What in gods name is so wrong with starting a new game? Fallout was built on replay value. Just because you can do every single quest in Oblivion with no restrictions doesn't mean every game should.

Maybe it's true that neither side of that argument has some magical superiority over the other. Maybe they are morally equal, although irreconcilable. Maybe the devs had to choose between pleasing one group of people or another, since they could not please both. Maybe that decision was made over a year ago. Maybe we should all make the best of it.

I still don't see the problem because I can play as long as I wish until triggering the dam battle. For me this whole issue is just a big tempest in a tea pot.

Anyways here's the free play mod: http://www.newvegasnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=35450

Enjoy!

Find me 10 games that don't end and have a decent plot, and I'll jump on this bandwagon.

I just beat the game for the first time today, I thought the ending sequence was amazing, definitely not [censored] like Fallout 3's. If you ask me the solution for Fallout 3 was a better ending, not no ending.

Also, there is a warning box that says straight up that you're about to go past the point of no return. If you wanted to do "all the sh*t [you] didn't get to do yet." , as you say, then you pick the 'I'm not ready yet' option and do the aforementioned sh*t.

Since the game has many possible conclusions, I can't fathom why playing it again doesn't appeal to you. I plan to start again tomorrow if I have the time. If I allowed the NCR to win at Hoover Dam (as I did in this first playthrough), then the game doesn't end and I go to the Fort and find all the Legionaries chillin' there, I would be pissed. I would've played 90+ hours and turned the tide in an epic battle for nothing.

The only play-past-ending options are: 1. The Hoover Dam battle changes nothing. 2. The losing faction just gets 86'd from the game and nothing changes anywhere else, or 3. Obsidian spends an extra few dozen months making it so that the Hoover Dam battle has an effect on the New Vegas Gameworld, and the PS4(does such a thing exist?) is out before we get to play it.

10? You must not be very confident in yourself to make it so high.

All of you are so conservative and a tad bit selfish. You think they give a damn about that tiny little group of yours who doesn't want new content or an "ending". They look at the millions who cry out WE WANT MORE! not the super fans on here who didn't realize before fallout 3 nobody really gave a damn about fallout. It is DLC you don't have to buy it. I say sure make it. Make a couple extra mill and everyone wins.

Notable games with no real ending. The elder scrolls series, mass effect 2, red faction gurella warfare, any RTS or online muiltiplayer game, and quite frankly many others you could google.or go on listverse or something. That's beside the point.

They picked to have a stupid roll screen ending because they ran out of time. That's the same reason why i've 200 bugs didn't get fixed until days after release. Same reason why we don't get the complete [censored] game until a year from now when game of the year comes out. I feel cheated I can't see with my own eyes the ncr tuning back to california and mr. House killing all the kings I mean come on! If I wanted to watch a movie id watch mad max beyond the thunderdome or the postman or waterworld.
Your arguements is that because board posters don't want it which the.majority of you only represent PC users that we shouldn't all get what we want. That's ridiculous and totally illogical. You play it how you play it and we will play it how we want. You don't have to buy the doc if you don't want it. On oblivion we had several doc that satisfied all types of gamers even you conservative traditionalist who basically want fallout one with better grapics.

Nobody gave a damn about fallout? Tell it to the awards cabinet, the other bidders for the franchise, and the notoriously rabid fanbase.


No, it was a longstanding design decision and announved a long time before launch. Given that they really wouldnt have to do anything to make it playable afterard, that theory just doesnt stack up.

Trying to turn this info platform wars is not a good idea.

I'm assuming you missed the big "OH HEY NO TURNING BACK" popup message that appeared before the final quest?

Implying that you had any impact on oblivion's story -_-

Because...there definitely haven't been hundreds of video games made. 10 is a rather low amount.



Guerrilla's grindingly repetitive plot ends with, "Okay, bad guys gone, do all the minigames you didn't do." And there's only one way for that game to end, not dozens like in New Vegas

As for RTS or MMORPGs, the operative word in my statement was plot. RTSs where you hit 'create random match' isn't plot driven. And while you can spend entire years of your life playing World of Warcraft, many people have, it's hardly on the narrative level of Fallout.

And the Elder Scrolls is part of what I'm talking about, especially Oblivion. "Here's your special armor, now go back into what was a massive engaging gameworld excepting your hours of playing have caused no changes whatsoever and you might have well read a book."

The Fallout franchise is meant to be driven by narration as much as action. Think of it like an actual story. And a story that never ends is something that only exists on forums.

Obsidian COULD have coded changes for every...single...possible...ending in New Vegas, but I like that I got to play the game in my lifetime.

No I didn't im just not a idiot who thi.ks all change is bad.or whose arguement is (the guy who quoted me) nu ih! Really...
yes no one even heard of fallout until fallout 3. Go on gamespot gamestop ign look at there top rated games which fallout is up there? Exactly... honestly I had to dig pretty deep just to find them.

