The Worst Series Ending in Gaming [spoilers] [Archive]

MCerberus

2012-08-07, 10:21 PM

Falgorn

2012-08-07, 10:26 PM

Mass Effect certainly isn't the worst. I'd say that it's mediocre, but not OH WOW HORRIBLE BLUGH. But this is neither the time nor the place.

Ultima IX still takes the cake for "Worst Series Ending in Gaming." Because it's a hugeeee disappointment, both in storytelling AND gameplay.

MCerberus

2012-08-07, 10:29 PM

Leliel

2012-08-07, 11:11 PM

Compared to Ultima IX and C&C4, Mass Effect doesn't even look a little tarnished, not even before the Extended Cut.

factotum

2012-08-08, 01:31 AM

Ultima IX still takes the cake for "Worst Series Ending in Gaming." Because it's a hugeeee disappointment, both in storytelling AND gameplay.

This. Definitely this. Considering the Ultima series contains some of the greatest RPGs ever made, to have that...THING as the bookend is insulting.

I would say that the Might and Magic RPG series suffered from a poor ending too--it wasn't quite such a crashing disappointment as Ultima IX was, but M&M IX was really not a great game, especially coming off the back of VI, VII and VIII (the high points of the series).

Aotrs Commander

2012-08-08, 03:04 AM

First of all, while I will try to add spoiler tags where applicable, they are unavoidable.

So, there are series with long wind-up times, promising answers and closure... and sometimes it all just falls flat on its face. What disappointed or just let the whole thing end with a whimper?

Command & Conquer
The setting is that in the near future. An asteroid strike deposits Tiberium, a crazy world-destroying mineral that spreads and mutates and all sort of badness. Nod is a weird cultish military organization headed by Kane. It and the UN's GDI fight over his plans to remake the world in his image and blah blah.

The second game the supposedly dead Kane comes back and plans to force the entire world to be covered with Tiberium, an insane plot that would kill humanity if he weren't stopped and killed again (expansion pack reveals that his evil AI compatriot is based on his personality and Kane has clones).

Fast forward to the ending of the series. Oh, it was all an alien plot for them to harvest the planet for Tiberium. Kane now has a completely different personality, ignores everything from the previous games and ascends as the actually immortal alien god-king. It should be noted that everything from the game doesn't fit with the setting at all, and the setting and events are just retconned to shreds trying to accommodate it.

And to top it off they just use the dumb 'save the wife who is dead already' plot hook. seriously. The worst slight of all though, is that the game took itself seriously.

Mass Effect
It's all the plan of an omnipotent super-AI that uses space magic to control everything. WOOOH

That's the worst one I have personally experienced, because it was the biggest let-down.

C&C4, while pretty awful, was more of an extended out death-rattle that a direct kick to the metaphorical knackers. ME3 started higher so fell further.

That said, we must not forget that the aforementioned "wife" in C&C4 was so bad that EVEN I was complaining about her. (Those of you not as familiar with me may fail to get how huge that is.) I mean, yes, you maybe overdid it in RA3 with the fanservice, but that doesn't mean you should have gone so far the other way in C&C4 that even the Lich that really just doesn't care recoils in horror when she shows up. Let me just re-iterate. I have never before in anything, comic, book, movie, TV show or game, complained about the quality of casting of the "love interest" (sic) until C&C4. That woman was abominable. *shudder* Not a single redeeming feature, as a character or even an actress.

I cheered loudly when she died (and I could totally see why the general guy spent most of his time on the front lines and nearly killed imself a few times or something.) In fact, during the Nod campaign, when Kane revealed she was not quite dead I was like "dude! Seriosuly! I'm loyal, I'm loyal! I love Nod! I'mma doing what you want, no problems chief! You don't have to resort to heavy-handed threats! Just keep her away from me!"

Honourable mention to NWN2, who, after arguably the best boss fight of the Bioware-style RPGs up until that time, we were treated to a literal "rocks fall everybody dies." (Though that was somewhat migitated by the expansion.)

The last section of KotR 2 was pretty meh as well. Obsidian, like Bioware, don't have a very good track record on being able to do a good ending, either...

Yora

2012-08-08, 03:37 AM

The Succubus

2012-08-08, 05:02 AM

Legacy of Kain

First off, let me just say that I love the series to bits. The characters of Kain, Raziel, Mobius and The Elder God are rich and delicious....but the ending is unfinished (for those that have played Defiance) and the plot loses all coherence between the end of Soul Reaver and the start of Defiance. The game play mechanics of Soul Reaver 2 were pretty dire as well. -.-

But...despite all that, I really want to know how the story ends.

Cespenar

2012-08-08, 05:42 AM

Everything that Obsidian touches is pure garbage awesome.

Fixed that for you. :smalltongue:

factotum

2012-08-08, 06:33 AM

Everything that Obsidian thouches is pure garbage.

I'd have to disagree there--while Obsidian games have a reputation for being absolute raging bug-fests on release, once they get a few patches out the games are usually OK, and the story is generally a lot better than your generic Bioware one. Fallout: New Vegas being a perfect example--it was a *far* better game than Fallout 3, which I never finished and never intend to go back to.

Androgeus

2012-08-08, 08:11 AM

Falgorn

2012-08-08, 08:26 AM

This. Definitely this. Considering the Ultima series contains some of the greatest RPGs ever made, to have that...THING as the bookend is insulting.

I would say that the Might and Magic RPG series suffered from a poor ending too--it wasn't quite such a crashing disappointment as Ultima IX was, but M&M IX was really not a great game, especially coming off the back of VI, VII and VIII (the high points of the series).

Exactly - Ultima also had the added "bonus" of having EIGHT other games. Not two or three, but EIGHT. And that's not even counting the spin-off titles; these were all games in the main storyline. I'd say that C&C 4 is the closest comparison to this, but certainly not ME 3, which played well, had excellent sub-plots which tied together the series, and only suffered a loss of quality at the final 15 - all-in-all, not that bad. Nowhere near as bad as some of the others mentioned.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-08, 08:26 AM

I'd have to disagree there--while Obsidian games have a reputation for being absolute raging bug-fests on release, once they get a few patches out the games are usually OK, and the story is generally a lot better than your generic Bioware one. Fallout: New Vegas being a perfect example--it was a *far* better game than Fallout 3, which I never finished and never intend to go back to.

Actually I disagree... comparing the two games (FO3 and FO:NV) they both have strengths and weaknesses.

FO3 Pros:
More engrossing world
More fun in the beginning
Far FAR less railroading

FO:NV Pros:
Much more balanced, level wise
More detailed weapon and armor system
Better story

FO3 Cons:
Terribly unbalanced at higher levels
Second half of story suxxorz

FO:NV Cons:
A far more boring world
FAR too much railroading, especially in the beginning (especially frustrating if you jump into the game from either FO3 or Skyrim)
Too much too keep up with (OOps I forgot to buy armor-piercing ammo)

In short, if I could get NV mechanics in FO3 it would be perfect.

Anyway, the worst endings of games I have played:
Half-Life 2.
FO3.

Yora

2012-08-08, 08:28 AM

Fixed that for you. :smalltongue:

In that case, you have a horrible sense of taste. :smallwink:

First off, let me just say that I love the series to bits. The characters of Kain, Raziel, Mobius and The Elder God are rich and delicious....but the ending is unfinished (for those that have played Defiance) and the plot loses all coherence between the end of Soul Reaver and the start of Defiance. The game play mechanics of Soul Reaver 2 were pretty dire as well.
However, Soul Reaver 2 and Defiance are the only ones that are actually playable. The other ones are just torture.

Cespenar

2012-08-08, 09:06 AM

In that case, you have a horrible sense of taste. :smallwink:

I assume you're talking explicitly about endings, which Obsidian often flunks. As whole, however, their games are top notch, at least in my opinion. Bug-riddled, sure, but still.

Dublock

2012-08-08, 09:26 AM

Don't you dare mention HL, they WILL be making a next game...it will just take a while...like waiting for SC2 or TF2....

Ultima IX does take the cake.

Dues EX Invisible war if it counts also was pretty bad. (Of course as soon as I found out ammo was universal I was going to hate whatever else they did, I just have actual reasoning :p)

MCerberus

2012-08-08, 09:47 AM

Don't you dare mention HL, they WILL be making a next game...it will just take a while...like waiting for SC2 or TF2....

Well, vaporware gets put into 'dead until proven alive' territory.

KotoR 2 is an odd case, because there is a *lot* to love, before time constraints murdered the entire setup. It is also not the canonical end to the series, as a certain RPG in MMO clothing is in the process of tying up the loose threads.

ME3 for one, fresh wounds, and let's go back and realize just how bad the last 15 minutes were. It retroactively made the entire series' everything a giant waste of time. This isn't just bad, but it goes back in time to ruin other games.

The only thing I was thinking with the C&C4 love interest was from another game with a terrible story: MARIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

edit- We're getting a lot from EA's catalog of studios they decided to buy then tell them what to do, aren't we?

Yora

2012-08-08, 09:47 AM

I assume you're talking explicitly about endings, which Obsidian often flunks. As whole, however, their games are top notch, at least in my opinion. Bug-riddled, sure, but still.
Three words: Kelgar, Neeshka, Grobnar.

NWN2 was the only game that really had me feel insulted.

Dear Obsidian,... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgeZgnRCfuU)

Tengu_temp

2012-08-08, 09:59 AM

However, Soul Reaver 2 and Defiance are the only ones that are actually playable. The other ones are just torture.

I dare to disagree. Blood Omen and Soul Reaver 1 are very fun action RPGs. If anything, Soul Reaver 2 is annoying to play, due to enemies who love to spam blocking in the endgame and disappointing lack of bosses.

I am sad the series will never conclude. And Defiance ended on such a cliffhanger, too!

Actually I disagree... comparing the two games (FO3 and FO:NV) they both have strengths and weaknesses.

I don't see any of the strengths of Fallout 3 you mentioned here. The game world doesn't feel more engrossing, it feels bland and pointless because no matter where you go, everything is exactly the same. For the same reason there is no point to the game being much more sandboxy - I'd rather have an interesting storyline and unique areas than a world where I can go everywhere but won't find anything interesting in most places.

---

Anyway, time to tip a holy cow. While it's nowhere near as bad as Ultima 9 (what's a paladin?), I present to you...

System Shock 2
The first part of the ending is fine. You blow up Shodan, you set the course back home, and tell me you weren't amused by the "nah". This is a good conclusion to the series.

But noooo, Shodan cannot truly die because fanboys would rage, so we get a tacked-on sequel hook that makes your victory feel completely pointless, and wasn't foreshadowed by anything in the game so it feels like it just came out of the left field. And the sequel in question? Never happened.

Tavar

2012-08-08, 11:08 AM

Three words: Kelgar, Neeshka, Grobnar.

NWN2 was the only game that really had me feel insulted.

Dear Obsidian,... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgeZgnRCfuU)

Hey, Neeshka is cool, as is Kelgar. Grobnar can just go die, though.

And as for Legacy of Kain series, I don't know. I thought the ending of the last game was a decent ending. Yeah, it leaves what happens next a mystery, but with the main opposition force defeated, it seems that it's pretty hopeful.

Psyren

2012-08-08, 12:02 PM

However, Soul Reaver 2 and Defiance are the only ones that are actually playable. The other ones are just torture.

The first one wasn't bad either :smalltongue:

Ultima IX was.... yeah.

Philistine

2012-08-08, 12:24 PM

ME3 managed to kill off any desire I might have had to replay not only itself, but the previous two games as well. Not so much out of disgust or rage or anything like that - I just don't care anymore. That's pretty impressive.

Note I didn't say it was a good impression.

Tengu_temp

2012-08-08, 01:21 PM

Hey, Neeshka is cool, as is Kelgar. Grobnar can just go die, though.

The only NWN2 character I liked was Sand, and I guess Kelgar was okay. Everyone else was really generic, really annoying, or both. Qara was definitely the worst, followed closely by Bishop.

Reverent-One

2012-08-08, 01:34 PM

Dreamfall: The Longest Journey
It has the Half-life issue, a total cliffhanger ending with no solid indication of it actually being continued. Despite talk a sequel (somewhat ironically a series of episodes ala Half-life), the company focused on their MMOs since they didn't make as much money on single player games. If the creator's right, though, and we actually do an announcement this year that the sequel is coming, I'd retract it from this list.

