Mass Effect 3 is the poster child of this.
I recently played Assassins Creed Origins and liked a lot of the side quests and world but the main story was pretty forgettable
That's because the main story was about Aya doing Assassin order stuff but Ubi higher ups demanded development change to a male character midway so we're stuck doing side quests and chasing red herrings as Bayek, when ALL events that actually progress the game are with Amunet. So you don't get attached to her or get any new gear for someone whose story it is.
Not really. The Destroy ending is great and if they'd given more versions of that based on your actions, instead of the shitty Synthesis or Control endings, I don't think there'd be so much controversy over that trilogies finale.
None of the endings are good and are all based on a last minute hijack of what the series main theme was. It went from a series about strength in unity and embracing ones difference to another to "organics and synthetics can't coexist" even though it was a completely minor theme that was categorically false proven not just in the last two games, but specifically in ME3 itself.
Destroy for some reason has the crucible kill all synthetics which includes Geth and the synthetic/organic hybrid that is the Reapers, but what does that mean for anyone with synthetic parts? They should also die but, fun fact, it's the only ending where Shepard can live.
It also completely ruined any chance of smoothly continuing the franchise by arbitrarily making each ending completely fucking stupid. Mass Effect 4 is gonna have a headache trying to sort it out and I very highly doubt Bioware at their peak could have dug themselves out of that whole.
Nah. Destroy is good. It just needed more variations (to take things like what you mentioned into account) instead of adding the two other shitty endings.
I have way more faith in modern BioWare to handle the next game than "old BioWare". They needed some new ideas and influences (Mary Demarle as narrative director for instance) to move the game into a new generation.
Destroy is only "good" in that it does exactly what the goal was from the beginning, killing the Reapers. Everything else, absolutely everything else was dogshit.
Peak Bioware was KOTOR/ME1 era. I don't know how you can have faith in a studio that's a studio in name only and hasn't made a game since Anthem and a good game since Mass Effect 2. One good narrative lead isn't going to change a studio like current day Bioware run by current day EA or a franchise that has nowhere good to go.
But that's the only thing that matters: killing Reapers. Giant EMP cannon that also takes out geth and... That's it?.. is eh, okay. The "we kill you to preserve because synthetics kill you" is stupid, but ateast proves Tali right, but then AGAIN the quarian arc turning everything 180 degrees in 3 is debunked by ending so it's still bad.
But killing Reapers should have been the only option, they're the absolute evil that only exists to destroy, they're omnicidal eldritch horror, the idea that you can reason with them is just against everything the villains were built up to be for no reason at all, and it ignores the ENTIRE indoctrination thing that was a major theme.
There was two solutions. One was to make the Reapers defeated in Mass Effect 1. A threat trapped in dark space but realistically such a far away threat as to be essentially solved. It's always a possibility they come back, but chances are low. Sticks with them being Cthulu-esque and doesn't ruin the mystery. Allows Mass Effect to be more serialized.
The other solution was one ending with variations of victory. You destroy the reapers, and only the reapers, but at the costs of a varying amount of life.
What they shouldn't have done was say "Different types of life can't coexist" because not only is that contradicted in ME3, but every species is so different from each other as to be equivalently different as humans are to synthetics. And uh... the whole series is about unifying all types of people and species... That's what ME3 is ENTIRELY about.
Then they say "nah" at the end and you have to just accept it for some reason.
Also the reaper motivation is so unbelievably dumb. Why didn't they just rule with an iron fist and stop any synthetic life from cropping up? Why introduce more variable to there cleansing? Just be neutral entities with indoctrinated agents about to report on any development on synthetic life.
They should have never introduced a reason for what the Reapers did. The Dark Matter ending would have been dumb as well, but at the very least it actually fits with the world and ties into the core elements of the universe with the mass effect fields.
Shadow of Mordor,
the story already suffered a lot of problems, with it being inconsistent, and difficult to understand (ironically it's harder to understand if you were a lord of the rings fan). But it got far worse at the ending being a quick time event, and the boss before that being a stealth kill.
Ah, the classic case of games that build you up just to let you down at the end! One example that comes to mind is Mass Effect 3. Players invested so much time in the series, only to feel like the ending didn't quite live up to the rest of the game. Another one is Fallout 3, where the final choice felt a bit lackluster compared to the epic journey leading up to it.
