F.N.V A true Rpg?

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:44 am

If you never deliver the amulet you don't have to worry about the oblivion gates ever opening up. Actually you can deliver the amulet as long as you don't close the gate at kvatch no worries about further gates.

Yes, but you can't finish the main quest that way.
User avatar
Stacyia
 
Posts: 3361
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 12:48 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:48 am

actually the people who like endings seem to be the most militant in their view, they want everyone to have the same experience as them. does anyone remember what todd howard said after the backlash regarding fallout 3's original ending, he said they learned a lesson, to not let their games end, bethesda rpg's typically DO NOT have endings that abrubtly stop gameplay, so when it comes to bethesda games, yeah i'm expecting to be able to keep on playing after the main quest. and most of bethesdas fans are use to games like morrowind, oblivion, and fallout 3, even fallout 2 let you keep playing, besthesda makes some of the best rpg's around, a lot of the games with endings are lousy anyway. so i am fully expecting fallout 4 to NOT have an abrupt end, not after what happened with fallout 3 and todd howards comments.what obsidian does is their deal, and it remains to be seen whether or not the aspect of the game will work ok, if done in the right way i suppose it could but for fallout 3 it was a no go and todd howard said explicity that they "learned their lesson" from fallout 3 concerning game endings. thats what todd howard said and its easy to look up that article.
User avatar
evelina c
 
Posts: 3377
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 4:28 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 8:23 am

TBH, I can't really understand why people *want* their games to end- well, at least a sandbox game to end (First-person-shooter? Whaddya gonna do when you finish the final boss? Shoot your allies if you have any?)

Nobody truly forces you to continue to play after the Main Quest is done if you can continue the game- so that can't be the argument. And a (well-made) game should have major changes as a result of the main quest to take too long of a time to reflect in-game (such as FO3,) but with enough minor details to show that you've done something.

And, once again, a well-made play-after-endgame RPG should leave enough clues and details that should act as a pseudo-ending for those who like closure. The ending to Broken Steel, while not quite what we're looking for here, comes a lot closer to this than either of the Main Quests in Oblivion (yes, I count Shivering Isles as a Main Quest.)

I guess, when you get right down to it, it's a player preference- those who like the game having a definitive end in one camp, and those who like a play-after-endgame approach in another. Maybe, the best thing to do in this case is bring up an (obvious immersion-breaking) texbox that basically says "The game has ended. Do you want to continue playing after this point? Y/N." Of course... (I belive) the few games that have done that pretty much said "done" and failed to do anything for post-endgame content...
User avatar
Dragonz Dancer
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:01 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 2:02 am

I too would like to be able to play after the game's main quests finish, however, it got boring quickly on Fallout 3, so they'd need to add something better.

In my opinion, the best RPG's are the ones that let you keep playing, but keep the competition going too. For example, Borderlands. Despite completing all 3 playthroughs and reaching level 61, there is still more I can do. I can search for much better equipment, the competition never ends.

The only reason Fallout 3's playability was lost was because it didn't have multiplayer, or didn't have enough things to do after you completed the quests.

Currently, my best character is now at 500 gameplay hours. I completed every quest after about 250 hours. Since then, I've been simply wandering around making over 100,000 caps for no reason, aimlessly killing people and waging an unending war with the Super Mutants.

Now, if they added things that you could do permanently that would continue to add fun to the game, then that would probably make some people change their minds about not wanting to continue playing.


Such as add the ability to crate a small village that could turn into a major city. Like thr RTS mod for Fallout 3.

Cheers,
Mk II
User avatar
SEXY QUEEN
 
Posts: 3417
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 7:54 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:00 am

TBH, I can't really understand why people *want* their games to end- well, at least a sandbox game to end (First-person-shooter? Whaddya gonna do when you finish the final boss? Shoot your allies if you have any?)

