The worst video game ending ever

[Tuesday Night Fever]

I think for me the worst ending was Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas

The game ends on a cliffhanger, then you get an actual "To Be Continued" screen which might as well just say, "Buy The Sequel."

I've had zero interest in buying anything from Ubisoft ever since. Granted, it doesn't seem like I'm missing much.

 

[Asita]

Shepard was never going to magically repair the rift between the two races. Not by themselves, and likely not within their lifetime, if they had somehow managed to make it into what Mass Effect considers old age. And whatever peace might have been achieved, especially among any possible confusion that was a result of the end choices, would be tenuous, at best. So what, exactly, is there to acknowledge? Nothing has been achieved yet, except for a very weak foundation being built.

Well first of all: The rift in question didn't exist in a meaningful way within the series. The single most antagonistic force towards organic life was the Reapers, and the second was a subsection of the Geth that was doing so at the behest of the Reapers. The rest of the Geth and EDI rather explicitly find the Reapers and their lack of respect for other sapient life to be repugnant and when given the chance actually both get along famously with organics and show a great deal of interest in learning why organics do what they do. Furthermore, the theme in question is given a direct representation through the interpersonal conflicts of EDI and Joker, and Legion and Tali...all of whom develop at the very least a strong sense of camaraderie. The "rift" talked about in the climax is shown to be no worse than that of the Turians and the Krogan, the Rachni and the rest of the galaxy, or the Humans and Batarians.

Second: Shepard didn't need to fix the rift between organics and synthetics because it was a theme that was primarily represented through a singular organization: the Reapers. And even then it was only represented in so much as that the Reapers were synthetic in nature. The conflict wasn't because of some high level distrust, it was because the Reapers basically took a leaf from Independence Day for first contact. The ending tried to shift the narrative focus from stopping a hostile force to an abstract conflict between organic and synthetic life at the expense of the prior focus.

It's like...if Ganondorf managed to convince Link not to depose him for the sake of bridging the gap between the Hylians and the Gerudo...after Link had already earned the Gerudo Membership Card and the respect of the Gerudo. Or Scar convincing Simba to support his claim to the throne to foster peace between the lions and hyenas. Or the Emperor convincing Luke to the Dark Side on the grounds that the Rebellion against his Empire was causing more suffering than he ever did and that for the sake of peace his Order had to prevail over its Chaos. Even assuming that such a divide exists, it's a comparatively minor problem compared to the despot actively spreading misery, destruction, and evil. Even Christopher Paolini knew that even if his series' villain had a point about the magic/non-magic divide the guy was still a sociopathic(?) tyrant with unambiguously evil methods who had caused great suffering to the people of the realm and thus the immediate threat.

So too is it with Mass Effect. Even assuming that we can take the Reapers at their word (which, as the idea was told and conflicted greatly with what was shown is a fairly generous assumption) and ignoring that among the themes of the franchise was bridging such rifts, fostering cooperation and overcoming prejudice (which was rather neatly summed up in what you recover of Pressley's journal at the crash site in ME2), that is at best a cancer that will kill you decades down the road whereas the Reapers are a self-righteous killer pointing a gun at you. It doesn't matter if the peace between organics and synthetics won't last. Right now, they're united to stop a greater threat. Figuring out a way to make that peace permanent is a problem to be solved when that peace starts to collapse and the greater threat is dealt with. Does that mean that the Reapers would accept that? Hell no. But that doesn't mean anything more than Luke being unable to redeem the Emperor, Khan being unwilling to let go of his anger at Kirk, the aliens in Independence Day being unwilling to negotiate a peace, or anything else. More often than not, the antagonist does not see eye to eye with the protagonist because both earnestly believe their actions (and rejection of the opposing philosophy) to be rational and justified. Which is why it tends to end with the protagonist and their ideals triumphing over the antagonist and their ideals.

 

[Trunkage]

Honestly I can't say that the Mass Effect 3 ending was all that bad, even the original one. I mean it sucked, don't get me wrong. But does it really ruin the entire series? Maybe I just have a good tolerance of shitty endings. I thought Mass Effect 3's revised ending was alright, nothing spectacular but... ehh, it was closure. Honestly the last half hour or so leading up to the ending was one of the best parts of the whole series.

Now, I have said many times before that I love System Shock 2. If it wasn't for Doom it'd be my #1 game. But the ending is terrible. And unlike Mass Effect 3, the intensity doesn't ramp up towards the end. It just kinda... fizzles out. Which is a shame because the rest of the game is so strong.