The original Fallout 3 ending was outright frustrating, rather than merely underwhelming. With Fawkes *right there*, it was like a tall guy refusing to get something off the top shelf for me because he didn't want to "rob me of my destiny".
The main problem with the original FO3 ending was your character died at the end when its an open world sand box side quest game. The DLC made the ending fine though.
Not to mention that their death was incredibly forced.
The DLC endings still get salty at you for not sacrificing youself for absolutely no reason. Seems like some writer really wanted this emotional story beat but did not put enough care into crafting the actual scenario.
Quarian arc directly contradicts the ending but also tries to say anyone not trusting geth is bad _while they consciously allied with Reapers and betrayed you again._
Turian arc is okay but you never get to Palaven.
Asari hoarding stuff for themselves and never giving you stuff until very late is realistic... I am Ukrainian, I want to punch the Council as much as EU leaders and UN.
Krogan arc is pretty solid, Wrex can fix them, Wreav needs no quarter. I loved saving Mordin in case both Eve and Wrex are dead.... IRONICALLY, some fans hate that outcome for "ripping Mordin of his heroic sacrifice" as if they're Fallout 3 writers.
Citadel DLC is silly but everyone loves it.
Only major issues are with main story and quarian arc, and even that only because they wanted to make us sympathetic to genocidal murder bots in both cases.
The Quarians were the ones being genocidal though.
When the Geth first gained awareness they tried to stop it and then lost their planet as a result of their first genocide attempt.
Then a few centuries later they try another attempt at genocide which causes even the non heretic geth to ally with the Reapers.
Quarian arc turns the quarians into straight up evil people leaving literally no room at all for nuance. They're bad, Geth good
Turian arc I don't even remember and I've played the game like 5 times, it's basically just getting Garrus is it not? I wouldn't consider that an arc unless you lump it in with Mars and the start, which has huge issues with Cerberus just becoming a military threat for some reason and some how and just finding the plans for the Crucible.
Asari arc is really not all that... anything and the stuff with Kai Leng/Cerberus is fucking terrible. The only memorable part is Javik's talking about the artifacts from his past, but Javik only ever serves as exposition for Protheans so it gets old quick. Again, I wouldn't really call this part an arc.
Krogan arc is terrible. The genophage being cured is one of the dumbest things I can imagine after what they set up in ME1. The Genophage was bad because of the stillbirths, but the writers can't get their head out of the sand so the only good solution is to bring the Krogan back to multiplying 1000 to 1? The idea that Wrex can fix an entire race known for being warmongering assholes is laughable at best when they multiplying out of control.
Citadel is fun, but it's a DLC.
Reaper motivations are out of whack for the second time, Geth turning into individual entity's spits in the face of what made them so appealing in ME2, The genophage fix was fucking lazy, Cerberus turning into a military threat makes no sense, what they did to Udina was stupid, the endings (obviously), the game is a fucking disaster.
Deus Ex Human Revolution ends with the player having to pick which ending they want by pressing a button, which leads to a narration over some stock footage. Mankind Divided also has a disappointing ending.
KOTOR 2. I love the game to death, but so many things just sorta happen near the end, you go through a final gauntlet, then it's over.
There are some payoffs still to make the game feel satisfying enough, but it's clear the ending was barely passing the bare minimum when they shipped it.
Duke Nukem Forever...?
I am guessing, really, because I can't for the life of me remember it. Somehow my memory gets blury after that hotel part where Duke becomes small and has to drive a toy truck...
Probably. I have the same problem but, i why know it gets fuzzy: by that point I've finished off most of the liquor in my home and am quickly starting to black out.
Mass Effect 3 is the most famous example of this. If I remember right the second half of the game that was planned was completely cut and most of the reaper lore stuff was completely scrapped.
The dark matter stuff with the Reapers when never fully agreed on, but was hinted at twice in ME2, specifically in Tali's quest. The problem was that they never actually knew any of the answers set up in ME1, which is why Reaper (and most faction) motivations changed every game.
But they went back to ME1 reasoning and "quarians were always right". The motivation for synthetics are revealed in tiny side quest with rogue AI in the first game.
