Damn You gamesas : Fallout: New Vegas

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:24 pm

y'know, every gamer of a certain age remembers when the end of the game meant THE END OF THE GAME. look up the dictionary definition of "end" and you might just realise that when the end credits roll, it's time to either start the game anew or play something else

well done obsidian for having the balls to repeat what bethesda did with the first game and end the game, yknow, AT THE END. new vegas is all the better for it, i for one, as does anybody with half a brain, understand the reasons why the game ends when it ends. because completely changing the world in four different ways after the end of the game would be a completely unneccasery burden. kudos for sticking two fingers up at the [censoreds] who demand that the end of this book be only the beginning! morons.

Some gamers want change. You seem to think that insulting us and claiming "that's how it used to be done" makes your point more valid. Well, people used to crap on grass and bash each other's skull in for mates while belonging to ape-like tribes. So? Like what you want, but there's no need to be so hostile towards people of differing opinion. I'd give a kudos to Bethesda for going against the same, rehashed trends.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 4:24 pm

Some gamers want change. You seem to think that insulting us and claiming "that's how it used to be done" makes your point more valid. Well, people used to crap on grass and bash each other's skull in for mates while belonging to ape-like tribes. So? Like what you want, but there's no need to be so hostile towards people of differing opinion.

He states his opinion that you think insults others by comparing him and others like him who don't want change to cavemen that defecate in the open and beat their mates?

There's something called the high road. It's up above insults.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:57 pm

He states his opinion that you think insults others by comparing him and others like him who don't want change to cavemen that defecate in the open and beat their mates?

I'm not comparing him and others like him to that, I'm giving an example of things people used to do and questioning why simply stating "it's the way it used to be" means anything in regards to how it's done in the future. I'm not trying to compare anyone to that, but I'm comparing the statement to my example. It means nothing just because it's the way it was and, of course, I'm giving an example of something I believe all of us are glad to have moved away from. It wasn't meant as a comparison to anyone or an insult to anyone.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:35 pm

I'm not comparing him and others like him to that, I'm giving an example of things people used to do and questioning why simply stating "it's the way it used to be" means anything in regards to how it's done in the future. I'm not trying to compare anyone to that, but I'm comparing the statement to my example. It means nothing just because it's the way it was and, of course, I'm giving an example of something I believe all of us are glad to have moved away from. It wasn't meant as a comparison to anyone or an insult to anyone.

If you say so. I can't say I agree with him spewing insults but I'm in the camp of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." I just don't agree with changing the ending of the game to allow for more play time when the ending functions well in describing what comes to pass. I don't need shallow gratification from NPCs regarding my choices in the game, which is all we would get if Obsidian added a post-main story option for the game.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:13 pm

If you say so. I can't say I agree with him spewing insults but I'm in the camp of "if it ain't broke don't fix it." I just don't agree with changing the ending of the game to allow for more play time when the ending functions well in describing what comes to pass. I don't need shallow gratification from NPCs regarding my choices in the game, which is all we would get if Obsidian added a post-main story option for the game.

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?

» Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:44 am

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?

If you don't care about having those changes, then what's the difference between playing the game before the Battle of Hoover Dam or after? With no changes, it's the same exact thing.

There are also minor mods for the PC that apparently allow you to play after the final battle... If you play on the PC that is.

Edit: I understand to an extent the desire to play after the story but Obsidian already said they made up their mind that they aren't going to make a DLC for that and I would rather they focus their efforts elsewhere.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:23 pm

If you don't care about having those changes, then what's the difference between playing the game before the Battle of Hoover Dam or after? With no changes, it's the same exact thing.

There are also minor mods for the PC that apparently allow you to play after the final battle... If you play on the PC that is.

The difference is a sense of accomplishment. I can't stand having that big major battle hanging over my head while I'm out picking flowers, instead. Preferably, I would have a few minor changes such as some dialogue changes and faction reputation changes, but the playing after the ending thing is more of a matter of getting that event out of the way, for me. Also, I kind of wanted to keep Lanius' helmet and sword.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:22 pm

omg just save the game before the last mission, what's the difference if they let you play afterward or you save it before the last mission? theres nothing gained in the final quest that you can use if they let you play afterward that would make it any different than saving first.....

