While I can't say you're wrong about complaints for a lack of an ending, and we'll never know, it doesn't seem right to me that the complaints would be the same. "There's too much game play" seems hollow compared to "the game play is cut short too quickly."

Well, that's pretty arbitrary. How about Ultima or Legacy of the Ancients? Arena? There were plenty of games that were more massive. Technology has nothing to do with electing to have a set ending or not. Not in the sense you're implying, anyway.


So you're saying it's better to keep the endings of these games restricted to those for which a relatively unchanged setting can be justified afterward? See, that's your opinion. I personally value replay value more than that, which is something NV and Morrowind did much better than FO3 or Oblivion did.

I know that some people value the ability to play forever with one character. I personally find that pretty boring. I'd rather play the game again, make different choices that lead to different outcomes, and play a different type of character that lends itself to a different type of gameplay. This is actually pretty difficult to do. To me an RPG that can pull that off has had a lot of thought put into its design. Creating an ending that lacks enough impact to demand large changes to the setting and therefore allowing post-endgame play is not that difficult.

FO3 and Oblivion did not do this well, largely because there weren't a lot of options for different paths, there wasn't much character build differentiation, and a lot of the character's possible actions in the game are mostly pretense with little follow-up or feedback. This certainly makes it easier to keep your game open and allow freedom. To me it also makes a lot of things feel pretty unfulfilling. That said, my opinion isn't any more "right" than yours is.

If we're speculating on sales, I'd say that TES and FO3/NV's biggest advantage over other RPGs is their integration of action and RPG gameplay. These games have a lot of mass appeal to different types of players. To me it seems natural that their sales numbers would be pretty high.

Anyway, TES 1 and 2 were much larger and more open than 3 or 4. Again, it's not a technical limitation.

Meant to say the complaints wouldn't be the same, just that the complainers would.

im assuming its for money. sell the game for as much as they can when it first comes out. and obviously no one likes the fact that u cant continue the game after the main story line and they know it. they use that to their advantage though so they can make evn more money by eventually putting out and X pack thatll allow u to continue ur gameplay and sell it for an additional 20 bux

I honestly don't care about playing after the main quest. That's a minor thing. If I'm not ready to beat the game, I just don't beat it. When I'm ready, I complete the story and start a new character.

Don't really see the problem, to be honest. Not only does New Vegas outright warn you about the ending with a big box, but most RPGs do indeed end. Generally the ability to play after the game's conclusion is tacked on, and frankly most of the time it isn't implemented that well. Oblivion for example, the Oblivion gates close but Kvatch remains a rainy, smoldering ruin for all eternity. I'm not saying that Bethesda was obligated to do something with Kvatch, but it kind of defeats the point of being able to play past the ending if major things like that aren't addressed.

I couldn't care less either way. For Fallout however, I don't think it makes much sense to allow the player to continue past the ending since one of the hallmarks of the series (ending slides) tell you things that the developers will never bother to show you in the game itself. In addition allowing the player to keep playing after seeing how things eventually play out with the settlements, factions and characters the player encountered gives the player free reign to change those fates; perhaps not even intentionally.

I agree. The idea that this makes or breaks the game is pretty alien to my brainses. :blink:

Except a lot of people are fine with the game ending, and they've said multiple times they're not going to do that.

Its ok if you dont like it, but that doesnt make WOW a bad game

The stuff you are talking about is entirely appropriate for MMORPGs not SINGLE-PLAYER RPGs.
Because of the way THIS game was designed monsters are of specific lvls so if you keep on lvling up and building your character eventually you will become so powerful you can sit there without armor while a deathclaw smacks you for 10 min straight and you won't die. Idk about you but I find that incredibly boring. God-mode is fun but if I wanted to have god mode I would punch in the console command.

Flip side in Fallout 3 monsters lvled WITH you meaning at lvl 30 all the monsters around you are about as strong. However if you keep on lvling with reduced benefits (like less skill points, no perks etc) you run into a dilemma that is just as gamebreaking as the first situation. Monsters get TOO strong and have too much health. You can only pump up your toons skills to a certain point and you find yourself limited by the damage output of even the most powerful guns. However if you remove the skill limiter entirely what stops a person from having 200-300 gun skill at a lower lvl and killing everything around with with a 9mm pistol? Its all game mechanics and balance. The game developers put the lvl limit and skill limit for a damn good reason.

As for lvl appropriate zones the ENTIRE game was a lvl appropriate zone in Fallout 3. All the monsters lvled up at the same rate as you did but people DIDN'T like that. It probably has to do with the fact that even after you work so hard to become stronger everything around got stronger too. So they changed their approach in Fallout New Vegas so that you grow up from running away from packs of geckos to eventually standing on mounds of dead Deathclaws.

Gear as incentives are things that are much more geared towards MMORPGs where people tend to get the flashier and more expensive mounts/armor/weapons to show off. In a single player rpg like Fallout people mod their own gear and share those mods with other people. Honestly there is a big difference in what I wear for practicality's purposes and for when I show off my toon. For example I love how the NCR ranger combat armor looks but I don't wear it when Im out fighting hoards of zombies. I wear Remnant power armor for fighting situations. MMORPGs and Single Player RPGs while in many ways similar also have dynamics that are drastically different. NOT understanding that when your designing a game is a critical error in judgment.

