BG3 Let's discuss the ending of BG3 (massive spoiler, obviously)

[Maylander]

Let me start out with some context: I've played through it twice, first on Balanced and then Tactician, and I'm currently playing through it again on Tactician. In other words: I'm enjoying myself a lot. I think it's a great game. However, while I do think Act 1 and 2 are truly excellent, I really can't say the same about Act 3. In fact, I think it's something of a disaster. A lot of reviewers give Act 3 a bit of a pass, saying it's probably something Larian will fix in time, but I really don't think that's the case. The issues are too many and too varied.

Fatigue
Most people I've discussed the ending with suffered from some sort of fatigue towards the end. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why. It's certainly somewhat related to the fact that so much time is spent at max level, but I don't think that's the only reason. It has a bit of "A Song of Ice and Fire" about it, in that we've got a bunch of threads we want to wrap up, but instead we're constantly being blocked by new and less interesting stuff. The entire area of Rivington has a sense of "let me just get to Baldur's Gate, please". There's a fair bit of content I feel they could have cut, and it would have improved the game. And if they were to include new areas related to Baldur's Gate, it should have been high town, but that might not have been a good idea, because..

Baldur's Gate references
Act 3 is the big act for BG fan service. There are very few references until we get there, and that's just as well. I feel like a lot of people played the game 20 years ago, so things like Sarevok and the Iron Throne makes them go "ooh, my childhood!" without actually knowing that most references are wrong. Let's go through a few off the top of my head:

• Sarevok: Wrong voice actor, wrong background. According to his diary, he was rudely brought back by Gorion's Ward, but the reality is he clawed his way back to life
• Orin: Not in any way related to Bhaal, because Sarevok lost all that when he was brought back.
• Iron Throne: We know the layout of the building. This is nothing like it.
• Baldur's Gate: The same applies to the city. Sure, sorcerous sundries is there, but nothing else makes sense. And yes, I'm aware 100 years has passed, but I've been to a lot of cities in my life with a fair bit more history than that, and buildings don't often change places.
• BG2 canon: So what's the canon party they're going for here? There is no official canon for BG2, but the BG1 party is Jaheira, Khalid, Minsc, Dynaheir and Imoen, so BG2 is most likely Jaheira, Minsc and Imoen + two. Here we have references to Viconia, Jan Jansen, Aerie, Keldorn.. I get it. I like those characters too (well, maybe not Aerie), but it just seems odd.
• Balduran: Don't get me started

I'm sure there's more, but this is all just a grumpy old fan nitpicking. The real reason I'm making this topic is..

The worst ending since Mass Effect 3
In a game that's all about consequences, they genuinely pulled an ME3 ending out of nowhere (minus the colors). Why on earth would they do that? Your stance on the Illithids, the Githyanki, the tadpoles, astral tadpoles, their powers, etc.. it's irrelevant, because it's suddenly time to play "Pick an Illithid!" And the reason is staggering: In order to counter this super computer, we'll have to turn someone into.. what? A toaster? A smartphone? There is very, very little in common between an Illithid and an Elder Brain. The former is a grunt with some psionic powers, the latter is a super genius that has consumed thousands of the former to increase its ever growing intellect. The whole thing is absurd.

And then there's the whole Gith and Orpheus bit. Did they really just add a silly macguffin thing to the lore of DnD? So far, the reason the Gith were able to defeat the Illithids back in the days is because, over generations of Illithid slavery/influence/breeding/mutations, they had grown somewhat resisted, and rose up together in a giant war that scarred the planes. And now it's because.. Gith herself could counter Elder Brains? That was the magic trick? If it's anything as locally as what Orpheus can do, that would have had a grand total of zero impact. The Githyanki vs the Illithids spans planes, not cities. And now there's just one being left in all of existence with this magic ability? So.. what's preventing the Illithids from just conquering things again? The Astral Prism, that was recently in the Lich Queen's hands, can only ever be in one place at once, right? Again, this conflict spans entire planes, so one location is irrelevant.

By the way, does that also mean that they just snuck in a choice towards the end of the game that would effectively lead to either civil war across the planes if you decide to free Orpheus VS the Illithids only having to kill either Orpheus or the Emperor to start conquering the planes?