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:56 pm

omg just save the game before the last mission, what's the difference if they let you play afterward or you save it before the last mission? theres nothing gained in the final quest that you can use if they let you play afterward that would make it any different than saving first.....

The difference is a sense of accomplishment. I can't stand having that big major battle hanging over my head while I'm out picking flowers, instead. Preferably, I would have a few minor changes such as some dialogue changes and faction reputation changes, but the playing after the ending thing is more of a matter of getting that event out of the way, for me. Also, I kind of wanted to keep Lanius' helmet and sword.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:38 am

Xd you already basiclly said you didn't care about any of that. So what the difference if you have one quest marked finished or unfinished while you walk around mindlessly?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:22 pm

If nothing has to change after the final battle, just do it and load the game - ending experienced and preferred continuation achieved.

If the MQ in the questlist bothers, why stick with it? It isn't a hasty questline for the beginning half or even too much after that. The game, by all the things that affect the endings, even encourages to postpone it.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:23 am

If nothing has to change after the final battle, just do it and load the game - ending experienced and preferred continuation achieved.

If the MQ in the questlist bothers, why stick with it? It isn't a hasty questline for the beginning half or even too much after that. The game, by all the things that affect the endings, even encourages to postpone it.

Again, why are people so opposed the the option of being able to play after the main quest with no real changes? I doubt it would be difficult to put in and if you don't want to utilize such a feature, don't do it. What is the reasoning behind opposing (not referring to not caring, I'm referring to adamantly opposing) such a basic option?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:52 pm

The difference is a sense of accomplishment. I can't stand having that big major battle hanging over my head while I'm out picking flowers, instead....

The thing about it is that the battle isn't really ganna start unless someone made the first move. Its giant chess game. Apprentally, the NCR started the first move.

Spoiler

When the NCR's President came and visit the Dam and expose himself to the open, this bring the Legion to commit immediate action. Fail or success would cause an all out battle.

Other than that, there no way someone ganna generate a big battle unless something important happen.

Again, why are people so opposed the the option of being able to play after the main quest with no real changes? I doubt it would be hard to do and if you don't want to utilize such a feature, don't do it. What is the reasoning behind opposing such a basic option?

The ending was meant to show the meaning of all the action the PC has done. Adding a "end" game part would not really put much an impact to the ending itself. Bethesda was able to do away with it due to..

A) Its their habit in their making of their game and

B ) The faction in Fallout 3 is more lax as ya already an "honorary" member of the Lyon's Pride.

Beside, the only thing gain from that battle is that helm and that sword, seen as "trophy" but other than that, worthless.

» Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:06 am

The difference is a sense of accomplishment. I can't stand having that big major battle hanging over my head while I'm out picking flowers, instead. Preferably, I would have a few minor changes such as some dialogue changes and faction reputation changes, but the playing after the ending thing is more of a matter of getting that event out of the way, for me. Also, I kind of wanted to keep Lanius' helmet and sword.

That's understandable but the developers wouldn't have been able to just implement minor changes without butchering the story you spent hours forming. If they just let you go about your business after you completed the battle, there would be hordes of other people on these forums whining about how their choices weren't reflected properly.

For instance:

Spoiler

Say you side with the Legion:

The developers would have needed to flesh out the effects of the battle by removing the NCR's presence from the area, showing the impact of their victory. Then they would've needed to have that reflected in just about every NPC's dialogue not to mention the fact that the Legion's victory would mean the end of the Strip, the Great Khans, the Powder Gang(st)ers, Gun Runners, Fisto, etc. Hell, the Mojave wasteland would be essentially empty.

Say you side with the NCR:

Not much would change really aside from the Legion being gone.

The hardest would be the Wild Card and House victories:

They would have to severely limit the numbers of NCR and Legion forces in the game to the point of probably minimal numbers and put Securitrons everywhere. This would leave many of the once populated areas (Ranger Outposts, NCR military bases, etc) pretty much completely empty.

That isn't even fleshing it out to specifics or even accounting for the dozens more of other variables the player has influence over in the game. I don't think it'd be worth all that effort to make the game playable after the battle so you could mill about in the wasteland when you can do all the things you want before the battle even takes place.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:16 am

Again, why are people so opposed the the option of being able to play after the main quest with no real changes? I doubt it would be hard to do and if you don't want to utilize such a feature, don't do it. What is the reasoning behind opposing such a basic option?

