Without any doubt whatsoever, the biggest disappointment with Fallout 3 was when the game abruptly ended. This was "fixed" with Broken Steel, and I do seem to recall in some interview someplace one of the main developers being asked about lessons learned... he said level caps and having the game end.

Imagine my surprise, then, when New Vegas came out and I hadn't even leveled to the lame low level cap when suddenly, all the sudden, THE GAME ENDS!!!!!!

Are... you... kidding... me?

Bethesda's biggest successes have come by sticking to ROLE PLAYING GAMES. Yet for reasons I can't understand, the company seems bent on moving as far away from role playing as it can. You'd think sales of Wet and Rogue whatever it was called, compared to Fallout 3 and Oblivion, would make the case... don't sales matter? Yet for some reason, the company keeps making the same mistakes again and again and again. In role playing games, the fun generally STOPS when your character cannot progress any more. Duh.

Not only is there a lame level cap in NV, but it takes twice as long to get a perk now. So, where w/ Fallout 3 if you played it for a long time eventually you're a pretty remarkable kicker of derrieres, in NV you can't ever quite reach that, can you.

Why did your main developers of FO3 admit, on the record, that lame level caps and abrupt endings were amongst the biggest mistakes in the game only to allow NV to repeat these mistakes? The game is otherwise fun... why ruin it with easily avoidable missteps?

Be warned.... if downloadable content doesn't allow me to continue my character, I'm done with this game and won't be buying any downloads. Come ON guys, you HAVE to have smarter people than this calling the shots over there. If not, hire some people who actually understand this genre and quit trying to be like military games.

Obsidian made it, no Bethesda.
Obsidian wanted balanced gameplay and for ending sliders to make sense which meant level cap and definite ending.

And perks every other level is cause they're more powerful now so again: Game balance.

Openendness does not define roleplaying. :shrug:

Do you know why FO3 and Oblivion did not end? Because you were railroaded down one stupid yellowbrick road and you could not deviate from it.

FNV has FOUR..FOUR..FOUR different endings! That would take a flipping MMO to handle!

And, FO3 and Oblivion do "end" in a sense. When you killed Dagon, or when you Finished Broken Steel, thats it, no more Main Quest, your story is finished. Everything after that is just random stuff.

Level caps are there to stop you becoming a master of all trades. Having the cap increases replayability since you'll try out different chatacters.

The ending is there because there are multiple questlines and endings all of which need to be wrapped up. If you could continue it would make the endings pointless. For example. One of the ending slides in Fallout 1 explained how Shady Sands grew and eventually the NCR was formed from it, if you could then continue after the ending and proceed to slaughter everyone in Shady Sands, that ending slide was worthless.

The main complaint about Fallout 3s ending was that it was abrupt and the ending itself a bit limp. Plus a lot of people thought since Bethesda made it would be the same as Oblivion.


A role playing game is not determined by an open ending nor an absurdly high level cap.

Name ten RPGS that do allow you to play after the end. (Without naming a Bethesda one)

Then name ten that have no level cap.


You'll find that the percentage of ones that can be listed are tiny compared to the ones that have a level cap and ones that end.

1. Learn the difference between Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks.

2. BGS did not develop this game, or WET, or Rogue Warrior.

3. Have you actually paid attention to the ending slides? My ending was 9 minutes long, and it was lengthy and informative.

4. Name ten RPGs that don't end. Please.(Deven ninja'd me on this point...)

I understand about Obsidian, but you'd think Bethesda would have some input in it sense their name is at the top. Did they have absolutely no say whatsoever? They couldn't pass on lessons learned?

Read the above posts and reply please.

as much as i agree with you, its always funny when someone says something like "Be warned.... if downloadable content doesn't allow me to continue my character, I'm done with this game and won't be buying any downloads." as if anyone cares.

i find it funny how an open-world game closes the world on you and puts invisible walls everywhere.

Shocking isn't it. I can count on 1 hand the games I've played that were open ended RPGs... Seriosly just because it has Bethesda on it doesn't mean that it's going to be open ended. It's not Oblivion or Morrowind so if you want that game type go play either of those titles..

First, I could care about what company does what... I don't spend my life researching Bethesda. I'm fine with getting some company structuring facts wrong. I loved Elder Scrolls 3 and 4, and FO3. Great games. A game company can only develop so many games in a year. TES4 was a HUGE success... and many years later, we don't have 5. Why? Because this company is busy with other projects that won't sell nearly as well. If I was a stockholder, I'd be selling. It makes no sense to spend company resources on less popular franchises IF it also means you won't continue your most popular one.

Second... Bethesda is ON RECORD saying the level cap and the ending was a mistake in FO3. Then, that mistake was repeated almost exactly in the same way in FO: NV. Why?

Third... an RPG that doesn't end? WoW, and pretty much every other MMORPG. Just because a game is single player does NOT mean it can't learn from the best. WoW and others require that you interact with other players... which is a lot of fun some nights, but other times I prefer to play alone. When you play against other players, the game REQUIRES that it must be balanced and you can't gain god-like advantages as rewards for long play. In a solo game, that's possible and quite fun. Extremely hard at the start, and little by little you get more and more deadly.