Nobody truly forces you to continue to play after the Main Quest is done if you can continue the game- so that can't be the argument. And a (well-made) game should have major changes as a result of the main quest to take too long of a time to reflect in-game (such as FO3,) but with enough minor details to show that you've done something.
said "done" and failed to do anything for post-endgame content...

:cryvaultboy:
i don't agree with that, "a well made game should have changes due to the main quest" , if they make a game where you're some big savior or something out to change the world, i don't play the games for that reason. i just like doing quests and developing my character, i think maybe some people are not very patient and get bored easily and so some games are made in a way where you're some big hero and have this major part to play in everything. how about a game like GTA 4, you pretty much just cruised around doing jobs and meeting people stuff like that. a game doesn't have to have these big changes everywhere just so you can say, boy look how everything changed, some things in fallout 3 changed way before the ending, big town gets more populated and they are all happy if you rescued shorty and you could fix up timebomb and the town got bigger after that quest, depending on how you play it, tenpenny tower are all happy you got rid of the ghouls and the guards like you after that, that was before the game ends, and other things like the quest with the slavers in the lincoln memorial, after that quest you get to see the ex slaves making the lincoln memorial their new home, you get to see some changes, after broken steel you see water flowing out of those big pipes, you want such huge changes it woulld be hard to keep playing because you need all these huge changes you'll never get to see except for some game ending slideshow, i play rpgs for the immersive experience, not for some big payoff, its fun just to explore and find new things and places.
User avatar
GabiiE Liiziiouz
 
Posts: 3360
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:20 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 10:30 pm

actually the people who like endings seem to be the most militant in their view, they want everyone to have the same experience as them. does anyone remember what todd howard said after the backlash regarding fallout 3's original ending, he said they learned a lesson, to not let their games end, bethesda rpg's typically DO NOT have endings that abrubtly stop gameplay, so when it comes to bethesda games, yeah i'm expecting to be able to keep on playing after the main quest. and most of bethesdas fans are use to games like morrowind, oblivion, and fallout 3, even fallout 2 let you keep playing, besthesda makes some of the best rpg's around, a lot of the games with endings are lousy anyway. so i am fully expecting fallout 4 to NOT have an abrupt end, not after what happened with fallout 3 and todd howards comments.what obsidian does is their deal, and it remains to be seen whether or not the aspect of the game will work ok, if done in the right way i suppose it could but for fallout 3 it was a no go and todd howard said explicity that they "learned their lesson" from fallout 3 concerning game endings. thats what todd howard said and its easy to look up that article.


No one - not me, not Softnerd, not nu_clear_day nor summer or others have been militant in our views. Most of us have readily acknowledged that most RPGs have a definitive ending to the game, that Bethesda's style of game development is an exception (a delightful one, but I don't want or need every game to be an open-world, sandbox type game.) And yes, Todd did say that about Fallout 3 when the Bethesda fans seemed so upset - or at least vocal. :shrug: And he may well keep that in mind when and if they develop Fallout 4. However, this topic is about Fallout: New Vegas - the OP seemed to be upset that has been confirmed that the game ends when the MQ is completed. Many of us here are just fine with that. You seem to be scrapping for an argument that no one is giving you. :lol:

actually the people who like endings seem to be the most militant in their view, they want everyone to have the same experience as them.

I play single player games almost exclusively - because I honestly don't give a damn what experience anyone else has - it has no effect on me or my gameplay.
User avatar
Amanda savory
 
Posts: 3332
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2006 10:37 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:06 pm

TBH, I can't really understand why people *want* their games to end- well, at least a sandbox game to end (First-person-shooter? Whaddya gonna do when you finish the final boss? Shoot your allies if you have any?)

Usually when the hero defeats the 'Final' boss, the hero can finally quit ~and finally see the accomplishments of a job well done, and done to completion.

Everything important ends ~games that don't end don't feel important [IMO], and they tend to leave me with an empty feeling.
Even Deathmatch shooters usually have an end to the round, and a final tally. It makes the activity more satisfying.