I don't oppose it if it doesn't alter the endings in any way and if it doesn't drop me back to the game without asking, but I question the logic behind it. If it doesn't matter what comes afterwards, what difference does it make to click "Continue" after the credits to that of seeing a load screen nonetheless and be popped up in the game just as when clicking the continue? What is the gain?

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:17 pm

The thing about it is that the battle isn't really ganna start unless someone made the first move. Its giant chess game. Apprentally, the NCR started the first move.

Spoiler

When the NCR's President came and visit the Dam and expose himself to the open, this bring the Legion to commit immediate action. Fail or success would cause an all out battle.

Other than that, there no way someone ganna generate a big battle unless something important happen.

The ending was meant to show the meaning of all the action the PC has done. Bethesda was able to do away with it due to..

A) Its their habit in their making of their game and

B ) The faction in Fallout 3 is more lax as ya already an "honorary" member of the Lyon's Pride.

Yes, they were waiting for the player character to get prepared. Instead of getting prepared, I'm out picking (broc) flowers.

Yes, it does show that, and if people care about not invalidating any of it, they can click "no" next to a "Do you want to continue playing" box, right? If someone else does it, it doesn't affect your game or your perception of the aftermath. As far as I'm aware, Fallout 2 allowed such a thing, and yes, I know it was a joke, but I don't want anything other than being placed back into the gameworld if I want to be. If someone else doesn't want to be placed back into the gameworld and would prefer reloading a save or putting the game on the shelf, they can do that, too.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 3:43 pm

I don't oppose it if it doesn't alter the endings in any way and if it doesn't drop me back to the game without asking, but I question the logic behind it. If it doesn't matter what comes afterwards, what difference does it make to click "Continue" after the credits to that of seeing a load screen nonetheless and be popped up in the game just as when clicking the continue? What is the gain?

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

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:07 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 self-proclaim genius in Bethesda would go "there is actually a 5th ending with our new DLC: Broken Remnant"

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:23 pm

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

Then if you don't see a difference, yet some of us do, why not let some of us have what we want? Check "no" to a question and reload while we do our thing.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:25 pm

Then if you don't see a difference, yet some of us do, why not let some of us have what we want? Check "no" to a question and reload while we do our thing.

I would rather that Obsidian focuses it's efforts elsewhere instead of making a redundant add-on.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:07 am

Then if you don't see a difference, yet some of us do, why not let some of us have what we want? Check "no" to a question and reload while we do our thing.

There are FOUR endings, plus many other variables that affect the ending. It would take MASSIVE amounts of time for the developers to get EVERY SINGLE ending, from the faction you picked, right down to smallest variable.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 12:02 pm

Yes, they were waiting for the player character to get prepared. Instead of getting prepared, I'm out picking (broc) flowers.

Yes, it does show that, and if people care about not invalidating any of it, they can click "no" next to a "Do you want to continue playing" box, right? If someone else does it, it doesn't affect your game or your perception of the aftermath. As far as I'm aware, Fallout 2 allowed such a thing, and yes, I know it was a joke, but I don't want anything other than being placed back into the gameworld if I want to be. If someone else doesn't want to be placed back into the gameworld and would prefer reloading a save or putting the game on the shelf, they can do that, too.

Then if you don't see a difference, yet some of us do, why not let some of us have what we want? Check "no" to a question and reload while we do our thing.

Then, by all theory, has to show everything that show ya did what ya did in the battle field rather than just putting the player back into the world only that the battle did not do a thing. Supporting NCR would have the Legion gone. Legion wise, NCR gone. House, both side are gone. Too much work to show how the ending act.

Just dropping the player after the battle without any change of the Mojave would not make sense and would only bring complaint from the players that make it seem that they did nothing overall.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:24 am

why not let some of us have what we want?

Good question. Why not let some of those other folks have their hardcoe buffed instead, or why not let those on the left have their whim, maybe give me and the likes of me boosted skill effects and difficulty, what about those behind us? What group is the one that really should be served? They can't give all of us what we want, and doing favors to a certain group while neglecting the others is just... "nice".

The levelcappers are already getting their fix with the DLC - and imo that's one bad call already unless they ramp up the overall difficulty.

» Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:27 pm

I would rather that Obsidian focuses it's efforts elsewhere instead of making a redundant add-on.

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

» Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:45 am

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.