Damn You gamesas : Fallout: New Vegas

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:51 pm

Fallout 2 let you carry on after the ending so I don't know why freeplay's being claimed as some sort of new-fangled Bethesdian introduction to the series. Just give the option 'keep playing yes/no' when the credits have rolled, I don't see what the big deal is.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:39 pm

Fallout 2 let you carry on after the ending so I don't know why freeplay's being claimed as some sort of new-fangled Bethesdian introduction to the series. Just give the option 'keep playing yes/no' when the credits have rolled, I don't see what the big deal is.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

There really nothing out there by the time ya get to the end of Fallout 2 other than a response to the most arrogant NPC of the Fallout Universe and an Easter Egg Cheat Book, and that is a one sided conflict with the Enclave. Its already "technically" done at that point. A simple 'keep playing yes/no' can't be play with a bunch of huge faction all over the place in the Mojave.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:43 pm

I don't want Obsidian to make an add-on for this. I just want future games to come with that simple option.

That's where I think you may differ from most. I have no problem with that, especially in regards to the way Fallout 2 was handled. I just don't want a repeat of Broken Steel.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:17 pm

I know, I don't see the difference with just reloading a save pre-battle and doing what ever.

Me neither.

But I can see some genius in Bethesda would go "there is actually a 5th ending with our new DLC: Broken Remnant"

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:53 pm

I'd love to see this mod that perfectly scipts in four different endings and all their variations.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:47 pm

I'd love to see this mod that perfectly scipts in four different endings and all their variations.

That would be well..difficult.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:12 pm

A simple 'keep playing yes/no' can't be play with a bunch of huge faction all over the place in the Mojave.

But it can if, like FO2, the freeplay mode essentially ignores what's gone in the ending and plonks you back in the world as it was before the final mission. Nothing even really needs to change in the world. Story mode is finished, now you get to play freeplay. Really, I think that's all that needed to be done to appease the peeps who want to play and play and play with the same character.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:22 pm

But it can if, like FO2, the freeplay mode essentially ignores what's gone in the ending and plonks you back in the world as it was before the final mission. Nothing even really needs to change in the world. Story mode is finished, now you get to play freeplay. Really, I think that's all that needed to be done to appease the peeps who want to play and play and play with the same character.

Obsidian can't cater to everything and everyone you know.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 6:10 pm

Obsidian can't cater to everything and everyone you know.

No, but they could easily design the end of final quest in the main questline to involve plopping you back into the gameworld with no changes, especially since not being able to play after the ending is one of the greatest complaints around here.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:30 am

No, but they could easily design the final quest to plop you back into the gameworld with no changes, especially since not being able to play after the ending is one of the greatest complaints around here.

Or one of the greatest praises

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:36 pm

Or one of the greatest praises

That is what the "no" option would be for.

» Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:01 am

Obsidian can't cater to everything and everyone you know.

Well no, obviously not, but the sheer number of threads on here on the same bloody subject would suggest a trick has been missed.

Or one of the greatest praises

The story would still end. We still could pick 'no' and put the game down, or start again with a new character.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:20 pm

But it can if, like FO2, the freeplay mode essentially ignores what's gone in the ending and plonks you back in the world as it was before the final mission. Nothing even really needs to change in the world. Story mode is finished, now you get to play freeplay. Really, I think that's all that needed to be done to appease the peeps who want to play and play and play with the same character.

No, but they could easily design the end of final quest in the main questline to involve plopping you back into the gameworld with no changes, especially since not being able to play after the ending is one of the greatest complaints around here.

Then the basic logic is to keep a save before the battle and/or say no when the popup tell ya there no way back.

Like I say, the ending emphasizes there is so has much changes within a short time after the battle. Just popping the PC back into the game world would not make any sense nor there any "accomplishment" is felt because nothing changes overall if it is done this way.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:46 am

That is what the "no" option would be for.

I can support a "freeplay" mode but not a "play after ending."

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:13 pm

Then the basic logic is to keep a save before the battle and/or say no when the popup tell ya there no way back.

Like I say, the ending emphasizes there is so much changes within a short time after the battle. Jsut popping the PC back into the game world would not make any sense for any "accomplish" is felt because nothing changes.

Yes, because the quest doesn't feel unfinished because it's over and out of the way. If you don't like the lack of sense, click "no". Forget it. I'm just repeating the same stuff. Look, it makes a difference to some of us and there is a simple way to make it so you don't have to deal with the lack of changes if you don't want to. Why are you not content to just clicking "no"? Why is how others play their game a problem?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:34 am

Yes, because the quest doesn't feel unfinished because it's over and out of the way. If you don't like the lack of sense, click "no". Forget it. I'm just repeating the same stuff. Look, it makes a difference to some of us and there is a simple way to make it so you don't have to deal with the lack of changes if you don't want to. Why are you not content to just clicking "no"? Why is how others play their game a problem?

But nothing is an unfinished as a horribly thought out action consequence. The Pitt wink wink.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:44 pm

Yes, because the quest doesn't feel unfinished because it's over and out of the way. If you don't like the lack of sense, click "no". Forget it. I'm just repeating the same stuff. Look, it makes a difference to some of us and there is a simple way to make it so you don't have to deal with the lack of changes if you don't want to. Why are you not content to just clicking "no"? Why is how others play their game a problem?