*As an experiment, I wonder which of two groups would play Quake (or another FPS) the longest... If one group played an endless deathmatch, and the other played matches in 8 minute rounds.
Myself I've played Quake DM's for 20 hours straight, but I doubt that I could have held interest through a single 20 hour deathmatch.

Fallout was a great RPG with a great (and fairly mutable) ending. The game uses your past choices to determine the future fate of each town. When you're done, it is you that are responsible for the outcome.
Conversely, "sandbox games", really are exactly like sandboxes ~they're not just a place to play in as you will, they are a place where most of your actions leave no lasting marks.

For me, this strips away most of the importance of it. Oblivion was [at first] slow to bore in this respect, but it picks up the pace in a bad way as you level up and begin to see that you are really getting nowhere fast.

You seem to be scrapping for an argument that no one is giving you. :lol:
I didn't mean to enter on cue :blush:
I hope my post is not misconstrued as a militant argument :o
User avatar
Chloe Mayo
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 11:59 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 3:41 am

many successfull games don't have a type of ending that actually ends the game all together, i generally buy games that allow me to play as i see fit, play as long as i want, i dictate how the game goes no time limits etc. i already mentioned a few games in my other posts, GTA lets you just cruise around doing stuff. so does a lot of other games so i myself prefer to play games like that. i know some people need some biug final scen, some big last battle, i just don't play a game for that. totally different mindset. omst people want to rush thru a game, say they beat it in x number of hours etc. i get immersed in the games i play. the game ending means you're done, i really don't want to be "done" with a game, i prefer to keep playing until i decide to start a new game. i don't need some big fancy ending and 2 minute ending sequence, thats not what makes a game satisfying to me. the journey is the fun part, not the destination.
User avatar
Lizzie
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 5:51 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:10 am

i don't need some big fancy ending and 2 minute ending sequence, thats not what makes a game satisfying to me. the journey is the fun part, not the destination.

Its not the mere fact that it ends, (for me at least)... Its the way you design a game that will end. Fallout's ending scene was the icing on a great game. :shrug:

Not every game needs an ending... but IMO some do. The Fallout series traditionally did [end], and did so well enough to have it be expected in each installment as a features of the franchise.
User avatar
Oceavision
 
Posts: 3414
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 10:52 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:46 pm

To me the problem is more that bethesda's Fo3 main quest line is completable in roughly a couple of hours. so if there's a deffinitive end its a couple of hours + side quests. It had like what 30 quests in total? the lowest so far in their line. Thats what it comes down to, Fo1 & 2 take far longer to complete, so replayablility becomes like new journey. A lot of solid rpg's ive played seem to stick to the rule of 50+ hours gameplay, Fo3 is the exception, so the open ending works for me in that context.
If its a Large game then a deffinite ending works, if it turns into another 5 hours run then that leaves a lot to be desired play wise.
User avatar
Gavin Roberts
 
Posts: 3335
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:14 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 10:23 am

To me the problem is more that bethesda's Fo3 main quest line is completable in roughly a couple of hours. so if there's a deffinitive end its a couple of hours + side quests. It had like what 30 quests in total? the lowest so far in their line. Thats what it comes down to, Fo1 & 2 take far longer to complete, so replayablility becomes like new journey. A lot of solid rpg's ive played seem to stick to the rule of 50+ hours gameplay, Fo3 is the exception, so the open ending works for me in that context.
If its a Large game then a deffinite ending works, if it turns into another 5 hours run then that leaves a lot to be desired play wise.

:fallout:
i agree, fallout 3 had a very short main quest. i'm hoping new vegas has a much longer story.
User avatar
jeremey wisor
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2007 5:30 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:54 am

And how long would that take before you get bored?

One thing that would help is randomly generated quests. Any person in the game will ask you to do something for them, a bit like random encounters with a bit more fun.

Maybe allowing you to improve you companions skill/perks, etc would be good.


