Project Van Buren

[Black Angel]

That's because no one does make those; I simply prefer getting the main quest done asap because I don't want my hero characters to be irresponsible and ignore it. I'm sure I'm not the only person who feels that way.

You're asking if this project would allow playing after main quest because you don't want to restart when people start making quest mods for it, and then proclaim no one make those? Wtf?

I also don't like my open-world titles (and yes, even Classic Fallout counts as open-world, albeit implemented differently from Bethesda's style) suddenly ending. Part of the appeal to me is letting my characters actually live in those worlds, and they can't live in them if they finish the main quest like the responsible heroes they are and suddenly the game ends.

Meh, what's the point of playing these kind of games if there's nothing to do in it? It's only logical for the game to finally end once you're done with the "Main Quest". I don't understand the appeal of continuing a game, especially an RPG, after the ending. There's literally nothing to do, except just fucking around, I guess? Even Fallout 2 RP, the most you can get are dialog reactions to your victory against the Enclave in New Reno, but other than that? Meh.

The only RPG that I know to do this whole "continuing after done with main quest" thingy properly is Underrail, even though it wasn't actually "continuing after done with the main quest". You can still explore most of the gameworld at that point, asking people around wtf just happened all this time, even go to a lengthy discussion with an important person regarding key events and individuals. But other than that, there's nothing meaningful to do except choosing the last choices to trigger the ending slides.

 

[SMBComix]

You're asking if this project would allow playing after main quest because you don't want to restart when people start making quest mods for it, and then proclaim no one make those? Wtf?

I didn't say no one makes quest mods. I said no one makes quest mods that can be played after the main quest is done. Context, man.

Meh, what's the point of playing these kind of games if there's nothing to do in it?

I don't call taking caravan jobs, finishing off the side quests, and general exploration "nothing to do." Assuming you can take caravan jobs in Van Buren like you could in FO1...

It's only logical for the game to finally end once you're done with the "Main Quest". I don't understand the appeal of continuing a game, especially an RPG, after the ending. There's literally nothing to do, except just fucking around, I guess? Even Fallout 2 RP, the most you can get are dialog reactions to your victory against the Enclave in New Reno, but other than that? Meh.

The only RPG that I know to do this whole "continuing after done with main quest" thingy properly is Underrail, even though it wasn't actually "continuing after done with the main quest". You can still explore most of the gameworld at that point, asking people around wtf just happened all this time, even go to a lengthy discussion with an important person regarding key events and individuals. But other than that, there's nothing meaningful to do except choosing the last choices to trigger the ending slides.

I personally like fucking around after the fact. Gives me a reason to keep that character.

 

[SMBComix]

I disagree... I have never seen them not live in it —if they survive to the end, but the game need not depict the events that transpire after it's done telling the story. Fallout shows the Vault Dweller strike off into the world on his own, to make a new life for himself—and...but that is another tale entirely; one that we learn about in Fallout 2.

I don't see it. I only hear about it in Fallout 2, and what I hear isn't much to go on. Besides, what if I want to take the character into a different direction? What if I still want to do other things in the wasteland before I start a new character? I can't just ignore the main quest and do side stuff all the time, not unless there's an organic way to allow that like there at least is in New Vegas. Every other RPG makes doing the main quest some mandatory thing, even Fallout 4 pressed on you the importance of finding Shaun over doing anything else. At least, it did to me thanks to my sense of responsibility...

 

[naossano]

Depends on how the game is designed.
If fucking around is the point of the game or not.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I don't see it. I only hear about it in Fallout 2, and what I hear isn't much to go on.

There is a kind of player that actually feels cheated when a game implies a thing exists, but that it is never shown—nor ever promised to be. I have never understood this perspective. It always caused me to wonder if they felt equally cheated in TV & film, when a character leaves the house for work, and is next seen exiting the elevator at their office—with no part of the trip to work having been shown. To me this is superbly sensible; it bypasses the minutia, to present only the meat of the tale.

