Continuing after the main Quest.

Ok so I am sure this has been discussed in length but I have to add my 2 cents.

In Fallout 3 before the DLC Broken steel you couldn't play past the main quest. Realizing this was not a good idea Bethesda 1. raise the level cap to 30 and made it possible to continue to play after the main quest. Great decision everyone loved it. Knowing what they knew going into this game why did they make it not possible to continue after the main quest in New Vegas? Or was it Obsidian's choice? Regardless this was a miss step and one I don't understand.

Or are they planning to make it possible to continue after the main quest in DLC like they did in fall out 3 and if they do will they raise the level cap to 40. Seeing how we would only be able to get 5 additional perks I could see that happening.

Has anyone heard an explanation?

The explanation is that the series always had an end. Many would disagree that FO3's ending [at all] was a bad thing. (though the ending itself was thought bad).

FO:NV does not go past the end because that would require supporting the after-ending changes to the game world (based on whatever the player chose to do); That is a significant amount of work, and (IMO) not really necessary; it fits well with the series as designed.

there is no purpose for NV to continue afterwards, as the changes to the world are too radical and would require serious work to be done on the part of Obsidian. rinse and repeat for the next topic on this matter...

I used to dislike the fact that FO3 ended (mainly because I wasn't warned) but after playing one and two, I started to change my view point then after playing NV, I realised that a definite ending was a staple (and a good thing) in the Fallout series.

The only thing Bethesda could have done to make their definite ending (not the slides) not as frustrating was to warn us because people who play beth games aren't exactly expecting an ending.

This. A DLC that allowed play after the MQ would be nothing but scripting in all four possible endings plus their many variations. Then the player can go wipe out the winning faction and make their entire end-game pointless.

IF they go back on their word and do decide to make a DLC that lets you play afterward, even though you're right you could render the whole thing pointless, I imagine they'll choose what they feel is the canon ending, and say "you can continue your quest IF you side this way..." which will then cause more whining from all the people that only play one character and are angry because they've angered the wrong side and have to start over in order to make a character that can play beyond the finish. So... you can't win. But yeah, the odds of a DLC that will let you continue no matter what side you choose... about 0.5%.

Hey Captain Jack...still remember your great F3 vid - The Capitol Wasteland Can Kiss My....

If a player had a DLC that allowed end game play, the canned vanilla ending could be skipped entirely so that there would be no contradictions.

Post main quest play would not necessarily have to support all possible endings, it could rather support only one of the possibilities and exist only as an option to continue after that particular path, actually ending with all other paths.

I'm really ambivalent about play beyond the main quest. Don't care one way or another. But let's not force the possibility into a box of artificial limitations.

I need to come up with one for new vegas

Yeah- Obsidian decided they like to tell their story, then have it end. There was a big long post around here somewhere in one of the many other "why will/does the game end?" threads where they explained they feel a story has more impact when it goes somewhere definite.

And since it's Obsidian's game, telling the story Obsidian chose to tell... :shrug:

I don't really understand why one is needed, or why this is supposed to be considered irregular? Don't most games end? It has a story, the story is done. There's games like the GTA series where you can keep playing afterwards, but I found that to be stupid... you've risen to the level of kingpin, you've killed everyone, and people are still giving you a hard time? Same with in Saints Row. Why is some low level pimp harassing my character, I run the entire city!

I would guess most games in general with a story have an ending you can't play beyond. If you think of this in terms of a FPS, does Halo not end? You can't play after the story is over, you start again or go play multiplayer. If you think of it in terms of an RPG... LOTS of RPGs end. Also, I haven't played through FO1 or 2, can you just keep walking around the wasteland after those two games are done? You don't keep playing Kane and Lynch after it's over, same goes for Shenmue, any FF game I ever played (I haven't played one in quite a while so correct me if I'm wrong there), etc. It has a story, the story has an end. You can't keep watching Avatar after the credits... you can't keep reading a novel beyond the last page.

Also I have yet to see one legitimate reason why these people who just want to play with one character for 200 hours can't just save at the point where you haven't sided with any one faction, and just go and do everything you want to do there? That's what I did. The only thing you miss out on is discovering ONE location, and there's a specific weapon carried by the leader of one of the factions that's worthless getting since you can't sell it. So, is that what everyone's complaining about? A map marker, a weapon, and maybe a piece of armor? If so, I wish those were my biggest issues in life

I think i can put your mind at ease. Now im not sure where i read this but a couple weeks before the game was actually released obsidian had already had already confirmed that there will be a DLC for the game and im pretty sure that IGN made a video not on the topic but talking about how excited they are about the game and then she squeezed in the DLC thing (this was most likely a video about games they were excited about or an actual FO:NV video just google it).

