Didn't quite stick the landing. Here are the Top Ten Worst Endings in Video Games! -------------------------------- NEW COUNTDOWNS EVERY 1st and 15th! Streamlabs: www.streamlabs.... Patreon: / joshscorcher Twitter: / joshscorcher
Josh: I'm pretty sure you had fun up until the ending. A whole game isn't ruined just because of an ending Asgard's Wrath: Hold my beer. I'mma bout to end this guy's whole career
I kind of had a simmilar feeling when playing Saints Row 4, but not due to the ending, but the setting: there, you are captured by an alien overlord and put inside a virtualization of your world, where like 75% of the gameplay takes place. Dont get me wrong, the gameplay is actually great, the sandbox super powers are neat(though they push you away from using vehicules), and some missions are fun, but the fact that is a simulation kind of takes away motivations to try to do something inside of it, not much but a bit at least.
#001 Now I've never heard of Asgard's Wrath until I saw this video. The moment you said you were taken under Loki, my first my VERY first thought while eating my bowl of Cheerios was. "You know that was mistake #1 right?"
I’d take Halo 2’s ending over 5’s any day. At least you were mad there because the game was so good you wanted to see it finished, and it at least got you kinda hyped for Halo 3. In 5? Well the awful story goes nowhere and suddenly decided that Cortana being the villain was a good place to end the story.
I personally don't mind Halo 2's ending. It ends on an appropriately climactic note, with you stopping Tartarus from activating the rings and killing all life in the galaxy, and it led in to the promise of finishing the fight with the Covenant's leadership in the third game. It's a bit like the Empire Strikes Back of the Halo trilogy.
In order for a Halo game's ending to be bad it would have to have been *good* at some point. And playing a Halo game for its campaign is like visiting a sewer for the fine dining opportunities.
Bringing up Asgard's Wrath Should have made a final boss against Loki, as you take your revenge on him for taking everything dear to you and go Kratos on his sorry hide. That might have validated the ending a bit.
Actually if you really want to be on theme with the whole Ragnarok story, it would be a lot cooler if the game revealed that the main character was Heimdall all along and you fight with Loki to the death.
That actually would have made it better yeah. Granted, since this is a VR game, I believe the ending was just a huge troll on the devs part which surprisingly worked if that was the case.
I just realized that asgard's wrath is made by the same company as Sly Cooper Thieves in time. It seems that company is galactically incapable of making good endings.
So should I already feel bad for fans of Asgard's Wrath who are in all likelihood wanting a sequel? And yes, it's entirely because of how Sly 4 ended AND STILL HAS NO CONCLUSION!
@@gtsgreatteacherscathach5550 the end of We The Revolution takes one of the biggest nosedives ever. Even more than This Is The Police. We The Revolution takes place in the French Revolution.
Many did, Bioware once said that they asked players who played the first 90% that it may be there favorite, it was more linear but very story driven and all characters were back.The Ending is the only reason why people dislike the game. Which i can understand i am one of them.
Do we need to remind you guys, on top of the day one DLC there was that bullshit Multiplayer tacked on Battle Readiness meter horseshittery in order to get the best ending possible?
Controversial opinion... I thought the ending was fine. It was more impactful than the ending of 1 or 2, and fit the trilogy pretty well. The main conflict of the trilogy revolved around the relationship between organic life and technology, with the 3 endings all being a reasonable conclusion to that. You've got total genocide on a scale never seen before, ending that conflict in a direct manner via atrocities so heinous that not having the one making that choice die would feel awful. Then you've got the choice to become a reaper... the thing you've spent the last 3 games fighting against. Becoming the very thing you swore to destroy, to protect everyone you care about. It's a more personal way to end the conflict. Then you've got the 3rd choice... the obvious "true" ending that all sane people would make if given that choice, but still comes with its own baggage. Ending what is effectively a race war by stripping away those superficial differences that the bigots cling to, forcing everyone to individually come to terms with a truth that was obvious from the start... that we're all just people, and that meaningless things like the circumstance of our creation don't determine who we are, or how we should treat each other. And the most important part of this ending... that it *doesn't* resolve the conflict for the people, it pushes their society toward a solution they come to themselves, thus making it that much more stable. So in the end, ME3 has 3 morally gray endings that resolve the overarching conflict in distinct ways, all with meaningful distinctions between motives and perspectives. You have a selfish egotist doing what he thinks best, a tyrannical pseudo-god working for the greater good at any cost, or a selfless martyr sacrificing themselves to give people the tools to fix their problems on their own. Honestly, with the circumstances the story gave us, I don't think there was a better ending to write that also makes any sense. There's absolutely no way Shepard could survive, that much was decided at the beginning of ME2. There was never going to be a "happy" ending... that much was decided midway through ME1. Personally... I think the ending is what it had to be, and people were never going to like it because of what the story was. It's just how life is... it's too real. And the harsh truth of it is that doing the right thing, regardless of motive, will not go well for you in the end. We see that kind of cynicism everywhere in the franchise... even the best intentions lead to suffering. That's not a story people want to like. So they won't.
I think the ending for Last of Us was supposed to be morally grey, and they even failed that because Joel is in the right. There’s a lot of information to suggest how incompetent the Fireflies are with them constantly losing bases and even having others that were immune to the infection and killing them in the process, failing.
I agree with everything on your list, with the exception of TLOU. Joel's decision made sense to his character. If he had done nothing, it would have been a betrayal of it. Notice how the ending reflects the beginning; at the start, he carries his daughter, while in the final act, he carries Ellie, the surrogate to Sarah. Joel, in his mind, was saving his daughter. Joel was never portrayed as a hero, but always as a broken, lost soul, who found some humanity in his love for Ellie.
Doesn't change the fact that he chose to be a selfish prick who put his happiness before the entire world and even lied about it to her. Also, don't give us that crap about him "being a broken, lost soul" since there are plenty of characters in fiction who can also be described by that and they still didn't put their happiness before others because having dead people doesn't mean you have the right to be a dick.
@@JohnSydney225 nah it wouldn't have mattered whether a vaccine was even POSSIBLE or not. Way I see it, even if it was developed it's not like it would have been distributed rationally to everyone in the US. Either the fireflies would use it as an item of power or they would've all been killed and have it stolen by others and their group would've used it as an item of power. If the host really does die when they turn, there's no point giving it to someone who's infected, and it's not like they'd be able to give it to anyone who just asks. On top of that even if they somehow did make enough for everyone in the country, it's not like they could realistically rebuild society. It's not like groups like the cannibals, scars, hunters, even the WLF could realistically become normal people. The world is too far gone imo
Being mad at the decision made by someone is one things, saying that "the game is bad" bcouse of it, its something different, the Joel we see its almost at a 60% good 40%bad person, not as bad as he was but it doesnt mean he was a "bad writed character" Some people say that "GRRRR GOW HAS DIED AND THE TWO LAST GAMES KILL IT", "KRATOS SHOULD HAVE KILLEM ALL, THATS FUN, BUT NOW ITS -A BAD GAME- ", tsssss they can be angry at it but it shoudnt get them blinded at how good the game is
@@emberfist8347 Depend the version of Hades. Early on, Disney had a version closer to the one in the mythology, instead of being a bad guy. For this version, Pompey would be the equivalent of 50 customers walking three minutes before closing
About the Last of Us entry in this countdown: Did I dislike the decision that Joel made? Yes, absolutely. But did that decision made me feel that the ending was bad? No, it didn't. The very thing that this decision was Joel's, and not ours (otherwise this game would have RPG tag), reflects how often we can't come to mutual agreement with other people over certain subject (and that's partially the message that this game is trying to tell, not only with Joel). Joel even had an actual motivation to do what he did, so good job Naughty Dog for not leaving a plothole.