TheLaughingMan

2012-08-08, 01:42 PM

The only NWN2 character I liked was Sand, and I guess Kelgar was okay. Everyone else was really generic, really annoying, or both. Qara was definitely the worst, followed closely by Bishop.

NWN2 is just all around Obsidian's worst effort, but I've heard Mask of the Betrayer does a lot to make up for the main game's failings. But then again, I play RPGs for stories and world-building and care zilch about the gameplay, so what do I know? :smalltongue:

As far as my own contributions, uhhhh... oh!

Every Other NES Game Known to Mankind:
CONGRATURATIONS YOUR WINNER !!

dianakingston

2012-08-08, 02:24 PM

The original ending to "Mass Effect 3" was absolutely crushing, but the Extended Cut went a long way towards fixing that so I'm willing to give it a pass.

Completely agree about "Tiberium Twilight" - four games and two expansions just to get to the point where Kane accomplishes... whatever he'd been trying to accomplish all along. You never find out who he was, what he was after, what happened to the Scrin... just a white room and an obnoxious wife. Absolutely terrible.

I have to disagree with the posters who brought up "Legacy of Kain", given that "Defiance" ends with Kain finally being able to attack the Elder God directly - it was the throwdown I'd been waiting for throughout the entire saga. :)

I was also let down by the direction of "Warcraft" after the second game - it seemed like Blizzard kept repeating this pattern of revealing that the people you thought were villains were really just misunderstood and there were even worse villains in the background - so the Orcs were never evil, they were tricked by Archimonde, but Archimonde wasn't evil either, he was corrupted by Sargeras, and on and on.

The less said about "King's Quest VIII" in any capacity, the better - I prefer to think of the sixth game as the conclusion to the series...

factotum

2012-08-08, 04:38 PM

Fallout 3 is Bethesda not Bioware

I'm fully aware of that, I was merely citing it as an example of an excellent Obsidian game (one which is better than the one it was derived from). I couldn't really use the example of KOTOR2 vs. KOTOR because the former was so messed up by the accelerated development cycle!

Tavar

2012-08-08, 05:22 PM

The only NWN2 character I liked was Sand, and I guess Kelgar was okay. Everyone else was really generic, really annoying, or both. Qara was definitely the worst, followed closely by Bishop.
I reject your completely subjective opinion, and demand my completely subjecting opinion be the right one!:smallwink:

Seriously, I liked Sand and Neeshka best, Kelgar and Ammo Jerro were okay, and the rest were mostly forgettable excepting Qara(monster who you can't call our), Bishop(Same), and Grobnar(He's just so damn annoying....).

psilontech

2012-08-08, 07:55 PM

Well, as long as we're putting HL down on the list for not currently having a sequel...

Freespace 2
FRACK I want the promised sequel. Why were they blowing up stars!? Hundreds of their "One or two of these and we have a pretty good chance of winning the war!" super-dreadnaughts sitting in low orbit of the sun they just purposefully blew up, DESTROYED. WHY!?

On that note, I also desperately want Dungeon Keeper 3.

Tebryn

2012-08-08, 08:02 PM

I was also let down by the direction of "Warcraft" after the second game - it seemed like Blizzard kept repeating this pattern of revealing that the people you thought were villains were really just misunderstood and there were even worse villains in the background - so the Orcs were never evil, they were tricked by Archimonde, but Archimonde wasn't evil either, he was corrupted by Sargeras, and on and on.

Archimonde has always been evil. Even before Sargaras.

wiimanclassic

2012-08-08, 08:17 PM

Fallout, not counting New Vegas which is a side game.

Fallout 3 was a horrible way to so far end the main series, no connection to the older games that make sense, a crappy world of a bunch of random things that are cool with no effort put towards making it all make sense as a whole, and random references to things from the past games with no thought as to how it makes sense.

Like the Regulators being there. No reason for them to be in the Capitol Wasteland at all. No explanation for them ether, just there.

The Enclave being the bad guys here is also stupid and pointless and oh god who wrote this stupid thing. The plan is to kill anyone whos mutated at all meaning anyone not from a vault which wouldn't leave enough people to have a stable breeding pool.

Hell the entire thing with project purity is a giant mess since radiation would be in the soil UNDER the river, not the water. There is nothing in the water to purify unless they bottle it as soon it gets cleaned.

The "choices" your giving about which side to choose are the most one sided, clear cut case of good and evil I have ever seen. Do you help the stupid people wanting to help everyone by having a source of clean water or the stupid people who want to commit genocide? God Fallout 3 was stupid.

Maxios

2012-08-08, 08:19 PM

wiimanclassic

2012-08-08, 08:45 PM

Maxios

2012-08-08, 08:52 PM

I honestly have no clue about what you're talking about. It all makes sense as a whole :smallconfused:

Logic

2012-08-08, 09:28 PM

Everything that Obsidian thouches is pure garbage.

Mass Effect 3 is awful, but it's not a sudden crash in the last 15 minutes, but a rapidly acellerating dive downwards that is constantly getting worse.
I love ME2 to death, but I felt let down by ME3 the moment I got to first touch the controls. Actually, I was starting to be slightly disappointed the moment I started the game. Even the main screen was poorly executed and from there things got worse.
I disagree. That is a decent lineup (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obsidian_Entertainment#List_of_video_games) that needed more polish than the head studio was usually willing to give them.
And the list of what came before (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Isle_Studios#Products) is pretty impressive in my book.

ME3 had me hooked right up until the Starchild scene that was so disjarring from the rest of the tone of the series.

wiimanclassic

2012-08-09, 01:19 AM

I honestly have no clue about what you're talking about. It all makes sense as a whole :smallconfused:

Is there ANY connection between half the areas and things around them? Hell Little Lamplight and Big Town don't make sense. How do the kids survive? Why have the near by super mutants not just killed them all? Why do they send all adults away? Why the hell is this place here and who thought it was a good idea?

Not like it wasn't rail roady as **** for the plot ether. You have 2 sides but it might as well be one since one of them just wants to kill everyone so no one who's not playing an evil character will work with the Enclave, who also got beaten and had no reason to be on the east coast and are just an example of how Bethseda can't write anything original for a series they didn't make or somehow get it wrong, like the Brotherhood of Steel who don't like the Brotherhood of Steel at all except for the so called outcasts.

Your expected to WANT to find your characters dad even though your given no reason to give a **** about him except for an extended flashback and then nothing for why you should care. Hell part of the fun of the old Fallout games, except 1 for the most part, and New Vegas was making a character and then filling in your own back story. Here? You grew up in a vault. You were bullied. You dad left and the player hasn't been given anyreason to care about him at all. Blah blah stupid plot that makes no sense and has the WORST attempt at being able to pick a side ever.

New Vegas was much better and a hell of a lot less rail roady since you actually have reasons to follow the plot, in 3 your dad left and you got kicked out of the vault. I bet he would worry more about getting food then finding his dad.

I also hated how they just put the factions from the old games there even though it makes no sense for them to be there or don't give ANY reason for them to be there.

Also no it does not make sense.

OH YEAH. The random green filter they put on everything. That wouldn't still be there 200 years after the bombs dropped. Hell everything wasn't under a green filter in the first 2 and those came even earlier. Or where the Enclave got all the vertibirds when even in Fallout 2 they were short on them, I doubt they would have some to attack any random joe who blows up an eyebot.

OH yes and the fact that none of the towns have any kind of farm or ranch or anything to help sustain them. None of the towns in the game could exist for more then however much food they brought to it.

The way all raiders seem to be cannibals and psychos who just want to rip your head off.

The fact all the supermutants except for all of 2 are hostile for no reason at all.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-09, 02:48 AM

Your expected to WANT to find your characters dad even though your given no reason to give a **** about him except for an extended flashback and then nothing for why you should care. Hell part of the fun of the old Fallout games, except 1 for the most part, and New Vegas was making a character and then filling in your own back story. Here? You grew up in a vault. You were bullied. You dad left and the player hasn't been given anyreason to care about him at all. Blah blah stupid plot that makes no sense and has the WORST attempt at being able to pick a side ever.

New Vegas was much better and a hell of a lot less rail roady since you actually have reasons to follow the plot, in 3 your dad left and you got kicked out of the vault. I bet he would worry more about getting food then finding his dad.

The way all raiders seem to be cannibals and psychos who just want to rip your head off.

The fact all the supermutants except for all of 2 are hostile for no reason at all.

See I do like the early levels of FO3 so much more than NV. To me the world is just more interesting; NV is... how should I put it... BORING in that respect. I don't know what it is, but something in NV irks me with the world design; it feels far less Post-Apocalyptic and more like you are just walking the desert. I can't put a finger on it any more than that. It just feels... uninspired.

I also have a much bigger reason to care about the plot in FO3 than in NV; but i guess it has partly to do with role playing. A kid losing his father? Of course he will try to find him. Getting revenge for being shot in the head / stubborny insist on delivering the chip? ...Nah, I think I'll just stay in Goodsprings. Seems to be be a nice place. Or maybe settle on the strip making easy money...

As for railroady? Really? NV is, from an OBJECTIVE standpoint FAR more railroady. You have to go North, or get eaten. If you are insisting on not following the main quest you can try to get past everything to the northwest without interacting with it, until you get where you want, but seriously? NV is a good game, but you can tell that it is not made by Bethesday because you are forced forward, along the main quest.

The Raiders ARE cannibal psychos. That's why they are RAIDERS. Otherwise they would be settlers, or some other kind of gang.
They make much more sense than Caesar's Legion; a poorly equipped, Always Lawful Evil army that somehow has conquered enormous ammounts land between The Pit and NCR, yet was never heard of before. Did I mention that they are poorly equipped? They are basically equipped on par with the citizens of Goodsprings, but with better armor.

And the super mutants? You didn't actually pay attention? These are NOT the supermutants from the west coast. This is a different mutation! A completely separate project trying to create super soldiers. Unfortunately they turn out violent, uncontrollable and dumber than rocks. But I have no problem with that, because it is thoroughly explained in the game.

Yora

2012-08-09, 04:28 AM

Qara was definitely the worst

I had forgot about that.
http://mygaming.co.za/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Nerd-Rage-activated-530x298.jpg
*runs away screaming and crying on a rampage of destruction* :smallmad: :smallfurious:

"Words can not express how much I hate you guys. I hate you guys. I hate you so very, very much."

factotum

2012-08-09, 06:17 AM

You have to go North, or get eaten.

South, actually. In any case, though, I would rather have areas that I can't go into until I'm a high enough level due to the horrors contained therein than have every bloody thing in the universe scale to match my level.

It's not like you're being railroaded along the main plot, either--you can go anywhere you like when you leave Goodsprings, apart from due North. You also don't *have* to get revenge for your shooting, or deliver the platinum chip; you have the option of setting up on the Strip if you want, just like you suggested. For that matter, I'm sure the game wouldn't care overmuch if you stayed in Goodsprings and never left, although it might be a bit short and/or dull to do that!

VanBuren

2012-08-09, 06:23 AM

South, actually. In any case, though, I would rather have areas that I can't go into until I'm a high enough level due to the horrors contained therein than have every bloody thing in the universe scale to match my level.

It's not like you're being railroaded along the main plot, either--you can go anywhere you like when you leave Goodsprings, apart from due North. You also don't *have* to get revenge for your shooting, or deliver the platinum chip; you have the option of setting up on the Strip if you want, just like you suggested. For that matter, I'm sure the game wouldn't care overmuch if you stayed in Goodsprings and never left, although it might be a bit short and/or dull to do that!

And you don't *have* to find dear old Dad either. So... where is New Vegas scoring the point?

wiimanclassic

2012-08-09, 08:13 AM

And you don't *have* to find dear old Dad either. So... where is New Vegas scoring the point?

You can also just not deliver the chip after dealing with Benny, I don't think it matters at all in the NCR stuff. As for wanting to finish the delivery, not really. You get revenge by ether killing him, screwing with his head, scaring him away, or just speaking to him. Then the next part of the quest where you have more choice besides how you get your next destination.

You can listen to Victor and go into the Lucky 38 and then finish your delivery when your told Mr House was the one who ordered it, you could go and work for the Legion by answering Caesars request to come see him, or go speak with the NCR.