Can anyone explain to me how the human reaper is any less stupid than star child? The only reason it got a pass was because three was still a third game and it might get better. And the rest of the suicide mission was awesome. Doesn't anyone remember the outcry against that part of the ending?

The whole Earth mission in ME3 was stupid. Why the hell is Shepherd landing on Earth to fight Reapers, They are spaceships! You don't land to fight spaceships. Also, you could have found some other way onto the crucible and had another last stand moment like ME2. All your team members fighting to the last man. But no, the Reapers inexplicably leave the crucial empty. But have a teleport there.. Or why hasn't the whole station been disintegrated. How long did it take to open those arms? Why didn't the Reapers destroy the crucible when it became such a threat.

Star child is just a dues ex machina. Many games employ it all the time, Half life, every Dues Ex and Baulder's Gate 2 comes to mind. All of them are bad and don't make sense. The more offensive parts are the massive plot holes with that mission.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

I'll pick out two blatantly obvious examples because fuck it.

Mass Effect 3, and Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain.

 

[Janaschi]

Shepard was never going to magically repair the rift between the two races. Not by themselves, and likely not within their lifetime, if they had somehow managed to make it into what Mass Effect considers old age. And whatever peace might have been achieved, especially among any possible confusion that was a result of the end choices, would be tenuous, at best. So what, exactly, is there to acknowledge? Nothing has been achieved yet, except for a very weak foundation being built.

Well first of all: The rift in question didn't exist in a meaningful way within the series. The single most antagonistic force towards organic life was the Reapers, and the second was a subsection of the Geth that was doing so at the behest of the Reapers. The rest of the Geth and EDI rather explicitly find the Reapers and their lack of respect for other sapient life to be repugnant and when given the chance actually both get along famously with organics and show a great deal of interest in learning why organics do what they do. Furthermore, the theme in question is given a direct representation through the interpersonal conflicts of EDI and Joker, and Legion and Tali...all of whom develop at the very least a strong sense of camaraderie. The "rift" talked about in the climax is shown to be no worse than that of the Turians and the Krogan, the Rachni and the rest of the galaxy, or the Humans and Batarians.

Second: Shepard didn't need to fix the rift between organics and synthetics because it was a theme that was primarily represented through a singular organization: the Reapers. And even then it was only represented in so much as that the Reapers were synthetic in nature. The conflict wasn't because of some high level distrust, it was because the Reapers basically took a leaf from Independence Day for first contact. The ending tried to shift the narrative focus from stopping a hostile force to an abstract conflict between organic and synthetic life at the expense of the prior focus.

It's like...if Ganondorf managed to convince Link not to depose him for the sake of bridging the gap between the Hylians and the Gerudo...after Link had already earned the Gerudo Membership Card and the respect of the Gerudo. Or Scar convincing Simba to support his claim to the throne to foster peace between the lions and hyenas. Or the Emperor convincing Luke to the Dark Side on the grounds that the Rebellion against his Empire was causing more suffering than he ever did and that for the sake of peace his Order had to prevail over its Chaos. Even assuming that such a divide exists, it's a comparatively minor problem compared to the despot actively spreading misery, destruction, and evil. Even Christopher Paolini knew that even if his series' villain had a point about the magic/non-magic divide the guy was still a sociopathic(?) tyrant with unambiguously evil methods who had caused great suffering to the people of the realm and thus the immediate threat.

So too is it with Mass Effect. Even assuming that we can take the Reapers at their word (which, as the idea was told and conflicted greatly with what was shown is a fairly generous assumption) and ignoring that among the themes of the franchise was bridging such rifts, fostering cooperation and overcoming prejudice (which was rather neatly summed up in what you recover of Pressley's journal at the crash site in ME2), that is at best a cancer that will kill you decades down the road whereas the Reapers are a self-righteous killer pointing a gun at you. It doesn't matter if the peace between organics and synthetics won't last. Right now, they're united to stop a greater threat. Figuring out a way to make that peace permanent is a problem to be solved when that peace starts to collapse and the greater threat is dealt with. Does that mean that the Reapers would accept that? Hell no. But that doesn't mean anything more than Luke being unable to redeem the Emperor, Khan being unwilling to let go of his anger at Kirk, the aliens in Independence Day being unwilling to negotiate a peace, or anything else. More often than not, the antagonist does not see eye to eye with the protagonist because both earnestly believe their actions (and rejection of the opposing philosophy) to be rational and justified. Which is why it tends to end with the protagonist and their ideals triumphing over the antagonist and their ideals.