Why would you trust the Fireflies? The game shows that they let other test subjects die without any cure extracted. Sounds kinda unprofessional. 👀 How would they even spread the cure, when most of the human population are bandits, cannibals, rapist, or zombie chow 🧐
I'd like to offer up this counter-point to your argument. On the one hand, I would agree that from a story-telling perspective, The Last of Us does have a good ending. It's thought provoking and is unique in its giving you a "bad-guy-wins" kind of ending. But let me ask you this: what if The Last of Us was a movie? In terms of story telling, video games are vastly different from movies, and I'd say The Last of Us is an example of what happens when you don't get that distinction. In movies, you're an observer. You have no control over the events as they play out. More specifically, you can't intervene if a characters does something you don't want to happen. In that instance, thought provoking endings work exceedingly well. Movies with endings that work completely contrast to traditional story-telling beats or moral codes make for surprising experiences and thoughtful discussions. More importantly, it encourages you to revisit the movie. Experiencing a movie over and over again, thinking back to your first thoughts and emotions the first time you saw these images, heard these lines, it makes for an experience you want to relive. And as a story, The Last of Us is fantastic within a movie setting. If The Last of Us was a film, people would be gushing about how much of an impact it had on them, how shocked they felt when they saw the ending play out, even having back and forths over the protagonist's choice. As a film, The Last of Us would've been phenomenal. But as a game, the story has a different spin. In video games, you ARE part of the story. You're not just an observer, your a participant. Everything the game protagonist does and is able to achieve is thanks, in part, to the player. Even in games where you don't get to create your own character, and you're playing as a specific person, the players feel investment in the story through the idea that they're part of the story. In some instances, the player will even insert themselves into the main character, and feel everything the game's story throws at you, whether it be relationships, battles, and yes, even how the stories end. With all that said, how would you feel if the character you were playing as made a choice you didn't agree with? A choice the player has no other option but to follow through on? How would you, the player, the active participant in said story, feel about doing something you didn't want, and not being able to choose any other way? That's the problem with The Last of Us. The player is essentially forced to participate in the story of a man they learn just did the most horrible thing imaginable, and they can't choose any other option. The idea that you took part in this man's story, that you played a role in helping this horrible choice play out, utterly ruins the gameplay experience. The best linear game stories are the ones where the end goal is simple, and the final ending is easy to digest (think Super Mario). The best complex story endings are ones where the player is given the ability to choose, and they feel as though they can change the outcome (Undertale comes to mind in this category). The Last of us is a bad game ending because the end result is the same, no matter what the player does, and they're left with the unspoken implication of, "You were a part of this." And most importantly, and this is the kicker, it kills the desire to replay the game. If a game ends on a bad note, and the player is left unsatisfied, then the desire to revisit that experience is killed, right then and there. This is even more damaging for video games, since a game's value is heavily dependent on how motivated players are to revisit said game. If the player is left with a game that gives them a story they no longer want to experience again, the game becomes worthless. Just a $60 pieces of plastic/chunk of digital data that's taking up space and serving no purpose. A one and done experience that the player will likely never go back to. Sure, they'll probably talk about it and share their thoughts on it, but replay it? Doubtful. These are my thoughts, anyway.
@@inakamoto Naughty Dog games were already movie-like ever since Drake's Fortune, and The Last of Us is no different. There'd be less differences between game and movie version of tLoU than you'd expect. The main difference being that the movie would have to be split into 2 parts. Because video games usually allow to tell longer story than movies via cutscenes and/or in-game dialogues. Translating tLoU to movie form would create about 4-6 hours of content, which is already twice as much of an average length of a movie. Splitting the first game into 2 movies would kill the story in my opinion. From my point of view, the Last of Us is a game where the player is just a bystander, and is not actively participating in the story. Only helping Joel reach his goal and survive. I don't expect the main characters in those linear story-oriented games to do exactly what I'd like them to do. In Spec Ops: The Line we also get main character we control, but through the actions he commits, we as the player slowly disconnect from him. Even Josh in Top 10 Evil Characters brought the main character from Spec Ops: The Line to compare him to Joel. I treat all those characters and their personalities as their own and I don't immerse myself believing I'm them. I would actually separate video games in 3 categories in terms of immersing to be the main character: - No immersion would be linear games where protagonist have their own personality and they do actions based on their own judgement, not player's (The Last of Us, Asura's Wrath, Kingdom Hearts) - Fake/half immersion would be games where we can decide future actions of the protagonist, but they still have their own personality and sometimes do their own actions without allowing the player to choose (most Telltale Games, Heavy Rain) - True immersion are games where we have full control of the protagonist. Those games usually have empty/silent protagonist with no personality, so we as the player can fill that empty personality and act as if the main character was us (most Bethesda Games, many jRPG with silent protagonists, almost every MMO, debatably the Legend of Zelda could also fit this criteria)
also its in keeping with how Joel was introduced to us post daughter death: ruthless, self-centered, coldhearted and uncaring of anyone unconnected to him
@@colleen4ever Samurai Jack Season 5 was kinda rushed, it needed a few more episodes or at least have the last episode or 2 be longer. 10 22 minutes episodes wasn't enough.
Full agree. I don't usually let endings bother me, but what was wrong about Star vs The Forces of Evil is that its ending is completely antithetical to its main driving plot. I'm not sure if the writers saw the implications, but those magical beings were their own race with their own lives. Star literally commits genocide to stop a genocide.
Josh: "For every Breaking Bad, Gravity Falls, and Endgame, there's a Game of Thrones, Voltron, and Rise of Skywalker." Me IRL: "...Oh, there will be no mercy here, will there?"
@@FillmGeekOfDoom lots of things. Biggest of which is a huge miss management of screen time. Build ups lead to nothing, characters were introduced who ate up precious screen time but were ultimately unimportant. The conclusion to multiple character arcs were rushed and baffling. Not too mention bad marketing and varied nonsense.
@@Gakusangi Simple, killing off Allura, the most tragic character who deserves a happy ending the most was strike one. Having Shiro marrying some random helmsman because of how they handle the whole Adam situation was strike 2. Giving Lothor a tragic and sympathetic backstory *after* his character was ruined only for him to die was Strike 3. There's more but you get the idea.
I’ve never played The Last of Us, but after hearing Green Scorpion’s thoughts on the ending (Top 10 Characters I Hate to Love), I think Joel was always meant to be unlikable. You know that what he’s doing is wrong, but the game makes you contemplate whether or not YOU would be willing to sacrifice Ellie. It’s essentially a cautionary tale of learning to love again, only to let those feelings completely take over your conscience.
I agree. The thing is, I actually liked the ending to it. I genuinely liked Joel too. You think that after what he has gone through with his daughter that he is no longer capable of caring about another human being. And then when it comes to the ultimate decision, he chooses Ellie (his now daughter). Of course he’s not gonna choose humanity. Humanity showed it’s worse true colors to him (killing his daughter). So his choice was pretty obvious and to me, would be the only choice to make. I would not choose humanity over my child.
