And on that point, how many people are there who liked the ending and don't want to play after the end and haven't bothered making an account to give their support to the ending?




No it wouldn't. A DLC would just leave more questions.

What happens know?
Why weren't my decisions reflected?
Why are there still x at y?
The slides said that Primm rebuilt itself as a town over the years, but I just wiped them out. Now what?

And as pointed out earlier in the thread. What happens once you've completed the DLC? All the quests are done by then, are you just going to aimlessly wander the desert shooting cazadors?

How hard is this to comprehend?

Just wondering.

But thats the primary complaint but FO3 lovers....There's not enough cazadors and other beasties wondering pointlessly for them to grind for pointless combat.

OOOHH! I get it. They want to play WOW.

while I would love as some put it "freeplay" I know that it is a money/time thing. If they had the money to put into something that would remotely be good and the time to do. They also have to make sure enough would be sold to compensate for the time and money they spent to make send DLC. If it would be more cost effective to make a new game then create a DLC for New Vegas., Which do you think they would do?

I've had the idea that if they could some how check in the saves and see what you had done with each faction. I mean your pipboy keeps track of all that information. It has to be saved somewhere. A DLC could be setup to use the last save.


Bottom line is if they want to create a DLC that uses your actions that change the mojave they will. If they don't then they won't. Nothing anyone says on these or any forums will change what they want to do. It's all about the money. If they have the money to create such a DLC they may see if it is cost effective to do such a thing. If not then I doubt they will.

As some one said once(don't remember who) Money talks BullSh walks.

I notice this end of the argument is never touched upon. So, I'll lay it out.

Keep in mind, I have yet to complete the MQ for the first time. But, what I've been thinking about is this.

I understand that the game ends. I know that when I reach that point I will be warned; which is the main reason I have done very little with the MQ to begin with. And I also know that I can revert to a save of my choice and not necessarily one just before the ending. I'm fine with that actually. But, again, I came from the realm of ES and never having played any of the previous FO games prior to FO3 I too was one of those, "Why does it end?" people back from FO3. But I have since played FO1 although, I do admit I bore of it quite easily and don't play it often and still have not finished it.

But I digress as I'm beginning to ramble.

Why does everything need to change with a "Freeplay" DLC? Honestly, what if they created one DLC that continues after the MQ ONLY if you choose one ending?

I've been thinking a lot of this lately and have been contemplating possibly taking this mod on myself.

But, logically to me, this would have to be a "Yes Man / Independent" DLC in order for it this work. But again, having not finished the MQ I'm not sure how much of the world is changed doing a "Yes Man / Independent" playthrough. But to me, it seems it would be the only way for this to work.

I'm sure I'll get the, "Get over it, the game ends!!" line but to be honest, I'd like to roam around after the MQ, I mean, I kind of feel pressured now to do everything I can before the end instead of having the ability to wander aimlessly after.

To clarify though, I am ok with the "Game End" which is why I am doing everything now.

Because its not fair on people with other endings.

Oh so you want us to be "forced" to play down a linear quest path then, to just be able to play the DLC you payed for with your hard earned cash? Doesn't that gut the whole reason for the 4 sides, and 100's of quest permutation ending slides?

That will be just as bad as FO3's linear storyline path forcing us to be a very narrow character. (Even if your "evil" you must help the "good guys" no matter what you feel.)

what that DLC would basically do is say if you want to get more gameplay you MUST do x quest line path, or you just spent money on a worthless addition to your game. you then have supporters of y and Z questline path complaining the only x got "more content". So you either have to keep them pissed off, or turn out tiny crappy DLC for each and every ending and permutation instead of just making a sequel. Since thats the only way you could really do justice for a "continuation" of the endgame.

Why do I feel like I just got yelled at?

Really?

But its fair for those who want to continue to be forced to just have their game end? And why is it so hard to believe that some people just don't know the game ends? I can honestly say that I've fat fingered the trigger button on the mouse and missed a dialogue option or misread something. So how come it is so difficult for some of you to realize that maybe during all the excitement of playing the game someone just clicked through the warning? Sure, they may subconciously (sp?) know the game ends but if they missed the warning because of a fast mouse click or a button mash then they are honestly going to be surprised that the game ends.

At any rate I was just throwing it out there as a way to continue to explore past the ending. Seriously, has it ever occurred to some of you that maybe just maybe....some people just don't care about what is going to get changed and what isn't? That perhaps some people just want to kind of wander around and explore stuff? I mean jeez people, it's a game. A single player game. Who in the hell really cares about whether or not the meaning is lost on those who want to play past the ending? Whatever the developers state as canon (if you truly care about it, as if it means a whole hill of beans in the grand scheme of things) is what it is. Regardless of having the ability to carry on after the end.

