i know.
:P

I like my games to tell a story and stories need endings...I find continuing a game after the story is completed kinda pointless...I mean...if you'd get the most badass weapon/spell/superpower right during the boss battle or the ending credits, I can understand that you'd want to have fun with it, but that's not the case in Fallout (or most games that I know), so you can do all that before finishing the game...

Why NV has to end: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2010-08-23-why-fallout-new-vegas-has-to-end-article

For me the last 6-7 years of gameplay never ended at the end of the main story, be it from Freelancer, Oblivion, Fallout3, etc. Going further back to my mudding days, the game never Ever did end, so I'm highly bias to wanting the ability to play and enjoy the game until I'm bored. So while its annoying that the main story ends the gameplay for the player, its not crippling just so long as you can avert that ending and extend the gameplay further out. I'm also confident that we modders will get around that ending just as we did with Fallout3.

What impressed me was the fact that Bethesda reversed course and unded the ending with Broken Steel, a move that I felt at the time was at least in-part motivated by feedback from the community (which was Vastly against such an ending). I didn't have a problem with the ending of Fallout3, you die a hero (or not) and the world goes on without you. I just felt it was un-necessary to end the game when there were so many secondary locations to see and non-main-story-related things to do. We have been told this is the same with New Vegas, in which Chris Avellone has stated that alot of love has gone into the secondary locations and that there is a ton do explore and see.

Given all that, ending the main story seems an un-necessary inconvenience to the player that is just as easily avoided. I see how it can be used to provide a dramatic ending to a story, but good writing can produce just as dramatic an ending that leaves you standing before the open wastes at the end. Thus I don't see that putting an ending in an open-world RPG adds to the "fun" element of the game - which to my understanding is a critical criteria these days. That is purely my view though, and as said at least we can over-ride it via the mods and keep on gaming after the main story becomes history...

And what many of us are saying is that we do "avert" the ending of games..... by having a save just before the point of no return. Ending averted. Without needing to get a DLC which breaks the game-as-designed. It's really simple and no-stress.

(I'm reminded of many console JRPGs - like the Final Fantasy series - which hold up a giant sign once you get close to the end, saying explicitly "Once you go to this next step there's no going back. Are there any other things you wanted to complete / places to go / sidequests to find, before you head onwards?")

Oh that's definitely the quick fix for everyone, and Obsidian said that continuing on with a save just before the end will be the preferred path.

However - there are some cases in which games change after the ending of the main story. Oblivion is a perfect example of this, as the Oblivion gates went away and the skies returned to normal after the main quest was done. If Oblivion had ended at the end of the main quest, the player could never experience the joys and tranquility of having defeated evil in the land and returning life to normal. Fallout3 was similar in that the world changed after good water started returning to the wasteland and I very much enjoyed Broken Steel for the ability to continue on.

Either way I'll be happy, I'm just a permanent svcker for the super-long gameplay open world RPG

I'm annoyed that it is going to end, I understand why it will end but it still annoys me.

You could also wait until after you've done all the things you want to do before finishing the main quest.

And that's why it doesn't bother me too much that the game has a definate ending, now, I will say that I would prefer if it did not, because Fallout is the kind of game where there may be a lot of things you can do other than the main quest, and I would like to have a chance to actually DO those things before the game ends, but at the same time, it sometimes feels a little strange for you to suddenly start completely ignoring the main storyline to do other things just before the final confrontation, which is often where a story is at its most climatic and creates the strongest sense of urgency. Still, Obsidian has said, I believe, that they considered making the game open ended, but decided that their ending would be cheapened by allowing you to continue playing after it, and when they saw from Fallout 3 that there is some demand among the fanbase to be able to continue playing after the ending, I'd think that if they still think a definite ending would be best, then they probably mean it.



Dying a hero only works when the sacrifice actually MAKES SENSE, in other words, when it's the last desperate measure, this wasn't the case in Fallout 3, there were three companions available in the game who should have been able to enter without fearing radiation, and there is no reason one of them could not go in and do it for you, at least there should have been no reason why he could not have, except that the plot says so, which is the biggest problem with Fallout 3's ending. You can't just ignore logic when writing a story and still expect it to be well recieved.

In this case, though, I'll trust Obsidian to do better, since I've never considered story to be the strongpoint of Bethesda's games anyway, plus, after seeing the reaction to the messup with Fallout 3's ending, I'd like to think that Obsidian knows that they need to be more careful about ending the game in a way that makes sense.

let me see if I comprehend your problem correctly

you somehow managed to play Fallout three from birth to death without once saveing?

