ending people wanted. I loved it and I can explain every single complaint I've ever heard someone make about it on a level that more then completely satisfies me. So where exactly is the line there? Who knows.