i dont see why people have to get their panties in a bunch for the '' end '' and broken steel you people get mad when i abruptly ends and then you get mad when broken steel comes out what ever im a modder so i can make it go on after the end so whatever

Good for you. However, the people who AREN'T PC players, what do we do? Personally I want to see a 'good' ending. Maybe Bethesda/Obsidian could make a DLC that let's you continue on. But I think people who don't want an ending should just not complete the final quest.

sorry i was thinking as a pc gamer we pc gamers live in our on world but i have a 360 so i have to think about the 360/console people

The only DLC that "required" the ending to be retracted was Broken Steel. And that was done more to address what a weak failure the original binary "You're a saint/You're a demon" lackluster ending slideshow was. It was an attempt to retcon a weak ending...with another weak ending.

Doesn't that mean the perfect option is to create a few "retirement points" in the game where the player can decide to retire and otherwise allow for open gameplay? I mean, what's the point in a sandbox RPG where you're either asking the player to ignore the current dramatic situation. The narrative is generally something like "the enemy are at the gates with a superweapon, do this now, hurry, HURRY!!!", which essentially means that canine fecal matter has hit the rotating airflow modifier.

Ignoring that to wrap up various misc quests and whatnot seems a bit odd and immersion-breaking. Doesn't matter one bit to the RPG-hating action gamers out there, obviously, but if you're trying to do any sort of RP with your character then that approach is a complete pisstake. Once the MQ hits that stage of urgency, you have to either finish it or stop any pretence of role-playing, which means that even though your character survives, you'll never get to explore all that wasteland out there.

In general terms, I'm a rather big fan of not forcing players' hands one way or another. If players want to roam and explore after finishing the MQ, there's zero good reasons not to let them. If you personally feel that a character has come to the end of the road then simply stop playing him. It worked brilliantly in Morrowind, about as well in Oblivion, and yet it's anathema to 90% of the posters in this topic.

And no, it's not a recipe for overpoweredness because...
1) the MQ is already done and you'd hope a character that beats the MQ isn't going to have severe issues just surviving the more basic wasteland encounters. Walking into an albino radscorpion nest should still be dangerous but there's no reason why it wouldn't be.
2) a level cap and a reasonable skill systems and reasonable perks means characters at the level cap aren't necessarily godlike. Nobody would be complaining about Broken Steel in particular if the 50% more levels had been accompanied by a reduction of 50% to the INT bonus skill points and of course no "almost perfect" perk. Then 10 INT would've meant 15 skill points per level for 29 levels or 435 skill points, as opposed to the 20 * 19 = 380 skill points you'd get without Broken Steel, and your SPECIAL stats would've mattered a whole lot more. Wait, there's also the bugged "semi-immortal" beast companions that you really don't have to use?

As much as I'm sure I'm beating a rotting brahmin corpse senseless, I really don't get why anyone would prefer a forced ending in an open-ended sandbox game. Unless the character actually dies then there's really no reason to force the game to end, is there?

as long as the main store isn′t paced so it feels out of place putting it aside to do side quests I′m fine with it.

Then do not complete the main quest at certain points.

I want my choices to add weight to the ending not just do something amazing and then: Oh you saved so and so, hey do you mind searching the wastes for random crap for my endless fetch quest?

I'd rather have picture slides that tell what happens to the area in years to come and what major players and swingers make it and which ones break it. Its far more story that can be added through slides than just adding minor changes to dialogue and scenery.

To reiterate, its a sandbox game, no ones forcing you to finish the main quest.

As I said, you might as well all role-players out there to go [censored] themselves. It makes zero sense to stop working on an MQ that seems very critical to complete. It quite simply leads to some Oblivion'esque MQ where everybody are talking about how doomed the world is and yet there isn't really a dang thing happening. That's annoying as hell and thus not a good option, is it?


Imagine you being the protagonist of New Vegas. Once you've finished the MQ, what exactly would you envisage yourself doing for the rest of your life? Walking around, all proud of yourself, and expecting everybody to kiss your boots? Or would you be exploring that part of the wasteland that you've heard is fairly pretty (as far as blasted, radiation-damaged wastelands go) but never really had time to visit and experience?