Beyond the fatigue and the references that made me shake my head, it was looking pretty good until the actual ending hit (starting in the Undercity). Then we went from a level 12 party doing unlikely things (House of Hope etc) to things that are epic level in a matter of hours. All of a sudden, it's all about saving the planes from annihilation, civil war across the planes and so on and so forth. I don't mind a good epic level campaign (WotR etc), but this felt extremely jarring to me.

At any rate, I'm sure most of you just consider this overthinking things, but I'm known to do that, so I'm curious to hear what others have to say.

 

[Morrandir]

The ending is meh, the rest of the game is outstanding (of course with still some flaws).

 

[Couchpotato]

Something I learned over thirty years is endings suck in any media whether it be books, movies, cartoons, or games. Don't know why it always happens. Maybe fatigue sets in?

 

[Maylander]

Something I learned over thirty years is endings suck in any media whether it be books, movies, cartoons, or games. Don't know why it always happens. Maybe fatigue sets in?

That's true, but some really rub me the wrong way, such as ME3, Risen and BG3 (Risen due to the gimmick more than the writing to be fair). Generally speaking, writing a good ending is so hard I think most writers should just try to keep it simple. Very few have the ability to pull off something astonishing.

 

[Redglyph]

There are many things in that post, so maybe it will be hard to discuss about everything in one thread. In summary, though, I found that act 3 had more technical issues than acts 1 and 2, and the end could have mentioned a few more consequences or closures - which is only because some other games do that now - but overall, I didn't feel there were any significant problems.

I'm not sure about the BG references since I didn't play BG2 and only partially BG. The wrong voice actor for Sarevok? It didn't bother me; do you mean it's not the same voice as 25 years ago? The layout of the Iron Throne: how do we know it? I think those are simply different interpretations. BioWare had its interpretation, and Larian had its own. For me, the whole 'canon' is to be treated just like history. History is never accurate, it's an interpretation based on biased people's testimony, on interpolations, and on extrapolations.

'The worst ending since ME3' seems odd to me when talking about BG3. Maybe you had a different experience based on your choices, or specific expectations, but I wasn't shocked by the ending. Nor did I have any problem with the Illithid part (I'm not sure what you're referring to with a toaster and a smartphone ). There is an epic battle, but that's common in games. Your character lived for 20-30 years, then suddenly evolves from level 1 to level 12 and do things at a demi-god level (and beyond if you go up to level 20). It's typical to fantasy themes, and if you start analyzing it, don't expect it to make any sense. It's just a game.

As I see it, they focused on the main story threads for the ending, though I was expecting to see a little more conclusions for side stories with some of the companions and allies. I assume that they had to limit those end scenes because it would have otherwise exploded the work on cinematics. Or they simply didn't think it was important. They lacked time to make act 3 as polished as act 1, too.

About the fatigue, I don't know that most people suffered from that, but I can say I felt it started to feel a little long (300 hours is unusual for me). It was entirely my fault. I decided to explore a lot, had many hours after act 2, then act 3 proved to be quite long and interesting, too. And I knew it: it was obvious that Larian would pack the city of Baldur's Gate with all sorts of things to explore; they even said so. I think it's not a problem, but rather a quality, as long as we can manage to leave some exploring for another playthrough to avoid burning out.

 

[HiddenX]

I had a great ending - I saved Karlach by fighting the seven hells
I played the game in 170 hours in one go - no fatigue in my case.

Act 3 was not so polished as act 2 and act 1 but still good.
I liked the outcome of my choices so I would not compare it at all with ME 3.

 

[bjon045]

I'd say it is still the best final act Larian has done though. If they fix all of the many bugs in act 3 and flesh out the ending better i.e. companions etc.

 

[Hastar]

I have a hard time finishing many games but BG 3 kept me interested till the end. My character was a Githyanki and that helped me want to see how the game ended. I have always enjoyed the Gith since the Fiend Folio.

 

[Vaelith]

As usual, I play games trying to have fun with them, especially when I'm in front of the best game of a generation. I rather appreciate things than trying to find negatives, which makes my experience more enjoyable, and my life more fun to live. All the energy it takes to overanalyze things and look for flaws and negatives is well spent on finding something else to enjoy instead.

