Support NeoGAF

[Gvaz]

I definitely think the patch is coming this week, maybe even later today. They seem to know that it is coming very shortly, and they don't want to post any updates or details until the patch is actually released. It sounds like a really major patch too:




Also, it has been confirmed that:

a) Old World Blues requires this patch, which is why it has to come out first.

b) You actually get a home base where you can stay, in OWB.

Oh so this is a new dlc thing? Old World Blues?

 

[duckroll]

Oh so this is a new dlc thing? Old World Blues?

DLC Vol1 = Dead Money
DLC Vol2 = Honest Hearts
DLC Vol3 = Old World Blues
DLC Vol4 = Lonesome Road

 

[Wallach]

Oh so this is a new dlc thing? Old World Blues?

There's a patch and a new DLC called Old World Blues. The patch will land before Old World Blues, and both should land within a short time frame.

 

[Gvaz]

I guess I should just ignore NV until Lonesome Road comes out, unless they made it so you can play DLC after the end of the game yet?

(last I checked I was in the white hand place in NV)

 

[duckroll]

I guess I should just ignore NV until Lonesome Road comes out, unless they made it so you can play DLC after the end of the game yet?

(last I checked I was in the white hand place in NV)

There will never be a DLC where you can play after the end of the game. Never.

 

[Gvaz]

I'm not sure if you're messing with me or what...

I'm pretty sure FO3 had a dlc that allowed you to continue playing after the game ended or something.

 

[duckroll]

I'm not sure if you're messing with me or what...

I'm pretty sure FO3 had a dlc that allowed you to continue playing after the game ended or something.

Yeah, FO3 did. So?

 

[zychi]

gonna pick up the collectors edition of this for the dlc, should i get this on ps3 or 360? is there a superior version? don't want a flame war just a factual choice as i've already completed the main game and achievements on 360 when i rented it.

 

[Wallach]

There will never be a DLC where you can play after the end of the game. Never.

So they claim. I'm still hoping they change their stance on this for DLC4, because their justification for it is beyond retarded.

 

[Gvaz]

Yeah, FO3 did. So?

I don't want to replay the damn game just to experience the dlc. No way man that's stupid.

I love New Vegas but that just ticks me off. Maybe there's a mod to fix that.

 

[hemtae]

I don't want to replay the damn game just to experience the dlc. No way man that's stupid.

I love New Vegas but that just ticks me off. Maybe there's a mod to fix that.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, you can go back to each of the areas in Honest Hearts, Old World Blues, and the Lonesome Road just like in Point Lookout

 

[Wallach]

I don't want to replay the damn game just to experience the dlc. No way man that's stupid.

I love New Vegas but that just ticks me off. Maybe there's a mod to fix that.

I think you'll just have to load a save prior to the last plotline quest.

 

[Gvaz]

I mean, you have to have a save from before the point of no return section of the story to play the dlc, otherwise you have to start over.

I would want to continue playing after the point of no return, because I don't agree with not being able to play the dlc on a character you spent a lot of time on.

If you can, then that's good, but it seems like that's not the case.

http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=42428

I found this mod, dunno if it works though.

 

[drewbian]

I thought it automatically created a new save right before the point of no return.

 

[tokkun]

Honestly, who plays Fallout with only one save slot? That's madness.

 

[duckroll]

So they claim. I'm still hoping they change their stance on this for DLC4, because their justification for it is beyond retarded.

They will never do this, and I totally disagree that their justification is retarded.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

I agree with the duck, it's a fair justification.

Not to knock FO3 or anything but I don't think that there's anything really commendable about totally retconning the ending of your game to justify selling DLC. It wasn't that offensive in FO3 because the main story was an incredibly small part of the overall game, and let's face it the DLC was how the game should have always ended anyway, but the story of New Vegas is a massive aspect of the game.

And what happens if you are able to just keep playing after the end? Say you sided with the Legion and took over the Strip? Or what if you drove the NCR out of the Mojave and went independent? There isn't an outcome for the main game which doesn't irrevocably alter the political landscape of the Mojave, so they would either have to transform large parts of the game in at least 3 different ways, one for each of the major outcomes, or leave it as it is which would be totally jarring.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for New Vegas though, I really don't mind having to start a new character. 200 hours and still counting!

