But the quest is over, the game is done for you. Why not have the option to keep on playing and you can just go ahead and quit if that's what you want?

Bethesda the Publisher and Bethesda Softworks are technically two different companies on paper but in reality they are one in the same. Two different companies but in the same building making money off the same IP that is Fallout. If the powers that be felt that something as serious as not ending the game could result in a failed game and a loss of money then someone would have stepped in and made Obsidian put in an ending.

I'll be ok with definite endings if the consequences would truly take time to happen. Not if it's something like blowing up nukes on the wasteland making it impossible to continue playing.

Why not just skip the main quest line and wonder around forever collecting teddy bears? New Vegas for example gives many clear warnings that if you go beyond that point there is no return. You can put off doing the main quest forever if you want. The DLC Lonesome Road if I am not mistaken gives you all that really cool stuff people keep talking about when it comes to the ending of the main quest line. It also lets you rest your reputation. They could just do something like that for Fallout 4.

I agree with you, the slides should be the end. It wouldn't make sense, as your example shows, to be able to do quests afterwards.

NV is an example of consequences during the game, taking time after the game. They didn't happen overnight.

Do you think I play the main quest as some sort of chore? I play it because I want to know what happens, I shouldn't be punished by that, besides, this time there was even some unique loot at the end of it. I don't want to buy a DLC to use that stuff if it's already in the main game.

Any way, the game is over and the quest is complete. There is NO reason whatsoever, absolutely none, to NOT let me continue playing.

If you can find a reason for it then please share because I have no idea.

Because it destroys the story. You find out what happens only to have it taken away by some stupid play after the end content. Such as Broken Steel. It destroys the main plot of the game and makes the Enclave's actions in Fallout 3 completely meaningless. It would have been the same if they shoehorned such a thing into New Vegas. Having all those endings just gone, made moot by tacked on content so people can wonder around.

Excuse me? How is that the fault of Broken Steel? FO3's plot already made their actions meaningless.

Stop blaming the post-game on FO3's inherent storyline flaws.

The lack of a hard ending doesn't stop me from ending my own game after the slide show if I think it should end there. On the other hand, a hard ending does stop me from continuing if I'd prefer to continue playing.

Leave it open ended and let the player decide when he's done with his game. If you want it to end with the main quest's slide show, nothing stops you from ending it and there is no reason you should fret that other players elsewhere have the option to keep playing past that point.

The game did used to end. One of the ending is that the Enclave's plan goes ahead and they win. Which means there was actually a point to the Enclave, they had a real goal and it would have really worked.

Broken Steel comes a long and takes that a way. Their plan no longer works even if you carried it out. Which means all the time they spent in DC was for not. Their plan was meaningless and siding with them was also meaningless. And we are once again forced to destroy them.

I still dont understand this logic

>having the things you do actually start to effect the gameworld destroys all meaning compared to everything you do not changing anything in the gameworld.

The only thing it rendered "meaningless" was the immediacy of the results, and even then, it was never said the mass death happened right away.

The only purpose for end-game slideshows I have ever seen is for the emotionally needy who need instant gratification for the things they do, and can't accept the fact stuff happens normally over long periods of time. So long as dialog exists in-game to tell you about what would happen, you shouldn't need ending slides unless you need to be handheld and spoonfed the consequences of your actions at every turn. Unfortunately, devs seem all to willing to do so for people, only furthering this disguisting psychological need.

Except it does work, it just doesn't happen instantly. But then again, the ending slides never said it happened instantly.

But what story is there to destroy? It's over!

As I said, have a notification come up that tells you this isn't a part of the story anymore and that you have free reign, boom. Problem solved. There is no possible way you could be against that because when you see that notification all you have to do is quit the damn game and all is like you wanted it to be. Over for good.

That was an idiot plot that never would've worked, given that Eden didn't have a clue about what he was talking about and the FEV would've killed any Enclave exposed to the wastes too (re: all of them) AND Raven Rock is destroyed no matter what you do.

The ending implies it happens soon after the plan is carried out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2fX7U4o5hQ

well the argument is that there are no real consequences that way and you might change something if you continue playing. I'm with you I'd rather wander after the main quest unless the MQ is paced enough so that it doesn't feel silly taking time off from it and doing something else.

If they make is abundantly clear that it isn't canon, that the endings aren't changed by your continuing to play as you said then fine. Fallout 2 does that.

All it says is "soon", which could mean anything. Five months could be "soon", depending on how long it would logically take for everyone to get, and drink, enough of the water for it to kill them.

Much like how others took the "infinite quests" remark for Skyrim, you took the remark as meaning something not explicitly stated, and now don't like the fact your personal preconception got proven wrong later.

You can't really blame the game for your own preconceived notions, nor can you blame it for not following them.

If the Virus was anywhere close to as effective as it's air born counter part in Fallout 2, it would kill very fast within minutes or less of drinking it. Which no one dies in Broken Steel at least from what I can tell and not quickly from drinking the water. But yeah I guess arguing over how long "soon" is will just take us way off topic.