Isn't most of that besides the underlying point? It's true that the Reapers had a large part in a singular sect of Geth having a certain amount of animosity towards organic life. No argument there. But that's also not what I was talking about: The Geth, while being a largely peaceful race, largely living in exile because of fear from retribution, ever since the Citadel Council decided that such A.I. is now to be considered illegal.

But their peaceful nature doesn't sweep away their history, in that they almost wiped out an entire race. A galactic race, that used to span across a myriad of worlds. That is genocide on a galactic scale. The Quarians, on the other side of the coin, are also largely peaceful. But they have not forgotten their history, and as such, do not give a shit as to what sort of disposition can be generally attributed to the Geth.

So, yes; the rift absolutely does exist in a meaningful way. And tit involves a very colourful history, that has done little more than breed utter hatred.

As for your Krogan/Turian example, that is a false comparison. The Krogan are shown in each game as remembering very well as to whom almost caused their utter extinction. But they also know that they no longer have the numbers to start galactic wars again. Especially not against the Citadel races, as starting a war with the Turians would start a war with the other races, too. So they tolerate the Turians, because they have to in order to survive.

 

[FPLOON]

Any of the Peggle endings...

Other than that, the ending to Sonic 06...

 

[Asita]

Isn't most of that besides the underlying point? It's true that the Reapers had a large part in a singular sect of Geth having a certain amount of animosity towards organic life. No argument there. But that's also not what I was talking about: The Geth, while being a largely peaceful race, largely living in exile because of fear from retribution, ever since the Citadel Council decided that such A.I. is now to be considered illegal.

But their peaceful nature doesn't sweep away their history, in that they almost wiped out an entire race. A galactic race, that used to span across a myriad of worlds. That is genocide on a galactic scale. The Quarians, on the other side of the coin, are also largely peaceful. But they have not forgotten their history, and as such, do not give a shit as to what sort of disposition can be generally attributed to the Geth.

So, yes; the rift absolutely does exist in a meaningful way. And tit involves a very colourful history, that has done little more than breed utter hatred.

As for your Krogan/Turian example, that is a false comparison. The Krogan are shown in each game as remembering very well as to whom almost caused their utter extinction. But they also know that they no longer have the numbers to start galactic wars again. Especially not against the Citadel races, as starting a war with the Turians would start a war with the other races, too. So they tolerate the Turians, because they have to in order to survive.

With respect, you're missing the forest for the trees. In media there is a narrative rule summed up in three word "Show, don't tell". When I say that "the rift doesn't exist in a meaningful way within the series", I mean that while it might tell us about such events, what it shows us stands in stark contrast. Hence the qualifier "in a meaningful way". Because when what is shown contrasts with what is told, the two have to be reconciled in some way. In this particular case, it suggests that what is told is at best incomplete and at worst preconception rather than fact, or otherwise not currently true.

Put a different way, the characters (Or really, just the Catalyst) assume that there's a significant rift between organics and synthetics that can never be crossed, but what we see over the course of the series is that all that is required to do so is to try and reach an understanding and actually supply the trust required for social contracts to function. We are told that AI cannot be trusted, are pretty much the boogeyman, and as a rule are indifferent to disdainful towards organics. What we experience is Legion and EDI echoing Optimus Prime's "freedom is the right of all sentient beings" mindset and actually showing great empathy for organics[footnote]Perhaps the most amusing bit on this regard was the Shadow Broker's information on Legion, which showed EDI deliberately restricting herself for the benefit of the crew, and implied various things about Legion through his gamer profile (wherein he was shown to have logged a good 75 hours into "Fleet and Flotilla: Interactive Cross-Species Relationship Simulator" and been absolutely terrible at it, and had gone out of his way to discreetly donate to Eden Prime through the fundraiser edition of the game based on those events (Donation level: Ultra Platinum. Player Score: 0 (purchased but not played)))[/footnote] and actually coming to an understanding with the characters most initially antagonistic towards them (Tali and Joker, respectively).

I am not saying that distrust was not there, because it was, but that the idea that it was insurmountable, that organics and synthetics could never understand each other saw little if anything in way of representation. This is also why I brought up the Turians and Krogans. They don't forget the past, but they're willing to set that aside and move on.

 

[Janaschi]

Isn't most of that besides the underlying point? It's true that the Reapers had a large part in a singular sect of Geth having a certain amount of animosity towards organic life. No argument there. But that's also not what I was talking about: The Geth, while being a largely peaceful race, largely living in exile because of fear from retribution, ever since the Citadel Council decided that such A.I. is now to be considered illegal.