 

[Wallach]

I agree with the duck, it's a fair justification.

Not to knock FO3 or anything but I don't think that there's anything really commendable about totally retconning the ending of your game to justify selling DLC. It wasn't that offensive in FO3 because the main story was an incredibly small part of the overall game, and let's face it the DLC was how the game should have always ended anyway, but the story of New Vegas is a massive aspect of the game.

Them having to retcon the ending to do it was their own fault. It's not something that would have been necessary to allow the player to continue playing post-completion in New Vegas. Fallout 2 certainly did it easily enough.

And what happens if you are able to just keep playing after the end? Say you sided with the Legion and took over the Strip? Or what if you drove the NCR out of the Mojave and went independent? There isn't an outcome for the main game which doesn't irrevocably alter the political landscape of the Mojave, so they would either have to transform large parts of the game in at least 3 different ways, one for each of the major outcomes.

Maybe I'm just a sucker for New Vegas though, I really don't mind having to start a new character. 200 hours and still counting!

They wouldn't have to change hardly anything. The reality of the outcomes presented in the endings all take time. It's the one thing Fallout games are almost constantly asking you to forgive when it comes to suspension of disbelief; I can play 300+ in-game days and unless you take certain actions, almost nothing changes. In most cases you can take your character on month long excursions and come back to turn in a quest and nobody bats an eye.

More to the point, it didn't really accomplish anything worthwhile. If they ever come back to the elements they've introduced here, the majority of us are going to have our decisions walked over anyway. It comes with the territory of a Fallout game; there's not going to be any importing of saves when you look at just how different we wind up changing the landscape. So basically either they pick some form of canon and everyone else gets told to go screw anyway, or we never actually get to see the ramifications of it all beyond the ending's tale and that is delivered to the player whether they'd have continued beyond the final events or not.

 

[HadesGigas]

The no playing after the ending is annoying. It's why I haven't even beaten the game yet. I figured I might as wait for the DLCs and explore as much of the rest of the world I can while I wait.

 

[Gvaz]

Yeah me as well. I got to the part right before and quit so I could still play the dlc without having to find an old save or start over.

 

[Aaron]

They will never do this, and I totally disagree that their justification is retarded.

It's incredibly retarded because it removes a major payoff for your actions. The main quest is all about aiding one faction, or yourself, in taking control of the region... and you only see the results of that in a handful of stills. It needed something like Earthbound where you can wander the wastes after the story is over to drink in the consequences of your actions. Otherwise, there's no point in finishing the game. The whole end sequence felt to me overly long and pointless.

 

[duckroll]

More to the point, it didn't really accomplish anything worthwhile. If they ever come back to the elements they've introduced here, the majority of us are going to have our decisions walked over anyway. It comes with the territory of a Fallout game; there's not going to be any importing of saves when you look at just how different we wind up changing the landscape. So basically either they pick some form of canon and everyone else gets told to go screw anyway, or we never actually get to see the ramifications of it all beyond the ending's tale and that is delivered to the player whether they'd have continued beyond the final events or not.

I see it from a different perspective. What it accomplished was wrapping up the entire game, and in doing so it created a situation where even if you were able to continue playing the game after the ending, that post-game would be relatively meaningless. The way the ending covered all major events, it automatically cancels out all the major regional quest lines which a player might have missed or otherwise not completed fully. As such, a player who continues playing after the ending would not be able to finish up those quests which have been left open anyway.

By closing the door on post-ending play, it actively encourages players to make new characters to experience content they had missed out the first time round, or to try something different, instead of trying to continue playing post-game only to realize that there's really nothing much left to do. It would be a waste of money and resources to record extra casual dialogue for NPCs in various areas, as well as gossip lines like "that's the man who sold us all out to the Legion, fuck him and his entire family!" or "he helped the NCR save Hoover Dam, he's a goddamn hero!" or whatever.