Personally, I loved the city. To me, this is the canon city, and currently, I'm playing a DnD campaign with a group of online friends using it as the canon, mostly because it is the canon, as BG3 was directly overseen by Wizards of the Coast. It's how I imagine Baldur's Gate looking like, supported by the setting's lore, and it's definitely much better than the tech-limited cardboard version we had to be happy with 24 years ago. Just because that was the first one, doesn't mean it was the best. It doesn't even mean that it was right, or that it was good at all. It was what it was because that was what could be done at the time, and some people decided it would look like that. Larian just did it better.

The endings felt rushed to me, but I didn't find anything glaringly terrible. I would have loved a bit more expansion, and perhaps a bit of a look into the future of each character, to see how they fared beyond the immediate moment the adventure ended. But maybe they want to deal with that in a DLC? From the human side, I can understand Larian had been hard at work for 5 years and they were burnt out from a Covid-dampened development, so I can excuse it, I just hope they can improve it at some point because it's a game I plan to return to play every year or so.

For me, it's extremely rare to manage to stick with a game for more than 80-100 hours. I have already recorded ~400 hours in BG3, and I never felt exhausted playing it. Once this wave of new flashy RPG releases passes, I see myself easily returning to do another playthrough, maybe a good Dark Surge drow that tries her best to fight against it. Or maybe Shadowheart's origin story. I don't know, infinite possibilities that are all attractive, and tell me more than anything that even if the ending isn't the best part of the game, I can't seem to be able to keep myself from experiencing it over and over.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I had some fatigue near the end but that is because I love to level in a game and I was max level about 1/3 into the third act or so. Maybe 1/2. So, I didn't have that to look forward to. I did enjoy exploring, the story, the characters, and all that.

I am not a lore geek so I just shrug all that stuff off. I don't really care unless it is super jarring and out of place - which it wasn't for me. Memory is a strange thing - its malleable. What each person remembers can be different, and can change over time, and be influenced. So, same applies to in-game. I simply assume different people had different memories about what happened way back during BG1 and BG2.

As for the issue with the planes and Gith. Meh its magic and divinity and all that. Most fantasy/SF falls apart extremely quickly the moment you start to apply real life logic and physics to it. I find whenever I start to overthink any game, which I often do when creating a story or lore for a character, I quickly get stuck in a rabbit hole of problems. I mean just take workshops in FO4. Using a work bench you can make buildings, nuclear reactors, and so much more. I write it off as work benches are nano-technology where nanobots need some basic materials and patterns (recipes) to make stuff.

Point being suspension of belief and going with the flow. In BG3 not sure how they could really cover some epic cross planar battle, so they focused on specifics personal to the character. You get too removed from the character and their situation and people will also get lost. So, none of that bothered me in the least.

I was happy with my ending and enjoyed the whole game. I will say Act 1 is my favorite of the 3. I fully enjoyed Act 2 but was ready to get to a more cheery world space as it ended. Act 3 was okay on length for me, as a lot of it was optional content that you don't have to do, but wish the levels had been better spread out or that you could reach say level 15 ... but I know they picked 12 for various reasons.

My main problems with the game are probably different from most and are more just things I would have liked to have vs. actual problems:

- I was unhappy that the ranger animal companion was just a summons. I wanted a real companion, like Dogmeat or the Mabari in DAO.
- I wanted a couple more levels
- I wanted a bit more epilogue stuff
- I wanted a non-demon/devil Tiefling option but I know those are more esoteric and niche
- I wanted a vampire and werewolf option
- I wanted a few more interactive animations. You could sit and lay down. Would like more interactivity and animations on the "fluff" side.

I guess other then some battle fatigue, which for me was more because it is TB combat, by the end of Act 3, and a desire for better leveling (although I did enjoy being able to be level 12 for a while versus the last 10 minutes of the game), and perhaps a few more epilogue slides and follow-ups, that was it for me on the down side.

EDIT: ME3, however, I thought had poor ending options and I didn't much care for them. But at least had one option I could accept okay - but certainly ME3 stands out to many as having a bad ending. I can't compare it to BG3. For me the worst ending in a game is Midnight Suns, but that was for personal reasons on what I had been hoping for an ending and not because it was technically bad or anything.

 

[Maylander]

EDIT: ME3, however, I thought had poor ending options and I didn't much care for them. But at least had one option I could accept okay - but certainly ME3 stands out to many as having a bad ending. I can't compare it to BG3. For me the worst ending in a game is Midnight Suns, but that was for personal reasons on what I had been hoping for an ending and not because it was technically bad or anything.

