#1 Game Ending that pissed you off?

[Legion]

Fallout 3. Some really logical reasons were blocked out with the "you must furfill your destiny." Very disappointing after such a great game. Plus you were helped by an invincible ally so you barely get to kill anything and the last boss is equivilant to the fable 2 last "boss."

I enjoyed the ending, and I don't see why people are complaining. Sure, there's a lot of buildup for a climax involving very little actual conflict, since your invincible ally handles it all for you, but to actually end the story, it was well handled, and gave a good sense of accomplishment.

Or maybe it's just post-game hype, since I finished it an hour ago. Maybe I'll get all grumpy about it in a day or two, like everyone else is.


As for bad endings, I'd say Bioshock. Sure, it finished it all wonderfully, but it was so short and left at least a few loose ends open.

For Fallout 3, a large segment is, we're talking about a franchise that has been built around personal choice. To end a game on rails like that, especially when other options are available is, quite frankly, insulting to the player. Or at least, it was to me.

It makes me laugh that nostalgia ruined this game for so many people. If the game was called ANYTHING ELSE, it would have just been a Fallout ripoff, and no one would have minded how drastically different it is from the original two. Personally, I hadn't even heard of the first two(and tactics, I s'ppose, so three) until Fallout 3 was released. I played them, though, and because of all the praise I expected a lot. It fell on its face, though. I really don't see what you guys are seeing in those games other than nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nostalgia and remembering the past. Hell, I'm a walking Pokemon encyclopedia, but don't look at the past, just play the game you've got right now, and respect it for what it is.

I have never played the first 2, the reason people hate the ending has nothing to do with that at all.

Fallout 3 is a game where you make choices.

Spoiler

The ending forces you to commit suicide to save the world despite the fact there are logical reasons in the game for why you shouldn't have to. It's possible to have a companion Super Mutant who is resistant to radiation. He could have gone into the chamber with the radiation to stop the explosion but claims he can't because it is "destiny" which makes no sense whatsoever. So the game forces you to go in and die from radiation.

 

[JC175]

Probably Pacman; the 256th level is impossible to complete.

I know, I was so disappointed.

 

[Starke]

Fallout 3. Some really logical reasons were blocked out with the "you must furfill your destiny." Very disappointing after such a great game. Plus you were helped by an invincible ally so you barely get to kill anything and the last boss is equivilant to the fable 2 last "boss."

I enjoyed the ending, and I don't see why people are complaining. Sure, there's a lot of buildup for a climax involving very little actual conflict, since your invincible ally handles it all for you, but to actually end the story, it was well handled, and gave a good sense of accomplishment.

Or maybe it's just post-game hype, since I finished it an hour ago. Maybe I'll get all grumpy about it in a day or two, like everyone else is.


As for bad endings, I'd say Bioshock. Sure, it finished it all wonderfully, but it was so short and left at least a few loose ends open.

For Fallout 3, a large segment is, we're talking about a franchise that has been built around personal choice. To end a game on rails like that, especially when other options are available is, quite frankly, insulting to the player. Or at least, it was to me.

It makes me laugh that nostalgia ruined this game for so many people. If the game was called ANYTHING ELSE, it would have just been a Fallout ripoff, and no one would have minded how drastically different it is from the original two. Personally, I hadn't even heard of the first two(and tactics, I s'ppose, so three) until Fallout 3 was released. I played them, though, and because of all the praise I expected a lot. It fell on its face, though. I really don't see what you guys are seeing in those games other than nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nostalgia and remembering the past. Hell, I'm a walking Pokemon encyclopedia, but don't look at the past, just play the game you've got right now, and respect it for what it is.

In this case, I believe, it really is a substance issue. The games are pretty badly dated, graphically, but they've got some deceptively deep content. The turn based combat is a bit slower, but if that's not an instant turn off for you, the games are certainly worth the time.

 

[vamp rocks]

fallout 3.. it just kinda came out of nowhere... lol... the game is really short if u do only story missions..


and bioshock... the end boss was just... too easy for my liking...