But their peaceful nature doesn't sweep away their history, in that they almost wiped out an entire race. A galactic race, that used to span across a myriad of worlds. That is genocide on a galactic scale. The Quarians, on the other side of the coin, are also largely peaceful. But they have not forgotten their history, and as such, do not give a shit as to what sort of disposition can be generally attributed to the Geth.

So, yes; the rift absolutely does exist in a meaningful way. And tit involves a very colourful history, that has done little more than breed utter hatred.

As for your Krogan/Turian example, that is a false comparison. The Krogan are shown in each game as remembering very well as to whom almost caused their utter extinction. But they also know that they no longer have the numbers to start galactic wars again. Especially not against the Citadel races, as starting a war with the Turians would start a war with the other races, too. So they tolerate the Turians, because they have to in order to survive.

With respect, you're missing the forest for the trees. In media there is a narrative rule summed up in three word "Show, don't tell". When I say that "the rift doesn't exist in a meaningful way within the series", I mean that while it might tell us about such events, what it shows us stands in stark contrast. Hence the qualifier "in a meaningful way". Because when what is shown contrasts with what is told, the two have to be reconciled in some way. In this particular case, it suggests that what is told is at best incomplete and at worst preconception rather than fact, or otherwise not currently true.

Put a different way, the characters (Or really, just the Catalyst) assume that there's a significant rift between organics and synthetics that can never be crossed, but what we see over the course of the series is that all that is required to do so is to try and reach an understanding and actually supply the trust required for social contracts to function. We are told that AI cannot be trusted, are pretty much the boogeyman, and as a rule are indifferent to disdainful towards organics. What we experience is Legion and EDI echoing Optimus Prime's "freedom is the right of all sentient beings" mindset and actually showing great empathy for organics[footnote]Perhaps the most amusing bit on this regard was the Shadow Broker's information on Legion, which showed EDI deliberately restricting herself for the benefit of the crew, and implied various things about Legion through his gamer profile (wherein he was shown to have logged a good 75 hours into "Fleet and Flotilla: Interactive Cross-Species Relationship Simulator" and been absolutely terrible at it, and had gone out of his way to discreetly donate to Eden Prime through the fundraiser edition of the game based on those events (Donation level: Ultra Platinum. Player Score: 0 (purchased but not played)))[/footnote] and actually coming to an understanding with the characters most initially antagonistic towards them (Tali and Joker, respectively).

I am not saying that distrust was not there, because it was, but that the idea that it was insurmountable, that organics and synthetics could never understand each other saw little if anything in way of representation. This is also why I brought up the Turians and Krogans. They don't forget the past, but they're willing to set that aside and move on.

It's hard for me to look that far into the story-telling aspects of the Mass Effect universe, because we have not quite been given a good precedent for whether or not the setting is truly grey, or if we can expect a good amount of black & white representation.

I am looking forward to the next game, to see if it addresses anything from the prior games in the series, regardless of whether it will be a sequel, or a spin-off. Until then, my only real opinion on the matter is that I highly doubt that anyone has moved on. We still have things like the Tali-suicide ending, and while the Turians appear to be genuinely remorseful of their actions, the Krogan certainly do not seem as if they have moved on, generally, as a species.

The Quarians are similar, because while a good portion of them can be convinced to attempt to foster a positive relationship with the Geth, there is a very vocal portion of them that would rather die before making friends with an A.I.

Time will tell. Maybe the Mass Effect universe is B&W to the point where harmony can never be achieved between organic and artificial life. Maybe hybridizing the two is also not a true answer to the inherent issues. Or maybe our actions will have some long-reaching effects, and we can expect for the Catalyst to be proven wrong. Because, ultimately, the Catalyst is not some omniscient being, no matter how powerful the collective Reaper conscience is.

 

[Carton of Milk]

someone said Risen 3 an dyeah. i'd have to agree. At least in my recent memory. It's not even an ending. A black screen that said the end would have been as satisfying.

 

[The Madman]

Star child is just a dues ex machina. Many games employ it all the time, Half life, every Dues Ex and Baulder's Gate 2 comes to mind. All of them are bad and don't make sense. The more offensive parts are the massive plot holes with that mission.

I don't recall any Deus Ex Machina in Baldur's Gate, at least nothing that couldn't be explained easily enough by the player character being a literal demi-god, albeit one not fully in control over their abilities nor as powerful as some others out there.

 

[Sleepy Sol]

Fable 2. Without a doubt.