If you decide to just figure out what the hell happened you can still continue the main quest from there, you actually have choices unlike 3.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-09, 08:31 AM

South, actually. In any case, though, I would rather have areas that I can't go into until I'm a high enough level due to the horrors contained therein than have every bloody thing in the universe scale to match my level.

Yes, but Skyrim being the ultimate example here... Done RIGHT (and in a mix between the two systems) it is a blast. Oblivion was completely borked, FO3 had too overpowered critters from about lvl 20 (not for YOU, but they killed all NPCs in the wasteland!)... Still I feel TOO fenced in by having to go SOUTH (thank you) and then East. Especially, as I said, the actual environment leaves a lot to wish for unlike FO3. Nothing in NV feels unique, it doesn't really feel like a wasteland as much as it feels... uninspired. That's the word I am looking for. The environment in NV feels uninspired.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-08-09, 08:44 AM

Not going to argue about newFallout as I still haven't played either, but I will say the open-ended political tomfoolery of New Vegas seems more engaging as a story, to me, than "guy/girl gets kicked out of vault/community to go find the MacGuffin that will save everyone" for the third time in a row. Re-using the villains from the first two games, even! (Although I will admit the New Vegas factions seem a lot like a larger-scale version of the New Reno factions, but since New Reno was the most fun set of sidequests in the entire first two games...)

(...speaking of the first two games, no comment on bugs, either...)

Let's see. In terms of just actual quality failure and not being a sad or horrifyingly bad ending, out of the games I've actually played...well, I tend to spoil myself on things and quit if the ending sounds stupid, frankly. Super Robot Wars J's conclusion was kind of a let down even in a series where all of the endings and 50% of everything else is just walls of generic dialog, though. Had I ever finished my LP, I'd have certainly made up individual endings for each of the characters, since making **** up was the main fun part of that LP.

What else...Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines's endgame was a huge departure from the rest of the game and was pretty bad unless you really wanted to play The Matrix But With Vampires And Glitchy Graphics, but the (good) endings themselves largely made up for that by being ****ing hilarious. Especially the Independent ending. Really, the problem is just that it ends in huge, long linear dungeons full of shootouts no matter what you do, even though the game attempts to be sandboxy before that.

Minecraft doesn't have an ending.

All those RTS/TBS games that just roll credits when you finish a game don't really count either.

Hm. Final Fantasy VIII's made no sense, but it looked cool. Same with VII originally, I guess.

EDIT: All of these count as series endings because even the things in the middle of franchises are their own individual continuities obviously I read the thread title.

dianakingston

2012-08-09, 10:35 AM

Archimonde has always been evil. Even before Sargaras.

Not according to "Rise of the Horde" and the later WoW retcons concerning the Eredar...

Elemental

2012-08-09, 11:02 AM

Not according to "Rise of the Horde" and the later WoW retcons concerning the Eredar...

Because it's tangentially related:
I'm just going to say I hate it when things are unnecessarily retconned.

Warcraft is a particularly bad perpetrator of this crime, especially when World of Warcraft came out.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the games, but just once, I'd like the geography to match up. Actually, the strategy games were reasonably consistent, but what came after didn't mesh particularly well.

Tengu_temp

2012-08-09, 11:08 AM

Kymme

2012-08-09, 11:19 AM

Minecraft doesn't have an ending.

I disagree. In my opinion, Minecraft has a beutiful ending. However, it does take a REALLY long time to get there.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-08-09, 11:28 AM

I disagree. In my opinion, Minecraft has a beutiful ending. However, it does take a REALLY long time to get there.

It's more like you get poetry as a reward for accomplishing the one "quest chain" in the game, then you keep going.

Maxios

2012-08-09, 11:34 AM

See I do like the early levels of FO3 so much more than NV. To me the world is just more interesting; NV is... how should I put it... BORING in that respect. I don't know what it is, but something in NV irks me with the world design; it feels far less Post-Apocalyptic and more like you are just walking the desert. I can't put a finger on it any more than that. It just feels... uninspired.

I also have a much bigger reason to care about the plot in FO3 than in NV; but i guess it has partly to do with role playing. A kid losing his father? Of course he will try to find him. Getting revenge for being shot in the head / stubborny insist on delivering the chip? ...Nah, I think I'll just stay in Goodsprings. Seems to be be a nice place. Or maybe settle on the strip making easy money...

As for railroady? Really? NV is, from an OBJECTIVE standpoint FAR more railroady. You have to go North, or get eaten. If you are insisting on not following the main quest you can try to get past everything to the northwest without interacting with it, until you get where you want, but seriously? NV is a good game, but you can tell that it is not made by Bethesday because you are forced forward, along the main quest.

The Raiders ARE cannibal psychos. That's why they are RAIDERS. Otherwise they would be settlers, or some other kind of gang.
They make much more sense than Caesar's Legion; a poorly equipped, Always Lawful Evil army that somehow has conquered enormous ammounts land between The Pit and NCR, yet was never heard of before. Did I mention that they are poorly equipped? They are basically equipped on par with the citizens of Goodsprings, but with better armor.

And the super mutants? You didn't actually pay attention? These are NOT the supermutants from the west coast. This is a different mutation! A completely separate project trying to create super soldiers. Unfortunately they turn out violent, uncontrollable and dumber than rocks. But I have no problem with that, because it is thoroughly explained in the game.
You have said everything that needs to be said.

TheLaughingMan

2012-08-09, 11:35 AM

I disagree. In my opinion, Minecraft has a beutiful ending. However, it does take a REALLY long time to get there.

:smallconfused:

Is the beautiful ending behind the grade-school level poetry? Or am I missing something? :smalltongue:

Really, it would have been vastly improved if all they stuck at the ending was that Mark Twain quote and a stats sheet. I mean, I don't even care about Minecraft and I was mad about the ending.

Kymme

2012-08-09, 11:38 AM

:smallconfused:

Is the beautiful ending behind the grade-school level poetry? Or am I missing something? :smalltongue:

Really, it would have been vastly improved if all they stuck at the ending was that Mark Twain quote and a stats sheet. I mean, I don't even care about Minecraft and I was mad about the ending.
I fail to see how. But to each his own, I guess. Just felt like getting my opinion in.:smallwink:

TheLaughingMan

2012-08-09, 11:49 AM

I fail to see how. But to each his own, I guess. Just felt like getting my opinion in.:smallwink:

It was one of those endings that just up and rejects the "themes" of the game prior. Given how many possible ways one can play Minecraft (ranging from "survival horror" to "high fantasy" and everything in-between), having the ending turn into Philosophy 101/All Just a Really Tedious Dream was very, very jarring to many people. It might have worked had the rest of the game had anything to suggest some deeper meaning to anything, but no. It's like slapping the ending to Deus Ex on Kirby's Adventure: Could be the best ending ever, but not for this game.

That and it was shoddily written, but whatever. :smalltongue: You're not wrong for liking it, granted, but there are objective faults to the ending to keep in mind.

Serenity

2012-08-09, 02:58 PM

Actually I disagree... comparing the two games (FO3 and FO:NV) they both have strengths and weaknesses.

FO3 Pros:
More engrossing world
More fun in the beginning
Far FAR less railroading

FO:NV Pros:
Much more balanced, level wise
More detailed weapon and armor system
Better story

FO3 Cons:
Terribly unbalanced at higher levels
Second half of story suxxorz

FO:NV Cons:
A far more boring world
FAR too much railroading, especially in the beginning (especially frustrating if you jump into the game from either FO3 or Skyrim)
Too much too keep up with (OOps I forgot to buy armor-piercing ammo)

In short, if I could get NV mechanics in FO3 it would be perfect.

Anyway, the worst endings of games I have played:
Half-Life 2.
FO3.

More engrossing world? In New Vegas, companions have actual personality. There are several long conversations you can have which have nothing to do with any quest line, but just serve to develop the world and characters therein, notably Chief Hanlon's story about his proudest accomplishment as a Ranger. Not to mention the world actually makes sense and feels connected, as opposed to the nonsensical mish-mash of Fallout 3. (Seriously, Little Lamplight is an absurd enough premise already without putting Big Town on literally the other side of the Wasteland from it.) And the epilogue actually shows the outcome of your actions, truly makes it feel like the world has measurably changed even beyond the really big stuff.

As for railroading? There are no real choices whatsoever in the main plotline of Fallout 3. You have to join up with the Brotherhood, kick the Enclave out of Project Purity, and save the day. Technically, you can poison the water supply on Eden's behalf, but, A) this is Stupid Evil at it's finest, not just mindlessly genocidal, but actually suicidal, as Broken Steel bears out, B) it's a thoroughly poorly developed choice, which looks just like the regular choice, with the poisoning tacked on as an afterthought. New Vegas is *filled* with options for the finale, with 4 different leaders you can bring to power, 5 if you count Caesar and Lanius separately, each of which presents relatively distinct endgames.

dianakingston

2012-08-09, 03:24 PM

I'd say that Final Fantasy 13, while a good game in own own right, had a pretty terrible ending... But the Final Fantasy series will never end as long as Square Enix still breathes, so it doesn't count as series ending.

Then again, the games aren't sequential either, so it's not like there's one long narrative that eventually gets wrapped up. :)

Emmerask

2012-08-09, 03:36 PM

No contest, the winner is the Ultima series

wiimanclassic

2012-08-09, 04:20 PM

More engrossing world? In New Vegas, companions have actual personality. There are several long conversations you can have which have nothing to do with any quest line, but just serve to develop the world and characters therein, notably Chief Hanlon's story about his proudest accomplishment as a Ranger. Not to mention the world actually makes sense and feels connected, as opposed to the nonsensical mish-mash of Fallout 3. (Seriously, Little Lamplight is an absurd enough premise already without putting Big Town on literally the other side of the Wasteland from it.) And the epilogue actually shows the outcome of your actions, truly makes it feel like the world has measurably changed even beyond the really big stuff.

As for railroading? There are no real choices whatsoever in the main plotline of Fallout 3. You have to join up with the Brotherhood, kick the Enclave out of Project Purity, and save the day. Technically, you can poison the water supply on Eden's behalf, but, A) this is Stupid Evil at it's finest, not just mindlessly genocidal, but actually suicidal, as Broken Steel bears out, B) it's a thoroughly poorly developed choice, which looks just like the regular choice, with the poisoning tacked on as an afterthought. New Vegas is *filled* with options for the finale, with 4 different leaders you can bring to power, 5 if you count Caesar and Lanius separately, each of which presents relatively distinct endgames.
See, this guy gets it.

Leliel

2012-08-09, 04:24 PM

No contest, the winner is the Ultima series

Exactly.

To everyone who has ever complained about the very end of Mass Effect 3:

I will hunt you down, and force you to play through Ultima IX.

If you dare to claim ME3 has a worse ending after that...well, it's time to call in the therapist, because you are delusional.

Not that I blame you-Ultima IX will render anyone insane.

See: Spoony's (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/05/29/ultima-9-ascension/) Retrospective (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/07/09/ultima-9-ascension-part-2/).

Falgorn

2012-08-09, 05:38 PM

Exactly.

To everyone who has ever complained about the very end of Mass Effect 3:

I will hunt you down, and force you to play through Ultima IX.

If you dare to claim ME3 has a worse ending after that...well, it's time to call in the therapist, because you are delusional.

Not that I blame you-Ultima IX will render anyone insane.

See: Spoony's (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/05/29/ultima-9-ascension/) Retrospective (http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/07/09/ultima-9-ascension-part-2/).

The fact that the entire game is horrible, from minute one, isn't even the worst part. I came into the series as a latecomer (I was never raised on Ultima, too young), and I still thought Ultima IX was a massive disappointment. This was even after I had heard fan rage and read reviews (I figured it couldn't be that bad).
Imagine Mass Effect having three times as many games - all of them fun and engaging (arguably VIII, so I've heard - never played it). But then comes the conclusion, what it's all been building to and...nothing. The very beginning of the game has nothing to do with the urgent tone set by the last game, the whole game's plot, voice acting, gameplay, and other stuff is horrible. The complaints leveled at Mass Effect, Fallout 3/NV, or others, are miniscule compared to Ultima.

MCerberus

2012-08-09, 06:04 PM

dianakingston

2012-08-09, 06:52 PM

GloatingSwine

2012-08-09, 06:52 PM

I disagree with you. Fallout 3 was an amazing game. The leader of the Enclave is an idiotic robot who has been programmed to think all mutants should be wiped out and has decided anyone from outside the Vaults is a mutant.
The real leader, as in the one the actual members of the Enclave listen to, Autumn doesn't want to go through with the plan. :smallannoyed:

Fallout 3 was an OK game as long as, like every other Bethesda game, you ignored the main plot as hard as possible and just enjoyed the world.

