Yeah, I too think of it as kind of cocky when developers leave very cliffhanger endings on their games in expectation of some kind of 'epic' trilogy or franchise.
We get stuck with great games and no way to end up seeing what happens.
I mean, I'm all for trilogies and stuff when the games appear to deserve it. But only when the publisher has essentially committed to it. But that's pretty rare outside of first parties. It's also rare outside of games that publishers have hyped to holy hell and back.
It's funny because if you look at Star Wars as a successful trilogy, you realise Lucas actually did a pretty smart thing since the entire movie is self-contained. If he'd never made any sequels to it, the first one still stands as a complete story.
Same with Pirates of the Carribean (although admittedly, I have yet to see parts 2 and 3). And Back to the Future (alright, TECHNICALLY it was an open ending, but if it ended right there, everyone would accept it just fine).
I also feel it's best to have the first part of the story self-contained so that if it's not too popular, at least we've got a decent conclusion out of it.
Yeah, I too think of it as kind of cocky when developers leave very cliffhanger endings on their games in expectation of some kind of 'epic' trilogy or franchise.
We get stuck with great games and no way to end up seeing what happens.
I mean, I'm all for trilogies and stuff when the games appear to deserve it. But only when the publisher has essentially committed to it. But that's pretty rare outside of first parties. It's also rare outside of games that publishers have hyped to holy hell and back.
It's funny because if you look at Star Wars as a successful trilogy, you realise Lucas actually did a pretty smart thing since the entire movie is self-contained. If he'd never made any sequels to it, the first one still stands as a complete story.
Same with Pirates of the Carribean (although admittedly, I have yet to see parts 2 and 3).
The ending of Pirates 2 must have been one of the worst cliffhangers ever, but yeah, Pirates 1 could be considered self-contained.
Yeah, I too think of it as kind of cocky when developers leave very cliffhanger endings on their games in expectation of some kind of 'epic' trilogy or franchise.
We get stuck with great games and no way to end up seeing what happens.
I mean, I'm all for trilogies and stuff when the games appear to deserve it. But only when the publisher has essentially committed to it. But that's pretty rare outside of first parties. It's also rare outside of games that publishers have hyped to holy hell and back.
It's funny because if you look at Star Wars as a successful trilogy, you realise Lucas actually did a pretty smart thing since the entire movie is self-contained. If he'd never made any sequels to it, the first one still stands as a complete story.
Same with Pirates of the Carribean (although admittedly, I have yet to see parts 2 and 3).
The ending of Pirates 2 must have been one of the worst cliffhangers ever, but yeah, Pirates 1 could be considered self-contained.
So what? Empire Strikes Back is a cliffhanger too.
By the time you've got the go ahead for #2, you've probably secured the go ahead for #3 too.
The important thing is, if your not sure your series is gonna take off, you make the first one self contained. That way if it flops, it at least feels complete.
Well Crysis didn't really end at all. It just kind of... rolled the credits MIDWAY O.o
So true. But at least the vast majority of it was awesome. (Im one of those few sick freaks who liked the alien missions. Except for that VTOL flying bit. Screw that thing.)
I'm one of those fewer sick freaks who liked the VTOL mission. But not the ending boss fight. That was kinda lame. Then again, most FPS boss fights are utterly lame.
As for the ending itself, yeah, pretty much "we'll discuss this in the SEQUEL, OLOL!". But like I said previously, I don't mind since the gameplay was up to par and I know they're going to at least try and carry on the story in the next game.
Even then, I still prefer it when the first part of an alleged trilogy still finished up well on its own, and leaves the "open ended" stuff for the sequel.
I think people who didn't like the VTOL mission didn't figure out it shoots missiles. By mounting those AA guns and the vehicle guns, you pretty much only had primary fire to depend on, and if you're one to think in a linear fashion first, you won't even dream about the fact that when the aliens flash it means you've locked on.
I know I died two times before I figured out "oh, I don't have to kill them all with my primaries". And after that, I loved the section, as much as I did the rest of the game.
The ending just simply left me with my mouth open though. It was analogous to being masturbated masterfully without the ability to ejaculate. I felt cheated.
Loved the game though. Anyone who compares it to Far Cry just doesn't know how to play games.
BlackDove on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Jurassic park would have been fine without lost world and 3.
Fuck you Lost World was great.
It butchers the book though. And I know its cliche to say that but the novel is so much more entertaining than the movie.
The only redeeming feature, as with many things, is Jeff Goldblum.
The part where the black girl does the trapeze gymnast thing to kill a raptor. Awful. T-Rex in San Diego. Awful. Everything was pretty poor, especially that terrible baby t rex model.
Well Crysis didn't really end at all. It just kind of... rolled the credits MIDWAY O.o
So true. But at least the vast majority of it was awesome. (Im one of those few sick freaks who liked the alien missions. Except for that VTOL flying bit. Screw that thing.)
I'm one of those fewer sick freaks who liked the VTOL mission. But not the ending boss fight. That was kinda lame. Then again, most FPS boss fights are utterly lame.
As for the ending itself, yeah, pretty much "we'll discuss this in the SEQUEL, OLOL!". But like I said previously, I don't mind since the gameplay was up to par and I know they're going to at least try and carry on the story in the next game.
Even then, I still prefer it when the first part of an alleged trilogy still finished up well on its own, and leaves the "open ended" stuff for the sequel.
I think people who didn't like the VTOL mission didn't figure out it shoots missiles. By mounting those AA guns and the vehicle guns, you pretty much only had primary fire to depend on, and if you're one to think in a linear fashion first, you won't even dream about the fact that when the aliens flash it means you've locked on.
I know I died two times before I figured out "oh, I don't have to kill them all with my primaries". And after that, I loved the section, as much as I did the rest of the game.
The ending just simply left me with my mouth open though. It was analogous to being masturbated masterfully without the ability to ejaculate. I felt cheated.
Loved the game though. Anyone who compares it to Far Cry just doesn't know how to play games.
I thought the little text pop-up tells you as such at the beginning anyway doesn't it? I know it telss you about the machinegun on mouse-1 anyway.
But aside from that, Crysis as a game pretty much gives you as much as you're willing to put into it, so I can see how some people got the idea it was just another bland shooter. If you don't know or want to try experimentation, it will pretty much play like any other generic shooter out there.
subedii on
0
PharezonStruggle is an illusion.Victory is in the Qun.Registered Userregular
Jurassic park would have been fine without lost world and 3.
Fuck you Lost World was great.
It butchers the book though. And I know its cliche to say that but the novel is so much more entertaining than the movie.
The only redeeming feature, as with many things, is Jeff Goldblum.
The part where the black girl does the trapeze gymnast thing to kill a raptor. Awful. T-Rex in San Diego. Awful. Everything was pretty poor, especially that terrible baby t rex model.
Fuck you John Williams' score was great. The first half of the movie was awesome.
Jurassic park would have been fine without lost world and 3.
Fuck you Lost World was great.
It butchers the book though. And I know its cliche to say that but the novel is so much more entertaining than the movie.
The only redeeming feature, as with many things, is Jeff Goldblum.
The part where the black girl does the trapeze gymnast thing to kill a raptor. Awful. T-Rex in San Diego. Awful. Everything was pretty poor, especially that terrible baby t rex model.
Fuck you John Williams' score was great. The first half of the movie was awesome.
I think the reason games don't end as well anymore is because dev teams get more worked up about graphics that they forget about the things a lot of people play games for like you know... Gameplay and story lines perhaps?
The Matrix would have been fine without Reloaded and Revolution.
They essentially had to retcon a good deal of the original's ending to have the sequels make the slightest bit of sense. In the ending of The Matrix, Neo was more or less godlike and completely untouchable by the Agents. In the sequels, he's back to hiding in the shadows.
I think it's because today games are more of a business than artform.
You gotta end the game in such a way to warrant a sequel if the game is recieved well, so that way you can churn out more and more of the same for profit.
If I can go back to AC's ending for just a moment:
What was the most underwhelming aspect of it for me was that nothing happened at the end. Sure, Altair's story ends just fine, but when you get back to Desmond you're just hanging out in a room while the Templars go out looking for more orbs or whatever. That's it, you're just standing in a room, and you know something awesome is happening, but you have to wait until AC 2 to find out what it is.
