Continue playing after the end of the story?

[kabaliero]

No, unless the world will actually react to what you have accomplished by finishing the mainplot.

This.

 

And I'll have Fallout 2 style with some optional and secret world megabosses a la Weapons in Final Fantasies, please.

Edited October 8, 2012 by kabaliero

[ddillon]

Do you think we will be able to continue playing and exploring the world with our character even after we finish the story?

 

Will never understand the thought process behind this. Don't finish the mq if you don't want the game to end. Otherwise, if you have completed everything and there is nothing left to do...what is the point?

 

For some games, perhaps. If there isn't a sense of urgency until later in the game, then your advice might be viable enough. Otherwise, it's going to be:

 

"Hey, um, I know VillainName's evil plan is close to completion and all that, but let's hold off pursuing him/her for a bit while we go complete sidequests X, Y, and Z and explore every nook and cranny of that vast area over there, okay?"

Edited October 8, 2012 by ddillon

[kabaliero]

I heard many times that the end of ToB or PS:T made ppl literally cry coz it stated very clearly "That's it, dude. Everyone and everything you've ever known are gone. And so are you."

 

So it'd be nice that the ending of the main plot was rather like a new step in the game, than just "pack your stuff and byebye! here, read some credits".

Edited October 8, 2012 by kabaliero

[Freddo]

I hope not, I want a large meaty epilogue that really show us what happened and how our journey affected the various NPCs we got to know along the way and so on.

 

I think that's the one thing most RPGs fail at, the epilogue. It would be nice if Project Eternity didn't.

[Azure79]

I'm mostly indifferent regarding post ending gameplay. I would like to see some post endgame interaction though. I loved the option to talk to your companions after the main conflict in PS:T and I liked what they did in DA:O, where your companions and other important NPCs congratulate you on your triumph and you get to talk to them one more time before the game ends.

 

I would not like to see the main antagonist die then immediately got to cutscene then end credits. Please make a satisfying ending/epilogue.

[Krios]

The epilogue is like the last opportunity for the writers to tug at your heart, so please make the most of it writers I hope the epilogue does not end on a cliffhanger with an obvious 'to be continued ...' I prefer my stories finished when it is finished. I do not want to have to buy another installment for the sake of finding out what happened back there. Expansions can tell another story from another region of the world, featuring new quests and fresh plot.

[diablo169]

This isnt a Todd Howard project, as such there will be a story and an ending. When the credits roll the game is over, i could possibly see myself supporting new game plus if its done well. But playing after the credits is openworld sandbox jingo, it has no place in an IE inspired game.

[crazyrabbits]

But playing after the credits is openworld sandbox jingo, it has no place in an IE inspired game.

 

I don't get this attitude of "well, I don't like this, therefore nobody should be able to have this". There is no written rule that says you can't play after the end of the story, for many reasons:

 

1) Not everyone is going to 100% a playthrough on their first go. Giving them the option to continue to work towards that goal, while introducing endgame content, works a lot better (in most cases) than telling them to start all over again (with marginal benefits and the same content) and telling them to do the same thing over again.

 

2) Games of several different genres (RPG's/action games) have proven that endgame content can greatly extend the life of the game, and give it compatibility with mods. For example, in Batman: Arkham City, the in-game enemy chatter and menu screen changes to reflect that you've beaten the game. If you haven't completed certain sidequests, there are small changes to the dialogue and encounters to reflect whether you had beaten the campaign or not. Fallout 2 has already been mentioned, and if I'm not mistaken, BGII (without ToB, which you automatically jump into afterwards if it's installed) allowed you to continue playing after beating Irenicus.

 

3) Obsidian has already stated that they intend PE to be an ongoing franchise. It makes little sense to artificially restrict the story with a hard ending when they've also gone on record as saying mod support will be open. You can bet that new fan-generated content would be greatly beneficial to the game, especially if it inspires people to go back to completed games.

 

4) There's nothing saying you can't do both an NG+ and post-endgame content. Mass Effect 2 gave you extra conversations from all your squadmates when you beat the game, allowed you to do the remaining missions, and also gave you bonuses if you did an NG+.