And yet you mentioned Borderlands. Oh, but of course, collecting stuff is no where NEAR as exciting as completely massacring the same enemies over and over again for dismal rewards.
User avatar
Emma Louise Adams
 
Posts: 3527
Joined: Wed Jun 28, 2006 4:15 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 4:34 am

if you want a rpg like you distribe it go play wow.
User avatar
Daniel Brown
 
Posts: 3463
Joined: Fri May 04, 2007 11:21 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:36 pm

Actually there are often many quests one can still complete after "the end" in oblivion. And new weapons to get, new spells to try, a statue is built for you, people recognize you as the hero you get some new cool armor. There are many NPC's you may not have met and it's quite nice wandering around exploring without all the deadra popping up out of the gates any longer. Um, and the gates are gone.


Ok, then, guess I was mistaken. Apologies.

Of course, one of the main reasons I'm not that familiar with it is probably that....

Yes, but you can't finish the main quest that way.


....I haven't actually completed the main quest in Oblivion since the first time I played the game. Every game that I've started since then, I've just "played around in the sandbox", so to speak.

Heck, over half of the time I actually don't deliver the amulet - don't need the Daedra and Oblivion Gates cluttering up the countryside while I'm running around exploring.


--------
So, it's not that I'm "militantly" trying to "force people to play my way" and have concrete endings :rolleyes: - it's the fact that I know the freedom to do whatever you want is already there, so all the people getting upset at "OMG, it's got an END!" just drives me a little nuts.

I was not surprised that people were upset by the End of Fallout 3 - because it was a badly written End, what with you being clumsily railroaded into nuking yourself. But the fact that it actually Ended? People getting upset by that honestly surprised me.

Because that part didn't even register in my consciousness - I finally got around to clearing the Main Quest, went through it, saw the end credits, and then went right back and kept playing from the save I'd made 30 minutes earlier. After all, there was still alot out there in the Wasteland to discover - why wouldn't I keep playing? So I did.
User avatar
liz barnes
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 4:10 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:13 am

My way of playing since I started to play rpg's. ( which were the first games I tried out ).
Has been to explore, and with that goal in mind, I head out and fjord every stream, and cross every hill. So you would guess I would like to continue the game after the end, so I can make sure I have seen everything.
But being awkward I prefer an end after the main quest, as long as it is well devised. Because just through playing the game at a normal speed, I tend to find most things in my first playthrough.
And then with anything I have missed I start a new character and head for them to see it with fresh eyes.
For the simple reason I love narration more than gameplay. True I could just read a book, but that would not make me feel a part of the story that rpg's do.
User avatar
Jani Eayon
 
Posts: 3435
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:19 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:01 pm

Was there a gaming Bill of Rights that I missed? Most RPG games have a definititve ending after the completion of the main quest.

User avatar
Victoria Vasileva
 
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 5:42 pm

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 8:11 pm

To me the problem is more that bethesda's Fo3 main quest line is completable in roughly a couple of hours. so if there's a deffinitive end its a couple of hours + side quests. It had like what 30 quests in total? the lowest so far in their line.
I doubt that's true. Fallout was pretty short, especially if you just focus on the main quest. There's really only three parts to the main quest. I think Fallout 3 seems shorter because there's so much handholding and you aren't forced to do anything but the main quest.

Anyway, the second post really explains everything. They want to have multiple endings that show an immediate change in the game world.
User avatar
Jah Allen
 
Posts: 3444
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2007 2:09 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:59 pm

many successfull games don't have a type of ending that actually ends the game all together, i generally buy games that allow me to play as i see fit, play as long as i want, i dictate how the game goes no time limits etc. i already mentioned a few games in my other posts, GTA lets you just cruise around doing stuff. so does a lot of other games so i myself prefer to play games like that. i know some people need some biug final scen, some big last battle, i just don't play a game for that. totally different mindset. omst people want to rush thru a game, say they beat it in x number of hours etc. i get immersed in the games i play. the game ending means you're done, i really don't want to be "done" with a game, i prefer to keep playing until i decide to start a new game. i don't need some big fancy ending and 2 minute ending sequence, thats not what makes a game satisfying to me. the journey is the fun part, not the destination.

