Because ya essential can do anything ya want in a freeform way, all before the battle.


Way I see it, having no gameplay after the the battle already take care the say "complain" I mention already. And the way the game is handle, one should already be curious how or what happen if they play on the other side of the fence rather then being an expect of all trades and skills. They are more focus on ya involvement pre-battle wise. It would be too much resource for something that is really the end. They have to show this and show that and show it to everyone and everything that happen within the ending.

And again, Fallout 2's way of ending thing is merely, in all case, nothingness. Practically an Easter egg on both encounter. There really nothing out there left if one did all the quest to get the very ending that happens a couple minutes ago.

Because it presents Logical absurties (How can Goodsprings thrive in the end slides if I later go and slaughter them?) and seems rather pointless. I tried playing FO2 after the end, and hit held no more than about 2mins interest to me.

You misunderstood. I don't mean that all endings would allow free play assuming the 'canon result'. If you chose a different ending your game would end just like it does now. But if you chose the future canon ending you would get additional content.

So? What is the difference between clicking "no" at the end and clicking "no" before the end other than one way giving ME AND OTHERS the satisfaction of getting things out of the way? You can still stop playing the game right there, but not all of us want to.

I know, I'm not saying NV needed to have done any different...



Me neither, but clearly some were getting their rocks off on it.

Me and others want turn based games again..will ever get the satisfaction back?

Turn-based gameplay requires design in the engine and the entire game to correlate, a yes or no checkbox with very little or no change in the gameworld would likely take almost no time or effort.

It would take a ton to do it correctly.

But then...I support a free-play mode somewhat like FO2. It would be non-canonical and just endless roaming.

lol they're not extinct you know...

Well, you can keep rolling dice when all of your opponents in Monopoly go bankrupt, but its not really playing the game is it?

Games have rules, and endings.

Even Fallout 2 had a 13 year limit: to prevent in-game time and save game corruption, I believe.

Just like Agent C stated: it kept my interest for about a couple of minutes, it became relatively boring after I found FO2's easter eggs.

Fallout's power lays in its re-playability, to try something different by using other tactics and/or characters.

Completeness is ensure than. I would picture if the New Vegas added gameplay after the ending but did nothing that shown what ya did in the ending, I would bet we would get reviews stating that these ending means nothing and that the Dev lazy it out rather then inputting the end result of the ending it self. Then we get a bunch of people complaining that their ending means nothing in the long run. They would complain that faction X hasn't change. Then they would want quests to go hand to hand with these faction after battle. This builds up to a bigger and bigger ball until finally, it make it seem that the Main Battle is practically just the "middle" of the storyline rather than the "end".

It's the greatest request because people want to play after the end with their actions shown, not just play after the end with no changes.

Does Pac-Man have an ending? What about Tetris? Or Civ? Or GTA? Or Pro Evo? Or Streetfighter 2? Or Burnout? Or Morrowind?...

Stories have endings, games only end when the player is bored. This might happen before, when, or after the story ends.

I haven't read anything in this thread since like the first page but I'm sure this part has been mentioned.

I wouldn't really like a box popping up after the final quest asking if I would want to continue.
Why?
Cause it's the end, the credits roll, then a box pops up out of nowhere asking me if I want to continue.
I don't know how to explain how I would feel but like "What... Do I want to continue? Why would I wa... No..."
It would feel... Cheap I guess. The game is over, the climactic ending satisfied me, the credits roll, I feel all warm and fuzzy about accomplishing it then that box pops out and ruins that feeling.

Civ may let you continue, but the game is definately ended when you meet the victory condition. As there's no more score, why keep playing?

Right after you beat Bison.

I keep playing because continuing to advance my civilization is fun. I don't even care about the score.

Really? I was under the impression it happened because people liked it in Morrowind and Oblivion, and when were a person's actions shown in those games after the end?

The main difference was the "enclave base" was a whole separate world space. The Enclave barely had any presence in the main game area. So It was convenient to just forget them ever existing.

Yeah! Another "I Hate That This Game Ends Even Though Everybody Knew It Would" thread!

I am still on the "I'm Okay With Games Ending" team. Since every single game I grew up with had a definitive end.

That's not much an argument. You can just start another Fallout character and play again... The game in that case wouldn't end like the story would because you'd still be playing, just with another character.

I'd say Pac-man and Tetris have endings, I've lost games and stopped playing them. So yeah they "ended"

Agreed, although in essence they were endless but those games progressed in difficulty in comparison with the level/score so eventually even the best player had to throw his/her towel in the ring. The end!

Most of these threads I've read, and there's a lot, want to play after the main quest and finish any quests they missed, wouldn't work the way you say it.

Does anyone know we have a searchbar?