http://sallad-eating-hussy.deviantart.com/art/In-A-Nutshell-538245624?ga_submit_new=10%253A1433741968

no choices or consequences? sure there was, there were all sorts on different quests, not the main story but other quests, megaton, rileys rangers, cantebury commons, all sorts of things had consequences and choices, in NV you could line up with some factions but in the end it all played out the same pretty much, it ended up at the damn fighting CL, not much really changed. so if you're friends with the boomers their plne flies over the battle at the damn, thats about it. falllout 4 won't have a game ending quest, no bethesda made games do

bethesda games aren't about the story, thats not the focus of their game, its about player choice, exploration, combat, tons of quests, its not defined by a main story, you can end it when you want it to end, some games are fine with hard endings, like deus ex or bio shock etc but bethesda games are designed to be played in lots of ways so they won't ever put an ending in any fallout or ES game

Nobody gives a rats ass what "bethesda games" are about. This is Fallout. They either need to make a Fallout game or leave it alone.

actually all the bethesda fans care, take your complaints to todd howard and pete hines, you seem to have some anger issues regarding bethesda game studios

Let me rephrase that. Nobody you're arguing with gives a rats ass.

you're not making sense, if you can't handle someones opinion maybe you shouldn't be on a game forum

Opinions are fine, except when they're wrong.

Fallout has been story-oriented from the very beginning. Just because Bethesda is the developer and usually makes a different type of game doesn't mean they should throw that out and make it more of a sandbox.

i'm sure they're going to incorporate more original fallout game elements then in fallout 3, its like fallout was kinda experimental but i do want want some definate game affecting choices and consequences, if thats what you mean, more defined rpg elements i'm all for that i think they can do both, keep it in their style but implement more original fallout elements

Honestly, the two are polar opposites IMO and will never mesh well together.

If after ending game events too large to convey in game< ex: Ending #2 ,; Boston is nuked, then just continue on as if nothing happened, game over, but keep playing in a non-canonical way, ie main quest now complete, its now considered a finished side quest, ignore, and continue with other quests

If after ending game events can be incorporated in game< ex: Ending #3 .: Boston not nuked, then continue as hero with post acclamations ingame and inradio

If after ending game events are hard to be incorporated in game< ex: Ending #4 .: Boston slightly nuked, a town or two > remove/remodel said town and characters, add in game proclamations and ingame radio, continue as normal

If after ending game events tie in to real world < ex: Ending 42 .; goes back in time destroys self or self dependent neccesary construct ie vault 111, >> game ends fade to black , last save game deleted, drop to main menu , no credit sequence

All in all, main story line should not be the only or last storyline, it should one of significance but not the be all and end all,

Skyrim and FO3 were very nice and large sandbox games with a lot of variety but the story did not end there, and is in keeping with the way Bethesda is known to make its sandbox RPG/FPS

all this has been for fun , honestly ive always like how these games dont end after the big boss fight, max level? max armor? max weapon? head into town and have some fun. woo hoo

I guess "wrong" means "don't agree with yours".

If you aren't giving a rat's ass, don't bother replying. Discussion takes place on forums. Usually because people do tend to hold differing opinions. If you consider everyone who isn't agreeing with your ideas wrong, you need to find a different forum.

For better or worse, Bethesda owns the ip. They can make carbon copies of the original game, or they can change it to whatever they want because they own it. Customers can find out about it and decide whether they want to buy it or not. If you find that objectionable you should probably direct a letter or email to the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of every forum page instead of attacking other forum posters because Bethesda isn't making the FALLOUT you want.

They can still have extreme events occur. The option wouldn't change the story at all, the ONLY difference would be that when the game reaches the point where you would want to quit/reload a save, I keep on playing.

They don't need to sacrifice anything, it's just another option. Like it has been said before, have a notification come up telling you that you will be continuing on your own for your own enjoyment and that what happens after this point doesn't affect the story in any way. There, problem solved. You can quit and I can keep playing while still having the main-character die in the last mission.

The ending slides are an iconic and integral staple in the Fallout experience, that has been present in every Fallout game.To expunge this feature would be to gut out a large portion of Fallout's "soul".

Without a definitive ending these slides are pointless, I wish people would realize that the Fallout series isn't or at least shouldn't be the place to live out your Elder Scrolls fantasies, because they so often come at the expense of what lovers of the full series would want.

Until Tactics the game was based on turns, yet they threw that out.

Bethesda can do what they want with the series, it's theirs.

Why are you so afraid of change? The game wouldn't be worse, the story wouldn't be affected in any way. It feels like you are just rejecting ideas that would change the game too much, even if it would be for the better.

I saw an old comment you made where you said "Or do what Infamous and Fallout 2 done, let you play but tell you explicitly that your future actions will no longer influence or be reflective of the plot." That's EXACTLY what I think should happen, you will still get your slides and impressive story and I'll be able to keep on playing. It's a win-win.

Ah, the good old Fallout VS TES fans comment, so funny right?

You can enjoy both of them without acting like a [censored], trust me.

It is what you get when you marry and mix breed two completely different series', both with a tight following, in favor of only the other.

I guess so and it's the internet after all.

I did what most people did after the game ended. Start a new game. This way I could find all the hidden things I couldn't find the first time around, generally roam and ignore the main quest for as long as possible and still get to see all the stuff I missed. Don't get me wrong. I love main quests. My only complaint about them is that somebody always says "THIS MUST BE DONE QUICKLY! PLEASE HURRY!" and of course you feel obligated to hurry, running past that, what is that cave entrance? and oh look what is that thing in the valley? and you hurry past all the things between you and your goal. Like the city scenes. I always had trouble searching out the city scenes. Not because the creatures kept killing me but because the soldiers move ahead without you and you feel obligated to keep up. I admit I love all the eye candy. Don't hurry me!

New Vegas did a decent job in defining the main quest as a picaresque adventure through the Wasteland, so I didn't mind the closed ending as much. Its only problem was that the world wasn't really open enough for it to feel that way; the main quest is designed to take you through the major side-quests and all of the major settlements, and between the invisible walls and beef gates of Cazadores and Deathclaws, I never got the impression that the game wanted me to pave my own road and explore like in Fallout 3.

How about we end it like the Sopranos? Before you make the final choice, someone comes behind you and the game cuts to black forever?

On a serious note, I feel like we could have a bit of both if Bethesda gets really ambitious. Just don't have any characters that want to annihilate the wasteland and burn everyone like Caesar. So you play after the main quests with the consequences you chose. As long as the consequences aren't so drastic as making the game completely different after the main quest. Now this is the part where some of you complain that if the consequences are doable then they aren't drastic enough. In that case, maybe the most drastic consequences could happen in another area? Maybe your decisions don't concern only Massachusetts, but Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire... So although we see a few of the consequences on playable areas, to get a taste of what we have done, the really drastic ones happen "off-screen." You won't see the real damage apart from slideshows, but it's not like we ever saw them in previous Fallouts either. Maybe we even get to meet some of the people who live in other areas so we can feel connected with the states we don't see.

It's a way we could have real consequences AND keep playing after the main quest.

i posted a thread about this very topic a few days ago, but i asked if you would want to continue the game after the main storyline was over so you could keep on exploring.

i'm not trying to be mean or rude.

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1519666-do-you-think-fallout-4-will-be-open-ended-at-the-end-of-game/#entry24006414

Until the Broken Steel DLC, Fallout 2 was the only one you could continue to play (and your actions didn't count).

I don't mind a definitive ending in a Fallout game - it's all diminishing returns after that, usually.

If Beth wants the game to end we will all soon learn how to avoid the end; if they leave it open those who want it to end can just turn it off.

Well, threads are locked after 7 pages so it doesn't really matter

I took it as a challenge honestly. Don't go down I-15? Pft I do what I want. With Bethesda's navmesh the Deathclaws weren't even an issue. For me the idea that I was a level 1 (or 2) in a territory filled with beasts like Deathclaws and Cazadores made the exploration actually fun. When I'm in a typical Bethesda game where nothing is a challenging fight and I don't have to worry about anything then the exploration becomes dull too quickly for me.

I'll agree that Fallout 3 was pretty fun to explore simply because it was "new" to me and it was my first Fallout title. In a game like Skyrim though I found myself facepalming when their most difficult enemies never even put up a fight because dual-wield hack-n-slash