I think they're taking a lesson from fallout 2, fallout 2 had the ending slides then gave you an option of whether or not you wanted to continue, so what else was there left to do? Explore everywhere, see every random encounter. I'd rather the game have a definite ending, all things need to end. Video games are no exception.

Fallout 1?
Dude, fallout 1 is hella lot more difficult than fallout 3.
Even with 4 comapions, PA and a sniper rifle I still get my ass handed to by deathclaws. (fallout 1)

I found Fallout 1 5x easier than FO3. (Not to burst your bubble man)

O_o

Did you do a combat spec or a support spec?
Cause my current one has 3END, 3LUCK and that trait that makes a pistol fire 4AP instead of 5AP but the downside is that I can no longer aim in at their eyes or legs or heads yknow.
So my spec isn't fully combat oriented.
Makes for a more difficult gameplay.

did you mod fallout 1 or something? it's on par with demon souls in terms of difficulty, in fallout 3 it was like a walk in the park, unless you decided to mod it so that you stay at level 2

Yeah I can't get it either I mean it's fairly easy to get the PA and crap load of good weapons down at Glow but even if you have the top of the line equipment a deathclaw or Unity Soldier will still blow you away with ease.
So it makes me wonder if you played a modded version or if you are extremely talented at that game.

Considering I'm a drawing a blank on those terms. I'd assume no I didnt :laugh:

All I do is blance everything to 5-6 and 7 in my SPECIAL. My only REAL downfall are when I'm gauntleted by enemies.

Edit: I can take on a single deathclaw. But multiple Deathclaws and multiple Heavy Weapons SMs are difficult. Deathclaws are easy if you 'cheat' and draw them away from the pack without the rest seeing. Super Mutants with a Missle Launcher are my bane though.

I've got to agree with the last few posters fallout 1&2 are way harder than 3 ever dreamt of being even when playing a combat orientated character

Personally I don't mind about replay too much. After all, I am interested in most games for their story lines. After the lot is over, there isn't really much for me to do anymore.

As for the part about it being hard to create a balance character, I think it is to satisfied old school Fallout player such as myself. Many of us thought that it was almost too easy to create a superman character that is good at everything from science to big guns. But I understand your points. Perhaps the developers should give the players an option to make the game harder or easier similar to the hardcoe mode.

Well, I don't think those are particularly good reasons. Unless the ending involves the death of your character or the total destruction of the world it doesn't make sense to me that the game should just stop. I didn't know about the game ending in Fallout 3 and wasn't very pleased when it happened. Discovering this about New Vegas has dimmed my excitement somewhat.

I won't bother repeating what I wrote earlier. But the opposing viewpoint has been thoroughly laid out in the previous posts in this thread.

Less perks (I'd be okay with picking every three levels which would mean EVEN less)
Definite Game ending.
Getting to level 30 and NOT having the same generic character I've had every other time I made it to level 30.

These are all good things in my opinion.

So why don't you like Joshua's explanation?

There is also missing out on the rest of your ending if you haven't completed some of the side quests and continue playing after it. Assuming it will be like 1&2 where a towns prosperity or lack of due to your help are shown in the ending slides.

YAY! perks everyother level is defintly good, and wont make you're character god like, unlike fallout 3 where i have my level 30 with like what 50 perks?

Personally, all I care about in a Fallout game, as far as endings go, is that they're up to par with what I've come to expect from Fallout 1 and 2. Whether or not I can continue playing afterwards, I find the most important thing to be that I get a nice sense of closure and a feeling that everything I did through-out the game had an impact on how that all plays out (or at least the illusion that every single choice I made had in impact.) And, of course, the more depth which goes into that, the better. To me, that's always been an iconic hallmark of the Fallout franchise, and something I think could be improved upon over Fallout 3.

This is, of course, at odds with being able to continue play after that ending cinema - if you've ostensibly made enough of an impact upon the world, your experience after that is going to be at odds with what you've seen. (We saw this in Fallout 2, for example, where even after you've beat the game you still run into people talking about issues that have since become a moot point.) It would be awesome to be able to see this level of consequence and then actually be able to continue to play through the effects of those conclusions. But that's kind of impossible to do. The only game I've seen even attempt that (and accomplish at varying levels of success) was Mass Effect - and that required an entire sequel...

It seems to me that it's kind of an either/or situation. If you want to play after the "end" of the game (which, as I see it, means there would be no "end,") then it's at odds with the level of consequence I hope to see in a Fallout game.

For myself, by the time I decide to go on and start the "last mission," it's usually because I'm about done with the game. After so much time, my interest starts to wane, another game comes out that I want to devote my time to, etc. By the time I got to the "end" in Fallout 3, I was ready to stop playing the game altogether. I "beat" it, moved on to another game, and then once the DLC started coming out I got back into it for a little bit longer. If there was anything I still wanted to do in the game, I simply held off going on that final mission until I'd tied up all my loose ends.