In the Witcher [1] (IMO excellent RPG), Geralt leaves the training grounds for the city of Vizema, and (thankfully) the story resumes only after he gets nearby, and there is something worth telling. We don't have to sit through —worse PLAY through the mundane happenings along the way... until he suddenly has to fight Hellhounds.

Fallout is better (IMO) for depicting map travel on the map. Arcanum did the same, but did allow the player to walk the map in real time [I heard it takes 48 real hours to walk the map from coast to coast], and in theory it sounds great, but in practice... ?? I never walked more than five transitions before using the map travel system.

FO3's open wasteland was a colossal waste of potential IMO, something I'd gladly have done without, and never missed if it were absent. It is the reason that FO3 takes place in a relative postage stamp size area as opposed to the previous games in the series. This has many bad side effects.

Besides, what if I want to take the character into a different direction? What if I still want to do other things in the wasteland before I start a new character?

A what if? IMO the answer would be 'Tough'. That's not meant to be snide, it's a strong preference in RPG game design. You say "I" when speaking of the character, and that is something that I would never do.

Fallout impressed my more than any other RPG at the time, by ending when I was unable to have the PC return on time with the water chip. They died; game over.
It also impressed that this meant that the game was not a servile, fawning ego trip, and didn't care what you (the player) wanted; it gave you only what you earned.

Needless to say, once the player veers off the path that concerns the game, what incentive is there for it to continue catering to them? They are free to imagine whatever they want—that shouldn't mean that it has to show or support it.

Lastly, this one is difficult for many to grasp: It is better to end while they are still interested in playing, than to allow a withering death of their interest, where they just finally quit out of sheer boredom, and contempt for the [all too] familiar.
Good games should have an abrupt (but satisfying) end.

 

[Black Angel]

I didn't say no one makes quest mods. I said no one makes quest mods that can be played after the main quest is done. Context, man.

If no one makes quest mods that can be played after the main quest is done, then why even asking if there will be possibility to play after main quest in the first place?

I don't call taking caravan jobs, finishing off the side quests, and general exploration "nothing to do." Assuming you can take caravan jobs in Van Buren like you could in FO1...

Except caravan runs in Fallout 1 takes your precious time, which could lead to running out of time to find Water Chip and even trigger settlements being wiped out by Super Mutants. You're also better off finishing side quests *before* the main quest, which is especially more important in Fallout 1 because those quest givers can be slaughtered if you waste too much time. Also, when I say "nothing to do", I meant in context of playing after the main quest is done. Context, bro.

As for Van Buren, I didn't follow much of it nor I even have a glance at the design docs. But my guess, there will be some, especially since caravan runs have bigger part in Fallout 2. Still, maybe we should ask Hardboiled Wanderer if he's going to include caravan runs here.

I personally like fucking around after the fact. Gives me a reason to keep that character.

Bleh.

 

[Hardboiled Wanderer]

Caravan Runs are intended, yes. According to design documents, they represent much greater deal in Van Buren than in previous installments, and actually have some good designing potential imo.

As for the post-story gameplay - even though this wasn't decided yet, I am not a fan of the idea. Argument that Fallout is open-world game is totally out of place here. Fallout was, and always should be, narratively driven RPG, where game's story forces you to move on and make decisions, and thus forming/transforming the world in the process. And as every story, it shall have its definitive ending.
So that, at the end, you'll look behind your shoulder and see the world, communities and people affected by your actions, with both satisfaction and questioning/regret on your mind. This is the "game reactivity" I prefer, not those empty, Fallout 3/4-like post-game reactions of NPCs of type "oh, yeah, it's all great here since you helped us, you are our hero/I wish the earth will swallow you for what have you done to us you merciless fuck...".

However, I should leave this discussion opened, I'm interested in other people's thoughts.

 

[Paladin Hank]

Caravan Runs are intended, yes. According to design documents, they represent much greater deal in Van Buren than in previous installments, and actually have some good designing potential imo.

