Am I reading this right?

I know people are debating over the stories in Fallout 3 and New Vegas, but remember this: New Vegas is basically Van Buren. They were developed by the same people, have similar characters and ideas, set in the same place (Mojave Desert). Obsidian had years to develop this idea, while Fallout 3 was honestly just put together in a few years. Needless to say, Obsidian had more time to put into the game, because they had much of the game already done when they made Van Buren.

New Vegas is far from Van Buren. Yes they did take ideas from it, but they made many changes to them. Also have to remember Bethesda had years to work on Fallout 3 while they only gave Obsidian a fraction of that time. Its not like Bethesda didn't have Fallout and Fallout 2 to study from. They pretty much just went right to the footnotes. They just took what they thought was "cool" from Fallout and Fallout 2 and shoehorned them into Fallout 3 without thinking of how it would really work. Doesn't seem that anyone that worked on Fallout 3, played the games, to see how they worked.

You're arguing gameplay, not storyline. Being able to use your character as much as you want is a gameplay benefit, not a storyline one. Plus in the process of giving that gaemplay benefit, they ruined their story. The story becomes inconsistent because the old ending no longer makes sense with what you're seeing.


And this is where all the debate starts. Bethesda focuses on gameplay and will do anything to improve it, Obsidian focuses on their lore and stays completely loyal to it. Normally you'd think "well more gameplay focus = better game," but the problem is that one could argue story is equally as important to gameplay (if not more) when it comes to the RPG-genre, since the story effects everything about your character. You're basing your character on the world around you and making decisions based on that world, and if the world is incredibly inconsistent and choices lack any real value, then it's hard to properly develop a character. In this case, BS ruined Enclave playthroughs entirely; it stuck the last nail in the coffin.

I'd also argue that BS just plain broke the gameplay too. Since it added a slew of bullet sponge enemies that are completely out of place in the wastes. Breaking the already bad balance.

For some of us it is.

Any time there is a choice of endings there's going to be problems in story. I might have decided Eden was right and put the fev in the water, but the canon ending made that choice moot. Therefor my choices made no difference. Since my choices make no difference in the ongoing story why should I give two cents about it.

In new vegas I did all four endings with the same character and neglected some of the minor factions. None of them were concluded to my satisfaction. I didn't like any of the endings so therefor, in my opinion, the writing in new vegas was as poor as it was in fallout 3. Whats worse is the utter lack of content once you make the trip to vegas. You leave a barren empty world behind you, especially if you try to become idolized by the people in the towns you pass through, so going back later is a waste of time. All you are left with are a few raiders and some legion soldiers to murder repeatedly. (Which I admit can be entertaining at times.)

Thank goodness there are mods that add stuff to do to these things. Otherwise I'd have deleted them from my computer already.

Fallout 3 needed broken steel. It's like 2 huge factions going at each other and they had like 2 quest that involved the enclave. They should of included the enclave more in the main QL so broken steel made it so much better. IMO that is.

Cheers

Which is pretty sad . You do know Fallout New Vegas is an RPG right? So from what you are saying.. You don't like that there are alot of options. More options means more replayability. More realistic and a much better ROLE PLAYING GAME.

Pretty much why video games are being dumbed down even more with every passing year is because there are less and less people that want to use their brain.



But like I said by adding more Enclave content (Broken Steel) they ruined the point of the Enclave even being in the game in the first place, which ruins the point of the game.

But since there is alot of shiny things and things that go BOOM! I guess it doesn't matter

1: Yeah. It is really sad, but only because NV is a role-playing game. RPG=All about the story/writing/living world. Anything else(Gameplay, balance, aesthetics) is secondary. I think video games are being dumbed down because they're no longer the pastime of the "intellectual" and more the pastime of "everybody". I just hope even somewhat decent RTS & RPG still get made. It's saddening to go to a video game store and find absolutely nothing that appeals.

