New Vegas Definitive Ending Explanation

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Apparently this definitive ending thing is a big deal and needs lots of explaining.<blockquote>"We put a lot of effort into the ending slides -- we know those slides are really popular with people so we want to make sure there's a huge amount of variety and reactivity with that stuff. We weren't really focused on new features so much as to add a really rich sense of reactivity to the players and the choices they make."

We want to make it a definitive ending. Initially, 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. And we feel it's better to say, 'you know what, we're just going to end the game, and the changes you made can be minor or really really big, but because we can't script all the changes to the Wasteland to let you keep playing, we're just going to stop it there.' But we do let the player know when that's about to happen-- a sort of, 'the end of the game is coming, so we're saving your game right now, so if you want to keep your game going, you can, otherwise, it's about to be over.'"</blockquote>
 
Wonder how many people are going to complain about it and then hope they can buy a Broken Steel 2 expansion later on.

It wasn't so much that Fallout 3 ended that sucked, it was just that the ending sucked.
 
The ending was fine, just the way that they got around the definitive ending with Broken Steel was kind of lame. They should have made some real changes to the final quest, so you getting out would actually make sense.
 
I would much rather a well done ending than a half-arsed ending or a half-arsed no-ending.

Really, anything would be better than the bullshit that Bethesda dished up at the end of Fallout 3, but if Obsidian give us something closer to the brilliance of the Fallout 1 ending I'll be a very happy Wastelander.
 
Yep, it's a good decision. I wouldn't mind a big DLC with all your decisions scripted and implemented, though. I would actually pay good money for it.
 
Elhoim said:
Yep, it's a good decision. I wouldn't mind a big DLC with all your decisions scripted and implemented, though. I would actually pay good money for it.
Click to expand...

Import not just your character, but the whole gameworld final state in accordance to your choices.... That would be something quite interesting, and i guess massive too, as all the possible scenarios would need to be in there.
 
I can't be assed to play after a game ends. I don't see what's so fun about just running around killing things when you've done every quest in the game.
 
NiRv4n4 said:
The ending was fine, just the way that they got around the definitive ending with Broken Steel was kind of lame. They should have made some real changes to the final quest, so you getting out would actually make sense.
Click to expand...

The ending was not fine - e.g. it required you or Sarah Lyons to make a sacrifice even though you potentially had radiation-resistant companions who would have survived it, but refused to do so.
 
Ausir said:
NiRv4n4 said:
The ending was fine, just the way that they got around the definitive ending with Broken Steel was kind of lame. They should have made some real changes to the final quest, so you getting out would actually make sense.
Click to expand...

The ending was not fine - e.g. it required you or Sarah Lyons to make a sacrifice even though you potentially had radiation-resistant companions who would have survived it, but refused to do so.
Click to expand...

The best kind of sacrifice is a pointless one. :lol:
 
I could only assume this will go back to the endings like Fallout 1 and 2 had where each settlement has a few ending variations depending on if you helped them, hurt them, or ignored them. If it is like that then a definite ending works best, I mean I know Fallout 2 gives you open world play but really there isn't much to do and you can't go back and see how the world changed after beating the game or anything. Plus a Fallout game is meant to be on the shorter side because a Fallout game is made for maximum replay value (which most games nowadays don't even bother with.) You should beat the game in a good 15-25 hours and start a new game to see how much different things will be, it wasn't made to be a linear RPG that lasts for 80 hours and has no replay value.
 
another piece of encouraging news. nothing to complain about there, those slides were a damn fine way of saying "hey, remember all that stuff you did? well here's the effect it had."

Brother None said:
We weren't really focused on new features so much as to add a really rich sense of reactivity to the players and the choices they make."
Click to expand...

this was one of my top HUGE complaints with FO3. nothing you did made fuck all for a difference...ever.
 
end slides are cool, no question about that, the explanation for adding them should have been more compressed, though (he's saying the same thing over and over again) :D
 
lol.

those kids are so screwed if they ever *do* get a date. "but...but...this is how it works in my modded Fallout 3 universe!"
 
well it seems that many seriously do in Fallout 3 what they already did in Oblivion. Collecting any kind of garbage they find in the world. From garden gnomes to spoons and what ever else you can find.

I never understood this kind of obsession with a game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top