And as long as you're reasonably low level so that all the enemies aren't giant bullet sponges yet.

Bethesda craft amazing worlds, they do not populate them with interesting stories or characters.

New Vegas was the better game, the world was arguably even better, since it was well matched to the theme of the game (civilisation coming to the frontier), it had more interesting dynamics between its factions, who were themselves more interesting, and the combat balance was streets better.

dianakingston

2012-08-09, 06:53 PM

Has anyone noticed yet the one thread tying the vast majority of these together?

edit- but let's bring this back to C&C4. Instead of just having massive continuity errors, what if Ultima 9 rewrote the entire history of the setting to where the big bad is suddenly the Prometheus figure for civilization, and he just wants to bring you along on his magic feel-good journey?

And then, of course, you don't actually get to see the magic feel-good journey. It's enough for you to know that the man who engineered four world wars and killed millions got what he wanted in the end, no matter what side you picked. :)

Triscuitable

2012-08-09, 07:10 PM

The Raiders ARE cannibal psychos. That's why they are RAIDERS. Otherwise they would be settlers, or some other kind of gang.
They make much more sense than Caesar's Legion; a poorly equipped, Always Lawful Evil army that somehow has conquered enormous ammounts land between The Pit and NCR, yet was never heard of before. Did I mention that they are poorly equipped? They are basically equipped on par with the citizens of Goodsprings, but with better armor.

Caesar was noted to be charismatic, and Ulysses makes note that the Legion will fall if you killed Caesar prior to going to The Divide. Besides, poor equipment doesn't equal a poor army. Correlation does not equal causation. They have numbers, and Caesar's voice got them numbers.

Does his best soldier fail him? Cover him in pitch and chuck him off the Hoover Dam. There is no room for failure.

Of course, the best mod to correct this issue is

See, this guy gets it.

Dude, chill, you're just trying to force your hate for Fallout 3 (which some people actually like) on others. Not cool. Just chill, and go scream at Bethesda's so called 'crappy game design' somewhere else.

wiimanclassic

2012-08-09, 07:18 PM

The Raiders ARE cannibal psychos. That's why they are RAIDERS. Otherwise they would be settlers, or some other kind of gang.
They make much more sense than Caesar's Legion; a poorly equipped, Always Lawful Evil army that somehow has conquered enormous ammounts land between The Pit and NCR, yet was never heard of before. Did I mention that they are poorly equipped? They are basically equipped on par with the citizens of Goodsprings, but with better armor.

You know the difference between a raider and a powder ganger? Nice clothes and explosives. The average powder ganger is no better then a raider, they just go somewhere, kill a few people if they don't just hand over money, food, or something else they want, and leave, or attack a trade caravan.

The Great Khans are raiders and they aren't cannibal psychos ether. Hell the Fiends are closer to what you apparently think a raider is and if you can get in their base they actually act pretty chill, and the ones that do attack actually have an excuse to just try and kill anyone, you know the massive amount of drugs they do.

bluewind95

2012-08-09, 07:24 PM

Zevox

2012-08-09, 08:02 PM

Golden Sun: Dark Dawn.

They introduced a whole bunch of things. The Mourning Moon. The other, smaller vortexes. The Tuaparang. Alex being probably Amiti's father. Isaac being in danger (possibly personally). Dark/Light psynergy. The need for the Roc's feather.

... and none of that is given any closure in the ending. It actually ends on a cliffhanger. If this is supposed to be a stand-alone game, then it was a horrible way to end it. Worse still than the first game, but in that one you knew they'd continue the story eventually.

I was considering bringing that one up myself, but it's pretty clear from the ending scene that they intended it to be continued in a sequel. If that sequel never gets made, however, yeah, it qualifies as a pretty bad one.

Zevox

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-10, 02:36 AM

More engrossing world? In New Vegas, companions have actual personality. T

---

As for railroading? There are no real choices whatsoever in the main plotline of Fallout 3. You have to join up with the Brotherhood, kick the Enclave out of Project Purity, and save the day.

See this is where we communicate past each other. I literally mean "world" as in "the world". I am not talking about companions, or NPCs. I am talking about the landscape, the map. FO3 looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. NV looks like a walk in the desert with weird animals. As I said I cannot really put a finger on it, it is just something with FO3's world design that makes it feel much more alive. Despite all the shortcomings compared to NV.

As for railroading: You are correct. IF you choose to do the main quest. Unlike in NV you are not pushed in any one direction. Just like in Skyrim, or Oblivion, you are released from the tutorial dungeon and then...? Do whatever you want, wherever you want.

You know the difference between a raider and a powder ganger? Nice clothes and explosives. The average powder ganger is no better then a raider, they just go somewhere, kill a few people if they don't just hand over money, food, or something else they want, and leave, or attack a trade caravan.

Um no. The Raiders are Psycho Cannibals. They are basically the Reavers from Firefly, but with less screaming. Mr Dog warns people on the radio all the time: Hide or Fight. Don't negotiate, because they will just murder you with your white flag.

Cespenar

2012-08-10, 03:50 AM

FO3 looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. NV looks like a walk in the desert with weird animals.

The way I saw it, FO3 is in "wasteland" status, while NV passed that to be in some kind of "recuperation" or "rebuilding" status. Taken strictly by themselves, both were workable premises, but since you also needed writers in a game, and given Bethesda's stance about that (don't hire any :smalltongue:), things went differently.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-10, 05:49 AM

The way I saw it, FO3 is in "wasteland" status, while NV passed that to be in some kind of "recuperation" or "rebuilding" status. Taken strictly by themselves, both were workable premises, but since you also needed writers in a game, and given Bethesda's stance about that (don't hire any :smalltongue:), things went differently.

Heh. Yeah...

I think what it is for me is that the landscape in NV do not generate a pull. I have no urge to "go see what that is over there!" that is VERY strong in FO3 and in Skyrim. Plus, it just feels smaller (the NV map).

Logic

2012-08-10, 06:31 AM

Heh. Yeah...

I think what it is for me is that the landscape in NV do not generate a pull. I have no urge to "go see what that is over there!" that is VERY strong in FO3 and in Skyrim. Plus, it just feels smaller (the NV map).

I thought it was bigger.

To me, there is no contest of the two recent/modern Fallout games is superior. New Vegas wins in every category except bug count. I think the story is better, it has MORE interesting characters, the Mojave is more interesting to explore than the Capital, mechanics are better (a benefit of being a newer game) MORE interesting guns, new perks, etc.

And I had played all of the previous Fallout games, including the X-Box/PS2 game Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. New Vegas just had a better atmosphere to me. It felt more like Fallout than FO3 did.

factotum

2012-08-10, 06:33 AM

I think it *is* smaller, but I definitely got the exploration vibe from it. Oddly, I never really got that from FO3. Weird how our viewpoints are so diametrically opposed on these games, ain't it?

[EDIT] Actually, thinking about it, I think I can lock down why we're seeing the games differently. I don't like being uncertain of what to do next in a game; in a sandbox game I need to set myself clear objectives to be able to enjoy myself. FO3 dumped you in the middle of the wasteland with no clear idea of what you were supposed to be doing, and once you *do* find yourself on the main plotline, it's frankly a bit dull. You can't really set yourself objectives beyond "Do all the quests you can find in Megaton", either. NV gives you a much clearer objective at the beginning, and the overall story is much more fun to follow--by the time the world opens out and gives you some real choices to make, you're several hours into the game and it doesn't matter so much.

Same thing happened with Skyrim, actually--it's a goodly while into the game before you get a real choice about what to do (apart from the "do I follow the Stormcloaks or the Imperials to escape the dragon?" question). I find that a much better system than a game where I'm spinning my wheels unsure what to do at the beginning.

Tengu_temp

2012-08-10, 09:37 AM

Hey people, try to keep it on topic, okay?

Grif

2012-08-10, 10:19 AM

Worst ending?

Simcity. All of them.

All you get is a game over screen. :smalltongue:

Dublock

2012-08-10, 10:24 AM

Worst ending?

Simcity. All of them.

All you get is a game over screen. :smalltongue:

Well with that logic, Civ is bad too...

All I EVER get is "Wait one more turn..." followed by the loss of ~10 more hours :P

Mono Vertigo

2012-08-10, 10:25 AM

"Your fortress has crumbled to its end."
Honestly though, what precedes it immediately is often epic (in the proper sense) or hilarious.

wiimanclassic

2012-08-10, 10:41 AM

See this is where we communicate past each other. I literally mean "world" as in "the world". I am not talking about companions, or NPCs. I am talking about the landscape, the map. FO3 looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. NV looks like a walk in the desert with weird animals. As I said I cannot really put a finger on it, it is just something with FO3's world design that makes it feel much more alive. Despite all the shortcomings compared to NV.

As for railroading: You are correct. IF you choose to do the main quest. Unlike in NV you are not pushed in any one direction. Just like in Skyrim, or Oblivion, you are released from the tutorial dungeon and then...? Do whatever you want, wherever you want.

Um no. The Raiders are Psycho Cannibals. They are basically the Reavers from Firefly, but with less screaming. Mr Dog warns people on the radio all the time: Hide or Fight. Don't negotiate, because they will just murder you with your white flag.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Raiders
Educate yourself please.

GloatingSwine

2012-08-10, 12:14 PM

They make much more sense than Caesar's Legion; a poorly equipped, Always Lawful Evil army that somehow has conquered enormous ammounts land between The Pit and NCR, yet was never heard of before. Did I mention that they are poorly equipped? They are basically equipped on par with the citizens of Goodsprings, but with better armor.

Caesar's Legion aren't actually that poorly equipped, the chump legionaries might be, but anyone who matters a damn usually has a reasonable gun, brush guns, marksman carbines, etc. They just don't use energy weapons or power armour (and NCR don't either, their power armour actually doesn't work. Weapons that do bonus damage to robots/power armour don't get the bonus to NCR power armour because it's not powered). They've also got serious numbers on their side.

As for railroady? Really? NV is, from an OBJECTIVE standpoint FAR more railroady. You have to go North, or get eaten. If you are insisting on not following the main quest you can try to get past everything to the northwest without interacting with it, until you get where you want, but seriously? NV is a good game, but you can tell that it is not made by Bethesday because you are forced forward, along the main quest.

It's railroaded except where it totally isn't and you can go wherever you like, as long as you're smart enough to stay away from things that can eat you, right....

GloatingSwine

2012-08-10, 12:18 PM

See this is where we communicate past each other. I literally mean "world" as in "the world". I am not talking about companions, or NPCs. I am talking about the landscape, the map. FO3 looks like a post-apocalyptic wasteland. NV looks like a walk in the desert with weird animals. As I said I cannot really put a finger on it, it is just something with FO3's world design that makes it feel much more alive. Despite all the shortcomings compared to NV.

Ironically, this is a point against Fallout 3. It simply doesn't match up with the time that is supposed to have passed since the bombs fell. The west coast is back up and running within decades (Vault City is founded 14 years after the war), but the east coast is still four guys and a million supermutants after two hundred years.

Fallout New Vegas is a much more believable part of the Fallout setting than Fallout 3.

Tavar

2012-08-10, 12:23 PM

Cespenar

2012-08-10, 12:45 PM

Hey people, try to keep it on topic, okay?

The path was destined the moment there was the word "worst" in the thread name. :smalltongue:

wiimanclassic

2012-08-10, 02:48 PM

Isn't the East Coast, especially Washington DC, supposed to have been hit by numerous nuclear weapons? That might account for some of the length of time, as the worse starting point slows everything down?

You have a point and would be right if this were closer to when the bombs dropped. Trouble is the amount of time since they dropped just makes EVERYONE in the Capital Wasteland look unable to actually advance at all beyond a few small towns with nothing to sustain them at all.

Triscuitable

2012-08-10, 03:04 PM

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Raiders
Educate yourself please.

Once again, East Coast has significantly different history and development. West Coast Raiders are not East Coast Raiders.

Isn't the East Coast, especially Washington DC, supposed to have been hit by numerous nuclear weapons? That might account for some of the length of time, as the worse starting point slows everything down?

