No Open Endings for Fallout: New Vegas
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
Actually, even though you could keep playing after the ending in Oblivion, you were better off loading a save from just before the ending.MiracleOfSound said:
Because when you finish up the story, the oblivion gates vanish and the rest of the world remains the same.
Basically, you lose places to explore.
Woah woah woah, wait a second here. You expect Obsidian to fix what was "fucked up" about Fallout 3, and list those as the issues?Psychosocial said:
-VATS isn't changed. The only notable addition is that melee gets sectional choices again.
-You're nuts, I think you never went exploring. The environments were brilliantly crafted. Prime examples being Hamilton's Hideaway and Dunwich Building. Or the entirity of Point Lookout.
-Conversation system is the same, as it's a Gamebryo game.
-Okay, this WILL be corrected, as Obsidian is still great with stories.
-Unless you're computer completely blew or you stupidly played it on the PS3, hyperbole alert! Oblivion is notorious as one of the most crash-tastic games ever to grace PCs. FO3 fixed almost all the issues, and suffers only the rarest crash.
Now if you complained that the game suffered from a limited scope of how to solve situations, you'd be right. The original Fallouts had almost as much freedom to progress through as Deus Ex did. Or the fact Bethesda screwed up Tag skills and skillbooks, which modders fixed on day one.
Oh why am I wasting my breath, I know any thread about New Vegas will devolve into bitching about Fallout 3.
Yes, but those games were years ago - ask anyone, Obsidian are not a sign of quality. They're a sign of good ideas, yes.Psychosocial said:
Of quality? Of a finished product? No.
Anything they've made as Obsidian has been broken and (in the case of KotOR 2 and NWN 2) not lived up to the games' predecessors.
And no, of course I didn't; that's not the only alternative though. They could easily have said "we liked what Bethesda did, although if we'd have done it we'd have probably done it like this".
Trust me: Obsidian. Will. Fuck. It. Up.
What's the point of giving an open sandbox game a quest where the game ends? Sure I can see a "Main Plot Line", I could even buy the whole "You *might* not survive it"-ala Mass Effect 2, but to structure the story in such a way that the game flashes the big "GAME OVER" screen regardless of what choices you make just seems dumb.
So this time they warn you that the game is ending and it's nice enough to load a savestate right before you start the mission. Talk about missing the point.
Since all games are supposed to come with pre-made DLC to be sold, what's the point of killing the story like this. Sure there might be some replay value, but not very much.
So this time they warn you that the game is ending and it's nice enough to load a savestate right before you start the mission. Talk about missing the point.
Since all games are supposed to come with pre-made DLC to be sold, what's the point of killing the story like this. Sure there might be some replay value, but not very much.
Why?! Why is the fact that Fallout 3 had a complete and defined ending such a problem with all you people? I swear, people complain over the most moronic things!
For instance, when Mass Effect's DLC came out, people actually whined about the fact that you could only access those missions during the portion of the game when you TOOK COMMAND OF YOUR SHIP AND COULD DECIDE WHERE YOU COULD GO! The number 1 complaint coming from people who started the final mission. I guess they didn't recognize that the final mission had the word "FINAL" in it. Prompting some obnoxious jerks to see Mass Effect 2's post credit roaming as Bioware "learning their lesson". Why? There's nothing you can do after the credits roll that you can't do before. What are you gonna do, mine every single planet for upgrades you didn't need for battles that aren't going to happen?
Let's look at another example, Saint's Row. You should have seen the legion of crybabies that popped out when that game's final mission (which was just a cutscene) ended with what appeared to be your character's death. "Now we can't get %100 completion!" IT WAS JUST A CUTSCENE! Go back to your previous save if you need to do that so badly!
And going back to Fallout 3, the open ending actually hurts the game instead helps it. It doesn't even show the credits, and Ron Perlman's speech at the end has absolutely no purpose now. It would have been so much better if Broken Steel was brought on as the new ending. But I guess that doesn't make me a "true Fallout fan" and if that's the case, I don't want to be.
