Fallout Does anyone actually like ending power point presentations? Why?

[rusty_shackleford]

Who is the sole fan these are created for and why do you enjoy them?

 

[Ol' Willy]

Ending slides are cheap replacement for real C&C

 

[Dodo1610]

But these give me the illusion that i accomplished something

 

[Butter]

What's the alternative when you want to show consequences for the player's actions that aren't immediate?

 

[Valdetiosi]

What's the alternative when you want to show consequences for the player's actions that aren't immediate?

Continue game after ending, obviously.
There cannot be any closure for the game, they have to keep going until you get bored and quit yourself on it.

 

[Molina]

Who is the sole fan these are created for and why do you enjoy them?

Fallout Fan. It seems to me that it was TIm cain who first had this idea for fallout.
This is not such a bad idea, especially for companions. For the places we visited, I always felt like it was a bit forced. Like, we brought back a doll to a kid, who will consequently become an accomplished politician and loved by her citizens.... It plays a little too much on the butterfly effect and sometimes you get a bad ending, even though you're sure you did the right thing.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What's the alternative when you want to show consequences for the player's actions that aren't immediate?

both RDR and RDR2 continue the game after the 'ending' set years later with a different character
I believe it was received much better in RDR2 than RDR because the character used in RDR was basically a massive downgrade all around compared to the character you play as for most of the game

Spoiler

and the one used in RDR2 is the guy you play in RDR

FNV continuing years later after the end and shifting the POV to a different character depending on your choices would have been interesting.

 

[JarlFrank]

What's the alternative when you want to show consequences for the player's actions that aren't immediate?

both RDR and RDR2 continue the game after the 'ending' set years later with a different character
I believe it was received much better in RDR2 than RDR because the character used in RDR was basically a massive downgrade all around compared to the character you play as for most of the game

Spoiler

and the one used in RDR2 is the guy you play in RDR

FNV continuing years later after the end and shifting the POV to a different character depending on your choices would have been interesting.

So basically you want devs to create a whole new game after the game ended.

What if that new character in the future does things that change the world?

Add a post-post game section where you play a third character even further in the future?

Where does it end?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

What's the alternative when you want to show consequences for the player's actions that aren't immediate?

both RDR and RDR2 continue the game after the 'ending' set years later with a different character
I believe it was received much better in RDR2 than RDR because the character used in RDR was basically a massive downgrade all around compared to the character you play as for most of the game

Spoiler

and the one used in RDR2 is the guy you play in RDR

FNV continuing years later after the end and shifting the POV to a different character depending on your choices would have been interesting.

So basically you want devs to create a whole new game after the game ended.

What if that new character in the future does things that change the world?

Add a post-post game section where you play a third character even further in the future?

Where does it end?

What a terrible argument, would you defend the game randomly ending in the middle and it showing you a powerpoint presentation explaining the rest of the game too?
"ah well, we can't afford to finish it, just toss a powerpoint presentation in"

If you can't show something, then just leave it out.

 

[SoupNazi]

So basically you want devs to create a whole new game after the game ended.

What if that new character in the future does things that change the world?

Add a post-post game section where you play a third character even further in the future?

Where does it end?

Not really. It works perfectly fine in RDR2. Sidequests that were not too tied to the main character stay open, so if you're like me and can't do sidequests if the main plot has any sort of urgency, you get to finish them. You no longer get any of the world-ending/changing stuff, and keep the sandbox.

I can't enjoy the sandbox of these games when its main quest has any form of urgency whatsoever. Having a semi-related character who gets to enjoy the sandbox afterwards (in the event that one of the endings include character death, or it wouldn't make sense for them to keep adventuring) is actually quite enjoyable.

 

[Tyranicon]

The closer you get to the ending, the lazier devs get.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

I don’t mind it, but it can definitely be a bit much. I remember the ending slide sequence from my 100% completion play through of PoE+WM took almost twenty minutes.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

So basically you want devs to create a whole new game after the game ended.

What if that new character in the future does things that change the world?

Add a post-post game section where you play a third character even further in the future?

Where does it end?

Not really. It works perfectly fine in RDR2. Sidequests that were not too tied to the main character stay open, so if you're like me and can't do sidequests if the main plot has any sort of urgency, you get to finish them. You no longer get any of the world-ending/changing stuff, and keep the sandbox.

I can't enjoy the sandbox of these games when its main quest has any form of urgency whatsoever. Having a semi-related character who gets to enjoy the sandbox afterwards (in the event that one of the endings include character death, or it wouldn't make sense for them to keep adventuring) is actually quite enjoyable.

Which is why you don't need a "post-post-ending", the character the POV changes to doesn't get new content(as in, new storylines) but merely wrapping up loose ends and allowing you to explore the changes that have happened since.

 

[SoupNazi]

Which is why you don't need a "post-post-ending", the character the POV changes to doesn't get new content(as in, new storylines) but merely wrapping up loose ends and allowing you to explore the changes that have happened since.

Yep. Don't even need ending slides then, you can explore and find out about the consequences of your previous character's choices yourself.

 

[Stavrophore]

Best C&C is when changes are reflected as story progress. For example now im playing kingmaker, and after you chose golem protection, golems appear in city. In the ending, instead of doing just slides, devs can make animation, short movie, or use ingame rendering to show changes. Or leave epilogue, as SoupNazi said, where you visit places after game end and talk with people and see changes yourself.

 

[SlightlyRadioactive]

It is a simple but effective way to present consequences for player's choices on events that are not that important to the main narrative, Fallout 1's actual ending is either when you are expelled from the vault or join the master's army and invade it, the game could very well end there without giving the player any hint on what happened to the other settlements and would still be fine, but I appreciate the the (small) amount of effort put on trying to make the world feel like it exists independently from the player.

