The definitive ending was the most frustrating part of Fallout 3, You would think these guys would take the mistake Bethesda made and learn from it... or at least I feel that way.

How do others feel?

Please feel free to state your opinion.

I don't think it was a mistake to end it

I do however think it was a mistake to continue it

As far as New Vegas goes I do eventually want a bit of closure from the game

I was fine with it a while back when it was announced, but now that all this cool info is out, and I've been fantizizing about all the stuff I'm gonna do. Then I rember the fact that as soon as I finish the main quest.... It's over, and I gotta restart. :sadvaultboy:

it should have multiple endings and some are the definite end. i know other games have this but i cant think of what one

The problem wasn't that Fallout 3 ended, but that it ended badly.

The main quest was far too short, the finale unsatisfying and most of your major decisions weren't mentioned in the end video.



New Vegas has a definitive ending because they say the ending is going to be far better and allowing you to continue will damage the effect the ending had.

The way I see it is:I don't mind story closure, I'm all for it. I just hate having to either load save games or start a new game. If they did something like the GTA games have, when you can just roam the game world once you complete the story, that would be fine by me. And maybe do a few side quest you missed.

I suppose I do want closure to the story, but not the game itself.

As DevernTarn said..

The problem with Fallout 3's original ending wasn't due to it having an end, it was the quality of it. It was so cheaply done and it showed that it was rushed. Not to mention the whole "many different endings" thing was just a load of crap. What most or some of us are hoping for is a quality ending, not whether or not we could continue in the end.

I thought Broken Steel cheapened the whole ending of Fallout 3. My character and everyone else miraculously survive and go on to completely annihilate a superior force on their home turf? It's more believable as a radiation fueled hallucination that my character is experiencing as he lies dying on the floor of Project Purity. I'd prefer if they did it kind of like the end of Dragon Age Origins except with Ron Perlman explaining what happened to everyone and with little clips instead of just pictures. Walking around looking for signs that you made a difference after you finish the game is just kind of pointless. There's not much else to do except go sightseeing and gather breakfast cereal.

If you like the definative end that means you want the game to copletely end and you start over. If you don't that means the story is over and you can still play. I'm confused as to which you chose?

Sort of like how they done it for Fallout 1 n 2.

The main quest of both Fallout 3 and New Vegas are being designed to have a definite ending - however Bethesda wasn't expecting so many people to object to this. Obsidian has went in to this knowing they'd have to make accommodations for this and I imagine they'll handle it well.

I don't really care either way, as long as it works well I'm happy.

I had no problem with Fallout 3 ending either, just the way in which it was handled (really crappily). I do not consider Broken Steel to be a particularly good solution as it just ended up adding a bunch of really stupid stuff to the game at any rate.

I'm all for an ending to the game if it's done well and I think Obsidian will deliver a classic and satisfying ending slide which reacts to the player's actions.

The defninitive ending, properly done, was an excellent thing in Fallout and Fallout 2. I'm glad to see that the folks at Obsidian are going to show Bethesda the error of their ways and demonstrate "how it's really done." Just my take on it, YMMV.

Bethesda started out with a weak excuse for a definite ending, then only made the problem worse by trying to retcon it with one that wasn't really all that much better. Which is to say, I think Obsidian realizes the mistake Bethesda made- but that the mistake in question wasn't having a definite ending but rather having a half-assed, shoddy definite ending.

They said that you will be let known when it is the final quest and to make a save just incase you want to reload after you've finished it IIRC.

Oh and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=in-sZ20G3F8 .
Well Nelly, because that's life.

I don't care if the story ends, but not the game. just toss a "free roam" option after all is said and done. no need for some grand story continuation like broken steel.

in all honesty, i dont really give a damn if the game ends or not, so long as it ends well. i kind of wish you could still roam the gameworld after the ending, but seeing as though we know what were getting into, i have no objections

So, I really don't see anything wrong with the ending to FO3. Could someone who hated it please explain.

the way it ends felt very "last minute-ish", it wasn't the ending the game deserved. and it made a lot of fans angry.

The most frustrating part of Fallout 3 was that the definite ending wasn't any good. When done right, a definite ending can be quite rewarding.

Like most people say, it's not the fact that the game ended but that it ended badly. I'm one of those that think games should have closure with a really good ending sequence which will differ depending on how you played the game, and it will tell the consequences of your actions so that it feels like the things you did really mattered. If you continue afterwards, then I want all the consequences to be shown and that takes like another full game and then you gotta end THAT and show the consequences of that and people still want to play and then.... well, let's just say it should end. What if you watched a movie that never ended, or read a book that never ended, or ate a meal that never ended or went on a car trip that never ended. You'd get bored and stop watching/reading/eating/driving even though there's still a lot left to it.

I don't understand it either but I'm gonna try to give examples anyway:

*Main quest too short.
*Bad design that I couldn't let fawkes, charon, that robot thingy or clover into the reactor thingy.
*The ending didn't show all of your actions.
*?
(Why Clover is on the list? Because she's a slave? As a slave she has no right to say no, it's either "go into the reactor honey or I'll torture you until you plead for death which I won't give you".)

SavageBeatings, I'd love to watch Dazed And Confused that never ended.
It's the best film I've ever seen.
Really.
In my afterlife I want a beer that never goes warm and never runs our, a bag of cheese doodles that never run out and Dazed And Confused that never ends.
That, my fellow forum dwellers, would be paradise.

I know you can send RL-3 into the reactor. Although i agree with the other points.

I like it. I want to see who my character influenced and how. If you finish the Main Quest and you still have the option to free roam after, you won't feel the satisfaction of Fallout and Fallout 2, when it shows what happened to everyone and you're like "Wow, I did this?"


EDIT:

You couldn't send Fawkes or Charon 'cause they're immune to radiation and the story wouldn't have a definitive ending. Clover is probably because people would get pissed because they think it's "sixism" or something.

Wait.. You can send the robot in in the vanilla version of the game?
(I should really play fallout 3 again soon.)

I honestly would be fine with the story ending, it wasn't the part that really got to me in fallout 3, I don't mind a Definitive ending to the story, As long as they do it RIGHT. But I would love to be able to just "screw around" with my character after its over, instead of stopping. I finished fallout 3 at level 7, knowing that you could level to 20 made me wish I could play more, regardless of story.

just for fun.