I think that having post-game content and being able to play after an ending can work very well for certain games, especially if it fits with how the ending was designed, and there is actually content and stuff worth doing or finishing up after the ending. But that does not mean that every single game should be designed this way, or that designers who feel that such a feature is not required are wrong. There is no right or wrong here, simply different. Wrong would be backpedaling on a valid game decision just because of pressure from a small group of gamers who feel so self-righteous that anything which goes against what they specifically want in a game has to be wrong.

It's incredibly retarded because it removes a major payoff for your actions. The main quest is all about aiding one faction, or yourself, in taking control of the region... and you only see the results of that in a handful of stills. It needed something like Earthbound where you can wander the wastes after the story is over to drink in the consequences of your actions. Otherwise, there's no point in finishing the game. The whole end sequence felt to me overly long and pointless.

I completely disagree. The payoff for my actions is the ending itself. I don't need to see the results of my actions beyond that. The reward is playing the finishing the game itself. I don't see a need for a persistent world, nor do I think it really adds much practical value.

 

[Wallach]

I see it from a different perspective. What it accomplished was wrapping up the entire game, and in doing so it created a situation where even if you were able to continue playing the game after the ending, that post-game would be relatively meaningless.

Right, but that is accomplished via the ending itself; whether or not the player would want to continue after that point winds up being totally irrelevant. But yet there are still players that would want to just carry on even knowing that fact, and you still close them off from it even when the weight of the ending has already been delivered in the exact same way as it was to the player who wouldn't have wanted to go on past the ending conclusion. They understood this perfectly in Fallout 2, but somehow it escapes them this time.

By closing the door on post-ending play, it actively encourages players to make new characters to experience content they had missed out the first time round, or to try something different, instead of trying to continue playing post-game only to realize that there's really nothing much left to do. It would be a waste of money and resources to record extra casual dialogue for NPCs in various areas, as well as gossip lines like "that's the man who sold us all out to the Legion, fuck him and his entire family!" or "he helped the NCR save Hoover Dam, he's a goddamn hero!" or whatever.

This isn't really encouraged, it's outright forced. If it encourages something, it is probably encouraging players to not finish the story at all so they can continue to play a particular character without having to think about it.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Them having to retcon the ending to do it was their own fault. It's not something that would have been necessary to allow the player to continue playing post-completion in New Vegas. Fallout 2 certainly did it easily enough.

It was definitely Bethesda's fault, but I guess the issue for me is that them going back on that decision didn't change my feelings about the story because I could take it or leave it. New Vegas is not in the same boat for me.

I really don't remember how Fallout 2 did it in spite of having played it quite a few times in the last few years. What was the deal there?

They wouldn't have to change hardly anything. The reality of the outcomes presented in the endings all take time. It's the one thing Fallout games are almost constantly asking you to forgive when it comes to suspension of disbelief; I can play 300+ in-game days and unless you take certain actions, almost nothing changes. In most cases you can take your character on month long excursions and come back to turn in a quest and nobody bats an eye.

More to the point, it didn't really accomplish anything worthwhile. If they ever come back to the elements they've introduced here, the majority of us are going to have our decisions walked over anyway. It comes with the territory of a Fallout game; there's not going to be any importing of saves when you look at just how different we wind up changing the landscape. So basically either they pick some form of canon and everyone else gets told to go screw anyway, or we never actually get to see the ramifications of it all beyond the ending's tale and that is delivered to the player whether they'd have continued beyond the final events or not.

I think duckroll covered this pretty well as far as side quests, tribes and minor factions, but I'd add that it would be necessary imo to at least show that something had changed with the big factions. As far as them treading all over your choices if they ever revisit the setting, I'd argue that's precisely what they're trying to avoid doing =]

And this:

I completely disagree. The payoff for my actions is the ending itself. I don't need to see the results of my actions beyond that. The reward is playing the finishing the game itself. I don't see a need for a persistent world, nor do I think it really adds much practical value.

