http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1519888-about-continuing-the-game-after-the-main-quest-is-over/%20stee_vo

continuing...

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1519888-about-continuing-the-game-after-the-main-quest-is-over/?p=24021834

I sight again the fact that Black Isle went bankrupt. Call it poor management if you like but that only speaks about the game of Fallout itself.

Bethesda started with 6 people too and a seriously niche game but they successfully evolved to be successful. With that success they purchased a dying IP and are making their way the only way they know how. But that's just a little bit more than the fallout fans will allow. (sorry i couldn't resist)

Truth is you should be respectful of Bethesda's integrity(they gotta do what they do) and thankful to them for saving Fallout from a fate worse than death by keeping out of the hands of companies like EA and not lending it for use in an MMO.

1 How so?Bad management is not reflective of the game that is being superintended by the publisher.

Put me in charge of the next Call of Duty and it would probably plummet in sales regardless of it's quality.

2 Bethesda almost went bankrupt as well, and again what does sales illustrate other than a developer/publisher's cupidity?It's definitely not quality, if it was Call of duty would be an objectively better series than Fallout and TES combined.

3 I'm not convinced Bioware would have done an inferior job than the TES Fallout game Beth made.Also Troika submitted a bid for the Fallout IP and Bethesda outbid them, Troika at the time was led by Tim Cain who created the Fallout series.Bethesda didn't save Fallout from anything, other than returning to the people who originally created it.

If you guys like turn based games, maybe you should play turn based games, like the previously mentioned Disagea or games like Wasteland 2, Underrail, or Pillars of Eternity.

Posting on a forum about how its so wrong that this one game is a completely different genre than what you like and that it should be changed into something that you do like just strikes me as really strange. Bethesda isnt the only game in town, there are a whole bunch of developers out there that make all different kinds of games for different kinds of people. It makes a lot more sense to find a developer that you like instead of constantly trashing a single developer for not catering to you.

For what? The 6 or so months before Troika went under for failing to have done anything that sold for quite some time?

While I do agree with the rest of your post, even if Troika had gotten it, all it would have done is delay when Bethesda got it by a few months.

Who said anything about turn based games?

We have no idea what would have happened if they managed to secure the IP.

I'm not avoiding your point, they could have still went bankrupt.But owning the IP may have lead to other avenue sources and publishing deals hypothetically.

Well when you say you want a game that isnt a open world Bethesda game, what do you mean? Is it the latest Fallout game or Wasteland 2?

When did I say this?You do realize Fallout: New Vegas is my favorite fallout game, right?

I'm seriously wondering if you've paid attention to any of my ramblings about the "Fallout ethos" over the years...

I personally couldn't care whether the game is turn-based or not though turn-based games are fundamentally better as RPGs. But things like good writing and c&c are super important to me. Those are things Bethesda (seemingly) isn't talented in or just doesn't care to improve.

Though you are right that there are other developers, there is only one Fallout.

You've mostly talked about how New Vegas is a completely different experience and has no relation to Fallout 3 or TES, based on very little evidence. Are you saying that New Vegas is a Bethesda game now? Because I imagine that Fallout 4 will be a unique experience, and not just a carbon copy of what came before. It won't be Fallout 3, it won't be Skyrim, and it won't be New Vegas. It'll probably be a fusion of all 3, with its own innovations added on top.

Fallout: New Vegas is a completely different experience from Fallout 3 and could also be described as a Bethesda game, these notions aren't mutually exclusive.

This point is platitudinous considering how often I've said it, but FONV can be played as a traditional BGS game or it can be played in a similar manner to the original Fallouts, with a focus on good writing, C&C, moral ambiguity, developed characters etc.

We've discussed this point recently I'm sure in the Fallout series discussion?

Yeah I think it may have actually been discussed 200 times in the many years leading up to Fallout 4s release. Just like everything else in the Bethesda fandom since roughly 2012/13.

Todd talked about how the open world stuff is where he wants it, and the next step is getting characters to where he wants it, so there is hope for what you like in games coming through. Personally I never found it to be that bad to begin with, but it is true that New Vegas's characters are more striking in my mind than the others. Maybe we'll have characters just as memorable as my favourites of No-Bark, Joshua Graham, and Caesar in Fallout 4, eh?

I hope so but I remain skeptical in all honesty and I don't expect Fallout 4 to replicate the writing standards that FONV has set for not only its plot but also its characters.

That's one big difference between us, I'm not here for Fallout. As much as I love the FO setting over TES, i'm really here for Bethesda's open world and honestly as long as that persists they can change everything else over and over and I'll keep coming back.

Turn-based gameplay and open worlds are not mutually exclusive you know.

Are we talking about how the game should end in this thread, or what?

