Stephen Totilo on POP ending
Earlier this year I was in New York for a Ubisoft press day to show POP to 'Mainstream media' (ie: anything that isn't Gamespot or IGN). On the list was Stephen Totilo of MTV Multiplayer (very much worth a bookmark).
I remember being disappointed when Stephen whisked by my stand, heading straight to Clint Hocking and the incredible, newly-unveiled FC2 map editor. I read MTV Mutliplayer a lot, and along with N'Gai, there weren't many journalists I was more looking forward to a grilling from then Stephen (although if I could have sparked even a minute's interest from Brian Crecente during our preview stage, I would have considered that a coup). When he left that day without spending any time with POP, I basically resigned myself to the fact that POP would not be able to attract Stephen's attention - probably ever.
Last week, I saw a post on Multiplayer about POP. Then a couple of days later, another. Then another. POP has featured several times in the last week or so, and in very positive ways. I'm happy that we finally managed to get Stephen's attention. :)
Nothing, though, could prepare me for his most recent (and last, I think) post about POP and, more specifically, the ending. A quote:
Some people have asked why we didn't give the player a 'real' choice as to how the game should end (other then just turning off the console, that is - something we predicted during development that 5% of the players would do). The easiest and simplest answer to this is because of the 'Warrior Within' issue. On WW, there were two endings. One 'normal' one and a second 'special' ending. When we started work on The Two Thrones, we needed to decide which ending to support as the official ending. It wasn't easy, and a lot of fans were upset at our decision because the ending we started from was not the one they saw - the continuity was lost.
As I've said several times, this POP is designed with the potential of a trilogy in mind (and to be a stand alone experience as well), so it was very important to us that a theoretical POP sequel would not have this same narrative incongruity to deal with.
Finally, on the off chance that Stephen reads this - SoTC was a big inspiration for us, but mostly with the intention of making the boss battles epic and emotional - something they succeeded in masterfully and that we only touched the surface of (in terms of emotional connection on the part of the player). Many of the similarities you pointed out are coincidental, but I certainly don't mind the comparison. We've always been very open about the huge influences that Ico, SoTC and Okami had on us during our development.
Okay, for real this time, Merry Christmas.
I remember being disappointed when Stephen whisked by my stand, heading straight to Clint Hocking and the incredible, newly-unveiled FC2 map editor. I read MTV Mutliplayer a lot, and along with N'Gai, there weren't many journalists I was more looking forward to a grilling from then Stephen (although if I could have sparked even a minute's interest from Brian Crecente during our preview stage, I would have considered that a coup). When he left that day without spending any time with POP, I basically resigned myself to the fact that POP would not be able to attract Stephen's attention - probably ever.
Last week, I saw a post on Multiplayer about POP. Then a couple of days later, another. Then another. POP has featured several times in the last week or so, and in very positive ways. I'm happy that we finally managed to get Stephen's attention. :)
Nothing, though, could prepare me for his most recent (and last, I think) post about POP and, more specifically, the ending. A quote:
I believe Ubisoft Montreal identified the potency of forcing the player to commit an action that requires minutes of premeditation, internal conflict and pending regret. This moment is a triumph, because it assumes the player will think about the gameplay and will ponder what they are perpetrating.There were few elements of the game that were as fixed in our mind from day 1 on POP as the ending. It was literally one of the very first things we knew we wanted to do with the game, and stayed 100% fixed in our mind throughout development, despite its rather unorthodox nature. Last week, in fact, I met with JC (the game's creative director) for a coffee and asked him if he was monitoring the boards - he said he was with the single-minded intention of seeing if people 'got' the ending. Stephen most certainly did.
Some people have asked why we didn't give the player a 'real' choice as to how the game should end (other then just turning off the console, that is - something we predicted during development that 5% of the players would do). The easiest and simplest answer to this is because of the 'Warrior Within' issue. On WW, there were two endings. One 'normal' one and a second 'special' ending. When we started work on The Two Thrones, we needed to decide which ending to support as the official ending. It wasn't easy, and a lot of fans were upset at our decision because the ending we started from was not the one they saw - the continuity was lost.
As I've said several times, this POP is designed with the potential of a trilogy in mind (and to be a stand alone experience as well), so it was very important to us that a theoretical POP sequel would not have this same narrative incongruity to deal with.