Is grade-A truth imo. As someone who really appreciates writing in games the wind-up represents the culmination of one the most masterfully crafted pieces of interactive fiction I've ever experienced.

 

[Wallach]

It was definitely Bethesda's fault, but I guess the issue for me is that them going back on that decision didn't change my feelings about the story because I could take it or leave it. New Vegas is not in the same boat for me.

I really don't remember how Fallout 2 did it in spite of having played it quite a few times in the last few years. What was the deal there?

There's no deal. You just get plopped on the San Fran dock.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of post-game DLC at all; I'm arguing that a player should be able to continue to play the character after the completion of the plot. DLC that tries to continue the story isn't necessary.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

There's no deal. You just get plopped on the San Fran dock.

0.o

I don't remember that at all, must be getting old.

Note that I'm not arguing in favor of post-game DLC at all; I'm arguing that a player should be able to continue to play the character after the completion of the plot. DLC that tries to continue the story isn't necessary.

Nah I know what you're saying. I guess my feeling is that, if you make the choice as part of your overall design then you should stick with it or you risk screwing with the verisimilitude of the world you've created. Obsidian seem to have decided that it wouldn't suit their narrative, so I'd rather they leave it at that, but ultimately I don't have any ideological attachment to one way or the other.

 

[duckroll]

Right, but that is accomplished via the ending itself; whether or not the player would want to continue after that point winds up being totally irrelevant. But yet there are still players that would want to just carry on even knowing that fact, and you still close them off from it even when the weight of the ending has already been delivered in the exact same way as it was to the player who wouldn't have wanted to go on past the ending conclusion. They understood this perfectly in Fallout 2, but somehow it escapes them this time.

Fallout 2 was not a fully voiced game, and it allowed the developers to do a lot more with completely optional and niche options for players. I do not dispute that Fallout 2 is a far superior game at offering a wide range of choices for any sort of player, and not falling victim into having to pick and choose what sort of content to offer over another sort of content. But that is because games were cheaper to make back then, and it is harder for us to ever return to that period.

Another example would be low INT characters. Fallout 2 totally nailed the roleplaying aspect for that. I was almost as if you were playing a different game as a low INT character. New Vegas doesn't offer the same sort of experience, and as a fan of that option in FO2, I find that it is a pity. But I also understand why, because to record the huge number of optional lines to create the same sort of experience FO2 offered, would be extremely expensive, and ultimately very few players would ever actually make use of such content.

This isn't really encouraged, it's outright forced. If it encourages something, it is probably encouraging players to not finish the story at all so they can continue to play a particular character without having to think about it.

Which leads me to this. Yes, it is forced. But why is it forced? Because they probably believe (rightly so imo) that there is little value in continuing on after the ending slides. If they did offer such an option, they would have to budget at the very least a bunch of lines and slight changes to each community area to make the post-ending gameplay meaningful even in a minor way. But what is the value in paying for this extra cost when the bulk of the actual gameplay in terms of quests and any factional or regional plotlines, would basically be closed/failed after the ending slides anyway?

It might seem like an easy thing to do in theory, but in practice, I am completely convinced that if they offered a half-assed post-ending play experience, most of the people bitching about but being able to continue after the ending, would be bitching anyway about not being able to do [insert whatever here] after the ending, or the post-ending being boring, or the post-ending not making sense, or whatever else. Just slapping on post-ending play isn't going to suddenly make everyone happy.

The real solution to making everyone happy, or at least most people happy, would be a much costlier option - to create a convincing and rewarding post-game epilogue section of the game, with unique content and quests, but would also basically "last forever" in terms of game time, because there is no longer an immediate pressing matter in the game world. This would be closer to the Fallout 2 experience you mentioned. But the budget of the game clearly does not support this, and I feel that not having such an option, instead of having a half-assed one, is a better decision overall.

 

[jim-jam bongs]

Another example would be low INT characters. Fallout 2 totally nailed the roleplaying aspect for that. I was almost as if you were playing a different game as a low INT character.

For people who have never done this in Fallout 2 I'd strongly recommend the Let's Play.

