Search the Community

Does it seem to you with video games the journey is often more interesting than the destination? I've just finished playing Bastion for the first time. The Tazal Terminals were an awesome level. Some really shocking things revealed nearing the end. But when it came to the end... I expected.. I expected.. well, I didn't know quite what to expect, but I expected far more than what I got. For me, it was a real anti-climax. I felt dissapointed and more than a little let down. And I got to thinking, well hey, this is true for quite a lot of the games that I have played. It was true for Mass Effect 3 (haven't seen the extended cut yet - still playing through on insane difficulty). It was true for Fallout 3. I didn't care much for the ending to SPAZ, or King's Bounty. None of the Civ endings have ever made me feel "well, that was well worth 40+ hours of blood, sweat and tears". But going back to Bastion, the Narrator throughout the game helps to create a real sense of immersion in the game. Heck, I could happily play more of Bastion and never need a big finish, because the game in of itself is enough for me. With Fallout 3, if they had worked out a procedural sidequest system, ye gods, I don't think I would have ever touched the main quest unless I felt bored and out of sorts. Do games really need the big finish? Is the act of playing an engaging and immersive game sufficent to the needs of the player, or does it need the "pop" at the end to reward the player for everything they have done to get there? Should the destination be more interesting than the journey?