Fallout 3's "200 endings"

Touquet said:
BTW, In the same article Todd Howard come back on the artifical dog (vyberdog) who can be sen into combat or recon and the possibility to have only ONE NPC. More NPC will make the game too complex to manage... Wow Bethesda, Go Go Go

So many ending possible but only one NPC, unbelievable :clap:
Click to expand...
Once Bethesda decided to force the first/third person perspective, forgoing any type of option for isometric gameplay they also limited the possibilities of multiple companion NCPs. In the heat of the battle you want to see if your companion NCPs are being effective, which is very difficult to do in first/third person (is camera rotation even possible when paused in battle?). They must have known that they would have been limited by the perspective when they started since even tactical FPSs are usually limit giving orders to 3 companion NCPs - making it a 4 person squad.
 
@ iridium_ionizer

Your right but they are so proud to have like 200 possible ending.
If
if ... or...
if... and...
then
else
...
Finish

Perhaps I wished for something with a bit more from Fallout Spirit with useless but funny like Lennny or Vic who are shot more often by other NPC than enemies...
Anyway, I will wait before buying this game...
 
monsharen said:
Maybe someone bought the jump-to-conclusions-mat.
Click to expand...

Please don't bring that meme here.

We like arguments over 4chan-esque picture debates

Touquet said:
BTW, In the same article Todd Howard come back on the artifical dog (vyberdog)
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Dogmeat's a real dog
 
Hmm, anyone remembering their whole "good-neutral-evil" guff?

I'm thinking Megaton will have: Player Diffused Bomb Ending, Player Did Nothing Ending, Player Blew Up Megaton Ending - and other major settlements will have the same sort of shit. You don't have to multiply 3 by itself very many times to get 200.
 
Brother None said:
Jack The Knife said:
Whatever seems good is a lie, and whatever seems like shait is true.
Click to expand...

I don't like that approach much.
Click to expand...

That was a joke.
I see now in hindsight that because I am not a frequent poster, and have not established my opinions to everyone here as one usually have done as a person of high post count, I should perhaps have used an emoticon like this :D or maybe this :wink: to bring out the irony intended. :D
I hope you agree that if that comment had been posted by a person of established reputation here at this site, it would most probably have been seen as a joke.
Also, I did not take into consideration when posting the joke how common it is for people to post extreme(ly silly) views in either direction, here, or on other fora.

That being said, joke aside. It is of my opinion that it is just as retarded to believe everything said to be a lie, as to believe everything.

On topic: I'm just glad to see Bethesda doing Fallout a bit justice on the subject.
Different outcomes is pretty much key to replayability of these types of games.


I also realize that some of my sentences in this post is a bit long. :whistle:
 
Jack The Knife said:
I hope you agree that if that comment had been posted by a person of established reputation here at this site, it would most probably have been seen as a joke.
Click to expand...

I wish it would be, but we have no rule against nutjobs, and we prolly have many posters that think this way.
 
Brother None said:
I wish it would be, but we have no rule against nutjobs, and we prolly have many posters that think this way.
Click to expand...

Thats true. And if you did have such a rule, this site would be no better than the Bethsoft fora, or North Korea for that matter. :wink:

But I have to say. Even though there are nut jobs here, as there are everywhere, there is still a pretty large group of intelligent and reflected posters on this forum. That is probably why I have been reading this site since medio 2000 and forum a few years later. I could name names, but I'm not that big a suck-up. :wink:


Sorry about the double post. T'was an editing accident of some sort.
 
ivpiter said:
Glad to see the ending structure move closer to Fallout... that being said...

This does seem to be getting a mixed reaction on the big sites and the Big T's vague comments are causing some PR back-fire.

BN is right, had Todd just said, "We're doing it like Fallout" there would be alot less grief all the way around.

So far I see two major groups of irked players over on the other sites:

<blockquote>1. X-Box Achievments!?!?!??! oh noes, 200 endings I'll never get them all.

2. 200 endings, WTF, looks like I'll miss 199...</blockquote>
I suspect Pete will come along today or tomorrow and clarify Todd and espically to appease the X-Box fanatics achievment achievement point concerns.
Click to expand...

I wonder if I'm the only 360 gamer who is ecstatic about the possibility of 200 endings (I know that they probably mean permutations on the endings, of which there are a few). I mean, I want to have the chance to tell a friend I'm chatting with about the ending, and since he's played the game too, but did things differently, he says "That's nowhere near what I got, how did you do it?". Not all of us care about the Achievements, especially with games like Fallout and Grand Theft Auto, where you just want to wander and do your own thing (I've tried several times to finish Fallouts 1 and 2, but I always get sidetracked after narrowing down where the GECk is, or hitting Necropolis).
 
This news doesn't sound too bad.

Hopefully, we'll be able to actually get all of the endings, and not have any "Vault City/Gecko good ending" type situations, where a bug keeps you from being able to achieve them.
 
By their definition, FO2 has over a million "endings", so it's a huge step backwards.
 
Sander said:
Funny that an AI programmer gets that wrong.
His argument for it was that the option where they're all 'false' isn't an option, which seems kind of ridiculous because it'd be akin to saying that it isn't an option to get the evil ending for all the towns in Fallout.
Click to expand...