This is why I suggested "retirement points". Once the player moves to a specific structure, give the player the option to retire. The game then calculates what the player has done, who the player has killed, who's still alive, and creates an epilogue based on that. It gives the best of both worlds to everybody.

Alternatively, you could still play the slideshow and simply not lock the character afterwards. Throw in the message box "You're now playing a non-canon fictional alternate reality. Nothing of what you do in this reality will actually matter. Have fun!" and then let people play or not play as they see fit. Doesn't get more simple than that option, does it?


To reiterate, it's a role-playing game, common sense and general immersion very much force my hand regarding what I do and when I do it. The options already tend to be fairly limited as is. Arguing that players must have even less options because action gamers are too used to seeing the credits roll over the screen when they've completed the main objective of the game isn't exactly a strong argument.

frankly I find Vegas main quest is quite good in this way, where 1-3 had MQ that felt very immediate and urgent, Vegas MQ at least at the start sound very vague and open. You just wanna find out why they wanted you dead and what you where carrying worth killing you for. To me that′s the less nose dragging MQ I seen for any Fallout game so far.

That's true. That wouldn't be a strong argument. However, most of the RPGs I've played have ended with the story. So it (ending) is not really solely an "action game thing". :shrug:

And you really are in trouble if can't roleplay with a story and ending. However, if you want to rolepretend (as in being a merc, a raider or whatnot which the game does not recognize), couldn't you just load a save before the ending and pretend there was no loading and that the ending actually happened?

Bethesda had a definite ending, whether it was good or not is open to personal preference. After pages and pages and pages of threads complaining, unfortunately Bethesda gave in and changed the ending with Broken Steel. Until that point any dlcs would have happened before the end. I rather liked the original ending, myself.

As long as the ending isn't "rocks fall everyone [possibly] dies" I'll deal.

NWN was an action game? I disliked the ending there; I wanted to get back and talk to Aribeth again. Baldur's Gate/BG2 were action games? Planescape Torment? Icewind Dale? Fallout? Role-playing games end; sandbox games can manage to finish the main quest and keep playing. I don't think action games have anything to do with making a definite end.

I actually don't mind the fact that it has a definite ending like in Fallout 3, because this time I'll know about it

So when the last mission starts to come up I'll finish all the side missions, collect all the collectables, explore the notable areas of interest, etc., and I'll save that afterwards and finish the game while leaving that save file to mess around in

Then I'll start all over again with a different character layout and role-playing style.

Yes, it should have an ending. One of the things that look forward to most when finishing the older Fallout games were to see the lasting impact that I left on the people, factions, and communities that I visited. I was really disappointed that there isn't a real ending for Fallout 3.

Yes. Yes it should. Period.

And I'm not going to explain why, as likeminded people are sure to have done so already. And besides, those who do not agree probably won't change their minds no matter how much we bash their skulls in.

I still don`t get it why everyone is so tight-assed about the game ending. :facepalm:

Do all you are going to do before beginning/continuing/finishing the main quest. <_<

Well no point really to argue on this further seeing as the ending is stuck, I'm happy with it, maybe they could try a system similar to 'retirement' in FO4 or some other future game. But whats done is done and the only know way wether the ending is truly satisfactory is to play the game ,and wether it will be good or not, it will be disagreed upon.

Owell

I dont like it having definitive ending, but I can live with it

That actually sounds pretty good. Best compromise out there. :tops: :cookie:

People complaining about that it breaks immersion or the roleplaying experience to just stop at the final quest and go do other stuff, what about this:
You play the game, and when you reach the end, you end it. Wow that was hard to do!
Oh? You forgot about 70% of the sidequests?
Well, go create another character then and take on a different role with that one.
Oh you're at the end again? Well finish it up and take on the next character and do what you didn't finish in this run.

Real hard to do huh?
I think some people just get too attached to their characters to let them go.
All that character building, upgrading, looting and stuff is to a waste, you can no longer continue. :sadface:
Now they feel cheated because they've created a person they really like and does not want to let them go.
Well to that I say "get over it".
I learned that with That 70's Show.
I loved the characters and story.
And at the final episode I realized... I'm never going to see this crazy bunch go on new adventures...
It's over...
All I can do is watch the same episodes over and over again but it won't be the same.
It's sad but it has to happen.
Nothing can go on forever.
So learn how to let your characters go, it's an important part of life.