There is no console war. Its common knowledge that fourm posters are by a vast majority pc users. This is most likely because its easter to go from game to browser. Though you do get the occasional multi platform player like myself.

Yes that's correct they did talk about.it before. That doesn't mean squat. If enough consumers make a deman that supply must come from somewhere. I want the ones making the money off that to be inn and beth not just beth. I actually still play fallout 3 and nv. I find the end mission of nv to be dissapointing honestly. Two speech checks and light combat and its over with a long movie and no interaction. Its lazy.

I actally am a bit of a sci fi nut so I find almost all sci fi games to be great plots so you see simple send your troops here I see a 3d chess game that never ends and tech that is astounding and practical under the assumption anythings possible.
I liked red factions story. And no they weren't gone just the resitance had won and only small groups remained to fight. The plot of fallout isn't new though. But im not complaining. I just think EVERYONE should get what they want. It can be done. No new missions need to be added just what happens so you see it and can continue to get the reward you would get from the end game.

And I forgot the elder scrolls missions end with you becoming sheogorath, a god! I don't see how you didn't like there stories.

We (the conservative traditionalist idiots) don't think we're idiots either. Most of us don't have a problem with change or anything of that nature. In fact, the problem we have is only changing the current game to add some thoughtless and poorly implemented after-story gameplay that makes no attempt at reflecting the changes made by the player. I personally don't want Obsidian wasting it's time making a DLC package that makes it possible to play after you finish the main story that if you read the info on the game, you would know that they already said they weren't going to make. Also, Fallout 1 and 2 were both (and still are) widely accepted as great games. The only reason they were so low on the list on the game review sites was that they were made over a decade ago.



You're right, most forum posters are PC users. That's because they use PC's to access the forums. However, the players of New Vegas are rather evenly spread between the two consoles and the PC.



Not sure what this was about.

If it's supply and demand then they wouldn't have made Vegas havean ending. People would have super complained after three and then we'd have a playable ending.

Please, before you make yourself look like a fool, you should google things. Here's Wikipedia for you.

My Emphasis, only to show that you clearly haven't looked (or if you have, haven't looked very hard) on either Gamespot or IGN as you suggest we all do. 1 search + 1 click isnt looking very hard.

The fact is, Fallout wasn't an "unknown" franchise before fallout 3. Yes, Fallout 3 catapulted it to new audiences that hadn't seen it before, but it was a well respected and well known PC title consistently hitting top 100 lists in high positions. Unknown games don't get sequels and spinnoffs (1 sequel and 2 spinnoffs before Bethesda came into the picture).

Clearly someone had "Heard of it" otherwise neither Bethesda nor activision would have put in bids for it?

You made a quip at PC users. Whether theres a majority of us isn't the point.

Try not making those speech checks. Legate Lannius is not a pushover if you dont have 100 speech.

More nu uh arguments. Sorry for the spelling on some of those. Using droid it auto corrects so puts periods and words that have nothing to do with the sentence. Im sorry to call u idiots I just get a bit passionate about my debates.

Answer me this. If they came out with a doc that doesn't end the game but it doesn't add missions it just shows actual progression of what you get at the end of the game. Houses shower of gifts and a life of wealth or what ever you did. And you get to do that or what ever you want. If you don't like it then you don't buy it then your ending was that short film. Everyone wins.

Hardly a "Nu Uh" argument when you're being presented with a list of awards an accolades that the game has gotten.



I cannot "answer" if you do not ask a question.

You're willing to pay DLC money for a game that isnt a game? I can see the poor review scores now, it would be horse armour all over again.

Obsidian already said they aren't going to make a DLC like Broken Steel. No playing after the main quest. I realize that's a clincher for the folks that are chomping at the bit for something like that, but they intended on a hard ending and that's what they delivered.

I'd prefer they focus on making worthwhile DLC instead of some poorly conceived Broken Steel clone.

Then how do you explain the instance of fallout 3? I explain it as exactly supply and demand.

Yes I bought that armor too. And dlc isn't isn't downloadeable game is it? No I am an rpg fan I love the vissuals pretending im on a real warrior horse you know. It was worth the money to me.

The only notable site I saw on there was ign ... but still fallout 3 was like you walk into a room and instantly hear people talking about it. Like new vegas is now.

It surprised me when I read that inn wasn't going to let us play after. It meant the innovation bethesda had would be undone. I loved broken steel. The aliens was a little silly.

What about fo3? Broken steel was a fail or else they would have made Vegas a continuous ending.

