InvincibleHero wrote...
AnttiV wrote...
InvincibleHero wrote...
....
You have to ask the opposite if you got the ending you wanted and the rest of the game was bad would that elevate the game to game of the year? Ummm no obviously.
...
The generalizing. You can't know all people. I, for example, am part of those people who would think that a very good ending does indeed elevate the game to a better status. There are multiple games in history that I have played, not liked (at all, in some cases) but the memories from them are that they were very good games because the ending was awesome/beautiful/epic/just generally well written and fitting.
Not exactly that, but there is a whole game series that I have played solely for the characters/story even though in game mechanics I absolutely hate them. I hate to play games like those, but he story/characters/ending makes it worthwhile to drag myself through the mechanical gameplay.
To those who know:
"At last, the masks had fallen away. The strings of the puppets had become visible, and the hands of the prime mover exposed. Most ironic of all was the last gift given to me; more powerful than the sword that now held his soul, more acute even than the vision his sacrifice had accorded me; the first bitter taste of that terrible illusion: hope."
Really as I state take the opposite which means the gameplay will be really horrific yet have a great ending. You think such a game would have potential? I am talking all the hate heaped on the endings would be heaped on the gameplay. You'd quit within ten minutes and none would blame you. Many bad stories have fitting ending. In general I don't think it elevates anything. A good work has to be good throughout and lacking in most of the book/movie/game etc cannot be recouped in the end. Most people are going to cut their loses and maybe bemoan the wasted money/opportunity.
What is better status? Bad to average maybe not bad to classic great 90% game.
You have no idea. You have absolutely no idea how much a good story/characters are worth to some people. You obviously don't like the aforementioned game series as much as I do, or you would've recognized the quote, so let me explain.
The series I'm talking about is, "Legacy of Kain" (you've probably heard of it, if not played). Consisting of 4-5 games, depending on how you see it: (I'm putting BO2 in parenthesis, because I don't count it as canon, as it is deviation from the series and most importantly, not done by the original team/studio)
1. Blood Omen - Legacy of Kain
2. Legacy of Kain: Soulreaver
3. Legacy of Kain: Soulreaver 2
(4. Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen 2)
5. Legacy of Kain: Defiance
The gameplay, as far as I am concerned, is just absolutely horrible in Soulreaver. The game practically has nothing more than bad camera angels, worst controls this side of history and the game consists of practically nothing more than insane block puzzles. (There even was among the fandom a "mastercard-joke" about that: For everything else, there's a blockpuzzle.) The game is literally littered all over with asinine block puzzles. I hated the gameplay, oh so much I hated the gameplay. The downright idiotic camera angels didn't help. SR2 wasn't much better. Original BO is different as it's a top-down classical game. It wasn't that much better as a game. Defiance has some merits, as the combat system is vastly improved from SR2 that had some of the more... unique targetting problems back then.
But, to make a long story shorter, if you replaced the characters with generic "dudes" and took away the story.. no, I wouldn't EVER have touched those with a ten-foot pole. I really, really, absolutely detest the gameplay in both SR games. I hate gameplay like that.
BUT. The characters are sublime, the story is flawlessly executed from start to finish. It is intricate, has twists and marvelous characters and developments. It makes sense. The "mid-way" ending (SR2 ending) has a certain plot development that was foreshadowed early in the first game and bluntly told out in Soulreaver, at the very beginning but still players didn't get it really until SR2 end. Defiance's ending is nothing sort of magnificient. It is (kind of) an open end, but it leaves no plotholes and all major (and minor) stories are concluded. It doesn't definitely make it so that there couldn't be more games, but it does end every story started by that series. There's even small easily missed detail in the very first game, noted again in SR and mentioned in SR2 that really plays out only in Defiance.
I've fought myself to play through all games twice just to hear the story. First two are available as PSX games, so I played them via an emulator and got every cheat available so the technical play would go as smoothly as possible.
I could go on and on about that series really, so I should just stop. Bottomline, yes. Good endings do elevate even horrible games to bright stars if there is a good story to go with the ending. It isn't a case of "bad upping to mediocre" versus "brilliant becoming great". It's a case of "absolutely horrible become one of the best I've ever touched". I do not recall the experience as a bad one, I just recall the absolutely marvellously managed story and characters.
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
