Well, I'm willing to give it a try, and if I don't like it, I always have modio.

Exactly. The perks will instead be a bit more useful, and you won't use all of the unique ones in just one playthrough.

I hope that most perks have several ranks as well.
That way you can choose to either have 3 semi-powerful perks or 1 really powerful fully upgraded perk

Most of the perks in FO3 really didn't give you too much of an advantage anyway

The way I see it you won't have to decide what lame perks you want because you've already gotten all the good ones

As far as the game ending:

Most games end

I don't see a thing wrong with the game ending

It just means do another character or start back up from where you left off from before you beat the game

Well Roxas, don't know what to tell you, i know i didnt choose to play after the ending in Fallout 1 or 2(dont even think 1 let you play after the ending...) and i liked it that way, hopefully they have the same kind of ending as in 1 or 2, where they tell what happened to all the places...not like in 3

I can understand that, but I don't have many games, and I'm hoping for NV to entertain me as long as possible. BUT, like I said, I always have modio.

What's disappointing to some, is awesome to others. :hubbahubba:

The game having an "ending" doesn't make it entertain for less time. FO3 had an "end", and it didn't stop me at all.... my first playthrough, I hit the Final Mission of the main quest at around 25 hours, did that mission, watched the credits.... and then loaded my save from just before the Final Mission and wandered off into the wasteland exploring for another 50+ hours. No muss, no fuss, no stress. Worked perfectly fine, and didn't need a lousy, game-breaking DLC (yes, I'm talking about BS) to do it.

(And then there were the other five characters I've played since. FO3 has given alot of entertainment..... )

To add my 2 cents into the foray. Remember this is not a Bethesda game. Bethesda usually does the openend games. I was surprised they did it with Fallout 3, but they fixed it when almost everyone complained. (Did Bethesda do this intenionally so people would buy the DLC so the game would continue? I have no idea.)

I would hope this is not the case with New Vegas. Well if they have a DLC that extends the the game after the ending, then we know what they said about not being able to continue after the ending is all bunk.

Well adding less perks means less overpowered characters and just don't finish the last quest and you can free roam as long as you like.

To be honest, the only perk I REALLY hope is in is the 'Animal Friend' perk. It's my absolute favorite perk in the Fallout games.

So you're upset that Obsidian is making good on everything Bethesda promised with Fallout 3, but fell flat on? Personally, I like not being able to see and do everything in a single play through.

You don't need to mod it. Just start another play-through. You have three confirmed groups to join so far for the main quest, and plenty of other things factor in to whether you can do certain sidequests or not. You're not going to do everything in one play-through.

it doesn't matter to me weather how many perks we end up with in NV so long as they offer actual physical benefits like animal friend or (despite how ridiculous it was) nuclear anomaly.

As for a complete ending, i rather enjoy the slides about what i did with my life in the game. my only problem is if it's like F3 where by the time you know the last portion of the quest has come, you are shrouded with the knowledge that it is of vital importance and are given the feel of how if you don't do this then your doomed.

Solution to fewer Perks:

Save game just before you're about to Level Up: Load that game each time to "Test" out the available perks, to see which one is most useful for your play style.

This was useful in Fallout 3, especially for having a separate save just to reference the "Explorer" Perk, revealing all locations, without actually taking that perk for my used character. And testing Cannibal to find out it was pretty much a nearly useless novelty, which didn't even show any gore...

Fewer perks will increase the need to replay the game as a different character. So each character is more unique as already stated.

Agreed. I like a character/build that has distinct strengths and weaknesses. It adds alot of replay value and is fun to role play, which is why I make like a dozen characters. The game ending? It doesnt bother me i just wont do the main quest with alot of my builds, kinda like what I do in the Elder Scrolls games.