 

[JarlFrank]

What's the alternative when you want to show consequences for the player's actions that aren't immediate?

both RDR and RDR2 continue the game after the 'ending' set years later with a different character
I believe it was received much better in RDR2 than RDR because the character used in RDR was basically a massive downgrade all around compared to the character you play as for most of the game

Spoiler

and the one used in RDR2 is the guy you play in RDR

FNV continuing years later after the end and shifting the POV to a different character depending on your choices would have been interesting.

So basically you want devs to create a whole new game after the game ended.

What if that new character in the future does things that change the world?

Add a post-post game section where you play a third character even further in the future?

Where does it end?

What a terrible argument, would you defend the game randomly ending in the middle and it showing you a powerpoint presentation explaining the rest of the game too?
"ah well, we can't afford to finish it, just toss a powerpoint presentation in"

If you can't show something, then just leave it out.

But ending slides don't fire in the middle of the game.
They're like little epilogues to show you what happened after the end.

Nobody expects fairytales to elaborate the "And they lived happily ever after." into a detailed day by day description of the prince and princess' life for several pages. You maybe get "And three years later they had a son who grew up to be a great and benevolent king." for closure, but that's it. The story is over, and the details of what happened after would be a new story.

Ending slides just give you closure for side quest threads after the game is over. That's their purpose.

 

[JarlFrank]

So basically you want devs to create a whole new game after the game ended.

What if that new character in the future does things that change the world?

Add a post-post game section where you play a third character even further in the future?

Where does it end?

Not really. It works perfectly fine in RDR2. Sidequests that were not too tied to the main character stay open, so if you're like me and can't do sidequests if the main plot has any sort of urgency, you get to finish them. You no longer get any of the world-ending/changing stuff, and keep the sandbox.

I can't enjoy the sandbox of these games when its main quest has any form of urgency whatsoever. Having a semi-related character who gets to enjoy the sandbox afterwards (in the event that one of the endings include character death, or it wouldn't make sense for them to keep adventuring) is actually quite enjoyable.

Which is why you don't need a "post-post-ending", the character the POV changes to doesn't get new content(as in, new storylines) but merely wrapping up loose ends and allowing you to explore the changes that have happened since.

So basically it would be a walking simulator where you just look at things. Functionally the same as ending slides, except more elaborate so you get the illusion that it's not just ending slides.

How pointless.

 

[SoupNazi]

So basically it would be a walking simulator where you just look at things. Functionally the same as ending slides, except more elaborate so you get the illusion that it's not just ending slides.

How pointless.

Read my post. It's a continuation of the sandbox that also shows you the ending consequences. If that ends up being a walking simulator, then the game was a walking simulator in the first place.

 

[Butter]

New Vegas was originally intended to include a post-game sequence where you could walk around and see, for example, the Legion controlling the Strip. It was cut along with 100 other things, but imagine if they had decided it was essential content. You'd have them cut quests or locations for the sake of the post-ending, when ending slides provide the same detail?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

New Vegas was originally intended to include a post-game sequence where you could walk around and see, for example, the Legion controlling the Strip. It was cut along with 100 other things, but imagine if they had decided it was essential content. You'd have them cut quests or locations for the sake of the post-ending, when ending slides provide the same detail?

sounds infinitely better than most of the dlc we got

 

[SoupNazi]

New Vegas was originally intended to include a post-game sequence where you could walk around and see, for example, the Legion controlling the Strip. It was cut along with 100 other things, but imagine if they had decided it was essential content. You'd have them cut quests or locations for the sake of the post-ending, when ending slides provide the same detail?

Yes. And/or the DLCs.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

But ending slides don't fire in the middle of the game.
They're like little epilogues to show you what happened after the end.

Nobody expects fairytales to elaborate the "And they lived happily ever after." into a detailed day by day description of the prince and princess' life for several pages. You maybe get "And three years later they had a son who grew up to be a great and benevolent king." for closure, but that's it. The story is over, and the details of what happened after would be a new story.

Ending slides just give you closure for side quest threads after the game is over. That's their purpose.

Or it could just end instead of telling us "so and so lived happily ever after"
What do those powerpoint slides actually add other than taking away the player's interpretation of events?

 

[Ghulgothas]

The RDR method is great for that type of game. A free-roaming 'action-adventure' game letting you do more of the same, in the same map with the same systems with slightly altered context and a new character model? Nice and cost-effective.

A storyheavy-RPG doing such would bring with it the expectation of new dialogue and quests, even more so if it's set years after the maingame. Why not just make a sequel at that point?
Still a worthy endeavor, though. But I think it'd better be set immediately after the games end-point as to best behold your C&C and allow for some post-main story play; remaining quests, end-level supercontent etc. New Vegas' intention would've been a good example had it not been cut, along with the planned other-side of the Colorado River.

 

[ExposedBrainMatter]

I like them a lot and wish more games had them. If you want to see postgame consequences, what's a good alternative? As JarlFrank said the game is over so having you walk around messing about really just means it's a whole new game. You could have video but meh, less is more in this case, who actually wants to watch a half hour of ending cutscenes besides weebs?

What do those powerpoint slides actually add other than taking away the player's interpretation of events?

They add to the player's interpretation of events. In New Vegas you could just end it and assume things went happily ever after, but that's not the Fallout way and would seem silly. It can show interesting or unexpected facets to your decisions. For example, if you let God/Dog live in Dead Money, he doesn't become a good boy just because you gave him the therapist treatment, he's just a normal nightkin now so he escapes the Sierra Madre and murders a shitload of people. So the pacifist route here actually has gory consequences, which I thought was cool.