Finally, on the off chance that Stephen reads this - SoTC was a big inspiration for us, but mostly with the intention of making the boss battles epic and emotional - something they succeeded in masterfully and that we only touched the surface of (in terms of emotional connection on the part of the player). Many of the similarities you pointed out are coincidental, but I certainly don't mind the comparison. We've always been very open about the huge influences that Ico, SoTC and Okami had on us during our development.
Okay, for real this time, Merry Christmas.
Labels: MTV Multiplayer, Prince Of Persia
posted by Ben Mattes at 4:23 PM
24 Comments:
Mr. Mattes, I I just finished reading Totilo's article on similarities between Prince of Persia and SotC, as well as your statement about wanting a few more 'virtual pats on the back' for the risks you and your team took with the new game's direction & mechanics. And I had to go looking for your email address or a blog so I could give you this message.
Consider this a virtual pat on the back.
The similarities between Persia and Colossus weren't lost on me, but I don't think anyone can suggest that the similarities are anything more than superficial. Colossus is fundamentally a game about isolation, regaining what you've lost, and funamentally revolves around the main character being decieved into his actions - while Persia is much more a game involved with a dymanic of friendship and learning not to go it alone. What's more, nobody can claim the Prince was tricked - he consciously knows what he does every step of the way.
So don't listen to Totilo. Yes, there's similarities. But there are simiarities between Battlestar Galactica and Terminator, too - and they're definitely not copies.
What's more, I personally would like to thank you for the direction you guys took the new game in. As someone who works in the same industry, I'm well aware of how hard it must have been to sell people on a reboot of the franchise that not only changed the style and mood, but also some of the fundamental mechanics of the game system. And you know what? I love it. I can play it be relaxed, enjoy the *ride*, as opposed to feel like I'm fighting the whole way. The conflation of death and challenge by most 'hardcore' gamers is one of the most ridiculous things ever - mechanically, dying would produce the same result as Elika's constant grab: to remove the Prince back several arbitrary steps in time so that the player could try again.
What's more, I don't think games have to be defined by 'challenge' or 'difficulty' to be enjoyable, especially one so engaged with its narrative. Look at how lauded Katamari Damacy was, and difficulty was never a factor.
So thanks, Mr. Mattes. As a gamer, as a professional in the same field, as a guy who appreciates things that go out on a limb, I think you guys have done a great job with the game. It's a majestic ride, and the writing - which I'm usually really hard on in most games - is top notch. Elika and the Prince are believable and wonderful.
Also, the ending? Phenomenal. The fact that you, the player, are forced to play it out gives it that much more impact.
Don't listen to the doubters. At least some of us are already anxiously awaiting the next one.
Hi Ben, I Justo got into your blog and I´ve had an over view of it and it really looks interesting.
As a CS student willing to get into this crazy world called video game developement, I wish I found this blog earlier, since I´ve read a few interesting posts about the developement of PoP, meetings, prototypes, etc...I was wondering if you plan to do the same thing, even more specify, not on the game details themselves (which I assume you neither can nor able to speak of), but on the dayly issues you guys get and pass through.
Actually, I have a subject called Software Ingeniering, and we talk a lot about these things.
Anyway...my poinit is...I was wondering if you are planning to do this again on your next project.
Ubisoft Montreal is one of the top gaming studios at the moment, and this blog is like a huge treasure for me.
Good luck with PoP!!! You guys deserve it.
Greetings from Spain.
Alejo
Perhaps totally irrelevant to your interests, but this is a comment from a gamer with more sophisticated tastes -
I found the ending fascinating. Ive not played previous PoP games so im not sure exactly how predictable it was meant to be, but i was victim to the exact psychological effect that was intended, ie. the remorse, guilt, futility, fatalism, honestly unlike any experience ive had before as a gamer and something that can only be achieved through gaming as interaction as opposed to passive media. What also made it work so well was how perfectly cut the ending was, perfectly directed, perfectly scored - full emotional impact. Ive studied film direction and the ending of PoP is a rare example of game competing with film in artistic competency.
So basically, despite the blatant lead into a sequel, i'd consider your title art. Interested to see what kind of effect the ending had on the consumer body, i looked at forums and observed a marmite reaction as im sure you have. Again, you will know this already but just in case it adds ammunition to your case - anyone who didnt enjoy the ending, either didnt get it at all or is the kind of testosterone filled, artless gears of war munching sophomore who isnt worth listening to.
Sorry for the long comment - but i arrive at the end to say, first of all, well done. And most importantly of all, not to let any corporate/consumer pressure dilute the artistic integrity which you have so capably demonstrated in producing this title.
regards,
Rob
Ben, you may get a laugh out of this:
http://kotaku.com/5118490/prince-of-persia-culturally-irresponsible
Seems to me the guy never played a Mario Game nor ANY recent video games at all. If we necessarily got educated on cultures via every video games we touched, we'd be so politically incorrect.
Just another "Jack Thompson" wannabe looking for a random bone to pick, yet thats getting annoying this time around.
I wish I had stumbled across your blog before I had written some of my own pieces on PoP. It happens I stumbled across this blog while curiously searching your name after posting a collaborative review. I enjoyed the game quite a bit and if it at all interests you, here is a link to our review at Experience Points (http://experiencepoints.blogspot.com/2008/12/review-refreshing-prince-of-persia.html).
I also wrote a piece earlier in regards to touching in the game. Don't worry it's not stalker dribble or anything. Anyway, I thought I would let you know of my appreciation of the game and the writing in case you are interested. I know if I were a developer, I'd likely pay too much attention to what the vocal minority have to say.
Hello Mr. Mattes, another fan of the game, especially the ending, here. I am totally with Stephen on the ending and I think he hit the nail on the head. In fact, I wrote a blog about the ending myself which ponders some of the same things, namely the nature of the interactivity and the emotions it evokes in the player, before I even knew Stephen Totilo wrote about it himself. Link's in the URL I submitted, if you would care to read it.
Anyway, keep up the good work, kudos on the brave decision to make the ending to PoP the way you did, and I very much look forward to where the story goes from here!
A grain of sand in the storm...
Hi Mr. Mattes, I really enjoyed Prince of Persia, and I do get the ending. I had some problems with the game:
the thing I liked least about the game is that most of the platforming has been automated down to single button presses instead of the Sands of Time trilogy's more freestyle wallrunning/combining of moves and such.
I also didn't really like the fighting. Yes, it was very spectacular, which made it look like the gorgeous fighting ballets of movies like Hero and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.. but it was also more a matter of pressing the right button at the exact right moment than actual skill. I realise that was part of the idea, of making the game more open for casual/new gamers. Perhaps for the next game an option between casual and classic SoT style game controls/gamplay can be implemented? I realise that must be a gigantic headache to a design team.
Please, don't take this to mean I didn't enjoy the game, I really enjoyed playing it (the platforming part worked wonderfully despite my problems with it). The graphics are probably my favourite in any game published in 2008, and really enjoyed the bickering between Elika and the Prince, despite me not completely buying an American Prince for some reason (it was a bit jarring to recognise him as Nathan Drake from Uncharted) and not caring for some of the dialogue. but I did like the message of the story, including the ending (it made me think, how many games do that with their stories these days?).
I'll certainly be right here, waiting for the second part.
My girlfriend and I just finished POP last night. We were impressed by the visual and narrative artistry displayed in the final act, and look forward to a sequel. However, she and I disagreed as to the thematic significance of the ending.
*MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT*
I thought that the game was an exploration of Immanual Kant's categorical imperative, specifically, his Second Maxim, which holds that we must "treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other... as an end and never as a means to an end."
First, I argued that the four "Corrupted" had all acted contrary to Kant's Second Maxim. For example, the Hunter gave his soul to hunt man. The Warrior gave his soul to protect the people of his kingdom. In both cases, the Corrupted treated themselves or others as a means to an end. This holds true for Elika and her father as well: Elika's father sacrificed himself to save his daughter's life, and in the end, Elika sacrificed herself to stop Ahriman.
Second, throughout the game, Elika spoke of her duty to undo her father's deed, and implied that in doing so she was a tool of Ormazd, the light God. The Prince, on the other hand, argued (again, implicitly) that they were the authors of their destiny, and that his acts were attributable to no God. In other words, Elika sees herself as a means (defeating the corrupted, healing the sacred grounds) to an end (sealing Ahriman). The Prince does not see himself as a "tool," but instead, as a independent moral agent. In helping Elika, he is compelled by no other motivation than to express his affection for her. He does not view himself as a means to an end, and chafes at the implication that Elika is a means to an end.
This dichotomy extends to the gameplay itself. Elika is "used" by the Prince to double jump, cleanse corrupted lands, and to perform certain combat actions. Even to the player, Elika is a means to an end. While one could argue that both the Elika and the Prince are, in the abstract, tools of the player, it must be conceded that the player has substantially greater control over the Prince. The Prince is the player's main avatar, and the game is driven exclusively by his acts. In the gameplay context, Elika cannot act independently. She only acts at the behest of the Prince, or in response to his acts. If the Prince does nothing, Elika does nothing. Yet if Elika does nothing, the Prince may still act.
Third, the game begins and ends with the line "what is one grain of sand in the desert/one grain in the storm." "[O]ne grain of sand" can only refer to the Prince and/or Elika. If "one grain of sand" is the Prince/Elika, than "the desert" (which is comprised of billions of individual pieces of sand) must refer to the rest of humanity. "[T]he storm" can be interpreted as a crisis or calamity. In other words, the line is drawing a contrast between the many and the few, specifically, the value of the few compared to the many in the face of calamity.
Kant's categorical imperative was a reaction to classical utilitarianism, which, crudely speaking, held that some morally objectionable acts (like killing) could be morally defensible under certain circumstances. For example, a utilitarian might say that it is normally wrong to take a life, but if the taking of that life were the only way to prevent the death of a thousand others, taking one life may not be wrong. Kant would say that even if taking a life could save the lives of a thousand others, the taking of that one life would not be intrinsically moral. It would be, per the Second Maxim, treating human life as a means (taking one life) to an end (saving one thousand lives).
The line is essentially an ancient philosophical quandary: does the needs of the many outweigh those of few? Do the ends ever justify the means? The ending, I feel, was the developer's answer. The Prince, driven by grief, unsealed Ahriman in exchange for Elika's life. In keeping with his personal philosophy, the Prince could not accept that Elika was a means to and end; that her intrinsic value was determined by the will of others. To the Prince, one life, Elika's life, was too high a price to secure the safety of the world.
I readily admit that I could be overthinking this, and apologize in advance if this argument comes off as pretentious. Nevertheless, I think I've made a good case.
So Mattes, am I completely off base?
Really and truly a fantastic experience through and through. I loved the style and innovation of PoP:Sands of Time - but the series lost me after that by losing the whimsy, the magic, the PERSIA.
This game was worthy of that. From the "enjoy the ride" philosophy to the great boss battles to that FANTASTIC watercolor aesthetic - the game was pretty amazing BEFORE the end.
The ending definitely touched me - as I undid in a few seconds everything I had worked for - but for good reason. Well done.
Hey Ben,
long time...
I was wondering, in case you are reading this: was Elika's name inspired by reading "Freakonomics" ?
Sorry, haven't read "the long tail" yet :P
Matteo
I disagree strongly, and in fact, the ending came very close to ruining the game for me. It pulled me out of the game, made me hate the main character, and I spent the entire time thinking about how dumb this was. You asked me to do something I, as the player, would never do, and then took any choice from my hand. I can't feel regret for doing something when it is forced upon me, I just feel angry. Some games can use this effectively. Prince of Persia didn't, because there was no reason I should have HAD to make that choice. You locked me in a "room" with no options, not even suicide.
Your claim that the Warrior Within idea provides problems doesn't work, because Warrior Within clearly had two endings: A true ending and a "you didn't do everything" ending. Most gamers refer people directly to the true ending as a "canon" ending, and only a few titles (Shadow Hearts is perhaps the only that comes to mind) had the guts to not do so. Even then, the fact that it didn't begin off the "true ending" was a major plot point in the game, and the story revolved around it.
Giving players the choice doesn't have to cause a problem. Most people understand that games continue from a specific ending, and a number of franchises have done this well. Legacy of Kain: Blood Omen ended with you making a choice between killing yourself or surviving and corrupting the world. It began with the "corruption of the world" ending in the sequel. Simple, nobody had trouble understanding it.
The end result is that the entire experience is soured for me. I don't care if a game goes for a "bad end", but if you're going to force the gamer to do something, please don't make it be something the gamer wouldn't want to do or see as a requirement. I felt no reason to complete the task in the end. I felt it was stupid, selfish and pointless, and not in-character for the person I had spent the last 6 hours controlling. If it had been a cutscene, I would have thought it was stupid, but making me control it was flat-out offensive. The big problem is that your choice depends on the player's emotions. If a player doesn't feel in the same emotional state as the main character, then the ending become something the player doesn't want to play, not because it is a hard choice, but because it is something the player doesn't want to do and, this is important, has no REASON to do. The game failed to give me, as a player, a reason to want to do this.
Turning off the console, some may say, is a choice, but it really isn't. If you don't like the ending to something, that's fine, but turning it off ten minutes from the end is not the same as completing it. You can watch the credits, but they're not the real credits. You don't get all the achievements. I don't even think you get the special costume. (I may be misremembering here, forgive me if I am. I know the Achievement for sure.) The end result is that things are denied to the player for not finishing the game.
I loved the game up until that point. Afterwards, it became my second least favorite Prince of Persia title (behind only Warrior Within) and the only one I would never replay... and this is a shame, because prior to that, I would have ranked it up there with Sands of Time. I wouldn't replay it because replaying it would give me no satisfaction. With every step I took, I would know that my actions were pointless. The beautiful game becomes a grim death match towards the inevitable ending, and even the fun gameplay can't make up for that, because gameplay without satisfaction is... well, gameplay without satisfaction.
Dear Chris,
I have to disagree on your disagreement of Matt's agreement :)
Multiple endings leaves the game vulnerable to time paradox and plot holes.
Imagine having a book with an entire story arc stretched over 3 volumes. There is no plausible way any of theses volumes would each have 2-3 different conclusion and STILL plausibly follow each other without causing plot holes and lack of continuity.
So when it comes to game design, the choice of multiple ending nearly kills the possibility of storyline continuity within a "sequel" involving the SAME characters in the SAME world.
Yet, i Do agree that the restrained ending is a double edge sword: Locking down a player to a specific path when they are allowed full freedom for most of the game always brings out rightful frustrations.
Then again, you get a whole different emotional experience when your freedom is stripped from you at a critical moment, a bit similar to the shadow of colossus or resistance 2 ending, you know you're pushed in "the wrong direction", you know something bad will happen because of what you're doing and you're powerless to stop it. Similar to real the real world, there are some chain of events you CANT control and its an interesting design choice since games theses days tend to have this "players have a choice" policy and this games brings it to a hybrid of both. Hard to explain but i hope you get the point.
And last but not least, that ending sequence successfully made you react in a way you wont forget what occurred as easily as the typical RPG ending where everything ends in a happy matter with no twist nor shocking factors.
Anyway, we could discuss a bit more on that whenever you got the time.
Ben, in case you missed this one:
http://www.gamesetwatch.com/2009/01/
column_diamond_in_the_rough.php
Regards,
Nick
I understand completely what you mean, and to be fair, I actually can agree with a good portion of it. I suppose my major problem is that the way the particular ending is set up, but I didn't feel trapped like I did in Shadow. I suppose that may actually be a side effect of the actual way that Prince of Persia is designed! You have such a wide-open free area and a super-acrobatic Prince and yet I was trapped anyway, but only because the game "said" so, while Colossus felt a bit more... inevitable? I'm not sure if that makes sense, but I hope what I'm trying to say comes through clearly.
Perhaps it isn't even the choice (or lack of choice), but the lack of that feeling of inevitability that got me I suppose. Still, I certainly understand what you're saying, and I do agree that the ending is very ambitious and interesting in theory, even if I don't agree with the execution. I'm aware that I probably sounded very harsh on it, but that wasn't really the intent I had. A "low-tier" Prince of Persia game is still better then many things on the market!
I also do understand what you mean about multiple endings. I suppose my problem is that I, as a gamer, have been so trained by the concept of games having multiple endings that I'm just not capable of seeing them as a problem. To use a recent example, Metal Gear Solid 4 actually continues from the Good Ending of Metal Gear Solid, and I had no real issues wondering why Meryl was alive and well. It feels weird to me to say it kills the possibility, since of Metal Gear's biggest points is the insane story. I've just played so many games, particularly rather story-focused ones, that it surprises me to hear that the concept of multiple endings confuses folks.
