No Right Answer: Worst Videogame Ending Ever
- Thread starter Firefilm
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yea... this strikes me as more of a flamebait episode. But you know what? I'm gonna nibble on it a bit.burningdragoon said:That was some pretty masterful trolling in the topic. Ragging on ME3 fans and FF7 fans, awesome.
I thought the FFVII ending was fine
FF7's ending was fine. The whole point of the "time skip" as people are calling it is to demonstrate that just because you beat the bad guy, the world doesn't go back to sunshine and rainbows where humanity can... keep destroying the planet like it has been with the way Shinra did things.
The point of the ending is that Holy's decision to let Meteor destroy Midgar (but not the rest of the world) was actually for the better. It was the "Go Green" before Go Green was a thing ending. And best of all, it was a different ending than every preceding FF game at that point in time. Advent Children gave FF7 an epilogue more than anything (and sadly that's when Square Enix caved to the notion that Cloud should be emo.)
Thats because if you go dark side you reactivate the weapon that originally destroyed Malcor V and kills everyone but you.deth2munkies said:
Also I played it on my Xbox and knew what happened to all the characters without the restoration mod. I don't understand.
Aaaaaand smash cut to incompetent voice over. Couldn't even get "THE FROZEN NORTH" guy to come back for the epilogue. Had to make do with Steve from Accounting.Slycne said:
There are two full games worth of the aftermath though, so that's good.
I actually thought the ending to Grand Theft Auto III was pretty funny. You're kind of just walking away with Maria and then suddenly Claude realises what he has done and thinks "Why did I save you? You're actually really fucking annoying." *bang*
You'll change your tune when you finish ME3 - but that said, yeah, the FFVII ending... something of a let-down, but there wasn't any illusion of being off the rails of the track of plot, it was a JRPG of the old school and that was expected. When the same thing is unexpected, it's worse.
Didn't play GTA so couldn't really compare.
Didn't play GTA so couldn't really compare.
As much as I love KotOR II as a whole, I have to jump in with the people who say that was the worst ending. not Obsidian's fault (which is the saving grace, I guess), but just awful.
As usual, Dan wins. His contributions to the debate were more compelling than anything Chris or Kyle offered. But then again, the odds are stacked in his favor.
Obviously, FFVII is more of a failure as an ending because FFVII is all about the story. When a story has a bad ending it really sticks out. GTA3 of the other hand was a free-form hooker murder simulator. The fact that it's story had a bad ending takes a back seat to the revelation that it had a story.
Obviously, FFVII is more of a failure as an ending because FFVII is all about the story. When a story has a bad ending it really sticks out. GTA3 of the other hand was a free-form hooker murder simulator. The fact that it's story had a bad ending takes a back seat to the revelation that it had a story.
Hey the evil ending was pretty rad.Slycne said:
Errr SPOILERS!
You kill your entire team, team up with the big evil, and you make a huge army of undead and start taking over the world.
In fact I thought it was cool that if you chose evil, the last boss was your entire party. Just a neat way to change things up.
But ya, the good ending was mighty weak.
LOL!SpartyTheOneManParty said:
But that was totally unfair since the epilogue DLC didn't fucking finish the story either. That was by far the worst ending ever. They had two chances to do it right and they didn't.
*Assuming that nobody in this thread is really expecting it to be spoiler free*windlenot said:
Yeah, given that the characters were willing to do basically anything for anyone who could write a note so that they could get inside of the Vault, the fact that they failed makes all the running around seem really pointless.
I always thought that FF7 was a story about people's reliance on technology to the point that it was hurting/killing the earth and then the epilogue of grass growing over a city that once was the epicenter of advanced technology was their way of saying "and then after what cloud and friends did, the earth got back to a healthy place".
The hero's save the world in a fairly unique (especially at the time) way. Honestly, what more can you ask of a video game? that's about as good of an ending as you can ask for. Sure, the movie might have fleshed it out a little more but then again, was it needed? we already know the earth is saved. we already know the lifestream is on its slow process of healing or whatever. it might have given fans more time with beloved characters, but it didn't add any new insight on the theme of the story as a whole. once again, that was done in the game itself.
The hero's save the world in a fairly unique (especially at the time) way. Honestly, what more can you ask of a video game? that's about as good of an ending as you can ask for. Sure, the movie might have fleshed it out a little more but then again, was it needed? we already know the earth is saved. we already know the lifestream is on its slow process of healing or whatever. it might have given fans more time with beloved characters, but it didn't add any new insight on the theme of the story as a whole. once again, that was done in the game itself.
Well, at least I liked the ending of GTA III's story... But maybe that's just because I like blowing things up...
And I love the way sandboxes let you mess around in the sandbox after the plot has ended.
And I love the way sandboxes let you mess around in the sandbox after the plot has ended.
The point about Sandbox game endings is made invalid by Red Dead Redemption, a (Rockstar) sandbox game that had a great ending, but still managed to continue withe the sandbox after the resolution of the story, but in a way that fit thematically with that resolution.