Again, I think you're having a different conversation than anyone else is having. I don't really see anyone in this thread that fits your "some people" descriptions. :shrug:
User avatar
Joanne
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:25 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:58 am

Again, I think you're having a different conversation than anyone else is having. I don't really see anyone in this thread that fits your "some people" descriptions. :shrug:

maybe not on this thread but it seems to be the popular view on this forum, however when fallout 3 ended the way it did there was a huge backlash so i know having a bethesda rpg game end and especially the way it did in fallout 3 is a huge problem, and i do hear many on this thread talk about how important it is to have some huge ending that changes everything. so thats what i'm talking about, i don't see any importance on an ending sequence that shows "changes" thats just not important to me like it is to some others, i play rpgs for the exploration and general freedom to do pretty much whatever i want in the game, i don't play the games for some some big payoff at the end, every story doesn't have to end with you dying and some big huges changes everywhere. not sure why some people think thats so important for a story. the journey should be the focus, getting there is most of the enjoyment, so if you don't understand what i'm saying, i can't help you, i think i made myself pretty clear.
User avatar
chloe hampson
 
Posts: 3493
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:15 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 1:21 am

maybe not on this thread but it seems to be the popular view on this forum, however when fallout 3 ended the way it did there was a huge backlash so i know having a bethesda rpg game end and especially the way it did in fallout 3 is a huge problem,

It's not a huge problem...it's just that many people that were Oblivion fans had an expectation that it would be like Oblivion, and when it wasn't they threw a tantrum and Bethesda caved. :shrug: Is it really that big a deal to just avoid the ending until you're ready to see it? I mean, whether or not the game has a decisive ending built-in, it's still the player's choice when they want the game to end. To me it just seems like a trivial thing to throw a fit about. I'm not saying you're doing that, but many people did.

and i do hear many on this thread talk about how important it is to have some huge ending that changes everything.

Can you point these out? All I'm seeing is a lot of, "there are good reasons to handle the ending in different ways...depends on the game." I think you're arguing against a faction that doesn't exist (in this thread, anyway).

so thats what i'm talking about, i don't see any importance on an ending sequence that shows "changes" thats just not important to me like it is to some others, i play rpgs for the exploration and general freedom to do pretty much whatever i want in the game, i don't play the games for some some big payoff at the end, every story doesn't have to end with you dying and some big huges changes everywhere.

Ok, great. What most of us are saying is that it can be good both ways and there are valid arguments for both types of ending...what is there to argue about?

There's no hard-and-fast rule that says one type of ending is universally better than the other. There are too many factors that would make one more appropriate than the other, and even then it can come down to a matter of personal preference.

i think i made myself pretty clear.

You are, but you're not reading other people's posts before arguing with them. We're all making ourselves pretty clear as well, but you're ignoring what we're saying.
User avatar
Gwen
 
Posts: 3367
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:34 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:43 pm

maybe not on this thread but it seems to be the popular view on this forum, however when fallout 3 ended the way it did there was a huge backlash so i know having a bethesda rpg game end and especially the way it did in fallout 3 is a huge problem, and i do hear many on this thread talk about how important it is to have some huge ending that changes everything. so thats what i'm talking about, i don't see any importance on an ending sequence that shows "changes" thats just not important to me like it is to some others, i play rpgs for the exploration and general freedom to do pretty much whatever i want in the game, i don't play the games for some some big payoff at the end, every story doesn't have to end with you dying and some big huges changes everywhere. not sure why some people think thats so important for a story. the journey should be the focus, getting there is most of the enjoyment, so if you don't understand what i'm saying, i can't help you, i think i made myself pretty clear.