However, of course, I'm not a game developer... I don't hear these complaints and feedback, so I can't judge this in the same manner as they would. Goodness knows that there are plenty of things that "gamers" take for granted that folks who wouldn't consider themselves one would find confusing or off putting. It's difficult sometimes as a gamer to judge what is interesting to everyone compared what is interesting to a more "dedicated" gamer.
I still wonder what went through Kojima's mind when it came to the first Metal Gear Solid's choice of multiple endings especially when the next game's scenarios had been partially written.
But thinking about this in a broader manner, there was a huge boom in the multi-ending trend around the ps2 era. Yet most of that occurred for single episode games or games that didnt expect/plan direct sequels (unofficially speaking, i cant read minds only memory cards :) ).
------------------------------
Something thats POP might have tried to do is reversing the "Save me Elika" system to "Save me Prince" so that it'd spare you the typical "Sad ending" ud get when doing the "wrong choice" somewhat recapping the game's core system/way of thinking.
----------------End of Raving Caffeine ramble
But going back to the concept of multiple endings, there are usually 4 types of results we get (not all the time but most often):
1-You turn evil and beat your cat to death, world is doom, EVIIIIL
2-You screwed up but you're still alive, you didn't completely WIN but whatever.
3-Happy ending with after an eggroll.
4-Alien abduction, Spoof, game isn't serious anymore, ROFL/LOL, Self Spoof.
Now if we have a game with ending type 1 and 3, the "morale gap" or story-path deviation is so far apart that attempting to continue the story for the same game with a sequel cant be done without losing credibility by sealing the story when selecting "THE True ending"and going " SYYYYKE, the other ending isnt true, fooled you! lol"
Yet with a game like Metal Gear solid: Holding Ending type 2 and 3; Meryl hasn't been mentioned nor referred to after the first MGS, Even Otacon doesn't give us a glimpse on what EXACTLY occurred during the escape from Shadow Moses. The story gap between both ending was somewhat small thus selecting either ending as "Canon" wouldn't have caused a complete mindcrush when the player jumps in the next installment of the game.
And as we finally saw in MGS2, MGS1's canon ending was left subtly blank, non referred to, had players wondering what happened yet still didn't distract them from the core story in the current game. Till Kojima went " BOOM, Meryl is still alive" 3 installments later.
I do admit, for PoP, its a bit of a "CMOOOOON!!" situation, and im sure the blow could have been softened with some alternate ending treats; similar to God of War , Easter eggs such as " The prince's past-Interactive comic" or "Glimpse in the future- Sequential art FMV" etc anything to keep us peeking at what could happen but all that requires funds, time, resources etc
But all that is just over analysis, possibilities, personal thoughts and opinions which do not represent Ubisoft(TM) or the Game Industry(TM...?) in anyways. XD
See you on MGO !
All,
I certainly didn't expect this much discussion when I posted this blog entry. Amazing what a Kotaku link can do for one's traffic. ;)
I appreciate all of your viewpoints (yes, yours too Chris) and want to thank you all for taking the time to express your thoughts so eloquently.
We made a game that we thought could get people talking (and in ideal circumstances, thinking) and it certainly had brought out some very thoughtful analysis from you all. Much more so then we saw in the professional reviews, understandably (they are in the business of critiquing, not deconstructing and interpreting).
-Ben
Ben,
Since reading this elegy to John Donne, by Thomas Carew, around 1631, I wanted to point out to you how much it reminds me of you approach to the new Prince of Persia.
"The Muses' garden, with pedantic weeds
O'erspread, was purg'd by thee, the lazier seeds
Of servile imitation throwne away,
And fresh invention planted..."
Cheers,
Nick
Mr. Mattes,
I just wanted to say how impacted I've been by playing both AC and POP! I've always enjoyed playing games that have a soul, compared to your standard slice-and-dice/capture-the-flag platforms. I have compact periods of "free" time (like most, in between very busy life-periods) such that I want to use that time to be both entertained and emotionally investmented in the experience (tantamount to reading a good book). AC and POP have been that for me and more.
I just finished POP last evening and, as has been noted previously in Totilo's blog, was extremely impacted by the ending: knowing what I had to do, but not wanting to do it, and then again- not wanting NOT to (trying to avoid too much spoiling). I actually did sit idle with my XBox on for some time pondering the impact of my actions, and even saved the game and turned it off for about 30 minutes to think even more- THAT'S when I got it, and am still emotionally connected to the ending this morning. Thank you and Ubisoft for soliciting those most basic of emotions from me and your other gamers- this is where you excel!