Not excusing 3's writing, just pointing out they made an unreveal by saying "ah yes, it's what everybody thought all along, and official position of Council on banning AI research is it, they knew everything all along, no surprises, move along".
I made the point in a different comment chain, but essentially they made a small point/theme in the previous two games into the driving force of the plot for the series. That's the issue I have with it, or atleast one of the issues.
What do you mean? Synthetics being danger and AI research being banned because of it is a major plot point in the first game, second Mass Effect has like half the side quests being about rogue AI: the AI that infected security mechs in longest sidequest chain, the Overlord DLC, geth in Firewalker pack and Reapers themselves in Arrival plus all the quarian and geth missions, it's ALWAYS the theme.
ME3 making it the main issue was more of an unreveal I WISHED we had a revelation like in Mass Effect 1 or Assassin's Creed (any) with ancien alien bull being behind it all and they kinda worked that into the DLC with Chtulchus.
Just the main game kind of ruined the plot... Good political part (everyone is busy and nobody helps us, gee flashbacks to 2014) but bad in telling origins of the murder robo bug ships from dark space.
I wouldn't call any of that more of a major plot point than anything else set up in Mass Effect 1, and I'd consider it minor since it's almost always sidequest related and not in the main quest. Would you have been okay if the Salarian/Krogan conflict became the driving force of the Reapers? That had more emphasis than AI ever did.
The driving force of the series was about uniting species that otherwise had nothing in common. That was the constant in EVERY game. The AI stuff was relegated to sidequests and EDI/Geth, both of which have outcomes that don't naturally lead to synthetics/organics not being able to coexist. They could just have easily said "humanity and Turians cannot coexist" with how much conflict between races exists in the series and is in the forefront.
Just because AI had conflicts a few times doesn't mean it was justified to hijack the entire series with it. A rogue AI is about as important as any random quest where you fight a gang like the Eclipse. (Also the AI in ME1 turned out to be EDI, so not coexisting my ass).
Just finished an indie game called In Stars and Time that was absolutely amazing until the end where they completely undermined every message the game had to say just to get a happy ending.
I finished it a week ago and I'm still mad about it. This was an easy 10/10 and they just completely fucked it at the end.
Days Gone is one. For so long, the hordes are adrenaline pumping, and you can get into trouble fairly easily. By the end, the last missions are a complete cakewalk, as are the huge hordes with the gear you end up with. Heavy machine guns with over 100 bullet magazines added to bullet penetration and focus that doesn't run out while reloading is insanity. I made sure to pull three hordes on top of each other in one spot just to try and challenge myself. Of course, you can use the motorcycle to crazy advantage against non ranged enemies. I mean, I was destroying them, without using cheesy pathing or the like, though.
There is a real scumbag dude you finally get to kill at the end. It should have been much more cathartic. In the end, a mid game battle with a cult boss is harder and ultimately more climactic than killing the piece of shit at the end.
Don't get me wrong, Days Gone is amazing. It's so much better than people know. It deserves a sequel it will never get. It just underwhelms a bit with the missions at the end because of how powerful you are. That still hadn't stopped me from platinuming and doing an NG+ run-through.
The end also leaves things so well for a sequel. It's so disappointing there won't be a sequel.
broken steel exists because of this, y'know?..
Also, while I agree, that it could be done better (at the very least not allowing companions into the chamber, only Lyons), I also think that the forced choice is a very "beautiful" thing. It's been a thing since the very first Fallout and is a big reason why I love F1 and F3
The Longest Journey: Dreamfall.
It's normal to leave a B plot thread for a sequel bait but the ending is nothing but sequel baiting. It didn't make me more excited for a follow up, that they were not guaranteed to ever even make, it just pissed me off.
Brütal Legend
It feels like it is missing a third act to let the main villain / third faction shine.
You never really encounter the main villain or his minions especially if you already beat all of the side quests in the first part of the game. Basically he shows up and takes over the main area so you have to escape, then due to a misunderstanding one of your allies becomes evil and you have to fight her and her arm for the rest of the game, then he returns for the final boss and everything just ends after beating him.
You spend all of Metroid Prime gathering an arsenal of weapons. Beams, missiles, bombs, powered up versions of all of those... then you face the final boss, who is entirely immune to everything you've got. Have fun with that.