Honestly, I think a lot of you who are completely against this take it WAAAYYYY too seriously. You honestly think that you would be forced to play a linear path? Really? Lets say for instance this "Linear Path" DLC is released. Those who wish to play past the ending would buy it, and only those things that are changed past that one path are still in game. Those of you against it wouldn't spend the money on it.

How many of you actually bought Brotherhood of Steel when it came out even though you were against the game play changes? Probably not many. But I'm sure it stands to reason that some did buy that were happy with the changes.

And on the flip side, this entire argument can be changed too. Many of you are so set against the ability to play after the end you have forgotten that some want to play after the end. You'll fight and bash heads with anyone who oppose your feelings towards this and claim they are wrong. So, you are all sanctioning forcing those who want to continue to settle for the end. Right? Last I checked there are books that do allow the reader to choose a path and can actually change said path while reading and have different outcomes to the endings. So, no, not all stories have a set ending in books.

As of this post, I didn't really care one way or the other that the game ended. But, I'm actually going to go ahead and change my stance. I now want a DLC that allows me to continue after the MQ and I really don't give a rats ass if the "story" gets messed up in the process. I mean, since I'm now forced to accept that the story ends.

Changing the main quest and stuff is not needed to play freely inn a dlc. All they need to do is to make it possible to return. Who knows that the courier wouldnt go back to say... Sierra Madre ? for scavenge what there is to scavenge ? I know my courier would
The ending is the ending but we need to play trough the dlc before ``the last battle`` so making it possible for us to return to the places aint that big of a deal.

Oh I see we're still doing this.

I have not missed this board.

your not, reload then sandbox?


It's been plastered everywhere since before the game was released?



Then they'd be doing that instead of completing the main quest? why play a story driven game if you have no interest in the story? Usually the explorers exhaust there exploring before doing the storyline. Thats how I always did it since Fallout 1.




Linear? yeah, you just said it right there.



Ahhh he mentioned the burned game! My ears they burn! I never played it for lots of reasons. Unless your referring to FO: Tactics.

As to your flip side arguement? It's a fallout tradition, even Tactics got it right. So much has changed now, how much is too much before it's not even fallout anymore? Why does every game have to be a FPS clone today? Why does Fallout have to be a TES clone? why can't it be Fallout? With it's own unique way of doing things? Thats why I fell in love with them in the first place.

Sorry, I too have never played Tactics hence why I couldn't remember the name. And your ears burn? Shouldn't that be your eyes?

I get it's a Fallout tradition....remember, I said I didn't care and I understood that. Also, remember I said that I really don't care the game ends and I'm doing my exploring first before doing the MQ. Also, take note that I avoid all combat and tend to try and resolve things diplomatically through speech checks and what not. So, I haven't turned it into a FPS. Well, that is of course if they aren't the Powder Gangers. I'm playing a story driven game and I care about the story but I also like to explore. But, I'm gathering from all of these threads from those who oppose the option to continue after teh MQ is that you can't have a story driven game where you can explore too...it's one or the other....a story driven game (FO)...or a game where you can explore (TES)....

Yes, I understand that what I propose to appease those who want to play after the MQ is linear, again, taking snipets of what is typed to move your argument along. But, you fail to include the part where I typed "those who wish to play after the MQ would certainly buy the linear DLC" and those who just want the game to end ala tradition wouldn't.

Again, yes, it has been plastered everywhere that the game ends but some people just don't pay attention. It doesn't matter if this site says it, or some other site says it. I can almost guarantee you that people aren't actively looking for it. Hell, you see it all the time on here. Some newb joins the site saying he didn't know. Did it occur to anyone that perhaps he /she just clicked through the dialogue box? Or that perhaps he / she doesn't frequent this site or any other site and saw that "it's been plastered" everywhere that the game ends? Again, if you aren't paying attention, or honestly don't know and you click the box to continue with the story you are being forced, albeit; through your own negligence.

Again, I've got no problem with having the story ending. I understand Fallout is unique to that. But I feel that a lot of the people who are against a DLC are very obtuse about the absolute feeling they have towards being able to continue after the MQ. Everyone has their own play style. Some like to explore first, while others like to burn through a story and explore last. I am actually one of those people, I want the main story out of the way so I am free to do what I want. I find playing NV very difficult because everything is tied together and I'm not sure what to do and how to handle certain quest lines because I don't want to get stuck on the MQ. Hence why I am still on my 1st playthrough of the game 4 months after the game has been released. So I reference the wiki and my guide book a lot. If there was an option to continue after the MQ I'd be a little less apprehensive about it, but since there isn't, I know that then I am more careful in my dialogue choices and decisions.

I get why Obsidian did what they did. But I also feel like an option should be there, and a certain quest line would lend itself well to those who wish to play after the MQ.

Now, I'm sure you'll find some more things to pick out of what I've written to move your side of the argument along and I also know you aren't going to completely read everything that's typed here.....and I guess...that's ok.....it's the internets....and I just don't care.....

@TheTallest. Conversely is it fair to those who prefer Fallout to have an ending complete with the traditional slideshow/commentary if the 'post ending' DLC adds more than just being able to play after the end of the main quest (regardless of whether or not it is limited to one faction only or not) to be forced to either ignore it or to endure the fact that in order to play it they have to go with just one faction even if it is not their preferred faction or not.

I know that there is at least one person (not myself) who if a substancial DLC was released which featured post ending gameplay and post ending lore additions would not be happy in the slightest (and that's possibly putting it mildly).

Also conversely with regards to the argument that those of us who prefer that the Fallout Games have a definitive ending are taking it too seriously and the Linear Path. Comparing the previous Fallout RPG games (which excludes Tactics and the one which shall not be named) to each other and the concept of linearity at least to myself reveals the following. Fallout 1, Fallout 2 give the player a huge amount of freedom with how they deal with the games main quest and various situations, Fallout New Vegas gives the player at least a modicum if not a reasonable amount of freedom with the main quest and various situations, Fallout 3 gives the player very limited freedom in how we dealt with the main quest and various situations (ok you could skip a huge amount of the main quest, but that doesn't add/change to how you can deal with it). We could choose to talk our way through things, sneak our way through things or even fight our way through things (boiling the choices down to the basics) in Fallout 1, 2, New Vegas (although sneaking to a lesser extent in New Vegas). In Fallout 3 we could basically Fight our way through things, ignore them or if we were really lucky talk our way through things.

Having said all that, what they could do is release a 'mini' DLC which only adds the ability to play after the main quest and only that. The main problem with this is that people would then complain that nothing more is added for them to do after completing the main quest and some would also complain that the 'DLC' ignores what they did during the main quest and puts them back into a game world where nothing has changed at all.


Edit: With regards to the ending and Obsidian's decision not to allow post main quest gameplay, I think they did it due to a lack of time which meant that they could not even start to make a post ending gameworld which takes into account the players actions during their gameplay up to the completion of the main quest. Also something to bear in mind is that there are a possible 26 (27 in total) segments that can be activated for the ending slideshow and each of those segments has anywhere between 4 and 12 variations, which means that if Obsidian had tried to add something to try to keep track of them it would be very complicated and would increase the complexity of the programming by at least one if not several orders of magnitude. This would also have increased the number of bugs/glitches expotentially, as the more complex a program is the greater the number of bugs and or glitches that will infest it.

Oh, I read everything, when I respond to a post. The "burned game" and FO:Tactics are two different games.

To release several "play after the end" DLC would be a cheap move to bleed more cash off for very little gain. A return to the "horse armor" debacle. As I said before, talk to everyone, while doing the main quest that way it's pretty obvious what side quest have bigger effects on the MQ path you take. Worrying over "completing everything in one go" shouldn't happen thanks to re-playability of multiple storyline's, and skill sets.

Why would they be surprised at it ending? To my knowledge most games have an ending. Why wouldn't they be surprised if they could continue playing after the end? Thats the unusual bit thats other then the "norm" isn't it? since very few games have that right? For the most part Everyone that I've noticed are against such a DLC because it wouldn't add anything new or meaningful. Potentially at the cost of story. You can achieve the same result by reloading a save and just not, doing said quest. Why pay money and spent time on making a DLC that can be done with a push of the reload button? Why not make more meaningful DLC. just like the ones we see lined up. Would you honestly drop one of those DLC we know about with Ulysses, and the Johnathan Grahman for one that lets you just play after the end? You also have to consider they have limited time and resources for these things.