Would this be the same Obsidian who said repeatedly in these very forums, in multiple "omg the game ends!?" threads, that they would definitely not be doing a Borked Steel-type "play-after-the-ending" DLC?

DLC =/= play after ending.

There is Giskard's mod to play beyond the ending...
But it works only for the YesMan storyline.
So you simply save your Level 30 guy at the gates to The Strip, before any endings have been pursued.
Then you can try all the various ending stories.
(Once you do YesMan you can then continue playing, and you and YesMan can run Vegas.)
Four 'continuation' mods would need to be constructed, one for each storyline...
So I personally don't ever expect to see one single continue-the-game DLC a la Fallout3.
Just not gonna happen - how could it?
Regards

If you want to play afterwards, this is the mod you want. http://newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=34811

But if you are on the consoles, then yes, it's because the story wouldn't make sense if it continued after the end.

OP, do you care to give me your source on where everyone, which is 100%, agreed that BS was the best move made for Fallout 3? because I seem to recall it causing quite a stir, and not in a good way.

I personally liked Broken Steel and in my opinion it suited the game well since there weren't many endings like in New Vegas, and when I finished the game the first time it just made me think "THAT'S IT?" it ended so abruplty and the end slides weren't very informative. New Vegas has many different ways to play and end the game, playing afterwards doesn't seem like it would fit in so well. Although it would be nice to personally see all the changes you made.

I like New Vegas having a definite ending. Its different from Fallout 3 which had a terrible ending no warning that if you enter the purifer you can't leave.

yeah well, all these supposed changes are kinda stupid anyway, i'm not too impresssed with the slideshow at the end, its not all that rewarding to me one bit, the new vegas ending isn't any better than the original fallout 3 ending, this idea thats there is gonna be all these changes and its impossible to keep playing because of it, is kinda stupid, its all just the story, no actual changes happen since the gamie is over when you finish, i hope bethesda learned a lesson from this and make sure in FO4 we get to keep playing after the main qusts, slideshows don't do it for me and the idea there has to be all these changes is just a story thing, a slideshow thing, next main quest shouldn't have such a world changing story that make it impossiple to keep on playing. how stupid the ending was.

It aint happening, Slideshow is something very common in the Fallout games, and im sure that they gonna do the same thing with Fallout 4

If you want to play after the Main Quest, then Fallout isn the game that you wanna have

Fallout 3 had many unwelcome changes from Fallout 2 ~it was already deviating from a game that was already deviating from the game before it.

The fact that the main quest changes the world is a paramount feature of the series, and something that I usually find missing [and most foul] in the timeless sandbox games.
There is no reason to play; Its like digging a hole in the beach. :shrug:

Aye, true enough.

@ Westoftherockies. Having a world changing storyline is something that Fallout had, Fallout 2 had, even Fallout Tactics had it and I feel it is a staple of the series. Fallout 3 broke away from having as a wide ranging world changing storyline as the previous ones which I felt was to it's detriment. The main problem I have with open ended sandbox games is generally in most of them what you do during the main quest doesn't matter once the main quest is over and that no matter what you do it always ends the same way. This in my opinion reduces replayability as being able to do do things differently I think adds a lot to a games replayability.
Looking at it one way, games are a way of interactive storytelling/acting and if it's done well, they can show how your actions changed the gameworld beyond the 'limited' area of what you can do during the game. This is to at least myself more fundamentally satisfying than the more bland and or lackluster main quest endings that open-ended games tend to have (in my experience/opinion).

actually todd howard said the opposite, he said they learned their lesson from FO3 and will not let their games end, so you have to take it up with todd, obsidian won't be making FO4. and also for your information, bethesda RPG's do not end.

There is coming a DLC for the game soon and this is something I have heard of it.

It is going to be able to play after the ending (Pointless if u ask me)
There is going to be a new storyline,but all that I have gotten so far was that a quest was spouse to be a "Bank Robbery"

Of course they dont end, but this Fallout, not The Elder Scrolls, Bethesda bought their rights, this game was developed first by Interplay