I'll summarize the posts I made in my last thread: I'd rather we were still able to play after completing the main quest; they wouldn't be able to include any epic changes to the world like blowing it up or mutant genocide, but there's nothing wrong with a less grandiose narrative, and being able to play in a world with only a somewhat significant change and post-game would still be pretty awesome.

If they want to close the game after the main quest, though, then I don't want them to make it feel urgent. Make it an episodic, picaresque adventure that invites us to pave our own road and explore the open world at our leisure, without it feeling weird to pause the main story to save that village or go bounty hunting or whatever.

So Fallout 2 allowed continued gameplay after the ending. I got told here by people who think that they are the gurus of Fallout that such a function which a ton of FO3 and TES player want wouldn't make FO4 a true Fallout.

So there is only one conclusion Fallout 2 isn't a true Fallout or we are dealing here with hyp...

I think this is the fourth or fifth time I've seen this almost identical post from you in the past day or two and you keep getting the same response. So I'm curious if the other responses didn't satisfy you enough that you keep bringing this up, then what kind of response are you looking for?

People that enjoyed the classic Fallout games have brought up several different compromises that would allow players who prefer it to play after the ending. They've also mentioned that Fallout 2 does it in a way that was okay and suggest that Fallout 4 perhaps do so in the same manner. I seriously don't get what you're looking for when your question has been answered several times before.

______________________________________________________________________________________

In any case I don't understand why some people aren't willing to have a compromise between both parties because it's an extremely easy fix: Either add a prompt when finishing the game that asks the player if they wish to continue or end game and inform the player that anything after the ending slides is non-canon. Or how about the one that I posted in the previous thread pg 4 #115? Cut to credits. Then when in the main menu have a "Continue After Ending" feature that describes: "This feature will allow you to continue after the ending. It should be noted that this will put the player into a sandbox mode to continue role-playing and finish side quests. Note that everything that continues beyond entering this mode is NON-CANON and will NOT portray the consequences described in the ending sliders"

I can't say the same. Oblivion's Dark Brotherhood quest, FO3's Pitt DLC, Skyrim's Thieves' Guild quest, all had some good writing, with fantastic dialogue and decision-making. A few story arcs are underwhelming, but that's just the nature of the beast.


Bethesda owns the open-world scenario. My explorer spirit gets lost in their worlds. I'm probably more TES-weighted than Fallout, but not by much.

If you are referring to me, I never said anything about post ending gameplay making the game untrue. I was referring to what alizarin327 said about "bethesda games." I just feel that post-ending gameplay is a detriment to the story including in Fallout 2.

It doesn't speak anything at all about Fallout. What it does speak is that the company was run by a greedy and incompetent French baboon who had no idea what he was doing.

No, it doesn't. Herv?Caen became top dog of Interplay and he decided to focus on the console market rather than the PC market and cancelled Fallout Van Buren in order to focus resources and budget on Fallout: Brotherhood Of Steel. FBOS is so bad that it isn't even considered a Fallout game by just about every single fan out there as well as Bethesda because of how much it contradicted with Fallout's design and previously established lore. It didn't help that the game was a failure on its own merits either. So guess what happened? It tanked. And because of that and other poor management decisions Black Isle was shut down and Interplay never really recovered as a game studio.

It didn't have anything at all to do about Fallout itself. It had to do with poor management. Cancelling a sequel to a series with a lot of support of its fan-base which was quite far into development in order to create a completely new spin-off for the series that went completely against what that fan-base wanted out of Fallout just so that Interplay could weasel its way into the console market is poor management.

As to why Bethesda managed to do what Interplay couldn't, considering that Fallout 3 is not what the original fan-base wanted out of a Fallout game and is a game targeted towards a console audience, is because they had their own fan-base to cater to. They created a game they knew would sell by using the development techniques that worked for Oblivion. They also had better marketing and quite frankly Fallout 3 is a fun game (on its own merits) and while it changes a lot of mechanics and isn't exactly too respectful of the lore it didn't mess up as badly as FBOS did.

If the old Fallout's were doomed to fail because times where changing then there wouldn't be any turn-based isometric cRPG's developed in this time and age. But guess what? There are. X-COM, Wasteland, Torment, Divinity Original Sin, Underrail, Expeditions Conquistador, Shadowrun Returns, Dead State. You know why they stopped being developed back in the day? Because the publishers didn't think they'd sell. Now that developers have other means of getting funding they are creating the kind of games they always wanted to create since they don't have to rely on publishers backing them. And some of them were even able to persuade publishers to give them a shot at creating something more old-school, such as X-COM.

Do you really think that if they had had this kind of funding method back then that they would not have used it to create cRPG's like they wanted to?

Fallout was not the problem, it has never been the problem.

Herv?Caen's management decisions was the problem.

I doubt it, restarting an franchise like this is not an sure bet, its nothing you can borrow money on as you can do on the next game in an successful series.

they would have needed time and money to finish the game.