[diablo169]

But playing after the credits is openworld sandbox jingo, it has no place in an IE inspired game.

 

I don't get this attitude of "well, I don't like this, therefore nobody should be able to have this". There is no written rule that says you can't play after the end of the story, for many reasons:

 

1) Not everyone is going to 100% a playthrough on their first go. Giving them the option to continue to work towards that goal, while introducing endgame content, works a lot better (in most cases) than telling them to start all over again (with marginal benefits and the same content) and telling them to do the same thing over again.

 

2) Games of several different genres (RPG's/action games) have proven that endgame content can greatly extend the life of the game, and give it compatibility with mods. For example, in Batman: Arkham City, the in-game enemy chatter and menu screen changes to reflect that you've beaten the game. If you haven't completed certain sidequests, there are small changes to the dialogue and encounters to reflect whether you had beaten the campaign or not. Fallout 2 has already been mentioned, and if I'm not mistaken, BGII (without ToB, which you automatically jump into afterwards if it's installed) allowed you to continue playing after beating Irenicus.

 

3) Obsidian has already stated that they intend PE to be an ongoing franchise. It makes little sense to artificially restrict the story with a hard ending when they've also gone on record as saying mod support will be open. You can bet that new fan-generated content would be greatly beneficial to the game, especially if it inspires people to go back to completed games.

 

4) There's nothing saying you can't do both an NG+ and post-endgame content. Mass Effect 2 gave you extra conversations from all your squadmates when you beat the game, allowed you to do the remaining missions, and also gave you bonuses if you did an NG+.

 

1) This is easily sorted out if you make the point of no return blatently clear.

 

2) I have played these titles, Batman never really gave you a great Storyline reason for still being on the Island after the final boss, you are just sort of there. Fallout 2 was more of an easteregg then a true post game experience. And I cant recall still being able to play after beating Irenicus, you were sucked down into hell to fight him.

 

3) Plenty of people managed to mod the IE games despite their "Hard endings" Fan generated content gives you a reason to play the whole game again with a new twist.

 

4) Mass Effect 2's post game was shallow and lazy in the extreme, Barely anything changed. The only reason it was like that in the first place was so Bioware could peddle DLC.

 

If Obsidian want to put a post game experience in, fair enough its not going to drive me away. But Infinity Engine games were driven along by the main plotline more than anything else. There would need to be a compeling reason for you to still be wandering around killing rats in basements and delivering stuff to people after you have finished the story.

[Longknife]

Just give it an ending that the player has to initiate. AKA in New Vegas, yes we have a definitive ending, but you have to go to your faction-of-choice's leader and say "ok start the battle," otherwise the world keeps turning.

 

You want post-ending gameplay? Make a save before the final fight, reload it and run around all willy-nilly. Bam: you can keep playing after beating the game and Obsidian doesn't have to trivialize the integrity and impact of the story just so you can run around bopping wolves on the head with your +10 Sword of Überly Awesomeness for god knows what reason.

[agewisdom]

No! So long as the game makes it clear to the PC that once you start on the final quest, it's the point of no return and makes an appropriate auto-save.

 

A great ending should change impact the PE universe significantly by the choices the PC has chosen and reflected accordingly. Usually this is impossible to implement in-game, so it's done via an epilogue and slides. If the game allows you to continue and you find out that NPC's are still talking as if nothing has happened, it would be unrealistic and unsatisfying.

 

If this were an action RPG, I would agree to allow the game to be continued since players usually play for the loot. For games like PE, it's more for the story, so continue the game after the end doesn't really make sense, to me.

[Ieo]

I like the BG1 ending (cut-scene closure with a mild 'lead-in' to keep a door open but is still considered closure) and especially the BG2 endings--closure for all party members, preferably more postscripts concerning the various states of the PE regions and such. PST ending was fine too, but too short (it had the BG1-style end cut-scene but lacked party member closure). DA:O-style endings covered party members and major world events, which was great if it actually worked so damn buggy.

 

Above all, I require clear closure. I don't particularly like continuing to play after the main storyline, like in Oblivion; felt weird, just standing around "okay, now what?" Oblivion/Skyrim and those similar games are all different genres, though, because they had weak storylines and poor quests to begin with. For something so story driven, BG or PST or PE etc., there must be an "end." IMO.