My problem with the pre-Broken Steel ending of Fallout 3 is not so much that it ended the game but that it was really stupid and made no sense, so really, what Broken Steel was to me was basically Bethesda's way of saying "Sorry we gave you a really horrid ending to our game and I know we should fire all our writers for that idiot move, but that's all over now, at least we're fixing it in this DLC that will also let you play after the main quest is finished and raise the level cap to compensate for that mistake." So basically it was intended to fix mistakes made with Fallout 3, a fix that would never have been necessary if Bethesda had given us an ending that made sense from the start.

Obsidian decided to have the game have a definite ending, though, and that's fine with me, if they think that the ending they're going wih would be cheapened if you could continue playing after it, I'll trust them on that unless actually playing the game proves otherwise. Just as long as the ending doesn't fail at doing that important thing stories are supposed to do in order to avoid confusing audiences or making them want to bang their heads against the wall until they forget about the stupidity they were just exposed to, that thing you would think most good writers would realize they should do called "Making sense", I'll be fine with the choice. I'd have preferred being able to play after the main quest, but most games don't let me do that, and I still play those games, so it's not like it's a requirement for me to enjoy a game. If I decide there are still things I want to do before finishing the game with a character, I'll just go do those first before going past the point of no return, since what I've heard seems to indicate that the game will make it clear enough when you're about to get to the point where you can't get back out and just have to move on to the ending.

As far as the other things, not being able to get as many perks with one character really doesn't effect my opinion of the game one way or the other, since really, what amount of perks is right for the game really depends on how the game is set up, I want an amount of perks that's balanced for the game, since I haven't played the game, I can't say whether perks every two levels or whatever we get now will be balanced or not. I do have to say this, though, I hope that Obsidian will do a better job at making all perks worth choosing than Bethesda did, since in Fallout 3, there were already perks that were a complete waste to choose, when you get perks less often in New Vegas, you'll want to be more careful about which perks you choose, which will make the less useful ones see even less use. As far as it being much harder to create a character whose good at everything, that sounds good to me, after all, this is an RPG, a genre whose main appeal, to me, has always been creating and developing various different sorts of characters, which is rendered rather pointless if characters are all going to end up being pretty much the same if you play them for long enough, so if Obsidian is making an effort to avoid that, I say good job to them.



The fact that they went with an ending that needed to be retconned for Broken Steel would suggest "no".

Yep. I had no problem with FO3 ending, I had a problem with it ending stupidly.

And Broken Steel was, overall, a bad DLC. Yeah, the story expansions weren't bad, but everything else messed up the game balance - didn't need the 10 more levels (the perks & skills were balanced around 20), the 20+ perks were too powerful, and the "stronger" monsters were obnoxious bullet sponges. I don't even bother installing BS anymore when I play FO3 - I find that it takes away much more than it adds.

With regards to the perks, the originals (Fallout, Fallout 3 and Fallout Tactics) only gave you a perk once every three levels or every four if you took the skilled trait.
As has been mentioned Borked Steel broke Fallout 3's game balance completely and made it far to easy to become a J.O.N.T.M.O.A. (Jack of No Trades, Master of All) which in at least my own opinion goes against what a RPG should be like, as while you should have specialists they should only be specialised in a narrow area and you can also at least with some RPG's create J.O.A.T.M.O.N.'s (Jack of All Trades, Master of None) who do a bit of everything but are outshone by the specialists at least in the specialists specific area's of expertise.

Lastly most as in at least if not more than 90% of games have a hrm brick wall ending, as in you finish the last quest in the game or main quest line and that's it game over, you cannot carry on with that character/playthrough period. Personally I thought that Fallout 3's ending weak as it was, was rendered completely irrelevant by Borked Steel.

Oh god I really hope Skilled Trait is back in New Vegas.

Really I'm fine with them cutting down the perks, I hope now they can give you more fun and specialized perks.

The game ends once the main story is completed? Beth have already admitted that it was a big mistake to do that with Fallout 3 so why are Obsidian doing it with New Vegas? That is pure fail.

http://www.nma-fallout.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=55874

it encourages you to choose your perks more carefully and making it hard to have a blanced character promotes many playthroughs, so I think its fine

I found the difficulty in FO3 to be about the same as the original.