And yes I agree the whole crafting and gathering system needs an overhaul but because its really not a critical part of the game its more of a secondary concern.

As for character customization you are being extremely hypocritical. In your first few points you keep on asking for the lvl limit to be removed so you can keep on getting stronger. But the problem is if you do that eventually you will become a master in everything. Whats the point in having character customization at ALL if you are just gonna eventually end up god of everything? As for character customization in general Fallout New Vegas is probably one of the largest projects ever seen. You have an incredibly large number of possible endings, and numerous different builds from being the Silent high luck high agi Sneak/Gun Sniper Killer, to being the high endurance high strength Melee/Explosives Terminator. This game is probably one of the MOST re-playable around.

As for the ending I do agree that I wish it was more like broken steel in Fallout 3 where you finish the game, get the cut scene, and wake up/fast travel to somewhere and can continue on with the game with the benefits from having complete the MQ. But this is more of a personal preference. Just because YOU don't want a set ending does not mean everyone doesn't. I know plenty of people that play through the game through the main quest doing the side quests they happen to come across and would get incredibly annoyed/pissed off if the game didn't have a set ending. Some people LIKE having a set ending because it gives them the feeling of accomplishment that they completed the game rather than being forced to continue playing indefinitely till they get bored of the game.

Also most importantly LEARN that just because one game company says something does NOT mean another game company is gonna follow what they said. Different companies have different interpretations of how THEY feel will be a product that best satisfies their player base. While I personally may feel that Bethesda and Obsidian should collaborate so that they can compliment each other with their strengths while covering for each other's weaknesses (have one work the story while the other works on gameplay) that is my own personal preference.

See here's the thing... I don't understand why so many of you who like the re-play value seem to be suggesting that it's either/or between that and the ability to play on open-ended after the main quest ends. Both are obtainable, and then we're all happy.

And you know what, in terms of storylines... was just thinking.... compare FO:NV to TES4. There were storylines in the original, un-expanded TES4 for the fighter's guild, the mage's guild, the thieves guild, the dark brotherhood AND the main quest. And there was every bit as much content to find by exploring the world, and plenty of small quest lines. In FO:NV we get ONE significant quest line/story, and lots of small ones that aren't all that interesting. And, it's using the same engine as FO3. All that's fine, but the COST of the game is the same as FO3 and TES4 were. In many ways, FO:NV is a very large expansion to FO3, but we pay full price for it.

Well, They've set us up to buy a DLC?

Level caps to are better. I prefer how certani areas are high level adn certain areas are low level. Even at low levels you can still do higher level areas. Example at level six i killed everything in quarry junction.

I also perfer my character not to be a god in everything. I want him to be have somethings he is good at somethings he is not good at and other things he is ok at. Its just better that way. The ending kind of svcks but its better because i actually get to hear about how I changed te game world. Just load from before teh ending and you are good. Also IT WARNS YOU THE GAME IS ENDING!!!! So dont complain.

Baldur's Gate IIRC had a level cap but it was unreachable because there wasn't enough experience in the game to reach it.

Keep in mind D&D as a system usually has a level cap of 20 anyway (it goes over sometimes into "epic" levels but they are very unbalanced).

I've heard good things about that game. This topic just baffles me though. Some people sound like they plan on starting a riot because the game ends and there's a level cap.

Nice long post w/ lots of thoughts. However, I take special exception to the last part.

Now, let me explain something that you should LEARN yourself. This isn't about the gaming companies, it's about sales. And sales come from giving the gamers what they want. If there are developers at Obsidian who take the attitude that they know better, the heck with what the gamers say they want, then they have to accept that their sales will suffer as a result ... and very quickly they'll be out of the game business because this is a VERY competitive industry.

Now, if I'm in the minority on this issue... then I lose. If the majority of players think customized slides at the end are more important to them than being able to play the game with their character for as long as they want in the way that they want, then I lose. Fine. If however most players believe, as I do, that they should have the option to continue with their character after the main story is over, then Bethesda and/or Obsidian shouldn't be surprised when sales dip and their reputations take a hit when they don't supply that.

And you know what? Even if every single poster on this forum said I was in the minority, I still wouldn't believe it because I see evidence to the contrary and this board is a small, small small small subset of the people who play these games. Bethesda's comments re: Fallout 3's unfortunate ending to me proves there was enough discontent and that most players wanted to play on.

If Obsidian made the game end because of the many NCR and Legion related quests around the wasteland that would suddenly be irrelevant, then they didn't think their story through very well. And to tell you the truth, there is nothing all that interesting about the FO:NV story... it lags well behind the main quest stories in FO3 and TES4.

(Quick Insert: Gear as carrots is not irrelevant to games like FO3... Borderlands understood this.)

Finally, if you are not allowed to continue your character, then what is the point of DLC expansions? Instead of being nice add-ons to the main game that expand game play, they'll be like mini-games that stand on their own... and that's lame. Imagine playing Mothership Zeta or Point Lookout with new characters... that would have been lame. They would not have expanded the FO3 world that way, you wouldn't be able to run back and forth between expanded areas and the main areas... just would have svcked.

