Bump much?
A true RPG?
Well it seems like it's going to be more of a ROLE-playing game than any other I've played (including fallout 1 and 2.)

I don't get why some people are saying that being able to play after the ending makes the ending non-definitive. If my character didn't die at the end of the game why shouldn't i be able to wander around after all is said and done and actually visit the aftermath of my actions. If your characters not dead then his/her life in the gameworld isn't over. I'm sure after i caused an almost world changing event I wouldn't just say "welp that's it" and then meander on my way. I'd stay and see the full effects of my actions all across the region.

I can understand the need for a definitve ending, hell i would hate the game if it was a falllout 3 ending all over again too. I just think that it would be great to go and actually visit the effects of your actions on the gameworld. visit the ruined settlements of factions you helped destroy or go talk to NPC's who were ultimately helped by your actions.

But then they'd have to create a lot more content for the aftermath which is surely going to bring up a lot of new quests and storylines, and after them you're going to want to see and play the aftermath again, and so they add more quests that follow up on the first aftermath's storyline, and when you complete those you want to continue etc etc.

You can't have a never ending game.
At some point the story has to end.

But they wouldn't have to create any new quests at all. I'm not talking about "playing" after the ending like an epilogue, I'm talking about visiting the game world that is in the clips at the ending. The one you forged with your choices. Im not talking about doing more quests I'm talking about visiting the world you have wrought with your generosity/greed/murderous intent. sure they would have to create a lot of content which is why i don't mind the ending they have, but i think it would be cool if there was a game where you could get an up close and personal view of the ending, and not just the scripted stuff they show you in the ending clips.

Just because the story has an end does necessarily mean the protagonists life is over.

Im not talking about doing more quests and adding more gameplay to the ending. I'm talking about being able to see that ending while being in full control of your character essentially. Being able to visit the destroyed NCR base or go talk to Mr. House and see how well off he is now etc.

I know most games that let you do this don't ever put that kind of limitations on it but i think it would be cool.

But the ending isn't suppose to be super detailed, it's suppose to have a vague description of what happened.
"This town got muffed up because of Faction G escaping from Town 12, the inhabitants all got killed and the town looted, it now stands as a ghost town"
You know, vague.

Next up, all things you see in the ending slider doesn't happen at the same time.
You did quest #42 and because of it you see a slider for Town 7, this slider shows what happens 10 years from the ending.
Then you see a slider for another town, only that slider explains what's going to happen under the next 30 years.
Then you get a slider for an important person who died just a week after the final quest.
etc etc.

What's the point? What is there behind the endingslides that wouldn't be extracontent, or that wouldn't need huge amounts of extra work to take into account every quirk you made and didn't make during the actual game?

I just think it would be cool. I don't really care about what the point of it is.

Absolutely NOT,NO NADA!

*flamebait removed*

I hated how lame the ending slides where for FO-3, because the devs can not change the world that much to reflect what you, as the LW did.

Id rather start over from nothing then loose out on a real ending that shows how "you" affected the world.

What do you want? A system like WoW where you do 9999974812378904 quests and NOTHING changes besides a cute little dialog box?
And even if the dialog box says something changed you never get to see it?

Or a system where you can see how your actions reflected on the wrold?

Except, you don't actually see the consequences of your actions because, well, the game is over.

It may be fine in NV's case because I doubt there is going to be extensive post launch DLC (though I may be wrong about that). Even DLC aside I'd rather a game allow me to go out and see the world and see the changes resulting from my actions, in the game world, rather than just read a few lines of flavor text about it. Now, implementing and pulling off these game changing effects is something that is rarely even attempted more or less done well. Oblivion did it better in this regard than FO3, but even that leaves a lot of room for improvement.

I'd rather tell the developers(as a whole not just Beth/Obs) to do better actually implementing changes and consequences rather than just telling them "hey its okay, don't bother, just let me read about it".

Ending slides pretty much wraps it up real tight.

/shrug I suppose I'm just not as easily satisfied.