 

[Saint10118]

This isn't really encouraged, it's outright forced. If it encourages something, it is probably encouraging players to not finish the story at all so they can continue to play a particular character without having to think about it.

To me, being "forced" to start the story over is a consequence of having to make impactive choices that alter the story as a whole. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how post-ending play wouldn't dilute the overall experience of making game-changing choices of that magnitude.

 

[Wallach]

The real solution to making everyone happy, or at least most people happy, would be a much costlier option - to create a convincing and rewarding post-game epilogue section of the game, with unique content and quests, but would also basically "last forever" in terms of game time, because there is no longer an immediate pressing matter in the game world. This would be closer to the Fallout 2 experience you mentioned. But the budget of the game clearly does not support this, and I feel that not having such an option, instead of having a half-assed one, is a better decision overall.

What? The number of things that actually change after the completion of Fallout 2 is a tiny bullet point list. But they still understood that there was something to gain from allowing people to just continue on if they decide to, and nothing to really lose - the ending's impact wasn't changed whatsoever. That's why I take issue with it; literally nothing of value changes if they had taken the Fallout 2 route of just letting people carry on if they feel like it. It's especially annoying when involves annoying interaction with post-release DLC on the player's end.

To me, being "forced" to start the story over is a consequence of having to make impactive choices that alter the story as a whole. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how post-ending play wouldn't dilute the overall experience of making game-changing choices of that magnitude.

How would it dilute anything that's already taken place? In neither case would you get to see the ramifications of your actions beyond the ending slides. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[duckroll]

literally nothing of value changes if they had taken the Fallout 2 route of just letting people carry on if they feel like it.

What changes is the cost.

 

[Wallach]

What changes is the cost.

Well, that wasn't the justification they presented, which is the one I took issue with.

 

[Aaron]

Is grade-A truth imo. As someone who really appreciates writing in games the wind-up represents the culmination of one the most masterfully crafted pieces of interactive fiction I've ever experienced.

I found most of the writing in New Vegas merely adequate and rather shallow. There was some good companion bits, but aside from that the main story was rather bland for me. House is a poor copy of Andrew Ryan, Caesar is just a dick, and the NCR had no personality whatsoever. I had no investment at all leading up to the end game, and the ending can only be described as 'meh.' Fallout 3 was no prize either in the writing department, but I don't even feel New Vegas was a step up. A half step at best.

Without the ability to go back to the world you've changed, you can't live with the consequences of your actions, and if you can live with the consequences, the end of New Vegas is no different than 'Your a Winnar!' screen in an arcade game.

 

[duckroll]

Well, that wasn't the justification they presented, which is the one I took issue with.

The justification is why they feel it is not worth doing it. The cost is why they did not do it anyway. If they felt that there was value in doing it, they would have pushed through the concept even if there is a cost involved. But if they feel justified in not doing it, AND there is an added cost to doing it anyway, why would they implement something just for people who want an option they disagree with anyway?

Don't you see what I'm saying? With Fallout 2, such an option is provided at minimal cost because the game is not fully voiced, and they can just write throwaway lines here and there very easily without adding any increased cost into the game.

 

[Saint10118]

How would it dilute anything that's already taken place? In neither case would you get to see the ramifications of your actions beyond the ending slides. It's solving a problem that doesn't exist.

I guess for me, once I've hit the climax, I'm no longer interested in fucking around. To each their own though.

Without the ability to go back to the world you've changed, you can't live with the consequences of your actions, and if you can live with the consequences, the end of New Vegas is no different than 'Your a Winnar!' screen in an arcade game.

If this isn't hyperbole on your end, I'm not sure what game you were actually playing.

 

[Wallach]

The justification is why they feel it is not worth doing it. The cost is why they did not do it anyway. If they felt that there was value in doing it, they would have pushed through the concept even if there is a cost involved. But if they feel justified in not doing it, AND there is an added cost to doing it anyway, why would they implement something just for people who want an option they disagree with anyway?

Don't you see what I'm saying? With Fallout 2, such an option is provided at minimal cost because the game is not fully voiced, and they can just write throwaway lines here and there very easily without adding any increased cost into the game.