As for your method, I think thats a strange way of going about it. I usually do exploring so I can find out more about the MQ story so I can form opinions on whats going on. Your method seems like you rashly pick a side them do there bidding then after the fact try to find out about what they do. *shrugs*

Which, is why I suggested the one faction that to me seems to be the easiest to change. I never said that you'd take that one path and play after teh MQ and nothing would have changed. The reason why I chose the path I did because to me, it seems to be the easiest to make the changes. You could still get the ability to explore the world after the completion of the Yes Man / Independent path and see all the changes you've made. Which means the slides you were shown after the ending would still be valid.

I'm also sure that it wouldn't be easy to accomplish. But it is doable. It can be done with any one of the endings. But I just chose the one that made the most sense to me. An Independent Vegas it just feels like it'd be fitting to have the Courier in charge of Vegas and to be able to kind of continue to explore after. You'd still have all the side quests that you didn't do and it'd be easy to add new content. You could have a recurring quest where every so often you'd have to return to the strip to collect debt and money and there could be side quests within the strip as well just to keep things interesting.

I also know that this argument isn't going anywhere since Obsidian said this wasn't going to happen. I wasn't trying to argue with anyone I was just kind of putting it out there to show that it could be done, it would just have to be limited. It would take away from the game while adding to it.

Most of the Slides tell you about stuff that happens "in the years following" not directly tomorrow. So that still leaves plenty to screw up. The slides don't mean a thing if the ychuck you right back in the game to contradict it all.

I don't see why its so impossibly hard....this is not a modding group, its a proper company.....making a freeplay after MQ DLC wouldn't be any harder then any other DLC.

From a role playing perspective, not being able to pursue the most important quest in the game because it means you cant do other stuff is simply ridiculous....pretty much the game is telling you 'The fate of Vegas is in your hands! You must help [Faction] win the important battle coming up! but don't do this cause it means the game ends' ...... and quiting at the finally point before the battle is not a good role playing point.....and this is a Role Playing Game. Not to mention it makes all your previous work pointless if you cant experience the end result......what is the impact of working through the brotherhood of steal quest line if it has no impact on the game....might as well kill them, it accomplishes the same end result, just a different end story for them.

The only reward you can get some nice pictures at the end....which after all the work you put in to ally some of the factions feel wasted....when ignoring them, or killing them would have been much easier, quicker and even giving you better equipment.

Fallout 3 had the exact problem....super important quest you are told you should do immediately.....but oh wait...now you're dead...seems you needed to blow off the important quest so you could do other quests....only Bethesda realised their mistake and made Broken Steel.


And Now they want to make a heap of DLC.....well gee, wouldn't it have been better to have your characters work through the MQ, then be able to tackle these new experiences....rather then forcing you to do everything except the very 'super important' ending of the game....in a way you never complete the MQ with any character.....because if you want ot use your character you have to aviod doing the end, or at least revert ot a point before the final quest....which sort of defeats the purpose, no?



Big logic error there.



PS: And please dont say you can just go off and do other things. From a Role palying perpective.....in a Role Playing game....if you like to Role play a character, it is hard to ignore all the important people that are telling you to do the MQ.

Thanks Obsidian for giving us and interesting end fight.....that gives us no exp, items, end of story or previous questline effects because we have to reload from before it if we want to do other quests we didnt get to, or to play some of your new DLC.

EDIT: The quote where they say there will be no after ending DLC made is from November......thats months ago, if they have recently decided to add more DLC to be made, there might just be a freeplay DLC for popular demand.

Uh, yes it would. There are four endings to the main questline (not counting the slight variations such as Lanius being the new Caesar) and around 23 different variations on sidequests.



Are you kidding? FO3 only really had one choice at the end, and Broken Steel cocked it up.

• Say you activate the purifier properly. You were told that it would bring a glorious new age to the Wasteland, where everyone finally has enough to drink. In reality all you basically see is a few water traders.
  
• What if you poison the water? I was told there'd be mass destruction of Mutant life across the wastleland, and that I'd be able to join the Enclave. What happens? It looks like I'm the only one who gets sick from drinking this water, and I can forget about joining the Enclave. Silly me, expecting consequences for my actions.

So yeah. If they couldn't get it right in Broken Steel, where they only had to account for one choice, what on Earth makes you think they'll be able to make a post game DLC for Vegas when they have to account for a much larger amount of choices?

i never said Broken steel was perfecct......it just had the right idea. I too felt it silly that even when i helped the enclave win, that I still got the same result (with a few sick people) as if i'd helped the brotherhood. Vegas has much better branching storylines......but they never seem to amount to anything...it keeps bugging me.

EG:
You help take back the prision.....the gangers still spawn in the camps, the NCR just stand around in the office....hell the alarm never even turn offs.

