I think he's just laughing at us or clicked the thread, but then went into another tab to look at pictures of motorcycles. =/

Edit: nvm

I am slightly dissapoint to hear this but I don't care if I have to shell out $10 as long as the add on is as good as Broken Steel.

Lol wow BS was an epic fail it made no sense with the real ending of Fallout 3 it was basically just saying OH HEY none of this matters and nothing happened no matter what you do so just continue to fight albino scorpions.

Maybe it's me, but I don't want another combat only DLC. Honestly, combat in FO3 was about what's expected from an RPG. Not very good but acceptable. (Iron sights in FO:NV is definitely a step in the right direction for good combat). I don't buy DLC for any RPG if it's just combat anymore. I like more story or adventure. Example: the only DLC I bought for Dragon Age Origins was the big expansion pack (b/c it had more story). If I could do it over again with FO3 the only DLC I'd buy would be point lookout and maybe the Pitt. I love massive DLCs that have a whole new world and quests to explore, like the Shivering Isles in Oblivion, not so much horse armor or mothership zeta in FO3.

Probably.

There is always at least one way to definitively end the game, die. I'm sure most people that played Fallout 3 attacked the girl in Tranquility Lane (Vault 112), dead - game over. Or you can be like me and run through a trap and watch three grenades roll by only to explode, turning me into another wastelander corpse.

I don't care one way or another even if the ending svcks. After one run through I'll know where the ending is and save before hand. Then I'll go explore to find the stuff I never bothered to look for. At most an end to the game is a minor inconvienence, not something to get worked up over.

While I do agree that continually griping about things like this is counter-productive, there's nothing wrong with wanting to play the game yet still voicing your opinion about things you would have liked to have seen done differently. There are things I hated about Fallout 3, but I don't regret buying it, and I'll certainly come to the forums to discuss the things I didn't like. Complaints can be constructive, you know.

When I read "core game" my mind translates that as the central story arc, independent of all the side missions. Just that encapsulated chunk of core story. I'm likely scraping the barrel bottom though.

The main reason fallout 3 was a hit was because it was a sandbox game. Not only did the ending kill most of the "want to play" factor from people looking at it, but charging an extra $10 to play through the main quest into a now fully open game, is what really offset alot of people, until the G.O.T.Y. came out.

Problem- main game will end
Solution- wait for G.O.T.Y.

Another deal was that, some people were to impatient to wait, and bought the set for $100, only to gind out that it was all going ot be packaged shortly for $60.

Problem: game with a bunch of DLC's is going ot be a bit costly
Solution: wait for G.O.T.Y

I don't know precisely what I even want from this, except to know what I'm getting.

If something big enough happens that it changes something essential about the world it would put the developer in an odd spot.

Either continue the game after the ending but without making the changes just described...
Or end the game there completely and take you to a New Game
Or modify the relevant settlements/NPCs/Factions to match the ending

I'd love to see the last one someday, but it would probably be impossible unless it was known from the very beginning that the creators wanted you to be able to venture about in a world drastically impacted by your decisions after beating the game. I mean if you chose to overload the Helios and blast the NCR to bits it would be a huge change.

I don't know if i'd rather they end the game there so my imagination can fill in how the world changes or continue on without the changes just so i can keep playing

....

I think I'd probably prefer to just keep playing in the world with minimal changes (like how no matter what you did in F3 it didn't change much in the add on) and have some of the more profound changes set sometime in the distant future...like...

"With the destruction of the NCR Base at the Hoover Dam the NCR began a long decline. It would struggle for survival but many years down the line would have no choice but to retreat from Nevada and centralize it's power within the state that provided it's name. The land was once again given over to raiders. Caesar's Legion would come to control the lands and the region fell in to chaos. But such is life in the wasteland"

That way you could keep playing in the world, encounter the ruins of Hoover Dam, get some NPCs commenting on what you did, have CL get somewhat stronger and like you more, but still leave the future world of New Vegas up to the imagination...and save the developers some time.