Fourth... I'll add this, all KINDS of ways to keep NV going. For example, why can't we work on molding the Strip to our vision? It almost seemed in the game that this would be part of it if House is killed... but then the game just ends. Why not let us work on rebuilding towns, or really causing massive changes to the landscape. It sounds like Assasin's Creed Brotherhood understand this.... but I haven't tried it yet to see if they got it right.

I know this is a complaint thread... the truth is a mostly like this game. Far more positive about it than this thread may seem. It's just insanely frustrating that they repeated the biggest mistakes of FO3 after being on record acknowledging that these were mistakes.

Sigh..

Bethesda rerolled the ending in FO3 because it svcked...hard.

Here in FNV, we have FOUR endings. They would have to delay the game about FIVE years to get enough content to satisfy FIVE ENDINGS.

The Mojave would be a boring place after the MQ. Out of four factions three are completely removed from the Mojave during the MQ. What would be left is random enemies and very few quests, even if you speed run the MQ and ignore all the side quests.

Wow your bringing in MMO's into this? XD

Because Bethesda Game Studios did not develop New Vegas. Obsidian did.

I can readily see the necessity for level caps. By Level 30 in FNV, I have in excess of 80 points in all but Unarmed Combat, Melee Weapons, and Survival. With the use of magazines and special apparel, my character can temporarily score in excess of 100 in practically everything. For all intents and purposes, that's practically godhood. Where's the challenge in being able to blow through almost all opposition simply by sneezing?

I'd much rather that character development advances MUCH more slowly, but move the cap to 50 or so. Character growth IS important in a RPG, but depth and variety of the storyline is _much_ more important.

Maybe they don't care... maybe they do care about sales? I'd care if it were my company... at least I'd care if enough people were saying it, and I imagine I'm not alone.

Also for anyone wondering, here's a snippet of the interview I'm talking about:

"MTV asked executive producer Todd Howard what the greatest lesson learned from Fallout 3's development was, as an indication of what we might expect from Fallout 4.

"Greatest lesson? Don't let the game end, and don't have a level cap," he answered."

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/no-level-cap-in-next-fallout

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1131103-the-game-has-ended-oh-no-what-am-i-supposed-to-do/

Also; there's major differences between an MMO and a regular, run of the mill single player RPG.

not many people are saying it, sure half the site is, but thats like 1% of the total players.

and it looks like theyre talking about F4 there...

Yes, I am... if you can't see why then your imagination is limited by what's been done before in gaming. While much in a MMORPG doesn't apply to games like FO3, sinlge player RPGs could still learn some valuable lessons from WoW and games like it. This is how gaming evolves.

But Fallout has ALWAYS had a level cap. Without one, you are a god character. Fallout was never made for you to be a god character, you are meant to have a character that specializes in an area.

If Bethesda did away with a level cap, there would be a HUGE uproar amoung the Harcore Fallout People.

Maybe because MMO's are based on player vs. player interaction, get frequent infusions of new content and really don't have any story to speak of? That your pretty much just grinding cookie cutter quests for infinity.

they could always just stop giving you points and stuff after 20 or 30. why cant you just level up for the fun of it?

if they take away the level cap theyll probably do something like that, or maybe theyll find a way to keep it challenging all the way through.

I understand were your comeing from.....

i don't think Bethesda even played the game before they Obsidian realest it other wize they would of seen all the [censored] BUGS LIKE THE ONE FOR THE 360 THE MAN"S SPINNING HEAD LOL!! HOW COULD YOU NOT SEE THAT O LETS SEE BECAUSE YOU DID NOT [censored] BETA TEST !!!!(found a youtube video of it because i have it for PC) just think another game Obsidian [censored] up like
Nights of the old Republic 2
Fable
(and by [censored] up i mean tons of buggs) and
Obsidian new there were tons of buggs.

WHY THE [censored] WOULD YOU PUT A GAME OUT THAT HAS TONS OF DAME BUGGS AND YOU KNOW IT HAS THEM :swear:

I if Bethesda would have been smart they would have played the game before sending it out!!! :sadvaultboy:
because Bethesda did have a say in it they have rights to Fallout

now im not saying Fallout New Vegas svcks what im saying is Bethesda should have done a better job at looking at what Obsidian was doing and fixing some things that needed to be fix

now I hope Bethesda learned from this cluster [censored]

now plz don't take this the wrong way Bethesda Pwns at making good game's :celebration: "And I think they know it" :trophy: (or they should) but don't let it go to you head :cryvaultboy:

but in the end there's always going to be problums with a game and or some people are not happy with what was done but that's all ways going to happen

But think on the good side at lest this game was not like Two World's! lol

Uh, I think the spinning head bug was for the PC and it was because of a problem with the Steam cloud.