The more of a challenge the game is to me the better...harder to get a god like character...i'm all for that.
Nothing wrong with an ending too,they've made the game so its replayable ( value for money in my view )
If you want to be a super hero or god like ,play it on casual & very easy...or go & play rayman or sonic etc...this game ain't for infants/babies.
Try & cater for everyone to an extent...which they have for you...you can play on very easy.
I, like most on the other hand want a challenging game.....i dont want to do everything on one playthrough.
I could go on & on,but i ain't....sorry to be blunt....it just bugged me.

Because in my opinion a free-roaming role-playing game should not impose a final end on my character's journey. I totally understand how a developer will create a story and will want us to experience the world and the story they created through their eyes.

But free-roam RPGs are not like linear games like Uncharted 2, Bioshock, Call of Duty etc. In those games you're just a pre-configured avatar being swept along a pre-destined path towards a definite, pre-defined conclusion. I'm fine with that, and enjoy those types of games. But in an RPG where player freedom is paramount it doesn't make sense to me that when I conclude the main story my character's journey just ends and the world which I was a part of suddenly ceases to exist.

What is it about the ending which renders my character unable to continue functioning? If he dies I can understand that. But if he's the hero who saved the day then I want to be able to enjoy my new status or at least continue on my own path once I've achieved that status. I should have the freedom to continue my character's journey beyond the conclusion of the main story, just as I could in Oblivion and later on in Fallout 3 (after they released the DLC).

Okay, so just don't play the final quest until you're ready to end your character?
I honestly don't see anything wrong with this.
You get to keep playing and when you're getting tired of your character you end it with the final quest.
Then you start a new character and starts doing some serious roleplaying.

Most of the open ended games I've played have tended to ignore the players/characters actions and what you do in them doesn't matter as it will end up the same every time. Also with a lot of them the core story is relatively shallow and weak.

To give an extreme example taken to the illogical extreme. Imagine trying to play an open ended game where you are not allowed to do anything of any consequence because that will interfere with how the games main quest ends, as in you can't attack or kill anyone because that could remove characters they want in after the end of the main quest, in order to level up you have to comply with a lot of random extremely esoteric conditions that change each time because your character levelling unbalances the game, etc.

Agreed, I thought it was sad we couldn't continue, but like people have said, I'll just pretend I beat it all and etc after I watch my ending.

When it comes to Fallout, comprehensive ending slides should take a priority over free roam after the ending of the game; ending slides that reveal the long term fates of settlements and characters in the years following the conclusion of the game's story are a hallmark of the series, and the lack of them in Fallout 3 with or without Broken Steel was extremely disappointing. Especially after Pete Hines' bombastic claim that the game had two hundred endings.

Now the problem with free roam after ending slides like this is that you can basically screw up the ending by say, wiping out a settlement that was stated to prosper during the epilogue. Then the developers have to limit the impact of the ending, and downplay events so that they can implement reasonable post main quest content. Frankly, I don't think free roam after the main quest really works for Fallout. In Fallout 2 it was present, but it was non-canon (the Chosen One founded New Arroyo with his tribe following Fallout 2, he\she didn't continue traveling) and nothing really changed aside from further fourth wall breaking humor in New Reno, and a brief new conversation with Lynette in Vault City. Now I could live with something like this, but what would be the point? You can experience everything that particular character can experience before you finish the main quest. There's really no point in allowing free roam after the main quest's conclusion if you're not going to add substantial new content, and further you'd be able to change the fates of people and settlements on a whim even after they were set in stone during the epilogue.

When it comes down to it, Fallout 3 had a bad ending for a Fallout game with or without Broken Steel. Your choices didn't matter all that much since there were no slides detailing the consequences of your actions outside of the main quest. Broken Steel actually made matters worse since it really downplayed or contradicted what Fallout 3's main quest epilogue stated, and its idea of an ending was a pat on the back from Elder Lyons. To put it bluntly, free roam after the main quest just doesn't work for Fallout. I know a lot of folks feel that because it's now published by Bethesda it should be more like The Elder Scrolls in how it ends, but frankly Fallout is now already enough like The Elder Scrolls as it is. Comprehensive ending slides are quite simply a very big part of Fallout and how each game concludes; what works for The Elder Scrolls isn't necessarily what works for Fallout.

maybe they will add more "quest earned" perks. for example: Ant Might(THOSE!), hematophage(After Blood Ties),

I'm fine with them as long as the perks are actually useful to someone who doesn't rely on that joypad crutch called VATS.

So is this end when a nuclear bomb goes off or some beam ray from space destroys New Vegas so nobody can survive? If it's so, that is so lame.

I dread a game ending story, but if it's done properly then cool, great. But if it's just a bomb going off killing everything and everyone that is just
plain wrong. I would hate for FNV to do this. I hope this is not the case and something new and refreshing happens.

Also I just hope they don't do this so for people who love non ending games do not have to buy a DLC. I just hope this is not a ploy so they are assured lots of Bronken Stell 2 DLC sales.