Do you guys really think that the only reason there's going to be a definitive is so they can squeeze money out of you? Are definitive endings so bad that you instantly start saying stupid accusations?

I think it comes more from Fallout 1 and 2 having open endings (Fallout 1 was open wasnt it? Been so long since I played...always got the violent ending...loved it) but Fallout 3 having a closed ending that required payment to open up. Fear of more of that since Bethesda made the first Fallout game like that and are still producing this one.

We're Gamers. We're easily agitated when our needs are not met, and are by nature distrustful of corporate entities that control the flow of digital stimuli that makes up the hobby in which we indulge in.

@Smiley: No, it ends with the Vault Dweller walking solemnly off into the sunset if you complete the game instead of letting the Super Mutants win. Either way, roll credits, finito.

So Josh what do you have to say about it? I know your looking.

/facepalm



Ok, where the heck does that idea come from? The vast majority of non-tabletop "rpgs" I've played had one ending - you beat the final whatever and won (or you died and restarted from your last save).

(and for the record - I've been playing computer & console RPGs since 1979. Started with Wizardry 1 and Ultima 1.)


-------
My answer - I had no problem at all with the original FO3 ending. I'd made a save just before the final mission, went through with it, saw the final movie.... then reloaded my save, turned left and wandered off to explore. 50+ hours later, I loaded up some mods and made a new character. (Never bothered with "remove the end" or "level cap increase" mods, there was no need for them. The original ending and the 20 cap were perfectly fine.)

While I did eventually get BS, I'm not all that fond of it. (And I only got BS and the Pitt. Other three didn't seem compelling. And I had to get the Pitt because I live in Pittsburgh. )
When I get around to my next modded playthrough of FO3, I'm not planning to bother installing the DLC.

And I *really* hope they don't do a BS-style DLC for FO:NV - the level cap raise screwed up the game balance and the "tougher" bullet sponge enemies were just annoying.

Thanks. I played Fallout 2 almost immediately after I beat Fallout so it all kind of flows through in my mind.

I'd like to see Obsidian implement a sort of warning before the ending. At the very last moment that you can save the game before starting the quest that ends the game, a pop-up tells you something along the lines of "This quest leads to the game's ending. You will not be able to continue after it. This is your last chance to save your game so you can revert back to it to continue playing." Far Cry 2 did that and I very much appreciated it. Sure, it would break immersion, however the 10 seconds you're angry about the immersion breaking message is far better then forever being angry about not saving your game beforehand.

+1 on this :goodjob:

I have argued a lot since joining this forum about having a ending. And all most can say is "But I want to play more". Its a roleplaying game create a new character and play some more without all the equipment. Which a lot also complained about. Hating godlike characters this should solve that as well.
DLC's well keep a save or make a new pc. I have to pay for a dlc no if you dont like the game you dont. If you do like the game. YOU WILL WANT to buy the add on so whats the problem?

You have no idea how pissed off some people get because their immersion broke. One friend of mine tried to strangulate me when I made a joke about a game he was playing. A quick "Dude, what the hell is wrong with you?" fixed that, but it's no small matter. Also, who plays RPGs and doesn't make frequent saves? Kids these days...

You know, as long as they have a concrete, well-formulated plan and stick with it, it'll be fine.


The big problem with FO3 & BS is that it wasn't part of the plan. They gave in to the people whining about "but I died!" and "level 20 cap?!?!?!?!" and screwed things up by trying to "fix" things that weren't broken.



Nothing is forcing you to get any DLC they release.


Nothing.

Who cares? The games going to rule!

Fantastic news!

I was seriously considering altering 'Broken Steel' to remove the bypass of the proper ending if possible.
(Not that I know how just yet...)

I guess that's why it was called... http://www.epiconeliner.com/.

That's been done to death.

Gizmo; So you're basically saying you're going to make Broken Steel not be Broken Steel? Just throw the ending back in?