I completely agree. And I rather doubt it would be all that hard to allow the player to keep going after finishing the main quest.
I would also like to know why there’s a level cap. If there’s going to be one, leave it as the old Fallouts, where the cap is because you simply can’t get enough experience for the next level without really working for it.
You can “chicken out” of the final mission right up to the last scene:
I’ve spent the last few weeks exploring after killing Colonel Autumn and then wandering out of the Jefferson Memorial. Popped back once to pick up some more plasma rifles and ammo - the enormous robot was hanging around, the Enclave troops kept respawning, and Sarah Lyons was looking a bit hacked off at holding the fort on her own.
Wow. That was possibly one of the most BS “I’m horribly embarassed so I’m going to pretend I knew what the hell I was doing” answers I’ve ever heard. Ah well. I do want to play the game. It’s just idiotic that Bethsoft decide to railroad the character into death, although probably the expansion will take care of that somehow.
Really? I thought it was surprisingly candid; he even admits that they didn’t plan well enough. What else would you expect for an answer? (sorry if that comes across as snarky–I really don’t intend for it to be)
It’s this part, basically:
"What we could do – and what we did ultimately do – is cover that stuff in dialogue. You can ask those followers to go into the purifier, and they’ll tell you why they won’t. We felt that fit with their personalities, but really, they didn’t “sell” that to the player in a single line of dialogue. So, in the end, the player’s left with a, “Huh, why the hell can’t they do it?!” sort of feeling.
So the story does kind of break down. But you know what? We knew that, and were OK with it, because the trade-off is, well, you get these cool followers to join you. You meet up with Fawkes near the end of the game, and it’s true you can go right with him to the purifier. So we could’ve not had him there as a follower, and that would’ve solved the problem of him not going into the purifier – because, at that point in development, that was the only fix we had time for. But we kept it, and players got him as a follower, and they seem to love adventuring him with. Gameplay trumped story, in that example – as I believe it should have.
So if we’d planned better, we could’ve addressed that more satisfactorily. But considering how it all went down, I feel good about the decision we made there."
That was pretty pathetic as an excuse. It may well have been a last minute thing, but the fact remains they deicede it was more convenient to them to have several assistants who could handily do that, but who decided out of sheer laziness or bastardity that they’d rather you die from horrible radiation overdoseage than walk across a room.
Had he simply said, “Yeah, we were forced to cobble something together to get it out the door because we scewed up the planning,” that would be one thing. When he tries to justify it, it’s comes off as idiocy.
But that is what he said. The “justification” you refer to are the reasons behind said decision. Perhaps I’m just used to other developers beating around the bush regarding similar issues, but this guy tackles it head-on.
Doesn’t explain why there isn’t a patch out now to remedy what he acknowledges as a flaw in the game. It’s like the Dallas Cowboys against the Eagles, standing with their hands on their hips instead of at least TRYING to tackle someone.
Sorry for the cross-game reference, but it applies.
Indeed it doesn’t answer a question he wasn’t asked…
You’re right; he wasn’t directly asked why there wasn’t a patch to remedy the situation. I guess that’s the interviewer’s fault. If I had conducted the interview I would have asked him the question. Based on his established responses, however, I doubt that the explanation would be much different; the developers know that the game’s ending is flawed but they’re OK with it because hey, look at the cool companions the player gets to have! Look! Pretty lights!
He should probably go into politics, as he obviated the need to address the main complaint and apparently convinced at least one person that he had a reasonable excuse for doing so.
Don’t think for a moment I’m defending the game; I don’t much care for Fallout 3 or Bethesda. In fact, I think Oblivion is one of the biggest steaming piles of crap I’ve played, but I digress. Point is, I felt that he was being admirably candid in his portrayal of how things went down and their subsequent feelings on said matter.
*“We felt that fit with their personalities, but really, they didn’t “sell” that to the player in a single line of dialogue. So, in the end, the player’s left with a, “Huh, why the hell can’t they do it?!” sort of feeling.”
“So the story does kind of break down.”
“So if we’d planned better, we could’ve addressed that more satisfactorily.”*
Comparing his rational of gameplay additions/story consequences to “look! Pretty lights!” is simply insulting. He explained why they did what they had to do, while conceding their solution was less than satisfactory. I’m not saying you have to agree with it being a “reasonable excuse” (I frankly don’t care if it is or isn’t), but his answer certainly seems sincere enough, and I have no reason to doubt that’s truly how he feels.
I would agree with you if we were talking about a film or TV show that HAD to be finished and out the door, and he had to explain the ending. But games are patched ALL THE TIME. One of the admittedly annoying things about PC games in general is that oftentimes it seems like beta versions are released to the public and patches come out shortly after release so users can finally play the game that was MEANT to be released. In the case of Fallout 3, it’s by and large a very enjoyable game, IMO, but the ending blows chunks, and it would be a relatively easy fix. I think that the developers are smart enough to know this, BUT THEY DO NOTHING TO FIX IT. Sure, he’s sincere! I’ll give him credit for that. It just disappoints me that the next thing he says after admitting the game ending is flawed isn’t something like “we’ve got a patch in the works that will address this fundamental gameplay issue.” I mean, companies issue patches to fix problems like the game freezing up if you try to equip an item while moving AND saving in some particular area (I’m generalizing, I admit) but this is a MAJOR flaw in the game, and it’s ADMITTED, and EASILY FIXED, but his response (to me, it seems) is, “Yep, that ending part sucks, but, oh, well! It’s out the door now! Tough cookies! Can’t do anything about that now!”