So I have a message to everyone at Bethesda and Obsidian working on Fallout: New Vegas, and I really hope you're reading this. DO NOT CAVE THIS TIME! If you want the game to end, then end it!
Well that felt good.
For instance, when Mass Effect's DLC came out, people actually whined about the fact that you could only access those missions during the portion of the game when you TOOK COMMAND OF YOUR SHIP AND COULD DECIDE WHERE YOU COULD GO! The number 1 complaint coming from people who started the final mission. I guess they didn't recognize that the final mission had the word "FINAL" in it. Prompting some obnoxious jerks to see Mass Effect 2's post credit roaming as Bioware "learning their lesson". Why? There's nothing you can do after the credits roll that you can't do before. What are you gonna do, mine every single planet for upgrades you didn't need for battles that aren't going to happen?
Let's look at another example, Saint's Row. You should have seen the legion of crybabies that popped out when that game's final mission (which was just a cutscene) ended with what appeared to be your character's death. "Now we can't get %100 completion!" IT WAS JUST A CUTSCENE! Go back to your previous save if you need to do that so badly!
And going back to Fallout 3, the open ending actually hurts the game instead helps it. It doesn't even show the credits, and Ron Perlman's speech at the end has absolutely no purpose now. It would have been so much better if Broken Steel was brought on as the new ending. But I guess that doesn't make me a "true Fallout fan" and if that's the case, I don't want to be.
So I have a message to everyone at Bethesda and Obsidian working on Fallout: New Vegas, and I really hope you're reading this. DO NOT CAVE THIS TIME! If you want the game to end, then end it!
Well that felt good.
My guess is that most of the people bitching about this never played the first two games. It sounds to me (or at least I'm hoping) that New Vegas will be more like the original 2 games, but with the graphics of FO3. The most obvious thing being an actual meaningful ending screen. I could echo all the similar comments above, but I won't.
FO3 was less a sequel to FO2 than it was "Elder Scrolls 5: Fallout." It was a great game, and I played through it twice. But it wasn't really true to the series.
FO3 was less a sequel to FO2 than it was "Elder Scrolls 5: Fallout." It was a great game, and I played through it twice. But it wasn't really true to the series.
I'm torn on this. Fallout 3 was an awesome game, Bethesda did a great job interpreting the setting into its classic RPG formula. But Obsidian... the days of Black Isle are long gone and Obsidian has quite literally fucked up everything it's touched since then. There are flashes of brilliance everywhere, but the studio just can't seem to pull it together.
But maybe Bethsoft's oversight will help with that. I hope so.
But maybe Bethsoft's oversight will help with that. I hope so.
My guess is they plan to add DLC to unlock an open ending, just like they did with Fallout 3. Probably because it made them buckets of cash.MiracleOfSound said:
It does make me think the ending will be pretty final in any case. Another life or death thing.
KotOR 2 was rushed, and was still a good game. Not as good as KotOR, but if your expectations were reasonable it was fine. Except for the end, but again, they were rushed. As for NWN 2, that game did have a lot of problems, but if you play the expansion MotB, they fixed almost all of them. They very obviously learned from NWN 2's problems. Alpha Protocol's main problems were things that aren't going to be much of an issue since they're using someone else's engine.Woodsey said:
Basically, yes they have a fairly poor track record, but the reasons for these things are unlikely to matter with Fallout: New Vegas. Obsidian's getting a chance to focus almost entirely on it's strengths, dialogue and story, which makes me very excited for this game. The fact that a fair portion of the studio worked on previous Fallout titles is glorious icing on this cake.
"That sux! Fallout is about running through the wastes shooting stuff. Why are they putting all this story faggotry in Fallout?"
Wow, just wow. I don't think I've ever read a collection of words brought together to form a more idiotic sentence.
Wow, just wow. I don't think I've ever read a collection of words brought together to form a more idiotic sentence.
Or you could really get into the "role-play" aspect and pretend you're seeing a premonition of the future, and you know what must ultimately be done for all of humanity.tellmeimaninja said: