game endings you loved that everyone else hated

[an874]

I think people just expect to damned much to be honest. I loved the ending to ME3. I also liked the ending to ACIII as well. I grew up in an era of game endings that ended with CONGRATULATIONS. So anything other than that is kind of a thumbs up in my book! lol

I agree with both of these. I have to say, while I didn't have too big a problem with Mass Effect 3's ending, I can see why people didn't like, but I was really surprised by how much scorn the AC3 ending got when I thought it was perfect.

 

[BrotherRool]

I loved the ME3 ending and the Deus Ex: Human Revolution ending. Also FFX's but the people who disliked that one are more incorrect than the people who disliked the other endings. I can't really think of many other games I've played where people don't like the ending

You liked ME3's ending better than ME1's? You better watch your back in the future. . .
Nah just kidding.

I find ME1's ending is underrated by most. That whole experience from Virmire to the end is one rollercoaster of a ride which was perfectly built up to.

I was disappointed. Saren's boss fight was a joke. It was worse than the Reaper-Terminator. Tell me he doesn't look like a scoobie doo villain
Saren
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090725153317/masseffect/images/thumb/6/65/SarenHusk1.png/800px-SarenHusk1.png
Scoobie Doo Villain
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2012/242/9/1/scooby_doo_live_action_movie_demons_by_kenshirotakahashi-d5czijg.jpg
http://i1058.photobucket.com/albums/t416/Phantomcrow/IMG_1482.jpg

And generally I don't like my villains to be talking about how they implanted evil alien technology in their brain to stop the aliens mind controlling them. I lose a little bit of the respect for a villain when his lines are slapstick. And the Normandy got the last shot on Sovereign? Really? A frickin' frigate (and moving like a toy plane) destroyed a Reaper destroyer? And why didn't the Alliance bring any dreadnoughts to the fight? Didn't they think it important enough.

And why did they try to make me wonder if Shepard was dead or not when she was the protagonist for an announced trilogy? What were they expecting me to think? That she was killed off screen by a piece of rubble. It was a Disney Film plot, but at least Disney has the self respect to actually endanger someones life before pulling a stupid 'feel sad because the protagonist died for no reason'.

And why was Shepard posing on top of a piece of rubble? Was I meant to think that she looked awesome? Because what I actually thought was, wow they're making Shepard pose awkwardly for no reason on a top of rubble in the hope that I'll think it's awesome,


...yeah. Was not expecting to dislike the ME1 ending the most out of all of them. I agree the build up was nice though. Generally the story missions for ME1 were good all through (they felt short) whereas I always dreaded having to fight Collectors and ME3 dragged. The build up to the ME3 ending is the worst anti-build up for an ending I've seen and I blame it for why people started noticing the things wrong with ME3 (afterall, all these people I thought sane and sensible people didn't seem to mind the ME1 endings glaring problems =D)

 

[Eddie the head]

but each to their own

To this day I still do not understand the complaints about the ending of ME3. [/quote]

Short version is that details matter. The slightly longer version is there are a bunch of questions that are raised, that never get an answer. With all the questions that get raised the universe stops making sense. It's as simple as that the universe quit making sense at that point.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

but each to their own

To this day I still do not understand the complaints about the ending of ME3.

Short version is that details matter. The slightly longer version is there are a bunch of questions that are raised, that never get an answer. With all the questions that get raised the universe stops making sense. It's as simple as that the universe quit making sense at that point.[/quote]

I can only recall two questions of real importance that the game failed to answer. The first, naturally, was who built the damn Catalyst in the first place and why the hell they'd do such a thing. The second was how precisely the reaperiziation process was doing anything resembling preserving various species and why all of them ended up looking like space cuttlefish. The latter remains unresolved while the former was answered.

In DLC. 6 months later.

All of the nonsense surrounding the ending has little basis. Most of the legitimately important questions are answered in the basic game and those that remain are purely for context. The end itself suffers only from one true flaw as near as I can tell - that it stands in contrast to most of the themes explored throughout the story. I do have complaints about the game. For example, why is important story stuff locked behind DLC that got released six months after the game was made? Why do you include a multiplayer component such that the impact of any choice you've made previously is rendered irrelevant? It seems incredibly strange that random Trooper is worth three times more than any of the old veterans you bring along and that 50 or so of these random troopers is a force equal to dozens of fleets.

 

[Eddie the head]

Snip

Then you where not looking because there was a bunch. If you didn't notice them fine, but I did. I bet I could come up with a dozen off the top of my head. Why am I shooting this pipe? That's how you control this thing? You shot it? Will the Quarians die if I pick destroy? They are stated to have synthetic implants to help them interface with there suit. What is this Red energy made out of? What is this Green energy made out of? What is this Blue energy made out of? How did my squad get back on the Normandy? Oh, it flew done and picked them up. Why didn't we just fly down there to begin with then? And don't tell me that reaper was stopping us because harbinger is right there! What dose lose all that I am mean?

Furthermore you're telling me that a bunch of civilizations collaborated over millions if not billions of years to change something they didn't know existed? Why dose that kid giving the choice of what happens to whoever happens to pass out on this elevator? How did TIM get there? And how is he controlling you? How is the energy form the Mass Effect relays being dispersed to when they blow up, it doesn't blow up the solar system? Also why am a garbing electrical cables?

For another thing what energy is being added if I jump into the green beam of light? Biochemical energy? That makes no sense. Why would that do anything? (Don't say DNA that's information)

And all that is just scratching the surface of questions that are brought up and are never answered. If you didn't notice or can "rationalize" it away fine. But to say there are only two questions it brought up that are never answered is just wrong. And again I don't care if you don't notice or care, but I do.

 

[jollybarracuda]

Slight Dragons Dogma spoilers, though i'll stray away from specifics

I thought Dragon's Dogma had an absolutely phenomenal ending. I guess the ending wasnt really hated though, more just...it got weird. But I liked it weird, and I wish more than the last 5 hours were spent with that level of weirdness, as it was in those closing hours of the game that it really got its identity, and i'd go so far as to say its some of my favorite fantasy RPG mythos presented in a game. It took you to an otherwordly place that was both sad, but beautiful, with a lot of great concepts that symbolized a kind of purgatory scenario. Plus, the whole concept of the game basically having a three or so hour long epilogue showing how even a noble quest can lead to chaos was really refreshing to see when a lot of RPG stories tend to be fairly cut and dry.

I know you could point to plenty of other RPGs with more consistently interesting stories, but without exaggeration, Dragon's Dogma's closing hours brought back that sense of childlike wonder that I really hadn't felt since, well, childhood.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Then you where not looking because there was a bunch. If you didn't notice them fine, but I did. I bet I could come up with a dozen off the top of my head. Why am I shooting this pipe? That's how you control this thing? You shot it? Will the Quarians die if I pick destroy? They are stated to have synthetic implants to help them interface with there suit. What is this Red energy made out of? What is this Green energy made out of? What is this Blue energy made out of?

Not a single one of these points represents a compelling shortfall of narrative. The game universe is predicated upon the notion of magic in the form of the ability to violate a number of physical laws through a means only explained with technobabble if at all. Not having an explanation for how a mechanism works in Sci-Fi is hardly a new thing - that's where the fiction part in the genre lies.

The quarian death part additionally makes little sense since the destroy option is explicitly described as destroying sentient non-organic life - so, the reapers and the geth.

How did my squad get back on the Normandy? Oh, it flew done and picked them up. Why didn't we just fly down there to begin with then? And don't tell me that reaper was stopping us because harbinger is right there! What dose lose all that I am mean?

You have two explanations - either it was a bug or they wanted to say "Oh look! You prepared well and everyone but you lived!". Considering it is possible for the companions who accompany you to explicitly die in that final rush, the latter seems plausible.

Additionally, considering the length of time during which you were not present on the ground and in a position to know if harbinger was still standing about being all menacing, there is plenty of room to assume it is perfectly possible that there was an opportunity for a state of the art stealth ship to break from combat to launch a rescue operation.

Furthermore you're telling me that a bunch of civilizations collaborated over millions if not billions of years to change something they didn't know existed?

This right here is the one glaring problem with the ending. The Syntheis option was preferred but the Catalyst says life "wasn't ready". Fairly nebulous all told. Still, expecting life to eventually get the answer right by chance isn't such a silly concept. That's more or less how life works.

So, on the one hand we lack an explanation for what makes the current cycle different from the rest and on the other we have that the assumption that life might get the unknown thing right eventually isn't stupid. Anything possible by chance is simply possible.

Indeed you could look at various things present in the base game for evidence that the Reapers were not relying purely on chance. They created the Mass Effect system for the explicit purpose of guiding the development of life to some unknown end. As for the former, all told there simply isn't sufficient basis to make any judgement. There have been thousands of cycles and we only have significant information about two of them - the Protheans and the Levithans. In both cases the galaxy was dominated by a single species. Thus you have one possibility for explanation as to how this cycle is different: there are multiple species working cooperatively with no clearly dominant member. Given the long running theme of cooperation and the whole "together we can overcome" bit, this is plausible enough because it is both consistent with available evidence and narrative themes.

Still, even that's not a particularly good explanation.

Why dose that kid giving the choice of what happens to whoever happens to pass out on this elevator?

I have no idea what you refer too here.

How did TIM get there?

He flew there in a spaceship shortly before the assault on his space station. As a servant of the Reapers his presence on the citadel isn't entirely unexpected.

And how is he controlling you?

Presumably the result of all the work done by Cerberus to replicate reaper indoctrination. I mean that was only the plot point of one major story mission in the third game and a number of side missions.

How is the energy form the Mass Effect relays being dispersed to when they blow up, it doesn't blow up the solar system?

It is being modified through magic to be whatever kind of energy is used for the ending of your choice. Much the same as element zero has mass that can be modified positively by adding protons (or removing electrons) and negatively by removing protons or adding electrons. The energy is clearly present and being expended and presuming your willing to accept mass effect technology as reasonable, a different form of magic energy isn't much of a stretch.

Also why am a garbing electrical cables?

To produce synthetic life destroying red energy. Unless you want an exceedingly complex diagram of the workings of devices the top scientist in a galaxy that understands magic, that's the best explanation you'll get from any work of fiction.

For another thing what energy is being added if I jump into the green beam of light? Biochemical energy? That makes no sense. Why would that do anything? (Don't say DNA that's information)

What makes you assume the "energy" is the important bit? It could be genetic information, neural mapping, or sadism. The better question to ask here is why, after millions of years of experimentation, long after perfecting indoctrination such that any sentient being is susceptible, when life suddenly becomes "ready" and the Catalysts end goal is finally in sight, why does the Catalyst give you a choice in the matter?

Clearly it has the means to simply make you do it. I could once again offer a flimsy theory: that the choice itself was important. Were that true, then it means the particular configuration of the electrochemical state of the brain and related systems is important. Which means that the process clearly required that data set to work.

Of course, that doesn't really work as even trivial inspection reveals a new flaw: given the finite number of possible states of this system, given millions of years and computational power beyond imagining, presumably it would be possible to simply generate that information.

And all that is just scratching the surface of questions that are brought up and are never answered. If you didn't notice or can "rationalize" it away fine.

In all save two of your arguments, you point to details that are utterly unimportant or are easily answered with information available. And if you somehow think that a work of fiction that fails to explicitly tell you every detail is somehow inherently bad, an implication made by your choice to enclose "rationalize" in quotes, I'd simply point that the technique is as old as literature itself and like any other tool can be used appropriately.

In the case of things that simply don't matter - all of your "how does this work" questions for example, you don't need to rationalize. The universe is built upon a foundation of magic with only flimsy excuses constructed to justify shields, telepathy and faster than light travel. Attempting to generate an explanation for the specific purpose of an electrical conduit or the precise mechanism by which one example of magic operates is the height of pointless exercise - it is both unnecessary in the sense that the plot does not require an explanation beyond "it works" in order to proceed and because any explanation would just be a long sequence of vaguely plausible technobabble anyhow.

In the one case where you legitimately bring up a problem, that of synthesis, you overlook the obvious. The answer to what was necessary is simply what you want it to be - it is, in short, a point eligible for debate. But, like the briefcase in Ronin or Pulp Fiction, it doesn't really matter what was in the case, just as knowing precisely what life was missing, isn't actually important. The important bits are the things that surround the mcguffin, that it gives characters motivation.

A hole of that sort is hardly a hole at all but an opportunity for discussion. And, ultimately, in a franchise that put so much stock in choice, letting you decide about the details there at the end gives you the only real power you've ever had over the story.

I'm not going to call the ending brilliant, excellent or anything hyperbolic like that. I'm simply going to say that it was acceptable. The important questions were answered and the impossible problem was solved. Did I want to know more about what happened in specific circumstances? Certainly. But that wasn't particularly relevant to the plot itself.

In the base game, as far as I've managed to identify, there is only a single question of import that they failed to answer. Who built the catalyst and why. Not having that information undermines any power I have to make a choice. Without that information, there really isn't much of a downside to blowing up the reapers from a galactic point of view. Sure, it may be centuries before people reconquer the galaxy and Earth is fucked but for trillions that's a better ending than they could have dared hope for. That the question was finally answered within DLC released six months after the game came out is my real problem with the whole thing.

