Brief is certainly true. It's great for those who find that to be a great ending to a game.
It just dissapointed the hell out of me. I REALLY would like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting were they presented their concept for the ending, and people went: "HELL YEAH!!! We just spent 20 hours blowing mutants in bits and pieces in a totally over the top style, trying to affect everyone and everywhere in the gameworld, now, a quiet subtle ending that barely touches on this... Lets do it!"
"I couldn’t imagine why anybody would prefer Worldwide Soccer Manager to FIFA 09 or Pro Evolution Soccer 2009."
"Gameplay Yes, the depth of management in this game is impressive. But, it’s not impressive enough to make up for the fact that you aren’t actually playing soccer."
Dude wanted to play him some soccer, and that shittty game keept throwing numbers and names in his face.
That game was LUCKY to get a 2.0.
The challenge reviewing these games, is what point of view to review from. From a casual perspectiv or a more fanoriented one. I can se some teen magazin giving a simulation game for a review to guy that CLEARLY loves his FIFA, but I can't understand why a site, specificly created for reviewing games, would do that. Then I would at least like two points of view.
Some signal to send to the developer. You set out to make a complex simulation game, made one well, and did it so it appels to simulation fans....... 2.0 SUCKERS.
Who are you to tell my what I do or do not believe? The only other endings this year that compare are MGS4 and Braid."
So MGS4's hourlong cinematic ending satisfies your 20+ hour investment in that game, as well as the minutlong ending in Fallout 3 satisfies your equally (if not longer) investment in that game?
I'll give you, that thet main storyline in Fallout 3 didn't need more closure then a minut. I found that storyline almost consistently boring. But didn't you need just some indication of what impact your actions in the sidequest had to the world?
What did you take away from the EPIC ending in Fallout 3? Some guys are good, someguys are bad, shit happens and war never changes.
What I can not quite understand, is how Bethesda spent yaers of developing this game, contemplated over how long players could potentially use completing the game, and then deciding on THAT type of ending.
I mean, I know its all about the journey and shit, but come on!
Has there since the game came out, been somekind of interview were they talk about, why they went in that direction?