As for the post-story gameplay - even though this wasn't decided yet, I am not a fan of the idea. Argument that Fallout is open-world game is totally out of place here. Fallout was, and always should be, narratively driven RPG, where game's story forces you to move on and make decisions, and thus forming/transforming the world in the process. And as every story, it shall have its definitive ending.
So that, at the end, you'll look behind your shoulder and see the world, communities and people affected by your actions, with both satisfaction and questioning/regret on your mind. This is the "game reactivity" I prefer, not those empty, Fallout 3/4-like post-game reactions of NPCs of type "oh, yeah, it's all great here since you helped us, you are our hero/I wish the earth will swallow you for what have you done to us you merciless fuck...".

However, I should leave this discussion opened, I'm interested in other people's thoughts.

You're on NMA dude, everyone agrees with you.

 

[Hardboiled Wanderer]

You're on NMA dude, everyone agrees with you.

I am aware of the fact that many folks around here might have the same feeling about Fallout as I have, and I appreciate it. Second part of my previous post was supposed to enlight my opinion to SMBComix (should've quoted him), who appearently is the one not agreeing with me here But that's absolutely fine, argument exchange is a healthy thing.

 

[SMBComix]

I am aware of the fact that many folks around here might have the same feeling about Fallout as I have, and I appreciate it. Second part of my previous post was supposed to enlight my opinion to SMBComix (should've quoted him), who appearently is the one not agreeing with me here But that's absolutely fine, argument exchange is a healthy thing.

I just think it should remain an option for those that want it. I get that there's folks out there who don't like it, but for them it's as easy as simply deleting that character and starting over from scratch. I'm too anal-retentive to ever accept reloading an old save and ignoring the main quest as a viable option because then it just feels out of character. Besides, from what I understand, those end slides represent the future, as opposed to what's happening right now. Shady Sands didn't become NCR overnight; realistically it would have to take years, so there's still plenty of wiggle room to be had. You don't NEED to alter the entire world to fit the end slides, nor would it be particularly advised anyway.

I dunno. I'm just opposed to being forced to abandon the main quest on a character that would do the main quest just to do all the side content. It's always off-putting when games encourage that, because it just strikes me as irresponsible. That's why I like the option to continue after the "ending," plus the fact I like letting my characters actually live in the world and they can't live in it if their only purpose is to save it... unless they've already saved it and they're allowed to live in it after. But I only count that if I'm still the one playing them. If someone else tells me in an end slide what my character did after they saved the world, not only is it a slap in the face because it's MY character, they don't get to decide that shit -- but I also feel so disconnected from it I might as well not have played the game to begin with.

 

[Black Angel]

Besides, from what I understand, those end slides represent the future, as opposed to what's happening right now. Shady Sands didn't become NCR overnight; realistically it would have to take years, so there's still plenty of wiggle room to be had. You don't NEED to alter the entire world to fit the end slides, nor would it be particularly advised anyway.

Again, as Gizmo said, "—and...but that is another tale entirely; one that we learn about in [sequel]." Why do you NEED to participate in what are being described in the ending slides? Is it wrong for devs to wrote off main character's role as finally ended and it's time for people to progress to the future?

I dunno. I'm just opposed to being forced to abandon the main quest on a character that would do the main quest just to do all the side content. It's always off-putting when games encourage that, because it just strikes me as irresponsible. That's why I like the option to continue after the "ending," plus the fact I like letting my characters actually live in the world and they can't live in it if their only purpose is to save it... unless they've already saved it and they're allowed to live in it after. But I only count that if I'm still the one playing them. If someone else tells me in an end slide what my character did after they saved the world, not only is it a slap in the face because it's MY character, they don't get to decide that shit -- but I also feel so disconnected from it I might as well not have played the game to begin with.

You're implying as if doing side content means totally 'abandoning' main quests. Maybe that's the case in Bethesda's games, where they try to imply there's some sort of sense of urgency to the main quests only to dangle shinies in front of players so they get distracted to explore this abandoned ruins/pick flowers on the side road, but in the Good Fallouts™ the side contents are integrated so seamlessly into the world that completing them feels like part of progressing through the main quests.

Also, you cite that you "like the option to continue after the "ending" " as if you've played games with that option, but what kind of games did them right, anyway? And when I mean right, I mean that there's still some substantial experience to be had, kinda like how Underrail does it.