Actually at that point in the game there could possibly always be one part which = true, which would be the action required to actually reach that point. Unless of course there are two different solutions to get there. This could be like in the original Fallout, because you always had to destroy both the Military Base and the Cathedral, and you pretty much get the "yay! You're the hero and you have to leave the vault!" regardless of any other slides. Considering that, Fallout had one ending. Imagine if that could have gone 4 different ways.

And I would rather karma have an effect on the ending, rather than being able to save just before the end and being able to get all the endings, like in Deus Ex.

The only problem with this is if it is nearly impossible to get your karma good (or bad) enough to get a particular ending. It sucked to always get the nazi-ish ending in Fallout Tactics when I had the player donate his/her brain (especially considering that I didn't actually go around slaughtering innocents and killing random people, and also always took the most obvious "good guy" routes). >.> But really I think the Karma was just totally messed up in FoT.

(sorry to go off topic)

At any rate, if this is a total possible 240 different major outcomes, then that is impressive (at least somewhat), especially if they also tell what happens to all the different communities you come across, and just aren't taking the slideshows into consideration. It is rare that you can actually have actual different outcomes at the end of games. Neither Fallout had these, unless you consider the ending where you get vatted yourself (I consider that more of a "game over" ending). It's not like you could say, "Ok, I'm gonna help the bad guys now" and actually go down that path. In most games you're the good guy at the end, regardless of whether you were good or bad throughout the rest of the game. Even, yes, in Fallout.
 
The idea of having lots of endings in a game is ok, but it depends on how these are presented. I do not expect anything interesting made by Bethesda actually. :lol:
 
Bunkermensch said:
The idea of having lots of endings in a game is ok, but it depends on how these are presented. I do not expect anything interesting made by Bethesda actually. :lol:
Click to expand...

That's a safe bet to take.
 
iridium_ionizer said:
They must have known that they would have been limited by the perspective when they started since even tactical FPSs are usually limit giving orders to 3 companion NCPs - making it a 4 person squad.
Click to expand...
So why only one companion then? Clearly it is possible to handle more than one or two in a first person perspective.

That reminds me, I wonder how many POSSIBLE companions there will be.
 
Maybe the companion you have at the time may account for one of the ending variables?

Like if you don't have a companion, then something happens depending on your karma. If you have a certain companion, then that person might decide to kill a particular NPC, resulting in a different outcome. And still yet another companion might betray you and shoot you in the back. If you treat dogmeat a certain way throughout the game then he might to bite a particular NPC in the groin.

Do enough of these, coupled with another simple yes/no variable, and you could end up with far more than a mere 240 endings. :P

But like someone else mentioned, more doesn't always mean better. That's why all the dungeons in Beth's games tend to suck, because they are all the same. Like.. "Hey wasn't I just in this cave? Hmm.. except this pathway was over on this side in the other one, and it was goblin warlords instead of glass armor wearing bandits with daedric weapons." (but unlike the Goblin caves, the bandit caves are worth doing because of the loot on people are far weaker than 75% of the critters in the game).

Take a bad movie for example. If it had 15 alternate endings, then it would still suck. Let's just hope Bethesda has learned to be less repetitive. I did like how bandits and their loot would respawn after a given time, because of the random magic loot on the bosses, but every cave being alike, every tomb being alike, and every high elf ruin being alike was just too weird. The oblivion worlds being exactly alike really took the cake though (there were only like 3 or 4 variations on the gate worlds, most of which were hardly worth exploring due to the fact you could get better stuff from bandits, with much less effort).

Sorry for the Oblivion rant. Just hoping that Bethesda won't make the same mistakes again. At least tough monsters in Fallout 3 will be rewarding in regards to experience. Although I hope I don't see wimpy people all decked out in uber gear, who are easy to kill, and then come across a killer lizard that takes nearly 200 whacks/shots to kill.

Oh and hey Bethesda why don't you show us all a cool video of your newly improved Radiant AI that won't make it into Fallout 3? Oh I get it! Dogmeat will just be a normal NPC without all the options you talked about. >.>

Link to Lieeeees! lol
http://youtube.com/watch?v=zL8pyOP0VQI

Maybe they should explain why they didn't put these features into Oblivion, hmm? Some people think it was Xbox 360 limitations. I myself think it was lazinest, much like same reason for the copy/paste dungeons and houses. (almost forgot to mention that there is little to no need to explore the houses since they're mostly 100% alike).

"Hey look! Another ruined capital monument... umm.. wait a second! This is the 5th one now, and they're all alike!!! And the same deathclaw has been hiding behind each one! Grrrrr!"
 
Per said:
PaladinHeart said:
I hope I don't see ... a killer lizard that takes nearly 200 whacks/shots to kill.
Click to expand...

I don't see the problem with this.
Click to expand...

Glad they took the groin shots out now aren't we?
 
I dunno, man. Who will speak for rats? In Fallout 2 you could spend half your day just kicking the vorpal rat in his balls, and the bastard wouldn't die.

You ask me, that's animal cruelty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top