They can afford to voice every line in the entire game, but they can't afford a few more lines for a handful of NPCs? I'm not sure either of us should be speaking for them regarding budget but I find this pretty hard to believe.

 

[duckroll]

They can afford to voice every line in the entire game, but they can't afford a few more lines for a handful of NPCs? I'm not sure either of us should be speaking for them regarding budget but I find this pretty hard to believe.

It's not about "affording" to voice every line in the entire game. In fact, that is the problem. It is a requirement to voice every single line in the game, because of how Bethesda did it. Since this is still a Bethesda published game, for a Bethesda-owned IP, running on the same engine and tool set that Bethesda used on Fallout 3, it has to follow the same basic standards.

As such, because they HAVE to voice every single spoken line in the game, it becomes more of a matter of reducing extraneous lines if possible, especially for content that the designers don't feel will add anything to the game, or feel attracts a very small number of players.

Chris Avellone actually addressed this partly when he talked about the Dead Money DLC. He had a lot of fun writing a mute character, and it had the extra benefit of being able to have a lot more dialogue and text without having to worry about budgeting voice recordings for it. It's certainly something which the designers are consciously aware of, so I'm not making this up.

 

[Wallach]

It's not about "affording" to voice every line in the entire game. In fact, that is the problem. It is a requirement to voice every single line in the game, because of how Bethesda did it. Since this is still a Bethesda published game, for a Bethesda-owned IP, running on the same engine and tool set that Bethesda used on Fallout 3, it has to follow the same basic standards.

As such, because they HAVE to voice every single spoken line in the game, it becomes more of a matter of reducing extraneous lines if possible, especially for content that the designers don't feel will add anything to the game, or feel attracts a very small number of players.

Chris Avellone actually addressed this partly when he talked about the Dead Money DLC. He had a lot of fun writing a mute character, and it had the extra benefit of being able to have a lot more dialogue and text without having to worry about budgeting voice recordings for it. It's certainly something which the designers are consciously aware of, so I'm not making this up.

I'm not saying you're making it up that X number of VAs speaking 1-2 more lines would cost some unknown amount of money more than what they already spent.

Look, here's the point:

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.'

This is the argument I think is basically nonsense. This is what I'm arguing against. I don't care about their budget; it's rather only a tangent to the ideology of why he claims they went this route. Why that matters is because if he actually believes the above, the cost factor wouldn't be relevant in justifying this to me or anyone else that feels the same way, and if he doesn't then the above is actually a rationalization based on their bottom line.

 

[duckroll]

This is the argument I think is basically nonsense. This is what I'm arguing against. I don't care about their budget; it's rather only a tangent to the ideology of why he claims they went this route. Why that matters is because if he actually believes the above, the cost factor wouldn't be relevant in justifying this to me or anyone else that feels the same way, and if he doesn't then the above is actually a rationalization based on their bottom line.

But how is it nonsense? Listen to what he says:

"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."

That is exactly what I'm talking about. If they had unlimited budget, and could support the substantial post-game ending they wanted, they would have done it. Since they do not have the unlimited budget to do that, they are unable to, and hence they did not do it.

What they were trying to avoid was making a sub-standard post-game which didn't remotely reflect any of the changes in the world after the ending. You might say that it is bullshit and that it doesn't matter because even if it is sub-standard, it is better than not having one at all. That's where we disagree. I feel that for any product, it is better if the quality is consistent, even if it means there is less overall. More options are only better if you can keep the options all on the quality that you consider acceptable.

 

[Lionheart1337]

Honestly, who plays Fallout with only one save slot? That's madness.

Man one my plathrough I was backing up saves on another PC....I was that dedicated to my run.

 

[D_Star]

Not to be a dick and cut off the discussion about the DLC or anything...

...But I've only recently picked F:NV up, and I must say that I'm enjoying it! It's the first Fallout that I've really dedicated myself to (tried Fallout 3 but only played slightly past the Megaton part -- didn't really like it), but it's hard as fuck!

