I've just finished SuperMario64 DS, after a month of playing it on the train.
Was I ever surprised when the reward for getting all 150 stars is three lousy lives and a feather (so you can fly around).
Firstly what is the point of getting lives when you've no other goal left in the game? To get to this point you have already done everything.
Secondly what good is flying around the front of the castle when there is no other point to reach?
Oh, I forgot you also unlock a mini game but it's the EXACT same as one already unlocked & it sucks.
This isn't the first time completing a game has given me nothing (don't get me started on the ending of GTA sanAndreas).
I want to know if there is a game that you've thought was the best ever, only to receive a kick in the pants?
I?m confused. What exactly were you hoping for?
I always play games for the gameplay, not to get rewarded at the end. Most games usually just offer a cut scene (if it?s story based) and the end credits. That should be enough.
Games are about the journey, not the destination.
-Though I do understand the feeling of disapointment when finishing a game and not getting a cut scene or something else interesting.
quote:Originally posted by Tall_Nick
I want to know if there is a game that you've thought was the best ever, only to receive a kick in the pants?
Oh man, that would definately have to go to Silent Hill. It was a hard slog to finish the game, but when I did, I got the crappy ending. [:X] Apparently I missed a blood syringe that was hidden in a bike in one of the three sections of the town. [xx(] I had to kill one of the main characters in the game who was posessed or something, where the blood syringe would have turned her back to normal.
Of course, I couldn't find a saved game to redo it because I had already rewritten over old saves (the part where you had to collect the syringe was about mid game!). [V] So if I wanted to see the normal ending, I'd have to play the game all over again, but I was borrowing my nephews Playstation and had to return it.
There were 4 basic endings to silent hill 1, good ? bad, and good - bad with saving the police woman from possession. Silent Hill one also had an alternate ending in replay where you can get abducted by aliens about 2 / 3 through the game. Then if you play it a 3rd time you have a ray gun.
For me its Legecy of Kain: Soul Reaver on PS1 and Golden Sun on GBA both for the same reason. You play these great games, have a ball, get to the end a big climax starts and? to be continued. WTF I think that if a game is going to have a ?to be continued ending? the packaging should contain information to this effect, something like part 1 of x
meh
Pantmonger
Completing a game should be the reward for playing it, getting something extra should be the reason for playing it again.
Think Metal Gear Solid, if you collected enough dog tags you could play through the game with infinite ammo or the stealth suit.
This makes the game fun again and encourages you to play it again.
In regards to Mario 64 DS a new level would have been a great reward, even an old level unlocked for multi player would have been great.
In Yoshi's Island the reward for getting all extra bits was a bunch for multi player mini games, even in GTA getting all the extra packages gave you weapons.
Yes playing the game is the point of it. But just as watching a movie is where the fun is: If the reward for watching a movie standing on one leg, is a box of popcorn AFTER the film has finished.
It's not worth putting in that extra effort.
Ah, sorry, I see what you mean. I agree, finishing a game should unlock something making it worthwhile playing through again.
A recent example I can think of is Spiderman 2 of ps2. I enjoyed playing through it, and after the story ends and the final cut-scene plays your told something like ?see if you can score 50000 points?. So I played on, exploring every nook and cranny like in GTA, but when you reach 50000 points it just has a voice-over that says something like ?Wow, I didn?t think you could do it. Well done.? ?and that?s it! It could at least have unlocked some super-power or something. What a rip!
I love your analogy of being told to stand on one leg through a movie for popcorn after the movie!
i rember Blast Corps on the 64 - you finish it (which was tough enough in itself) and the game says: "now do it faster!" and you have to beat each level in a certain amount of time. once you do that it says "now do it even faster!" and you have to beat each level again, even faster! i never beat it 'even faster', though i had fun trying. but in this instance i think i would have been happy with a simple 'congratulatiions' afte doing it. anything else unlocked wouldn't have been nesessary - i'd have played enough of it by then and to 'do it even faster' would have meant i compelted the game 100% - nothing left, nadda, done and done. all i would have required was confirmation of that, not a reward in the form of more gameplay.]
i agree that no reward for finishing a game is kinda disapointing (i had the same feeling with the original Mario 64), but i thought the above example is an interesting point to make too.
The game ending that got my panties in a bunch was Arcanum.
In it, you could get the good ending or the evil ending depending on whether you sided with the final boss. As it turned out, I picked the evil dialogue option by mistake then defeated the boss. The ending for the game then showed how we destroy the world together and then he betrays and kills me. The annoying thing too was I saved my game AFTER that dialogue so no matter how convincingly I kill the boss he still wins in the end.
Grrr.
Scott.