Fine, that's your opinion. And once again, I say yay for single player games and personal choice.

Anyhow, as you have noted, your argumentt thread is not actually what this thread was really about, so how about sticking to topic.
User avatar
carly mcdonough
 
Posts: 3402
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 3:23 am

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 12:56 am

What I ment by writing that i should be any RPG gamers right.

That in an Roll Playing Game, You and only you should be setting the rule of wath way HOW you want to DO in the game. WHAT way you want to end the game or not end the game that is my defenition of the capital "P" the way you play the game. What kind of person/character you want to be/or not be in any decision you face in the game.

If the game sett you in an postion were ever have to make the choice that Fallout 3 did at the original ending. Sacrifise yourself or your companion if Bethesda were any clever to begin with they could have you to do make the choice and kill yourself, resulting in a totall ending, never to beable to play with that charather again EVER. But as an somekind of reward for making that choice. Have the best ending of the game + the option when you want to make an new charather to. let you have lets say an in game weapon/armor/item that you can only get if you had make that choice of "Sacrifice". Second choice let your companion sacrifise herself. Than you would get a worsen ending and lets say never beable rise your reputation above "Neutral". And mayby being stripped of the ability to wear the Power Armor near the the Brothehood of Steel compound. And settle ments of D.C Wasteland exept for a few exeptions, lets say BigTown. This is my defenition of the capital "R" in RPG.

Last but not least the game should take you through this land in the most entertainment way posible way. That is my defention of the capital "G" in RPG.
User avatar
Milad Hajipour
 
Posts: 3482
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 3:01 am

Post » Fri Feb 18, 2011 7:56 pm

Shamus Young has an http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/experienced-points/7760-Experienced-Points-Alpha-Overhaul over at Escapist.com that I found rather interesting, and relevant to this discussion (and he was talking in regards to Alpha Protocol, another Obsidian game no less.) Essentially, he reminded me that even table-top RPGs themselves didn't have as much freedom as we often give them credit for.

Personally, I remember both playing in and running campaigns back in the day, and they weren't usually "sandbox-based" either. If I had just spent all week working up a scenario where my players investigate a haunted house, you could darned well guarantee that they were going to that house somehow. Plan A is always to try and make my players choose to investigate that area, but players are notorious for bypassing the GM's plan. When it came down to it, however, they would only ever have the illusion of personal choice - no matter what they did, it was going to end up with them stuck in my obsessively-detailed creepy mansion.

And as a player, the same rules applied. The very fact that I'm playing with a group of people means that at some level we're going to have to be sharing some common goals. I'm not going to make a character that's so completely a "lone wolf" that he'll never have anything to do with the rest of the party, for example. Because always going off to do my own thing might constitute "playing my role" accurately, the rest of the group isn't going to want to wait around all day while the GM plays through things that I'm doing by myself all the time.

I did know a few GMs that were exceptionally good at giving players a long lead and creating scenarios on the fly based around what they wanted to do that day, who were perfectly willing and capable of throwing out their pre-planned scenario for the day and just "winging it." Those guys were few and far between, however, and even then it's not like you were going to create your own character with no regard to the rest of the party and do whatever you wanted - and most of the "freedom of choice" was still an illusion - more often than not these "super-GMs," as good as they were with improvisation, were equally skilled at tricking a party into eventually doing exactly what he'd planned for them to do in the first place.

The only games that I've ever played where total freedom of choice actually existed, was way back in the day when I got heavily into the text-based online sort of roleplaying (MUDs, MUSHes, etc.) That was more like LARPing on a grand scale, however - and there's a different sort of paradigm at work in those. We didn't have any GMs or pre-ordained adventures to deal with. Most of the conflict would arise emergently from groups of characters with their own agendas crossing paths.

