You mean, "releasing Broken Steel"?

(seriously, though - if it weren't for "requires all five DLC" mods, I wouldn't have BS installed anymore. The story bits just don't make up for all the other things it does wrong. The level cap increase, the additional perks, the bullet sponges..... )

I agree, that is why i leave the final MQ mission always as the last thing i do.

I much more prefer a "new game+" to playing after the ending.

Clearly they noticed they burned themselves with the ending of Fallout 3 when they released Broken Steel. I don't think they'll repeat the same mistake again. I suspect that once the MQ is finished you can keep on playing Wasteland Sims with the settlement features or just go shooting at stuff. I'll probably do both.

I would assume that Fallout 4 will have a hard ending and then for a mere $19.99 you can buy a shiny new DLC that will continue the story.

Personally I'd prefer a hard ending that completed the tale similar to FNV, assuming that the main quest has some major consequences on the game world. If the main quest does not drastically alter the world or better yet, if the choices you've made were accurately represented, then continuing on would be fine..

you know i meant before they released broken steel and even then i remember some article from back then that said they had nointentions to patch the game till of course they did change eventually only after alot of pressure from the player community

Well the ending of FO3 was just ... well it was bad. That was just a terrible ending so adding something to let you continue was needed just to remove that ending. The fact that you could keep playing didn't feel wrong though. You could tell that what you did in the MQ made a difference. Perhaps they could have added more along those lines though. But there was still plenty to do.

FONV, with the three groups fighting for control there really wasn't much left to do after one group took over. I mean whoever took over would eventually gain control of all those unclaimed areas (the prison, towns etc.) so there wouldn't be a lot you could really do. An ending made sense.

However the lack of a true ending in Skyrim was a bit awkward. Especially after the MQ is done and dragons are attacking as always as if you did nothing. In fact there is very little acknowledgement from anyone that you even did anything. Talk about an empty ending. Can't say the lack of any ending in Skyrim was a good thing. The fact that you could ignore the MQ and just play all you want really defeats the purpose of being able to play after the MQ, especially when it feels like you've done nothing afterward because of it.

Players have been able to play past the end of the main story since FO2, so it's not like this is a new concept. The fact that they did it in FO3 was mind boggling but was thankfully corrected with Broken Steel. Letting players continue to enjoy their game world after they complete the main story is a corner stone of player freedom. It is THEIR world, they should be able to continue to explore it, look for things they may have missed, complete missions they might have skipped, keep running their towns and caravans etc.

Depends on whether or not the game story will allow it to make sense. Like I said before FONV just wouldn't make a lot of sense since some faction would be taking over everything. Plus if you are concerned about the MQ ending the game ... don't do it. Of my 40+ Skryim characters only a handful actually completed the MQ. There is just so much to do in Skyrim that the MQ can be an afterthought.

I like the idea of new game + but unfortunately Bethesda has never used it in their games. Hopefully though theydo know to let people play after the end. As I said in my last post I haven't cared about any of the endings yet and I don't see that changing for this game. I care about thecharacter themselves and the game world.

Only PC has "New Game +"

Learned their lesson

Why does everyone think it was a mistake?Adhering to a precept of the original fallout game isn't a mistake, or lesson they should learn.

Edit:

Also can't people just save in a separate slot?

I don't really mind either way. Usually you know that the "final moment" is coming up because some NPC will say something like "Once you enter here you may never return." or somesuch so I just avoid triggering that event until I'm done with everything else I want to do and/or my toon starts to feel OP.

That's usually the thing for me. By the time I get to the "end" I don't really want to play anymore because nothing can stop me. When that happens I end the game and reroll with a new character (often with fresh mods).

There is so much stuff in these games I will play and beat them many times.

Fallout 1, Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas had/have definitive endings...

It wasn't a mistake, but it was a http://news.softpedia.com/news/Bethesda-Boss-Talks-About-Fallout-3-Ending-103137.shtml.