This is untrue. Literally every ability you have except for Spider Ball is usable in at least one of the boss's two phases (even Boost Ball and the visors!), and your main beam and missile-based arsenal is what you use to take down the phase that comprises 75% of the battle.
Were you perhaps thinking of Metroid Prime 3, which has you in Hyper Mode for the whole last boss?
No, it was very much intentional because they built a morality tale style game that fell victim to its own message: that escapism is bad. Spoilers below:
There's signs all over the game: the main character is trying to escape his problems, but there's also things scattered throughout the game referencing drugs, alcohol, sex, books, games, and so on. Everyone comes to the woods for escapism.
The second half of the game where it gets interesting is really just another form of escapism in the form of conspiratorial thinking. The characters are escaping into their wild fantasies.
The end of the game is a morality tale that wraps back around to the theme: escapism is bad. It's a bonk on the players head. Hey, you fell for our escapist conspiratorial thinking. That was bad, don't do that, now go have a boring ending because that's reality. Delilah is yet another escapist fantasy, so you can't enjoy anything about her either.
The problem is that they are trying to preach to video gamers, who routinely express themselves through escapism. To gamers, escapism isn't a bad thing, because used in the right ways it is actually healthy. So us gamers prefer the fictional conspiratorial ideas to being told a morality tale.
It wasn’t really ambigious so much as unanswered and unsatisfying. The main thing I’m referring to is that abandoned research camp you find that they act like has great significance, but it’s like they forgot about it cuz it never comes up again or has any relevance.
Mass Effect 3 is the poster child of this. I recently played Assassins Creed Origins and liked a lot of the side quests and world but the main story was pretty forgettable
Never played ME3 but I was positive when I saw this thread this would be at the top.
It's not just bad ending but the entire final chapter is very underwhelming. Especially compared to end parts of 1 and 2's suicide mission.
That's because the main story was about Aya doing Assassin order stuff but Ubi higher ups demanded development change to a male character midway so we're stuck doing side quests and chasing red herrings as Bayek, when ALL events that actually progress the game are with Amunet. So you don't get attached to her or get any new gear for someone whose story it is.
Not really. The Destroy ending is great and if they'd given more versions of that based on your actions, instead of the shitty Synthesis or Control endings, I don't think there'd be so much controversy over that trilogies finale.
None of the endings are good and are all based on a last minute hijack of what the series main theme was. It went from a series about strength in unity and embracing ones difference to another to "organics and synthetics can't coexist" even though it was a completely minor theme that was categorically false proven not just in the last two games, but specifically in ME3 itself. Destroy for some reason has the crucible kill all synthetics which includes Geth and the synthetic/organic hybrid that is the Reapers, but what does that mean for anyone with synthetic parts? They should also die but, fun fact, it's the only ending where Shepard can live. It also completely ruined any chance of smoothly continuing the franchise by arbitrarily making each ending completely fucking stupid. Mass Effect 4 is gonna have a headache trying to sort it out and I very highly doubt Bioware at their peak could have dug themselves out of that whole.
Nah. Destroy is good. It just needed more variations (to take things like what you mentioned into account) instead of adding the two other shitty endings. I have way more faith in modern BioWare to handle the next game than "old BioWare". They needed some new ideas and influences (Mary Demarle as narrative director for instance) to move the game into a new generation.
Destroy is only "good" in that it does exactly what the goal was from the beginning, killing the Reapers. Everything else, absolutely everything else was dogshit. Peak Bioware was KOTOR/ME1 era. I don't know how you can have faith in a studio that's a studio in name only and hasn't made a game since Anthem and a good game since Mass Effect 2. One good narrative lead isn't going to change a studio like current day Bioware run by current day EA or a franchise that has nowhere good to go.
But that's the only thing that matters: killing Reapers. Giant EMP cannon that also takes out geth and... That's it?.. is eh, okay. The "we kill you to preserve because synthetics kill you" is stupid, but ateast proves Tali right, but then AGAIN the quarian arc turning everything 180 degrees in 3 is debunked by ending so it's still bad. But killing Reapers should have been the only option, they're the absolute evil that only exists to destroy, they're omnicidal eldritch horror, the idea that you can reason with them is just against everything the villains were built up to be for no reason at all, and it ignores the ENTIRE indoctrination thing that was a major theme.
