If you call Fallout 3 all Bethesdas rpgs, Yeah sure.

Not.

I'm totally cool with the ending in New Vegas. Especially when compared to the ending in FO3.

My problem with FO3 ending was that it was character suicide. I don't buy into the whole "sacrifice" thing. Sacrifice is just a pretty word for suicide. And I don't agree with suicide in life or in games. Worse still, it was FORCED on you - even if you had a ghoul or supermutant follower who could "flip the switch" (so to speak) and still live, it was YOU who had to go in and die. Stupid. So frickin stupid.

At least in NV, there is no [censored] suicide ending.

Aside from all that, I'm just used to having games that 'end'. I would say that 99% of the games I've played in my life had a definite end.

You heard wrong.

This.

I hated the fact that I was railroaded into project purity. It was so stupid. Why couldn't Fawkes do it?

Also, it was so black and white. Either you go in, and are a hero, or don't go in, and are a demon.

Did we? I seem to remember everyone annoyed because it was so flimsy e.g "You saved the Capital Wasteland...now go collect some cameras."

In N.V, after the end of the final quest, there are huge repurcussions for the Mojave. Nothing really changed in 3's ending.

I kinda figured that the new dlc coming out soon would make New Vegas open again but I guess it makes sense to not have that because of how different the world is after the main quests are over.

You should be able to start over again. For example borderlands you start over with all your equipment and your character is kept the same but the game becomes much harder and you get better loot and weapons. Instead of roaming the same world where everything is a 1 shot kill to the head.

So New Game+ ?
Don't see the point to it.
If I want to play the game again then I'll start a new character.

I second this, better than a pointless continue, start a new game+ and get more harder enemies

Anybody notice you get +4000 XP when you beat the game, no matter which side you choose? I never understood why; it's your "reward" that you never get to use...I thought it would at least allow players to use it(the XP) towards one last level up if you were close to lvl 30 or 20 for a trophy/achievement.

So I thought why is it there? Maybe they'll extend it like Fallout 3? But after reading through the comments I can see that would be rather difficult, and if it was somehow done it would be a bug-ridden nightmare, much like this game at release date.

Continuing after the main quest ends would be difficult for the developers to get right. And it does take away something from the story to go back into it after it comes to a natural conclusion. However, I would like to see a bunch of DLC come out that will allow play in the same world. I'm very excited about the upcoming release, and I hope it is just the first of many.

I did not love it. Broken Steel broke an already bad story. The ending to FO3 did not svck just because the game ended it was that it made no sense IMO. I hope they don't make a broken steel for New Vegas because unlike FO3 the endings make sense and I learn what happens based on my actions. One of the best things about Fallout that I love are the multiple endings.

If you don't want the game to end don't do the main quest or very least stop the main quest because it gives you an option to come back when you're ready.

Fawkes couldn't do it because Bethesda made the mistake of listening to the people on the forums.

Really.

Originally the "Lone Wanderer" was supposed to be the "Lone Wanderer", and not have companions/henchmen/hirelings/whatever you want to call them. Then people started asking for companions. With great frequency. Like constantly. They wanted to be able to have companions. So Bethesda gave in and came up with the companions. But it wasn't until later in the development, and some aspects of the companion thing might not have details worked out as well as they could have hoped. Like realizing that the "Lone Wanderer" could possibly have a supermutant who was basically immune to radiation, a ghoul who was healed by radiation, or a robot that wasn't bothered by radiation, with them at the end. Think about the story; makes a lot more sense if the choice at the end is just Sarah, and you. Might not be a better story, but it makes a lot more sense why your "not effected by radiation" companion can't go in and push three buttons for you.

Josh posted about the dlc; they are not planning on doing a "Broken Steel" to let people play after the end.

The quote from Josh Sawyer:



Any dlc will be set before the end of the game, like the dlc for FO3 before Bethesda gave in again and ruined the end of the story that I liked.

This is a Role playing game, not Super mario or Pac-man. That would make no sense at all.

I sure hope not. It wouldn't fit this game.

I love borderlands but it is linear and you pick premade characters, won't work for fallout, sorry.

I doubt very seriously there will be any official support for play after the main quest. I've pretty much resigned myself to accepting the fact that I won't be finishing the game any time soon, and perhaps never will. I'll probably play everything that I can without advancing the main quest, then set it aside only to come back periodically as DLCs and player made content provide me with new avenues to explore and things to do.

bethesda rpg's generaly do not have endings that stop gameplay and the ending in new vegas wasn't spectacular at all and i don't hear people going "gee the ending was awsome!!" so i seriously doubt bethesda is going to start having their rpg's end, sure obsidiain was given lots of felxibility in making new vegas and they did a great job in a lot of areas, and improved over FO3 in many many areas, however the ending wasn't anything special at all and it didn't add anything to the game. its easy to get around anyway, i only played it to its final conclusion once and wasn't impressed. and todd howard already remarked on their games ending and he did say they learned their lessons from FO3 and will not let their futres games have endings, the new vegas ending wasn't any better than FO3 original ending, and since i don't hear hardly anyone at all going boy the ending was awesome, i doubt FO4 will have another stupid ending like the original FO3 or new vegas had. bethesdas most successful games don't have endings. maybe other game developers should take note of that.

Broken Steel worked because there was really only one "canon" ending. The devs could easily just shoe-horn in a few water caravans and call it quits.

NV has no canon ending. To continue after the end, the devs would have to make one of the endings canon (obviously the NCR ending). That simply wouldn't sit well with me.

Give me a quote saying "And our games will not have endings".

Because I think you misinterperted what he said.

Oblivion was a successful game for you?

You think the success is because there's no ending?

Have to agree here.

For a post-ending DLC, they'd have three options.

1)Designate one ending as Canon. Thus forcing us to go for one particualr ending or be unable to play the DLC content or make it so that our choice of actions and ending was completely and utterly irrelevant. ie: You helped the Legion take over Vegas, so here's a load of NCR missions where they consolidate their hold on the Mojave.

2)Ignore the endings and give us a bunch of completely unrelated set of quests that have no bearing on anything.

3)Create a DLC with different questlines for each ending complete with signs that our actions had an effect. They'd still be working on it come Christmas 2011.



@WestoftherockiesL: The ability to continue after the end does not make a succesful game otherwise all those best selling games that did end would be some kind of paradox would they not? Niniety five percent of RPGS have always and will always end.

Add Battlespire to that list too.

I like the definitive ending, it gives me motivation to not continue that character and move on to a new one. plus its like FO1 and 2 which =good.