The Worst Game Endings

[Nick_i_am]

Well, yeah, the narrative in general was freaking awsome. One of the only games made that STILL absorbes me, and there's very few modern games that do that.

 

On the flip side, while I loved the game, the ending of Freespace 2 was pretty lackluster.

 

'Ooooh, Aliens blew up the sun! Erm, great, what now? Credits!'

 

I'm sure they had some great ideas for a sequal, since there were so many untied endings, but it was never made, and that's not an excuse anyway.

[Enoch]

I must correct myself-- I somehow forgot that I had finished both the KotOR games in my earlier post/edit. Oops.

 

When the gameplay gets tedious (and most games do at or before the 3/4ths mark), there have to be some pretty special story or character hooks to keep me playing to see how it ends.

[CoM_Solaufein]

IWD2

Bloodlines and Kotor 2. These are good games but their endings were rushed.

[Tale]

How was Bloodlines ending unfinished? Someone else said that here and someone else responded in much the same way I am. It seemed quite complete.

[Musopticon?]

Bloodlines had an awesome ending which kicked your face if you were a bastard.

[alanschu]

The Kuei-Jin ending may have been perceived as somewhat lackluster by some people. I enjoyed the anti-climacticness of it though!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I have no qualms with the ending of Bloodlines, it suited the mood of the game perfectly...

[Qwerty the Sir]

Oh, I forgot about NHL 94's ending. Not really a true ending, but when you play playoff mode and go all the way to win the Stanley Cup, you just get the default three stars screen and go back to the menu. I know it was a really old game and all, but they have several animations for goal scoring celebrations, they could have added a cup hoisting one...

[alanschu]

I thought they did for the SNES version. It was nothing special really. Just one of the goal scoring celebrations with a cup in one of the player's hands instead.

[Humodour]

I'm similar to DogMeat:

 

KOTOR 2 did not do it for me at all at the end. Good game until the middle, though.

Bloodlines was just as bad as KOTOR 2, except it was an absolutely awesome game until maybe 3/4 instead.

Quake 1: say what?

Deus Ex 2: The ending was weak but I guess that was symptomatic of the entire game.

IWD 2: It was too easy and I didn't like the severed hand as an ending place (I loved it in IWD1 and loved restoring it).

Half-Life 2: I actually wasn't that huge a fan of the entire game. Nothing new, and some things went backwards from HL1. Episode 1 was a lot more on track. Episode 2 went backwards again. Half-Life is about SOLITARY survival, not squad fights or saving somebody else's skin. Bah!

Opposing Force: Considering how HL1 ended, it was a cop-out to see it happen again, especially to such a great campaign as Op Force.

 

A good ending was one of the AVP2 ones where the Alien Queen cocoons the cannibal administrator as food for later, while he lies there screaming - his arms and legs having already been eaten by the hive.

[Xard]

Half-Life 2: I actually wasn't that huge a fan of the entire game. Nothing new, and some things went backwards from HL1. Episode 1 was a lot more on track. Episode 2 went backwards again. Half-Life is about SOLITARY survival, not squad fights or saving somebody else's skin. Bah!

 

I disagree here, HL2 is one of my favorite shooters and I prefer it to first one

 

Although HL1 had better soldier AI, strange enough

Edited December 5, 2007 by Xard

[GreasyDogMeat]

Bloodlines had an awesome ending which kicked your face if you were a bastard.

 

Uh, you could be the biggest bastard in the world the whole game through and it didn't affect your ending. It all boiled down to who you sided with. On the flip side you could have been the nicest vampire that ever sucked blood, avoiding fights and sparing humans but side with the 'wrong' faction at the end of the game and you get a bad ending.

 

The ending(s) were not helped by the plot being a

lame small-time attempt at creating a vampire power struggle so each group offs the other. Any other RPG it would have been a side-quest. All this build up of antideluvians or whatever... pfah!

 

 

Didn't even get a chance to kill Jack or the big cheese behind the deception.