Here's the thing a lot of Last of Us critics leave out of their criticism for the ending. Probably intentionally. There are recordings of the Fireflies that were left for Joel to find. Playing them back reveals that there was no guarantee that they could make a cure as they said themselves they're working with something they've never seen before. Their sample size is very limited and they're more than likely to run out than make a cure. It also makes absolutely no sense to check to make sure that the immunity was hereditary. This would have potentially given them more test subjects. Instead the doctors go straight to murdering the subject and destroying any potential they had left Critics never seem to bring this up because it goes against their criticism. That Joel was being an asshole for taking the cure.
@@RJLiams Yeah, there is that. However, Joel finding the recording should have been a cutscenes instead of a collectable that people can MISS. Seriously, if the recording is shown to the players, it would have made it clear that Joel had a reason to not trust Firefly and subsequently, killing the scientist and doctor working on the cure and not just because he's selfish and wants another chance of being a father again.
@@arivana10 I completely understand that and Pat (from The Super Best Friends days) went along with the massacre, GLEEFULLY, he even said 'I'm gonna kill all of you.' and it was only Matt saying 'Wh-What are you doing?' to Pat mid killing the doctors that got him to snap out of his bloodlust.
You forgot about the worst part of Dragon Age 2's ending. No matter what side you pick, the leaders of both the Mages and Templars turn on you and try to kill you, forcing you to kill them both and making the lack of a third option to simply reject both sides and kill them both even more confusing.
While I love seeing V3's ending get ripped to sheds (even being ranked above mass effect 3) I think you missed one crucial detail. The final trial only says that V3 was a game show. V3 takes place in an alternate world where the first 2 games were an anime that got so popular they started using real people for it. After all, Ultra Despair Girls pretty much proves the first 2 couldn't have been game shows. Also, there's a lot of subtext that indicates Tsmugi is lying about a lot of the stuff she mentions.
Finding out that everything in a fictional game was fake doesn't really phase me as that much is true the moment I turn on the game. Sometimes I get it, when the game undermines your entire experience but in the case of V3 the previous DR games are only fake in the same way that they were fake when you played them. They're video games, but in their canonthey are real, V3 is a seperate canon so nothing in those games are effected as they already had an ending in the Danganronpa 3 anime and are self contained. V3 ending rather tackles the meta commentary of a series being milked to death and obsessed over as well as the idea that something fictional can have a real effect on people both negative and positive. Fiction might be fake but that doesn't mean it's meaningless.
what if the game show angle was a lie and the next game (well, what some theroise will be the next game ebcause noone knwos for sure) reveals the real antagonists set up a gae show just to spread despair to the world? Iunno, just theory baiting
The thing about the Danganronpa ending though, is that not only does it imply the Mastermind might be lying about everything, the devs said this game was the start of a new continuity, so even if she was telling the truth it doesn't retcon the previous entries into not being real, but instead is says that they are fictional within the world of this new story. Definitely could have been explained better, but that's why I don't hate the ending as much as others do.
Yeah V3's ending is self contained and is ultimately harmless. I think it actually plays to the theme of Fiction affecting reality well given that ultimately whether or not she is telling the truth doesn't matter to the character as they will live on anyways.
@@marche800 Heck, V3 isn't canon to to DR 1 and 2- it's a what if scenario with the events of past games being presented as a 'show'. As you said, it's plays with the idea of fiction and turns it on its head. The REAL ending of Danganronpa is DR 3. That's canon.
Didn't the original Danganronpa allude to the fact that everything they were doing was, in fact, being streamed to the world population? So the "shock horror" of V3 revealing it was all a TV show was already revealed from the beginning
Sonic 06 has my personal most hated ending. Retconning the whole story so that it never happened is the literal worst way you can possibly end something, because then it means the whole journey was completely meaningless. The story itself is already horrendous, so giving us this ending is basically one last middle finger to the player.
Personally I think it was a good move to make the bad story not canon. Shows the devs were embarrassed by the product they were rolling out. Or at least I like to think so.
Yup, sums up why I will NEVER play that game again, because, quite frankly, if you're gonna do me dirty like that, at least make sure your hands are clean first. >.>
@@rmzing The thing is, the story was most definitely written before the actual gameplay was developed. So even if the rest of the game was actually good, the story would still be written this way.
Sonic games can still get away with shallow or bad stories if the gameplay is good enough (hey, Mario gets away with it all the time), which is probably why there are people still trying to "fix" Sonic '06 through mods.
Gotta respectfully disagree with you on the ending of The Last of Us, narratively speaking it's not a bad ending, it's not a nonsensical ending, the characters never do anything that goes against their personalities and the game never tried to convince you that Joel made the right choice, Joel made a very human decision, a very bad and selfish decision, but still a very human one, and it's a decision that a lot of people, including you and me, disagree with, but if I was in that situation I don't know if I would be able to choose the rest of the world over someone I love
I honestly can’t take Josh seriously anymore after comparing it to other completely different kinds of games of different tone and what kind of story they were telling, it really shows how black and white his mind set really is, I almost don’t even want to know what he would do if he had any kids
And in the case of DanganRonpa V3: everyone’s backstories and motivations were fake so pretty much everything was pointless!...riveting Really sucks because I liked the first two (albeit the slightly mean spirited decision to promote Kareem as the new protagonist only to basically fridge her was already a turn off for me) but after hearing the ending any interest I had in getting into the characters kind of flew out the window and it wouldn’t have it they just...I don’t know rewrite the endong
@@SiRenfield V3's ending is about the nature of sequels, in this case how people keep buying games that are basically torture porn so they can become attached to these wacky characters that are most likely going to die. If you don't like this kind of meta narrative then you won't like it, but i loved it and it didn't took away any of my feelings towards the characters. The characters themselves refuse that they're fake because what they went though was real for them and will keep on living even if they were manufactured.
"If you change the future, you change the past." Josh: *DOES NOT COMPUTE, DOES NOT COMPUTE.* Me: That's not how time works! If you change the past you change the future, yes, not the other way around!
@@scarletnight4554 Except why the hell would the past change to accommodate the new future when what caused the future was the change the person caused? Nothing should change before the event that set off the new future.... like you said, that doesn't make sense.
#7 was actually the sensible thing to do as killing Ellie would kill any chance at a proper cure. The fact that these people were going to outright kill her from the start speaks loads of their inexperience and desperation too; it was the wrong thing to do, Josh, that's why the devs didn't give you a choice in the matter. Edit: awww, #1 is heartbreaking, but I was suspicious when you pointed it it was Loki who was the tutorial character.
Far Cry 5: Suddenly nuclear war breaks out for no reason and the doomsday cultist wins. I swear, the Far Cry franchise runs from a good plot like a Frenchman from soap.
