Only way to continue after the end game would be to remove the endings or Make many whole new Mojaves to reflect all the changes from te multiple endings. The endings are awesome and making all those new Mojaves would be alot of work for just a DLC.

Again how hard is it to just load a save before the main quest ends? Or better yet take the games warning that the game will end? Or just do everything before the game ends?

as you can see, most voted no.

so yes they are doing exactly what we want.

Thank you obsidian

No and don't care. If a DLC comes out (which I'm 95% sure it won't) I'm not buying it.

Well it is there game...

Doesn't matter if it's there game. They didn't make it for themselves they made it for the consumer. 29 people want DLC if I made a game and seen that 29 people wanted a specific DLC I'd give it to them. But maybe that just because I'm not a corporate America [censored]!

Five lads from Sheffield will answer on my behalf:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1ZG2UXnCKk&playnext=1&list=PL8C2F828B0AFC9D88&index=19

Well, you're something...

And if they were a European Company and had made the exact same decision, what would you be saying then?

The 'They're an American company and they're evil and greedy' crap is getting really old these days. And I'm a Yorkshire girl.

And your accent is quite lovely. :rofl:

Really 29 people.

It is their game. They came up with it, they designed it and they built it. They don't have to do anything. Be lucky you are getting any DLC.

@Demonhoopa: We speak the queens english not like those southerners. :teehee:

Since I'm American and hence am treated daily to the ear drum punishing American accent (including my own ha ha), you all sound great to me regardless of region.


However, our southerners also do unspeakable things to the language. :laugh:

"Too many cooks spoils the broth."

Designers design. Allowing everyone in the world to change your design is a bad idea usually.

"Eat poop! A million flies can't be wrong."

Numbers don't equate to correctness.

I've said before that I think it was ridiculous of Obsidian to create yet -another- finite game, when in fact the outcry against Fallout 3's having an ending was so great that Bethesda actually created an UNPLANNED expansion to rectify the situation. Sure, most of the fanbase isn't here at the forum, and they're not railing on and on about it for New Vegas because... hell... at least New Vegas had a good ending! It was almost as satisfying as playing through Fallout 1 and 2 again.

That being said, Fallout 2 added a continue option as well... and told you flat out that the world it released you into was NOT going to reflect the changes you had made or seen during the ending.

Fallout 3 comes along, and it has a finite ending. The ending not only blows... but it is so hated that it actually has to be retconned out. The result is a mediocre DLC (Broken Steel) which exists for the sole purpose of remedying this mistake on their behalf by pandering to those of us who didn't like being told 'game over', you win.


Fallout 3 and New Vegas are open world games, crafted on the model of Bethesda's trademark "Go Anywhere, Do Anything" method of gameplay.

Obsidian brought to the table a lot of qualities which outshined Bethesda's original work, as far as an RPG goes... and they certainly did give it a satisfactory conclusion... but the very fact that this topic keeps popping up... time after time after time... is in fact all the evidence I need to prove that there should have been an option to continue playing. It doesn't take a thousand... or even a hundred thousand players being disappointed to make case for it.

The fact of the matter is, they disappointed -some-... and they could have easily avoided it by not giving into hubris. They believed their ending was -so- solid... that it didn't warrant heeding the requests of people who didn't WANT an ending to their sandbox game. And it is, unfortunately for Obsidian, a sandbox game... one which they were invited to create by Bethesda... and one which will invariably be compared to Bethesda products no matter how many different ways one might try to avoid it.

Do I want another Broken Steel type DLC? No... do I wish for one? No...


I would love to see an outright EXPANSION... the likes of Shivering Isles... I think I've said that before, too. I would love to see a massive expansion, with all the scripting and story elements done in such a way that you actually -do- get to see the fruits of your labor taking hold, in following with the ending cutscenes my character got upon completion of the game. That would be something that Fallout 3 was seriously lacking. Every Fallout 3 DLC was a one-off... with the exception of a FEW places which Broken Steel changed in the actual Capital Wasteland worldspace.

A full expansion for the game. A look at the Mojave, after the fact.

Now the Courier is a hero... or a villain... or the King of Vegas... or the bringer of death and destruction to all.

Let us work with that.


But I voted undecided... because really, I don't know if it'll happen or not. Obsidian said they wouldn't... but then again... it wouldn't be the first time someone told a lie, now would it?

Only time will tell.

Obsidian made this decision while being fully aware of the existence of Broken Steel, and of the reactions to it.

They made the decision knowing what they were doing. A "play after the end" option isn't needed because they warn you right before the end.

