Definitive game end, why? : Fallout: New Vegas

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:27 am

I just finished Fallout new vegas and to my dismay they didn't follow their own advice:

1UP: Can you discuss the decision to have the main quest end the game? Why not let the player wander the Capital Wasteland afterward?

EP: When we originally wrote the main story, your character died at the end. There was really only that one ending. We liked the serious tone of it and felt the theme of sacrifice was really important for what we were doing with the game. But then we realized that, well, not having multiple ways to complete the game was pretty contrary to the spirit of Fallout. So we designed and implemented a few ways to end the game: You can sacrifice yourself inside the purifier, you can have Sarah Lyons go in, or you can just stand there and refuse to do anything (and the purifier complex will blow up around you).

But with each of these, even if the player character doesn't die, the game ends. We'd discussed this, and were like, "You know what? Fallout and Fallout 2 ended. We should end our game, too." What we didn't realize is that, largely because of Oblivion, people really expected Fallout 3 not to end! It's something they've come to expect of us, and we underestimated that. You can be sure it's a mistake we won't repeat in the future.

I know it gives the warning message and all, but it would be more enjoyable to explore the world to see how your actions have altered it rather than making you having to dig around for an older save games after finishing the main story.

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:34 am

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

» Mon May 02, 2011 8:33 pm

You forget that Obsidian was mostly responsible for Fallout: New Vegas, not Bethesda.

» Tue May 03, 2011 3:07 am

I know it gives the warning message and all, but it would be more enjoyable to explore the world to see how your actions have altered it rather than making you having to dig around for an older save games after finishing the main story.

That's the thing. There is a lot of endings, and Obsidian just didn't have enough time to implement them all well.

» Tue May 03, 2011 12:40 am

Just so you know. That quote is by a Bethesda employee. New Vegas was made by Obsidian.

And what he talks about is not that it ends, but because Oblivion didn't end, people assumed Fallout 3 would be the same DESPITE it being a different series.

» Tue May 03, 2011 3:15 am

Yep, you seem to be confusing FO3 with FONV. Both games were known to have a definitive ending well before release. Similar to the fact that many many many other RPGs, and linear story games, have, well, endings. With FO3, which Bethesda developed, there was so much squawking about having the game end - I guess because many of the fans were used to Elder Scrolls games developed by gamesas, which are playable beyond the MQ, that Bethesda went ahead and developed a DLC to allow you to play post-ending.

FONV - Obsidian, the developer, said they said they were telling a story, it has an end, and they were not planning on leaving it open ended. Known well before release. :shrug:

I don't have a problem with a game story that has an "end of game", roll credits thing - if the story is good and the gameplay enjoyable, I'll just roll a new character and continue playing.

» Mon May 02, 2011 11:57 pm

it would be more enjoyable to explore the world to see how your actions have altered it rather than making you having to dig around for an older save games after finishing the main story.

Yes, it would. But it would lead to one of three things:

Something else would not be added or would be broken.
The devs would not have time and resources to implement all impact and would resort to making only some small changes. That would be unrealistic and lead to many more complaints than a definitive ending.
Aftermath for every faction would come as a special DLC. Well, it still might happen.

Besides, lives of wastelanders would change a lot so probably all your unfinished quests would be gone after MQ.

» Tue May 03, 2011 4:50 am

I am glad it ended, but the story imo was lacking ALOT.It left me with more Questions than a video game ending should. Where this game shines is the shear amount of side quest, free quest and random things to do. So with that said. Yes it should have continued after the MQ only because the real meat and potatoes of this game doesnt lie in the MQ, well thats my take of it.

» Tue May 03, 2011 6:56 am

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

Nice thread, I just had a look and it did not automatically make a nice save game at the decision area. I had to load a save game from a quite a while back, I think I'll just start a new character instead if some DLC comes around.

» Tue May 03, 2011 3:40 am

The thing is, this will probably be fixed with upcoming DLC.
Okay.

» Tue May 03, 2011 12:46 am

The thing is, this will probably be fixed with upcoming DLC.

It's not a problem or an error, so the term "fix" is inappropriate.

And I really doubt a DLC will implement freeplay, because it would have to take into account your character's actions and which faction you sided with. A post-game Legion controlled Vegas would have to be vastly different from a post-game NCR controlled Vegas.

Thing is, it's just way too much work to implement properly. The amount of developing that would have to be done would better serve creating an entirely new Fallout game.

» Mon May 02, 2011 7:37 pm

The thing is, this will probably be fixed with upcoming DLC.
Okay.

Obsidian says they have no intention of doing so.

» Tue May 03, 2011 10:36 am

I know it gives the warning message and all, but it would be more enjoyable to explore the world to see how your actions have altered it

Oh, sure. It would be very enjoyable. But your actions will alter it so significantly that they'd need to spend years designing and implementing postgame content. Remember, there's a minimum of five endings you have to take into account for any postgame content, all of them wide-reaching in their ramifications. This isn't something you can handle without an expansion at a minimum or even a full on sequel.

Also, Broken Steel ended up being lame precisely because you do this huge worldchanging act yet outside of a few quests and some water barrels in the citadel, nothing changes. Hells, there's still people sitting around begging for water! :\

rather than making you having to dig around for an older save games after finishing the main story.

They warn you with a big huge message box. Why is it that people forget about that message box?

I am glad it ended, but the story imo was lacking ALOT.It left me with more Questions than a video game ending should.

What are the questions you had?

» Tue May 03, 2011 9:49 am

The main argument for continuing after "the end" seems to be, "The main draw of the game is not the main quest, but all of the side stuff." Why do you insist on doing the MQ first then? It is a case of trying to have your cake and eat it too.

» Mon May 02, 2011 10:58 pm

EVERY sinle thing you do is in the slideshow at the end. It would be impossible to create a world after the battle at hoover dam with all the things you have done to remain there. Some people die, some people leave. If you are independant, you kick out all of the NCR, and you would probably be the first one to complain about it. They gave you plenty or warning that the game will end, so just make another save and go back to it later...

This game was made by Obsisdian, not bethesda. :facepalm: LAWL

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:47 am

Eh.. Obsidian... I don't like them.. Bethesda made a bad move letting them make the game.. -sigh- I'm already bored, where's my dlc?