1 As I've said I'm all for it and I consider it a win-win, but a considerable amount of people just want to forcibly mutate Fallout into TES, that's why there is so much indignation among certain members on here (me included).

There's no compromise, there's little deliberation and almost no consideration for what Fallout was only what the BGS experience is and how this can be interpolated into a Fallout title.

I noticed the moderator's message essentially objurgating a member for saying everything is wrong unless it's their interpretation of Fallout (I'm paraphrasing), but there's a considerable amount of people that only want Fallout to mimic the "Skyrim experience" and any deviation to something even tenuously mimicking the original ethos is seen as repellent (ending slides a definitive ending etc) in other words TES totalitarianism or stroll playing game supremacy.

This sums up the reason so many, not all, enjoyed New Vegas with me included. People can easily accept that this is not the Elder Scrolls but something different. Not Skyrim with guns. Simply, Fallout.

Heres a thought, why not just dont play the slideshow after the main quest is completed. Make it a choice to end the game like the really old school RPG'S had, like remember in sid meier's pirates how you could just choose to retire after you just started the game? Just have an area where you can simply retire, walk off into the sunset or whatever and then it plays the slideshow showing your accomplishements (or lack there of depending on how much you actually accomplished) putting the player in control of when his / her story ends.

Plus an option would be humorous explaining how the vault dweller just said "screw this" right after leaving the vault and decided to wander off somewhere completely different leaving the residents of Boston to their fate's.

One of the goals of Fallout's creators was to bring out the pencil-and-paper RPG experience as much as possible. Well, pencil-and-paper RPGs don't end when the mission is done.

Yet Fallout 1 had a definitive ending

The goals part is true. The latter part depends on the GM and the agreed upon framework. We had many sessions back in the day where there was a specific goal to reach (for that particular character).

Funny to see again that the "true" Fallout Fans, don't consider Fallout 2 as a Fallout game.

Who said that (explicitly or implicitly) ?

I even suggested that Fallout 4 should mimic Fallout 2's ending that let the player continue past the MQ but their actions had no influence or reflection on the story.

they should let you contunue play after the end like fallout 3 and skyrim obsidian was being lazy with that ending of NV

Not talking about you. You know my preference which is pretty much the same (at least if you where following the previous thread).

Perhaps the game doesn't really have to end after the main quest.

Maybe you could play it 'all over' again from the perspective of a faction or similar. Imagine being a raider and having raider specific quests where you pray on travelers, set up ambushes, senselessly kill everyone any everything that's not you, attack small settlements in order to enslave the population, assassinate your boss to take his role and expand your horror trough the wasteland. It could act as a faction war or something that only ends when either your faction dies or everyone else's does. This could in theory go on forever and would not give that whole "I'm sad that it's all over" feeling you may get once an awesome game has ended. Now you could continue as a brotherhood of steel, a traveling merchant, a raider or anything you basically desire. It would be set in the same world except that you would never meet the protagonist in the main story, other than hearing about him and his 'general' actions from afar.

I'd argue it's more lazy to just drop the player hastily back in after a final "boss/event" than it is to craft a branching and reactive conclusion that ties in the narrative strings the player has chosen to pull during the game.

No its wrong because it made no sense. Sure, Bethesda can change anything they want and none of us can stop them. I agree with you on that. But doing that makes it no longer a Fallout game.

I mean, Its simple logic. If you take one thing, and change it so it doesn't resemble what it once was it is now a completely new thing right? Bethesda can slap whatever name they want on their abomination but it'll never be a real Fallout game.

I for one prefer a end, both Oblivion and Skyrims endings felt kinda meh when ya just kept on trecking once it was all said and done.

But I won't cry tears if that's not the case.

Then you have the right to not play it, since it isn't a Fallout game in your opinion. There is still no reason to take any hostility felt towards Bethesda and the "desecration" of Fallout out on other posters.

However, whatever your feelings and opinions might be, Bethesda still has the right to call the game Fallout. They bought it. They are making a Fallout game, according to their ideas. I don't know whether Interplay/Black Isle still has a forum or not, but that would be one place you could rage, since that company was the one that sold the ip.

If you feel the game is an abomination, why are you even bothering with it in the first place? Why come to a forum where people are posting their opinions, good/bad/indifferent about a game you've already deemed "abomination"? The newest players might have the exact opposite opinion, that turn-based isometric Fallout is the out-dated game. They have the right to post their opinion, as long as they post within the forum rules. So do you, as long as the posts aren't flaming others or otherwise breaking the forum rules.

Do you want a forced rollback?

This sentance does not make any sence to me.. What is it that you are asking?

Also: Points up to what Talaran said and nods.

New game plus would be super fantastic imo..

So Fallout 2 isn't a Fallout game?

I would prefer to coninue after the main quest. Especially if the main quest is as diappointing as FO3. "He pushed a button because he was basically Jesus, and stuff happened. The End." or "He didn't push the button because he was a total dike. And things happened. The End."

I want more than that. I'm fine with the game having an ending, but it has to be a proper one. Damnit.

This is the second time you post that. What are you going for with it?

Fallout 2 is definitely a Fallout game. A very good one. However, while they handled the non-rollback gracefully, you still are somewhat in a state of limbo, considering you can't fully comprehend the changes that happened.

FO2 is my favorite of the originals, but I think that 1 handled the ending better. That's my opinion on that matter.

鈥婽his is still the official Fallout forum is it not? I may not like Bethesda's games but that doesn't mean I don't care about the series. However, I will apologize for my earlier rudeness. I can be a bit testy at times.

鈥?/p>

鈥婦on't even start Sesom. The changes in Fallout 2 are changes any sequel would have to keep the game fresh. Fallout 3 changed the very foundation on which the game is built. Its nowhere near the same.

A rollback is when you are being "rolled back" in your progression.

In New Vegas' case it forced the player to to either go back to an older save or quit the game, therefor a forced rollback.

I just asked if you wanted it or not.

I want to keep playing after finishing the main quest.

That's a nice idea. Kinda solves the dilemma really.

It's a shame that a "true" Fallout game would be unable to support a studio. Quite evident in the way the original creators went bankrupt and had to sell the IP off. They knew what the problem was and were planning a new format(van buerin) when they went under.

Truth be told Bethesda does not really make Fallout games according to yours,others, heck even my own definition. What they do make is an open world game set in the Fallout universe. Getting so close to what the original was that it diminishes the open world that Bethesda is known for is not a good strategy for continued success and they would not even consider it so it's rude to ask.

Linear games end. Bethesda makes the one game in the industry that is the farthest you can get from linear. That is Beth's style and they should not be asked to compromise it.

http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/82/61/f5657ea6e8a5225a9c0c692817d5bf5c-micdrop07.gif