Two things for me to say, Josh: First, I feel bad about that ending to Asgard's Wrath. They could have retained "mythological accuracy" by having Loki betray you (because duh, he's Loki) and still have your adventure as a reality, rather than a fabrication in whole by Loki. Second, I have a diatribe I have written regarding the endings of Mass Effect 3, and how the only ending that fits Shepard is Paragon Control; this is true even if we're playing the role of Shepard, because Shepard isn't a blank canvas for the player to project onto, but rather a character that we're supposed to sympathize with instead. See, at their heart, whether Renegade or Paragon, Shepard wanted the galaxy to be free to decide its own fate away from the Reapers. Because of that, many of the endings don't make sense for Shepard to choose. Refusal just means everyone dies when Shepard could do SOMETHING about the Reapers. That is never anything Shepard would ever choose. Destruction kills all the Reapers, sure, but it also kills all the Geth and EDI. If you've been befriending the Geth, and connected to EDI since 2, then you have a personal investment into preserving their lives; however, looking again at Shepard's basic motivations, this is also something Shepard wouldn't do because it removes choice and freedom from the act. Shepard, ultimately wishing freedom for the whole galaxy, would never make choices on behalf of other people he didn't already have permission to make choices for. Synthesis forcefully combines every living thing, both flora and fauna, into synthetic-organic hybrids. For the same reasons as Destruction, Shepard would never choose this option. Renegade Control turns Shepard into a tyrannical fleet of Reaper-Shepards. This is directly anathema to Shepard's motivations. Only in Paragon Control is their an option which fits Shepard. They are making a choice only on their own behalf, directly involving no one else (although it indirectly involves everyone they care about, because they end up martyring themselves). They stop the Reapers and free the galaxy from their fear. They use their new fleet to rebuild the Mass Relays, and also to disseminate the knowledge from the previous cycles of Reaper purges. For the one price of Shepard's life, the entire galaxy is freed from fear, becomes friends with a fleet of super-dreadnaught starships with massively intelligent AI in them, and receive the knowledge of the multiple cycles before them. It's literally the best outcome. And it's still shit, ignoring almost all the choices made in the past games.
I brought this up about Joel and The Last of Us in the top ten evil characters countdown, and I'm going to bring it up here again... 1. Humanity wasn't "doomed" by the fungus. It managed to adapt and survive, and even slowly build communities in some places, as Tommy's settlement shows. Humans can find ways to survive, and even have decent lives; 2. Does humanity really deserve to be "saved" from the Cordyceps? Throughout the game, we can see that the worst enemies in this post-apocalypse world weren't the infected, but OTHER HUMANS: military who became corrupt and ruled over places with an iron fist policy; people who rebelled, killed said military and became just as ruthless, if not worse; people who resorted to hunting, scavenging and even cannibalism to survive; and, of course, self-proclaimed saviors of the world who believe any atrocity is justifiable "for the greater good" (AKA Fireflies). The Cordyceps only exposed humanity for what it really is, nothing more; 3. There was no guarantee that cutting Ellie's brain open would lead to finding a cure to the Cordyceps; it was nothing more than a gamble. Additionally, like Joel himself, the Fireflies didn't give Ellie any choice: they sedated her and tried to cut her open, no questions asked. Both Joel and the Fireflies were in the wrong here; the one who should've had the final word on this sacrifice matter was Ellie herself, and she didn't; 4. Joel's life was a living hell after Sarah's death; nothing more than surviving just for the sake of surviving. Tommy abandoned him because of this, and even Tess, in her last moments, admitted they were "shitty people". He didn't care, for he had already lost what was most precious to him... until he met Ellie and began to develop a father-daughter bond with her. To Joel, losing Ellie would mean to go through Sarah's loss all over again and return to that living hell. Also, Ellie accepeted Joel's lies even though she knew he was lying, and she went out of her way to save Joel when he was wounded, because she, too, didn't want to be left alone. Do I agree with Joel's choice? No. Do I think it was morally correct by any means? Absolutely not. But I can't be angry at him either.
What does dissecting her brain even have to do with figuring out her immune system? It's like how in the Maze Runner WICKED decided to test the candidates' intelligence and brain function as the key to curing a worldwide plague instead of their immune systems.
Joel would be a cool villain. If he was the antagonist to a last of us sequel (after part 2) it would be awesome, you’d sympathize with the guy you would have to kill. You can’t write him off as evil without condemning yourself. It’s unfortunate that won’t happen.
I disagree with the idea that humanity doesn't "deserve" to be saved. There are good people and bad people. Corrupt power, and people who try to help others. It's incredible arrogant to think you are some kind of authority on humanity's existence. I know you said you don't necessarily agree with his choice, but I don't think that "humanity doesn't deserve to be saved" is an argument about why the ending is good. With that in mind, I actually like the ending. It follows the narrative course for Joel's character, even if it's not something we would judge to be good. I can admire the courage in that.
Nice to see people who don't jump on the "Evil Joel" bandwagon. Honestly, the number of times Josh has espoused such uninformed opinions like that drove me to unsubscribe.
...Joel was never a hero though. He’s not an inherently bad guy but he’s no hero. He doesn’t even want to take Ellie to the fireflies at the start, and blamed her for the death of his closest friend at that point. After everything he’s been through, he doesn’t see a reason for why humanity, the fireflies, people who’ve attacked and killed people he cares about deserve a cure. She’s not his daughter but he comes to care for her like she was, and I don’t think I could sacrifice my own kids for the sake of humanity. He’s no hero. Never was a hero. The ending shows the folly of man and how Joel dares for his family over humanity.
@@ryanhowe6543 More importantly, he's wrong. The Fireflies were NEVER going to succeed. The recordings show they're a bunch of quacks who have killed potentially hundreds with ZERO to show for it. Even when they thought immunity was hereditary, their first thought is to dissect the subjects rather than establish a breeding population using artificial fertilization of surrogates.
@@moriadine2517 That is almost as stupid as the organization in Maze Runner testing their subjects' brain functions and intelligence instead of their actual immune system.
Josh, I'm quite late to this, but AS SOON as you published top 10 Blizzard Fails...... Warcraft 3 Reforged came out...... Yeah, you might have to update some of your industry fails lists for the upcoming decade.
Your reaction to Asgard's ending was exactly MY reaction to Mass Effect 3's ending. The "fix-it" DLC did indeed fix a lot and add enough on top of that to provide balm for the burn, but at the time? And since there originally WAS no plan for such a DLC UNTIL everyone flipped out? Yeah. It was Asgard's ending, times fifty.
Don't forget that the company was going to make you pay for the ' true end ' dlc, too. KH3 ended up tricking people into paying for their dlc and, it came off to me, as their idea of the true ending.
I feel like Josh has a personal distaste for cruel endings. I personally can't speak on Asgard's Wrath, but the Last of Us and Danganronpa V3 are both games I enjoy, including the endings. I'll admit that V3's ending rubs a lot of people the wrong way, so I totally understand, but Last of Us had a perfectly logical, if upsetting, ending that I found very powerful.
The No. 1 entry in this list is why I genuinely believe that religiously adhering to "lore" can be a crutch for any and all storytelling. It doesn't matter if you're faithful to mythology or can come up with a complete pantheon of gods with unique personalities, lore is set dressing and it's not a substitute for an actual story.
Also mythologies were rarely set in stone. Heck Aphrodite has 3 major renditions , and Bacchus/ Dionysus isnt only the God of wine , drug and party...he also has a hefty overtone of transformation and madness.
4 года назад
reminds me of a crazy 3-book story i read recently: "Magnus chase and the gods of Asgard". in that story, Loki escapes but the heroes re-capture him...
