Metal Arcade:
Every video game has an ending. Most have wonderful, memorable conclusions. When the game finally ends, you expect there to be some closure. You hope to see the heroes succeed. You want to learn where they end up, how the world has changed, and what your efforts have done to shape the course of history. If the ending has done its job right, there's an emptiness left in your heart. A void. You might even shed a tear or two. It's over, and you're left to ponder what happens next.
Sadly, some games don't end so well. They leave questions unanswered. Worse still, they have abrupt conclusions that don't shed any light on the events you've grown to care about. That is, if you cared about them at all. They gloss over character arcs, forget key moments, and simply do not care about whether the ending even makes sense, let alone tying up loose ends. Some, like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II- The Sith Lords, simply ran out of time. Others, like Borderlands, left out major plot elements, and left many unanswered questions lingering.
The artist behind Fallout 4’s Deathclaw reveals just how bad things got back when Bethesda took over the series
People are stupid I get it. No one should feel unsafe,
But I think they need to talk about why they cut so many corners during the development process and why none of their games ever look current. And why they think all of this is okay while they charge full price.
Bethesda's post-apocalyptic RPG remains an unabashed classic, more than a decade and a half on from its launch.
For me its the fact that I could put hundreds of hours into it and still find areas I missed in my earlier runs. It was also my first FO and despite what I had to put up with at times such as overall crashs and killing my orginal PS3 with the YLOD it's still my favorite entry to this day.
Tons of reasons
But my silly little one…hunting for unique weapons and armour
Something Fallout 4 just didn’t really have as much because they replaced most of it with randomly generated customised weapons. Even Elder Scrolla doesn't do it as well.
Sense of exploration. That was why older Bethesda games were so good. They might have had glitches, broken mechanics, meh visuals, etc., but they were some of the best around when it came down to the sense of exploration. You could go wherever you wanted and you would find something cool; it might have been a faction, a weapon, an enemy and much more. And that is what they are lacking now. Skyrim still had a lot of that, but Fallout 4 dropped it by focusing on an interconnected world and more randomly generated rewards. Fallout 76 just kept that trend and added multiplayer, and Starfield went even further in killing it by creating a whole universe with parts completely isolated from each other.
I think the retrospective of Fallout: New Vegas' existence has somewhat diminished the view of Fallout 3 in the eyes of many, but it getting out of the vault in Fallout 3 was, for me, the most remarkable experience I've had in a videogame.
I was 12 when it came out, and I remember I just saw the score it got in Gamemaster magazine (remember those!? 😅), and I just went to the shop and bought it with my pocket money.
Not knowing anything about the game, I thought the whole thing was going to be about growing up in a vault, especially given that I'd spent about 2 hours in it....I literally could.not.believe it when you got out and it was just this wasteland on every direction. Amazing.
Probably because these Bethesda games were hand crafted so that exploration meant something. Unlike Starfield where this sense of exploration is replaced with the illusion of scope and procedurally generated worlds. A player can always appreciate when they wonder into an unforgettable new encounter by accident or stumble across a new questline that becomes their favourite. Just like a player can always tell when they're ploughing through filler on auto pilot, that they'll forget the moment some resource numbers go up and nothing worth remembering occurred.
I mean, in Fallout 3 you could nuke an entire town as a SIDE QUEST. In The Elder Scrolls Oblivion and Skyrim, the Dark Brotherhood questlines were my favourite in any RPGs and you could completely avoid them if you didn't care for them. In The Witcher 3 side quests take you on ridiculously dark and mysterious storylines that are some of the best I've played in RPG history. There's a reason why people still talk about KOTOR to this day. Difference between a developer creating something or just padding a game world with stuff.
VGChartz's Mark Nielsen: "Upon finally finishing Devil May Cry 5 recently - after it spent several years on my “I’ll play that soon” list - I considered giving it a fittingly-named Late Look article. However, considering that this was indeed the final piece I was missing in the DMC puzzle, I decided to instead take this opportunity to take a look back at the entirety of this genre-defining series and rank the entries. What also made this a particularly tempting notion was that while most high-profile series have developed fairly evenly over time, with a few bumps on the road, the history of Devil May Cry has, at least in my eyes, been an absolute roller coaster, with everything from total disasters to action game gold."
3,1,4,5 to me, never played 2. 5 gameplay is amazing but level design was really disappointing to me, just a bunch of plain arenas, the story felt like a worse written rehash of the 3rd and the charater models looked weird ( specially the ladies ). Another problem with 5 was that there was not enough content for 3 charaters so I could never really familiarize with any of them
2.
Dmc.
4.
5.
1.
3.
God DMC2 was an awful game.
And in case this isn't obvious it goes worst to best
Order changes depending on your focus. I tend to focus on gameplay/fun factor, so...
5, 3, 1, 4, 2.
I really didn't like 4 but commend Dante's weapon diversity. The retreading of old ground was pretty unacceptable to me.
But even then... Still more enjoyable than 2 for me
this is a good list but you shoukld also consider adding any game ending from every ubisoft game starting in 2007-NOW,enslaved,splatterhous e,and vanquish.
FF7 ending was perfectly self-explanatory the planet was saved from the lifestream.
the 500 years later thing just meant that midgar was never rebuilt after that to provoke another possible future planet life crisis so that people could live happily without Shin-Ra oppression.
Mass Effect 3
Skyrim (the whole story was crap and the ending of whatever arc sucked even more). Trying to be cinematic was laughable. Not to mention the dragon boss that had little effect to the actual story and just showed up as the bad guy. Or the Ulfric crap which was basically "alright one battle, a few errands and this whole thing that lasted years is pretty much over"
Assassin's Creed: The part where I quit the game half-way through.
Uncharted 2: Most cliche I've ever seen. And 3 is pretty much a remastered version of 2 so...
Jet Force Gemini anyone? Think that's still my most disappointing game ending to date.
Star Wars: The knights of the old republic II
It had a very rushed development and It ran out of time with the whole entirety of the last world. You literally beat the boss and it pans out *cues* music. End. Shame, I really the series though especially the first.