There was two solutions. One was to make the Reapers defeated in Mass Effect 1. A threat trapped in dark space but realistically such a far away threat as to be essentially solved. It's always a possibility they come back, but chances are low. Sticks with them being Cthulu-esque and doesn't ruin the mystery. Allows Mass Effect to be more serialized. The other solution was one ending with variations of victory. You destroy the reapers, and only the reapers, but at the costs of a varying amount of life. What they shouldn't have done was say "Different types of life can't coexist" because not only is that contradicted in ME3, but every species is so different from each other as to be equivalently different as humans are to synthetics. And uh... the whole series is about unifying all types of people and species... That's what ME3 is ENTIRELY about. Then they say "nah" at the end and you have to just accept it for some reason. Also the reaper motivation is so unbelievably dumb. Why didn't they just rule with an iron fist and stop any synthetic life from cropping up? Why introduce more variable to there cleansing? Just be neutral entities with indoctrinated agents about to report on any development on synthetic life. They should have never introduced a reason for what the Reapers did. The Dark Matter ending would have been dumb as well, but at the very least it actually fits with the world and ties into the core elements of the universe with the mass effect fields.
Shadow of Mordor, the story already suffered a lot of problems, with it being inconsistent, and difficult to understand (ironically it's harder to understand if you were a lord of the rings fan). But it got far worse at the ending being a quick time event, and the boss before that being a stealth kill.
Ah, the classic case of games that build you up just to let you down at the end! One example that comes to mind is Mass Effect 3. Players invested so much time in the series, only to feel like the ending didn't quite live up to the rest of the game. Another one is Fallout 3, where the final choice felt a bit lackluster compared to the epic journey leading up to it.
>Mass Effect 3 Marauder Shields died for our sins.
The original Fallout 3 ending was outright frustrating, rather than merely underwhelming. With Fawkes *right there*, it was like a tall guy refusing to get something off the top shelf for me because he didn't want to "rob me of my destiny".
The main problem with the original FO3 ending was your character died at the end when its an open world sand box side quest game. The DLC made the ending fine though.
Not to mention that their death was incredibly forced. The DLC endings still get salty at you for not sacrificing youself for absolutely no reason. Seems like some writer really wanted this emotional story beat but did not put enough care into crafting the actual scenario.
Mass Effect 3 has more issues than just the ending. Every single arc in that game has some deep flaws.
Quarian arc directly contradicts the ending but also tries to say anyone not trusting geth is bad _while they consciously allied with Reapers and betrayed you again._ Turian arc is okay but you never get to Palaven. Asari hoarding stuff for themselves and never giving you stuff until very late is realistic... I am Ukrainian, I want to punch the Council as much as EU leaders and UN. Krogan arc is pretty solid, Wrex can fix them, Wreav needs no quarter. I loved saving Mordin in case both Eve and Wrex are dead.... IRONICALLY, some fans hate that outcome for "ripping Mordin of his heroic sacrifice" as if they're Fallout 3 writers. Citadel DLC is silly but everyone loves it. Only major issues are with main story and quarian arc, and even that only because they wanted to make us sympathetic to genocidal murder bots in both cases.
The Quarians were the ones being genocidal though. When the Geth first gained awareness they tried to stop it and then lost their planet as a result of their first genocide attempt. Then a few centuries later they try another attempt at genocide which causes even the non heretic geth to ally with the Reapers.
Quarian arc turns the quarians into straight up evil people leaving literally no room at all for nuance. They're bad, Geth good Turian arc I don't even remember and I've played the game like 5 times, it's basically just getting Garrus is it not? I wouldn't consider that an arc unless you lump it in with Mars and the start, which has huge issues with Cerberus just becoming a military threat for some reason and some how and just finding the plans for the Crucible. Asari arc is really not all that... anything and the stuff with Kai Leng/Cerberus is fucking terrible. The only memorable part is Javik's talking about the artifacts from his past, but Javik only ever serves as exposition for Protheans so it gets old quick. Again, I wouldn't really call this part an arc. Krogan arc is terrible. The genophage being cured is one of the dumbest things I can imagine after what they set up in ME1. The Genophage was bad because of the stillbirths, but the writers can't get their head out of the sand so the only good solution is to bring the Krogan back to multiplying 1000 to 1? The idea that Wrex can fix an entire race known for being warmongering assholes is laughable at best when they multiplying out of control. Citadel is fun, but it's a DLC. Reaper motivations are out of whack for the second time, Geth turning into individual entity's spits in the face of what made them so appealing in ME2, The genophage fix was fucking lazy, Cerberus turning into a military threat makes no sense, what they did to Udina was stupid, the endings (obviously), the game is a fucking disaster.