Giving you the option to play on with a "no changes will be reflected" note like in Fallout 2 would be silly. Completely unnecessary.

Honestly, all you miss out on is one end game quest and a bunch of people saying "hey, there's the hero". Anything more would require massive changes to the end of the game.

This is your justification? They told you so... so that makes them right?


One of the first mods I downloaded for New Vegas -did away- with the finality of Obsidian's ending. Do you know how much time that took me? Almost none. Do you know how much work they put into it? A couple of edited scripts. Someone came along and actually made an even better version of that mod, which causes the world to slightly reflect the changes your ending made... and these aren't even PROFESSIONAL game designers here. These are part-time modders!

The excuse is old... and tired. Game designers are not gods among men, and they sure as hell aren't the only ones who get to dictate what is right and wrong.

If there is even a SMALL group of people who disagree... who revile an aspect of your game... then there is a cause for concern. That's when you ask yourself... is it something I did? Is there something I could have done differently to make this better? What can we do differently next time?

Bethesda already had that issue. Broken Steel. That was their result... and it was fairly middle-of-the-road.

Obsidian went the complete other direction, ignored the fact that there were people who STILL wanted to play on beyond the 'end' of the game, and in fact it would have taken them all the time and effort of a decent MODDER to make it possible. A modder did it... and did it well. I'm lucky I bought it for the PC... because hell... who knows if they'll ever come down off their high-horses and say,

'Sure, people who want this game to go on forever even though we think the artistic vision of our story is more important... we'll take four minutes out of our day to change a couple scripts.'

... much less actually make a full-out expansion with year-long production times and full-game quality resources and whatnot like I would -really- love to see. Their story is good. It warrants saying that I -liked- it. I liked the ending scenes. What I didn't like was the ENDING.

Saying: "Here... this is the end for you... go any further, and you can't play anymore." is completely immersion-breaking for me. My character just worked up to this moment. My character just prepared for the greatest victory in his/her life.

"Congratulations, sir... we've got them on the ropes now. This is it. The final battle. If we take them down here... we can push them clear on out of Nevada. There's only one problem. If you go on ahead, there's no turning back. And if you win, that's it... game over, man. Don't worry though, the battle won't ever start without you... so we can just keep this waiting for days, or months, or hell... even years. Why don't you just go on back home and take a nap first? This isn't anything important."

That's the kind of logic that gets used at the 'end' of New Vegas... and I hate it. It drives me crazy. It kills any semblance of realism the game had by presenting exactly the same kind of moment that Fallout 3 did... the point of no return before a massive battle you've been building up to for most of the game. I -want- to have my victory. I want to win... and then go home and relax, eat some Fancy Lad's Snack Cakes, and watch some of Razorwire's fine TV.

I'm not alone... and there's enough of us that feel this way, that the topic comes up again and again and again...

Forgive me if I'm not really impressed by: "They saw the mistakes of their predecessors and made the same choice anyways..."

They did a much better job of it. They probably ended the game as best as it could ever have been ended. But it was a mistake to not include four lines of code which could have saved a lot of people a lot of grumbling.

You think four lines of code would account for every possible ending?
What would break immersion for me is that once you finished F:NV and then everyone seemed to "forget" or "ignore" what happened at the end.

This.

If I want to play past the ending, I'll throw in GTA 4 or Red Dead Redemption.

Honestly, I've never continued playing after finishing the main quest of any sandbox game.

It is pretty pointless unless one wanna go for 100% in those kinds of games. (GTA, SR, RDR)
But since Vegas doesn't have that kind of statistic I fail to see the reason to continue.

It's not pointless for me. I invest a lot of time and effort in the creation of a character... someone to become a 'living, breathing' function of the world in which he or she is set. I have gone so far as to actually incorporate families for a few of my more interesting characters... although ideally, I would love to have been able to create some quests revolving around them. Perhaps I will, one day... if I can ever master the basic principles of scripting.

Secondly, to answer the question posed by Skoomaholics... no, you're absolutely right. I don't think it would account for all the changes the player can make. But it would have shut up about half of the people who complain about not having the ability to play on after the game, because they really probably don't give a damn about the ending anyway.


For me, I just hope for that expansion I keep mentioning... something that radically alters the game world fundamentally to reflect the decisions my character has made, then allows me to continue along with their story. A good, Shivering Isles sized expansion with all new items, locations, enemies, quests, and more... something meaty and worthwhile. And then, at the end, just leave it open. Don't roll another set of credits. Don't fade to black and call it a game.