I personally don't particularly mind games that have a definitive end, but I don't pretend to conjecture that having an ending automatically makes a game better either. Depends a lot on the type of game as well, a very linear game with a linear story tends to lend itself very well to definitive endings where open world games not so much. That of course is only my own personal opinion.

... maybe they just code all the side quests to activate after the main quest...



... of course, I'm kidding ...

The GTA games were sandbox and when their stories were over there was little more to do except for minigames.

In the end, it won't really matter, at least as long as you play on PC. I'd be willing to bet one of the first mods released is a "play after main quest" mod. :wink_smile:

You're missing the point of ending slides. Most of the changes highlighted in the Fallout 1/2 epilogues occur years down the road; It's a "where are they now?" kind of deal. It's not practical for the developer to implement in-game years worth of content for numerous characters and settlements after the main quest; game development costs time and money, and it's better to spend that time and money on the actual focus of the game.

Indeed. Adding those kind of changes in the world so you can explore them is pretty much an expansion's worth of work. (Not DLC's worth of work)

And since the ending slides can be pretty cruel to some locations, if I base myself on Fallout 1 and 2, you can get locations to be wiped out. If, for example, one of the slides is that X location got wiped out clean by raiders and that, before ending the main quest, the player had a side quest to deal with someone in that village, I dont think he'd be very happy. Or if he had placed all his loot in this village, he'd lose it all after the clean up. And having a cheap way to keep the quest NPC alive, *ahem* Moira survived a nuke *ahem*, would be way to silly.

And since I believe the slides say what happened over the years, there would be a timelapse for the player. But then it would be silly to think that X village has been wiped out but that the goodie-two-shoes player never intervened.

Having a non definitive ending brings so many inconsistencies and negative things on the context and common sense that it would be way too silly to keep playing after the main quest. In either way, if you have a PC, one of the first mods will most likely be a "Play after the main quest" one.

That poor horse will be beaten to death for months now. Poor horse.

No, I didn't miss the point at all. Having a slideshow at the end of the game telling me random settlement 1 lived happily ever after 10 years from now and that random settlement 2 didn't doesn't carry a whole lot of emotional impact for me. That is the point.

It all comes down to the quality of the writing and character development really. If Obsidian manages to get us attached to some characters or the mood of a settlement, like Black Isle did in the classics, then it will make us feel bad/good about our actions.

I don't understand this statement. Broken Steel gave you only one choice at the very end, and even then, it made your choices in Fallout 3's finale almost meaningless.



Fallout 1 did not have freeplay after the end. Fallout 2 did but it was more of an easter egg. Fallout: Tactics didn't have Freeplay after the end. In terms of other RPGs, neither Baldur's Gate/BG 2 nor Planescape Torment let you play on after the end. Mass Effect 1 didn't. Mass Effect 2 did, but it ended up being worthless given the new game + option. Neither KoTOR game did. None of the NWN games did, and rightly so.

Frankly, it's pretty much just Bethesda games that have freeplay after the end, and that's usually because Bethesda endings are anemic and generally don't change much. Obsidian have explained why they eliminated freeplay after the end. I for one would much rather see a meaningful ending in the Fallout 1/2 style than an ending where nothing changes. Especially because the sidequests have an impact on the ending, so leaving some for after the end is very silly.

But if you absolutely must have freeplay after the ending, you can buy the PC version. I'm sure someone will release a mod for it in short order. If you only have a console: Tough toenails.



Case in point: Gecko. If you didn't feel punched in the gut after you went the extra mile to optimize their plant only to have Vault City roll in and enslave them because of it, you have no soul.

Let's assume that Obsidian does get us to become attached to the characters and locations (though you seem to suggest Beth didn't?).