 

[SquirrelPants]

Fallout 3. Some really logical reasons were blocked out with the "you must furfill your destiny." Very disappointing after such a great game. Plus you were helped by an invincible ally so you barely get to kill anything and the last boss is equivilant to the fable 2 last "boss."

I enjoyed the ending, and I don't see why people are complaining. Sure, there's a lot of buildup for a climax involving very little actual conflict, since your invincible ally handles it all for you, but to actually end the story, it was well handled, and gave a good sense of accomplishment.

Or maybe it's just post-game hype, since I finished it an hour ago. Maybe I'll get all grumpy about it in a day or two, like everyone else is.


As for bad endings, I'd say Bioshock. Sure, it finished it all wonderfully, but it was so short and left at least a few loose ends open.

For Fallout 3, a large segment is, we're talking about a franchise that has been built around personal choice. To end a game on rails like that, especially when other options are available is, quite frankly, insulting to the player. Or at least, it was to me.

It makes me laugh that nostalgia ruined this game for so many people. If the game was called ANYTHING ELSE, it would have just been a Fallout ripoff, and no one would have minded how drastically different it is from the original two. Personally, I hadn't even heard of the first two(and tactics, I s'ppose, so three) until Fallout 3 was released. I played them, though, and because of all the praise I expected a lot. It fell on its face, though. I really don't see what you guys are seeing in those games other than nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nostalgia and remembering the past. Hell, I'm a walking Pokemon encyclopedia, but don't look at the past, just play the game you've got right now, and respect it for what it is.

In this case, I believe, it really is a substance issue. The games are pretty badly dated, graphically, but they've got some deceptively deep content. The turn based combat is a bit slower, but if that's not an instant turn off for you, the games are certainly worth the time.

It's not so much that, turn-based combat is nice, I love the setting...It's just that the game itself was never much fun to me. I certainly wasn't expecting anything close to Fallout 3 out of it, but if I don't enjoy the gameplay, I'm not going to continue playing a game. Don't get me wrong, from what I've played, it is an absolutely amazing game, it's just not enough fun to warrant me playing through.

 

[Starke]

Fallout 3. Some really logical reasons were blocked out with the "you must furfill your destiny." Very disappointing after such a great game. Plus you were helped by an invincible ally so you barely get to kill anything and the last boss is equivilant to the fable 2 last "boss."

I enjoyed the ending, and I don't see why people are complaining. Sure, there's a lot of buildup for a climax involving very little actual conflict, since your invincible ally handles it all for you, but to actually end the story, it was well handled, and gave a good sense of accomplishment.

Or maybe it's just post-game hype, since I finished it an hour ago. Maybe I'll get all grumpy about it in a day or two, like everyone else is.


As for bad endings, I'd say Bioshock. Sure, it finished it all wonderfully, but it was so short and left at least a few loose ends open.

For Fallout 3, a large segment is, we're talking about a franchise that has been built around personal choice. To end a game on rails like that, especially when other options are available is, quite frankly, insulting to the player. Or at least, it was to me.

It makes me laugh that nostalgia ruined this game for so many people. If the game was called ANYTHING ELSE, it would have just been a Fallout ripoff, and no one would have minded how drastically different it is from the original two. Personally, I hadn't even heard of the first two(and tactics, I s'ppose, so three) until Fallout 3 was released. I played them, though, and because of all the praise I expected a lot. It fell on its face, though. I really don't see what you guys are seeing in those games other than nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nostalgia and remembering the past. Hell, I'm a walking Pokemon encyclopedia, but don't look at the past, just play the game you've got right now, and respect it for what it is.

In this case, I believe, it really is a substance issue. The games are pretty badly dated, graphically, but they've got some deceptively deep content. The turn based combat is a bit slower, but if that's not an instant turn off for you, the games are certainly worth the time.

It's not so much that, turn-based combat is nice, I love the setting...It's just that the game itself was never much fun to me. I certainly wasn't expecting anything close to Fallout 3 out of it, but if I don't enjoy the gameplay, I'm not going to continue playing a game. Don't get me wrong, from what I've played, it is an absolutely amazing game, it's just not enough fun to warrant me playing through.

