There might be some slight spoilers here regarding Fallout 3, but I will do my best to avoid them. I haven’t finished the game, so I can’t spoil it too much anyway, I can only talk about what I know.
It seems that the new Fallout 3 DLC, “Broken Steel” which will hit next month on the PC and 360, actually removes the ending of the game itself. Beyond that, it even changes a few key events leading up to the finale, in order to make things more to people’s liking after lots of complaining about the original ending.
Not only does this raise the level cap and allow people to explore the world after the game is finished, it also raises some interesting questions.
Is it weird that we live in an age when a game’s ending can just be overwritten with a patch? People voice enough concern, and you can change anything in your game. This used to just be kept to the realm of bugs and gameplay mechanics, but now, not even story is protected. Does this seem like murky water to anyone else? What does this mean for sequels? Plot holes? Character arcs?
I’m really not trying to blow this out of proportion, I just find it an interesting question. Fans complained enough that a developer overrode their original intentions for the game and the feeling that it was supposed to leave you with upon completion. I’m not concerned about getting to play beyond the ending, that part I understand, but essentially re-writing it altogether with a patch? That I don’t know about.
What do you guys think of Bethesda essentially erasing the ending to Fallout 3? Good or bad for gaming?
Source- Kotaku
For gaming as a whole, it will depend on the outcome of the overwrite. I mean when you played the ending where you happy when its like “Ok, play again”??? That kind of ending is not acceptable for a hugely complex game like Fallout. Imagine if Oblivion did the same thing or say KOTOR? When you work so hard to get all this stuff, you cant just have an ENDING. Its FREEFORM, giving it a definite ‘no-more-play” point is silly. What a waste of time.
I dont think it will change gaming that much. I think Bethesda realizes they totally screwed up the games ending and they want to make it better so they can keep selling Fallout titles.
heaven forbid they do that to a TES game. They made a mistake, they are trying to fix it. I am not upset they are overriding some of the story element. If they can make it better then more power to them. It does look bad though in a way. They are defiantly covering up a mistake.
I don’t like it. The game originally should have been open after the last quest, but to go back and do this to appease whiners on the internet is not staying true to your artistic vision.
Where’s the ps3 version?
I don’t know that this is a big deal, but I also don’t think it’s a great idea either. I like the idea of continuing the game after you’ve completed the main storyline, but I don’t like that they’re taking the ending(s) out completely. The Fallout universe is complicated enough without screwing with the canonical timeline.
As for ‘artistic vision’ Anthony, I’ve always seen movies and games as forms of entertainment, not art. Few people agree with me on that point, but still, in my opinion, making a game fun has nothing to do with art.
I don’t care as I’ll not get this on my PS3. Why?????!!! I didn’t mind the ending, it was memorable at least, but the level cap and ‘That’s it start again’ really ticked me off. Out of paranoia of the END-START A NEW FILE happening I made 4 back-ups from various points in that mission. I know, I’m really paranoid. But it paid off didn’t it? 😛
I like the way the game ended – it gave a sort of finality to the game that, let’s face it, was also present in Fallout 1 & 2. When you think about it, fans of the original game would have been up in arms if the game didn’t actually end. Not that they weren’t upset to begin with. Changing the game, though…now THAT’S something to complain about. It’s not as bad as ‘appending’ a game with DLC (lookin’ at you, Prince of Persia), but it’s pretty darn close.
[quote comment=”6164″]I don’t like it. The game originally should have been open after the last quest, but to go back and do this to appease whiners on the internet is not staying true to your artistic vision.[/quote]
Their artistic vision was to build up tons of your time playing and getting excited about getting more stuff then shoving it in your face and saying “no”.
To be honest, I see why the just had it end. I dont like it but I see why. The ending requires A LOT to change and I dont think they had the will to do all that. In Obi once the gates are closed, that’s it. In F3, its more than closing gates. I believe they figured that was too hard so lets just, have it end.
But honestly that was a stupid idea. Because no one is going to build up a super bad ass character, doing allt he side quests and never touching the main quest, only to then go “wow I have done it all, time to go destroy all that hard time” and finish the main quest. It was a BAD idea. I dont think it was just because people whined. I think they looked at the feedback and were like “Oh crud, they are right. This sucks! Now we cant do legit scoreline addons!”