I'll toss my hat in with disagreeing with the placement of The Last of Us on this list. I get it, but I disagree. I'm of the camp that Joel isn't a "good person". Joel has hinted many times that he has done awful things in the name of survival, and this is another example of that. When the Philly section starts, Ellie asks how he knew the man asking for help was a trap and Joel admitted to being on both sides of the situation (meaning he killed innocent people to get by). When talking to Tess before her death, Joel urges her that they're survivors instead of viewing themselves as shitty people. There was a similar conversation with him and Tommy too (Tommy sick of doing horrible things, Joel defending himself by saying he kept them alive). Joel tortured the two men in David's town to get information on Ellie's location, eventually killing them both for little reason despite getting the information he wanted. He's not an over-the-top cartoony villian, but I don't think it's a stretch to believe a person would do this, whether or not it's correct/good. It's more than "fuck humanity, I want a daughter". Joel's first daughter was killed from from a "greater good" scenario (ie keeping the infection contained, even though we know now killing Sarah would've been pointless), his wife/gf I'm sure has either been dead or estranged since pre-apocalypse, Tess is dead, his relationship with his brother is fractured, Ellie is pretty much all he has left. In my mind, if Ellie was axed, either Joel would return to being the shitty person he always was or would likely kill himself. It's selfish, but it's also a very human reaction. It's hard to tell whether Ellie would've gone through with the procedure, but it seems like she may have already been aware. Ellie is very distant throughout the beginning of the spring chapter, and the last conversation near the end shows she has a lot of survivor's guilt (which otherwise seems like a really weird thing to bring up if she wasn't aware it would be "her turn"). The ending is bittersweet and the last conversations Joel has shows a lot of tension on Ellie's end. The kid is smart and the lack of a smile and a simple "ok" implies she smells the bullshit. Then there's also the angle (which is less important to the plot itself but something to mull over if you were in Joel's shoes) of how the fungus apocalypse has gone on for too long for a successful vaccine to be produced, distributed, and then bring humanity/civilization back from the brink. Ellie would've died for a failed project, and that would feel pretty awful. I heard people arguing with that when the game released, though most in the forum I was at agreed or at least empathized with Joel's choice as is.
Huh, TLoU's ending was one of the few parts of its story I liked. It honestly felt pretty refreshing to see the characters do something less predictable for once. I don't really think we're supposed to see his actions as justified or anything. It's just the natural end point of his character arc. Joel is a troubled, mentally scarred person who has grown tired of the world he lives in. For this once he could have something he cares for and he won't let go of it, whether or not that's a good thing or not. He isn't a good person, one could say he's a villain, but the whole game has been building up to this moment of him finally having a chance to take back what the world took from him in a metaphorical sense. Sure, it probably screws over everything, but that's the kind of story it is. Joel isn't a good person, and he doesn't pretend to be one either. He's kinda like Kratos in that way.
The Fireflies were a bunch of quacks that killed many more subjects prior to El, they never once thought of breeding their subjects even though they thought it was hereditary. Letting El die would be the equivapent of letting a bunch of 16th century plague doctors dissect a kid to try and cure the Corona Virus.
That Fairly Odd Parents reference is just perfect for some of the choices I want to make in games sometimes, but can't because it isn't an option. Thank you Josh for bringing a smile to my face.
Honestly the Ending of the Last of Us took me by the heart. The fact that it robbed me that choice to choose, like most of these endings do, impacted me more than the writers given me that closer.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: A disappointing destination can ruin the entire journey. That's why saying "it's about the journey not the destination" annoys me so much. Because of shit like the it was all a dream ending.
Shout out also to Samurai Jack: The animated series that was so amazing and original....up until that plagerized ending that looked like it was thrown together in a blender!! NOT WORTH 13 years!!
The show ended once she defeated Toffee. It didn’t need to be a race thing with monsters; it was too awkwardly handled to be a good representation of real tensions.
@@JABRIEL251 I think Rabbid has come around to the ending. Dont remember which one, but he said something in some video about how he's reconsidered the poignancy of the ending and his feelings on the game had changed.
It seems none of you, including Josh, realized just how nutty these "innocent" people were. Earlier in the story they were committing terror attacks on civilians, but even discounting that, they have actually had many other subjects similar to El and the only thing they managed to accomplish was kill them, with absolutely nothing to show for it; letting El be operated on is essentially asking for a bunch of quacks to dissect a kid in the foolish expectation that an organization so violent, wasteful with their subjects (why vivisect an irreplaceable subject when you can instead establish a breeding population of them or otherwise use their eggs to fertilize surrogates?), lacking in infrastructure, and most importantly with no known method for delivering whatever "cure" they claim to be able to create, would be able to save humanity.
I would list Gears of War 3 as an honorable mention. Throughout the third installment it is known that the lambent had invaded the Locust strongholds due to the immulsion being drilled by the humans and that the fuel the humans were drilling was actually sentient. The ending had the Cog killing off the lambent and the locusts even though the locusts were victims of both the lambent and the humans having been driven from their homes toward the surface. I mostly felt bad for the locusts even though they were genocidal.
@@Violent_Wolfen yeah, specially since they had the option to ask for help peacefully to the surface. But nope! Myrrah decided she didnt want to wait and just decided to commit mass genocide on the serans
I still dunno how to feel about the fact that it actually does have a resolution in its unused files. The unused ending even has voice acting, it's pretty much finished, yet it was left unused and instead we got... what we got.
@@alfonsogarcia767 basically the game's hero is a self-centered douchebag who eets a woman who is seemingly abducted and murdered by aliens. This plot point is actually superfluous and pointless, as the woman's mruder has nothign to do with the antagonsit's plans. The hero and his friends try to stop a meteor from destroying the world....only to fail, everyone dies except the protag, he meets up with versions of himself and his friends from other realities and they go off to fightthe true villains, who are an evil alternate verison of himself and this oen woman who had been manipulaitng hi the whole time (at least according to who's suppsoedly the big bad). you beat the game by letting the villains kill you, ressurect after talking to the protag of the dev's previous game and then let the player take over as hero, pull a pair of switches, the villains die and then the end with nothing more being elaborated on or resvoled. THANK FOR PLAYING ASSHOLE!
Ohhh, sorry. YIIK's devs had to cut the resolution in order to confuse everybody, say that nothing we did mattered at all because we were lied to the whole time, and act like Two Brothers did nothing wrong.
Some of these feel like you took the endings at face value and didn't really appreciate any subtlety they were intended to have. Mother 3's ending isn't bad because it's vague, the relevant part of the story has wrapped up and the characters finished their arcs in a reasonable manner. The tone of the game's resolution is perfect, having the world be shown to you propped up with bells and whistles after the ending would diminish the impact the emotional climax had up until that point. I haven't even played The Last of Us, but what you're describing doesn't sound like a bad ending, just a character who's a bad person acting on his own volition in a way that makes sense for him. The fact that you disagree with his decision doesn't make the ending bad if it's consistent with his behavior in the rest of the game, and seeing most people point out he was meant to be unlikable in a lot of aspects, this sounds perfectly valid. NMH2 was supposed to show you that revenge isn't inherently satisfying. The fact that the game leaves you with a limp feeling after that final boss is meant to reinforce that. Suda51 conveys his themes via gameplay like this all the time.
Except that isn't exactly worth the tediousness of being locked from seeing the story's ending until you beat that piece of shit. And I say that as a fan of the game and as someone who think the final boss' point was missed by a lot of people.
