Conversely having open ended gameplay also does not make a game better.
From my own experience with most of the open ended games is that the end result has been bland and lackluster where your actions ingame may as well not have occurred for all the utter lack of difference they make in the post main quest gameworld. As no matter what you do during the main quest in most open ended games, the end result is almost always exactly the same which tends to leave me with a feeling of why the blue blazes did I bother doing all that, just so nothing changes. Personally I prefer games which at least leave you/give you an impression that your actions matter and do make a difference in the games world.

Also with regards to the past Fallout games, so far ALL OF THEM have ended in their vanilla state. (Yes, you could continue on in Fallout 2 but that was an option and not an integral part of the standard game, which ended once you finished the main quest and Fallout 3 did get a DLC which allowed you to continue after the end of the game, but it obliterated the games already shaky gameplay balance and made it far to easy to become a J.O.N.T.M.O.A. wasteland godling and far too had to end up with characters who actually had different skillsets). So trying to cite the past Fallout games as why open ended is better than a definitive ending is not really the way to go as they have all had definitive endings.

They really do need to open up the game after the conclusion of the main questline..

Tell the Legion to hold on from attacking the Dam! I need to go collect a few more Star Caps for Festus!!

Kills the experience.

And if they do that they have to change the entire game world to fit in with each ending slider.
And each ending slider would bring new quests and stories, which would end up changing the game-world once again.
And then that change would bring more stories with quests which would end up changing the game-world once again.
Et cetera et cetera.

OR, they could bring us back after the main quest and nothing's changed making it kill the experience even more as we'll go "Wait.. Didn't this just happen in the ending slider?"
OR, if they brought us back and these things happened then we'd be like "Wait... So this happened and now there's no quests for this area and barely any new dialogue for it?" which would also kill the experience.

No matter what they do it will feel weird for some people.
But a definite ending is the best design choice as they can neatly wrap up the game.

I fail to see why people complain about there being a DLC which allows the player to carry on once they have done the MQ. Its not like you are required to buy it.

I for one would like there to be such a DLC.

Why is because we would most likely want the other content in that DLC.
I wanted Dead Money for it's content and story.
What I did not want was the +5 level cap.
But then I have to make a choice to either not get anything what so ever or be forced to play with an additional 5 levels.

Same thing here.
If they release a DLC like Broken Steel I would like to have it for it's "other content", not for it's continuation past final quest.
If they on the other hand released a small DLC for 200 - 400 MSP which ONLY allowed people to un-canonically continue past the final quest with NO other content in it then I'd be fine with it cause then it would be completely optional to get.

If NV opened up after you beat the game like Fallout 3 did with the BS DLC how would that ruin your enjoyment? The free roam after the main quest is an OPTION. If you dont feel the need to do it then go play another game or start a new character. There are those of us that dont play Fallout for its story (as hard as it is to believe, I felt the older games were mediocre at best) and instead play it for the exploration. I only progressed through the main story in Fallout 3 so that I could open up a few new areas and new enemies. During that time I was exploring ruins and cleansing the wasteland of super mutants with my 2 sidekicks. I created my own story within the game and made my own choices. Finding a small settlement and equipping the locals with better armor and weapons I would find on my travels so that they could defend themselves while I was gone gave me a sense of achievement when I could return and see that everyone was still safe. Coming back only to find someone was dead only furthered my quest to purify the wastelands.


I havent beat NV yet, likely wont for a long time but I wouldnt need 4 different wastelands depending on my choice at the end. I dont know what happens but I highly doubt whatever it is would not drastically change the entire mohave just seconds after it happened. Just give me the mohave as it is right then and there and let me explore and play as I see fit. There are alot of great things introduced in NV like the factions and rep system that will really flesh out the sense of role playing once the mod community.


Either way just like people did for FO3, someone is bound to release a free play after main quest mod for NV so ultimately I dont care if obsidian doesnt release it in a DLC.

For people to be "complaining" about said DLC, such a DLC would have to exist or be in the making. Which it isn't and isn't. People are giving their opinion about the idea.

But I do see your point. I'm playing Fallout 3 right now. I deleted Broken Steel (and that piece of garbage Mothership Zeta) and am playing with an endurance of 1. The game balance is much better.