To me, in a videogame RPG, a certain amount of freedom is certainly a good thing - I want to at least feel like I have a couple of options at my disposal. But I'm still sort of playing a relatively pre-set "role" within the game. Sure, I can start Fallout 3 and make a character that I then imagine to have been raised by raiders and roleplay him accordingly - but for the game as it's set out to "work" properly, I have to make a couple of concessions to freedom of choice, from the beginning. My character is going to be a Vault Dweller from Vault 101, and I'm going to be at least moderately motivated by my father's actions.

But really, that's not so different from how we'd all sit down at the beginning of a tabletop roleplaying campaign and create characters. Occasionally, we'd all do our own thing and leave it to the GM to craft a scenario that would bring all of these unconnected people together for a common cause that would potentially last for years on end - but the majority of our campaigns started out with us all settling into a common theme and some form of common background, so that everyone already knew each other from the beginning. We were still making characters within the parameters of what would "fit" the campaign that we were playing. To use that previous example - if we were playing a Fallout tabletop game and the GM had decided that events would start with us all living in the same Vault, making that Raider character would be just as out of place as it would be in Fallout 3.

Now, I'm sure there's a place, and a market, for a completely "sandbox" roleplaying game (and I don't think there's anything wrong, either, with making a Raider character even though the game doesn't necessarily recognize that - it's your game, after all, you get to do what makes it the most fun for you.) One without any preset goals for the player to follow, and likely no Main Quest, either -if we went far enough down that rabbit hole. I think something like that could be a very interesting game. But that game would it's own sort of monster, unique from what we commonly and traditionally think of as a "roleplaying game," Single-player LARP might be more appropriate, if we have to label everything. I don't think, however, that every game that deigns to call itself an RPG needs to follow that particular path, however - for the most part, you're going to have to make some concessions to personal freedom - I think that so long as there's a degree of consequence to what choices you are able to make, then that's all we really need.
User avatar
Doniesha World
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sun Jan 07, 2007 5:12 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:15 am

Fallout two has an ending after the main quest and lets us see the consequences of are actions. Problem is if New Vegas lets you keep playing all the programming needed to make changes to the game world and the people in it would be to much work. People would want the cities and people to re-act to the main quest and other quest we keep doing. It's to much work.

More People should play Fallout one and Fallout two. The endings are great and there are mutiple endings. This gives alot of replayability. Also it gives us an idea of what happens to the fallout world years down the road. This lets us paint a picture for future games. With no end to fallout 3 it's all just idle speculation. "I think this should happen" "No this should have happened!" "you're all bleeping dumb, This should happen!" With a clear end like the originals we will know what to expect for future games.




Yeah, they are great games but they really need to remake them with Bethesda's game engine as they have really dated graphics. I would definately buy them.
User avatar
STEVI INQUE
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:19 pm

Post » Sat Feb 19, 2011 9:08 am

Everything need a good ending, a closure, whether it's a book, a movie, a song or a game. All these, perhaps besides from songs, often have epic endings where it has a great impact on the story. The world has changed somehow, no matter if the world in question is big or small. It may be the world of a single or a few people, or it might be a change of a whole country or planet. Nonetheless, look at movies such as Braveheart, where the main character is executed but the scottish people gain their freedom, or Mad Max 2 where Max helps all those wastelanders to travel to the coast with all their oil as he decides to continue being a lone wanderer. The impact these people did varied, from the world of the british isles and the scottish people, to the world of a handful of wastelanders and a few scattered raiders. In Fallout 3 I never saw this.

Fallout 3's ending svcked. The narration was badly written, it didn't tell us much at all, the consequences of our actions in various places in this world, our effect on various people, etc... It just talked about that you were evil/good and that you made a sacrifice/Sarah made a sacrifice... like you didn't know that already. Sure, Broken Steel brought a few missions of fun there, but I still didn't feel any impact or change in the world. People just got fresh water, that was all, and still no one cared. It wasn't epic as it should be.

i agree with u and if u like epic endings buy mass effect1 and 2
User avatar
Bedford White
 
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2007 2:09 am

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout: New Vegas