I would also like to add that you might have tipped your hand a little re. the Prince's eventual direction with "The Choice" on the third level of the Concubine Stage- that was also very well played... Drammatic and subtle at the same time- I absolutely LOVED it! I look forward to playing the next 2 installments!
All the best!
M. Consugar, PA-USA
(serious-talking mode on)
I would like to thank you very much for the newest Pop. The idea with the ending was truly genius. Please don't let these CoD/CS upset you. Life is not only about archiving goals or completing missions, it is also about making right choices. I had very strong feeling that during that special moment with Elika on "my" hands devs were laughing at me. We were all supposed to finish a simple task and in the end we had to forget about consequences, mission, promises an follow our emotions. I really thought that this layer was completely forgotten in game industry - I was wrong... thankfully.
After completing the game I was a bit confused. Now I know that this title will stay in my memory much longer that I originally expected. I just can't wait to see more ...
(serious-talking mode off)
oh...btw.... I was wondering how sales goes ? TR:Underworld made 1,5 kk and Eidos was very dissatisfied. When I've checked vgchartz for the last time PoP had exactly the same amount (xbox + ps3 only). Do you think it's going to make these 3kk ?
Greetings from Poland
Simon
The ending was unique.I hadn't foreseen it in any way.I almost cried when Elika died, it was like... good job with the script.The best ending i have seen in a videogame alongst with Dreamfall: the longest journey and Assassin's creed (also by the same studio as POP.U guys r goood!) .Keep up the good work guys,POP was excellent and so was AC. Oh, plz plz plz plz make it a trilogy!!! and AC too,or is it too much???????
Greetings from Greece and once again: KEEP DOING THE BEST WORK AROUND GUYS!
Dear Ben,
T tu malade ?!
Un Epilogue telechargable?!?!!?!
C rare, ben rare, mais assez ingenieux!
Mais comment ca va marcher, un menu d'ajouter dans le main menu?!
Ben, Trop malade le concept, TROP MALADE : D bonne chance.
Ben don't sleep - vacations are over! Time to blog!
Btw. any news about DLC for PC ?
SOTC being one of my favorite game, I definitely saw the ressemblance as I played through. But drawing ressemblance with such a game as SOTC can only be a good thing. It is only good for all of us that Ubi Montreal is willing to take that artistic/epic route in terms of PoP development. The game stands well enough on its own.
Thoroughly, I greatly enjoyed it, althought it felt too repetitive.
About the ending, I thought it was such a great twist...and shocking, but I must admit I would have liked to unfold a little bit longer (ala SOTC ;)
Keep up the good work! Can't wait to play an improved sequel.
Dear Mr. Mattes,
I started playing the game again. Below you'll find my opinion. I call myself a more gentle gamer, a gamer with a heart.
I find the game absolutely incredible. I don't care about graphic and fighting, I care about the story, the story that made me almost cry at first because it gave me that feeling. A feeling it meant to give. A wonderful, but painful feeling. The ending was breathtaking I must tell you. I never actually fell "in love" with a game before. The whole story was something different, something I searched for 3 years! I finished the game in 1 week and after that heart rending ending, I felt like crying, I started looking weird and sad, so I made a promise I would never play it again :)). Anyway, I'm not crazy, just that I think you've done a really good job! I read some reviews, nasty ones, and I felt sorry, but then I saw some forums. Gamers from all over the world had the same feeling! They loved the game, the story... I thin Robert Taylor said it all in his comment. The only thing I (and a really big bunch of gamers world-wide) want is a second coming of this Prince of Persia... the ending left me empty (you shouldn't feel this way about a game, I know, we leave in "the real world"), I just HOPE you did this on purpose, so that a sequel will appear (better than the DLC).
All of you gave us an extraordinary game to play, a touching ending and a thrilling experience all-in-all. Don't listen to any bad comments, Elika and the Prince make the best pair ever, we're all waiting for the next game.
Many thanks, I'm sorry for this long comment, I just thought that you would like to hear other people's opinions :D.
Quote: "most people don't do amazing things just because they're afraid of failure."
Just so that you know, there are hundreds of fans who support you.
Post a Comment
<< Home