I didn't really have too much of a problem with the ending of GTA San Andreas. I guess they could have worked in a few more things to keep running around the levels interesting, other than just trying to find hidden packages and missions. But hey, there was so much content in San Andreas that I don't really mind. I spent a good 6 weeks playing through the missions in San Andreas, rather than spending a few days of constant play. In the end I had enjoyed the game so much more because of this, I really got my moneys worth.
There does seem to be a stigma attached to finishing a game in record time, I remember the day hl2 was released. I brought the game 2 days later and already so many people where talking about the ending.
How long they played for I have no idea - maybe 10 - 12 hours per day some maybe even played it nonstop.
But what do you do with a game that offers nothing more than 20 odd hours if there are no multiplayer tweaks, or worldbuilding features to create new worlds and missions to complete.
Everythings becoming so vast and its not a choice - market *almost* deems it necessary that for a FPS of any kind to do well, it would need the latest bells and whistles + xyz modes of deathmatch + level design capabilities as a bare minimum.
We are so demanding as consumers [:O] at maybe 200 - 300 titles a year across all platforms, each developer churns out maybe 2 if they are lucky. The competition is so stiff, and the critique by the consumer is tougher and tougher. Somethings got to give - and i think youll find that *despite a majority of DEVELOPERS feelings* the cut comes out of the actual finished content, In favour of publisher demands ( who pull the figures from market research )
Evil, evil circle.
I should have specified, I have no complaints about the bonuses in GTA it?s just the storyline that sucked.
You spend the entire game reclaiming the hood and then building a huge empire for yourself taking down the Italian mafia in the process, all in the name of freeing your brother.
When you finally get to release him and tell him what you have done for him he ignores you and wants to sit in his house like so many hermits before him.
I?ve always disliked the way the GTA story line disregards your previous achievements, But that?s a completely different topic altogether.
I?m glad I saw the ending of Half Life 2 rather than play through it myself again a huge story that builds to a dramatic point then flushes it down the toilet.
When buying games now I almost it?s almost always because of the multiplayer aspect, having the extra 20 hours of a single player campaign is a bonus.
With the infinite choice of FPS?s out in the market it?s the multiplayer modes that will make the game sell, people still play Counterstrike.
Playing a game that has a compelling storyline and real-time physics on the characters fingernails is all good and fun, but having two (or more) real people fighting against/with each other will give the game added lifespan and replay-ability.
Now I?ve gone completely off topic.
Since multiplayer has such a huge replay ability it should be natural that a bonus for doing something outstanding be the ability to play with/against another human.
In my case of Mario 64 DS unlocking a bonus map for multiplayer would mean that everyone I play against would congratulate me for giving them something extra and give the game added life.
Hope this makes sense?
quote:Originally posted by Anuxinamoon
There are a few games that I have played that have had a pretty borring conlusion to the hard effort. But I never really notice that much as getting to the end was really what mattered for me. If I had an awesome time playing the game, the ending wouldn't really matter. But I can see your point.
I agree. A few examples of mine:
Deus Ex - The end of the game got pretty poor (definately looked like the budget ran out). Admittedly, this left a "sour taste in my mouth", but overall, the game was excellent. Even knowing it had an average ending, I ended up playing the game through 3 times - discovering more each time I played it.
Doom 3 - Everyone knows the initial hype, but there were many disappointed people once it had been released. Okay, the ending sucked, but many elements of the game were good. True, it dragged out at times (okay, another dark corner... let me guess what's coming), but on the other hand, there were some really awesome parts to it. Attention to detail in many areas was great.
Half Life 2 - Okay, I haven't finished it yet. Not because I didn't like it, and not because it bored me - I'm just too busy at the moment. I've heard about it having a reasonably average ending, but I don't think that'll change my opinion. I still remember the first half hour to an hour of the game - I was completely awe-struck. Doom3 had pretty graphics, but HL2 had immersion. I remember stepping out of the train to see the drone fly towards me and take my photo. I remember looking at my surrounds - just turning the camera and looking. I remember walking towards the guard, having him strike his stunstick against the train and rushing towards me... and that was just the first 5 minutes.
Watching people actually have physical expression as they talked - you could almost see fear in their eyes. Walking around the town... looking off to the distance and wondering what that great structure was. There were other points in the game that drew me to it, but nothing like the beginning. Regardless of how poor this game might end, it still rates highly on my list for that initial experience.
i really liked the endings to deus ex (dx2 on the other hand....) - they fit the story well and were all plausable conclusions to the story (though the ai and dark age one could have been set up a litle more). what i didnt like was the way you got the endings: no matter what you did throughout the game it made no difference: simply hit button A for ending A. i guess it worked with the 'make your own choices' theme - if i want to change my mide at the last minute then i should beable to, but i kind of takes the meaning out of how you played through the rest of the story. oh, and my favorite was the illuminati one, just so you all know.
ok, enough of me going off topic.
here's one Jurrasic Park on the snes - kinda crappy game but i liked it. problem was it took many hours to finish (with no way to save) and in the you get this cinimatic of a flat green island (with great big JP logo in the centre) spining and panning away in what is supposed to be your view form the helicopter (and for some reason the sea around the island is surrounded by mountains). fade to black. that's it. GARH!
not a game (yet), but The da Vinci code had the worst ending ever.