Nipton has Kvatch syndrome with ever burning fires and corpses.

The brotherhood agree to move out of the bunker more....nothing happens though. They still only come out at night...the windstorm still happens.

You clear out the ghouls from the RECONN ruins for Novac....they thank you, but you wont ever see scavengers back in the ruins again.


In new vegas it just suffers from a lack of effects from quests. I know they get cut for time issues...but come on! Half the time I hardly feel I acomplish anything when i finish a quest......all the biggest quests have no visible impact on the game. The main quest included. You can hardly call this a good design.

It looks like everyone that has played Fallout 3 seems to forget that games usually end.

RPG's end, that's the end of it.

OH MY GOD THIS ENDLESS DEBATE IS DEVOURING MY SANITY!

Games without endings:

• Cookie-cutter FPS
  
• Fallout 3 - After Broken Steel
  
• GTA
  
• Most other FPS
  
• Multiplayer games (for the most part)
  
• Just Cause 2 (and 1? I never played it)
  
• The Sims

Games with endings:

• Fallout
  
• Fallout 2
  
• Fallout: Tactics
  
• Fallout: New Vegas
  
• Super Mario Brothers
  
• Duck Hunt
  
• Ninja Gaiden
  
• Ninja Gaiden 2
  
• Ninja Gaiden anything
  
• anything Star Wars
  
• anything Sonic
  
• anything Final Fantasy
  
• anything Dragon Warrior
  
• Shining Force
  
• Shining Force 2
  
• Shining Force 3
  
• Baldur's Gate
  
• Baldur's Gate 2
  
• Neverwinter Nights
  
• Neverwinter Nights 2
  
• Tag
  
• Monopoly
  
• Yahtzee
  
• Mouse Trap
  
• Hide and Seek

And loads more I didn't mention on both sides. The point is, if you don't like it, don't spend your hard-earned money on it. I'm sure I'm not the only one getting thoroughly irritated with all the crying about the fallacy that all games should include free-play. If you can't handle replaying to see different results, then don't.

Either way, please stop cluttering the boards with the same banol complaints.

I. [censored]. Love. You.

In the next game, it doesn't matter if they make a DLC that lets you become Godzilla and rampage through modern day Tokyo, as long as they decide it isn't cannon, you'll never see it in a future game (unless they put it in as a throw-back).

I honestly don't get why people think it would ruin the story. I liked Broken Steel's ending, so I guess I'm just the minority and that's why I don't see the problem with this (also, admittedly, I'm one of those people who got into Fallout at 3. But being born in '94, I can't really help that).

If they make a DLC that puts in some lower level content you can do before the end, and make it substantial, and just tack on being able to free-roam after without changing anything in the game (I mean seriously changing anything. If I side with the NCR, just throw some NCR troops in the fort and I'll be happy. Same with the Legion / House / Independent. I haven't finished the game, though. I just started, and I'm doing no missions for House / Independent, so I dunno if it'd work for them) then don't both sides win? From what I can gather, the people who want free-roam, just want to be able to dike around in the Mojave after the game with their character they got attached to. And shocker, if you think being able to keep playing after the end would ruin the story, you don't have to keep playing that character. Roll up a new one, hoss. You wouldn't get shortchanged on the DLC if you bought it, because the focus would be on the low level content. Making it playable after the end the way I said wouldn't take all that long. After you beat the game, they can just have a little box pop up. Ask you if you want to free-roam, load a save, or go back to the main menu.

EDIT: I didn't forget about the side-quests, I just don't see how they could possible make it work. If the Legion wins, it'd take a lot of work to switch all the NCR side quests over to Legion. Well, not a lotof work, but they'd need to record some more dialogue. Wouldn't make sense having a Centurion talking about how Driver Nephi brained a few of his trooperswith his golf club.

But personally, I'd be fine if all they did was change the skin and leave the dialogue exactly the same. I want free-roam so I can just do anything, and everything. I know not everyone shares my point of view, and that's fine. If they put in free-roam like that, I'd obviously know that the game is over, that now is just the time to jerk around without worrying about consequences. And yes, I could do that with a brand new character. But then I'd have re-do everything I just did, just so I can dike around. If I make a new character, it's going to be to actually play the game.

:shrug: The point I was trying to drive home (rather incoherently) was that, I don't see how free-roam just for kicks, and not expecting any drastic changes, is a bad thing.

i wish.
probably wont happen though. OB likes it better this way and its their game. F4 wont have an ending though, Beth likes it better that way (so do i)