Yup. DC was hit extremely hard, and is practically uninhabitable. Save of course, those who inhabit it.

You have a point and would be right if this were closer to when the bombs dropped. Trouble is the amount of time since they dropped just makes EVERYONE in the Capital Wasteland look unable to actually advance at all beyond a few small towns with nothing to sustain them at all.

With a nearby major city having been nuked into oblivion, and with DC a smoldering pile of ashes and rads, it makes sense supplies would be hard to come by over the course of 200 years.

Logic

2012-08-10, 08:20 PM

Once again, East Coast has significantly different history and development. West Coast Raiders are not East Coast Raiders.
The Fiends, for all intents and purposes, are basically the same as the basic Raiders of the capital wasteland. The primary difference (aside from headgear) is that the developers took the time to make sure the player knows for a fact that fiends are chem-addicted junkies. The raiders from the capital wasteland seem to be more sadistic than their west coast counterparts, but I think that is because there are many sub-factions of raiders in the Mojave, and some are more civilized (Civilized raiders?! Almost ironic.) than the other factions.

Though the raiders of the East coast are not definitively cannibals, it is extremely likely. Many raider "camps" have human flesh within.

NOTE: I have not played FO3 since shortly after Mothership ZETA was released. So it is entirely possible my statements are wrong, based on misremembered facts.

Maxios

2012-08-10, 08:44 PM

Look, can we all just drop this argument? Everyone has a different opinion. In the big scheme of things, does it matter if you won a debate over which fallout was better on the internet? Just...just go play with your pets or tell your parents you love them or something

Triscuitable

2012-08-10, 09:29 PM

bluewind95

2012-08-11, 01:05 PM

I was considering bringing that one up myself, but it's pretty clear from the ending scene that they intended it to be continued in a sequel. If that sequel never gets made, however, yeah, it qualifies as a pretty bad one.

Zevox

From what I hear, they intended it as a "stand-alone" game. They might make a sequel, apparently, if people demand one enough. But other than that... there's apparently no plans to continue it.

MCerberus

2012-08-11, 02:19 PM

Speaking of game purgatory, Beyond Good and Evil ends with a cliffhanger after the credits and...

Well let's be honest the sequel has been Duke Nukem'd

ZeroNumerous

2012-08-11, 02:53 PM

Well let's be honest the sequel has been Duke Nukem'd

So it'll come out 14 years later and ultimately be extremely disappointing?

MCerberus

2012-08-11, 03:25 PM

So it'll come out 14 years later and ultimately be extremely disappointing?

Only if Rayman sells well!
(seriously if you don't know, Ubisoft has a habit of holding the sequel hostage saying money from other games is what will make the difference)

Triscuitable

2012-08-11, 11:40 PM

Ubisoft also has the awful habit of releasing their own games to compete with each other. Rayman: Origins not only launched the same day as MW3 (not Ubisoft, but c'mon, that's just dumb), but also had to fight for sales with Assassin's Creed: Revelations, which was just a few months old at that point.

But Q4 of 2003?

Come (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Splinter_Cell_(video_game)) on (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_%26_Evil_(video_game)) you guys. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Persia:_The_Sands_of_Time) (Splinter Cell was a 2003 GameCube release. And a big one, at that).

factotum

2012-08-12, 01:25 AM

but also had to fight for sales with Assassin's Creed: Revelations, which was just a few months old at that point.

So you're suggesting Ubisoft should only release one game a year or something like that? :smallconfused:

VanBuren

2012-08-12, 01:37 AM

So you're suggesting Ubisoft should only release one game a year or something like that? :smallconfused:

No. Just be smarter about its releases. You don't release a relatively low-key title right up against one of your biggest block-busters where it is inevitably going to be crushed.

Othesemo

2012-08-12, 01:52 AM

The one that you never heard about.

Because, really, any publicity is better than none at all.

Dublock

2012-08-12, 06:11 AM

So you're suggesting Ubisoft should only release one game a year or something like that? :smallconfused:

Something like what Blizzard did this year, May is D3, Sep is MoP and Ideally Heart of the swarm is Nov/Dec.

Triscuitable

2012-08-13, 01:10 AM

So you're suggesting Ubisoft should only release one game a year or something like that? :smallconfused:

No, I'm saying Ubisoft shouldn't stupid and put it's own games against each other during the busiest time of the year.

factotum

2012-08-13, 01:23 AM

No, I'm saying Ubisoft shouldn't stupid and put it's own games against each other during the busiest time of the year.

Which means at least *one* of the games they would have put out has to go out at a less busy time of the year when it's going to sell less anyway...

I can't help but think that Ubisoft actually know a lot more about the prevailing market conditions at any time than we do, and thus might have a good reason for releasing two games that close together.

VanBuren

2012-08-13, 01:52 AM

Which means at least *one* of the games they would have put out has to go out at a less busy time of the year when it's going to sell less anyway...

I can't help but think that Ubisoft actually know a lot more about the prevailing market conditions at any time than we do, and thus might have a good reason for releasing two games that close together.

Like not wanting it to sell, apparently.

Triscuitable

2012-08-13, 02:33 AM

Splinter Cell was huge when it launched in 2002. When it was revealed that the GameCube, which was easily the most powerful console of the generation was getting a port the next year, the fandom exploded.

Then they launched it alongside PoP: Sands of Time, and Beyond Good & Evil. Two of the most popular platformers ever launched alongside a big-name enhanced port of a bestselling game.

BG&E is basically a cult hit nowadays. I got my copy out of a cereal box (not joking). Those three titles hitting so close did that much damage, that the only IP to truly recover was Splinter Cell. Prince of Persia has held up, but not nearly as well as Splinter Cell.

The star power of Tom Clancy helps, too.

Logic

2012-08-13, 03:11 AM

Splinter Cell was huge when it launched in 2002. When it was revealed that the GameCube, which was easily the most powerful console of the generation was getting a port the next year, the fandom exploded.
I'm quite certain this isn't the case. Gamecube games might have run more smoothly as a rule, but usually they looked much worse than their Xbox and PS2 counterparts.

Triscuitable

2012-08-13, 03:20 AM

I'm quite certain this isn't the case. Gamecube games might have run more smoothly as a rule, but usually they looked much worse than their Xbox and PS2 counterparts.

Looking at it now, here's what I've found:

The Gamecube is graphically superior as it runs at a lower resolution than the Xbox (640x480 in comparison to the Xbox's 1280x720).
The Xbox looks better because of that higher resolution. However, it has a slightly weaker GPU, so it sacrifices graphical quality for a higher resolution. Games like Doom 3 had a slightly lower resolution (like Halo 3) to allow for all the amazing effects going on.
The PS2 was an easier platform to develop on. It didn't require DirectX8 support, and wouldn't have to compress the file sizes to fit on the GameCube's minidiscs.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-13, 05:08 AM

Looking at it now, here's what I've found:

The Gamecube is graphically superior as it runs at a lower resolution than the Xbox (640x480 in comparison to the Xbox's 1280x720).
The Xbox looks better because of that higher resolution. However, it has a slightly weaker GPU, so it sacrifices graphical quality for a higher resolution. Games like Doom 3 had a slightly lower resolution (like Halo 3) to allow for all the amazing effects going on.
The PS2 was an easier platform to develop on. It didn't require DirectX8 support, and wouldn't have to compress the file sizes to fit on the GameCube's minidiscs.

You know, I honestly forgot that there was a non-360 Xbox.

DigoDragon

2012-08-13, 07:11 AM

I personally didn't like the lack of an artistic ending for NWN's "Hordes of the Underdark". With NWN's main campaign and with the "Shadows of Undrentide" expansion, you got a neat cut-scene video for the ending that contained some beautiful artwork and a deep-voiced foreshadowing narration.
With Hordes, it had no cut scene and no narration. Just showed the (somewhat) blocky ingame characters and listed what became of them. And sometimes that can get glitchy (I saw one character fall and die during that. Hilarious).

So yeah. I felt the ending was rushed and lacked the artistic satisfaction of the rest of the series.

Starscream

2012-08-13, 03:08 PM

Count me as another vote for Ultima.

Also, Star Control. First game was great fun. Second was a masterpiece (really the Mass Effect of its day, in more ways than one). Third one didn't even involve the series creators, and BLEW.

Psyren

2012-08-13, 03:19 PM

No. Just be smarter about its releases. You don't release a relatively low-key title right up against one of your biggest block-busters where it is inevitably going to be crushed.

To be fair, I wouldn't expect a lot of overlap between Rayman and Assassins' Creed fans. (Especially not if the parents are doing their jobs.)

Also, I think it's a bit premature to put ME on this pile. Do we really think it's all over?

Philistine

2012-08-13, 03:37 PM

Yes. Yes we do.

Dublock

2012-08-13, 03:51 PM

Also, I think it's a bit premature to put ME on this pile. Do we really think it's all over?

Of John Shepard? Yes I really do think it is over (besides DLC).

Of the universe itself in terms of other games based on other events/characters? Nope.

Triscuitable

2012-08-13, 04:08 PM

MCerberus

2012-08-13, 04:35 PM

I think people should just grow up and realize Mass Effect 3 as a game is the entire ending. The conclusion is just another difficult choice, but it's the end of an ending. People got prissy and made BioWare cave in, which is as shameful as it is frustrating.

What if you were on a nice date then, at the end, you just get punched in the face. ME3 is the game plot version of this.

ZeroNumerous

2012-08-13, 04:42 PM

What if you were on a nice date then, at the end, you just get punched in the face. ME3 is the game plot version of this.

It's really more like you go on a nice date, have a great time, then at the end the other person reveals they were never interested in you and was just jerking you around to see how you reacted. Then busted up your car and rode away into the sunset.

Logic

2012-08-13, 05:45 PM

It's really more like you go on a nice date, have a great time, then at the end the other person reveals they were never interested in you and was just jerking you around to see how you reacted. Then busted up your car and rode away into the sunset.

That's extreme. It's more like you went on a nice date and instead of kissing you at the end, like you expected, they licked your eyeballs. And then when you got wierded out by it, they said "Artistic integrity!" at the top of their lungs. Some people would demand a real kiss. Some wouldn't mind their eyeballs licked. But this eye-ball licking person licked enough eyeballs to realize that their idea of a good conclusion to a date isn't everyone's. So they end the next date with a peck on the cheek.

Falgorn

2012-08-13, 06:40 PM

What if you were on a nice date then, at the end, you just get punched in the face. ME3 is the game plot version of this.

Then what's Ultima? You go on a nice date, and then, at the end, your date vomits all over you and your car, hits you upside the head with a crowbar, and cackles madly as he/she sprints away with your wallet?

VanBuren

2012-08-13, 08:25 PM

It's really more like you go on a nice date, have a great time, then at the end the other person reveals they were never interested in you and was just jerking you around to see how you reacted. Then busted up your car and rode away into the sunset.

No it's definitely more like at the end of the date the other person murders everyone you ever cared about, set your house on fire, kicked a puppy, and flipped off a box of kittens.

And didn't even tip the waitress either.

...

That or it turned out they still live with their parents. Whichever is more appropriate.

MCerberus

2012-08-13, 08:29 PM

Then what's Ultima? You go on a nice date, and then, at the end, your date vomits all over you and your car, hits you upside the head with a crowbar, and cackles madly as he/she sprints away with your wallet?

And C&C4 would be like that terrible date, only then your date hops in a time machine to ruin every good moment in your life to that point.

Sanguine

2012-08-13, 11:28 PM

Then what's Ultima? You go on a nice date, and then, at the end, your date vomits all over you and your car, hits you upside the head with a crowbar, and cackles madly as he/she sprints away with your wallet?

From reading this thread it is my understanding that a more proper analogy would be. You're dating this absolutely wonderful man/woman they are perfect in every way and you've had a great relationship for years. You decide to take them out on this big romantic date and pop the question. But as soon as the date starts what you posted happens and the date only gets worse after that.

But then extended metaphors about games I've never played isn't exactly my forte so I might just be spouting nonsense.

Triscuitable

2012-08-13, 11:29 PM

What if you were on a nice date then, at the end, you just get punched in the face. ME3 is the game plot version of this.

Uh, no. Not even remotely. It's a good game with an excellent plot that just so happens to have linear choices. Go play Mass Effect again. Those choices are actually the illusion of choice. Same goes for Mass Effect 2. These still have role playing elements, but in the end, the story is just as linear as before.