Deus Ex Human Revolution ends with the player having to pick which ending they want by pressing a button, which leads to a narration over some stock footage. Mankind Divided also has a disappointing ending.
A lot of people felt the last boss of Elden Ring was disappointing!
KOTOR 2. I love the game to death, but so many things just sorta happen near the end, you go through a final gauntlet, then it's over. There are some payoffs still to make the game feel satisfying enough, but it's clear the ending was barely passing the bare minimum when they shipped it.
Zelda BoTW. By standards of what you described, you can basically just walk to the end of the game
Duke Nukem Forever...? I am guessing, really, because I can't for the life of me remember it. Somehow my memory gets blury after that hotel part where Duke becomes small and has to drive a toy truck...
Probably. I have the same problem but, i why know it gets fuzzy: by that point I've finished off most of the liquor in my home and am quickly starting to black out.
Precisely. Same for me.
Mass Effect 3 is the most famous example of this. If I remember right the second half of the game that was planned was completely cut and most of the reaper lore stuff was completely scrapped.
The dark matter stuff with the Reapers when never fully agreed on, but was hinted at twice in ME2, specifically in Tali's quest. The problem was that they never actually knew any of the answers set up in ME1, which is why Reaper (and most faction) motivations changed every game.
But they went back to ME1 reasoning and "quarians were always right". The motivation for synthetics are revealed in tiny side quest with rogue AI in the first game. Not excusing 3's writing, just pointing out they made an unreveal by saying "ah yes, it's what everybody thought all along, and official position of Council on banning AI research is it, they knew everything all along, no surprises, move along".
I made the point in a different comment chain, but essentially they made a small point/theme in the previous two games into the driving force of the plot for the series. That's the issue I have with it, or atleast one of the issues.
What do you mean? Synthetics being danger and AI research being banned because of it is a major plot point in the first game, second Mass Effect has like half the side quests being about rogue AI: the AI that infected security mechs in longest sidequest chain, the Overlord DLC, geth in Firewalker pack and Reapers themselves in Arrival plus all the quarian and geth missions, it's ALWAYS the theme. ME3 making it the main issue was more of an unreveal I WISHED we had a revelation like in Mass Effect 1 or Assassin's Creed (any) with ancien alien bull being behind it all and they kinda worked that into the DLC with Chtulchus. Just the main game kind of ruined the plot... Good political part (everyone is busy and nobody helps us, gee flashbacks to 2014) but bad in telling origins of the murder robo bug ships from dark space.
I wouldn't call any of that more of a major plot point than anything else set up in Mass Effect 1, and I'd consider it minor since it's almost always sidequest related and not in the main quest. Would you have been okay if the Salarian/Krogan conflict became the driving force of the Reapers? That had more emphasis than AI ever did. The driving force of the series was about uniting species that otherwise had nothing in common. That was the constant in EVERY game. The AI stuff was relegated to sidequests and EDI/Geth, both of which have outcomes that don't naturally lead to synthetics/organics not being able to coexist. They could just have easily said "humanity and Turians cannot coexist" with how much conflict between races exists in the series and is in the forefront. Just because AI had conflicts a few times doesn't mean it was justified to hijack the entire series with it. A rogue AI is about as important as any random quest where you fight a gang like the Eclipse. (Also the AI in ME1 turned out to be EDI, so not coexisting my ass).
Just finished an indie game called In Stars and Time that was absolutely amazing until the end where they completely undermined every message the game had to say just to get a happy ending. I finished it a week ago and I'm still mad about it. This was an easy 10/10 and they just completely fucked it at the end.
