I've not completed it myself, but I am sure the ending fails to disappoint. FO! and 2 ended - superbly. I'm sure this does too. What is it with modern gamers not wanting games to end???

stop *****ing. Alot of other games have definite endings. Just reload you save, its not going to hurt anyone. Again stop *****ing. End of story.

It's fine, i'll just archive my saves and make sure to warn any and all my friends about this and at least prepare em for it, and possibly warn em not to even bother to begin with.

Here's an idea: Start a new character. There's no way you could do 100% of the game on one character if they DID let you play after the ending. There is a huge amount of replayability in this game. Pick a side other then the one you picked. Guess what? You have an entirely different campaign! Finish quests differently, put points in different stats, do everything you did in your first playthrough differently!


Seriously. Are linear hand-holding games what the world loves now? New Vegas isn't one of those!

You aren't in the least bit curious what would have happened to the wasteland if you sided with someone else? If you choose, say, House instead of the NCR or Legion? If you choose to go your own way? What happens if you do quests differently?



Exactly. It's a physical impossibility. There's at the very least four ending paths here, all of them mutually exclusive. That means at a minimum, you have to replay the game four times if you want to see everything. Replayability has massively increased compared to Fallout 3, where you only had three choices that actually matter (karma and Fev).

I like the ending.




Bye, I (and likely may others) do not want you here (or your friends) if this is how you are going to act.

If they choose to miss out on a VERY good game over the game having a hard ending, you better warn them about,

Halo 1,2,3 and Reach
COD (any)
Command and conquer
Fallout 1, 2 and tactics.
NWN nights
Dragon age
Baulders gate.
The witcher
and many more.

Fallout 2 allowed people to play after the ending. It was basically one big easter egg, and was about as pointless as one.

The Witcher - bloody good game :foodndrink:

For the people who cry and whine about the game having a definitive ending, answer me this. What's the difference between finishing every side quest and the faction quest you choose and the game ending, AS IT WARNS YOU IT SHALL, as opposed to finishing the side quests and faction quests and mindlessly wandering the wastes?

Personally the latter option just lets you play until your so sick of having nothing to do. :shrug:

Weird.

I've installed and played at least six different characters in FO3. And it didn't have nearly as many different ways to do things as FO:NV seems to so far.

Why would you only want to play it once? :huh:

A good example is Baldurs Gate 2, it was the most open in the middle chapters, were you could go around and explore the world, while slowly building up the capital needed to continue with the main quest. Taking all the time you needed before you felt you were strong enough to tackle the main quest and finish the game.

There's no logic behind not allowing post-game play unless your character dies at the end.

Why is this so polarizing? I haven't completed the main quest yet, but just the same I'd like to take the middle ground here. Okay, fine. They warn you the end is coming and you should turn back if you want to keep playing on that character. I'm okay with that. But just because they warned us doesn't mean they can't build on it later. They made a huge epic and complete game and that's great, but I'd still like to see a DLC that let's you go back and see the *ahem* fallout of your actions and decisions. In FO3 I thought it was hugely rewarding to go back out and interact with the world I helped shape in Broken Steel. Even if they said they weren't going to do that, it's not like it would be the first time a company lied about a game pre-release. At least in this case it would be a lie to cover up a pleasant surprise.

How about the fact that the ending slides show the future of the factions and people you encounter? Let's say my ending slide says "Novac goes on to become one of the most prosperous towns in the Mojave." Immediately after the credits I go and kill everybody in the town. What the heck happened there?

There's also no logic in letting us mindlessly dawdle around the wasteland with nothing to do but shoot at a random enemy, so I suppose you're point is just as equal.

Sure there is. Allow me to explain:

In Fallout 2, the "good" ending for Broken Hills involved the town dispersing because the uranium it sold to keep its economy going ran out.

Fallout 2 allowed you to play after the end, and consequently, to murder every man, woman, child, mutant, and ghoul (and giant spore plant and intelligent radscorpion) in the town.

This option effectively renders that particular ending segment utterly meaningless. If you can go and kill everyone, the town obviously wouldn't disperse because the uranium ran out.