Oh look, Legion died. So he's replaced by a completely generic Geth instead who does the exact same thing.

Oh look, Mordin died. So he's replaced by a completely generic Geth instead who does the exact same thing.

Oh look, you chose to romance X character. Does this effect the plot in any way? No.

What about killing X major character? Well he's not going to show up even if you spare him.

What about letting Anderson become a councilor instead of Udina? Well Udina'll be a councilor either way, so tough crap.

All the fans of the series think they were entitled (spoiler: they weren't) to a conclusion to the series. BioWare gave you guys a conclusion. Was it the most satisfactory? No. Was it hyped to high hell? Yes. Was it better than most game endings either way? Yes.

Let's look at the plot of Fallout 3, another role playing game with huge choices that affect the plot. Absolutely fantastic game with a godawful (original) ending that the developers changed in the DLC since people couldn't stop whining over it. Spoiler: in the end, you die. THAT is a crappy ending.

In Mass Effect 3, Shepard has three huge choices he has not been prepared for that he must decide between. Only one will truly result in him surviving, but they all show you what happens as a consequence of your decision.

At least BioWare gave you a choice. But you guys didn't recognize that this, as a conclusion to a trilogy, was an ending in itself. The entire game is a conclusion to the series, and is thus, an ending. Did your choices in the last two games affect this ending? Yes, they did. Not significantly, but they did.

Thus, Mass Effect 3 had a good ending. Please stop complaining now, because I'm bloody freaking sick of it.

Cespenar

2012-08-14, 12:00 AM

Thus, Mass Effect 3 had a good ending. Please stop complaining now, because I'm bloody freaking sick of it.

I'll drink to your bravado, good sir. Behind this flame-proof wall, of course.

Scowling Dragon

2012-08-14, 12:11 AM

Triscuitable

2012-08-14, 12:58 AM

I'll drink to your bravado, good sir. Behind this flame-proof wall, of course.

I've gotten all of my anger towards ungrateful fans out. I'm cool now.

factotum

2012-08-14, 01:28 AM

Oh look, Legion died. So he's replaced by a completely generic Geth instead who does the exact same thing.

Oh look, Mordin died. So he's replaced by a completely generic Geth instead who does the exact same thing.

Neither of those happen in Mass Effect 2 that I remember. If they happen in ME3 then it only reinforces the notion that it's a subpar ending to a great series.

Triscuitable

2012-08-14, 01:36 AM

Neither of those happen in Mass Effect 2 that I remember. If they happen in ME3 then it only reinforces the notion that it's a subpar ending to a great series.

They can die in Mass Effect 2, if you either let them or screw up.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-14, 01:41 AM

I've gotten all of my anger towards ungrateful fans out. I'm cool now.

Hey, what irritated me the most was 1: The badly cut and explained elements (teleporting squadmates, no epilogues etc) and 2: the PROCESS they (Bioware) used to get where they are. I am no stranger to bad endings, but these things irritated me to no end.

Oh and so does the word "ungrateful" in this aspect. I admit, I sometimes read No Mutant Allowed just to have a laugh at those who still cannot let go of the "hideous Crime" that is Fallout 3. But they are entitled to their views and fundamentalistic ideas (not talking religion here, but stances such as "RPGs can only be played Turn Based and Top Down in 2D").

A lot of us expected Bioware to go above and beyond the call of duty on this one. To truly excel at their craft because they wanted to truly impress and awe their fans, customers and reviewers. Instead the community cannot decide if they half-assed it, got too artsy-fartsy for their own good (my personal theory) or if this truly is the top of their writer potential, which would be really really sad.

VanBuren

2012-08-14, 02:34 AM

Neither of those happen in Mass Effect 2 that I remember. If they happen in ME3 then it only reinforces the notion that it's a subpar ending to a great series.

Oh fine. If you kill Wrex he gets replaced by Wreav who does the same thing.

No matter who the VS is they will do the exact same thing when you meet them on Horizon.

No matter who you put on the Council, the scene with Anderson will play out on the Citadel, etc.

No choice, just the illusion of. Same as always.

GloatingSwine

2012-08-14, 02:53 AM

Looking at it now, here's what I've found:

The Gamecube is graphically superior as it runs at a lower resolution than the Xbox (640x480 in comparison to the Xbox's 1280x720).

Very few original Xbox games could run at 720p (only about 10 or so). Most ran at 480i/p the same as the Gamecube.

The Xbox looks better because of that higher resolution. However, it has a slightly weaker GPU, so it sacrifices graphical quality for a higher resolution. Games like Doom 3 had a slightly lower resolution (like Halo 3) to allow for all the amazing effects going on

The original Xbox' GPU was significantly more powerful than that of the Gamecube, boasting about 50% extra polygon operations per second and fill rate than the Gamecube.

The very best looking original xbox games pushed the edge of the first current gen games in terms of performance (like Dead or Alive 2 Ultimate), and it's rare even for Wii games to match some of the original xbox's best graphically. Partly this is because of the lack of pixel shaders in hardware in the Wii GPU, effects like reflectivity on water that can be done in hardware on the Xbox have to be done expensively in software on the Wii.

tomaO2

2012-08-14, 03:43 AM

Aotrs Commander

2012-08-14, 04:11 AM

Thus, Mass Effect 3 had a good ending. Please stop complaining now, because I'm bloody freaking sick of it.

With due respect, Tricuitable: but, sorry, no. At least not in a thread dedicated to the topic of bad endings (e.g. this and the ME story thread).

I LOATHED the original ending to Mass Effect 3 with the white-cold anti-fire of a thousand frozen suns - I hated every single aspect of it from it's concept and themes to it's execution, and I consider the DLC, while better, to be merely an exercise in polished the dung that it was. It was by far the worst ending to any game I have ever played, in my opinion, and that is opinion unlikely to change. No other game has made me so angry at the writers, so thoroughly smacked me right out from my immersion, as suddenly and sharply, as the ending to ME 3 did. Rare as it is for me to quote a Klingon (but stopped clocks and all that...) but I think Chancellor Gowron said it best " And this we do not forgive...or forget!"

So it's not something I am going to let drop anymore than I'm going to let the only-marginally better "ending" (hah!) to C&C4 drop, or the ending to NWN2 rocks-fall-everybody-dies drop, or if I ever actually bother to complete Fallout 3 - likely the ending to that too. Or for that matter, Supreme Commander 2, but that game was so banal I never got very far into it, so I can't comment on it's ending...

I can't work any steam over Ulimata, I'm afraid, since after watching Spooney's retrospectives, the games don't look especially appealing to me anyway; though I'll grant you Ultima is probably a strong contender for worst overall game ending a franchase. (Part of my ME3 gets the stick is that they were perfectly capable of doing better and had done so.)

Triscuitable

2012-08-14, 04:17 AM

Aotrs Commander

2012-08-14, 04:57 AM

The best words to describe this thread:

You're complaining about people complaining in a thread whose topic was to complain.

What were you expecting?

Also, the tone of that post is getting towards somewhat uncivil. We're here to shout at (or at least gripe about) bad game designers, not other posters. If you don't want to indulge in the former, fine, I don't suppose for a moment anyone minds, but please do not try to tell us what we should be doing.

factotum

2012-08-14, 05:57 AM

After watching Spoony's retrospective I have no idea why people complain about Ultima IX's ending. Spoony spends an hour and a half complaining about the game and the ending gets like 1% of that rant. He's not even ranting about the ending.

The thread is titled "Worst SERIES ending in gaming", not "Worst GAME ending". Ultima IX was a truly awful game that capped off a series containing some of the best RPGs for their time, I think it qualifies!

This entire established conversation is pointless, because it all boils down to a pointless argument, and one man's opinion.

It's a thread about the worst series ending in gaming. How is it ever going to be anything other than an opinion? Good or bad in terms of storyline are purely subjective things. No doubt there are actually people out there who enjoyed playing Ultima IX (no, don't shout at them, they only deserve your pity :smallsmile:).

For that matter, if threads containing personal opinions are suddenly bad things, that's 99% of these forums gone for a start...

DigoDragon

2012-08-14, 07:05 AM

Also, Star Control. First game was great fun. Second was a masterpiece (really the Mass Effect of its day, in more ways than one). Third one didn't even involve the series creators, and BLEW.

I agree. SC3 had an ok concept, but poor execution. I think in particular was the direction they took with the art depictions of the aliens. They looked like weird rubber puppets to me.
I would have loved instead to deal more with the Orz. Those things were interesting.

Mass Effect Ending

I think what specifically bothered me about ME3's ending was that "star child"/Deus Ex Machina thing at the end that gives you the 3 choices to pick from. I never really got that, it seemed liked it didn't belong.
The choices in of themselves seemed okay and I can live with how they play out, but I just don't get that 'thing' which offers you the choices. I believe if I were to write it, I'd have the alliance/council rig the citadel themselves to do the choice action, thereby it would seem to make more sense when the whole network shorts/explodes as they overload it to stop the Reapers.
And thus it feels right as the Reapers are defeated by their own devices.

But that's just my thought on it.

Eldan

2012-08-14, 07:12 AM

The Myst series ended with "Oh, and the last four games never happened". I think that should count for something.

Psyren

2012-08-14, 09:49 AM

Yes. Yes we do.

Well I suppose it can be for individuals who choose not to acknowledge any more installments. I'll still be buying/discussing the games though. :smallwink:

Falgorn

2012-08-14, 10:03 AM

After watching Spoony's retrospective I have no idea why people complain about Ultima IX's ending. Spoony spends an hour and a half complaining about the game and the ending gets like 1% of that rant. He's not even ranting about the ending.

The topic here isn't "the worst game of all time". It's the "worst ending". No one is complaining about the ENDING of Ultima IX, if anything, it seems like it's a relief to finally get there.

Plus, I don't see why people are singing the praises of the series. Looks like only 4 and 5 really ran with the whole virtue thing. The first 3 games were lousy. Number 8 had you be pretty much totally evil. Honestly, it doesn't sound like a very fun series overall.

Number 7 skips you 200 years in the future and all your companions are still alive? What's that about? The continunity seems pretty loose and not really building to anything in particular. The whole gargoyle plot in 6 seems to get skipped in the later episodes with little mention. Plot holes open up the further you go along...

The only one I have played is Ultima 4 (for the NES, I had no idea the graphic improvement it made over the PC version) but reading the reviews of all of them doesn't make me interested in trying the rest of the series. Maybe number 5.

You're saying that a series isn't good whem you've only played one of the games. I, II, & (maybe) III were pretty basic, but that was for the time period. And, at least to me, every ge after was a blast, a whole lotta fun. Ultima 9 ruined everything good about the series. Eight was bad (apparently, never played, but its getting some hate), but it seems like it at least has consistent themes. Or, themes at all. Which Ultima IX lacks.

Also, I can understand gripes at the Mass Effect ending (Deus Ex Machina, all that), but I think it's just a little bit of shoddy writing. I'd say it was bad, but it's no C&C 4 or Half Life 2.

Cespenar

2012-08-14, 10:26 AM

I'd say it was bad, but it's no C&C 4 or Half Life 2.

Suddenly, a new argument! :smalltongue:

Aotrs Commander

2012-08-14, 10:41 AM

Hey, what about Xenon 2? I mean, you got all the way through that monstrousity, killed everything, and your ultimate reward was a short cutscene of the alien that ran the shop saying "that's it. Don't forget to turn your set off." *screen blank*

That was pretty awful, and they never made a Xenon 3, did they, despite Xenon's 2's success.

...

...

What do you all mean, "what's Xenon 2?"

I mean, really, it was only the best shoot-'em up of the... late nineteen eighties...

It had a really cool intro music and everything...

...

I'll get me cloak.

Philistine

2012-08-14, 10:59 AM

The best words to describe this thread:

This entire established conversation is pointless, because it all boils down to a pointless argument, and one man's opinion. Sure, you might share your opinion with others, but all this is going to do is degenerate into a flame war, and thus, help nobody. It's just a pointless and frustrating argument.
So let me make sure I have this correct: in your mind, the proper way to conduct yourself a discussion is to stomp into an ongoing conversation, deliberately insult everyone who disagrees with you, and then scream that the entire discussion is pointless and everybody just needs to shut up? Because I really don't think that's going to work very well for you.

