You won't be able to explore after the credits roll.
Obsidian Entertainment is setting itself up to hear more than a few wails and moans about the conclusion of Fallout: New Vegas, if the storm Bethesda weathered with Fallout 3 can be considered a good indicator. The October-bound New Vegas, according to recent previews, will have a definitive ending. Owners will not be able to jump back into the scorched plains to access unfinished side quests after the credits roll.
Bethesda tried to wrap the story of Fallout 3 up in a pretty little package with a big bow, but eventually backpedaled in the face of fan desire for the game to continue after its conclusion. Bethesda gave them that option with post-release content dubbed Broken Steel.
But New Vegas' lack of exploratory, post-game content isn't a case of Obsidian failing to learn a lesson. Rather, to hear the designers explain it, the absolute ending is a result of how much of an impact player choice and action will have on the game's world.
Better punch this dude now, you might not have time to come back later. "… we talked about trying to support post-game play, but because the changes that can happen at the end of the game are pretty major, this is what it basically came down to: either have the changes feel really major in the end slides and then have them not be very major after the end of the game, or make them really minor and not that impactful," New Vegas project director Josh Sawyer told 1UP.
In a Destructoid interview (via Eurogamer), senior producer Jason Bergman said that the ending slides are set to tell the story of every "companion" characters lives, apparently all the way to their death. That makes it difficult to plow on, no?
Bergman also revealed that the game's UI is going to warn owners that there's a point of no return. That makes this easier to deal with, right?
Obsidian Entertainment is setting itself up to hear more than a few wails and moans about the conclusion of Fallout: New Vegas, if the storm Bethesda weathered with Fallout 3 can be considered a good indicator. The October-bound New Vegas, according to recent previews, will have a definitive ending. Owners will not be able to jump back into the scorched plains to access unfinished side quests after the credits roll.
Bethesda tried to wrap the story of Fallout 3 up in a pretty little package with a big bow, but eventually backpedaled in the face of fan desire for the game to continue after its conclusion. Bethesda gave them that option with post-release content dubbed Broken Steel.
But New Vegas' lack of exploratory, post-game content isn't a case of Obsidian failing to learn a lesson. Rather, to hear the designers explain it, the absolute ending is a result of how much of an impact player choice and action will have on the game's world.
Better punch this dude now, you might not have time to come back later. "… we talked about trying to support post-game play, but because the changes that can happen at the end of the game are pretty major, this is what it basically came down to: either have the changes feel really major in the end slides and then have them not be very major after the end of the game, or make them really minor and not that impactful," New Vegas project director Josh Sawyer told 1UP.
In a Destructoid interview (via Eurogamer), senior producer Jason Bergman said that the ending slides are set to tell the story of every "companion" characters lives, apparently all the way to their death. That makes it difficult to plow on, no?
Bergman also revealed that the game's UI is going to warn owners that there's a point of no return. That makes this easier to deal with, right?
I like this idea. I usually don't tend to play in open world games after I finish them anyway. Plus having a definite ending will make the story more powerful. Plus the ending they are describing is exactly what I wanted to see from Fallout 3. This makes me want to buy the game more now.
doesn't really bother me, you'll still be able to run around and do everything else before the main quest end. i mean i was almost ten hours in Fallout 3 before i start up with the main quests.
Good. God forbid a game actually end anymore these days. A good example is Red Dead Redemption - they did it perfectly, conclude your main story arc and allow the player to continue after the fact - HOWEVER! After completing the final mission I felt no desire to play at all, it was over and I was satisfied by what has transpired. Give me a solid ending Obsidian and we won't have any trouble no matter how you run it.
" What a fucking bummer. Best part of Fallout 3 was when DLC fixed this issue. I love just roaming the wasteland why you gotta hurt me?! "
Do it before the final battle/dungeon?
I don't understand the problem with this. Hell, I'd love it if they made your character get constant radiation from being outside and if you don't finish the game in a certain time period, you die. That would be awesome.
How the fuck does it matter...as it has been pointed out do what you want to do before finishing the game. I died at the end of F3 so the ability to explor it made no difference to me anyway -just went back to an old save I'd rather the story was powerful - in any case I can't wait for this. Need it now.
Feels like your view on this this mostly comes down to if you're a completionist or not. I really don't care about finding every last molecule of content in a game, so whenever a game rolls credits, and then my character is just standing there again...it feels like an anti climax. The only game I have felt handled this well was RDR which actually did end...but without spoiling for the few how haven't played yet, actually does continues as well.
I don't really mind this in theory, but I think it's a stupid move now that most big games are getting DLC expansions. Remember "Bringing Down the Sky" for the first Mass Effect?
As long as there is a clear warning that leaves absolutely no doubt that you need a backup save before you proceed I don't see an issue. My problem with the Fallout 3 ending is that it was totally avoidable, you could get lyon to do it, hell I had an immune to radiation super mutant with me but he of course refuses to assist for no good reason. It was just poorly executed and felt weak.
So they're trying to make the endings good and reflective of choices made throughout the game, like Fallout 1/2? At least that's something. Fallout 3's ending cut off your chance to play further AND was terrible.
I was hoping this would be the first answer, before the plethora of complaints/counter-complaints. Although some did mention DLC, nobody said a word about mods... *sigh*
I've got no problem with a proper ending, as long as it's a good ending. If I want to do something, I'll do it before the point of no return. Seems the most logical approach to me.
" So they're trying to make the endings good and reflective of choices made throughout the game, like Fallout 1/2? At least that's something. Fallout 3's ending cut off your chance to play further AND was terrible. "
I'm VERY dissapointed to hear this, the excuse that the end game "slides" will be extensive & detailed, allready has me pre-dissapointed. So after 100+ hours I'm going to be treated to a slideshow -Whoopi! Sounds like deja vu all over again. The original Fallout 3 ending was lame, with your characters demise robbing players of the joy of exploring the gameworld. Broken Steel and the subsequent DLC thankfully fixed this, and provided some of the games most stellar & enjoyable content. It sounds like such a no-brainer not to repeat past RPG missteps that causes such an uproar. I'm hoping I'm proven wrong and the New Vegas ending seems satisfactory and complete, but "slides" did not hack it in Fallout 3.
They should learn from FF XIII. Have the end events be really impactful but let the player reload the save right before the last boss to back and do the endgame stuff with raised level cap and all.
218 Comments