"Based on the feedback I’ve seen, most people are pissed off that it ends, not the ‘ending’ itself. Maybe that’s one and the same, I don’t know. That’s another thing we’re changing in DLC3. We really underestimated how many people would want to keep playing, so that’s probably the last time we’ll do something like that."

it won't happen that way, the game will not end after the main quest and dlc won't be required in order to keep playing

Uh, Fallout 3 had the more linear plotline, it was literally a straight line with like two choices whereas New Vegas had numerous choices that effected the ending in more ways then one.


Funny enough if you hit 13 years in-game you can't play any longer

Permanent enders must overlap with hardcoe enthusiasts & permadeathers. What will they want next? Oh I got it...once the game is over that character's save files will be erased and the game will automatically shut off while it completely uninstalls it's self from your PC or console and during this a message saying "Fresh Starts only, you win" will pop up.

I really wouldn't be surprised if some indie game tried that

who cares if its not tes if u dont want to play after u win the game then dont but we should be able to play after i dout that they wont let us they lerned after what happend in 3 ending ourer game was so unpopuler they had to make a dlc to fix it

i'd just like to reiterate that it is always painfully obvious when the ending is coming up and you should go get sidetracked by something if you plan on it happening. that said, i would like to play after the main quest is over if the game actually acknowledges that you did something, it doesn't have to show any especially long-reaching consequences but if i give x faction a leg up on the competition i wanna see them have a stronger presence. if all that happens is everything goes back to exactly how is was when you saved before the end then i probably won't care to keep playing

I won't be purchasing the game if they decide to tack on some arbitrary "ending" justfor story-sake. I see no reason at all why people who don't like it can't juststop playing their old file once their done. That's a much easier fix than selfishly expecting those who want to keep going to just dealwith it.

Did you actually play Skyrim? At the end of the Dark Brotherhood questline you assassinate the freaking emperor! In the main questline you defeat a premeval being from eating all reality. In the Stormcloak rebellion you decide Skyrim's new high king and shape it forever.

In every TES game you play an important role that changes the lore and the world itself. Even reality changes based on your decisions. That's why these are known as dragonbreaks in the lore. You literally render a new reality based on your decisions. How can you get more major than that?!

Reading comprehension would help. As you'd see many of the "I'm ok with it having an END" folks have talked about reloading a pre-Finale save and continuing to explore.

(For the record, I'm not a fan of so-called "hardcoe" mode, and I think permadeath in a Beth game is insane.)

Permadeath really can't be in a Bethesda game. Skyrim was all but designed so that you had to 'Time Stop' and svck down pots during your average battle. I would prefer a much more realistic approach, where healing is done in real-time. I hope that FO4 adds some realism to healing, just depends on how fast injures occur.

As I've said about the ending I wouldn't mind if the game continued. If it makes sense (story-wise) I'll even do it myself. What I don't want is to be cut out of added content if I don't keep playing and unrealistically super-level my character (like they did in Skyrim with the upper level dragons). That really svcks.

ITT: "Oh let's spend all this time coding, writing, voicing, etc. this main quest line that arbitrarily ends the game when completed so certain wannabe hardcoeists and speedrunners can feel good about themselves and tell everyone else how they should feel just peachy about all that work gone into your character is wasted, while everyone else is forced to avoid the main quest like a needle full of AIDS."

Obsidian was going to originally make it so you could play past the ending. This is evidenced by the audio files and Geck lines they left behind.

My guess is that it was going to be very similar to what happened in Old World Blues. A bunch of slides happen telling you the future, yet gamewise it had little effect outside of some dialogues. Example, you might get a slide telling you that the toaster was destroyed by being dumped in the bathtub, yet you were still allowed to continue playing in Big MT, and the toaster would never go missing when you returned to the sink.

... Then again, Old World Blues was meant to be extremely goofy like this.

"This isn't Tes?!" No, this isn't Half Life.