The one thing that bugs me about fallout is that as soon as you beat the game, thats it, start again, we sholud be allowec to carry on like in the elder scrolls series

Well, remember that Bethesda makes the TES series and they only made FO3. They made the Broken Steel DLC (Which got ALOT of flak) for continuing the story after a lot of complaints. Personally, I don't care. I don't mind the BS add on for Bethesda's FO3 and I don't mind the no continuation in Obsidian's FO:NV.

But it is under alot of debate.

Some said something like this a while ago which I agree with:

Fallout is about changing the world, TES is about trying to keep the world from changing.
To keep playing in a world which you prevented from major changes is easy.
To keep playing in a world where serious changes has occured due to your actions is not easy.

I think it's a waste of development resources and money to portray a changed world.
If you want to keep playing you can always just reload a save prior to the final quest and never complete it.
Problem solved.

Thats what I did in NV. But I guess I can say I like it since Legion comes after me (NCR side I chose) at random times. Makes my character feel important.

But you see change is the very thing that keeps you playing otherwise the game is boring a meaningless

Again, I'm all for changing and adapting to the future. No matter which form it takes.

They can spend the time to do it, we don't need them to rush. I wish they would rush with Skyrim already and move to Fallout 4.

The anticipation for even some news is killing me.

Thing is i wasnt warned b4 i completed that game first time so they ruined some of my first gameplay experience. And i saved while in the battle.

Thing is that Bethesda only has so many employees and only so much money they can use, which means they need a deadline, which in turn means they only have so much time.
If they exceed the resources needed they need more money, if they extend the deadline they need more money.

That is my issue with the idea of post-game gameplay.
Money.

Bethesda don't like taking risks because they need to gain profit.
They like playing it safe. Developing post-game content is a big risk with a game like Fallout, and I don't think they can do it.

Obsidian planned on having post-game gameplay and portray the changes accurately, but they didn't have time, so they had to cut that idea.
But look at what Obsidian managed to get into a game within a year and a half.
Bethesda couldn't get that in 3 years.
What makes anyone think they'd be capable of producing anything even remotely similar to New Vegas and (Not "or") post-game gameplay where the choices are accurately portrayed?

If Obsidian is doing Fallout 4 and they have 3 years I'd be more in favor of the idea, I would still be skeptical towards it, but I'd be open minded to it.
Bethesda though? I can't.






... Yes, you were, right before you start the final quest a pop-up is handed to you on a silver platter explaining that it is the point of no return.
If you chose to just click past it then the fault is on you, not them. They should have to play some tune and have the window unclickable for 10 seconds while bright lights flash around it with the text "this is the point of no return" being in bold and red letters.
If even advices you to save prior to it.

You got a pop-up, that is more than enough.
In Fallout 3, we didn't even get that when we entered Project Purity at the end.

Id rather just see the Events and have the game end, FO3 canon wise is completely unreliable and should be treated Non-canon

Eh?
While I would be in favor of sweeping most of it under the carpet, with the only canon parts being whatever ED-E had about Whitaker and Veronica mentioning a civil war, it is going to be canon whether we like it or not. :/

Why should we be able to?

Because it breaks their immersion when they cannot continue their character and have to act like the urgent finalé isn't there.