1) The ending for NV svcks, now matter how you play because unlike F1 and F2 it is a very inflexible. This really surprised me because NV unlike F3 was suppose to have been made by the same folks that created the originals, after playing NV I find that VERY hard to belive.
2) The DLC was announced prior to the release of the NV so not being able to continue straight into Dead Money is just bad programming period.
3) People saying that F2 ended obviously have not played it as it does allow play after the 'end' gameplay for F2 ends on a specific date (July 25 2254) not after the end of the main quest.
4) Did I mention how inflexible NV is? I can't belive that it was created by the same people that made F2 because you could play Fallout 2 anyway you wanted to and in many cases still get the 'good' ending. That simply is not the case with NV you have to play it the way that the developers want you to or you get a bad or worse ending. Even the 'good' ending is bad because of the inflexibility with the stupid factions.
5) They really should FIX Dead Money so that it can be played from the END of NV and not started prior to the 'endgame' quest.

Cute user name.

Oh and several people have commented on Fallout 2's "continuation".

................ WHAT!????

Of all Fallout games, just Fallout 2 let you contimue, but its non cannon
remember Broken Hills, Downer ending no matter what you do, remember Fallout 1 ending, Expulsed from you vault even if you do good things,

Fallout always was about bittersweet ending in some cases

... You obviously have not played New Vegas, and must have bought a copy of fallout 3 and are now in denial.

1.) The ending for New Vegas was great, and actually good unlike FO3, which was the worst piece of [censored] i've ever seen for an ending.
2.) It's bad programming because it's similar to FO3? In those DLC you can't JUMP into the DLC, so you just failed at making a point right here.
3.) Fallout 2 DID end, the play after ending IS NOT canon. At all.
4.) New Vegas... Inflexible... Yeah, you definantly are confusing this with Fallout 3, without a doubt. :facepalm:
5.) Dead money is'nt broken, also there is a reason they call it ENDGAME with a POP-UP that says BEYOND POINT OF RETURN.


And it's horriblly inacurate.

Oh yes...the change is quite drastic. In the wake of the 2nd Battle of Hoover Dam, you'll have the winner (Legion, House, or the NCR) triumphantly marching across the Mojave consolidating thier victory and settling all old scores, the losers fleeing for thier lives or at best retreating under pressure from the winner and those who backed them. Smaller factions will be punished if they backed the wrong horse, and scrambling for advantage if they backed the right one. If NV opted for Independence, the whole region will be in utter chaos until a government can form and restore order. To do justice to it, you'd need another game's worth of quests.



They only did Broken Steel because the vanilla ending stank and hardly anyone appreciated being forced to commit suicide to complete the MQ. Most could have lived with a ending if it had been a good one.

I believe one of the main reasons that Obsidian decided not to allow continued play after the conclusion after the main quest, is that with the multitude of variables they would need to take into account when creating the post main quest world. There are also two possible immediate major changes which would have to happen to the Mojave to help keep the continuity. Another reason they decided not to allow post main quest gameplay was that from the way I've read what Obsidian have stated is if they were to allow it they want it to be as good as they can get it and also keep it in continuity with what you have done in the game, and for them to do that properly to their satisfaction would have at least doubled if not quadrupled the development time due to all of the variables they would have to take into account.
Let us say using ficticious examples to avoid spoilers, that during the course of the game that you saved the town of Letembe which due to your actions in the game would have grown and become a major trading hub in the region, but just after you've finished the main quest you turn round and wipe it off the map so to speak. That would immediately negate the 'ending' as the town instead of growing was then destroyed.

Also as I stated in the post you quoted, I tend to find that the vast majority of games which are open ended in their game play have a bland and utterly insipid main quest where what you do does not matter as far as the game is concerned.

I did suggest while the game was still in development that once the main quest is completed that we get an option as to whether or not you could continue playing but was shot down, because it would have broken the 'immersion' of at least some of those who want to keep playing.

There are also mods for the PC version which allow you to continue playing afterwards.

Yes FO2 had the option and I want it back. I want the option to switch to sandbox mode at the end after the credits roll... Sheesh I mean is that realy so bad or hard to understand.





*As a fan who played the downlaodable Fallout one Demo I am still waiting for the next installment of the stated goal of the first and second games to be fulfilled: The ultimate PC compter roleplaying game.

It would not work. All that option "yes I want to keep playing" will do is go back to a point before you finished the main quest. Finishing the main quest means major changes would happen in the Mojave. It would not make sense to have that option. The work to be done to make a Mojave to reflect the changes of the ending would be to much.

Just load a save.

