It's almost enough to cancel my pre-order and hope the DLC fixes the problem...



I overreacted at first. I'm sorry. Please stop giving me crap for it. You have to admit it is slightly a let-down that you can't continue on though.

No, not really.

Kind of a reactionary, knee-jerk response, don't you think? I think everything Mr. Sawyer said was reasonable in the extreme.

Please edit the post or something
were just going to get the same debate on here that we did with the other 20 threads about this :banghead:

Not only am I not disgusted by the end of game being the end of game, I'm delighted by it. It's old news, and welcomed by as many as are disturbed by it- and just as many of us are also hoping it isn't broken by a later DLC. But so far, Obsidian seems to agree that nope, the end will remain the end.

In fact, the idea doesn't look all that unpopular overall based on the poll in the last http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1115801-should-nv-have-an-ending/.

Looks like I might be getting Reach after all, in hopes that a DLC does break the ending.

I didn't like it at first, but to be honest it doesn't seem that bad when considered with an open mind. Besides, you get a warning before the point of last return - and an automatic save, in case you don't heed the warning.

just imagine re-uploading your save file is a continuation of the game
as a free DLC P=
If that dousnt work just get over it =/

You're kidding me right?
No, really, you're kidding me right?
Explain in detail why you won't get the game because it has a definite ending.

If there was some kind of time restraint (like in Fallout) or perceived time restraint (Fallout 2) then I can see a problem in having to complete everything before the end game. Considering that is not a concern, I really don't see how it matters. Complaint threads like this are nitpicking at it's most extreme.

I would prefer that you could continue but its not the end of the world.It saves before the end and gives you a chance to go back out into the world.

I liked that in Fallout 3 you were able to explore the wasteland and do all of the quests you missed and get all the items you wanted to get, after you already beat the game. It's just something that will be extremely difficult to lose. In my opinion, sand-box games shouldn't have definitive endings.

Dont complete the main quest, its really that simple. A lot of my characters didnt even start the main quest.

Well you should at least give it a chance

I think being "disgusted" by this is a bit extreme. It's Obsidian's game, and if they feel a definite ending is a better choice then there must be a good reason for that.

So you're going to miss out on hundreds of hours of gameplay because the game ends?
...
I fail to see your logic.

It's one thing to dislike it, but to hate it so much that you will refuse to buy it is just ridiculous IMO.

I am going to give it a chance. I just over-reacted at first. It's just because the first time I beat Fallout 3, my heart sank when I realized I was done and couldn't do anything else.

I think its perfectly fine, dont finish the game... its simple really

As many of us have said before if the game has an ending that is executed well and leaves me satisfied I could care less if there was gameplay after you beat the ending, Josh has already stated that before this ending you'll have sufficient warning so you'll know the point-of-no-return so to speak. (Get all your stuff in order before you go on to complete the game.)

And as always all good things must come to an end at some point. :tops:

Yeah I know, I overreacted when I read that. Re-read my first post.

Endings don't bother me. Sometimes it's bittersweet to get to the conclusion, but the beauty of a game like this is that we can play it over as many times as we want.

Well then, now that that's settled could we close this thread?
Or are we going to have a huge discussion on why the definite ending svcks/rule?

And in the opinions of most voters in the poll linked in my previous post, definite endings aren't a problem if done properly- which the original weak ending to Fallout 3 was not. The original Fallout 3 slideshow end was some kind of bad joke- based on maybe two decisions, the Lone Wanderer was either a saint or a demon. The first Fallout's ending was quite different- it tracked most every major settlement the Vault Dweller interacted with, and explained how the Vault Dweller's actions affected that settlement. Much like I expect the ending to New Vegas to be- a recap with "here's what your actions set in motion down the line" rather than a simple "You were a great person/You were an evil so-and-so."

EDIT: No, I don't have to admit that not being able to play on after the ending (Close, finale, curtain drops and story over) is any sort of a letdown. It's not to me, and I'll stick by that.

What's there to be disgusted about? It's not like the fact that the story ends the game restricts players from doing what they want.

I know, I realize this now. You have to realize that when I read "definitive ending" the first thing that came to mind was Fallout 3's ending. I agree that a proper and satisfying ending could be just fine.