***PARTIAL SPOILER***
They run all 'round europe trying to save a shadowy consipracy from gaining access to a monumental mystery which could ruin the entire catholic church - and find out it's always been safe anyway and there's no problem.
***PARTAL SPOILER***
What a freakin' waste of my time.
edited to add "SPOILER" warning [:)]
I was actually planning on reading it soon ? it?s sitting on my ?waiting list? bookshelf. Think I?ll still read it, despite the fact that I now having a slight idea of how it ends. LOL.
I won?t continue this off topic subject, but someone should make a thread about general (non-games) reading, since we seem to all have similar interests around here?
quote:Originally posted by mcdrewski
not a game (yet), but The da Vinci code had the worst ending ever. They run all 'round europe trrying to save a shadowy consipracy from gaining access to a monumental mystery which could ruin the entire catholic church - and find out it's always been safe anyway and there's no problem.
What a freakin' waste of my time.
That reminds me of the movie [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264395/"]Basic[/url], with John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson. It's one of those investigation/court movies which I saw in the cinema, and I concentrated pretty hard to remember all the information/evidence and who was saying what for the entire movie to figure out who was telling the truth, until the ending revealed that...
**SPOILER**
..none of it was true. It was all made up by both parties. *Everything* they said didn't happen at all. [:X]
**END SPOILER**
Anyway, the Da Vinci Code - I only read the first 40 pages before giving the book back. Just didn't have the time to read it all. There were some interesting things about the Mona Lisa and other tidbits in history though.
ah! ...it was all a dream :)
Now to take this completely OT, I just read a great book by [url="http://www.simonsingh.com/Big_Bang.html"]Simon Singh called "Big Bang"[/url], and in that, he talks about a movie called [url="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0037635/"]Dead of Night[/url]. The plot is basically a horror story which turns out to be all a dream, which, upon waking, starts the story all again. It had such an impact on three British astronomers that they were inspired to create a model of the unverse in which everything was cyclic (Major competitor to Big Bang, yada yada yada).
Now, this was not in itself particularly fascinating, but while I was reading I thought to myself that these days the all a dream/cyclic thing would never fly as a mainstream game/movie plot. I remember doing the Queensland QCS (Tertiary Entrance Exam) practice and using that concept myself - then hearing some teachers talk about this awful story they had to read. Come on! you try writing a well structured and creative piece from scratch in 3hrs!
Calming down now [:D]
Anyway, all these ideas, plots and endings were unique and fresh once, no matter how bad they may now seem.
Deus Ex: The endings were alright. I remember the first time I played through the game, I saved in the middle of the last level. I don't think I touched it for a good year or two before finally coming back to see what happened.
The game itself was bloody awesome, I've played through it again and again. I love just walking around talking to people, figuring out things and playing through the different side missions.
Halo 2: Didn't even have an ending. Get to a cutscene, go upstairs to get a drink and some chips, come back down and the credits are playing.... WTF???
Doom 3: Didn't really expect anything else.
Half-life 2: The ending didn't annoy me so much. Fair enough if the Gman takes Gordon back, but not learning anything about what the hell has happened on earth, that sucked!
I think a lot of developers have cliffhanger syndrome. They end their stories like a two part episode of Stargate. Unfortunately the next game doesn't come a week, two weeks or six months down the track... its usually 3 to 5 years.
How hard could it be to focus on a single story in each game. Sure, they can have a story arc that spans over 3 titles, but don't just stop the thing halfway through.
theres a mod or cheat or something somewhere that allows you to do that mcdrewski, have a look around halflife 2 dedicated sites like http://halflife2.filefront.com/
Gee Nick, whatever game you're working on right now better have one kick ass ending, or you might be labelled a hypocrit.
Even though I'm speaking from outside of the industry, I imagine that when it comes to creating an ending for a game it is an afterthought more often than it is a planned piece of a cohesive narrative and as such is thought up at a time when the production is being wrapped up and most everyone can't stand the thought of rendering that same god-damn character again in a cutscene just so the player can have some closure on something they've invested a fraction of the time in playing as it did to make. We gamers are unappreciative bastards.
There are a few games that I have played that have had a pretty borring conlusion to the hard effort. But I never really notice that much as getting to the end was really what mattered for me. If I had an awesome time playing the game, the ending wouldn't really matter. But I can see your point.