Take a particular settlement you may come across in the game, and through your actions the town can either be saved from a gang of ruthless bandits or be completely overrun. Which would make you feel worse? Seeing a single slide at the end of the game that says "random settlement was overrun by bandits" or actually being able to see the town later in the game, seeing the destruction that was wrecked on it, seeing the dead and burned corpses scattered around and finding the lone survivor, a little girl crying while leaning over her dead parents that you can talk to and have her ask you "why didn't you save us" while tears stream down her dirty face?

I know which I would find infinitely more emotional. I realize this takes more work on the developers side, but I don't think asking game developers to challenge themselves is a bad thing, especially with the amount of crap games that are pushed out these days. Especially of developers who have proved they can go above and beyond what others do.

A lot of folks on this board need to get over the fact that FO 1 and 2 were made a long time ago. Gaming has moved on, evolved and become so much better over the years. Just because 'this is how it was done in the old days' doesn't mean it is the right way to do things today. The main thing holding developers back from pushing these limits is the masses of gamers who put up with half done games being pushed out to the market and calling it GOTY!!!

That's not to say I think NV will be half done, I expect it to be brilliant, even with a slide show ending. That doesn't mean it couldn't have been better.

You're not asking devs to "challenge themselves" you're basically asking them to split NV into two games - pre-ending Mojave Wasteland and post-ending Mojave Wasteland. We're talking about a tremendous amount of work here. Either the pre-end game suffers heavily as dev resources are used up making post-end content, the post-end game is basically a shoddily constructed afterthought, or the end changes almost nothing (which is basically option 2 by another name.)

Those are basically your only three options unless you're willing to fund Obsidian for another two years and push NV back so they can basically make an entirely new game.

There's a reason that most games only show major consequences for your actions in sequels.



So you're saying you'd be willing to wait two more years for NV, along with a consummate price hike to account for the fact that you're basically getting two games instead of one?

This is what I was referring to. You're not going to see the kind of stuff elaborated on in Fallout 1/2 epilogues rendered as post-game content not now, or ever; it's too big and would take too much time and money to produce something that only a few hardcoe players would ever bother to play long enough to see. What you're talking about works fine for immediate consequences, but not long term consequences. For example, at the end of Fallout it's mentioned that Tandi and her father turn Shady Sands into the New California Republic over time. Do you have any idea how much work would have to go into showing that? It's a bit unreasonable to expect the developers to do that.



That's an immediate consequence, and that kind of stuff has been around in the series since the original Fallout.

Not true, who said the changes can't happen till post game? You could see the changes take effect as you play the game. You are at the settlement, they ask for your help, you blow them off and go do some gambling for a few days. Wander back through later and viola, destroyed town. Heck you could even sit there and watch the carnage as the gang descends on the town, not lifting a finger to help them. There are lots of ways this specific example could be handled with a little thought.

If none of my actions have any effect till a post game wrap up is read to me in the end game slide show, and otherwise the world is completely static, that just doesn't do much for me. Bah, this argument is pointless....

How is any of that mutually exclusive with a free play ending?

Agree with the comments that developing complex endings for post-main-quest gameplay is not realistic. It has nothing to do with challenging themselves, and everything to do with making a good video game in the time and budget available. Obsidian had 18 months basically to put this together, and I'm sure it will be a fantastic ride for all of us. I don't however want them wasting time making ultra-complex ending visuals - that would take time away from development of the real game in exchange for some additional dramatics at the very end? No thank you. Fortunately we're getting a slide-show end and more Real game to play with.

Disagree with the notion that FNV is Not a true RPG. I would challenge those who think otherwise to demonstrate that fact (without actually seeing NV or knowing how the quests and dialogue are built)! Its impossible actually, and those who are questioning the quests and status as a real RPG are themselves likely confused. I have looked and can find no wiki or encyclopedia that a game like FNV is anything other other than an RPG. To me its just blind arrogance to suggest that We the Players are knowledgable enough to determine which game is or is not an RPG, especially with a game like NV that is Clearly an RPG by design and not a shooter. In my view FNV will very likely be one of the better RPGs produced, but I'll hold definitive judgement until Oct 19th when we can actually play the game and Know one way or the other.