 

[Gizmojunk]

...plus the fact I like letting my characters actually live in the world and they can't live in it if their only purpose is to save it... unless they've already saved it and they're allowed to live in it after.

It always seemed ludicrous to me that Bethesda fixated on having a player house, when the character setup had a pressing mission that would [and should] preclude any task or leisure other than the main quest, done as fast as possible... is that not what they would do when their family's life was at risk?

Take Fallout 1 though, if the vault dweller elected to abandon the vault, and let them all die, then that was a valid choice if playing a bitter—and likely psychotic PC; and of course the game ends with the fate of the vault. The PC wanders off into the world and lived ever after (for as long as he could, doing whatever he wished); and so what—from the game perspective. The game quits once the player veers off script.

If someone else tells me in an end slide what my character did after they saved the world, not only is it a slap in the face because it's MY character, they don't get to decide that shit...

How is it a slap or an insult? It's the character, and you get to extrapolate how they would react to situations for the duration of the game. You are lamenting what happens after the story is ended; after your gameplay has ended... after they go on to live out the rest of their life.

There are better RPGs than Fallout that have assigned PCs, where you don't even get to choose their name (or personal goals); let alone what they do after the game ends. I don't see these as insults or slaps, I see them as offering the player a temporary window into their world, with deciding influence on one of their inhabitants—for a time.

The flipside of that is Bethesda... and they don't even make RPGs; they make hiking sims that have infant/adult PCs with no acquaintances or plausible means to have survived to adulthood—and no history of having done it. It's like they fell out of a hole in the sky, and started wandering around asking questions. Compare that with the Baldur's Gate, Witcher, and the Fallout series. (Whose PC characters have a relatively developed origin from the start). These games all show a slice of the life of the PC, from where they start, to where they end up.

Bethesda's games focus on maintaining the sandbox at all costs—even detrimentally so. Their games are about [digital] costuming, and ego-empowerment; and so it's not surprising that they make it endless. Roleplaying does not appear to be their focus or concern; arguably the character in their games is intended only as a pretense; something to be forgotten about as the player replaces them with themselves, and their own personality. It's a hiking sim.

 

[SMBComix]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

 

[Gizmojunk]

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree then.

So... from that [above] we agree to disagree? You are saying that I wasted an in depth reply? (For no counterpoints, or further reasoning.)

Okay then. There is nothing particularly wrong with that—but others may eventually come to expect the same if that's a habit, and you'll eventually stop getting thoughtful replies.

In my case, I can get my answers from your later post above; and I can see that we don't disagree on everything discussed here.
But I do not need (or want) the full erata of my character's existence. I don't see them as an avatar. In Fallout, when they are spending two weeks on the road, I don't want to experience two weeks in the salt flats walking alone all day, and eating mut-fruit to maintain strength... that's their job, and it's assumed that they handle it on their own.
*But... I do want them to have had the ordeal.

In Fallout 1, when the Vault dweller strikes off (—into the Sunset, like in any good western film)... that's a good end to my interest in their adventure. In Fallout 2, I got to see a bit of the results of their adventure in the interim between the games, and that was cool. Not once did it even occur to me to think "That's not what my character would have done! ". My character walked off into the Sunset on their own; and I moved on to whatever the next game was that I hadn't played yet.

*Interestingly though (and you might also like this, as I did), there is [was] a fellow on Youtube who played every RPG with the same character; including Fallout 1 & 2... and Wasteland; best roleplayer I've seen too.
I have watched his Wasteland play-though at least three times.

https://www.youtube.com/user/mynameisnotlilly/playlists

I just think it should remain an option for those that want it.

This is the bane and downfall of all gamedom. Fawningly servile attempts to please absolutely everyone, even to the point of including stuff that the game doesn't need, just because someone out there might want it.

The only time I ever saw that end well, was when a guy posted about his motor disability (he could not move quickly enough in the game using WASD), and so the developer added optional mouse-click navigation buttons on the spot, and they were in the next patch just like that. That was a pretty cool thing to do.