Well I suppose it can be for individuals who choose not to acknowledge any more installments. I'll still be buying/discussing the games though. :smallwink:
Actually, I'm saying I think there's a good chance that the series will actually end when they get done squeezing out DLC for ME3. They've fractured their fanbase badly enough that the expected preorder market for future games is going to be significantly smaller - and you may have noticed that EA/BioWare's last few releases haven't had great ongoing sales after the preorder rush cleared. At this point, I think it all comes down to DA3. If they can resuscitate that franchise after DA2 (which is likewise going to depend on getting good word of mouth to generate ongoing sales, a la DA:O), then they may try it with ME. Otherwise, we might see some facebook and/or portable minigames in the setting, but probably not another AAA title.

Falgorn

2012-08-14, 11:00 AM

Suddenly, a new argument! :smalltongue:

Oh, I thought this was brought up already. Half Life 2: Episode 2's ending is definitely...not good. If HL3 was guaranteed, it would be a fine ending. As of now, it's VaporWare, so...no. I'm disappointed.

Forbiddenwar

2012-08-14, 11:05 AM

Gentleman, I give you Prince of Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Persia_%282008_video_game%29)

The Princess dies and her father destroys the world to bring her back to life. So, you spend the whole game putting a world back together, and the princess dies again. What does the game force you to do then? Spend the last five minutes of the the game undoing everything you just did, and destroy the world to bring her back to life. (I'm sure she'll really appreciate you acting just like her father, hurr, hurr). This isn't a cut scene. You can Either turn off the game while playing it, or do this. :smallfurious:

First game I ever played that actually had a better story if you quit in the middle of it.

Sadly, this was the first game in the prince of persia series I played, and I had to be bribed to play Sands of Time, which was good, but not good enough to erase this crime of a game from my mind. I don't think I'll be playing any other Prince of Persia game.

Slightly off topic, since it wasn't a series, but Quantum Conondrum had a terrible and similar ending. Clearly they were trying for a sequel, but I feel if you can't get the ending right on one game, why would anyone want to fund or purchase a sequel? Don't people have to actually enjoy the game, before you start making a sequel? Or is this just crazy talk?

Tebryn

2012-08-14, 11:21 AM

All the fans of the series think they were entitled (spoiler: they weren't) to a conclusion to the series. BioWare gave you guys a conclusion. Was it the most satisfactory? No. Was it hyped to high hell? Yes. Was it better than most game endings either way? Yes.

So when you go to a restaurant and pay for a meal, are you happy when it comes out not your order and freezing cold/uncooked? Or when you buy a car are you happy when you get a Ford Pinto without an engine block?

When you pay 50 bucks per game, three games in, you are not at all in the wrong in expecting what you paid for. Being upset is totally acceptable when the game where "All your choices matter" was one of the big catch phrases and selling points...and you don't get it.

Why is it video games where spending money isn't the same as the restaurant or anything else you're paying for? It's not like you're borrowing the video game. It's not like the video game is made just for the creators pleasure. It's an exchange. We pay the game makers. They make games people want. That's the transaction. When you hype a game up to wrap up a series and be the Conclusion and you don't get it you are in the right to be upset if you don't get what you expected you'd get when you paid for it. I wouldn't have bought the game if I knew it wasn't what it was advertised as. I spent 70 bucks on. That's wasted money.

MCerberus

2012-08-14, 11:53 AM

I will say that the argument can be made that the reaction to ME3 was overblown and does not serve as a way to detach gamers from some of the bad parts of the public image, but I will never say the complaints were without merit.

For one, the reaction to it is surprisingly deep as to why it was a spectacular failure. Then there was the artistic integrity discussion where it was generally agreed to that Bioware... kind of had legs to stand on there, but it means they failed their vision by not delivering. Then things shifted to the rumor that things went south because of a lack of editorial procedures causing consistency errors.

For some context on all of this, Sherlock Holmes was killed off in a novel. The author received some death threats for this. I've personally seen the ME3 outrage range from 'I will not patronize your business' to the use of cupcakes as a satirical barb.

You are entitled to you opinion, Trisc, but mine is that this is a media (gaming isn't just one medium) still growing, the missteps ought to be documented and discussed, and ME3 belongs in this discussion.

VanBuren

2012-08-14, 01:09 PM

So let me make sure I have this correct: in your mind, the proper way to conduct yourself a discussion is to stomp into an ongoing conversation, deliberately insult everyone who disagrees with you, and then scream that the entire discussion is pointless and everybody just needs to shut up? Because I really don't think that's going to work very well for you.

Yeah. On this forum, you're only allowed to do that when one person disagrees with the group consensus.

The Myst series ended with "Oh, and the last four games never happened". I think that should count for something.

That bugged the hell out of me.

For those wondering, Myst 1-4 took place in the past (though you wouldn't have known it from Myst) and the last two took place in present day. Word of God is that only the last two "actually" happened, and that the first four games are just fictionalized accounts based on the history that the modern researchers were able to piece together.

This was done exclusively so they could retcon the concept of a Trap book*.

*The big conceit of Myst is that the major race of the game, the D'ni, had the ability to write books with the power to link to other world (called Ages). A Trap Book was written in such a way that it appeared to link to one Age, but really trapped you in the void between Ages. Atrus--the guy you end up helping--wrote at least three. His sons are trapped in two of them and you get to speak to them through the link. You trap his father in another--Atrus is pretty much the only non-monster in his family for a long time--but because it's designed to look like a regular book, the linking page just shows a panorama of the world it "leads" to.

ANYWAY. With Myst 4, they decided to retcon that. So now Trap Books are simply Prison Ages. Meaning they link to an Age, but there aren't any books linking back. And because of how linking works, if they tried to write a brand new book to create a link back home, they'd likely link instead to one of a thousand near-identical ones and never get home.

Psyren

2012-08-14, 01:30 PM

Gentleman, I give you Prince of Persia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_of_Persia_%282008_video_game%29)

The Princess dies and her father destroys the world to bring her back to life. So, you spend the whole game putting a world back together, and the princess dies again. What does the game force you to do then? Spend the last five minutes of the the game undoing everything you just did, and destroy the world to bring her back to life. (I'm sure she'll really appreciate you acting just like her father, hurr, hurr). This isn't a cut scene. You can Either turn off the game while playing it, or do this. :smallfurious:

First game I ever played that actually had a better story if you quit in the middle of it.

Sadly, this was the first game in the prince of persia series I played, and I had to be bribed to play Sands of Time, which was good, but not good enough to erase this crime of a game from my mind. I don't think I'll be playing any other Prince of Persia game.

Yeah, it was pretty bad. It's unfortunate because I really liked Elika, and I definitely liked this game better than Forgotten Sands. The puzzles were great too; some of the longer parkour sequences were awe-inspiring, and I went back to get 100% completion on the little balls of light.

I think they were going for some kind of sequel hook with the reset button there. The problem was that it didn't do very well commercially so they likely axed this entire continuity. Which I guess does leave the ending in great shape to be included on this list :smalltongue:

You are entitled to you opinion, Trisc, but mine is that this is a media (gaming isn't just one medium) still growing, the missteps ought to be documented and discussed, and ME3 belongs in this discussion.

I think everyone can agree with that, regardless of stance on the endings :smallsmile:

factotum

2012-08-14, 03:27 PM

Sadly, this was the first game in the prince of persia series I played, and I had to be bribed to play Sands of Time, which was good, but not good enough to erase this crime of a game from my mind. I don't think I'll be playing any other Prince of Persia game.

That's your loss, actually, because the two "modern" Prince of Persia games are nothing compared to the originals. The game you're talking about didn't even have the same main character--it was made clear in one of his conversations with Elika that he wasn't really royal, whereas the original Prince very definitely was.

Forbiddenwar

2012-08-14, 03:52 PM

That's your loss, actually, because the two "modern" Prince of Persia games are nothing compared to the originals. The game you're talking about didn't even have the same main character--it was made clear in one of his conversations with Elika that he wasn't really royal, whereas the original Prince very definitely was.

well, okay, maybe I will play another prince of persia game. As long as I know going in that the 2008 ending was not the norm for the series.

I like Elika, but I liked the idea of her staying dead. Sometimes characters die and should stay dead. (Blame FF7 for this perspective, if you want) The whole game was about letting go, and the ending ruined it.

Psyren

2012-08-14, 03:54 PM

That's your loss, actually, because the two "modern" Prince of Persia games are nothing compared to the originals. The game you're talking about didn't even have the same main character--it was made clear in one of his conversations with Elika that he wasn't really royal, whereas the original Prince very definitely was.

Actually, that wasn't clear at all. It's left pretty vague as to whether he was always just a thief that had made it big, or a noble that left his life of privilege behind to take up thievery (for whatever reason.)

I honestly hope they revisit this continuity one day.

I like Elika, but I liked the idea of her staying dead. Sometimes characters die and should stay dead. (Blame FF7 for this perspective, if you want) The whole game was about letting go, and the ending ruined it.

Nah - the game was about Screwing Destiny/Flipping Off Cthulhu if you ask me.

Misery Esquire

2012-08-15, 12:57 AM

Or when you buy a car are you happy when you get a Ford Pinto without an engine block?

I would be.

Less chance of random fire.

DaedalusMkV

2012-08-15, 01:26 AM

Yeah, it was pretty bad. It's unfortunate because I really liked Elika, and I definitely liked this game better than Forgotten Sands. The puzzles were great too; some of the longer parkour sequences were awe-inspiring, and I went back to get 100% completion on the little balls of light.

I think they were going for some kind of sequel hook with the reset button there. The problem was that it didn't do very well commercially so they likely axed this entire continuity. Which I guess does leave the ending in great shape to be included on this list :smalltongue:

My problem with PoP 200whatever was that the game seemed to take great pleasure in holding your hand. In the previous games, you were given a resource to get yourself out of trouble. In the newest one, you just start again from a few seconds back. While with the longer sequences this was entirely fair and probably a good decision it made some of the shorter sequences feel like useless filler. Also, the combat was trivialized straight to hell. So yeah, not a terrible game but not bad either.

The ending? There's actually a DLC. Justifies what the hell happened and sets things up much better for a continuation. See, Ahriman wasn't sealed forever by Elika's sacrifice. It would have held for a few decades, maybe a century, then he'd have been out again and this time with nobody capable of stopping him thanks to all the people with magic being dead. So, the Prince's plan was to bring her back and have her teach/breed/whatever a bunch more of them so they can actually win. Or something like that.

It's still not great, and the fact you needed to pay for it was a slap in the face, but it's actually by far the best gameplay the game has to offer and the ending is decisively better. Might or might not count for this.

Oh, right, the discussion as a whole. Can I say Red Faction Armaggeddon? As a game, and as the ending to a plot? Red Faction had its ups and downs, but this was by far the low point. Terrible game with all the worst of the three proceeding it, an idiot plot that apparently could and should have been resolved before it actually happened, just generally awful. How does it go? At the beginning of the game Bad Guy destroys the Terraforming Machine keeping Mars' atmosphere stable, resulting in alien invasion, people dying and everything that comes after. At the end of the game, you go right back to the machine and fix it in a matter of minutes, using absolutely nothing you didn't have at the beginning. Everything that happened in between was at least as stupid and ill-conceived. It's like if Mass Effect 3 started out with the Star Child, then spent the entire game doing entirely unrelated things in dreamland fighting the Zerg (yes, an enemy with no relation to the series) before arbitrarily forcing you into the Synthesis ending from the Pre-DLC cut.

Mikal

2012-08-16, 02:03 PM

VanBuren

2012-08-16, 02:04 PM

Seeing as the Apocalypse happened about 200 years previously... yeah. It's not meant to be Post-Apoc. If anything it's Post-Post Apoc. You're seeing the rebuilding of civilization, for all its good and ills. And you are the pivotal figure for the region you're in.

Do you bring back the 'old' democratic ways? Do you bring back the new (really old) way of Ceaser? Do you create an uneasy peace with you as de facto warlord? The choice is yours.

Which goes to show you actually don't really know the series at all, since Raiders *weren't* that until Fallout 3.

Yes they were. Just the west coast ones weren't. The DC Raiders have always been.

Mikal

2012-08-16, 02:14 PM

Yes they were. Just the west coast ones weren't. The DC Raiders have always been.

Yes because such groups would be able to survive the two centuries since the bombs drop... because why?

