Am I the only one who wants to play the game after the ending? Fallout 3 had the add on "Broken-Steel" allowed players to continue after the ending sequence. Why is it that they are making the same mistake twice? I would at least like the ability to roam around after the ending movie. I would like it more if they released a DLC with that ability and with continuation of the factions in the Mojave. For example, if you played with the NCR as a favorite, you actually join the ranks of the NCR and aid in the control of the Mojave desert. Maybe even add the option of receiving training to join the rangers and earn your own unique desert ranger armor. For the Legion, going into the Mojave and killing all NCR and Mr. House so Ceaser can rule New Vegas. For Mr. House, keeping the NCR in line and aiding in maintaining New Vegas for future profit. Also as a bonus, you get a securatron as a ally. For the independent ending, you continue your rule over New Vegas and manage the cut of profits from each casino. I am not trying to tell the game developers how to do their job. I am merely asking them to take into consideration the idea and release an official statement on the matter. I am just asking the studios to please consider it and let the gaming community know the final verdict.
I also have a former complaint about the ally system. I notice that you get the most allies if you side with the NCR. If you side with anyone else, you do not get as many allies. Why is this? I am sure there is a explanation for this. Maybe it is too much trouble for them to do it. I would understand that. I am just saying that if you side with a certain faction, the rewards should be similar if you joined another faction. Of course I am not saying they should be the exact same reward, but something along the line of officially joining the faction and gaining benefits such as free armor or clearance access to a armory they have or something along those lines.

Alright, on three everyone.

One... Two... Three!

No.

Because Obsidian made the game, not Bethesda Game Studios.

Logic - 1
You - 0



If you want to keep playing, DON'T DO THE DAM MISSION! (See what i did there? lol) It clearly tells you that there is no turning back. So don't do the last mission and you can play till your eyes bleed.

Logic - 2
You - 0

Not your day, is it?

Think about it. Fallout 3 had like 1 factor that would affect gameplay post-ending: Whether you FEV'd the water supply.

Fallout: New Vegas has potentially dozens of factors: Who takes over Vegas? What happens to the small settlements? What happens to the 3 families? Etc.

"Am I the only one who wants to play the game after the ending?" No you aren't. There are dozens of threads about the same topic.

No, not really.


Why a mistake? It's not like post ending gameplay would offer you anything you couldn't do before the ending.

I'm hoping Fallout: 3's story goes down that The LW did in fact sacrifice him/herself for the Capital Wasteland, because that's a good story. I'm seriously hoping Broken Steel would be considered non-canon (if it were ever to even be considered).

Every story has an ending, and I see no purpose in allowing gameplay after the MQ.

It was just a thought. I was just wondering how many people felt the same way I did.

While that is true, it is just a thought of continuing through that in order to get more out of the game.

It was just a thought and nothing more. I do not agree with you but I respect your opinion.

Just play the hell out of your character and then your finally ready to end that character, do that battle. It's rewarding because you see the consequences of your actions come to fruition.

Wasn't a mistake the first time.

Its a good thing you don't have to agree. There will be no Borken Steel type DLC for New Vegas. Period.

No

I just don't see how it could offer anything more when all you can do afterwards is what you can also do before.

TIP! Go to the Dam and glich your way throug the invisible wall on the left... go to Legate's Camp and kill every one... then go to The Fort and kill Caesar. How's that for an ending?

When I go to a restaurant and order steak, I usually don't [censored] because I really wanted lobster. I am more than happy to play the game the developers have given me.

-Gunny

Try to honestly imagine the amount of work Obsidian would have to go through to make that a reality. There wouldn't even be enough disc space to able to pull of such a thing.

I agree that one of the dlcs should have extended game-play beyond the ending that would have been cool to see the effects of your decisions.

Wow... people get kinda brutal out there over a simple question.

I wouldn't mind if you could keep going, but because the story means more to me, i'm definitely happy that it ends they way it does.


And really,.. it'd be nice to keep playing and not have to worry all the time how your actions are going to effect your relationship between the different groups.

The ending of the game describes the distant future of the Mojave, so there is some room in there where nothing happens in the immediate future. And maybe whatever faction you sided with, it would be cool if you continued playing and if you did anything against that faction, that they'd assassinate you or something were you couldn't escape. .

I agree people take it to seriously after all its just a game.

Wow, don't be such a Tosser. It was only a question.

What would you get out of it that you can't get simply by not doing the final quest? The only thing I can think of is Lanius' helmet and sword. And LR makes that concern moot since you get even better versions of that gear in the divide.

Immersion? But is it really any more immersive if nothing of importance changes in the game world, compared to the battle not starting until you're ready? Really?

I mean, I wouldn't mind a post-ending expansion that had a significant amount of content. However, a DLC, as we saw with Broken Steel, simply doesn't have the budget to change much. And that's with FO3, where there was pretty much only one way to do things anyway, versus NV which has five primary endings and a whole lot of secondary location and/or quest based endings.


Except that "DLC" would end up having to be huge and expensive, simply because there's so many variables to keep track of in the ending. NCR/House/Legion/Yesman/Yesman anarchy, how you handled various minor factions and quests, etc. To compare, we only got to see the outcome of our actions in FO1 during FO2, simply because they were that far reaching. And the endings in FNV outdo those in FO1 in terms of what changes. A full on expansion is pretty much the minimum you'd need to do NV's endings justice.

BS in FO3 worked because of two reasons: The ending we got was stupid ([INT]Fawkes, you just helped me deal with an irradiated area two quests ago, etc etc), and the ending we got simply doesn't change all that much unless you put the virus in. And that option was watered down most heavily.

No, that's not entirely true - bringing water to DC should have totally changed everything, but that sort of change is outside the purview of a $10 DLC. It's too in depth to handle in so short a time.

Each of FNV's primary endings changes more than FO3's ending does, which means it's even less likely to work.

If you really want to see the results of your actions in the Mojave, petition Beth to get Obs back for FNV2.

still would have been nice.

Not if it's going to be lame - which is to say, not if we don't get to see the results of our actions on the Mojave.

Welcome to the Forum.

What was a mistake was... That Fallout 3's ending was crap not because there was an ending but that that ending was flawed.

First, we had to go send ourselves into the radioactive room to our death or send Sarah Lyons into it. Thing is what if we have Fawkes, Charon and Sergeant RL-3? Three companions that can't die because of radiation? Fawkes owes us big time and yet will not do a simple task? The other human companions could have gone in as well. (Fallout 3 we weren't even supposed to have companions, hence the name "Lone Wanderer.")

Second flaw is that the game is pure Good vs Evil with everything favouring the Good. So you have no choice but to join the BoS and there is no real bad ending. So it was easy to though in more pointless bad guy ass kicking.

The third flaw, the biggest one of them all... Is that Fallout 3 did not have multiple endings based on our actions like Fallout, Fallout 2, Fallout Tactics and New Vegas. Fallout 3's ending is this for all "the endings": "S/he was good/bad, blah blah blah and in the end S/he was good/bad, blah blah blah, don't learn crap (very little) all about anyone or anything in the DC wasteland.

So with all these flaws it was easy for Bethesda to completely remove the ending and add more game play. Now another mistake caused by Broken Steel is that it ruins the Enclave's whole plot. Therefore the whole plot of Fallout 3.

It was not a mistake for New Vegas to have an ending. It was a series of mistakes that caused Fallout 3 to have a piss poor ending that could easily be undone, which ruined the plot of the game