Most games that have dumb or barely thought-out endings at least have some sort of climactic event or boss fight that's exciting to somebody out there during their conclusion. Fable 2's riveting conclusion is a single button press that leaves you feeling entirely devoid of any sense of accomplishment or closure.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I've thought of another one! The ending of Xenoblade Chronicles X. I liked the last level, I liked the last boss fights (though I was blind-sided by the sudden level/difficulty spike...screw that) but after the conflict, when everything is said and done there's the story that you get and...it raises questions that I don't think anybody is intending to answer and the whole situation with Mira and NLA is just...I just freaking hated the final twist and post-credits scene. I liked the Resident Evil-style final boss but every story element from that final fight on just hurt then entire experience for me. I can't really go back to XCX after that.

 

[Joshroom]

Borderlands would top my list.
God damn did that game have a crappy ending! Just a mediocre boss, then BANG credits with no character pay off and no closure, not even in the DLC missions.

Dark Souls 1 kinda peeved me as well. I know it was going for the whole soul crushing pointlessness kinda vibe but I mean come on; not even a small cutscene?

And last, but not least, the ending to Uncharted 3 always leaves me a little cold. Some really interesting questions were asked of Drake throughout the game and what, he just goes home happy at the end? Apparently with the girl and not having learnt a damn thing? Very different from the actual good ending that Last of Us had.

 

[Derekloffin]

Worst in the sense that the game as a whole was very good but the ending SUCKED... my vote goes for Deus Ex Human Revolution. I adore this game, but the ending is utter trash. Literally press one of 4 buttons for 4 different monologues about... I don't know, I zoned out in every one of them. I mean, the original Deus Ex had a terrible ending too, but at least you had to do something different for each ending, even if only ever so modestly, and I remembered those endings, but Human Revolution, nah, we can't even be bothered with that level of investment. Sigh, oh well, still a great game.

 

[hermes]

I'll pick out two blatantly obvious examples because fuck it.

Mass Effect 3, and Metal Gear Solid 5: The Phantom Pain.

Back in the day, MGS4 was the blatantly obvious example. I still think its ending is worse. I remember laughing with my brother at the dialogue and absurdity the first time. So much after the big Metal Gear fight was LOL worthy, and a lot of the explanations for the previous games were farfetched and disappointing. Things that didn't need explaining.

Yeah, I was going to say I think MGS 4 ending is actually worst than the ending of MGS 5 or even ME 3. It was ludicrous, far fetched, opposite to the tone of the rest of the game and so far up its own arse it almost created a singularity...

 

[sageoftruth]

The most memorable one for me was Donkey Kong Land for Game Boy. It had some pretty hard and frustrating levels, hampered further by how hard it was to see anything on a colorless screen like that, and when you finally beat it, it jumps straight to the end credits. The closest thing you get to an ending is the word "Congratulations" at the beginning of the credits.

I suppose I'll also list Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, not because the ending was of poor quality, but rather because it felt like my character was better off before he beat the final boss. You part with your lover to escape the dream world, and your reward is to wake up stranded at sea with nothing but a floating wooden plank to sit on? It makes sense plotwise, but I'll take the dream world thank you very much.

 

[StatusNil]

Yeah, it's been said already, but I feel duty-bound to reiterate that nothing, not a thing, in gaming comes close to the nadir that was Mass Effect 3.

The main goal of the whole series was stopping the Reapers, until it becomes a matter of picking a way to commit suicide in order to terminate the entire setting to accommodate the "superior wisdom" of King Reaper itself, as condescendingly played by someone's kid who probably had a birthday coming up or something. Surely the most gleeful example of wrecking someone else's world building efforts I've ever encountered in popular culture. AND then they went ahead and added more insult to the injury via the "Extended Cut", actually getting the voice actors back into the studio to set up an extra "Fuck you, Everyone Dies!" Game Over scenario.

I won't even dignify that trash fire by picking among the wreckage for burnt pieces of a "meaning" to cobble together. It was just a dumb act of vandalism, void of any.

 

[Brandon Lowdermilk]

Mario 2 sounds like a bad ending, ok so guess what you beat the game, do you get a congradulations, no, did you rescue princess peach, no, did you get fireworks, no, ok so what happens, mario is sleeping the end, ooo k.

 

[westcoast1313]

Don't care how many people have said it before, buy Mass Effect 3. Killed the trilogy for me with how poor it was thought up and made. The execution was lackluster, the plot holes were enough to strain spaghetti with, the starbrat was dumb and apparently Shep forgot how to argue and make a point. Organics vs mechanics? Check the Geth fighting side by side with the Quarians idiot. Ugh... i need a drink