 

Edited December 5, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Humodour]

I think DogMeat hit the nail on the head. The main quest wasn't appropriately intricate in the end to validate all the mystery and intrigue that lead up to it. That, end the final levels were so linear and rushed.

 

Xard: why was it your favourite shooter? It didn't have the atmosphere of the first game, nor the ingenuity (of both level design and pushing the gamer towards ingenuity in solving problems in levels). And the central theme of the game changed dramatically. Instead of you, on your own, trying to save your skin and escape, you're out to save the world with team mates. Think of any decent horror game: Half-Life 1, System Shock 2, AvP2, Bloodlines... you can't have a great horror/survival atmosphere and companions or squaddies at the same time.

 

Furthermore, it moved from small extensions of real science (you'd be surprised how much of Half-Life is extensions of real scientific theories or inventions) or well known sci fi ideas (teleportation) to full blown we don't have any explanation at all, or the one we do have is ludicrous to anybody with a modicum of scientific knowledge. That just blew the atmosphere to bits. I'm not saying the game had to be super-scientific, but a careful balance of realism w.r.t the setting gave Half-Life 1 a fabulous atmosphere.

[Hurlshort]

On a side note, the original Space Quest had the best ending sequence ever.

[Hell Kitty]

I was always unsatisfied with the ending of The Secret of Monkey Island 2. Not that I can remember most of it anymore.

[SteveThaiBinh]

It involved a

theme park called Big Whoop

, and it was famously unpopular (this was referenced in later games, I think). I thought it was pretty funny myself.

[GreasyDogMeat]

On a side note, the original Space Quest had the best ending sequence ever.

 

Space Quest, I loved that series as a kid. It took me two years to beat the first game, which wasn't helped by one situation where you needed to type 'put on jetpack' and not 'put jetpack on'.

[Hurlshort]

On a side note, the original Space Quest had the best ending sequence ever.

 

Space Quest, I loved that series as a kid. It took me two years to beat the first game, which wasn't helped by one situation where you needed to type 'put on jetpack' and not 'put jetpack on'.

 

Heh, I was lucky enough to play the VGA version, which had taken on the point and click standard. King's Quest III was the hardest of the typing games that I played.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

The main quest wasn't appropriately intricate in the end to validate all the mystery and intrigue that lead up to it.

 

I disagree, the mystery, nor the "truth," was not supposed to be fully uncovered...

 

Xard: why was it your favourite shooter? It didn't have the atmosphere of the first game, nor the ingenuity (of both level design and pushing the gamer towards ingenuity in solving problems in levels). And the central theme of the game changed dramatically. Instead of you, on your own, trying to save your skin and escape, you're out to save the world with team mates.

 

Half Life 2 is not Half Life, so you should not expect everything to be similar - just look at Team Fortress Classic and Team Fortress 2 or Kot0R and Kot0R II.

 

I'm not saying the game had to be super-scientific, but a careful balance of realism w.r.t the setting gave Half-Life 1 a fabulous atmosphere.

 

Again, the game is not, to quote our favorite reviewer, "Half Life: Citrus Cannon" or "Half Life: More of the Same," it is Half Life 2, the continuation of the Half Life plotline. Go join the Black Mesa mod team or buy Half Life: Source if you want a clone of the original...

[Nick_i_am]

just look at Team Fortress Classic and Team Fortress 2 or Kot0R and Kot0R II.

 

That would be a great point if not for the fact that both those sequals are almost identical to the originals. Unless you count a new art style or a broken minigame as revolutions.

[Calax]

storywise I'm gonna have to say mass effect. thats it... thats all I'm going to say I swear>

[Humodour]

The main quest wasn't appropriately intricate in the end to validate all the mystery and intrigue that lead up to it.

 

I disagree, the mystery, nor the "truth," was not supposed to be fully uncovered...

 

No, you misread what I said. I am fine with how they handled us not knowing the answers in the end. But to do so with such a simple and petty main quest felt almost insulting. The sides we could choose were so linear and had no bearing on the earlier 90% of the game, and for that earlier 90% of the game, our motivations as gamers for working with the numbskull were thin at best, yet we had no in-game recourse to choose another path.