This might get a trifle long...


The point I made was about sandbox RPGs and how it's hardly "in roleplay" to simply delay the MQ almost indefinitely while everybody else are acting like the world will end tomorrow. The Infinity Engine RPGs, NWN, and former Fallout games hardly change that. If Obsidian is making a sandbox RPG then they should allow gamers to roleplay and sandbox or they should redefine their concept somewhat.

I hate the idea of a sandbox RPG that isn't actually allowing you to sandbox without completely ignoring the atmosphere and world situation created to make the MQ feel urgent, essentially meaning that you're no longer RP'ing. If there's a good reason not to keep the game going then fine, I can live with that, but throwing some "and the protagonist lived happily ever after" crap after me while blocking me from playing further? That's fairly cheap, isn't it?


Agreed. That is awesome but why does such an ending have to come the moment you've finished the MQ? At the end of the day, it's really just a number of scripts running in the background that are collecting data regarding living and dead NPCs and the choices you've made with respect to certain quests. Those scripts can run at pretty much any time, can't they? Why does it have to be right when you end the MQ?


The first time I played BG2, I also rushed a bit too much to gather my 15k gold, ended up underneath Spellhold, and was underleveled and poorly equipped. Then I cheated because I really wasn't all that experienced with RPGs back then, but that's a bit of a tangent. Point is, when you're tring to live your way into a story, it seems to me intolerably odd to simply ignore the whole doom and gloom atmosphere for as long as you want, while you're frolicking through the meadows and generally are goofing off in twenty different ways. People are supposedly dying, a war is raging, and you, a good guy, are sitting on your ass or taking a stroll through a forest or raiding raiders to get their precious weapons and ammo to sell for caps so you can drink yourself nobfaced? Really? Nah, I don't think so. Doesn't add up. Isn't even close to adding up. Immersion = ruined. Bummer.

Feel free to try and come up with a scenario where it actually does make any kind of sense that you take a break from the MQ once it's nearing a critical phase. Only option I can think of is to not start the MQ at all, which might still end up being a problem.


That's a fairly arrogant attitude for as long as you haven't provided any skull-bashingingly solid reasoning that explains why the game must irrevocably end once the MQ is completed.


True, there's no changing what is merely by bickering here. However, this is a topic asking specifically what the various users at the gamesas forums feel about forced endings. I'm simply pointing out that I am not pleased about them, that they seem like a lazy option in my eyes unless it's dictated by the story (which FO3's original ending pretty much would've been if radiation-immune companions hadn't acted oddly), and that there's usually ways around that issue.


Thank you.


Why is that option preferable to simply being allowed to continue playing a character that you might have invested a ton of hours into, unless there's actually a solid reason why continuing said character isn't possible?

as I said before, F:NV seam to do just that, have a MQ that doesn′t feels forced to follow.

I just explained that...

Let me bold the parts.

A fair criticism, and I will add that I too liked the ending of Fallout 3 - it was very well done. What I didn't like was that it effectively stopped gameplay at that point. As we could re-load and/or later mod our way around it made the problem go away, so in the end it wasn't any harm. I was however one of those in the camp that was complaining about the ending, at the time it felt like a big deal to alot of peeps.

What is nice is that Bethesda listened to the peeps and actually changed their plans based on feedback. Most companies are not this progressive, and I give huge credit to them for making the changes they made in Broken Steel. Todd Howard has said that one of Bethesda's strengths is that they like to experiment and go after things that other people might not even consider, and I'm sure its one of the reasons why they are so successful. Such experiments do inevitably produce some failures too, but unlike so much of modern American corporate mentality these days, we should support them in the failures as we celebrate them in the successes - punishing failure is not a way to move forward. And yet Bethesda was punished for a long time on the forums for the ending; I can only imagine how thick their skin must be by now, and I hope they don't stop innovating Or stop listening to the peeps - we're chocked full of opinions.

Either way I'll deal just as you will, there is too much goodness about a new Fallout game to be bothered by such tiny details.

Miax

yeah what he said