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-16, 02:35 PM

Seeing as the Apocalypse happened about 200 years previously... yeah. It's not meant to be Post-Apoc. If anything it's Post-Post Apoc. You're seeing the rebuilding of civilization, for all its good and ills. And you are the pivotal figure for the region you're in.

Do you bring back the 'old' democratic ways? Do you bring back the new (really old) way of Ceaser? Do you create an uneasy peace with you as de facto warlord? The choice is yours.

I realize that. I also love the New Vegas itself, the casinos and that whole deal. But as I said, the feeling you get when stepping out of the vault for the first time is completely different than the feeling you get from stepping out of doc's house in Goodsprings.

Maxios

2012-08-16, 02:45 PM

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-16, 02:51 PM

Maxios

2012-08-16, 02:52 PM

I think you're getting it mixed up with Oblivion :smallwink:

Rallicus

2012-08-16, 03:14 PM

Condemned 2.

You gain the power to shout so loud that peoples' heads explode.

You fight a generic end boss that pretty much boils down to quick time events.

You become sober and go to sleep.

Maybe not the worst but it's pretty awful.

Mikal

2012-08-16, 03:39 PM

I realize that. I also love the New Vegas itself, the casinos and that whole deal. But as I said, the feeling you get when stepping out of the vault for the first time is completely different than the feeling you get from stepping out of doc's house in Goodsprings.

Yeah. And it's all downhill from there if you've ever played a FO game before. I never said that FO3 was completely terrible, I just said NV is a stronger game all in all.

Psyren

2012-08-16, 03:51 PM

My problem with PoP 200whatever was that the game seemed to take great pleasure in holding your hand. In the previous games, you were given a resource to get yourself out of trouble. In the newest one, you just start again from a few seconds back. While with the longer sequences this was entirely fair and probably a good decision it made some of the shorter sequences feel like useless filler. Also, the combat was trivialized straight to hell. So yeah, not a terrible game but not bad either.

This was by design. PoP2008 was designed to be, believe it or not, a casual game. Hence, no dying, and no multi-opponent combat (despite the AssCreed engine being more than capable of handling such.)

The trouble is that none of the "casual gamers" at whom the game was targeted knew it was for them.

Maxios

2012-08-16, 04:01 PM

Yeah. And it's all downhill from there if you've ever played a FO game before. I never said that FO3 was completely terrible, I just said NV is a stronger game all in all.

My father played every single Fallout game that came out before Fallout 3, and he loved it.
The first RPG I ever played was Fallout 2, I played that crappy BoS co-op with my father, and I played Tactics for a few hours before deciding it was far too easy. I loved Fallout 3 when it came out. I love the gameplay of New Vegas, but I prefer the setting of F3.

Triscuitable

2012-08-16, 07:38 PM

Basically FOl3 is vastly superior in feel and atmosphere up to you hit say lvl 8.

Three words:

Fallout. Wanderer's. Edition.

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-17, 01:48 AM

Three words:

Fallout. Wanderer's. Edition.

No, not what I was looking for.
Scraping by is one thing. But this was over the top (I tried it back then). Also, the BIGGEST problem with FO3 is the random spawns. In NV all enemies stick to areas. You don't GET deathclaws in Goodsprings, or 6 albino radscorpions in Primm when you real lvl 25.

But as I said, some of the most enjoyable gaming moments of my life was cleaing out the SUperDuper Mart and the School at low level, with only a pistol and no real armor.

Kris Strife

2012-08-17, 02:42 AM

Maxios

2012-08-17, 11:17 AM

I always preferred the Rock-It Launcher loaded with Pre-War money. :smallbiggrin:

Heh. I used Plungers with it, nothing funnier then killing a massive behemoth by hitting it in the leg with a plunger

Calemyr

2012-08-17, 01:49 PM

No, not what I was looking for.
Scraping by is one thing. But this was over the top (I tried it back then). Also, the BIGGEST problem with FO3 is the random spawns. In NV all enemies stick to areas. You don't GET deathclaws in Goodsprings, or 6 albino radscorpions in Primm when you real lvl 25.

But as I said, some of the most enjoyable gaming moments of my life was cleaing out the SUperDuper Mart and the School at low level, with only a pistol and no real armor.

Oh yes, there were moments in FO3 that were grand.

My biggest gripe with FO3 is the same in FONV: ammo is to prevalent. I was really hoping for something more "Book of Eli"-like, where ammo is so scarce that most people can assume (with reasonable accuracy) that guns aren't loaded. Where every shot counts but has a potent advantage over melee.

I'm personally partial to NV over 3.
* Slight technical improvements
* Had a more advanced modding community (learned from FO3)
* More distinctive, useful, and fleshed out followers
* Not everything is leveled to the player (world is what it is)
* More opportunity for non-com skill use.
* Better overarching story (including DLCs)
* More influence on endgame outcomes

In terms of ending, however, I wouldn't say either of them deserve to be in this thread. The wander's fate was stupid, but Broken Steel fixed that. And the ending you get in New Vegas is the ending you've worked for since the beginning.

Also, my Rock-It ammo of choice? Lawn Gnomes.

Tengu_temp

2012-08-17, 02:14 PM

My biggest gripe with FO3 is the same in FONV: ammo is to prevalent. I was really hoping for something more "Book of Eli"-like, where ammo is so scarce that most people can assume (with reasonable accuracy) that guns aren't loaded. Where every shot counts but has a potent advantage over melee.

That was never the case in Fallout, though. Even in Fallout 2, where you start at probably the lowest tech level of them all, bullets aren't really a rare commodity after the first 1-2 areas.

Calemyr

2012-08-17, 02:18 PM

That was never the case in Fallout, though. Even in Fallout 2, where you start at probably the lowest tech level of them all, bullets aren't really a rare commodity after the first 1-2 areas.

Oh yes, agreed. But the new games lack any real tension because ammo isn't in short supply.

Of course, that's why I like Wander's Edition and NV Hardcore Mode. At least giving ammunition weight puts some value on each shot - you have to sacrifice a little to stockpile ammo in that case.

MCerberus

2012-08-17, 02:44 PM

Although speaking canonically, Fallout in the east ends with being kidnapped by aliens and saving the earth from re-destruction...

so yah.

Zelkon

2012-08-17, 02:49 PM

Every Mario game, ever.

Philistine

2012-08-17, 02:52 PM

Three words:

Fallout. Wanderer's. Edition.

Three words for you:

Fan. Created. Content.

That is to say, the modding community is not a characteristic of the game itself; and FO3 comes up short when judged only on "what comes in the box."

Zevox

2012-08-17, 09:20 PM

Every Mario game, ever.
That would require that series to actually end, and to all appearances, it never will.

Zevox

Misery Esquire

2012-08-18, 01:38 AM

But as I said, some of the most enjoyable gaming moments of my life was cleaing out the SUperDuper Mart and the School at low level, with only a pistol and no real armor.

The SuperDuper has a Random Event space in front of it. I've gotten a Deathclaw at it before. I only managed to kill it because of my O.L.D. (Obesessive Looting Disorder) giving me a silly number of landmines. And a few grenades. And thirty-odd 10mm shots. It is just not area-appropriate.

Tvtyrant

2012-08-18, 02:29 AM

Every Mario game, ever.

I thought Legend of the Seven Stars ended okay.

Scowling Dragon

2012-08-18, 08:49 AM

Probably the Mario game with the best plot/ ending is Super Paper Mario.

Or anything in the Paper mario/ Mario and Luigi RPG series.

Nerd-o-rama

2012-08-20, 04:05 PM

Oh yes, agreed. But the new games lack any real tension because ammo isn't in short supply.

Then I guess the old games lacked any real tension, too, considering that basic handgun ammo is easily purchasable in the first town of each in amounts you will not run out of, and after that point you're good enough to just slaughter large groups of people with the next type of ammo you want (unless it's an exotic caliber like caseless ammo in FO2).

Calemyr

2012-08-22, 12:12 PM

Then I guess the old games lacked any real tension, too, considering that basic handgun ammo is easily purchasable in the first town of each in amounts you will not run out of, and after that point you're good enough to just slaughter large groups of people with the next type of ammo you want (unless it's an exotic caliber like caseless ammo in FO2).

The old 2D games had a different type of tension - limited options and the almighty random number generator.

In F02, if I give an enclave soldier very pertinent information about their mother, I get one action and then sit and stay while he and all his friends demonstrate that, whatever their mothers' weight or IQ, they were wise enough to teach their little boys to respect the power armor.

In FO3, I can do a frelling maypole dance around a super mutant behemoth. If he pounds me into paste, it's because I dodged left instead of right. The tension is derived from having to stay active and lively, and the fact that you can have so many bullets to waste means you don't have to make every shot count. I can unload clip after clip of machine gun fire into the wall behind the guy that currently wants to use my carcass as a throw rug, but some will hit and I will win not because I was any good, but because (with ammo being weightless and prevalent) spray and pray is all you really need.

Adding weight is all you need to change that. Now every shell you carry costs something - just a little less of something else you can carry. You can't walk around with an army's worth of ammunition, you have to be careful and pick your shots instead of hoping that the wall of lead might hit your target a little bit.

It doesn't make the game harder, per se. It just adds a little survivalist flair, and makes finding relevant ammo in ammo cases into a treat and hand-loading ammo actually profitable.

Luka

2012-08-22, 12:23 PM

Adding weight is all you need to change that. Now every shell you carry costs something - just a little less of something else you can carry. You can't walk around with an army's worth of ammunition, you have to be careful and pick your shots instead of hoping that the wall of lead might hit your target a little bit.

It doesn't make the game harder, per se. It just adds a little survivalist flair, and makes finding relevant ammo in ammo cases into a treat and hand-loading ammo actually profitable.

I'm playing hardcore FNV, with 4 STR, and I still have army's worth of ammunition, just that ED-E carries it all :smallbiggrin:, not much of a difference in "making it count" either after you get the Rat Pack perk too. It makes carrying all sorts of ammo a bit more annoying, but it can be bypassed to carry the same amount as in FO3, just grabbing several portions for not becoming overcumbered, then it becomes an escort mission.

Calemyr

2012-08-22, 01:23 PM

I'm playing hardcore FNV, with 4 STR, and I still have army's worth of ammunition, just that ED-E carries it all :smallbiggrin:, not much of a difference in "making it count" either after you get the Rat Pack perk too. It makes carrying all sorts of ammo a bit more annoying, but it can be bypassed to carry the same amount as in FO3, just grabbing several portions for not becoming overcumbered, then it becomes an escort mission.

Well getting Pack Rat certainly is an effective way to render Hardcore's effect on ammo less meaningful. As it should be - not everyone likes to play that way. Also, walking around with your own personal ammo stockpile is another way to work around it and that's fine. That's pretty much what ED-E is, especially after Lonesome Road is added.

But working around an obstacle doesn't mean the obstacle didn't exist. You found practical ways around it, and that's how it should be.

GloatingSwine

2012-08-22, 06:57 PM

Indeed. When you step out from the Vault, it's the first time you've ever seen sunlight and the outdoors. It's your first step into a new world, one of danger and excitement. When you step out from the doctors, you seen sunlight, something you've seen hundreds of time before. It's not your step into a world new to you, it's a step into a world that's mostly rebuilt itself.

Yes. But that's what the world of Fallout is supposed to be. It is a world rebuilding. In the first game it was doing it whilst your dumb arse was sat in a vault. In Fallout 3 everyone in the capital wasteland is far too lazy and there are approximately 19.6 raiders for every townsperson (a traditional RPG problem, sadly. I mean given the paucity of available targets and number of competitors you'd think being a raider or bandit in an RPG world should be about the least profitable business going).

Avilan the Grey

2012-08-23, 01:50 AM

Yes. But that's what the world of Fallout is supposed to be. It is a world rebuilding. In the first game it was doing it whilst your dumb arse was sat in a vault. In Fallout 3 everyone in the capital wasteland is far too lazy and there are approximately 19.6 raiders for every townsperson (a traditional RPG problem, sadly. I mean given the paucity of available targets and number of competitors you'd think being a raider or bandit in an RPG world should be about the least profitable business going).

Of course. My point still is that up around lvl 8, FO3 is just much more interesting and immersive than NV. NV doesn't really take off UNTIL you reach about lvl 8.

Other than that, NV is superior all around.

And yes, it is a common RPG problem. Do "I kicked him in the head until he was dead!" ring a bell? :smallbiggrin: