Oh I agree.
Unfortunately, the only we the "little people", so to speak, have to vote is with our wallet (and trying to change laws via voting, when available). But so far it seems it's difficult to get enough ppl to put their wallet in their pocket to make the big honcho's to listen/notice. I sure would like the price of cereal to fall, but people apparently don't want to go without cereal long enough to make that happen I'd guess the same occurs in entertainment.

I personally like that the game has an end, so for me, there's no problem with the game as it is and I don't think anything needs to "be done" about it. I do understand it's subjective however, and not everyone feels that way. There are games that let you continue after the end.....this particular game, it was decided it would not. As long as this is the case (that there is variety from game to game, genre to genre), I don't see a big problem. It's if ALL games are the same - then I'd start frowning. That is, I don't want all my RPG's to have continues, and I don't want them to all have definitive endings. And so far, they don't. So I don't mind.

Of course there's really no actual way to gather enough players to make a difference, but its nice to dream sometimes. I've obviously accepted that the developers have all the power in this situation but I find it fine to voice my opinion. After all developers aren't evil CEO's or anything, they take pride in there work and they love to listen to gamers opinions so why not get them out there :happy:

By making new games and not dilly-dally on pointless [censored] like making a DLC that lets you play after then end. Bowing down to player demands is NOT the way forward.

Why would we just keep pumping out new games and hope that's the solution, of course I worry about my DLC seeing how the smallest details can make or break a game sometimes. If ya never stop to smell the roses once in awhile then what are you really gonna learn about those roses
I agree though demands aren't gonna change a thing but make non-imaginable games, we should give our developers freedom but still get some of our popular opinions in. This way if they can't fix it today they'll always remember it for the future.

You do realize this isn't the first thread talking about/asking for/demanding a DLC that allows you to continue the game right? There have been literally hundreds of them since the games release. So before you accuse everyone else for not "pressuring the developers into it", please do your research. :wink_smile:

PS- They're the developers, if they don't want to make it, they don't have to, and if people keep telling them and/or demanding they do it, all they have to do is tell you to go play another game if you don't like it. Simple as that.

Of course there's hundreds of threads talking about, I know for a fact at least half of the Fallout players want a continued ending. What I was talking about was that we don't come together as a group and get the numbers of the developers (gamers are unorganized).

And concerning your p.s I have to fully disagree with your statement, the developers rely on our revenue without it no money, no company, no job. So telling gamers to go play another game because they want there opinions incorporated in to the game would be a really bad business move on there part and believe me these guys aren't oblivious.

If they're complaining about it, chances are they already paid for the game, unless of course they decide read the reviews, but with how people are now adays I really doubt that would happen.

If all boils down to 9 simple words. If you don't like it, you can lump it.

Funny thing, facts. They usually have to have some concrete base to them, kinda like a building. No base, the building falls down. So, I'm wondering, where's the basis for your "fact"? Can you please point me to a published poll, or article that refences one? Or will your building fall down?

-gunny out.

Well with the way our economy is these days there's no doubt in my mind most people can only get a game here and there like myself. And when you can only pick one game every once in awhile you do your research and make sure your getting what you want what you really want.
So in the end what are people gonna pick the game that developers designed in to what they wanted and told everyone "If you don't like it, you can lump it". Or are they gonna pick the game that has there interests in it, and they can clearly see the developers are interested in the players opinion.
Kinda common knowledge. If your a jerk people are gonna tell you to go bite it, so it would be in developers interest to gain the trust of the gamer.

Well if you read right it say's I KNOW FOR A FACT....I....get it....Me, This guy, over here. If i said "its a well known fact" I would understand your argument but in reality I do now for a fact half of the players want a continued ending just from general discussion and reading articles. :thumbsup:

Yes, but therin lies the hole in your arguement. Even if people can only buy a game once in a while, some are too lazy or just dont want to do the research, and then complain about it.

In all honesty, why would they be the jerks? They gave you an answer, they told you why they came to that conclusion, gave you a pile of facts including but not limited to; the complicity of it, the variables, and why they came to a consensus saying "this is how we (key word here) want this game to end as developers.". All of this given to us and STILL people badger, demand, and otherwise flame the developers for not giving them what they want, and they have been nothing but exemplary at holding their tounges, playing "nice" and otherwise repeating what they've said umpteen million times just for the customer's sake. There comes a time, sometimes, when the needs of one have more weight than the needs of the many.