The problem with NMH2 ending is that although revenge isn't satisfying, the ending makes you angry and wish Jasper suffered instead of feeling empty and wondering if it was worth it. If Jasper just died in one hit imagine how empty and desolate the spot of satisfaction of a final boss could have been. Travis was driven by rage and it ends with the player feeling that rage.
Another thing being ignored here with the ending of The Last of Us is that Ellie didn't get a choice to go for the surgery. They lied to her and told her they were just going to do some tests before putting her under for a surgery that would kill her. If she'd consented to giving her life to save humanity? Yeah, Joel would be 100% in the wrong. But she wasn't even given the option.
@@pokefanjd5033 another thing is that there are more reasons to kill jasper than revenge. he has proven to be willing to kill innocents to spite those who wronged him, and was practically ruining santa destroy on purpose, but the game seems to have stopped reading the list after "revenge". the last fight could have been about travis continuing to hunt down jasper, but for other reasons, like tying up loose ends or ridding the world of a genuinely evil person, wrapping up travis' development from a remorseless killer motivated by sex to a genuine hero who seeks to right his wrongs. not to mention that the "revenge is meaningless" story kind of conflicts with revenge being a central theme in all the games, as if it wants to tell the same moral every time (NMH: travis wants revenge on jeane for killing his parents. NMH2: travis wants revenge on jasper for killing bishop. TSA: badman wants revenge on travis for killing bad girl)
In regards to The Last of Us, I thought part of the reason he decided to save the girl was because the person in charge of the whole operation had previous patients similar to Ellie (that may hold a cure) and killed them trying to find a cure, so because it wasn't a 100% success rate, also being lied to about it, Joel killed everyone. I thought the ending was fine. My memory is a bit foggy since I haven't played it in a while.
In defense of the last of us ending I will say this, the fireflies had no real idea if they COULD actually make a cure out of Ellie, heck they didn’t even get her consent.....I love her character too but if it where me I’d probably make that choice to save her. It’s easy to say what you would do in retrospect but not in the moment. Anyone agree with me?
@@Creshosk From what I recall, the previous subjects didn't even get to the facility, so Ellie was the only one they had to even try anything with. Both sides went too far in my opinion. Joel by killing the scientists, and the fireflies by going for the lethal option as option one.
1. It feels like the Twist of Star Ocean where the characters discover the whole story is just a video game, effectively undermining the whole narrative! I've played through the Simpsons Game and that game's story is an example of a similar concept done right! The Simpsons realize that they're in a meta video game and is rife with 4th wall breaks and game references.
Personally, Parasite Eve 3rd Birthday's ending had by far one of the WORST endings ever. You go through the entire game trying to defeat the Twisted, later finding out that some of your friends, your lover, and your chief were all Twisted, but the worst offender to this game's was that Aya was not really Aya, she was Eve, and it turns out that the Twisted were born from Aya's soul being shattered when Eve decided to Overdive into Aya's body, and in the only way to end the nightmare for good and reset everything...is to shoot Aya. Sure you see Aya again if you beat the game three times because 3rd Birthday nonsense, but regardless, the way its presented to the player is just a big middle finger to fans who enjoy the Parasite Eve series.
That's the sad part, but it's BandaiNamco they never were that bright. Doesn't help that fighting game fans give it the "It's not Capcom" pass like they do every non Capcom game.
I played ME3 in 2014 so well after the extended cut came out so I played without the fury tinted glasses. The original ending is bad but I honestly think if it was released with extended cut originally I think the ending would have been passable. I play the game for the squad mates arcs, the genophage cure and Geth arcs, and for the gameplay. I still love the original trilogy.
no1. that is a very loki thing for him to do (pissing people off for laughs or doing it for something important to him) edit: yes, even I agree that ending is awful, I'm not trying to justify it, I'm making a joke (its like they were making the ending of life of brian but it isn't in a comedic context that made fun of how awful a situation like that is while still keeping things entertaining, it just angers people by egging their faces) also, WOW, 35 likes, thanks for the likes
@@zackv4850 the guys who made the game must've been trying to get into the mindset of Loki, who's both figuratively and literally a troll they succeeded and in this case, it's gone horribly right
@@freetoplayking7362 If the game isn't fulfilling for the player, it's done something wrong. Even games that are infuriatingly 'difficult' like IWBTG or Getting Over It are ultimately fulfilling. A game like Undertale that offers you to go down the path of Genocide only to find a really lackluster ending that makes you go back and ask to restore the world as a whole still offers you insight, it makes you consider yourself and your choices as well as the nature of humanity. This was nothing like it, Loki being a massive dick at the end was not something that made you reconsider your choices, it's not an ending that leaves the player fulfilled. If the ending makes a player essentially "lose", it should happen for a very good reason. This was simply lazy writing and utter bullshit.
Going to be honest I didn't hate the ending of Danganronpa V3 as a lot of people did. I honestly took it as an au where Danganronpa was a fictional series and got too overblown. The ending also hints that the antagonist may have been lying about it all being fake though it's left to the player to decide whether that's the case or not. Though I guess I can still see why people hate it since they felt it was ultimately pointless in the end. I also liked the whole Fiction does matter moral it had.
@@elgranhermano8872 Yeah I have to admit it's pretty unbelievable Suichi was able to change people's minds so easily after there has been a lot of other killing games before this one.
@@davidpescitelli8004 well I think according to the final trial of V3, every ending has either ended with Hope or Despair, so this is the first time someone would’ve been challenging the ideology of either side winning. Shuichi did defeat the audience too fast, but he did bring up something that the audience never thought about
So, I guess you either didn't get to see the Re:mind DLC or this was recorded before it... because the DLC did help out..... a LOT. Albiet, in a way where time travel was needed... but it was more for "Once More, With Clarity" then it was "Set right what went wrong" Which is probably a more acceptable way to use time travel anyway.
... I think that number 1 is the angriest I have ever seen josh in a video.... and not gonna lie I'm mad by proxy because that ending was even worse then the one I thought it was going to be. that being said, I think i will still give it a shot despite that ending because of how interesting it was also side note, I never thought mass effect 3's ending was all that bad honestly. For me, I think Outlast should have been somewhere on there instead. I hate that ending so much
*I have to disagree with V3 being on this list.* The whole point of Shuichi’s argument against Tsumugi is that fiction can be real to people. And for Tsumugi (and the audience) to treat them as toys is wrong and immoral. Shuichi: “Even if it’s all fiction. Even if it’s all fictional. The pain in my heart is real. The sadness I feel when I lose the people I love is real!” If anything Tsumugi, the “biggest fan” of Danganronpa, devalues the series by churning out season after season. And not caring about the “fictional characters” that she creates. And then there’s the loose thread of Tsumugi calling her self a “copycat” implying that maybe everything she said may not have been the truth. But the validity of her claims is left to the audience. Keep in mind, the person calling the continuity the player got attached to fake, is the villain. The player is never meant to agree with the villain. The heroes never give in to Tsumugi’s words. They reject them and force the world to reject her too. Ultimately I think V3’s ending is grossly misunderstood. And needs to be looked at deeper rather than only using your 1st impression as the final opinion. Because I can tell you this opinion of mine wasn’t what it was when I 1st beat V3.
Asgard’s Wrath should’ve ended with you taking revenge on Loki or tossing him back into his cage and then actually celebrating with your friends who are indeed real.