I consider myself to be OK in FPS'es, but I'm having a hard time picking people of in this game. Yesterday I decided to take a stroll from Primm to Novac though Nipton. As soon as I was reaching Nipton I was ambushed by three or four of these bandits, and they totally wiped the floor with me.. Damn, I've got some learnin to do lol

 

[Wallach]

But how is it nonsense? Listen to what he says:

"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."

That is exactly what I'm talking about. If they had unlimited budget, and could support the substantial post-game ending they wanted, they would have done it. Since they do not have the unlimited budget to do that, they are unable to, and hence they did not do it.

What they were trying to avoid was making a sub-standard post-game which didn't remotely reflect any of the changes in the world after the ending. You might say that it is bullshit and that it doesn't matter because even if it is sub-standard, it is better than not having one at all. That's where we disagree. I feel that for any product, it is better if the quality is consistent, even if it means there is less overall. More options are only better if you can keep the options all on the quality that you consider acceptable.

The main reason I think it's nonsense is because ultimately the judgement of whether an option is viewed positively or negatively rests on the player base's reaction to how it is implemented.

Ever since the original Fallout game, you had people reacting negatively to the decision to limit a player's ability to play their character. People clamored for more time in Fallout 1 to the point the game was patched to allow it; player feedback was so strong regarding being able to play post-completion that they specifically made it a point to add it to Fallout 2. Again in Fallout 3 player feedback was so strongly in favor of it that Bethesda finally added the feature via DLC. In all of these cases the player response was positive, and in all of them that feature was implemented in a very simple way.

I don't see how you can look at the history of player feedback and decide that it would be viewed as a negative quality to implement this feature even on a most basic level. Especially now that the game has been out for some time and it is still perceived as a negative thing that the game doesn't support it.

 

[Proposed Law]

I loved this game. Just finished the last of the four endings tonight. I think Caesar's Legion was my favorite. I loaded up Honest Hearts and I'm excited to start it this week. Being that I'm from Salt Lake, I go to Zions National Park every year. It will be neat to try and figure out where I'm at in the game.

How long is it? And is Dead Money any good?

Comparing this to FO3, I think they compliment each other well. I enjoyed the depth of each decision, area of the game, and factions of FONV, but I think FO3 had more memorable quests. I can still remember a handful of quests that blew me away (Tranquility Lane, Stealing Independece, Power of the Atom- to name a few).

Don't get me wrong, trying to decide who to align myself with and the President part were awesome and truly showed the brilliance of Obsidian, but besides that nothing really jumps out at me and I just finished the game for the fourth time. Maybe I need to take a day or two to think about it. Anyone else feel the same?

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

Any tips for playing as an 'evil' person in NV? I've just hit Freeside, and so far have found few options to hurt the NCR in terms of quests.

 

[BeeDog]

What's the latest information about the new DLC and the upcoming PC patch? Any tentative release dates?

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Any tips for playing as an 'evil' person in NV? I've just hit Freeside, and so far have found few options to hurt the NCR in terms of quests.

If you are in the strip, go hit up Gomorrah and work for The Family. Also, you should be getting summoned to Caesar soon and then you can start wreaking havoc upon the NCR.

 

[rainking187]

So is there no chance of Old World Blues getting released on the PSN today?

 

[33-Hit-Combo]

If you are in the strip, go hit up Gomorrah and work for The Family. Also, you should be getting summoned to Caesar soon and then you can start wreaking havoc upon the NCR.

Yea, I remember being invited to the legion. I thought that on my 2nd playthrough I would have had a lot more variation, but it's pretty much the same as my first playthrough so far!

 

[FrankT]

Haven't been keeping up, but the next DLC still making June release? Going with word of mouth and reviews only on the next two.

 

[Old Gimlet Eyes]

Yea, I remember being invited to the legion. I thought that on my 2nd playthrough I would have had a lot more variation, but it's pretty much the same as my first playthrough so far!

You can also go do some work for the Vault 19 powder gangers and the powder gangers at the NCR correctional facility by Primm.