The bottom line is while I think the move with the Levithan DLC counts as the first example of DLC strategy that I can truly get around to hating, even without the extended cut or that DLC the ending still works well enough. Both bits make the ending better and the base ending might not have been great, but that hardly warrants the knee jerk reaction the world at large had to the thing. Sure, some people might have truly been offended - differences in perception and expectations and all, but I fail to see how anything present in the game itself justifies near universal disgust.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

[i/]"oh you cared? you actually cared about what happened? well fuck you! because we aren't going to tell or show you SHIT!....just this strange WTF non ending (that makes no sense in any context) and you should be happy with that and BASK IN THE SYMBOLIC BRILLIANCE"[/i]

The ending shows you doing whatever act precipitates the end, energy being released, reapers blowing up, or leaving, and a funeral. Consider then the major plot points of the third game:

1) The Reapers invade and are trying to kill everyone
2) Shepard builds an army to fight the reapers
3) A mcguffin is in the works that potentially has the ability to solve the problem

All three major bits are closed. Even questions about the future of the galaxy are answered in a brief sequence at the very end where the galaxy clearly is not in flames and sufficient time has passed that the actions of Shepard have become legend rather than historical fact.

Sure, there are lots of details missing. Just based upon the final game and the earth shattering decisions you're forced to make one might wonder about the geth and quarians and turains and salarians and krogan. All of these are interesting things to consider but in the end those details are not actually important to resolving the major plot points present in the trilogy.

I find it hard to explain but closure is what sets your mind at ease..its KNOWING.. Shepard dies, ok but we see the funeral, we see everything was ok, we see the characters mourning or we get a monologue, we get confirmation "its ok" again hard to explain but..yeah, plus its the "supposed" final instalment, there's no need for being obtuse

The mass effect franchise is a multi-billion dollar endeavor at this point. Being obtuse means they have more options regarding how to move forward with the property.

That's not a good reason; that's just the probable reason.

and no I don't accept "well you just don't get it/its too deep for you" as a counter point.Personally (because when it comes down to it we are still dealing with subjectives) I can accept sad or downright depressing or just inconclusive endings if it works on an artistic/thematic level (Black swan, Requiem for a dream,Red Dead Redemption, Portal 2) in Mass Effect it does not work on any level, including its own lore. (I Havant played the extended cut, so sorry but No spiolering of that for me)

This largely reflects what I believe to be the core of the problem with the end is. Sure, there is that one gaping plot hole that needed to be filled - the real problem was a lack of thematic consistency.

shepard turns on crucible.... reapers die, ice cream for everyone I GARRUNTEE you on numbers alone more people would have prefered that, YES it would have been lazy or cheap (all depending on details however) but in the end it would have worked better...

This contrasts directly with what you state above regarding consistency. Furthermore, there is not a thing in the world that would lead me to believe your proposed ending (a hyperbolic statement, certainly, but still) would have been better accepted because it is a terrible ending that fails thematically, logically, and in every possible way a narrative can fail.

and no again I don't buy "BUT HAPPY ENDINGS ARENT ARTY!!" as an excuse

An unearned happy ending isn't arty. Mass Effect did not earn a happy ending, largely because in creating conflict in the first two games they presented an impossibly powerful threat and a galaxy that simply didn't believe it was real. An 11th hour change of heart, especially in the face of inevitability, does not a happy ending earn.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

you uhhh.....quoted me wrong

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

snip.

you uhhh.....quoted me wrong

So I did! It has been corrected.

 

[Vault101]

snip[/spoiler]
still no excuse..what we got was still obtuse, and not enough



[quote/]
and no again I don't buy "BUT HAPPY ENDINGS ARENT ARTY!!" as an excuse

An unearned happy ending isn't arty. Mass Effect did not earn a happy ending, largely because in creating conflict in the first two games they presented an impossibly powerful threat and a galaxy that simply didn't believe it was real. An 11th hour change of heart, especially in the face of inevitability, does not a happy ending earn.[/quote]
what? just because "oh the threat is really really big" dominoes mean that a "happyy" (and by happy I mean an earned happy ending) isn't allowed, Lord of the Rings anyone?