No it is a nu uh argument. Because fallout 3 had WAY more awards by actually respectable critics.
0th Annual Game Developers Choice Awards [80] Game of the Year 2008 Best Writing IGN Best of 2008 [82] Game of the Year 2008 [81] Best Xbox 360 Game Best RPG Best Use of Sound GameSpot Best of 2008 Best PC Game [83] Best RPG [84] Golden Joystick Award 2009 Ultimate Game of the Year 2009 [85] PC Game of the Year 20

Broken steel clone? I don't remember asking to be a bos saving all the capital wasteland from enclave and looking like a badass like that.

But not to most of the Gaming press, their letter writers, and a lot of people here on the boards. I think you're the only person I've come across who thinks that it was fair value. If you want something pretty to look at, may I suggest visiting an Art Gallery. Fallout is a game, and we're here to play, not to look at it (especially not on an ageing engine).

So you didn't see Gamespot in there who awarded it RPG of the year, and inducted it into their hall of fame in 2003? PC Gamer is one of the biggest gaming mags around.

Not a Bethesda Innovation. Fallout 2 had this, and even had items that only unlocked when completed (which boosed your skills to maximum, making it even more pointless)


Whether fallout 3 had more awards is irrelevant (and in this case, you have made an Nuh-Uh argument).

(Edit - Its hard to argue that Fallout hasnt wont awards from respectable critics when you're citing some of the same critics giving FO3 awards (IGN/Gamespot); the Golden Joystick's wikipedia page only has winners from 2003 despite it also claiming the award is 28 years old).

Your claim was that "Noone had head of Fallout until Fallout 3 came along". Those awards show that your claim clearly isn't true. If noone had heard of Fallout before fallout 3, how could it enter falls of fame, and constantly appear in Top 100 games list 10 years after its release?

If noone had heard of it - Why did Bethesda buy it (and why did others want to)?

[i agree with tha end game part cuz it gets annoying w8ing but u should of probably read tha thing that said point of no return befor the battle of hoover dam
also they probably made it end so they could make mor money but who could blame em

The First part is entirely oppinon. Speak for yourself.

No I didn't see it just like you didn't see just how well exactly fallout 3 did.

Broken steel was a success whether you like it or not.

Reception Broken Steel has had a generally positive reception, averaging an 81 [35] for the PC and an 82 [36] for the Xbox 360. The Sacramento Bee wrote "The previous two downloadable expansions are good, but this one's pretty much essential for a Fallout 3 fan".

I can't believe I read this entire thread. What the hell is wrong with me?

I think the root of this problem lies with product identification -- Bethesda is known for producing open ended sandbox games. Morrowind and Oblivion were big ol' level grinders with lots of fiddly stuff to do and you could play practically forever. When Bethesda announced Fallout 3 their fans (myself included) naturally envisioned a similar style of game. With that in mind, the ending of Fallout 3 was a shock to many fans of the Elder Scrolls. It's understandable, really. Bethesda, in it's own way (unless it already had Broken Steel in the works), was being true to the Fallout franchise (Honestly, the Fallout 2 'continuation' was just an Easter egg. There was nothing to do, really). They finally caved in to the butthurt and Broken Steel was released.

The pros and cons of 'Broken Steel' could fill a dozen threads. Yes, F3 ended pretty decisively (though not very logically -- Dammit, Fawkes was standing RIGHT THERE!!! LOL)) but the developers, whether by accident or design, were able to continue the main character's story without TOO much trouble. Throw in some water caravans, some new quests.. eh, it was okay. I played the hell out of it, for what it's worth.

New Vegas is different, though. While I was underwhelmed by the ending, it really was a definitive ending in the sense that while the Player Character is still alive, the entire setting has changed one of four main - and dozens of not hundreds of minor - ways. Yes, it's a Bethesda game -- their name is on the box -- but the developers at Obsidian used the sandbox to tell a story that plainly ends.

I've read some pretty outlandish solutions to this 'problem' on this thread but I highly doubt the expense of opening the ending in a quality manner would justify sales (I'm guessing).

I don't know if it helps, but I've pretty consistently played the main quest through to the initial entry to the Strip. Don't visit house, don't confront Benny. The courier has seen enough at this point that going out to see the lay of the land makes a kind of sense. If you can stand playing again, that's my suggestion.

Fallout 3's performance is irrelevant to your claim. Your claim was that noone had heard of fallout before fallout 3. Whether fallout 3 was more well known, or more awared is beside the point. You have offered nothing in support of your claim that noone had heard of it.

Since you've offered nothing to prove this claim, and in light of the facts clearly showing that this isnt the case, will you withdraw your ridiculous claim that noone had heard of fallout before Fallout 3?

Or at least answer the questions posed "How can a game that noone has heard of win awards, and appear in top 100 lists 10 years after release, and trigger a numerous bids when put up on the auction block when the franchise owner hits financial trouble?"


I've not said a word about Broken Steel. I said that Playing after the game is not a Bethesda Innovation as Fallout 2 had this feature. Please pay attention.