Beyond that, there's also another issue. That is, changes. The changes in the ending are potentially tremendous. NCR taking the strip would need a lot of new content to properly explore. New dialog, new scripts, new quests... If you say this isn't necessary, what exactly is the point of playing on after the end at all, if there's no new content to explore? If there's nothing new from playing after the end, there's no reason to play after the end, rather than simply reloading the save you make before the point of no return.



I don't want a DLC exploring the endgame, because a DLC is simply too small to properly do it justice. We need a full on expansion at a minimum here. Possibly even a sequel. Remember, we had to wait until Fallout 2 to actually see the long reaching results of helping Shady Sands back in FO1, even though we got an ending slide talking about how Tandi formed the "New California Republic."

There is, the story is over.

Why is everyone so insistent that the next DLC will change this... If I recall correctly it wasn't until the 3rd DLC for Fallout 3 that you could continue past the end... I Could be wrong, but still.

Obsidian said that they're not making a DLC to change this.

They made an ending knowing fully well what they were doing. It wasn't just a last minute thing.

Obsidian doesn't intend on doing a DLC that lets you play past the ending, period.

I forced myself to finish Fallout; I didn't really like it that much. I never did manage to get even a quarter of the way through Fallout 2. I didn't bother with the other "original" games.

Those facts alone would be enough for the hardcoe lifetime Fallout fans to tell you that I am *not* in any way a hardcoe lifetime Fallout fan.

I like the idea that the game ends. I liked the fact that Fallout 3 used to have a definite end. Bethesda's only mistake as far as I'm concerned was actually listening to people who wanted companions. Adding companions who were more or less totally immune to the radiation at the purifier made the ending worse that it could have been, had it only been your character and Sarah. Then they added Broken Steel, which continued the story, but didn't deal with anything you did during the game. I wanted more information on what happened because of the choices I made.

I'm okay with the definitive ending in New Vegas. There was a story, beginning, middle, and end. As long as there is enough information about how my character changed the game world, I'm okay with an end to the game. It beats running around and seeing nothing really changing anymore. Killing respawning deathclaws, powder-gangers, and other critters over and over again really doesn't do too much for me. But then, its because I'm not a hardcoe lifetime Fallout fan. Just someone who appreciates a good story.

Not to mention that setting up factions that will not work together means you can't do 100% of the game with one character. If you go with NCR, you can't work for the Legion. If you do the Legion, you can't work for NCR. The BoS locks out some choices. If you want to complete 100% of everything, it going to take more than one character.

If thats how you feel, delete the game,sell the game, and leave the forums. Good Riddance, you won't be missed.

Also, the ending scene was awesome.

Wow this is news to me. I had no idea we weren't allowed to play after the main story in FNV.

That's one of the main reasons me and every single one of my friends hated fallout 3 at the very end because you couldn't continue to play your character. We were all wondering why we payed 50 bucks for it lol. then they came out with that expansion//dlc to let you continue to play. But, this is ridiculous. I thought that was a mistake the first time around with fallout 3 and they ended up improving the experience by fixing it with the dlc.

I thought obsidian learned that the first time, that it was horrible decision or I don't know... learned from a mistake or something. Is this supposed to be intentional to get us to pay for the DLC? If so then that's dirty.

I just lost all respect for obsidian.



All I can say is, good thing I saved RIGHT BEFORE the main story quest branches. I'll go explore everything before I finish the main quest. But seriously, shame on them. If I didn't see this thread I would have just went and finished the main quest line with still having stuff to do. Fubar.

theres going to be a dlc i had gotten experience for completing the last quest

There may not be a official DLC allowing play after the main quest, but if you have the PC version there are already player made mods that enable you to do this.

Really, I don't understand the hostility apparent in some folks over the idea that others may not want their game to end just yet.

This is why I love mods. One can add klingons to his game if he desires, and nobody can credibly claim he's wrong for doing so. It is, after all, his game. He payed for it and is entitled to enjoy it however he likes.