***SMALL SPOILER***
To get any form of a sequel add on that continues after the main quest you need your character. It would be pointless to continue on after and have you create a new character. Then all that work would be lost.
I think their vision was in good standing, they wanted a good story. They just didnt predict that it would end up upsetting people. I agree that they shouldn’t do it SOLELY because of the fan feedback, but at least its making them feel better about it Im sure. They make good games, I trust what they are doing.
i understand why they changed it, you die. but it is a science fiction game so it is quite unnecessary to change the entire ending.
FOUL!
I don’t really have any problems with a developer expanding or altering small things in a game’s story, but completely changing it? That’s a bit ridiculous. (THE FOLLOWING MIGHT SPOIL THE ENDING) Does the player now not die? Are the missions concerning the Enclave capturing Dad altered? I don’t know how different the story is, but if they’re changing such major events and themes in the story, then I am disappointed in Bethesda.
Perhaps Bethesda never really felt comfortable in the first place and it wasn’t just the whiners and the wailers. Though I’m not sure why they would ship a game they didn’t even feel comfortable with. Then there are those who may have liked it just the way it was. I guess that’s why it’s only DLC.
Having finished it tho, i would say it definitely felt incomplete and anti-climactic. While what Bethesda is doing will almost definitely improve the game, its a bit bothering that they are doing this now. Almost like we gave them bad comments on the conclusion for their final draft so now they’re fixing it up and turning it back in, only… it’s past the due date.
DLC in the gaming industry really is the pacifier for pisses off fans, we ought to get used to this kinda thing. But whatever change is made at least its still in the image of Bethesda, the day fans get too involved in rewriting games is the day gaming dies.
[quote comment=”6182″](THE FOLLOWING MIGHT SPOIL THE ENDING) Does the player now not die?[/quote]
Also possible spoilers – I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that the player has to die in the end. Maybe it just picks up as if you hadn’t opted to sacrifice yourself? I like the freedom to kill my character…
This is kind of a mixed blessing. I didn’t mind Fallout 3’s ending, but I still would have enjoyed roaming the wastes with my maxed-out character. (On X-Box, anyways, my Vault Dweller was level 20 right out of the box on PC. H4x ftw.)
I think that if people don’t like the prospect of developers changing an ending and then selling it to you, don’t buy it. In these “troubled times”, boycotting will probably have more of an affect now than it would have a few years ago. Of course, this thing will sell like hot-cakes, as did RE5’s much detested Multiplayer DLC.
Whether or not Bethesda did the right thing by not sticking to their guns remains to be seen, but the one thing we can take away from all this is how important to games story is, and how integral to our experience DLC has become.
Imagine is Sonic the Hedgehog ended with Dr. Eggman winning, or Sonic going on a power trip and using the Emeralds for evil? That would have sucked, and due to the lack of a quick way to fix it, Sonic – and possibly Sega – would have met their end rather prematurely.
That might have been a poor example (I thought it up like two seconds before I was about to click submit) but I think that we can’t under-estimate the fact that Bethesda actually listened to their fans and are putting out a product that addresses some major concerns.
(Unless they had this planned all along, in which case, f*ck ’em.)
[quote comment=”6190″][quote comment=”6182″](THE FOLLOWING MIGHT SPOIL THE ENDING) Does the player now not die?[/quote]
Also possible spoilers – I could be wrong, but I don’t believe that the player has to die in the end. Maybe it just picks up as if you hadn’t opted to sacrifice yourself? I like the freedom to kill my character…[/quote]
/Nope, Lyons can go instead. Fawkes can’t for some stupid reason he gives. Idiot.
They don’t have to erase it, they could just say that you didn’t really die of radiation, I mean comeon, I wore a radsuit and took rad-x before going in, it couldn’t have been that bad.
(note my sarcasm)
I feel that it’s kind of up to the Developer. Honestly, if they felt that it was ok to change it, then fine, it was ok. But if they were forced to change it, which I highly doubt that they were, that’s just not right. It should be left up to their judgment.