2: Broken Steel was a merciful DLC. It mercifully finished off a game which reminded me of a [censored] spider with no fangs & five broken legs. Broken Steel dealt the final, merciful, blow and put the spider out of it's misery.

@Tlantl: But the advantage of New Vegas is that it doesn't tell you which ending is canon. In Fallout 3, the game repeatedly forces you along this set path and tells you that "BoS victory" is canon. In New Vegas, there is no giant flashing sign telling you that "NCR victory" is canon.

-Nukeknockout

I understand that the ending to Fallout 3 was bad. That Broken Steel did make for a more conclusive ending of sorts. But it ruined the story and the plot. The entire game right up to the point were broken steel starts is now rendered meaningless, moot and pointless. So yeah we got a "better ending" and the cost of completely destroying the rest of the story.

Not true. Alan Moore's "the watch men" had a charector named Doctor Manhatten, he said, "Nothing ever ends."

In life, one damn thing after another happens with very few large amounts of closure, and many small amounts.

That's why the ending is the hardest thing to do. Just saw frightnight. Great movie, decent ending. No spoiler, wont tell you what happened, but will tell you that it's hard when you get people so invested, to ease them out of your film.

Games are the same way. They could do another, they wont but they can. I wouldn't care if conflicts with anything.

In away Fallout never ends, because war never changes.

Still each game needs to end. (multiple endings based on our actions)

The worst thing about F3 was how it ruined the enclave's grayness(if u visited the enclaves oil rig u will know what i mean) and the enclave didnt had another super soldier like frank horrigan; no, instead its the brootherhood of steel, who suddently stoped careing about energy weapons, that have a super robot soldier-optimus prime.

Without it the brootherhood of steel woud be lost, which brings the question, why didnt John Henry Eden told u to somehow sabotage Optimus Prime? Because he didnt know, which is stupid seeing how the enclave has acess to everything the government had, and u should be able to tell him, to make the enclave joinable like a true fallout game should.

They dummed the enclave so bad, and the Brootherhood of Steel too, if not even worse.

The brootherhood, who apparantly used to be true to themselthes a good thirty years, when they raided the pitt(its stated by the brootherhood outcasts′ leader whose name i cant recall), are know the knights in shinning armor of the capital wastes who do a preety bad job at killing the leaderless, incredably stupid super mutants. ′They are know the whitest thing in all of Fallouts.

In BS the dlc that kills the story and plot:
-The BoS became slavers to anyone who whishes to have clean, radiation free water.
-The enclave had a orbital strike that for some reason they didnt use on optimus or the citadel soner.
-The bullet sponge enemies [censored] up EVERYTHING in their way and are a lot harder for a small guns playthrough then they are in big guns playthroughs
-...

Yeah, all of those other enclave/BoS oddities aside, this one thing truly ruined the game for me, with Broken Steel. Going into the sewers or into super mutant zones was no longer any fun, as you knew it would always quickly turn into a crazed, insane frenzy of melting down your gunbarrels and using up 2/3 of your ammo and all of your explosives just to kill a couple of overpowered bullet-sponge sons of beaches.... and then after healing up and going another 100 feet, do a full repeat... and so on. Totally stupid. And out in the open, it was scads of albino giant scorpians. You basically couldn't go anywhere anymore, without always running into these dumb-arsed creatures that were astoundingly unfun to deal with. Great work, that.

The majority of the player-base want to keep playing after the end of the main story. If you think it ruins the game for you to keep playing after the end, don't. It's that simple.

The 'majority'? Where'd you pull that quessword out of? No, on second thought, don't tell me.

Actually, I would love to be able to continue playing a given char after the official end of the game- provided the developer is given plenty of time and funding to do it right, basically doing an entire second game on top of the first one, with all of the quests (and new quests that would be required), and NPC dialogue, and physical changes to the gameworld and its population required by the completion each of the four different official endings being lovingly scripted in after the current endpoint of the game. Yes, under that condition, I'd join this group you claim is a majority. But if it means something like that turd named Broken Steel which hosed up what goodness there was to be had in FO3, then I'll pass. Or any kind of half-baked afterthought work that just lets you continue playing on in a world that is unrealistically unaffected by your endgame choice.

This forum is the vocal minority. By majority I mean the entire playerbase of New Vegas in general. Bethesda said the most important thing they ever learned from making Fallout 3 was to never make another definitive ending for an RPG again.

I spend alot of time on this forum and the Fallout community here is pretty well split on the idea. I would say its more like 65% for there being an ending and 35% for having play after the end. Keep in mind this is people that are fans of the series. Not people that don't know anything about the series coming in and complaining that the game will end.

Also go take a look at other Fallout forums. Many of them want there to be endings. You would be hard to find people wanting play after the end on other none Bethesda run forums.

So there really isn't a majority of people out there wanting play after the end.

If you mean fans in general, you're wrong. If you mean the vocal minority, then you are right. The people who actually spend time online talking about video games (like us) usually have very different opinions from the silent majority.

If that's the most important thing they learned from FO3, then they need tutoring. What they should have learned from the original FO3 ending, is not to make a stupid, unbelievable, head-scratching ending. And to make options for choosing different endings with different joinable factions. An RPG is about story, so if you're going to make an ending (which of course, you have to at some point), make it(them) interesting and fun to be a part of.

We are the people that care the most about the series. We take the time to go on the internet and talk about it. There are other Fallout forums out there as well. We are the fans of the series. You could get everyone on the TES forums and other Bethesda games (that haven't played any Fallout game) and ask them "Do you want play after the end for Fallout 4?" I am sure you would get 100% people saying yes.

Does that mean Bethesda should do it? IMO no because those people aren't fans of Fallout series. Sure it might get them to want to play Fallout 4. But it will piss off those that have been playing Fallout since Fallout 1.

So the majority of Fallout fans don't want play after the end.

Yeah true, I really only enjoyed danger from above quest. This talking makes me want to go play!

Cheers

We do, huh? Well, if they are silent, then how exactly do we, or YOU, know just what they are thinking? Have you gone out and polled more than 1 or 2 of them? Maybe 1000 or so of these FO-playing non-forum-posting players, so you have any kind of leg to stand on when you wrongly speak for any 'majority'? All we can be sure of at all, is that it is a majority of you. And opinions are like.... ayup. We all got one.

No. There shouldn't be another New Vegas DLC. Lonesome Road summed it up quite well. That is if you took the time to listen to Ulysses, and exhausted the DLC of every bit of info it has.

Fallout 3 could use another DLC, but it would never ever happen. Bethesda is done with FO3.

Edit: If you don't appreciate the end of New Vegas and the way it works, then you'd might as well count out FO and FO2? The ending to Fallout New Vegas and how it was set up was that the Courier could make a LOT more of a difference in the Mojave than the Lone Wanderer could in D.C. With the way F.O.N.V is set up, there is no possible way you would be able to insert a Broken Steel-like DLC. If they did somehow, like a lot of the people here have said, it would entirely ruin the game.

Fallout 3 was a diversion from the rest of the fallout games, and if you only like it, and dislike the how the rest are set up, then you aren't really a Fallout fan. New Vegas is just following the example of the old fallout games, which I think were great and essential to the series

FO3 had bad writing ? you must be smoking something...FO3 was way more popular and a way better game...hands down...FO3 had it all. suspsense, drama, action....the enclave taking over the purifier, getting kidnapped by the enclave, having to escape raven rock, the enclave showing up after the waters of life quest, taking the purifier back...those were all epic dramatic moments in the story... new vegas didn't have any of that...so you're high if you think its story was better...and besides...the story is just one element of a game...in new vegas nothing respawns really...the map is empty...nothing to really explore except small shacks and tiny little caves that took like 10 seconds to explore...new vegas was 20 dollars less than 2 months after it came out, thats a reflection on game sales...the only reason it sold a lot of copies initially was because of the success of FO3.