I think it would definitely be a fresh change. Of course it all really depends on the gameplay and the story, etc. But a "bad" ending would, in my opinion, be (potentially) very interesting.
[EDITED]how would you react to a distopian ending to a game
- Thread starter thespyisdead
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Frankly, I like a power corrupts the hero ending better than a hero loses ending, but both could work if the game was set-up correctly. The biggest problem I have with what you said is the incorrect use of distopian. Firstly, it's spelled dystopian. Secondly, nothing you said indicates a dystopia, you made no mention of society, let alone a dystopian one. Perhaps you meant disappointing?thespyisdead said:
i agree. if that was the end of the story i might be considerably less happy with it. i personally didnt mind the dlc. when i first heard about it i thought it was like pay $5 for a cutscene, but i enjoyed playing the game so i didnt mind buying dlc to get more gameplay and more backstory to set up for the sequel. plus...youtube exists now, so you dont have to pay for the dlc at all if you just want the extra cutscenesTizzytheTormentor said:
haha well im not getting a good ending then. with jrpgs i tend to spend a few hours grinding before going to the final boss, just because they often tend to have cheap attacks. ill just take whatever ending i get and watch the others on youtubeTizzytheTormentor said:
Yeah that about summarizes it.latiasracer said:I kinda agree, but it was a good insentive to replay the game and find the secret bits, and the "Moral points" where very subtle,
Although, they could have made them more "Moral", some made sense, such as denying rewards and donating money to the homeless people dotted about, But some where just stupid. On one level, i'm pretty sure you just have to jump over a crate
But the game doesn't have the book endinglatiasracer said:
The game only has:
1. He destroys them whilst thinking they are hostile
2. He realizes they aren't hostile and doesn't destroy them
The book has:
He realizes that they aren't hostile RIGHT as the missile hits them.
1. He destroys them whilst thinking they are hostile
2. He realizes they aren't hostile and doesn't destroy them
The book has:
He realizes that they aren't hostile RIGHT as the missile hits them.
I just hope Last Light improves on it.
From the Fallout Wikia:TheMadDoctorsCat said:
When the player is faced with the climactic decision at the conclusion of the game, Fawkes politely declines to enter the radioactive room in lieu of the player (even though he is immune to radioactivity), stating that the decision is the player's destiny and not his. However, if the player has the Broken Steel add-on installed, the option to send Fawkes in will appear, allowing the player to opt out of entering themselves or Sentinel Sarah Lyons. When this option is used, he states that although he was going to tell the player that the player's destiny lies in that chamber, he has already altered his own.
Lovely Mixture said:Yeah that about summarizes it.latiasracer said:I kinda agree, but it was a good insentive to replay the game and find the secret bits, and the "Moral points" where very subtle,
Although, they could have made them more "Moral", some made sense, such as denying rewards and donating money to the homeless people dotted about, But some where just stupid. On one level, i'm pretty sure you just have to jump over a crate
But the game doesn't have the book endinglatiasracer said:
Huh, i thought Artyom did think did relise they where good in the game after the missile hits - I think he mentions something about it in the end monolouge as the credits roll. After i played the game first time, and bought the audiobook, to see how close the game followed the story, and i thought the endings where pretty similar... Maybe it's just me who felt that
But yeah, Seriously looking forward to last light!
The game only has:
1. He destroys them whilst thinking they are hostile
2. He realizes they aren't hostile and doesn't destroy them
The book has:
He realizes that they aren't hostile RIGHT as the missile hits them.
I just hope Last Light improves on it.
After i played the game i bought the audiobook, and thought the ending was pretty similar to the distopian game ending... Perhaps it was just me who thought that... Doesn't Artyom mention something about it in the ending monolouge? It's been a while since i last finished it
And yes, Seriously looking forward to last light!
See, this is the thing... I prefer not to get my game ending via the wiki. I prefer, y'know, PLAYING THE DAMN GAME. If you hadn't pointed that out, I would never have known.ItsNotRudy said:
Honestly I really liked Fallout 3 (although it wasn't as good as New Vegas, which I think had better characters although less content). But the main quest kinda sucked. They turned an open-world adventure into a shooter where you don't have an iota of control over the outcome. You never feel like you've changed anything. That's one of the many, many ways that I thought "New Vegas" was superior (along with the characters of the companions - seriously, you can go through the game with Felicia Day in tow, how awesome is that? - and the skill balancing.) If you used New Vegas' characters and skillset with Fallout 3's map, I think you might very well have the perfect game.
For the original ending you proposed so long as the credit roll and I can figure out that is was a no win scenario all along I wouldn't mind (i.e the kill is done in a cutscene). If the kill was done in gameplay I would be pissed reloading my save and trying again or looking on a faq to see if their is a way to beat him.
As for the second ending I think I could get into a game having a downer ending so long as the game was well written throughout.
As for the second ending I think I could get into a game having a downer ending so long as the game was well written throughout.
I discovered it on my own though. I started the franchise with NV and bought the whole FO3 package a bit after. Having Fawkes with me was also pure coincidence.TheMadDoctorsCat said:
I remember being pretty annoyed by the endings of Dungeon Siege 2 (I still have mixed feelings about this game) & one of the two Neverwinter Nights 2 stories (I need to replay that). All of the protagonist's friends died (Sorry if I spoiled that for anyone, but those games have been out for years).