I don't understand why you are mad about Last of Us' ending when you understand endings like Lisa. Just because the characters don't call him out and he's not literally punished for his actions doesn't mean he gets off scot-free. The final scene says it all, Ellie asks if there was a way to make a vaccine and Joel lies to her face that there wasn't. He's gonna have to lie to her for the rest of his life or he'll have to face the truth, plus it seems like she doesn't really believe him to start
100% disagree on the V3 ending being bad. It certainly isn't explained too well, but the developers intended this to be a revelation and a sort of message to remember that it is a fictional world. But the stories within said fiction is real to them and that's all that really matters the people who take it as if the previous games didn't matter is a real pessimistic take. That's like saying getting excited or happy or sad for any characters in a work if fiction doesn't matter and your feelings on said movie doesn't matter because it isn't real.
Actually, he outright misunderstood it. V3 is supposed to be a soft-reboot of sorts. As in, for this game and this game only, the rest of the games were false, but for the Hope's Peak Saga they did happen. As in, they are two completely different timelines and universes.
It was really annoying seeing KH3 as the transition and as an honorable mention. Literally who fucking cares if it's sequel bait. Everybody playing that game knew from the get go it was never intended to end the series. That's on them.
@@Kingdom850 Agreed. It wasn't as good an ending as 1 and 2, but it was perfectly serviceable and did what it was supposed to. We all know it isn't the end of the series, so there had to be SOMETHING to lead into the next saga, so I don't get the hate for it.
Put Black Ops III on that list. If the theory that the wiki posits is indeed what happened, put on a worst endings list as well. Also Metal Gear Solid 2 Sons of Liberty because Kojima is a troll.
There are several things going on in DRV3's ending and I don't think you really looked at it in the right way. It's heavily implied that Tsumugi may have been lying about the whole thing being a game show and that everything was, in fact, real. Also V3 has a separate continuity to 1 and 2, they barely have any connections to each other.
At the very least, it gave us the relief of knowing that Sora does have some sort of chance. We STILL don't know how he'll get that chance, but...it's there, somehow.
Some of these endings involve avoidable "inevitable" outcomes or time travel Bruce says they are doing it wrong Edit: After seeing number 1, I was literally imagined Josh channeling his inner fire to control those VR fists
I feel like you did a bit of a poor job explaining V3’s ending. It’s not that the previous games were all reality shows; they existed as games, anime, manga, etc in V3’s universe. They just got so popular that it was turned into a reality TV show with real teenagers actually killing each other. The point is to show that the audience values entertainment over the well being over real people. In fairness, it wasn’t communicated too well in-game, and I feel that the ending works better for V3 as a stand-alone game than as an ending to the whole series. Also, the DR community is still alive and kicking, so I’m not sure where that line about it “killing interest in the series” came from
@@ChiefMedicPururu It makes no sense because Kirby explained it poorly. Basically, V3 is a soft-reboot were the games were just that, games. V3 is only canonical to itself.
ChiefMedicPururu that was kinda the point we were given an unreliable premise contradicting itself so to desperation of on side Beside it was a matter on the theme on lies, fiction impact on reality, and fans overindulged I think that the part they want us to takeaway on the franchise
To be fair, while Joel didn't try discussing with Eli, no talking, nobody talked to him about it BEFORE they started operating on her. If he was given a chance to talk it over with her and say his goodbye, then maybe he wouldn't kill those doctors and take her out of there.
I'll never forgive Mass Effect 3's terrible god awful ending. Apologist be damned a thousand times over. That ending and Extended Cut were to gaming what Game of Thrones season 8 was to TV. On the bright side, sticking to my guns saved me from the abominations Andromeda and Anthem. Biowear and EA are dead to me.
The extended cut ending makes it somewhat more passable, the thought of killing lovecraftian inspired villains always seemed impossible and would never be satisfying in my opinion. I play ME3 for the past and present squad mate interactions, the genophage cure and Geth arc conclusions, and the gameplay. The game is still in spite of it's ending. I got the end, shrugged and moved on with my life. Everyone else should too.
The irony with the last one is that it could have been much better had the game implied that the illusions were gaining sentience because you treated them like actual people, and that you being there caused the illusions to become real. Then when the big revel happened the player would be given a choice, go after Loki to try to prevent the second part of Ragnarok but doom everyone in the illusion world to cessation of existence. Or, stay in the illusion world so that the people you befriended during your adventure can have a life of their own, and let Loki pull of his plan with no one else the wiser. It would have fit with Loki's M.O. as well. Forcing you to make a sadistic choice is very in character for the guy.
Wow, I really felt that emotional investment you put into Asgard's Wrath. I've never even heard of the game til this list, but yeah, I'm at a loss for words.
You were way off with The Last of Us's ending. It is true that Joel probably sacrificed a lot of the world's population for Ellie, but his character arc was NEVER putting other character's needs before his own, not to mention that isn't the only process that proves he has a heart. The game was entirely focused on him and Ellie trying to remain safe from the current environment and actually bonding with one another. In fact Ellie was the closest thing he had to a family member sometime after his daughter died, which BTW is an event NO ONE can truly shake off not even after years and years. Not to mention, Ellie wasn't outright told this earlier before being brought in. She was knocked out and brought to the Firefly Lab against her own will, as was Joel. I dunno about you, but regardless of the endgoal, having someone forced into an operation that would kill them while expecting the one who cared for them to sit back is actually kinda evil when you really think about it. You focused too much on the world and the "cure" part and not enough on the two characters the game is clearly putting at center stage and that's ultimately what hurt your segment on it. And the thing is, if anywhere prior Ellie was told this, accepted it, and willingly let herself onto that patient table for the operation and Joel still did what he did in the ending, I would completely understand what you mean. But unfortunately, the segment needed more tuning and research.
@@ryanhowe6543 Definitely. It's funny cause this isn't the first time he's mentioned TLOU's ending in his videos, so comments like these that shred through his points have already been made in previous videos yet he still keeps the same view as he always did regarding TLOU's ending and Joel as a character to this day. Never once mentions the idea that the fireflies have no way of successfully distributing a cure to an already broken society that fell 20 years and is very unlikely to rejoice.
@@Kingdom850 Not to mention, the best way to rebuild humanity? She has immunity in her genes. She needs to reproduce, in hopes of birthing other immune individuals. This is nature's process of evolution, which allows some species to adapt to survive. In the long term, it is humanity's best hope for survival.
Funny enough, the ending of Number 1 was the same kind of ending that Dragon Quest: Your Story had, and even the Japanese who love Dragon Quest unconditionally found that insulting.
21:25 - Yes, everyone died in Mother 3. Itoi himself admitted that his plan was to 'betray the player'. I'd say he succeeded, and he created one of the greatest games of all time doing it. I didn't find the ending disappointing at all though. I thought it made sense. Everyone died and the 'end?' screen is the afterlife, hence why we don't see what it looks like. No living person can see what the afterlife looks like.
