What dlc? Obsidian has stated they won't be making a dlc like Broken Steel.

The quote from Josh Sawyer:



They may be going to release dlc at some point, but I bet it will be set before the end of the game.

I know there will be a DLC that fixes the ending, I know this because my dad works at Nintendo.

If they don't want their game to end just yet, all they have to do is take the advice of the huge unmissable message box and not do the final quest.

If there was no such box, I'd be miffed too, but that's not the situation we find ourselves in.

:huh: lol what... ? ...........

My reaction: flabbergasted, that... wow.

I thought I lost respect for obsidian before, now I'm not sure if I'm ever going to buy another one of their products. :nuke:

At least we might actually be getting DLC. Don't be so ungrateful

Should probably stop buying games in general, then. Many have an ending.

You know what would happen if they did release a DLC? People would say that the only reason New Vegas has an ending is so that Obsidian could milk money out of us for the DLC. Obsidian is in a pretty big catch 22.

The "logic" is one of proper storytelling.

And to let this story continue past the end, and rescript the gameworld in its entirety to reflect the outcomes of the multiple possible endings, is to create an epilogue of massive proportions.

Game developers are faced with some constraints (and blessed with some freedoms) that authors of other media don't have. The freedom is to let there be multiple outcomes that differ greatly in their implications. The constraint is that they have to choose between putting the resources into telling more story before those endings or trying to adequately tell the story after those endings.

Nothing would make the player feel more shortchanged than to continue playing past the ending and have the world be unchanged by their actions. And so they avoid that pitfall this way, and I think it's the only reasonable decision that can be made.

Okay, the fact that I don't understand this situation is bugging me. Can you please, please explain what the difference between playing after the end (where nothing of consequence changes, ala Oblivion/Fallout 3/etc) and simply following the message box's advice and not doing the final quest is? I don't understand the reasoning. If you want to keep playing, you can just hit "no, I'm not ready yet" in the huge message box.

So what's the issue here?

People don't like having choices.

people are so over reacting here! All because of an ending!! dear me...

Well, that's what I originally thought in my other post I made after hearing the ending just "stops" the game. The thought of it ending for good never even crossed my mind to be honest.

I thought they would have learned and improved this kind of thing from the fallout 3 experience. But they only made it worse I guess.

I'm always telling people to review games before buying them. Sigh... what a hypocrite I am. If I knew this I wouldn't have wasted my money.

You're going to have a real short list of decent RPGs to play if this decision makes you that mad.

This is pretty standard RPG fare right here.

Wasted your money? Do you understand how much more replayability New Vegas has than Fallout 3? Why do you want an open ending? So you can do 100% on one character? Guess what? That's IMPOSSIBLE. There are so many choices and consequences in this game that you just can't do that. Start a new character and join a different faction. You have 4 to choose from which means 4 different campaigns. End your quests differently, most large quests have multiple endings. Even some small ones. You can do a completely different playthrough.

Well, I just thought they would have improved that learning experience from their games like fallout 3 and oblivion, I mean oblivion you could still play after the main quest so not sure what you're talking about on that call. There are a lot of side quests and things that I haven't done and I was about to finish the main quest line before I saw this thread, so that's an obvious problem right here. I mean I thought they were going to make the consequences of playing AFTER the main arch was finished still have significance. I mean usually when you go up the chain in series they get better and better, this one apparently gets worse in game mechanics.

It's a single player game and its 2010. If you don't allow the player to continue playing after the main arch then what's the point of buying the game, sure you played for a while only to have all you did abruptly end? I don't like playing the bad guys so I'm not going to reroll Caesar or do the yes man chain. The first playthrough was it for me.

I don't have to explain myself either, this should be bordering on common sense. Why you guys would argue against it is beyond me. I won't be posting in this thread anymore though. I've made my opinion pretty clear. If you don't like my opinion then don't but don't start trolling either or you're just going to lose my respect if you can't respect my opinion. I enjoyed fallout NV so far, but the fact that it just abruptly ends doesn't make any sense to me.

They could implement a Ratchet and Clank type thing i.e. when you complete the game it asks you whether you want to start again or teleport to before the finale.

But at the end of the day, is it that hard to make a save?

I did fall victim to this on my first Fallout 3 however as far as I understand there is ample warning on this game.

Do you know what bethesda learned after Broken steel?, To release dlc that will extend the ending because they know we will buy it.

Halo: Reach is one of the biggest game releases in this year. It's single player campaign has a firm end. Starcraft 2 is one of the biggest releases in this decade, and it has a firm end with an obvious sequel lead in.

Your appeal to "this is a single player game in 2010" rings hollow.



If you can't actually explain your reasoning, maybe your reasoning isn't valid?



It is. There's a huge message box that pops up and warns you, and you *have* to click something to get rid of it, so there is literally no chance of missing it.

That's your perogative both to be angry and to stop posting, but to call it common sense is anything but sense.

This is the common sense approach to the end of the game. To expect there to be hundreds or thousands of developer hours put into fleshing out the changes your final decisions will have on the world is unreasonable. This isn't an MMO. Once all the side quests and locations are completed once, the game is a hollow shell in that playthrough.

What I don't understand is why the notion of reloading that last save and scouting out every last nook and cranny that way is so offensive to the people getting angry about the game ending.

:confused:




I'm with this guy. I truly don't understand what the problem is.




Here's the thing. To me (and others) it's just not "common sense". It's honestly, truly incomprehensible to me how this can bother people so badly. The words you're speaking here that I quoted could be in Sumerian for all the understanding I have of them. They make, literally, no sense to me. :confused:

What?? Those games have mutliplayer and have a lot of replay value, they never end in that respect.

starcraft 2's main story line is just the icing on the cake in regards to the multieplayer. Why you would bring examples of that to this discussion makes absolutely no sense. At all. None whatsoever.

Obsidian//bethesda was the company I thought stood out from the rest that made single player games that added a lot of replay value because you could finish the main branch and then do all the other little quests and side quests after, while you could also play mods and such after you finished. Oblivion was great in that respect. Fallout 3 failed and then they fixed it. I simply thought they learned from that mistake. Obviously I was wrong.

Any link to these mods anywhere?

I was thinking about that while reading this thread through, if the official people won't release a mod to let us continue playing, there's nothing stopping some 3rd-party individual to make a mod to do just this and nothing else.

Keep in mind that in doing this and nothing else, the mod won't make the world reflect your actions at the end of the game.

Which means the game will play exactly the same as if you have loaded the last save before the point of no return.

Help me understand the fundamental difference that makes one acceptable and the other a reason to return the game.

To me, "replay value" means "start over and try it a different way". A game with just one path through it, and just one way to make a character, has very little replay value. A game like Oblivion, Fallout 3, Dragon Age, etc.... games with many different character builds and different ways to do things; games that encourage you to start over from level 1 again and try a different path - those are games with great replay value.

(I've played six different characters in FO3 so far. Three in Mass Effect 1, two in Mass Effect 2. I'm not even onto the Strip yet in FO:NV, and I've already thought of two other character builds I'd like to try.)

Yeah, it's 2010, and if they had made the game to have open ending, with all possible outcomes it wouldn't have been out before 2014 with really dated graphics and engine and about 20 gb of size.

Ofcourse they could have made a game with open ending without any choices and have it released this year. There could have been even sidequests but you could only solve the quests by one way with one possible outcome. You wouldn't be able to kill the characters that are important for the game. That way the story would have been like a train ride, with no possibilities to go on the sidetracks, but hey atleast you could have played it after the ending! YAY!