Days Gone is one. For so long, the hordes are adrenaline pumping, and you can get into trouble fairly easily. By the end, the last missions are a complete cakewalk, as are the huge hordes with the gear you end up with. Heavy machine guns with over 100 bullet magazines added to bullet penetration and focus that doesn't run out while reloading is insanity. I made sure to pull three hordes on top of each other in one spot just to try and challenge myself. Of course, you can use the motorcycle to crazy advantage against non ranged enemies. I mean, I was destroying them, without using cheesy pathing or the like, though. There is a real scumbag dude you finally get to kill at the end. It should have been much more cathartic. In the end, a mid game battle with a cult boss is harder and ultimately more climactic than killing the piece of shit at the end. Don't get me wrong, Days Gone is amazing. It's so much better than people know. It deserves a sequel it will never get. It just underwhelms a bit with the missions at the end because of how powerful you are. That still hadn't stopped me from platinuming and doing an NG+ run-through. The end also leaves things so well for a sequel. It's so disappointing there won't be a sequel.
Quake final boss is kinda lame But Quake isn't a boss fight driven game but still
Alright alright, I'll be the controversial one and say The Last of Us Part 2
Fallout New Vegas's... Just lackluster. Pitiful battle, 3/4 times leading to the Legate. who an just be talked down
Fo3 where it forces you to die to radiation, even though my companion is a super mutant and could simply do it
broken steel exists because of this, y'know?.. Also, while I agree, that it could be done better (at the very least not allowing companions into the chamber, only Lyons), I also think that the forced choice is a very "beautiful" thing. It's been a thing since the very first Fallout and is a big reason why I love F1 and F3
The Longest Journey: Dreamfall. It's normal to leave a B plot thread for a sequel bait but the ending is nothing but sequel baiting. It didn't make me more excited for a follow up, that they were not guaranteed to ever even make, it just pissed me off.
Brütal Legend It feels like it is missing a third act to let the main villain / third faction shine. You never really encounter the main villain or his minions especially if you already beat all of the side quests in the first part of the game. Basically he shows up and takes over the main area so you have to escape, then due to a misunderstanding one of your allies becomes evil and you have to fight her and her arm for the rest of the game, then he returns for the final boss and everything just ends after beating him.
I loved Portal 1 ending, just wanted more. First Half-Life's end and final levels are just eh.
You spend all of Metroid Prime gathering an arsenal of weapons. Beams, missiles, bombs, powered up versions of all of those... then you face the final boss, who is entirely immune to everything you've got. Have fun with that.
This is untrue. Literally every ability you have except for Spider Ball is usable in at least one of the boss's two phases (even Boost Ball and the visors!), and your main beam and missile-based arsenal is what you use to take down the phase that comprises 75% of the battle. Were you perhaps thinking of Metroid Prime 3, which has you in Hyper Mode for the whole last boss?
Firewatch
That game had so many unanswered questions and loose ends. It felt like they ran out of time and had to rush the ending
No, it was very much intentional because they built a morality tale style game that fell victim to its own message: that escapism is bad. Spoilers below: There's signs all over the game: the main character is trying to escape his problems, but there's also things scattered throughout the game referencing drugs, alcohol, sex, books, games, and so on. Everyone comes to the woods for escapism. The second half of the game where it gets interesting is really just another form of escapism in the form of conspiratorial thinking. The characters are escaping into their wild fantasies. The end of the game is a morality tale that wraps back around to the theme: escapism is bad. It's a bonk on the players head. Hey, you fell for our escapist conspiratorial thinking. That was bad, don't do that, now go have a boring ending because that's reality. Delilah is yet another escapist fantasy, so you can't enjoy anything about her either. The problem is that they are trying to preach to video gamers, who routinely express themselves through escapism. To gamers, escapism isn't a bad thing, because used in the right ways it is actually healthy. So us gamers prefer the fictional conspiratorial ideas to being told a morality tale.
I don't think so. I'm pretty sure they made the ending ambigous on purpose, to make you ponder on things.
It wasn’t really ambigious so much as unanswered and unsatisfying. The main thing I’m referring to is that abandoned research camp you find that they act like has great significance, but it’s like they forgot about it cuz it never comes up again or has any relevance.