So tell me again, how are they the jerks if they suddenly told people something along the lines of "If you don't like it, you can lump it", when they have been nothing short of extraordinary at handling the level of flaming coming from these ignorant children.

EDIT - Not directing the last portion of my post to you or anyone in particular, just making a generalization of the flaming that's been going on since Day 1 because people aren't getting what they want.

EDIT 2 - Addition to the last secion: If it's disheartening to me, as a future Video Game Programmer and Designer, when I think about how these people are today and how the people will likely be in the future, imagine how these guys feel. :confused:

Very true.

They wouldn't read it and we would still get these threads.

More likely than not, sadly.

You make a good point but I was talking about developers in general and what could be done about it or maybe what should be done about it. I've already accepted the fact the ending will never change, Obsidian already had there plans and I don't expect them to change it no matter how hard we hold our breath :S . I was trying to get the point across that we need to be on the developers coattails, annoying them and reminding them of what we the majority of players want. If you liked the ending then I would expect you to defend that and make it come across to the developers that it was a fine job and the majority of players like it better. Come Fallout 4 all this banter and debating is gonna come into consideration and I for one am glad I voiced my opinion because I want my Fallout game to end that way, so I don't consider this post just "another" I consider it my opinon of the situation. If someone had the same debate yesterday or a few days ago in a different thread then power to them, how else will developers know what we the player want and maybe need in our games.

Annoying the Devs only takes time away from them that that could be using to MAKE the game. there's so many people that want so many conflicting that's that if they listened to all of them the game would never get finished. If they give into the needs of one person they would have to give into the needs of all to be fair, since no one persons want is greater then another, which would stall the Dev process.

The fact is we should let devs make the games they want to becuase when there making the games they want the can put more time and effort into it and make it a better experience. If you don't like it then don't buy it, plenty of other people will.

Also the thing is the Majority of players DON'T CARE about the game being open-ended. 90% of RPGs aren't, and no one complains about those. People who want open ended RPGs are in fact the minority.

Alright I give up on this thread, It's obvious you guys aren't reading my posts thoroughly because I've had to re-explain myself over like fifteen times now and you come back with a conflicting post that puts words in my mouth (Not all of you). I hope that this debate will carry on after this thread and will show Obsidian to make Fallout 4 without a complete ending (Just like they did the elder scroll games). And if so many people are posting this topic everyday as all of you keep putting it then where's the minority in that. I've actually heard a hell of a lot more complaints about the ending then complements, so who do ya thinks gonna get there way. Us loud, slightly annoying gamers who want to continue on after the end, or you silent, don't care kind of gamers who like the ending.

Peace

Obsidian DIDN'T MAKE THE ELDER SCROLLS GAMES NOR DID THEY MAKE FALLOUT 3 BETHESDA DID.

Obsidian =/= Bethesda

All of Obsidian's previous games had a defiant ending, holding them to a standard that they have never been know for is stupid.

The only time post-ending gameplay would be at all worth it was if the Mojave actually changed based on your decisions. Now is that a realistic idea? I mean look at FO3. They basically found a cop-out loophole where both endings happen exactly the same, the only difference being that if you chose the bad ending, some doctors have extra dialog.

Making changes specific to your ending would be about as much work as making New Vegas to begin with, so it's not likely. Sure maybe Caesar would be easy: Kings will just die, Great Khans are assimilated, BoS is already dead etc, but imagine making an NCR ending. Kings could be allies or an extinct threat, same with Boomers, same with BoS, same with FoTA, same with Khans....EVERY group can ally with or oppose the NCR, each in their own unique way. You may be thinking "still doesn't sound like much," but they've also gotta add new QUESTS to keep the Mojave fresh and give the post-end gameplay a purpose.

It's just way too much. And I mean, again, look at the changes between the C.W. before and after Broken Steel. Water caravans, doctors might comment, purified river water, crates everywhere and 4-5 new quests aside from the main one. Doesn't feel THAT different.