Chris is wrong. First: Final Fantasy VII is a JRPG, and as such, is driven by a canon story you cannot change, some JRPGS actually give you choices that affect the ending (Suikoden I and II for instance, although some of those choices are given to you at the very ending), but not all, in fact the previous Final Fantasy games did not. Second... if you follow the story you can tell what happens in the end. *SPOILER ALERT* The gang defeats Sephiroth, but Meteor is still crashing down on earth (ok, Gaia) but the planet defends itself with the Lifestream, only that's not enough, and Aeris, right before getting killed summons Holy (the materia she had on her hair tied with a ribbon, the one her mother gave her, the one we see fall with Aeris in her *sorta* funeral) and so Holy, combined with the Lifestream stop meteor. After the credits we see Midgar abandonned and filled with vegetation 500 years later. This could mean a couple of things according to interpretation. It's not that important really. Besides... Nanaki's species survives despite him being the last of them, so it looks like a happy ending at least.
If you want a dumb ending for a game (and you're looking in the FF series) I would recomend FF VIII's ending... that one is reeeeeeally dumb and doesn't make any sense at all... it's just weird stuff happening (nicely rendered weird stuff) that has no connection with anything
If you want a dumb ending for a game (and you're looking in the FF series) I would recomend FF VIII's ending... that one is reeeeeeally dumb and doesn't make any sense at all... it's just weird stuff happening (nicely rendered weird stuff) that has no connection with anything
Chris is wrong. He says he has a problem with the ending because it does not adequately explain what happened. Well, guess what: that's called ambiguity and in fiction it's generally considered to be a good thing. You are not precisely told what happened, but you are given an idea and whatever you think happened is how the story ends in your mind. To say that it's a bad ending because of that is to be like the idiots who are poring through the production documents of Inception to find out whether or not the spin stops at the ending. It's not important, because there isn't supposed to be a definitive answer, and that's the point.
Imagine that there's an Inception sequel that explains without any leeway whether or not the previous movie's ending is a dream or not. Most people would hate it and call it a cash grab, probably rightly. That's exactly what Advent Children is: a cash grab that has no respect for the original ending and just wants to make more money. I'm not sure why gamers are the only media consumers who demand that everything be explained to them: that's a stupid, self-defeating way of thinking that leads only to make sure games with proper symbolysm and subtext are never made.
Since everyone is talking about ME3, here's a parallel: I've seen people flat out reject Indocrination Theory because 'Bioware has to say it's canon'. That's not how it works, dudes! Once a work is released, the author's analysis of it has no more say than the fanbase's, because a work has to stand on its own. If the work supports the theory, then Bioware saying it's not true does not change the fact that it's plausible and therefore a valid interpretation. That's what made me so angry about Retakers: not that they didn't like the ending, but that they departed from the assumption that they had to force Bioware to make a new ending, when in fact any ending they created themselves was exactly was valid as the canon one under any theory for the study of creative works.
Kyle, on the other end, is also wrong. GTAIII was the first game to mesh true sandbox and at least a pretension of narrative, so it should get a pass as the devs were technically testing the waters to see what works and what didn't. Plus GTAIII was about some lowlife scum running around and killing hookers (hoooraay!) so what should change in the city once he finishes killing some people he didn't like? I hated GTAIV, but it did have an ending that had some finality for those who were playing for the story, without preventing them from continuing on the gameplay. On the other hand. Fallout 3 had an ending that was certainly final but gamers hated it. (I didn't - it happened to be an excellent ending for my character, who was a goody two-shoes and didn't have anyone on her party who could have done the deed for her, but were you playing an evil character who had a robot and a mutant for sidekicks I'd understand how it doesn't fit in.)
So if both are wrong, who wins? Dan. Dan always wins. Woooo Dan!
Imagine that there's an Inception sequel that explains without any leeway whether or not the previous movie's ending is a dream or not. Most people would hate it and call it a cash grab, probably rightly. That's exactly what Advent Children is: a cash grab that has no respect for the original ending and just wants to make more money. I'm not sure why gamers are the only media consumers who demand that everything be explained to them: that's a stupid, self-defeating way of thinking that leads only to make sure games with proper symbolysm and subtext are never made.
Since everyone is talking about ME3, here's a parallel: I've seen people flat out reject Indocrination Theory because 'Bioware has to say it's canon'. That's not how it works, dudes! Once a work is released, the author's analysis of it has no more say than the fanbase's, because a work has to stand on its own. If the work supports the theory, then Bioware saying it's not true does not change the fact that it's plausible and therefore a valid interpretation. That's what made me so angry about Retakers: not that they didn't like the ending, but that they departed from the assumption that they had to force Bioware to make a new ending, when in fact any ending they created themselves was exactly was valid as the canon one under any theory for the study of creative works.
Kyle, on the other end, is also wrong. GTAIII was the first game to mesh true sandbox and at least a pretension of narrative, so it should get a pass as the devs were technically testing the waters to see what works and what didn't. Plus GTAIII was about some lowlife scum running around and killing hookers (hoooraay!) so what should change in the city once he finishes killing some people he didn't like? I hated GTAIV, but it did have an ending that had some finality for those who were playing for the story, without preventing them from continuing on the gameplay. On the other hand. Fallout 3 had an ending that was certainly final but gamers hated it. (I didn't - it happened to be an excellent ending for my character, who was a goody two-shoes and didn't have anyone on her party who could have done the deed for her, but were you playing an evil character who had a robot and a mutant for sidekicks I'd understand how it doesn't fit in.)
So if both are wrong, who wins? Dan. Dan always wins. Woooo Dan!