Yeah, I'm not sure what it is, but you do need a pretty substantial attention span to get into the original two games. It is one of their more glaring flaws.

 

[SquirrelPants]

Fallout 3. Some really logical reasons were blocked out with the "you must furfill your destiny." Very disappointing after such a great game. Plus you were helped by an invincible ally so you barely get to kill anything and the last boss is equivilant to the fable 2 last "boss."

I enjoyed the ending, and I don't see why people are complaining. Sure, there's a lot of buildup for a climax involving very little actual conflict, since your invincible ally handles it all for you, but to actually end the story, it was well handled, and gave a good sense of accomplishment.

Or maybe it's just post-game hype, since I finished it an hour ago. Maybe I'll get all grumpy about it in a day or two, like everyone else is.


As for bad endings, I'd say Bioshock. Sure, it finished it all wonderfully, but it was so short and left at least a few loose ends open.

For Fallout 3, a large segment is, we're talking about a franchise that has been built around personal choice. To end a game on rails like that, especially when other options are available is, quite frankly, insulting to the player. Or at least, it was to me.

It makes me laugh that nostalgia ruined this game for so many people. If the game was called ANYTHING ELSE, it would have just been a Fallout ripoff, and no one would have minded how drastically different it is from the original two. Personally, I hadn't even heard of the first two(and tactics, I s'ppose, so three) until Fallout 3 was released. I played them, though, and because of all the praise I expected a lot. It fell on its face, though. I really don't see what you guys are seeing in those games other than nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nostalgia and remembering the past. Hell, I'm a walking Pokemon encyclopedia, but don't look at the past, just play the game you've got right now, and respect it for what it is.

In this case, I believe, it really is a substance issue. The games are pretty badly dated, graphically, but they've got some deceptively deep content. The turn based combat is a bit slower, but if that's not an instant turn off for you, the games are certainly worth the time.

It's not so much that, turn-based combat is nice, I love the setting...It's just that the game itself was never much fun to me. I certainly wasn't expecting anything close to Fallout 3 out of it, but if I don't enjoy the gameplay, I'm not going to continue playing a game. Don't get me wrong, from what I've played, it is an absolutely amazing game, it's just not enough fun to warrant me playing through.

Yeah, I'm not sure what it is, but you do need a pretty substantial attention span to get into the original two games. It is one of their more glaring flaws.

True dat. At the very least, the third one sucked people in from the beginning, by experiencing all the main points in the character's life up until then. I suppose the talking is kind of flow breaking, but it was in the originals, as well, and in both cases, when you're absorbed enough, it'll feel totally natural.

This has been a fine conversation, good sir, but it's nearly five in the morning here, so I must leave you now and go to sleep.

 

[JamesTehWench]

Fallout 3. Some really logical reasons were blocked out with the "you must furfill your destiny." Very disappointing after such a great game. Plus you were helped by an invincible ally so you barely get to kill anything and the last boss is equivilant to the fable 2 last "boss."

I enjoyed the ending, and I don't see why people are complaining. Sure, there's a lot of buildup for a climax involving very little actual conflict, since your invincible ally handles it all for you, but to actually end the story, it was well handled, and gave a good sense of accomplishment.

Or maybe it's just post-game hype, since I finished it an hour ago. Maybe I'll get all grumpy about it in a day or two, like everyone else is.


As for bad endings, I'd say Bioshock. Sure, it finished it all wonderfully, but it was so short and left at least a few loose ends open.

For Fallout 3, a large segment is, we're talking about a franchise that has been built around personal choice. To end a game on rails like that, especially when other options are available is, quite frankly, insulting to the player. Or at least, it was to me.

