Konami told Mercury to delete the real ending and save it for a DLC

[The White Wolf]

I have a feeling Konami told them to add a different ending and save the "real" ending for a paid DLC. Anyone else agree?

[rikiohipman]

yep, a DLC is curently in the works.

[Mr. Jack]

If the real ending comes as DLC i'll pirate it and I sugest everybody does the same.

[The White Wolf]

^ Same. This is outrageous and Konami should be ashamed. They have been becoming money grabbers because of how much money they are losing. Metal Gear Solid Ground Zero is a perfect example.

[Koranis]

The only other LOS piece of software I will buy will be Mirror of Fate HD, if it's ever released on PC. LOS2 didn't have a true ending? No matter, I found satisfying the one I got so I won't be getting any DLCs. I won't be Konami's money-♥♥♥♥♥. No, not Konami's.

[Phoenix]

That was the ending. They beat Satan, and father/son were happy together. After, they decided to go inside and watch reruns of Keeping Up With The Kardashians. You really want that to be a DLC?

I'm hoping the DLC will be Alucard DLC set sometime before LOS2.

[Vornin]

You could make the argument that the first game didn't have a true ending either, as the DLC set the rest of the trilogy up and, without playing them the rest won't make sense. However, you could also make the argument that the first game had a satisfying ending without the DLC, which I would agree with. This game does not.

[carnifx]

Kh Addiction a écrit :

You could make the argument that the first game didn't have a true ending either, as the DLC set the rest of the trilogy up and, without playing them the rest won't make sense. However, you could also make the argument that the first game had a satisfying ending without the DLC, which I would agree with. This game does not.

As far as I'm concerned the DLC of LOS actually screwd up the ending.

They write in to canon that Gabriel's vampire transformation was just some random step of having to do something else?.. That TRULY sucked balls.

It totally castrated the entire vampire theme.

[Vornin]

carnifx a écrit :

Kh Addiction a écrit :

You could make the argument that the first game didn't have a true ending either, as the DLC set the rest of the trilogy up and, without playing them the rest won't make sense. However, you could also make the argument that the first game had a satisfying ending without the DLC, which I would agree with. This game does not.

As far as I'm concerned the DLC of LOS actually screwd up the ending.

They write in to canon that Gabriel's vampire transformation was just some random step of having to do something else?.. That TRULY sucked balls.

I liked it as a sort of "necessary evil". Seeing as how he would never allow it otherwise. He was put in the position to let it happen or watch the world burn by the Forgotten One. I loved Laura too so it didn't bother me :3

[Koranis]

I remember Cox saying somewhere that the DLCs for the first game were an afterthought which means that skipping them before playing LOS2 makes perfectly sense. I didn't see any mention of what transpired in those DLCs in LOS2. Even Carmilla doesn't say a word about Laura and her sacrifice. It's more than self-explanatory, I would say.

Cox also said that if they were going to make a DLC for LOS2 then they would avoid another "post-ending" dlc and would try to enrich the main narrative with a sidestory.

[MonkeyBone]

In this industry a lot of things are said and so very few of them are usually true. That may have been their plan but the ending really feels like there's going to be either ending DLC or a LoS3.

[carnifx]

Kh Addiction a écrit :

carnifx a écrit :

As far as I'm concerned the DLC of LOS actually screwd up the ending.

They write in to canon that Gabriel's vampire transformation was just some random step of having to do something else?.. That TRULY sucked balls.

I liked it as a sort of "necessary evil". Seeing as how he would never allow it otherwise. He was put in the position to let it happen or watch the world burn by the Forgotten One. I loved Laura too so it didn't bother me :3

I'd actually agree with this, IF it weren't for the fact that the entire LOS2 wasn't about him being a vampire.. I just find that the justification for it boils down, effectively, to nothing... imo anyway.

[Mr. Jack]

ok, Cox answered my tweet. That's the ending

"- Dracula ruling the World with no challengers? I think it's a fitting ending for the Prince of Darkness :-) "

[MonkeyBone]

If that's the ending then WHY COULDN'T THEY SHOW IT. One scene with him in his throne overlooking Castlevania City with his son at his side would have been great for me. Just one scene. It's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ME3 all over again.

[A Slipstream Sloth]

MonkeyBone a écrit :

If that's the ending then WHY COULDN'T THEY SHOW IT. One scene with him in his throne overlooking Castlevania City with his son at his side would have been great for me. Just one scene. It's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ME3 all over again.

But then we wouldn't have had the mirror scene(or it would have made no sense). I enjoyed the ending more because of having that scene, and then leaving it there. Going on to specifically show what happened next (which we did not need...it's kinda obvious) is a bit of a waste

[kiwi]

MonkeyBone a écrit :

If that's the ending then WHY COULDN'T THEY SHOW IT. One scene with him in his throne overlooking Castlevania City with his son at his side would have been great for me. Just one scene. It's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ME3 all over again.

I actually didn't have a problem with ME3's ending. It wasn't the best in the context of finishing Shepard's story, but at the same time on it's own it wasn't that bad. This ending is far too abstract and ambigious to even be CALLED an ending. It looks like the scene you see right before the actual ending shows