[Wirdjos]

I like the BG1 ending (cut-scene closure with a mild 'lead-in' to keep a door open but is still considered closure) and especially the BG2 endings--closure for all party members, preferably more postscripts concerning the various states of the PE regions and such. PST ending was fine too, but too short (it had the BG1-style end cut-scene but lacked party member closure). DA:O-style endings covered party members and major world events, which was great if it actually worked so damn buggy.

 

Above all, I require clear closure. I don't particularly like continuing to play after the main storyline, like in Oblivion; felt weird, just standing around "okay, now what?" Oblivion/Skyrim and those similar games are all different genres, though, because they had weak storylines and poor quests to begin with. For something so story driven, BG or PST or PE etc., there must be an "end." IMO.

 

I'm also a huge fan of the postscript endings. I need the closure as well. However, the major failure of those postscripts shows up in any sequels. It's been too long since I've played BG1 (got to fix that soon) but I know in DA:O I was given endings for characters that didn't prove true in DA2 or even really in Awakening. I can see the BG series doing this as well by giving any of the starting companions in BG2 endings in BG1. So I would like to see these show up in P:E, they just have to be carefully written with a basic script for any sequels in mind when they are written. Little things like that can ruin playthroughs for me by killing immersion after the fact.

[Labadal]

I don't mind playing after the story is done if it makes sense after I've seen the ending.

[harhar!]

Unless there are people reaction to what I have done or any other significant change in the world is happening it's straight up useless. You could've just done what you wanted before ending the game. If there are changes it will draw money from the rest of the game and I wouldn't like that, because I usually don't want to play on either way. So no continue plz.

[O.DOGG]

No, I would rather have an ending. This is (as far as I understand) a story-driven game. There wouldn't be much point to continuing after its story has ended.

[crazyrabbits]

1) This is easily sorted out if you make the point of no return blatently clear.

 

You're debating semantics. Regardless of whether you clearly indicate where the "demarcation line" is or not, there are people who aren't going to go back and complete a boatload of content just to say they did it before the game is over. Giving post-game content gives a bit more flexibility (and leaves it open to post-game mods/expansions) for people who may want to take the rest of the content at their own pace, or want to see the end before they finish anything else.

 

2) I have played these titles, Batman never really gave you a great Storyline reason for still being on the Island after the final boss, you are just sort of there. Fallout 2 was more of an easteregg then a true post game experience. And I cant recall still being able to play after beating Irenicus, you were sucked down into hell to fight him.

 

You're thinking of the wrong game. I'm talking about Arkham City, not Arkham Asylum. There were missions that opened up after the ending (which was very definitive), more gameplay options (switching between characters), alternate dialogue for any missions you completed after the fact, extra content if you want back to visit certain locations as another character after the end, and alternate enemy chatter. That was commonly mentioned as a great selling point by reviewers, and it was a great way to extend the replayability.

 

The original vanilla release of SoA put you back on the worldmap after you beat Irenicus in hell, if I'm not mistaken. You were given an item by the ruler of Suldelessanar for your efforts, and you could continue playing. The current releases have you jump right into ToB after beating SoA.

 

3) Plenty of people managed to mod the IE games despite their "Hard endings" Fan generated content gives you a reason to play the whole game again with a new twist.

 

Giving fans the option of extending their game after the fact is never a bad thing. Besides, if your example was really true, there wouldn't have been any ToB expansion, as the death of Irenicus would have been a "hard ending".

 

4) Mass Effect 2's post game was shallow and lazy in the extreme, Barely anything changed. The only reason it was like that in the first place was so Bioware could peddle DLC.

 

The point is that it gave the best of both worlds. You were given extra content to reflect the fact that you beat the game, the DLC that was made reflected whether you beat it or not, and it let you go back and redo the game again with extra benefits if you wanted. The whole deal about Bioware selling DLC has nothing to do with my point.

 

You seem to think that every RPG has to be like the Infinity Engine - that's not true. You can create compelling post-game content without sacrificing narrative or story. Anyone that argues otherwise isn't seeing the proverbial forest for the trees.