Either you have some serious braging rights to doing that, or a serious need to fabrees your room

I don't like the game having an ending that I can not continue past. However I will have to play the game to determine if it makes sense or not to be this way. I would rather be able to finish the MQ then enjoy the world that I saved or destroyed.

In subsequent playthroughs I will just ignore the main quest or the latter part of the main quest if that is the case.

Looks like CCNA joined the NCR Free Roam supporters faction

That works if you have only one possible ending, or a couple that that have very little effects on the world (like removing the obvlivion gates). It gets more complicated to change the world according to the players actions when the ending is more responsive to what has and has not happened before the ending - and with this kind of approach, having a definite ending (imo) is less restrictive in terms of litelar inventiviness and coherent continuation (continuation, which only happens in the spoken/written epilogue with possible pictures/video clips presenting the outcome).

The Game only ends when you make it end. Just don't end it, if the game has no "carry on after end" content then not ending the game is no different to ending it and then being allowed to keep playing....its not like they add in a load of after game ends quests and conversations about what you did.

I dislike it, its a RPG and in an RPG you should be given choices.

Eh...if you don't end the game and choose to keep playing than your stuck at the final mission and can't complete it. So yea your right. You can keep playing but your just gimped into not being able to do the last main quest mission or the game will end! Elder scrolls iv ftw!

Well aren't you given choices? :unsure:

From what I've heard, there's plenty - even regarding the ending, how it plays out and when to end it if ending it at all.

In actual fact the Chris Avellone and JES have both said that this exact kind of complex relations between factions (and their behavior towards the player) is already being incorporated into New Vegas. The things we do during the game Will impact how the rest of the world interacts with the player, so I agree with you that its very complicated but also submit that the problem your describing will already be solved when the games ends (i.e. the player's reputation will be set and the NPC factions reactions to the player will already be in effect). In fact, even if we continue on just before the final ending of the game, we will continue to influence those reactions.

With this level of sophisticaiton included into New Vegas, I don't think it will be difficult at all to change those new faction relations based on a particular ending. With Oblivion your argument is 100% correct, but Obsidian has brought to the game their own advanced understanding of complex faction relations. I don't see that being any issue at all with continuing on after the main quest.

I love the idea of it ending. I think it adds to the replayability.




Just do what everyone did in FO3 and don't do the last mission.

I don't mind a definitive ending, I just want to be warned before I hit the "point of no return" since there wasn't really a definitive warning like that in FO3, you just sort of have to leave the Lyon's crew hanging right in the beginning of the "Take it Back" quest if you want to go on and finish side quests, etc. because once you start the attack you are headed straight to the Pre Broken Steel "ending"...

because some people want a reason to complain

I think that the ending consists of more than just faction relations and has bigger impact to the setting - and hence it is made definite. What those impacts are we'll learn later, but from the sound of it they're going to be drastic enough to not warrant the effort of developing coherent continuance where each possible equation is taken into account when crafting the post-endgame world; and that's what I was referring to when I mentiond bigger literal inventiviness - the ability to create massive changes without the worries of having to visualize them in a playable form. If it was only a matter of faction relations, I'm 100% sure there would've been possibility for post-ending play.

Hmmmm I don't think your making the challenge out to be bigger than it really is. Certainly if the studio wanted they could have extended the gameplay past the ending without having to make coherent continuance decisions at all points (faction relations being among them). I specifically recall reading that they chose to put in a definitive ending because it made sense to the Story to have it end (which has nothing to do with technical challenges of allowing continuance).

Like you I'm sure 100% that they could have made the game continue on if they wanted to, which they clearly don't. Having a very good understanding of the GECK, I just don't think the technical challenges exist that would prevent them from doing so if they wanted to. In this case it was clearly (and declared as such) as a choice. Its not a Major problem as I mentioned a few posts back, as I'll be modding my way around the ending (or using another modders version) just as we did with Fo3 - and so the "problem" as some of us percieve it, will not last long after the release of the game.

Or maybe because someone doesn't want to gimp there playthrough by having to forfeit the last mission to create a desperate attempt to keep playing without the game ending...yikes.

Like I said, just save the game, have a memory relapse, and just pretend you saved the world. It's what Im going to do after I see what ending I get :shrug:

Whats the difference. After the missions are done and you get to keep playing what are you gonna do, settle down and start a family? I for one get bored when there are no missions and I just walk around killing the same people and creatures over and over. If it is seriously that big of a problem then how do you play damn near any other RPG? 99% of rpgs end.