[quote/]This contrasts directly with what you state above regarding consistency. Furthermore, there is not a thing in the world that would lead me to believe your proposed ending (a hyperbolic statement, certainly, but still) would have been better accepted because it is a terrible ending that fails thematically, logically, and in every possible way a narrative can fail.[/quote]
and what we got wasnt? because thats exactly how I would describe the original ending to ME3....sorry but I still disagree, a "happy" ending would have worked better

 

[Woodsey]

I didn't particularly like Mass Effect 3's ending, but it didn't make me angry. The bit in London had me sick to my stomach with nerves, dread and a genuine emotional weight, the catharsis of finally seeing it through overrode the "what?"-ness at the time. (Although IT.)

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

what? just because "oh the threat is really really big" dominoes mean that a "happyy" (and by happy I mean an earned happy ending) isn't allowed, Lord of the Rings anyone?

The threat in Lord of the Rings was relegated to a single land mass and only some of it's inhabitants. Moreover, the threat had a weakness easily exploited by a means already available to the heroes in the form of the one ring. The sacrifice of Frodo and others was sufficient to earn the ending.

and what we got wasnt? because thats exactly how I would describe the original ending to ME3....sorry but I still disagree, a "happy" ending would have worked better

The ending we got contrasted somewhat with the themes present in the franchise but was plausible within the fiction. What you presented was neither. My point was that the ending you proposed is simply worse than what is already there and, if you are honest, no less likely to be controversial.

 

[Vault101]

snip.

your saying no one could come up with a "happy" ending, that is bullshit, there have been better "alterinate" endings wirtten one example is The Marauder sheilds comic which quickly loses its funnay satire and gets dead serious (and good)

anyway I don't know if this is going anywhere but my point is imagine if in the third lord of the rings it cut right at the climax...thats what it was like

 

[Dogstile]

I think people just expect to damned much to be honest. I loved the ending to ME3.

Fuckin' agree right there. From what people seem to say, they of the two or so hours of the ending of the game (From when you attack Cerberus base), people seemed to expect over ten hours of different stuff. Christ, if Bioware had done that, the ending itself would've been on a separate disc on console. And the game would've come out much later. While it wasn't what I expected, I thought the endings were cool, and the Extended Cut just added extra stuff that was also cool (Although needed more space battles. We need more space battles in everything. There is a lack of space battles).

A lot of people seemed to not like the ending for Max Payne 3 for some reason. I thought it was really well done.

Ten hours of different stuff? We wanted to see our assets actually in action and for star child to be written out because its a plot hole the size of a planet. I really don't see how that's ten hours worth of stuff. Exaggeration I suppose.

 

[operationgenesis]

Well, I don't know how hated it actually is, but I really liked the ending of Assassin's Creed 2. SPOILERS and such: I mean, come on, fist fight with a wizard pope? That's hilarious. I also liked the bit where someone sent a message to Desmond through Ezio. Bet that bugged the crap out of Ezio for the rest of his life. Or not, I didn't play any of the sequels, so I wouldn't know.

The other one I really liked was Halo 2. Sure, it ended on a cliff hanger, but whatever, you all knew there was going to be a third one. I also actually liked the boss fight against Tartarus. Having Arbiter actually physically rebelling against the Prophets' will was a good end to his character arc. And since he's like, the only guy who actually has an arc in the trilogy, I thought it was nice.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I think people just expect to damned much to be honest. I loved the ending to ME3. I also liked the ending to ACIII as well. I grew up in an era of game endings that ended with CONGRATULATIONS. So anything other than that is kind of a thumbs up in my book! lol

I remember games like that and completely agree (except for the AC3 part but only because I haven't played it yet).

---

I liked the ending to Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (that is, the canonical ending). It had a sense of finality and answered a question that nobody had ever bothered to ask. It was still a good explanation about how the Rebel Alliance was formed and where the crest came from. I liked it and was happy with it and was excited for more Force Unleashed games but sadly we didn't get anymore...just a bit too much DLC re-packaged as a sequel which unfortunately killed the fucking series in the cradle.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

snip.

your saying no one could come up with a "happy" ending, that is bullshit, there have been better "alterinate" endings wirtten one example is The Marauder sheilds comic which quickly loses its funnay satire and gets dead serious (and good)

anyway I don't know if this is going anywhere but my point is imagine if in the third lord of the rings it cut right at the climax...thats what it was like

I'm not saying you can't come up with one. That's a trivial task. My statement was that Mass Effect did not earn a happy ending. The two points are entirely reconcilable.

 

[JediMB]

I didn't by any means love it, but I was just fine with RAGE's ending.

It was just... pretty much what I expected, considering how the story had been told up to that point. I don't get why people were disappointed with it.