'The worst ending since ME3' seems odd to me when talking about BG3. Maybe you had a different experience based on your choices, or specific expectations, but I wasn't shocked by the ending. Nor did I have any problem with the Illithid part (I'm not sure what you're referring to with a toaster and a smartphone ). There is an epic battle, but that's common in games. Your character lived for 20-30 years, then suddenly evolves from level 1 to level 12 and do things at a demi-god level (and beyond if you go up to level 20). It's typical to fantasy themes, and if you start analyzing it, don't expect it to make any sense. It's just a game.

I liked the outcome of my choices so I would not compare it at all with ME 3.

It's not really about the overall choices (which weren't a problem in ME3 either; solutions to things like Geth vs Quarian, Krogan genophage etc were all fantastic), but about the introduction of a very arbitrary and unnecessary choice at the end (colors in ME3 and "who has to become an Illithid in BG3). I just find that sort of thing horrible, especially if the reason given makes no sense, which is the case in both games.

Simply put: An Illithid is not a counter to an Elder Brain. In any way, shape or form. Its chance of thinking like or outsmarting an Elder Brain is like a toaster going up against a super computer. It's not even close. Either the three magic doodads do their thing, or we're dead. If it outsmarted/countered us once, it will do so again, as it's leagues ahead of humans, drow and mind flayers alike. It's a daft choice, and there's no reason to even include it. They could have just let us have the big, epic battle because it happened to break free right before we got to it.

The worst part is: It's not a solution. The only "real" solution is to have Gale blow everything up at the end of Act 2. All the Act 3 endings will lead to the Illithids eventually conquering everything, as the Prism is not a thing anymore. Its powers are locked in some physical body that can be killed. In fact, Orpheus can even become an Illithid himself and then commit suicide, which would guarantee the Grand Design. It's really not a well thought out ending, and yet it could have been fixed simply by skipping that one, silly choice.

Edit: Did everyone just side with the Emperor perhaps? If so, nobody has to turn into an Illithid, but the Emperor does explain that an Illithid needs to be present, which still doesn't make any sense.

 

[Maylander]

I have a hard time finishing many games but BG 3 kept me interested till the end. My character was a Githyanki and that helped me want to see how the game ended. I have always enjoyed the Gith since the Fiend Folio.

I am a big fan of the Gith too (and the Githyanki and Githzerai), which is why it bothers me that they reduced their rebellion to "oh, Gith herself suddenly had magic powers that nobody else had". And now Orpheus has inherited that power. It's supposedly all that stands between the planes and the Illithids. Really? It wasn't the actual Gith people? And it's not the Githyanki and Githzerai now? It really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Maylander]

Personally, I loved the city. To me, this is the canon city, and currently, I'm playing a DnD campaign with a group of online friends using it as the canon, mostly because it is the canon, as BG3 was directly overseen by Wizards of the Coast. It's how I imagine Baldur's Gate looking like, supported by the setting's lore, and it's definitely much better than the tech-limited cardboard version we had to be happy with 24 years ago. Just because that was the first one, doesn't mean it was the best. It doesn't even mean that it was right, or that it was good at all. It was what it was because that was what could be done at the time, and some people decided it would look like that. Larian just did it better.

I would normally agree completely with this, but this is a direct sequel, not "Baldur's Gate: The Grand Design" or anything like that, which makes BG1 and 2 the example to follow. Otherwise, they should have named it something else. I had the same problem with the city of Neverwinter in NWN2, even though the city in NWN2 is better than the one in the original. At least try to make it seem like we're returning to a place we visited in the past. Give us some landmarks. Give us the "oohs" and the "aaahs". There was none of that. My excitement for exploring the city evaporated rather quickly, as it became more and more obvious my nostalgia was not going to be fed.

 

[Maylander]

I'm not sure about the BG references since I didn't play BG2 and only partially BG. The wrong voice actor for Sarevok? It didn't bother me; do you mean it's not the same voice as 25 years ago? The layout of the Iron Throne: how do we know it? I think those are simply different interpretations. BioWare had its interpretation, and Larian had its own. For me, the whole 'canon' is to be treated just like history. History is never accurate, it's an interpretation based on biased people's testimony, on interpolations, and on extrapolations.