No I don’t care about cannon or them making changes after the end, who said they had to? I never said I wanted that. I like the endings the way they are, yet, again, I want to run around with the stuff I get after the last battle, I don’t care if nothing is changed before that point that’s fine, if you don't get that I’m sorry

Also, Yes I do load my saves and its not a game breaking thing, but its mean to take away options from players, I mean just because I don’t use the optional crafting systems, I would never tell people get over it, you can buy ammo, its not necessary part of the game, its not cannon that the Courier, made the dog fist tag, who cares it’s a game! We the players ought to be able to play it the way we want. The reasoning that its non cannon and/or just reload a save, fails as an argument on its face as those have never been the issues with me wanting the option to continue playing with all the gear I earned after the credits roll. Please come up with a new explanation why people should not get an optional function in a game that affects people who won’t use that function in no way whatsoever and yet the majority of players would like and have expressed desire for said function

(and unless programming the function evolves way more then simply waking up in front of the dam as if nothing happened* as in no adding or changing normal game content it just resets to before the dam battle* there are no significant technical issues with adding the option)

I see what you are saying you just want to be have fun and enjoy the things you got in the final battle but even then alot of programming would have to be done. Say you side with NCR and you killed the guy and win the battle therefore you have his mask/helmet. The ending slide show plays and the credits then "would you like to keep playing?" You click yes so now the Devs have to make it so NCR controls the dam, dialogue changes (We won!). They have to change the Legion so they know they lost. All you you can ejoy the mask. It would be stupid to have "would you like to keep playing?" and to have everything go back to before the final battle but you still have the items you got from the battle.

If you play PC you can get a mod. Xbox I think you can do some console command or something to get any item in the data base, I think.

Not hard to understand at all.

Just like I have no problem understanding that the game is Obsidians work, their art, their baby. And they don't want their art to svck because their endings are broken by an illogical post ending gameplay world. Nope, not hard to understand at all.




But it is not unconceivable that the people that put years of work into the game DO care if something is added that, in their eyes, renders the game silly and flawed.

If you don't get that I'm sorry.

Basic customer service = the customer is always right, :banghead: its a logical fallacy shifting the topic from simple optional choice to continue playing with same character with no changes in game world (which I said) to somehow this option will hijack the ending, make them come up with all sots of new content and ruin the artistic value of the game really really wow.
And, yes it is hard to understand why no one can come up with a logical and coregent reply to why a simple option that many customers want in an entertainment product is denied so thank you for your apology.

Umm I have given a logical and coherent reason as to one reason Obsidian decided not to allow post main quest gameplay. Also there are also many customers who do not want post main quest gameplay, which means that the 'customer base' is seriously divided on this issue.

To restate the reason I have given before (in multiple threads now).

There are Four main Factional endings, although you will only see one of them at a time. Then there are Twenty Three additional possible ending segments you can trigger during the course of your playthrough. Now each of these (including the main factional endings) has anywhere between Four and Thirteen variations depending on what you did during the course of the game.

Added Reasoning below.
From the way Obsidian said why they were not doing post main quest game play, I believe it is because they wanted if they did it to make the post main quest as consistent as they could with the way you played through the game, which given the number of possible variations they would have to take into account would mean that the time they would require to create a feasibly believable post endgame world would have probably taken them just as long if not longer than the full game did.

Also another thing to bear in mind, is with Fallout and it's endings with the way it lets us know how places we interacted with grow/wither in the years/decades afterwards, can easily be broken with post ending gameplay if a player decideds to decimate a settlement they helped and would have then grown to be a major trading hub, except you have now wiped it out.

Oh its always funny to find people who actually believe this.

Clearly, you have only ever been a customer. Argument fail. That whole customer is always right thing? It's false. Basic customer service, in real life, has nothing to do with the customer always being... um... "right"

The truth is

Disclaimer: I am speaking generally in that spoiler.

Shhhhhhhh.....the customer isn't supposed to know that part.

Seriously though, 'The customer is always right' was invented simply to make us feel better about buying stuff and complaining.

As for the game ending. It's worth checking some of the polls. Most of them have -iirc- have been well in favor of the game ending, due to the nature of the ending slides and multiple questlines. Fallout 3's ending svcked, so Broken Steel didn't make it worse. much.

What stuff did you get in the endgame that would make playing on from the ending radically different to just loading a save? IIRC, I just got more of what I'd collected throughout the rest of the game anyway.

My guess is that some people feel like they will only have a complete game if they have, say, Lanius' helmet on their bedside table.