 

Xard: why was it your favourite shooter? It didn't have the atmosphere of the first game, nor the ingenuity (of both level design and pushing the gamer towards ingenuity in solving problems in levels). And the central theme of the game changed dramatically. Instead of you, on your own, trying to save your skin and escape, you're out to save the world with team mates.

 

Half Life 2 is not Half Life, so you should not expect everything to be similar - just look at Team Fortress Classic and Team Fortress 2 or Kot0R and Kot0R II.

 

No, but I should expect things to get better, not worse, even if they change. The combat in Half-Life 2 seemed quite boring and slow compared to HL1. Further, when you name a game a sequel, it IS a general assumption that it will be at least a spiritual successor to the original game, with a different story, but the SAME universe (not a half-different one, even ignoring the 20 years in future thing). Otherwise you don't call it number 2. To be honest, I don't think Half-Life was a game which needed a sequel - like Planescape: Torment. It stands on its own.

 

Further, you can say that HL2 is not HL1 and that's not a terrible argument, but it still doesn't bypass the fact that I seriously had qualms with HL2's lack of atmosphere. I mean, Red Faction had better combat and atmosphere!

[Deadly_Nightshade]

No, but I should expect things to get better, not worse, even if they change. The combat in Half-Life 2 seemed quite boring and slow compared to HL1.

 

Personally, I liked the slower pace of Half Life 2 and considered it an improvement over Half Life. So, ultimately, it comes down to personal preference.

 

 

Further, when you name a game a sequel, it IS a general assumption that it will be at least a spiritual successor to the original game, with a different story, but the SAME universe (not a half-different one, even ignoring the 20 years in future thing). Otherwise you don't call it number 2.

 

Look at The Elder Scrolls, they are exactly what you said a sequel should not be - yet I do not see anyone complaining about how they were handled. Or, for another example, look at Neverwinter Nights II, it did the exact same thing as Half Life 2...

[Humodour]

No, but I should expect things to get better, not worse, even if they change. The combat in Half-Life 2 seemed quite boring and slow compared to HL1.

 

Personally, I liked the slower pace of Half Life 2 and considered it an improvement over Half Life. So, ultimately, it comes down to personal preference.

 

That's entirely true. It makes sense that we'd prefer the opposite of each one or we wouldn't be discussing the difference.

 

Further, when you name a game a sequel, it IS a general assumption that it will be at least a spiritual successor to the original game, with a different story, but the SAME universe (not a half-different one, even ignoring the 20 years in future thing). Otherwise you don't call it number 2.

 

Look at The Elder Scrolls, they are exactly what you said a sequel should not be - yet I do not see anyone complaining about how they were handled. Or, for another example, look at Neverwinter Nights II, it did the exact same thing as Half Life 2...

 

The Elderscrolls games are named different things. They contain some sequel aspects, which is fine, but for the most part they are their own games. Fine by me as they don't purport to be sequels, rather a series of games all set in the Elderscrolls universe.

 

I haven't played NWN2 yet, but to be honest, I can't see how one WOULDN'T change things. NWN1 had a not-so-great OC and some average but fairly clunky at times controls and interface (and the OC game atmosphere was OK but SoU and HOTU had far better). Overall, ignoring innovations in the engine such as multiplayer, NWN wasn't anything special - Half-Life 1 was. NWN had a lot of things that needed changing. Half-Life 1 didn't. Now, it's kind of a moot point. Valve clearly wanted to take a different direction with Half-Life 2 and for marketting purposes it made sense to tout it as a sequel. Still, it doesn't diminish my disappointment any. I dunno. Maybe if I'd have thought of Half-Life 2 as a fun romp with squad mates, target protection and objectives I'd have enjoyed it for what it was.

[alanschu]

I <3 Half-Life 1 and I also <3 Half-Life 2, so nyah!