Hah, must have missed that part of the thread. Definitely agree NV will probably be the best RPG of the year. Probably GOTY if not for Starcraft. I'm not much of an RTS person myself, but I can certainly appreciate what that game did.

I did see someone else mention 'RPG' and 'ME2' together, that gave me a good chuckle. :rofl: If ever there was a game mis-classified as an rpg I think we'd have the winner right there.

Anyway, off track now. Can't wait for NV, gonna be a blast!

Absolutely. I'll like October 19th this year.
Fallout 3 crashes on me every 10 minutes or so. I must admit, I'm getting a bit tired of it doing so. So New Vegas will be a great relief when it'll be out.

You're talking about showing the ending slides play out rather than having ending slides; I'm explaining to you why you'll never see that done... no more, no less.

I sort of have mixed feelings on the whole open vs closed ending issue. Coming straight off Oblivion, which had a open ending, I was a bit upset when I hit the closed ending for FO3, because naturally there's a ton of things to do aside from the main quest that I barely touched on my first playthrough and I was initially relying on autosave so I missed making a solid save before I hit the "point of no return" when Liberty Prime gets activated.

Although I loved the expansion of the level cap that the Broken Steel DLC opened up, and the new higher-level quests, the "new" ending was a bit lackluster compared to the original vanilla ending, and the big, potentially "world changing" choices you were presented with in the original "endgame" had to be retconned for the Broken Steel storyline to exist.

I suppose if FONV gives fair warning when you are going to hit that "point of no return", then I wouldn't mind the definitive closed ending, because I can save the game and either finish the game and get back to the last save point to get to the stuff I missed, or pursue the endgame at a later time knowing not to continue that particular quest thread until I'm ready...

The fact that the really big changes need a catalyst to occur? In an ideal world, Fallout 3's post-purifier wasteland would be immensely different to the pre-purifier wasteland.

Either way, you're missing the point here. Namely, making a game where you can see the result of your actions to the extent you seem to want is an incredibly epic undertaking. Unfortunately, epic undertakings are epically costly.

Don't get me wrong, with limitless resources and time, I'd support your idea instead of ending narrations. But Obsidian doesn't have that.



From what we've been told, you won't have to do even that. The game will autosave before the point of no return.



*Renegade Interrupt.*

I've had enough of your disingenuous assertions.

What is this I don't even

I don't know that you can be so certain about that. Even at an amateur level I could go open the GECK, mod in a few water stands with vendors, crowds of people huddled around them, and some new banter in a few hours time. For a professional game developer to add in VA and a whole host of other neat things for it I don't think would be some epically enormous investment.

Now as someone else mentioned the NCR thing, sure that is certainly out of the realm of possibility, throw in the slide show for all I care for that kind of stuff, but that isn't necessarily mutually exclusive with continued play and game changes.




/shrug If you would really argue it is, I think we are done here. You would clearly be irrational at that point. :bonk:

That sort of thing would fall under the "such a minor change as to be almost meaningless" option I mentioned earlier. Seriously, you think it would have done the concept justice to place a couple of water stands? I mean, heck, Broken Steel did more than that, and it's widely derided for failing to actually show the consequences of the player's actions to any major degree.



This isn't a Mass Effect forum, so I'm not going to discuss it further. So I'll just blink and wonder what kind of odd definition of role playing game you're using.

/sigh You are so completely missing the point I think I'm wasting my time here. If I could do something like that in a couple of hours..... you know what, never mind.

I never got how people can be so hung up on what genre a particular game fits into. The difference between calling a game a "RPG" or an "Action RPG" can ignite a flame war instantly. For example, ever since Mass Effect 2 came out, I've seen dozens, if not hundreds of posts and comments online about how calling it an RPG is laughable. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending it, and have no opinion on the matter myself as I'm not a fan of that series in general, but it just amazes me that so many people out there care more about what genre the game falls under than how the actual game is.

Will Fallout New Vegas be a "true" RPG? It will obviously have choices that will alter the storyline, multiple endings, multiple factions, character customization, stats, and plenty of other things that qualify it as a RPG. But do those things make it a "true" RPG? I couldn't care less. All I care about is that the game is good, and from what I've seen so far, it will be.

wow you're the brightest one i've seen on this thread

Thanks? Assuming that isn't sarcasm... :unsure:

Not really, a true RPG means you can take on different roles IMO.
Mass Effect has two, evil and good, just like fable 1, (Fable 2 actually had 4 or 6).
I wouldn't call Mass Effect an RPG either.
It's: Run and gun, run and gun, wait for weapon to recharge, run and gun some more, then you get "Here, we give you choices to define your character!" and it's a choice between good and evil.
Yeah, great role-playing game.
But it is a great game, I had lots of fun with both of those but they're not RPG's IMO.


So, fallout should evolve huh?
You know, you're completely right, throw out SPECIAL it's outdated, throw away traits as well, screw gray factions we need black and white, let's take away the health bar and have the screen go blurry and heart beating fast when you're low on health and remove stimpacks and include healing behind cover, have all battles take place around a series of chest high walls. Long live the new gaming scene! /sarcasm

Fallout is fallout, that's the way it is.
Ending slides is one of the thing fallout does.
I'd rather have the franchise die out completely than the removal of ending slides and instead having post-final quest gameplay.

Seriously, 1 in every 30 games are actually good now a days.
Most games are complete and utter crap.
Either because they're not good debut games.
Or because the game developers decided to do a sequel to a popular franchise only to come up with crap, why? Cause they went along and "evolved" the game.

[edit]
You don't change the core design of something that works, you add onto it.

[edit2]
Man this thread is really a buzzkill (Don't anyone dare make a family guy reference! I'll send spider monkeys with laser turrets mounted to their backs after you!)