Sarevok has a very iconic voice (Kevin Michael Richardson). To me, it's a bit like including Darth Vader in a cameo, but without James Earl Jones.

I mean, it's not like his cameo had any real relevance. It lasted for a few minutes and that was it. If they couldn't get Kevin Michael Richardson, just skip the cameo. Nobody would have missed it.

Similarly, the Iron Throne headquarters is a tower in BG1. If they had no intention of making it possible to recognize, why use it at all? Wouldn't an underwater prison do?

I just don't get including things that are exclusive to the previous games if they are just going to make something completely new anyway. It's not like the "Iron Throne headquarters in Baldur's Gate" is a big deal in general DnD lore. It has no place at all outside of BG1 as far as I am aware.

 

[wolfgrimdark]

I assumed it was the MF + the Crown + Orpheous (in person or his power absorbed) that made the difference - not a single lone MF fighting the Brain alone. Not to mention some very powerful allies and companions. You seem to have forgotten the crown. You mention why not just have it being the defining factor - but to me it was because to use it properly against the Elder Brain you needed to be a similar creature even if lower on the evolutionary scale. it makes perfect sense to me. I never even considered it being a problem until you brought it up. After considering it, and your points, I still don't think its an issue. I also felt it was well worked into the story myself although I don't claim to know the minds of the writers and devs of course. Anyhow you act like it was just a regular MF against the brain but it was a MF + the Crown that did it, and only after a great deal of fighting and absorbing Orpheus special power (or him doing it). I think if you become a MF then Orpheous still helps you in the final battle so his power still applies there.

I wasn't thrilled with being forced into a decision about whether to become a MF, that annoyed me, and I would have liked to have saved both ... but that wasn't a problem with the story itself and more about having to make hard choices.

On the Gith I didn't get the impression that the only important thing was this special power. It was someone with some special power PLUS a united Gith working as a people that did it. The Gith Mother did not win the war by herself, anymore then Orpheous would. It simply provides a big advantage. In addition the power was "lost" and the Gith continued their battles against the MF and were doing well at it.

To each their own of course.

 

[Vaelith]

I would normally agree completely with this, but this is a direct sequel, not "Baldur's Gate: The Grand Design" or anything like that, which makes BG1 and 2 the example to follow. Otherwise, they should have named it something else. I had the same problem with the city of Neverwinter in NWN2, even though the city in NWN2 is better than the one in the original. At least try to make it seem like we're returning to a place we visited in the past. Give us some landmarks. Give us the "oohs" and the "aaahs". There was none of that. My excitement for exploring the city evaporated rather quickly, as it became more and more obvious my nostalgia was not going to be fed.

Well, Baldur's Gate appeared as a settlement for DnD in 1968, with the publishing of an adventure that took part in it called "Mirt Kisses: An Adventure". Then it appeared in many other adventures and novels until it was finally described as a full canon settlement about 13 years later. 30 years after its first mention, someone made a videogame with their version of Baldur's Gate. Of course, you are free to arbitrarily choose that version to be the one that sticks with you. But Baldur's Gate the settlement in the Sword Coast belongs to DnD, not to the people who made the first game that contains Baldur's Gate in it. They just made their 2D, tech-limited version of it which honestly felt pretty shallow, bar a few quests and the nostalgia one gets when thinking about it. Since they are all versions, I just prefer to take the best one, as it is portrayed in BG3. Nothing particular about it, it's just better done in every way, bigger, more beautiful, with more NPCs that feel alive, more explorable interiors, more secrets, more lore and details about the city itself, more activities, more depth, more feeling, and in general it takes advantage of 20+ years of advances in technology. And, to top it all, it's canon, as per Wizard of the Coast's own backing.

I'm sorry you couldn't enjoy exploring the city as much as I did, regardless, but you basically locked yourself out of it. To me, it was very exciting through and through, and only the performance issues put some pause on it.

 

[JDR13]

I bet no one saw that coming.

 

[bjon045]

Well, Baldur's Gate appeared as a settlement for DnD in 1968, with the publishing of an adventure that took part in it called "Mirt Kisses: An Adventure". Then it appeared in many other adventures and novels until it was finally described as a full canon settlement about 13 years later.

For DnD in 1968 you say?