On XIII-2, the idea "If you change the future, you change the past" sounds like a bunch of nonsense it is actually a workable solution to the question of paradoxes. Though paradoxes are inherently confusing, so you're never going to avoid it being difficult to comprehend. As I understand it, it works on the assumption that time is basically self-correcting. Events flowing in both direction must be able to accommodate each other and to change one where events in the other cannot possibly happen, the timeline corrects itself in the other direction. Thus if you change the future by introducing something that shouldn't exist there due to events in the past, the past *must* change in such a way that future possible. Just as changing the past, the future must change to accommodate it, so too does changing the future in an impossible way would change the past to make it possible. or at least that's my understanding of it. As said, it's difficult to comprehend due to the very nature of paradoxes so perhaps my interpertation is incorrect, but that's how I make sense of it.
The Last of Us has an ending that doesn't feel good. Its upsetting that Joel would do something like that. But that doesn't mean the ending is bad. I'd actually say it's a fantastic one.
Again, with The Last of Us. But I'll say it again; do any of you really think that Ellie us the only one immune? Out if how many years the infection has been around? That and it shows Joel as a complicated human. I can't say I agree with what he did, but Joel is on my personal list of overly hated characters. Love your content Josh!😉🔥
@@althea_sirius You're right. She wasn't the only one to be immune. The fireflies had many subjects before her. You find this out in the audio logs you can find during that segment of the game.
Ellie is NOT th ed only immune person... but the other immune people kept dying during the ordeal just to get to hospital facility. But the procedure wasn't creating a cure. The procedure was going to dissect Ellie's brain in the hopes of finding why she's immune with no guarantee. It's also hinted in Ellie's questions and expressions in the ending that she KNOWS Joel is lying to her,with the implication that she doesn't trust him anymore.
Video Spoiler: They could have saved the ending of Asgard's Wrath by using the concept of you being a god. Gods have creative power, right? Maybe you could somehow take the ideas of the illusions and make your own world that is inhabited by those people and things, but actually creating them so they truly exist in reality.
@@LucaPariah At the very least, they could have you fight Loki, bring his health bar to zero and when he goes 'Hah, I actually have plenty of health left.' then have the entire set of companions pile on and tear him apart in cinematic at the end. Just saying how I'd have pitched a better ending.
And here I thought we were going to see "Shadow the hedgehog" on this list... now, don't get me wrong, despite all the issues the game has story and gameplay wise, I enjoy it... so long as it's just to get 1 of the 10 normal endings. For those who don't know what i'm talking about, let me give you a quick run through... Shadow the Hedgehog was the next game in the Sonic the Hedgehog time line, taking off some time after Heroes... if you played that game as Team Dark, you got a cliffhanger where Rouge discovers a room full of "Shadow Clones". In Shadow the Hedgehog, you can choose to be a Neutral, Chaotic Neutral, Heroic Neutral, Chaotic Evil or Pure Heroic and you can do just that... If the game didn't have a last story segment which required you to beat the game 10 times minimum, which means Westopolis is going to become your favorite level!! So, with the last story, what happens... Well, Black Doom gets the chaos emeralds off shadow just as sonic and friends are trying to stop him from doing just that. It's revealed Black Doom wanted to destroy humanity for whatever reason and needed the chaos emeralds to do it. Meanwhile, Team Chaotix is hacking a computer to find Dr. Gerald Robotnik's files... and, OH BOY... they pull a whiplash inducing 180 from Sonic Adventure 2 and make Dr. Gerald Robotnik, the guy who wanted to destroy earth with the eclipse cannon for killing his granddaughter Maria, a hero by having the original intention for it to be used against the black comet all along!! THEN, You fight a jacked up Black Doom as Super Shadow and get pretty much the same ending as Sonic Adventure 2, except shadow survived!! That hole plot point about shadow potentially being a Clone or an Android, throw it out the window because if you spend long enough in the devil doom boss fight, Eggman will flat out tell Shadow that he is the true Shadow the Hedgehog who fell from the ark to earth in the end of Sonic Adventure 2. WHAT, THE, FUCK!!! All this game's events could've been avoided if Eggman has opened his mouth and told shadow from the very beginning! Sonic 06 isn't much better in that regards, but at least it only required one playthrough as each hedgehog.
Josh: Introducing his #1 Me: Wait, what?? I thought you liked everything about that game's end. You keep bringing it up as a masterpiece. What gives?? OH. It's Asgard's, not Asura's. Okay, I'm listening again.
Personally speaking, I absolutely LOVE Danganronpa V3's ending! I feel like it was a perfect way to wrap up that game. Considering the game's very theme is about the validity of both truth and lies, and that both can lead to either great hope or deep despair, I feel like this, the ultimate deception, is the best possible way the game could be ended.. In a series where the game has become so easy to predict because you know they're going to do something off the wall or avoid doing things that have been done before, this is the ONLY way you could have done something that the audience could have never seen coming. And isn't that a big reason we all love DR in the first place? In this one, you are truly one with your protagonist. The characters virtually transcend fiction and enter reality. You experience the same despair as Shuichi; his memories may be fake, but the pain he and his friends went through were REAL. And he strives to prevent this from ever happening again, and you do this WITH him, taking a stand against the audience alongside him, rather than AS him. As for the actual "the things that happened before weren't real" plot point.... Well believe it or not, this is the part that I love most. Because...maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. Something to keep in mind is the possibility that Tsumugi was lying about the whole thing as well. Shuichi himself comments on a couple of apparent inconsistencies with Tsumugi's claims, and the game indirectly tasks the player with going back into the prologue and double checking the characters' reactions when they find out they've "been chosen." This, once again, feeds back into that whole "truth and lies" theme. Especially when you consider that Tsumugi may have been lied to herself and she may have had false memories of being the mastermind planted into her own head as well. I think this is brilliantly crafted and left somewhat open-ended, so you, as the player now embedded in this reality, can dive in, do your own investigation and decide for yourself what you want to believe. The overall theme of DRV3 is "Truth and Lies." I think an ending that is extremely open-ended and leaves the player to believe what they want to believe and not knowing whether or not Tsumugi was lying about the fiction vs reality part of the ending...is truly the perfect way to end the game.
One clear contradiction is we are clearly told the characters are kidnapped and only Rantaro seems to recognise what's going on, not anyone else, neither of which would be the case if 'Danganronpa' was actually a game show and socially accepted.
@@sarafontanini7051 Another one is that Tsumugi is just as confused as everyone else. But if the game hadn't started yet, she had no reason to be acting that way. Especially if the Monocubs were screwing everything up so badly xD
I’ll never forget playing ME3’s ending for the first time last year. “It can’t be THAT bad...” Yikes. Retcons, horrible writing, choices that didn’t take previous choices into consideration, and “subverting expectations” that would make Rian Johnson blush. An absolute failure of an ending that will forever live in infamy, and serves as a warning of how NOT to write an ending.
believe it or not Final Fantasy 13-2's director claimed he wanted to do the time travel stuff and alternate endings because he wanted to give players something to get their minds off the then tragic events of the 2011 Earthquake that had devastated Japan. to an extent, me personally, I'm willing to give 13-2 some slack if there was any development issues and the story couldn't be properly fleshed out because yeah your country getting devastated is kinda going to mess with things. but even I dislike 13-2 as a whole because it does kinda undo the happy ending we got in 13 and i HATE that type of storytelling trope unless the follow up makes it worth it
Update the list. Bayonetta 3's ending is a fucking INSULT to people who enjoyed the series. Like, "Oh, you know all those characters you grew up loving for 15 fucking years? Dead. All of them. Get left with the single most annoying character in the franchise."
