I have played and beat along with all dlc both fallout and elder scrolls and loved both of them, but i never knew that they were both made from the same creators but i was just curious why does elder scrolls let you continue playing after you completly beat the main missions and fallout doesnt allow you to do any more missions after you complete its main missions.

Fallout does allow you to keep playing if you have the Broken Steel expansion.

But not in fallout new vegas once you beat the dam mission and you do the mission "point of no return" the game ends and the credits come up and than you just return to the main screen and you can only continue the game from the last save point.

My guess would be that because Fallout has the tradition of listing all the consequences of your actions throughout the game, it ends there.

Eventually, there will be a PC DLC that extends the game and will take you to level 35, but right now it's X-Box 360 exclusive.

Of course, I could be way off base with my guess, too.

Because thats the way Fallout should be.

No it's not, the only way Vegas could have redeemed itself in my eyes is if (when you played as the NCR). You could help them expand they're influence or (if you play with House or the Yes Man) you could find many NCR troops crowded into the Mojave Outpost and have Great Khans and Boomers wandering around the Mojave. Or Caesar's Legion butchering everybody with murdered corpses and people who fought back crucified in their towns... But no, you just get a really long explanation of what happened next for everybody.

But that is what fallout is supposed to do - see Fallout 1 and 2.

Yes, it is, because games should end and not turn into single player mmo's where nothing changes, and you just grind until max level and kill everything and contradict the endings.

I have fallout new vegas for xbox and purchased the dlc dead money which was way too short and just not worth buying unless you are a die hard fallout fan... but i think that if your going to end the game after the main mission that all of the side missions should have more of an impact on the main missions...it seemed that all of the side missions had no pros or cons really and only really helped you to level up and earn money.

I understand what you are saying, but when I got Broken Steel I didn't kill everybody, I finished the quests I had skipped throughout the game, discovered the rest of the locations and took alot of purified wtaer from the pumps.

Then there is nothing to do afterwards, but kill things.

Because games do normally end, it's really really hard to make your actions feel like they mattered at all post-ending. Especially Fallout games should end, because the telling of the consequences of your actions and their impact on the world is a huge part of Fallout, very much like the post-apocalypse, SPECIAL, Karma, dark humor and Ron Pearlman. To turn the words of Ron Pearlman in all the different endings into actual game content, it would require a completly new game, and then when you finish that game? You gotta see the consequences this time again? That would be a lot of consequences, considering there could be a lot of different consequences from the game before that. It just would never end, haha.

Look at this now, my post ends here and you won't be able to read it after this sentence because you would read and read and read and then get bored till you stop reading it and never want to read anything from me again, right?

Weird, Dead Money took me 9 hours to complete. :shrug:
Aaand how would making Meyers a sheriff of Primm affect the main storyline before the ending?

The entire Mojave could be re nuked except Primm and he becomes an evil dictator... :wink_smile:

FO3 was made by Beth, FO1 and FO2 were made by Interplay/Black Isle and New Vegas was made by Obsidian (with beth overseeing). Fallout 3 had playing after the end only after Broken Steel. Broken Steel came along because the ending to FO3 svcked so much and made no sense. It did not have multiple endings like the originals and New Vegas. All FO3's ending did was pass judgment on the player. Broken Steel ruined what was left to FO3s story.

Fallout =/= TES
TES =/= Fallout

QFT.

If you fancy yourself an Elder Scrolls fan, go have a look at the Elder Scrolls Lore forums. The out-of-game history, philosophy, and theology is hundreds of times larger than the in-game material.

This is biased here...Do it in community.

I play both Fallout and Elder Scrolls games and the main difference hope. In Fallout when you stepped outside Vault 101 what was your first take on the outside world? mine was dim and drery and i felt like was this a world worth fighting for? When you first step out of the sewers in Oblivion what was your take then? looks great time to save Tamriel.

But i have enjoyed The Elder Scrolls much more than i have Fallout

Fallout 3 was trial and minor error (in my opinion). New Vegas was trial and major error (In my opinion). Fallout 3 did not svck it was incredible compared to Vegas which I was only able to put twelve hours into before getting bored of it... I still play Oblivion and Fallout 3 though...

Fallout 3 did svck in my opinion, Oblivion was better

I still don see how Fo3 is incredible compared to NV,

I think that people started Fallout with FO3, and expect more Fallout 3 style "srhudder"



For the bugs, i can agree, but they implemented some new things that Bethesda should use for Fallout 4

Oh do explain your enlightened thesis of why Fallout: New Vegas is inferior to Fallout 3. I hear nothing but claims, and nothing to back them.

I liked the side quests of Oblivion, but I hated the level scaling, boring combat, repetitive NPCs, extreme glare off every surface and other stuff. I liked FO3 but I hated the extreme dreariness because plants would have recovered already (even Mt Saint Helens has a large volume of plant repopulation and it is only 30 years from when it erupted and charred everything), cheesy cartoonish quests and locations, lame ending, lack of world continuity (every location felt disconnected from the rest of the world).

If FO NV had more NPCs to kill it would a lot better, but as it stands it has more plusses than the others.

I never played any TES games before Oblivion because I hate old first person RPGs. They had crappy combat systems and cruddy environmental detail compared to the 2d isometric games. Oblivion was a huge step in the right direction, but I think I read somewhere that they only had 6 months from when MS released the xbox specs until the publisher forced it out the door and that is why it lacks polish.

Note that these are only my opinions.

Endless tourism with piss poor enemies or bullet sponges from DLC > Quality game :tops:

No, even better, you must be a Bethesda hater if you don't like their TES: Diablout rendition of Fallout.

(sarcasm)