For people who are actually interested in the truth - DnD was created in 1974 Earth years not in the alternative universe that Nerida/Vaelith lives in. Ed Greenwood created the map for the Forgotten Realms in the early 80's and Baldur's Gate did not even feature on it!!! Then in 1987 TSR purchased the Forgotten Realms from Ed and then created (Jeff Grubb and crew specifically) what is known as the "Martin Map" and Port Llast, Luskan and Waterdeep were the only cities on the Sword coast that had any information about them even specified - Baldurs Gate was an unspecified dot. It does not feature in ANY 1e modules or guidebooks. It does have a few entries in the 1e "cylopedia" that was published in 87 shortly after TSR acquired the FR. It wasn't until even later that authors actually started referring to it and if my memory serves right it wasn't even featured as the setting on a novel until the 90's - and even then it was a couple of chapters i.e. The Halfing's Gem by R.A Salvatore. In 1990 the Forgotten Realms Adventures was published (written by Jeff Grubb and Ed) and it has TWO pages of information on Baldur's - including the fact that is was founded by Balduran and a few interesting locales i.e. the Hall of Wonders and the Elfsong Tavern. I have this in my D&D book collection and it is pretty lightweight. So 1990 would of been the first time Baldur's Gate actually became more than a dot on a map - just barely.

Baldur's Gate as we know it was actually created by James Ohlen in his DnD shop in Edmonton in the early 90's. When he started work at Bioware in 1996 he bought with him several binders of adventures he had created that were set in the Sword Coast and surrounds. All the detailed lore and city districts of Baldur's Gate were his creation. BG3 follows his blueprint of Baldur's Gate. He also created Candlekeep as we know it. It has a single paragraph about it in the same book. It never even featured in a novel or module until Descent into Avernus. James Ohlen is now the Studio Head at WotC's internal studio that they created to make RPG video games.

Nice shitpost though.

 

[Maylander]

Well, Baldur's Gate appeared as a settlement for DnD in 1968, with the publishing of an adventure that took part in it called "Mirt Kisses: An Adventure". Then it appeared in many other adventures and novels until it was finally described as a full canon settlement about 13 years later. 30 years after its first mention, someone made a videogame with their version of Baldur's Gate. Of course, you are free to arbitrarily choose that version to be the one that sticks with you. But Baldur's Gate the settlement in the Sword Coast belongs to DnD, not to the people who made the first game that contains Baldur's Gate in it. They just made their 2D, tech-limited version of it which honestly felt pretty shallow, bar a few quests and the nostalgia one gets when thinking about it. Since they are all versions, I just prefer to take the best one, as it is portrayed in BG3. Nothing particular about it, it's just better done in every way, bigger, more beautiful, with more NPCs that feel alive, more explorable interiors, more secrets, more lore and details about the city itself, more activities, more depth, more feeling, and in general it takes advantage of 20+ years of advances in technology. And, to top it all, it's canon, as per Wizard of the Coast's own backing.

I'm sorry you couldn't enjoy exploring the city as much as I did, regardless, but you basically locked yourself out of it. To me, it was very exciting through and through, and only the performance issues put some pause on it.

I'm not going to call you out on the incorrect facts, as that's already been done by @bjon045, but yes, Baldur's Gate maps today still look more or less like the ones from the 90s, such as the one in Volo's Guide to the Swordcoast.

However, that's not what I'm getting at when I mentioned it as a reference. Allow to me to give an example:

Most of ES: Morrowind takes place on an island called Vvardenfell. This island was later added to ESO. The scale was obviously much smaller, as Morrowind was massive, and the engine completely different, but the addition was still near-perfect, because they added the necessary landmarks, music and atmosphere to make old timers like myself go "oooh" and "aaahh" and "that brings back memories!". It also worked for new players, as it's a genuinely well crafted zone now, that's more in tune with modern designs.

However, BG3 did none of that. It's like someone ordered them to make BG3 instead of BG: Larian edition and then told them to shoehorn in a bunch of references to make it seem as if they care about the originals. That might work for someone who last played it 20 years ago, but for anyone still actively playing them, it just seems like a hack job. The game really would not lose anything if references like Sarevok and the Iron Throne were replaced by "Generic Bhaal Murder Council" and "Underwater Prison".

 

[Maylander]

I bet no one saw that coming.

The fact that I enjoyed the game massively, except the ending? Pretty sure you didn't see that coming. Even I didn't see that coming.