 

[Paladin Hank]

*Interestingly though (and you might also like this, as I did), there is [was] a fellow on Youtube who played every RPG with the same character; including Fallout 1 & 2... and Wasteland; best roleplayer I've seen too.
I have watched his Wasteland play-though at least three times.

He tagged the Barter skill in his Fallout 2 character sheet. Best roleplayer my ass

 

[Ediros]

To me, it seems pointless, playing after the ending. Most of the time it ends up being a pointless and shallow experience. To top it off, it makes no sense in certain circumstances. Imagine Fallout 3 (Van Buren, the good one), in the ending of it, you could choose to nuke the world or sacrifice yourself. Imagine nuking the world, then your character comes back and what game continues? The settlements you visited are turned into craters?

I can understand the appeal playing after the game ends, heck, New Vegas was meant to allow you to play after the end. There are bits of pieces of unused dialogues, etc. At the same time, from the story point of view it would require additional work for a small part of the playerbase.

For instance Lonesome Road, it's supposed to be your final destination, then you decide to go to battle of Hover Dam and finish it after, it makes no sense.

Take other RPGs or games with RPG elements, like:

a)Breath of Fire 3, you fight the final boss and save the world, you have nothing more to do.

b)Persona 5, after you end the final boss.

c)Fallout 1 - what you stop the mutants, get exiled and still do quests?

To put it plainly, It's a lot of work, for a small margin of players. I mean, I would rather replay New Vegas with new character and see different options than keep playing the same one to finish all the quests.

Also, imagine writing 50 different scenarios depending on the player actions in New Vegas and trying to pack them all in? Did you give vault 22 to hildern - if yes, will more spore carriers start to appear? If you bombed the strip, how will it look? What about places like Novac, Mccarran, Camp Golf, Westside, Primm, Goodsprings? Not to mention all the dlcs. Frankly put, it's seems a lot of work for something that ultimately doesn't really matter that much in these types of RPGs.

 

[Gizmojunk]

He tagged the Barter skill in his Fallout 2 character sheet. Best roleplayer my ass

I've done that; I've even tagged Gambling on a first level PC. My guy strolls into the Junktown Casino with 5 caps, and left with 1500 to spend at the store.

Doesn't skill choice partly define the PC's personality? It certainly influences the options for what they are likely to do in a given situation.

 

[SMBComix]

I personally prefer RPGs that let you create a character from scratch and have adventures with it. To me, that's what a true RPG is -- I can't play the Witcher as an RPG because it's not my character, it's someone else's and I'm just allowed to fuck it up if I want. I don't like that at all.

To me, the PC in an RPG should be both a separate character AND an avatar. At least, that's how I've always treated them.

With regards to having the adventure end... why the hell would I want to do that? I don't play games for that. If I want a linear narrative that ends, I'll read a book or watch a movie. I play games specifically to live in that world virtually, as a character of my own creation. I don't expect every character I make to try to join the Brotherhood of Steel or support the NCR. But I will be attached to that character by the time the main quest ends... too attached to ever be satisfied with any ending the game came up with, because I'll want to keep playing from there. Going back to a previous save is basically just rewinding time and making them suddenly not give a damn about saving the world, which depending on the character is COMPLETELY out of character.

 

[Paladin Hank]

I've done that; I've even tagged Gambling on a first level PC. My guy strolls into the Junktown Casino with 5 caps, and left with 1500 to spend at the store.
Doesn't skill choice partly define the PC's personality? It certainly influences the options for what they are likely to do in a given situation.

Bottlecaps get useless pretty darn quickly, which is why I never tag Barter skills in Fallout 1 and 2. Although of course if I were to play as a gambler or a businessman, I would tag it simply for roleplaying purposes.

 

[naossano]

To put it plainly, It's a lot of work, for a small margin of players. .

Not mentionning the players who would be agains't that, as they would want a definitive and memorable ending to close their game with. There are people who love endless games and people who would hate them.

Also, there are multiple possible shortcoming. Underwhelming post-ending content. No post-ending exclusive contente. Limitation on the possible ending scenario (impossible to kill off or doom the protagonist, for instance). Lack of conclusion. Too much ressources toward side stuff, etc...