It makes me laugh that nostalgia ruined this game for so many people. If the game was called ANYTHING ELSE, it would have just been a Fallout ripoff, and no one would have minded how drastically different it is from the original two. Personally, I hadn't even heard of the first two(and tactics, I s'ppose, so three) until Fallout 3 was released. I played them, though, and because of all the praise I expected a lot. It fell on its face, though. I really don't see what you guys are seeing in those games other than nostalgia.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about nostalgia and remembering the past. Hell, I'm a walking Pokemon encyclopedia, but don't look at the past, just play the game you've got right now, and respect it for what it is.

I have never played the first 2, the reason people hate the ending has nothing to do with that at all.

Fallout 3 is a game where you make choices.

The ending forces you to commit suicide to save the world despite the fact there are logical reasons in the game for why you shouldn't have to. It's possible to have a companion Super Mutant who is resistant to radiation. He could have gone into the chamber with the radiation to stop the explosion but claims he can't because it is "destiny" which makes no sense whatsoever. So the game forces you to go in and die from radiation.

*cough* brokensteel *cough*

*awaits PS3 rampage*

 

[Legion]

*cough* brokensteel *cough*

*awaits PS3 rampage*

Indeed. I am very much looking forward to the PC version being released in the UK in a few weeks.

 

[sramota]

Why the CD version of Eye of the Beholder 3 ofcourse..

 

[TotallyFake]

Hmm.... I'd say MGS 4's. Why? Because after handling more or less all of the essential loose ends (and a few non essentials) they decide to remind you that there's still more to come. What? Without Snake? Fuck you.

Mild spoilers perhaps:
[spoilers]So the fact that the happy ending was the worlds biggest ass-pull, un-did an entire games worth of character development (In the case of Ocelot removed FIFTEEN YEARS worth of motivation), made every single sacrifice in the game worthless, and was generally a tacky "happy ever after" cliche rammed onto what was being set up as one of the greatest bittersweet endings in video game history, didn't annoy you in the slightest? [/spoiler]

I'm actually quite looking forward to Metal Gear Rising. I was never much of a fan of the stealth game play's clunky feel (and was very much a fan of Raiden) and I'm of the opinion that Kojima's writing is as much MGS's greatest flaw as well as its greatest strengths. Maybe Kojima-by-proxy will water it down sufficiently to be slightly more sensible.

 

[Zoochi]

Oblivion'e ending made me wtf. Also GTA4 I was hopping the ending would be different to all of the previous GTA games.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

Has anyone played psi-ops?

It's a typical amnesia revenge story, only you're a psychic commando. The whole way through you're pretty much kept in the dark and once you beat the final boss your character states "i remember everything". que credits. NO planned sequal.

Utter BS.

 

[NeutralMunchHotel]

You know what? I'm going to skip Fallout 3 and Fable 2. They're pretty much givens.

What I am going to go for is Mass Effect. It just seemed like a generic, space opera-y ending. The main guy kills the bad guy, but the underlying threat is still there - does anyone smell a sequel...?

 

[GamingAwesome1]

Sonic Chronicles.

I HATE CLIFFHANGERS!

 

[Gunner 51]

Gears of war 1, not the boss but the idea of that train.
Right lets think about it, a train with a bomb is going to go down a hole which is what the COGs want, yet they are put on the train. General Raam is riding the train, so what is he trying to do?

The bomb wasn't armed at the start of the level, the Locust were going to drop it into their hole to keep it out of the reach of the COGs. Raam was just there to make sure nothing went wrong.

All the COGs did was just arm the bomb and get out of there and let the train and the bomb do the rest.

 

[Nazulu]

Starfox Adventures easily takes the cake! It's obvious that they ran out of time and quickly gave a it shit ending. You can probably guess who the last boss is going to be and all of it's abilities.

 

[Lord George]

You know what? I'm going to skip Fallout 3 and Fable 2. They're pretty much givens.

What I am going to go for is Mass Effect. It just seemed like a generic, space opera-y ending. The main guy kills the bad guy, but the underlying threat is still there - does anyone smell a sequel...?

Well to be fair they did say it was going to be a trilogy from the start, and in my ending I got to be a bastard hehe.

For me KOTOR II had a bit of a rushed ending and some bits didn't seem to quite add up with the choices I had made in the game, still love the rest of the game though.