When I first played Fallout 1 back in the 90's, what absolutely blew me away was how that game wrapped up. The epilogue to that game left me feeling like it had been keeping track of every action, every dialog choice I'd made through the entire game - like it was particular and unique to my playthrough. Obviously, that was just an illusion, and the ending sequence was customized based a set number of key decision you make through the game, but the feeling that it was encompassing so much more was amazing to me. I honestly judge the ending of a game in comparison to Fallout 1 and 2 - in my mind those titles set the bar for how to properly wrap up an RPG (which I feel is one of the most important aspects of a game, actually.)

I actually tend to prefer a game with a definitive ending - when I complete the Main Quest in a game it's usually because I'm ready to wrap things up and either move on to something else or start a fresh playthrough anyway. And I've rarely played any sort of game that gave me any real incentive to continue playing. Generally my experience with games that allow play after Main Quest completion has been pretty much a letdown. It always throws me when I've just done some major world-changing actions but all the NPCs act like nothing of note has just happened. Or especially when you pick up a side quest you'd missed earlier and it directly contradicts events that occured during the end of the game.

It's just not for me. I wasn't bothered when Fallout 3 ended firm, and saw no need for the Broken Steel DLC.

That said, Bethesda's games generally allow play after game completion, they've tried that experiment in the past and it backfired, so I'd be surprised if, in Fallout 4, you weren't allowed to continue playing after you'd completed the game.

I don't see what's so difficult about simply reloading a save file. Yes, there might be unique loot at the end of the game, so what? Why does the player have to have access to it?

Either they have to divert resources towards developing an aftermath world which takes the endings into account, which means spreading their already thin resources even thinner. Meaning the base game could turn out even worse.

Or they make sure that the endings don't really matter at all so that they don't have to take into account any vastly different endings for continued play, which defeats the purpose of the ending sliders and the design of Fallout in general.

Or they allow the players to continue playing the game but none of the important endings are shown in the gameplay at all. Which means the game will be just like it was prior to you starting the final quest, so why can't you just reload a save file as that'd do the exact same thing?

This ain't The Elder Scrolls. This is Fallout. Fallout has to have proper endings that end the character's run.

I've never seen so many arguments about the sub-par intelligence and attention span for those who like having ending slides. Lmao.

As for the ending, it really depends on the storyline. In Fallout 3, there was really only ever one ending with very minor possible alternatives (e.g: you use the FEV or you don't). You have to side with the Brotherhood, you have to destroy the Enclave and you have to follow through with Project Purity. Continuing the game made sense.

In New Vegas, there were so many outcomes that meant the developers would have had to do a ton of more work including new pieces of dialogue, scripting, town overhauls based on who won the Second Battle of Hoover Dam, etc. If you sided with the Legion and they won, almost every town would have to have had Legion flags draqed over the side, every inhabitant would be either a soldier or a slave, and everybody who could be interacted with would have had to change their dialogue to accommodate for their new living conditions/status. Same with whichever side you choose, either independent, NCR or Mr House. I guess it was just easier and made more sense to have a closed story by the end of New Vegas.

It really didn't bother me, however, because there was a clear warning before the battle and while it was fun to play it, you could just save right before the final battle and use that file from there on.

To summarize, I would prefer to continue playing after the main quest but depending on the storyline and whether it makes sense or not to continue playing, I would not mind having it closed off, as long as there were clear warnings like in New Vegas.

Or just get the game on PC master race and mod it so you can skip the ending without wasting developer time on comparability...


(IMO the BEST thing would be a mode where the game not give an"ending" but is on a timescale where things happen WITHOUT your interaction. Imagine the spread of Super Mutants from fallout 1 applied to EVERY quest in the game. An impossible task mind you that would take a crapton of work, but my god it would be fun. Just imagine if in say NV, you are taking care of business elsewhere then get sent to the boomers by either house or NCR, and you find there is already a legion agent there which would radically alter the story there as the prophecy edge just falls flat on its face. Or perhaps PREVENT the sacking of Nipton with a Herculean effort and a mad dash to the city. It won't happen in 4 I'm sure, but any game that did this would be a MASSIVE step forward for the storytelling format of videogames)

I would prefer a set ending but I don't see it happening, not after the 180 they did with Broken Steel which IMO was a mistake. Fallout 3's ending wasn't great but it was at least an ending. Broken Steel just continued stuff and made the Enclave irrelevant, not to mention Broken Steel Breaking the game.

I don't see Beth making the same mistakes that they made with Broken Steel though from a gameplay perspective, so that I'm not worried about.

Being able to keep on playing after the last quest is a necessity.

Why have unique loot at all if the game ends three seconds after you get it? Normal random loot, I can understand (reusing mobs that drop loot.) But what's the point of having super-special loot if you're not given a chance to play around with it?