I take it you didn't enjoy the way Fallout: New Vegas summed up.

Some people want a hard ending for no better reason than the fact that open ended play is normally a feature of Bethesda games and they still haven't forgiven Bethesda for touching the Fallout franchise in the first place. Anything that Bethesda does that deviates from the originals will automatically be bad in the eyes of some.

I love how it ended, I just don't like that they forced me to perform a rollback. Levels, perks, unique weapons and gear, all gone.

DING! DING! DING! We have a WINNAH!!

This is true.

But....What's wrong with reverting to the system save before the battle and moving on with my playthrough? Considering that a broken-steel type DLC or a simple option to play after the ending wouldn't be able to comprehend the changes you made, I don't see the hurt in simply going back to a save right before the battle instead of playing afterward. Same thing. You're never going to get the satisfaction of experiencing life after your elaborate ending because the game can't comprehend it, thus you're somewhat frozen in this sort of non-canon time either way. All you lose is Lanius' crap and maybe one level.

The one caveat to this -- if the ending is simple like Fallout 3, then I suppose it warrants open-play after the ending. It just needs to be executed better this time around.

If Bethesda does have a hard ending, it shouldn't have awesome unique items like Lanius' mask in the final battle. It just adds to the frustration.

Yup, but for others, it's people being resentful of how badly Broken Steel was implemented. I have no qualms with Skyrim or Oblivion's way of handling their endings.

An excellent question! You would think that from my vehement argument for open ended play, wouldn't you? Actually, if FO4 is structured in a similar manner to NV, I could probably live with it. Here's why. The quest to first find Benny, set up things very well, IMO. You got to explore pretty much whatever you wanted without being pushed into a game ending quest. I know, that's a problem Bethesda had with their writing and game direction, which is why for a Bethesda game, I would argue for an open ended game everytime.

"okay ending"? You sure about that? Just checking you know. Assuming you are correct, do you really want an 'Okay' ending?

Again and again, just let the game go on and those that don't like the idea can just quit after the credit role. I'm not going to hold it against them.

I'm not sure I understand. Is that sarcasm or am I missing your point?

I am completely sure I do not ?

(Edit: : I live in Denmark. Sarcasm is a second language only passed sliglhtly by Irony. We are allmost English... or soctsmen. More like glaswegans prolly).

I defer to my edit.

Second Edit.:

Irony or sarcasm delivered by a person from Glasgow will be either completely undescipherable or a degre of snide amusemant you have never experienced before. The french try but they cant really reach Glasgow. Sorry.

I see it now. I was confused before I witnessed that.

I stand corrected. Blesses upon you.

RPG's in this day and age should not end after the main quest. Let's hope Bethesda at least gets this right this time around without needing DLC to continue playing after you've completed the story.

What does this day and age have to do with it? Seriously there is no winning this argument at all. One side will simply say that you have ample time to do everything before ending the main quest, and this is absolutely true. The other side will simply say "Why don't you just quit afterwards then?".

The issue is that one side has an argument considering after the main quest doesn't display consequence even if you play for months after the quest ends. It defeats the purpose of having multiple endings and consequences in the game. This leaves Bethesda writing another bland story without choice.

The other party's argument is just that they don't feel like doing everything before the ending because they feel rushed to finish the main quest. Seriously though, this same crowd is the one that praises Bethesda for the fact that they can run around and put hundreds if not thousands of hours without completing the main quest.

I'm seriously not even seeing where there should be an argument after reading through everyone's posts. But if people are so dead set on continuing post game, then Bethesda should end the game with multiple endings with a good story like New Vegas. Cut to credits. Then when in the main menu have a "Continue After Ending" feature that describes: "This feature will allow you to continue after the ending. It should be noted that this will put the player into a sandbox mode to continue role-playing and finish side quests. Note that everything that continues beyond entering this mode is NON-CANON and will NOT portray the consequences described in the ending sliders"

Debatable.

-"Multiple endings" implies the game actually ends differently, it doesn't, as it ends with a slideshow either way.

-"Consequences" implies something happens, it doesn't, as nothing actually changes in any way that can be experienced.

Either way you are left with nothing actually happening.

However, one option lets you keep on playing, the other does not.

-The one that doesn't let you keep playing does nothing more then the one that does, except cut you off from playing the game to tell you things anyone actually paying attention to the game knows already, as whatever is going to happen in the future is already discussed.

-The one that does lets you keep playing, so long as its made even halfway decently, lets players have more gameplay, whilst also knowing everything they would know from the slideshow style ending, as long as they actually bothered to pay attention to what people said in the game.

There is literally no reason to have ending slideshows, they are pointlessly redundant, and do nothing but re-spoonfeed you things you already learned while doing the quests that affect that slide in the first place.