Which means, moment of truth will be when new content is released. Either they'll have to allow you to keep playing past the main story, in which case you have to ask WHY they made us end now (probably $$$$ like the previous poster suggested)... or they'll have to take place earlier in the time line (which in effect forces many to start new characters), OR they won't involve the main character in which case they will be mini games and not expansions and that will be weak. In a case like that, I'd just pass on buying any downloads. The only download for Dragon Age that I didn't buy was the one where you can play as the bad guys at that main battle... it was the only one that didn't affect your main characters, and was pointless.

Or.... maybe... just maybe... they don't plan in starting a riot, but they instead find their $60 game purchase to be significantly less satisfying than it could have been and regret that the game developers made this unfortunate choice since allowing players to continue costs them nothing in an open world game like FO:NV.

Fallout NV sold over 5 million in the first couple of weeks. I don't think they are concerned about sales.

And even if you're right, and lots of people hate not being able to continue after they beat the game, you're suggesting they won't buy Fallout 4 (or Obsidian's next entry in the series if they have one). what will they buy instead that gives them everything Fallout NV does and allows them to continue?



I've got to say I disagree. I'd say they didn't sacrifice story just to allow you to continue after the game. They had an idea of what the legion was and would do, and didn't bastardize it just so they could allow people to dike around after they already finished everything.



BORDERLANDS IS NOTHING LIKE FALLOUT! :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:



I disagree, it's better to play through those with a new character so you can use the stuff in the main quest.



The Pitt and Operation Anchorage (in fact all of them if you didn't buy Broken Steel) were exactly like you described, but people still bought them.

So essentially, you think your opinion is right and people who have different opinions are wrong, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your opinion because you're always going to hold out thinking that more information will validate your claims.



This is just your opinion. You don't think that the main story justifies a hard ending, so a hard ending is a bad choice overall to you.



Again, this point is just opinion. Game developers can add great content without expanding the play time through eliminating a hard ending. The real problem it seems is that you think this can't be done for some reason.

Sadly, by your own admission, you won't buy any DLC from Obsidian if they don't eliminate the current ending which will probably make you miss out on some great additions.



It really is sad that your enjoyment of a game relies so much on playing a character after finishing the main story.

Don't worry, bro. Diablo III should be coming on consoles. Then you'll have a game with no story to worry about, a very high level cap, and indefinite grinding for loot and XP even after you beat the last boss eight hundred times.

Of course. That's why this thread has been so entertaining to me- I spotted the "Don't bore me with facts, I've made up my mind" factor early on and everything since has been watching to see how long it takes the folks beating their heads against the OP ( :banghead: ) to figure it out.

Why people make differences between FO and Bordelands?

and S.T.A.L.K.E.R?

and even Mass Effect?

Because anything with desert and rubble= MUST BE A FALLOUT STYLE GAME!


-sigh- I guess people have to make comparisons with everything. :shakehead:

Do you HONESTLY think Bethesda and/or Obsidian (whoever was in charge of marketing) didn't have an entire team of market researchers working on this? Many of the issues you have talked about are critical in how a game like this will sell and do you think the game developers weren't given strict guidelines to follow in order to protect/increase sales? Its obvious that the game company felt that it was best for their game to have a set game ending and a level limit. While you may not agree with it there is probably an extremely large amount of unknown research that has been put into it that led to the game developers thinking that way. The fact that MOST (if not all) successful single-player rpgs have lvl limits and/or set endings is a testament to this.




This is personal preference. You may not like it but others do. I personally like it.





Borderlands and Fallout are entirely ENTIRELY ENTIRELY different games.
Fallout is an RPG with FPS aspects. Borderlands is the exact opposite. It is an FPS with RPG aspects. Just because the two games are set in inhospitable wastelands doesn't mean they are even remotely similar. In Fallout how you build your character usually is MUCH more important to game play than the quality of your gear. In Borderlands gear is pretty much everything. Don't get my wrong I love both games immensely but for vastly different reasons. If i want to find a game where my primary focus is to hunt down rare and elusive gear and use it to mow down hoards of enemies Borderlands is my game of choice. But if I want to roleplay as a man living in a apocalyptic wasteland where my choices affects everyone around me for better or for worse Fallout is far and away a much better choice. You want to hunt down gear? Play borderlands.




Is it really that huge of an issue for you to just finish the main story quest line with a toon and have a back up save for right before you start the quest? This is what people did with Fallout 3 until the Broken Steel DLC came out. Honestly considering how creative the game developers are I won't be surprised if they figure out a way to make a dlc for New Vegas that acts similarly to how Broken Steel worked for Fallout 3. And yes like you said in the above quote its probably because of money. Guess what was the best selling DLC for fallout 3? Broken Steel. So i won't be surprised if they make a similar dlc for Fallout NV and it happens to be the best selling one.


Edit: stupid grammar mistakes :banghead:

Thats sad, Brian Fargo and Tim Cain must be very dissapointed if they watch this

About STALKER and ME, i read this from other pages, not this