Put another way, if I kick some guy in the nuts and say, “hey, I just kicked you in the nuts!” I’m being sincere in what I say, but it doesn’t make things much better for the nut-kickee.
This is fair enough, and I can understand your point. 1Up could have explored that issue further with a better follow-up question, but I still wouldn’t fault him for the answer he gave, provided it was a reasonably in-depth response. To be fair though, most patches do only fix bugs or balancing issues, though some do add new gameplay modes as well. But it seems to be exceedingly rare that a patch actually changes any core content of a game’s main campaign, and I’m not sure why Fallout 3 would be an exception.
To be fair to you, I haven’t played much more than 5 hours of Fallout (nor do I ever intend to), so perhaps I’m not fully understanding the severity of this “major flaw.” But to me, it seems akin to a plot hole in a movie, an annoyance, to be sure, but nothing to really get up in arms about (or equating to a kick in the nuts :P). Particularly when, in my view at least, games should be more about the gameplay than the story, which seems to be exactly the case in this situation.
Fortunately, most of the gameplay is very satisfying to me; I’m sorry that you didn’t find it enjoyable as well. I guess that’s what makes a less-than-awesome ending seem so bad to me. You’re better off NEVER finishing the game because you have more enjoyment just wandering around with random encounters than you do following the totally linear endgame. I felt the same way about F.E.A.R.; enjoyable game for the most part, but the endgame just was not in any way a climax of enjoyment. If you’ll indulge a bit of crudeness, it’s like having sex with the hottest partner ever but then it ends without you orgasming. To needlessly extend the analogy further, your partner could have easily remedied the situation a number of ways after the deed was done, but chose not to, and essentially said, “well, at least you got to bask in my hotness!”
Haha, awesome analogy. There have been plenty of games that let me down too during the climax, so to speak 
So yeah, I totally hear where you’re coming from, and I’m sure a patch could be made to fix it. Just not sure it’s a completely reasonable expectation (though I’ll admit it’d be sweet if more developers did go back and fix crappy endings–Mario Galaxy, I’m looking at you).
If Bethesda issued a patch that allowed for a fix to the ending, addressing the issues that have been brought up here and elsewhere, I would have SO much respect for that company and would endorse them wholeheartedly. Nothing says respect for your audience like responding to their critiques and nothing says contempt for your audience like dismissing their complaints…and I guess I took the developer’s answers as a kind of dismissal. It seemed insulting to me. YMMV of course.
This is exactly my view on the matter. I probably will get Fallout 3 someday (right now, my PC hardware doesn’t cut it, and I’d prefer to play wuith a mouse instead of a controller). I don’t mind having problems; nobody’s perfect. I do expect them to admit the problem, not make excuses, and fix it if possible.
I might be more forgiving for another company. I’ve been irked by Bethsoft on many occaisions for just not having the follow-through I expect. They have incredible idea and incredible world-builders. But they just never seem to quite go the one final step it takes to make a good game into a truly great one. I loved Morrowind (though I recognized its flaws), but I found Oblivion almost unplayable, and it was only after heavy modding that I could use it. I’m glad they have expansions packs in the works, but we’ll see how they turn out.
Fair enough, though from my objective stand point (so I think, at least), I don’t see anything insulting about it (his answer, specifically, I’m not arguing that you felt insulted by the ending). I don’t think it’s fair to expect him to address a potential solution (a patch, in this case) when there’s little to no precedent for such a change. Maybe it’s a budgeting issue, in which case I’d imagine he’d have little to no control over. A better interviewer could have addressed this, but I don’t think the person who agreed to answer these relatively hard-hitting questions (by game interview standards) should be held accountable for explaining every facet without reason or prompting–I’ll bet the thought hadn’t even occurred to him.
I can’t imagine that any game company would put out a patch that would change the closing montage and a bit of dialogue just because the fans don’t like the way the story ended. It wouldn’t actually change any aspect of playing the game.
Now, if an expansion were to give you additional endgame options and lets you continue things, that would be quite another thing, and seems perfectly possible.
That might solve the issue, but at a major expense to the storyline. “Good” characters sacrifice themselves, while “Selfish/Evil” characters sacrifice others. Adding a third option that involves no sacrifice whatsover detracts from the other two, because then faced with the 3 choices, both the “good” and the “selfish/evil” options seem dumb in comparison.
It would have been better story-wise to just have Charon/Fawkes get killed before the end, or have a safety door close down just behind you as you run in.