-Gameplay that could have been experienced before the ending. Coming from the same party that praises Bethesda as the gods of gaming because they're able to put so much time into the game and completely forget the main quest.. Uh huh.. So basically you have a sandbox that doesn't portray any consequence of action?

-I feel like you're making such claims just for the purpose of arguing. If that's your opinion I really don't get it. Bethesda streamlined the game from Oblivion because their fans get "confused" and to eliminate thinking. You really think it's redundant considering what Bethesda seems to think? Personally I like the sliders. Even if I DID everything to deserve the sliders, I don't KNOW the actual outcome of what happens. Sliders don't always tell you everything you would think.

Seems to me like you purposely left out discussing what I left in red text so people could read it without missing it. Seems to me like a fair compromise for both crowds.

I have more than a dozen more of those. The ending slideshow is absolutely necessary.

>How would I know that exposing the source of mistrust between the two would cause the mistrust to go away and thus end the conflict between them which was the conflict affecting Freeside!

Is this a trick question? Seriously...... is this a trick question?

-Cass doesn't kill herself. I seriously dont understand how people keep misinterpreting that.

-Easy, add some dialog to the Gun Runner guy standing outside that they found out someone stole thier plans and plan to find and beat the crap out of them.

-Except it does portray the consequences of your actions.... that's the whole problem with your, and all other, arguments of the same logic. It just doesn't do so unrealistically by pretending everything happens instantly, and instead portrays the realistic chain of events that would occur. The entire notion that it doesn't is fallacious, and so is any argument based on that logic.

-No, Bethesda streamlined the game from Oblivion because redundancy =/= complexity, it just equals poor design. And yes, given that Bethesda streamlined from Oblivion to Skyrim I would suspect they would remove the redundant ending slides for the same reason.

-No, i left it out because there is nothing to discussed as the entire thing is nonsense based off of the same wrong thinking I had already debunked.

You come to these conclusions because you're metagaming. You already know the outcomes because the slideshow already happened, thus you can pretend that you can reach these conclusions another way. You can act like this is not the case, but it is true because New Vegas has an ending slideshow which you have already seen.

They're necessary because we can't make all of the conclusions in game. That's part of the reason why the choices are initially hard to make. I suppose that there's thrill to not knowing what they might do, but I would rather find out. Something that seems "good" to begin with might have a bad outcome in the end. It's nice to see what you've done for the wasteland flash before your eyes one last time.

Example: I had no idea what Boone would do with his life after the NCR is evicted following an Indy ending. It was nice to see the result in the ending slides.

Not really, those are simply the logical results of those actions.

I didn't need the ending slide telling me that the kings and NCR would become allies when the game already tell you that is happening.

Really? Boone going out on his own after he the failure of the NCR he had already left seemed rather obvious, OFC, they could have just added dialog to the game where Boone says he would do that if the NCR looses. Thus further making the ending slide pointless.

Like I said, you're metagaming because you've already seen the slides. There's no way to prove that you would have made it those conclusions, so don't try. You might have been able to in some cases, but there's really no way to know.

And yeah, we know that NCR and kings become allies if you pair them. But do we know that Freeside becomes one of the safest areas in the region? No. Also, in an Indy ending, we have no idea that the King would tolerate citizens of the NCR in the end after not having completed Kings' Gambit, but he does. There's so much variety in the way we do these quests (in addition to the fact that many of these slides are split up by main factions) that we need that specificity. It seems silly to scrap it for the sake of living an eternal, practically non-canon aftermath.

Also, Boone can't predict the future. How would he know that he'd become a security guard? He believed that the NCR would win. Why would he have a random backup plan to become caravan security? It's probably something he came up with in the moment once he realized (after the dust settled) that his skills could be used elsewhere. We don't need to add weird, fickle dialogue when a slideshow would wrap a neat bow on the playthrough and do a far more elegant job. They're simply epic, and somewhat of a reward for reaching the end.

To this day, in spite of the many, many hours I've played New Vegas, I've never actually finished the game. The fact that the game would take control of my character from me if I did was part of the reason. The other reason was that I ended up in a position where I had to do one of two things that I simply was not willing to do:

Here is a crazy idea: write a story with portrayable outcomes and then portray those outcomes.

Similarly, there's no way to prove that I didn't guess beforehand, and that I didn't use metagaming to do so, so don't try to assert that I am.

Don't try those kind of arguments, they are fundamentally flawed and can always be revered with equal validity.

I dont find someone telling me that they couldn't finish their game to be "epic"

[censored] THIS.

But that isn't enough for some people, they need every fart their character makes to split the world in two to feel like their actions had "consequences".

Believability and realism of the logical timetable for those consequences to come into play BE DAMNED! We need it now! NOW! NOW! NOW!