These days I'm very used to wandering into spoilers; I forget almost everything I learn, yet I still know what to expect from the story by the time I get the games. If I know ahead of time that everyone is going to die, I refrain from ever giving a shit about those characters. That's why I didn't care for Telltale's Walking Dead games.
I'm just basically giving the game a f**k you before it can give me one by making me feel like I worked hard for nothing. It's kinda like that episode of South Park where a kid in the juvenile detention center tricks Cartman into sneaking cigarettes up his ass with the promise of freedom only to tell him that he's stuck there until he's 21.
Dungeon Siege 2 really pissed me off after I finally got used to how utterly different it was from the original game. "Congratulations, you've postponed the demise of the world for a few years & all your friends are dead & the beautiful green landscape is brown & bleak."
(Sorry if I spoiled that for anyone, but those games have been out for years).These days I'm very used to wandering into spoilers; I forget almost everything I learn, yet I still know what to expect from the story by the time I get the games. If I know ahead of time that everyone is going to die, I refrain from ever giving a shit about those characters. That's why I didn't care for Telltale's Walking Dead games.
I'm just basically giving the game a f**k you before it can give me one by making me feel like I worked hard for nothing. It's kinda like that episode of South Park where a kid in the juvenile detention center tricks Cartman into sneaking cigarettes up his ass with the promise of freedom only to tell him that he's stuck there until he's 21.
Dungeon Siege 2 really pissed me off after I finally got used to how utterly different it was from the original game. "Congratulations, you've postponed the demise of the world for a few years & all your friends are dead & the beautiful green landscape is brown & bleak."
oh i really hope they dont force you to pay the game several times just to get the ending to the story. i hate when companies do that, it always just feels like a way to artificially extend the length of their game. then again, nier did that, and i loved nier. i guess i wouldnt mind, if they find a way to make each playthrough feel new and interesting. if the only significant change is the final cutscene, theres no reason for me to not just watch them online after beating it once.TizzytheTormentor said:
i finally played the lightning dlc last night and i really hope it isnt representative of the gameplay for 13-3. having 2 battles that you have to fight over and over again until youre strong enough to win just seemed like a poor design choice and just seemed like a cheap way to lengthen a bit a short dlc.
by the way, id just like to say how nice it is to meet someone else on this site who enjoys the final fantasy 13 series
Thats funny, I think I feel the exact opposite you do. I liked Lightning. Sazh was definitely my favorite character too but I thought Lightning was awesome. I always kind of thought of her as a female Cloud. I mean Cloud certainly had a more interesting back story, but they were both badass characters who seemed constantly depressed. I hated hope. He annoyed the crap out of me from beginning to end and I hated that he was the best ravager, so I pretty much had to keep him in my party. Snow was a little obnoxious but I still found him very likeable. The other two characters, I didn't really care about one way or another. I loved the combat. It's been about a year since I played 13, but I don't remember 13-2 combat being that much different, aside from the cinematic events. But I always liked that there was a limit to how high your level could be at certain points. The reason I grind in rpgs is because I don't know how strong the next boss will be, but in 13 it was just like, "Okay, I should be this level." In Final Fantasy games I usually use the same attacks on enemies so I never found auto-attack to be that big a deal, and I always liked how battles depended mainly on setting up the correct paradigms and knowing when to switch. I cared about the story in 13 much more than in 13-2. I never really cared about the plot of 13-2 that much, or the characters. I mainly just played to be ready for 13-3, but I found the story of 13 to be better and the characters to be much more well developed.TizzytheTormentor said:
I did like that Serah and Noel didn't turn into a romance. I was really worried that they would do a whole stupid romantic triangle thing with Noel, Serah, and Snow and I'm gad that never happened. I kind of liked the linear fashion of 13, it allowed me to focus more on the story and that's what I really pay rpgs for. There were a few parts of 13-2 where I just didn't know where to go or had to stop what I was doing to hunt for wild artifacts and by the time I found the ones i needed to progress, I had kind of forgotten what had been going on in the story. I never cared about Serah or Noel and the ending had no emotional impact on me, even though I know it was probably supposed to. The monster thing was a neat idea but honestly, I pretty much ignored them. I never leveled them up unless I was going in to a big boss fight. The crystarium also confused me for a long time. I had to research it just to figure out how I was supposed to use it. The crystarium in 13 was a litte pointless, since you got the same abilities and stat increases either way, but it did allow you to more or less choose when you would gain certain abilities or stats. All that said, 13-2 did feel more like a Final Fantasy game. Mog and chocobos everywhere certainly helped that, while 13 just felt like a jrpg with no relation to the series (in fact, I think it would have been much better received if it hadn't been associated with Final Fantasy). I always found it very strange that monsters didn;t give you gil in 13 and instead just gave you scraps that you were supposed to sell. It just seemed like an unnecessary step. Also, 13-2 was much less grindy. Even with a level cap, you still had to grind for gil toward the end so you could upgrade your gear and get items to avoid the final boss's cheap insta-kill attack. Final Fantasy 13 took me over 80 hours to finish, compared to 13-2 taking me around 48 hours, including dlc, and a huge chunk of those 80 hours were from farming gil so I could max out specific items.
So yeah, I found the characters and story of 13 a lot more interesting and they constantly motivated me to keep playing and see what happens next, which isn't something I really got from 13-2, until I got toward the end (though once I started to have some idea of what the hell was going on in the story, it did get significantly more interesting). Neither games were bad and I enjoyed them both, but I liked 13 a lot more. Different strokes for different folks.