Just plop me back down wherever the hell I was, let me go home... and bask in the glory of my triumphs with a nice, hot bath.

Fallout New Vegas doesnt need a Broken Steel esque DLC

My justification is that they designed and built the game. They decided what was best for the game and for the company. They made all the decisions, even when they listened to fans.

They warn you near the end because people would get angry if they didn't. It's a sop to those who don't see it coming. It doesn't work, people still get surprised by it and complain.

But they're not the majority.

Maybe a DLC is a good idea. They have to decide if enough people would buy it to justify it. They have to decide if it can be done in a way that they feel is sufficient.

Obsidian and Morrowind were different. Those games were about preventing the world from being changed. Having nothing much change after you'd won the main quest was easy.

Fallout games are different. At least FO3 and NV. They are about changing the world. Carrying on after the end is either completely half-assed, or not done.

Even earlier Fallout games ended. Even the description you gave of Fallout 2 was indicative of a game that ended. Afterwards you were playing in a false world.

I don't want that. I honestly don't want them to waste their time building that instead of building something better.

That's not to say a full expansion wouldn't work. They could do that, but it would cost a fair bit and require some creative work to do. I don't believe they will.

I'm not speaking out against an expansion. Mostly I'm just annoyed by people acting like Obsidian ignored or didn't learn from the lessons of Fallout 3. I think they did learn...it's just that the conclusions they came to were different from the ones you think they should have come to. They had more information to work from.

I think your points are fair... and I think we can agree that we disagree on whether or not the game should have gone on. I am not overly optimistic about an expansion, either... although I can hope for one as much as the next guy. I also cannot claim to say precisely -who- the majority is... because as has been said before, the majority of people aren't here... and largely complain about any problems they have with the game to their friends or themselves. So I wouldn't propose to argue with you in that respect, either.

What I can say, though, is that I don't think it has anything to do with what 'information' they have... it has more to do with their artistic vision as the 'storytellers' for this game.

They chose the opposite of what I wanted. I got a mod to get rid of it... but for many folks, who feel as I do about the game ending, that's not even an option. Console users and all that jazz.


You do bring up a valid point though, and one which I can whole-heartedly respect. All my statements and opinions are strictly my own... I do not in any way, shape, or form speak on behalf of any group or organization. If I claim that they made a mistake by not including the option... I do so solely based on my own opinion, and acknowledge that. My opinion should not and does not hold any more sway than anyone else's... and that is precisely how it should be.

All others are entitled to their own opinions, and I do enjoy that we have the freedom to share our opinions openly here. If ever I seem as if I may be being confrontational, know that it is a byproduct of my own feelings on the matter... and that I in no way disregard or disrespect that right. We can all feel however we want about this. It's a beautiful system, really. And hell... at least the ending is good. It doesn't give me a lot of wiggle room for arguing that there shouldn't have been a finite end, but hey... I'm not going to deny it the respect it deserves.

Fallout: New Vegas is a damned good game...

...and I would gladly pay half-as-much again for a well-conceived expansion which let me continue on playing in the world I so vastly changed.

Since I was typing on a treadmill earlier, let me just expand on my "more information" comment. I was mostly referring to Bethesda, and to a more limited extent Obsidian, having knowledge of sales figures before and after Broken Steel was released. Having access to accumulated feedback from the consumer about how the game was before and after the expansion. And having access to the developers of both FO3 and BS to ask what they intended, what they wanted to accomplish, what they did accomplish, what was beyond their abilities, and how they felt about their product.

Some of this is purely financial and affected their budgeting for the game, most likely, but some would have had an impact on the design of the game as well I'd imagine.

I'm not even sure at what point in the design process the decision was made to have a hard ending. It was known months before the game came out, but that was well after the main design was done and the game was nearly complete.

For those of us with an interest in these kinds of things, it's a real pity that companies rarely release the information, or the process, of their decisions.

I don't care if they have one or not but I know they wont have one.

Entirely valid... and I suppose it is quite likely that you are right, and these figures did have a certain amount of say in what decisions were made.

It's easy to forget, at the end of the day, that these games are a business... and business is always motivated by the need for more cash. It would be idealistic to think that these factored into -none- of the game's design decision... but still, I find it hard to believe that the addition or subtraction of a final ending sequence was based upon some kind of a financial record. I would much rather think that it had something to do with the writers defending their own credibility.

At least that would be respectable. If it was a decision based upon a marketing bullet-point... damn... that'd be almost dream-crusher perk worthy.