To prevent other "problems" that can arise from this. Namely people saying "there nothing to do after the Battle" or "there no evidence I did all that in the ending" or "its not finish!".

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:36 am

I can support a "freeplay" mode but not a "play after ending."

They're the same thing.

Then the basic logic is to keep a save before the battle and/or say no when the popup tell ya there no way back.

Right, and this is what I did. I don't care about the finite ending myself, doesn't bother me at all. But clearly rather a large minority feel differently, and so why not let them quest without the fate of the Mojave hanging over them, let them have their grindy fun? It doesn't need to rob us of our ten-minute ending slide-show.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:03 am

To prevent other "problems" that can arise from this. Namely people saying "there nothing to do after the Battle" or "there no evidence I did all that in the ending" or "its not finish!".

Someone somewhere will always complain about a certain change. The best way to prevent that is to not make games, but obviously, we don't want that to happen and people will also complain about that. Was there violent opposition to Fallout 2's way of handling things? What about merely putting in some dialogue as well as allowing the keeping of certain rare items from the ending as proof?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:21 pm

Someone somewhere will always complain about a certain change. The best way to prevent that is to not make games, but obviously, we don't want that to happen and people will also complain about that. Was there violent opposition to Fallout 2's way of handling things? What about merely putting in some dialogue as well as allowing the keeping of certain rare items from the ending as proof?

Because its unfinished and crap!

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:21 pm

What if some of us merely want to continue playing after the ending without even any major changes, if any changes at all? Why is that so opposed?

I oppose it for the same reason that the devs stated they wouldn't do it: because the ending matters.

I don't want to go back to the Strip and have gamblers walking around saying, "You know, I heard that Caesar decisively won the battle at the Dam and his soldiers marched onto the Strip shortly thereafter, enslaving all who would submit and killing those who didn't. Yep, I feel sorry for those Strip gamblers, yes I do."

I don't want to go to Red Rock Canyon and have the Khans tell me, "I heard the Great Khans all joined up with the NCR at the battle at the Dam and never went back to Red Rock Canyon."

I don't want to go to Cottonwood Cove or the Fort and have all the Legionnaires running around tell me, "Yo, I heard that the big army at the Fort was routed and the forces at Cottonwood Cove scattered to the winds."

I definitely don't want to go around to 200 different NCR camps and installations and have them all standing there like nothing happened.

Because ... something happened.

If you don't want something to happen, don't press the big red button that says END GAME NOW. It's really that simple. If, on the other hand, you want to play through the whole story, you must accept that that story has a meaningful end. If you want a story with a meaningless end, that doesn't even end, sorry dude. Obsidian didn't want the ending to be meaningless. "Why not pretend the ending didn't happen and just let me keep playing?" Christmas just came early: you can already do that. Keep playing and don't do the ending. Good job.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:59 am

There is absolutely no reason why post game content couldn't be created for only one of the possible endings (which ever is destined to be the working canon history for future Fallout titles ... after all, future titles can't assume all possible endings happened). Presenting the issue as a choice between a 'meaningful' (haha) hard ending consisting of a slide show or having to code playable content for every possible contingency is a false choice.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:48 am

I oppose it for the same reason that the devs stated they wouldn't do it: because the ending matters.

I don't want to go back to the Strip and have gamblers walking around saying, "You know, I heard that Caesar decisively won the battle at the Dam and his soldiers marched onto the Strip shortly thereafter, enslaving all who would submit and killing those who didn't. Yep, I feel sorry for those Strip gamblers, yes I do."

I don't want to go to Red Rock Canyon and have the Khans tell me, "I heard the Great Khans all joined up with the NCR at the battle at the Dam and never went back to Red Rock Canyon."

I don't want to go to Cottonwood Cove or the Fort and have all the Legionnaires running around tell me, "Yo, I heard that the big army at the Fort was routed and the forces at Cottonwood Cove scattered to the winds."

I definitely don't want to go around to 200 different NCR camps and installations and have them all standing there like nothing happened.

Because ... something happened.

If you don't want something to happen, don't press the big red button that says END GAME NOW. It's really that simple. If, on the other hand, you want to play through the whole story, you must accept that that story has a meaningful end. If you want a story with a meaningless end, that doesn't even end, sorry dude. Obsidian didn't want the ending to be meaningless. "Why not pretend the ending didn't happen and just let me keep playing?" Christmas just came early: you can already do that. Keep playing and don't do the ending. Good job.

I've already stated this many times. Click "no".

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:41 pm

There is absolutely no reason why post game content couldn't be created for only one of the possible endings (which ever is destined to be the working canon history for future Fallout titles ... after all, future titles can't assume all possible endings happened). Presenting the issue as a choice between a 'meaningful' (haha) hard ending consisting of a slide show or having to code playable content for every possible contingency is a false choice.

But then people would be pissed because all of their hard work is for nothing!

I would be pissed if I supported Mr. House but then after the ending, the NCR takes over and all my work was never noticed.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:53 pm

I've already stated this many times. Click "no".

And your opponents have already stated many more times: click "no" when the popup says "end game now?"