Just played through New Vegas again after ages and got extremely annoyed at the end when the game either forces you to go back to your old character or to basically quit the game. In the last level you even find some unique gear(like the Legate helmet, can't be found anywhere else) and a bunch of weapons and stuff that could be of use later. In my case I leveled up a few times and got a few perks and yet the game forces you to go back.

So what do you think about this? Is this something you want in Fallout 4? Are there any positives to it?

I'd prefer it end after the sliders that way I feel like my game actually had consequences. Of course this is Bethesda and all TES fans prefer to continue afterwards.. General Garbage came up with a great compromise for both sides of the argument.

I only accept death in the end if we have the option to re-incarnate as a Brahmin.

nope wanted like all their games, keep right on playing

even the witcher is doing that this time

I want multiple ways the game can end like in Fallout, Fallout 2, Tactics and New Vegas. With very different outcomes based on my actions during the game. Which means no play after the end or a Broken Steel like DLC.

Doesn't mean that at all. Just means they have to compensate for the possible endings and how it changes the world for the post-MQ play.

It was fine in FO1 and 2 because they weren't really open world RPGs, they were hub-style and everything was centered around the main story. Not so in FO3/NV and hopefully 4.

Keep it going. Change the world according to the ending, but keep it going. If you want it to stop after the slides just...don't...keep...playing.

I would prefer the new vegas way of doing things.. If there is actually choices and consequences in the game worth sharing, than it goes above and beyond to tailor to everybody's choices. So, in a way, the new vegas way is best.. It worked well in fallout 3 because there was no choices or consequences for that matter. Everything ended on the same note pretty much.

That's EXACTLY what should be done, great suggestion by him/her.

Watch slides, watch credits, quit game.

So you're against an option to continue playing?

If they decide to go that path again, where the game does have an end, I hope to GOD that they don't add unique gear to the last level, it makes absolutely no sense. You can only use it for like 5 minutes.

Yeah that's hilariously silly.

I'd rather get the main quest out of the way asap and then roam the world without it looming over my head, tbh. If the MQ is anything like FO3's then there's no reason to do anything other than that until it's done.

I busted a move through FO3's MQ, ignoring everything else when it first came out, thinking it was a no brainer that it would act like TES or GTA and just let you go about your business once you'd taken care of the really important stuff.

Also, when it comes to choice and consequence, it is MUCH more compelling IMO to have to actually LIVE in the world you've created with your actions, for better or for worse.

It really doesn't matter because WE KNOW we're going to be able to continue playing the game when it's done. After the backlash against the ending of Fallout 3, and the backpedalling with the DLCs, there is no way they'd go back to having a death ending.

And how would you "just keep going" if say Caesar won in the Mojave? Remove about 90% of the NPC and then what? Same with if the NCR won, or House.

The changes made are so much so that it would be very hard to have it so you can "just keep going" after such changes.

Oh man that would be awesome!

Roving bands of (insert winners henchmen here) all over the place, WAY more dangerous world. It would be nightmarish, which is what the post-apocalypse should be.

None of those guys would magically win in the course of a day, but it'd be awesome to see the aftermath.

That wasn't the case with New Vegas. Bethesda was in charge of New Vegas, Obsidian a was just contracted by them. If there was such a huge backlash for not having an ending in Fallout 3, then Bethesda would have forced Obsidian to make it so New Vegas doesn't have an ending as well. But they didn't.

Fallout 3 could have play after the end because the player character doesn't actually make any meaningful changes, aside from siding with the Enclave and poising Project Purity, which Broken Steel removes anyways.

This is a rather naive viewpoint.

If anything, NV being so counter to Bethesda's normal design shows they basically gave Obsidian free reign to do whatever they wanted.

Or just have a notification saying that you're continuing the game and it is no longer following the lore and the effects of the main quest are not applied.

You should just be able to go wild after the main quest, restrictions are NEVER a good thing.

But impossible to do. It would be like creating four new games that just keep going after the main quest line is over. It would be an insane amount of work to account for all the possible changes. The main four outcomes and all the other outcomes for the minor factions as well.

That was my point. Bethesda gave Obsidian a huge about of free reign in the making of New Vegas. If Bethesda was seriously worried about a fan backlash over the game ending... they would have told Obsidian to have play after the end. They did not. So one could conclude that Bethesda isn't that considered about people freaking out about and ending.

Impossible is nothing.

But in all seriousness, it would have required something like the radiant quest system introduced in the Creation Engine. But that's neither here nor there. Still would have been awesome.

They are for an RPG. It adds to replay as in you make new characters and play the game differently. Being a God of all things is not my idea of role playing and it gets boring. I like having a character that can be a master of one skill but svck at other things.

I think some people are blinding themselves to the fact that, the actions of the MQ have major consequences to the world, and that not everything that is said in the slides at the end, are all done and completed overnight. The consequences can take months or years to fully come about, so you wouldn't see those if the game continued after the slides were finished, and you could continue afterwards.

Not really, it just means they didn't care about the backlash from someone else's product.

Remember, Bethesda Game Studios =/= Bethesda Softworks.

Only the publisher Bethesda was involved in NV's making, and many of the games they publish have fixed endings. BGS, the makers of TES and Fo3 have no real say in the matter, nor would they suffer any backlash or reputation damage from something Obsidian and Bethesda Softworks did.

It could take months or more but by that point you made your bed and you should lay in it. Again say we sided with Caesar and he won. Are we to believe the NCR or anyone else in the game would have anything to do with us ever again? That we could go back and finish quests for people after that?