If I can go back to AC's ending for just a moment:
What was the most underwhelming aspect of it for me was that nothing happened at the end. Sure, Altair's story ends just fine, but when you get back to Desmond you're just hanging out in a room while the Templars go out looking for more orbs or whatever. That's it, you're just standing in a room, and you know something awesome is happening, but you have to wait until AC 2 to find out what it is.
If I can go back to AC's ending for just a moment:
What was the most underwhelming aspect of it for me was that nothing happened at the end. Sure, Altair's story ends just fine, but when you get back to Desmond you're just hanging out in a room while the Templars go out looking for more orbs or whatever. That's it, you're just standing in a room, and you know something awesome is happening, but you have to wait until AC 2 to find out what it is.
there is an ending cutscene
look around the lab
Hmm, I saw the stuff in blood all over the place, and I saw how I could replay chapters in the Animus machine, but I can't recall seeing anything else. I could have just missed it though.
Seriously, this is one of my biggest pet peeves, harkening back to the the first soul reaver. I understand about wanting to start a franchise and what not, but it really bothers me when I heard developers commenting how their game is going to be a trilogy or series, because A) you know that there's a chance it won't have a proper ending, and B)There is always the chance that the game won't pan out and you never get a satisfying conclusion. Advent Rising I'm looking at you.
Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, but Soul Reaver was never intended to have a sequel. The developers ran out of time and had to make due with that they had. Would you prefer they hadn't?
That doesn't take away from the fact that the game's ending was pure shit and made me avoid the rest of the games. I find it hard to believe that the developers were trudging along in their merry ways, planning to wrap up all the lose ends, when the evil publisher bursts in and went "oh noes! Game has to ship NOW."
Seriously, this is one of my biggest pet peeves, harkening back to the the first soul reaver. I understand about wanting to start a franchise and what not, but it really bothers me when I heard developers commenting how their game is going to be a trilogy or series, because A) you know that there's a chance it won't have a proper ending, and B)There is always the chance that the game won't pan out and you never get a satisfying conclusion. Advent Rising I'm looking at you.
Wait, what? I'm not sure what you're getting at with this, but Soul Reaver was never intended to have a sequel. The developers ran out of time and had to make due with that they had. Would you prefer they hadn't?
That doesn't take away from the fact that the game's ending was pure shit and made me avoid the rest of the games. I find it hard to believe that the developers were trudging along in their merry ways, planning to wrap up all the lose ends, when the evil publisher bursts in and went "oh noes! Game has to ship NOW."
'Trilogy' is probably the most common word used this generation, and I don't think video game writers are skilled enough to make a story that ends properly but can lead into another game. Only example I can think of:
Mass Effect. You kill both of the antagonists, but there is still a huge war being waged and you know it isn't over.
EDIT: As said above, it's also a great business move. People are less likely to buy the next game down the line if there is a proper ending.
'Trilogy' is probably the most common word used this generation, and I don't think video game writers are skilled enough to make a story that ends properly but can lead into another game. Only example I can think of:
Mass Effect. You kill both of the antagonists, but there is still a huge war being waged and you know it isn't over.
EDIT: As said above, it's also a great business move. People are less likely to buy the next game down the line if there is a proper ending.
Seriously man, fuck you.
It's Mass Effect, for anyone who wants to know.
Aydr on
0
ViscountalphaThe pen is mightier than the swordhttp://youtu.be/G_sBOsh-vyIRegistered Userregular
'Trilogy' is probably the most common word used this generation, and I don't think video game writers are skilled enough to make a story that ends properly but can lead into another game. Only example I can think of:
Mass Effect. You kill both of the antagonists, but there is still a huge war being waged and you know it isn't over.
EDIT: As said above, it's also a great business move. People are less likely to buy the next game down the line if there is a proper ending.
Seriously man, fuck you.
I considered the name of the game a spoiler. If you aren't sure, don't click it. Not my fault.
'Trilogy' is probably the most common word used this generation, and I don't think video game writers are skilled enough to make a story that ends properly but can lead into another game. Only example I can think of:
Mass Effect. You kill both of the antagonists, but there is still a huge war being waged and you know it isn't over.
EDIT: As said above, it's also a great business move. People are less likely to buy the next game down the line if there is a proper ending.
Seriously man, fuck you.
I considered the name of the game a spoiler. If you aren't sure, don't click it. Not my fault.
No, fuck you. They've stated a bajillion times already that they're planning on making it a trilogy, and plenty of people in this very thread have already commented on it.
Why are you acting all butt-hurt about it? I didn't know, and I was trying to be considerate, sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Being an asshole about it doesn't make feel sorry about it, though.
Zombiemambo on
0
Dusdais ashamed of this postSLC, UTRegistered Userregular
edited February 2008
Most games do not have stellar endings. Were the same script for a typical game presented in movie form, the result would be a crappy summer blockbuster with the last ten minutes arbitrarily chopped from the film roll. The reason for this is simple: games are at a point of transition. It used to be pretty normal for games to have little or no ending at all. Have you seen the Super Mario 3 ending lately? For all but the most story driven games of the past, the ending has always been an afterthought. Now we are in this weird point in history where games are kinda sorta becoming an accepted form of media. Compelling narratives are suddenly expected, and frankly a good deal of game developers out there aren't ready to deliver the goods.
Why are you acting all butt-hurt about it? I didn't know, and I was trying to be considerate, sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Being an asshole about it doesn't make feel sorry about it, though.
Um, if you think the name of the game is a spoiler, double spoiler asshole.
The fact that Mass Effect is a trilogy is common knowledge. At least on this board.
Why are you acting all butt-hurt about it? I didn't know, and I was trying to be considerate, sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Being an asshole about it doesn't make feel sorry about it, though.
Um, if you think the name of the game is a spoiler, double spoiler asshole.
The fact that Mass Effect is a trilogy is common knowledge. At least on this board.
Are you kidding? Now that it's EA calling the shots I fully expect Mass Effect '09, and Sims Effect plus two expansions. By August.
Why are you acting all butt-hurt about it? I didn't know, and I was trying to be considerate, sheesh. No good deed goes unpunished, eh? Being an asshole about it doesn't make feel sorry about it, though.
Seems to me that you're the one being the asshole, seeing as you just spoiled the bloody game for him. Why even bother using the spoiler tags when you have to open it to find out what the hell you're going to be spoiling?!
Anyway, most bad endings can be easily explained by over ambitious developers already planning out sequels. With all the trilogies popping up nowadays (LOTR, Matrix, PotC and SW:Ep1-3), it's become the newest trend. And when you've got a story layed out over 3 installments, it's obviously pretty hard to plot out the story for each game individually.
That said though, what the hell is bad about Ratchet & Clank's ending? (R&C:ToD and a tiny bit of GoW2 spoilers)
I think they handled it really well. It's nowhere near as bad as some of the other games mentioned here. The big bad guy is defeated and as the story is winding down, Clank's kidna... No, robotnapped.
If I were comparing it to a movie franchise, I'd probably compare it to LotR: Fellowship of the Ring's ending, with Sam and Frodo heading off to Mordor, Merry and Pippin hobbitnapped and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli heading off to save them. It was really done well and while I couldn't wait for Two Towers, it's still a great movie to watch just by itself.
Whereas an ending like GoW2's is more akin to Pirates of the Carribean 2 or Matrix: Reloaded, where they just hit the climax of the story and then... The End.
Oh and I must be one of the few that didn't actually mind GoW2's ending...
I thought Uncharted: Drakes Fortune ended really well, in a typical hollywood blockbuster fashion, wetting the appetite for a sequel without having the notion rubbed in your face with unnecessary teasers for games that are 3 years down the line.
I don't get why some of you guys are using LOTR as an example. They were written more than 50 years ago, and Tolkein wrote them as a single work, even if they did come in three volumes.
Posts
Same with Pirates of the Carribean (although admittedly, I have yet to see parts 2 and 3). And Back to the Future (alright, TECHNICALLY it was an open ending, but if it ended right there, everyone would accept it just fine).
I also feel it's best to have the first part of the story self-contained so that if it's not too popular, at least we've got a decent conclusion out of it.
The ending of Pirates 2 must have been one of the worst cliffhangers ever, but yeah, Pirates 1 could be considered self-contained.
So what? Empire Strikes Back is a cliffhanger too.
By the time you've got the go ahead for #2, you've probably secured the go ahead for #3 too.