...So how's that any different from Fallout 3, Gabriel? If you boil everything down so far, Fallout 3 only has two choices - good and evil, to a greater or lesser extent. Neutral isn't really an endstate, it's basically just you going "lol, I'll blow up megaton but give water to beggars."

It's not like FO3 let you play any role other than Brotherhood ally/Brotherhood soldier in the main quest either.

Not like NV, which has a minimum of three roles here, with CL supporter, NCR supporter, and "other" supporter.



Your point is rooted in the flawed assumption that just because you can place a few water cans in the wasteland with the GECK, it will be easy for a professional company to make deep and engaging post-ending content. The assumption is flawed because it's based on a false equivalency. Placing a water can is easy. Crafting engaging postgame content when there are potentially anywhere from three to a dozen different possible endings for any given location isn't.

Don't get me wrong, it'd be really cool, but it takes way too much dev time. They'd have to make new quests for each of those endings. As an example, if Fallout 2 was like you want and you helped Metzger take power, you'd need new slaver quests. If you helped Becky and killed Metzger, however, you'd need new quests from her. If you helped neither you'd need still more new quests. In all of these scenarios you'd have to significantly remodel the den to show the changes. Oh, you also have to bugcheck everything.

It's not an easy thing to do. If it was just a matter of effort, someone would have done it before now, because it's a really neat concept.

was being serious for once

I'm pretty sure it wasn't sarcasm, though it's hard to tell in this particular medium... =p

I'm not really a hardcoe stickler when it comes to genre naming, though I do see the point when a fan of a particular genre is looking for the same type of game and didn't quite get what they expected.

What I do like is that RPG elements such as stat building and the constant in-game hunt for better gear and a wider variety of gear is finding it's way to more and more types of games. I always thought the linear "you passed level X and defeated boss x, here's your bigger gun" formula was kind of boring. I also like the direction towards more individual character customization, in both single and multiplayer games.

I'm a roleplaying game fan boy, those are the games I grew up on, and those are the games I like to play. If you guys want to play a shooter go play COD, Game endings if handled right can be beautiful, just what will you do post MQ? explore evrywhere, and become so strong you could be mistaken for master cheif? Video games are supposed to end so you can play it again a different way, Shoot that guy instead of saving him, recruit that dog, see how hard killing a boss at a low level is, you know, role play. Fallout, a post apocalyptic role playing game. Not Fallout, a post apocalyptic shooter

End Game content doesn't necessarily have to mean questlines that take into account who is dead and who isn't.

Besides, with the ending most likely forcing you to take sides (CL, House, NCR, or perhaps Yourself) one faction or another is bound to be pissed off at you. A simple NCR/CL/House is hunting you down scenario could add to the end game.

That plus surviving NPCs having comments about your decision would be a pretty decent amount of endgame content. Have each base ending create simple small quests. If you killed the quest giver, tough luck.

Oh, you wiped out CL and benefited NCR? Well now NCR wants to honor you while also pushin you aside lest you steal their glow. Remaining CL members are in a state of anarchy and setting out raiding nearby communities. House is just running NLV.

You wiped out NCR and benefited CL? Well CL honors you and Caesar himself is on his way to meet you. The NCR want you dead and have spies searchin through the different settlements tryin to find you. House is busy protecting NLV from raiders.

You screwed them both over? House loves you, NLV is very safe for you but everywhere else...not so much.

Wouldn't be all that much to this scenario.

Well to explain it a little better: Karma can [censored] right off from every single game.
Including fallout 3.

So no, fallout 3 wasn't that much better but you could play as more than "evil evil EVIL, evil evil EVIL!" and "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3g5G0PFuXQ".
You could use drugs and be a wasteland junkie who's out for cash for more drugs and that's his/her only reason for joining up with the BOS, for the caps.
You could try to be a pacifist by shooting people in the leg or shooting the weapons out of their hands and leaving them alone.
You could be a serial killer (Though there is little satisfaction since a whole town can turn on you and since they don't seem to care that a person was brutally murdered)
It has potential for stuff. (But it's extremely limited)
So it's still better than Mass Effect's "role-playing".

I have to agree with this. Mostly it looks like it's because every developer tries to mimic the the next and every game has been made generally so accessible that even the drooling, cockeyed ADHD case in the corner can smash through them with ease. Every developer plays the safe route, which is understandable, but which is also killing all complexity and innovation. I might sound like a grumpy nostalgic geezer, but it would've been for the better if videogaming had never reached the mainstreamstatus and attention it has now.

.
http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1114501-ah-this-really-dissapoints/page__st__80 to this thread with the discussion of the ending?


We could pray to [insert god] that gaming will be considered "nerdy" by the cool people again and that they'll leave the gaming scene alone.

I disagree. A game should not be "good" or "bad" because it has a definitive ending or allows the player to continue playing after the main quest has been finished. There is also no obligation of the developers to have the game continue after the main quest has ended.



Which is being produced by Bethesda, who probably has the last say in everything.

I don't think that we have rpg "rights" vote with your money if you don't like definitive endings then don't buy the games that have them

Remember FO3 and Oblivion, after we put the purifier online and beat up the enclave, we get what? Fetch quests?

Remember Oblivion? The Champion of Cyrodil! Heres some armor and a statue now get the hell out of the palace so that we may never acknowledge what you did for us. People should have followed me around and crap, I saved a fricking empire, they should have made me a count of Kvatch or something.

It always amused me how, after doing everything, people cheered at me when I walked by but when I tried to converse with them, their face went sour and they refused to talk to me about.... you guessed it, mudcrabs. And generally I felt I had done nothing.