actually, i think these guys just ain't that great at endings. i gotta agree, both bioshock endings were pretty weak, and so was this, which was weird considering the mega-lithic-awesome-tastic nature of the rest of the story and gameplay in bioshock and the sense of fear in system shock.

but, then again, what game ending wasn't weak? to only one i can say i felt satisfied with was silent hill 2, and that (don't get me wrong) had horrid gameplay . maybe that's the trick, shitty gameplay = great ending. you can't break the formula with our current technology!

Yes, the better the game is at creating story, atmosphere, and in-game cut scenes, the harder it is to enjoy the finish where you just sit and passively watch the end (Half-Life for example). I think these games would be better served if at the very end they gave control back to the player and gave him some token choice to make. At least then you would feel like you are actually participating in the end-game.

I think you're onto something there.

Although remember, the original Half Life had this exact thing.

i'll damit, i did kinda like the "good" bioshock ending, but it still was a bit weak. to get by, i remind myself that the ending to that game didn't really matter, it was the journey to the ending that made it great. i have nary a bad thing to say abut that game, and perhaps it'll spawn a good trend in development towards "smart" games. as good as some games withing the setting are, i'm geting a little tired of crime simulations like san andreas and stock fantasy like WOW. it's time to break out some deeper reference material. make games rooted in camus, kafka and clark. start adding a little Scorsese or kubrick in there. i'm still waiting for Zardoz: the game and hyperion: a john keats game.