The important thing is, if your not sure your series is gonna take off, you make the first one self contained. That way if it flops, it at least feels complete.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
I think people who didn't like the VTOL mission didn't figure out it shoots missiles. By mounting those AA guns and the vehicle guns, you pretty much only had primary fire to depend on, and if you're one to think in a linear fashion first, you won't even dream about the fact that when the aliens flash it means you've locked on.
I know I died two times before I figured out "oh, I don't have to kill them all with my primaries". And after that, I loved the section, as much as I did the rest of the game.
The ending just simply left me with my mouth open though. It was analogous to being masturbated masterfully without the ability to ejaculate. I felt cheated.
Loved the game though. Anyone who compares it to Far Cry just doesn't know how to play games.
Fuck you Lost World was great.
It butchers the book though. And I know its cliche to say that but the novel is so much more entertaining than the movie.
The only redeeming feature, as with many things, is Jeff Goldblum.
The part where the black girl does the trapeze gymnast thing to kill a raptor. Awful. T-Rex in San Diego. Awful. Everything was pretty poor, especially that terrible baby t rex model.
I thought the little text pop-up tells you as such at the beginning anyway doesn't it? I know it telss you about the machinegun on mouse-1 anyway.
But aside from that, Crysis as a game pretty much gives you as much as you're willing to put into it, so I can see how some people got the idea it was just another bland shooter. If you don't know or want to try experimentation, it will pretty much play like any other generic shooter out there.
Fuck you John Williams' score was great. The first half of the movie was awesome.
No it was pretty much all awful.
They essentially had to retcon a good deal of the original's ending to have the sequels make the slightest bit of sense. In the ending of The Matrix, Neo was more or less godlike and completely untouchable by the Agents. In the sequels, he's back to hiding in the shadows.
You gotta end the game in such a way to warrant a sequel if the game is recieved well, so that way you can churn out more and more of the same for profit.
there is an ending cutscene
look around the lab
Four pages late, but properly. Or perfectly.
That doesn't take away from the fact that the game's ending was pure shit and made me avoid the rest of the games. I find it hard to believe that the developers were trudging along in their merry ways, planning to wrap up all the lose ends, when the evil publisher bursts in and went "oh noes! Game has to ship NOW."
...That happens a lot, actually.
"This is EXACTLY how a game should end!"
I beat assassins creed last night and I agree with Grinch... we know a sequels coming though.
You want a game with a shitty ending? I'll tell you a game with a shitty ending.
Crackdown.
Seriously man, fuck you.
It's Mass Effect, for anyone who wants to know.
I still never finished that. I need to find it. I loved Secret of mana a lot. I wish it would come onto the Wii VC but I find that unlikely.
It's a little toogood. Chrono Cross had to build an entire story around the only unresolved plot point from Trigger.
I considered the name of the game a spoiler. If you aren't sure, don't click it. Not my fault.
No, fuck you. They've stated a bajillion times already that they're planning on making it a trilogy, and plenty of people in this very thread have already commented on it.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Um, if you think the name of the game is a spoiler, double spoiler asshole.
The fact that Mass Effect is a trilogy is common knowledge. At least on this board.
Are you kidding? Now that it's EA calling the shots I fully expect Mass Effect '09, and Sims Effect plus two expansions. By August.
Seems to me that you're the one being the asshole, seeing as you just spoiled the bloody game for him. Why even bother using the spoiler tags when you have to open it to find out what the hell you're going to be spoiling?!
Anyway, most bad endings can be easily explained by over ambitious developers already planning out sequels. With all the trilogies popping up nowadays (LOTR, Matrix, PotC and SW:Ep1-3), it's become the newest trend. And when you've got a story layed out over 3 installments, it's obviously pretty hard to plot out the story for each game individually.
That said though, what the hell is bad about Ratchet & Clank's ending? (R&C:ToD and a tiny bit of GoW2 spoilers)
If I were comparing it to a movie franchise, I'd probably compare it to LotR: Fellowship of the Ring's ending, with Sam and Frodo heading off to Mordor, Merry and Pippin hobbitnapped and Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli heading off to save them. It was really done well and while I couldn't wait for Two Towers, it's still a great movie to watch just by itself.
Whereas an ending like GoW2's is more akin to Pirates of the Carribean 2 or Matrix: Reloaded, where they just hit the climax of the story and then... The End.
Oh and I must be one of the few that didn't actually mind GoW2's ending...