I've never opened it to look inside the DLC... (Only recently got it too)

Before I bought the GOTY I had intended to look into Broken-Steel, and see if it all could be left unchanged except for retaining the original game ending.
(I have yet to finish vanilla Fallout 3, and haven't yet started any of the DLC). Really I've only been focusing on the 3D side of modding, neglecting the scripting side, so it would be good practice to start writing and editing scripts.
Right now I doubt I could do this thing with BS, but at some point I could grasp how involved it might really be, and see if I still wanted to.

- I don't want to pay to be able to play the game.

Oh, I see. Yeah, that would be some good practice. I've seen people edit the BS ending scripts before, so it may not be too hard. And I'm digging that avatar.

I always go back to a Feldman eventually (I think I have five of them) :mohawk:

Just occurred to me, this can be read as "I'm gonna pirate the game!"
(after all, you have to pay to get your FO:NV box so you can play the game. :whistling: )

Imagine it to read "I don't want to have to pay to play a game I already bought" instead then

I think my only problem with this is... my desire to finish all (or most anyway) of the side quests, and the only way this is done is to put the main story line on hold while you tie off loose ends. Sure there is replayability, but there is so much work and effort into the game world, and all the work into people, and personalities, and quests... I wonder how much is left unexplored because of the ending credits rolling up the screen? Not saying anything bad about having an end, I mean, closure is nice. Just a possibility that there will be a lot of efforts missed.

I'll gladly pay for the extra DLC though! I don't consider it a money grab. It's addition content added to an already completed game... sounds good to me!

I'd be furious if the story didn't end, and then they milked me for money to finish the story.

You get a complete story with an ending without needing to purchase DLC.

I've been playing computer games since the C64 games, and the vast majority of games end. If you want to do every little quest (as I do) you reload a save, or don't progress to the end until you do all the side quests. It really is that simple.

Now if you played the to end, and then the game never loaded up again, that would be a different story. Wasn't there a $200 Mechwarrior game that erased your save if you died?

I agree that voicing complaints about gameplay mechanics leads to them being fixed and I think people complaining about DLC and definitive endings are not complaining about gameplay mechanics they're complaining about marketing techniques. There is a large difference between gameplay mechanics and marketing techniques. Fixing gameplay mechanics makes players happy which increases sales. Removing DLC makes some players happy, others unhappy, and regardless of happiness decreases profit. I'm saying that complaining about gameplay mechanics is constructive on a game's forum. Complaining about widespread marketing techniques is not.

I'm pretty PO'ed at the lack of no play past the MQ; mostly because this is pretty much from Bethesda, and Bethesda is the only game company that (habitually) allows you to play once the MQ is over.

Then again... this IS Bethesda... "We have no DLC plans for anything after Broken Steel." *Point Lookout DLC released two months after Broken Steel is launched.* They do have this bad habit of saying one thing and then doing the oppsite...

'Course, this is Obsidian making the game, so there's no telling if the "We're saying one thing but doing another!" is true... but you would THINK they would've thought against it after the backlash that happened with FO3... at least they're announcing it earlier so that things can go down to a simmer...

i'm not happy about it but it can worked around, its pretty simple to just not activate the last quest until you are actually ready to end the game in order to start another game., so i'm gonna see how it pans out. i know what todd howard said they learned about ending a game so gameplay stops and that they wouldn't make the same mistake again. and if their is DLC obviously the game will continue and it may just be the story will have a definate ending but gameplay will not stop. so i'm not gonna worry too much at this point, i'm sure we will get more info on this shortly.

Although I enjoyed the DLC's including Broken Steel and Lookout most, I kind of agree with you in that the game shouldn't end and be over without letting you continue to play on afterwards. bliviongate:

With that said however, I'm looking forward to a "GAME OF THE YEAR" Edition Disc in another year, with all five DLC's on one disc as they did with Fallout 3 (I traded in Fallout 3 for the Fallout 3 Game of the Year Edition).
Could they have added Broken Steel to Fallout 3 before the release? Not unless they wanted to delay the game by another few months. The story officially ended in Fallout 3. Broken Steel was a "What if" storyline after the fact.

You do realize that most rpg games have an end, right? The only ones I can think of off-hand that didn't were Elder Scrolls games. Fallout ended. Fallout 2 let you play, but nothing mattered after the end, iirc. NWN ended. Shadows ended. Hordes ended. Neverwinter Nights 2 ended. Baldur's Gate ended. Dragon Age ends. Mass Effect ends. I can name a lot more rpg type games that have a definite end than sandbox type games that don't. "Role-playing" doesn't mean no constraints you can do whatever you want. The constraints and limits of the story limit the character. If you're playing D&D, you get used to playing with limits and constraints. Depending on the type of character you want to end up with, you better take the correct feats at the correct levels, or your character will not work out the way you intend.

I don't believe Bethesda really intended to "not end" Fallout 3. It wasn't until there was a lot of complaining and ranting that Broken Steel was announced. I liked the original "it ended" ending, truthfully. The heroic sacrifice is a long standing tradition in stories. The game was complete.

That's actually a really good point. The story might end, but the game doesn't. Could be, man, could be.

So does that mean Broken Steel was released because people complained about the END of the game??

Almost makes it sound like there might not have been any DLC at all if it wasn't for people complaining. It seems to me the best way to make DLC work in this type of game is to incorporate it at the end. I enjoyed the way it was done with Fallout 3. Except for playing the waiting game on the PS3, but that's another story!!

This.

Yes and no; people weren't complaing at how Fallout 3 ended (well, not in droves at least... still had issues of "Well, why can't we send in Fawkes? Everybody wins (and lives) if we could!") they were complaining that Fallout 3 ended at all.

Broken Steel wasn't the first DLC.

They better add a FREE dlc that expands the ending or change there minds real fast

That is seriously lame....... They know better all it is is getting more money out of us. They know there is no need to end the game after you beat it.

Sounds like something just to oppose the fans. Seriously they should address this. I am thinking about canceling my collector's edition. Considering this and the super mutants were completely unaltered in the gameplay preview. It was somewhat a day of disappointment for me. :thumbsdown: :thumbsdown:

I believe that's exactly what an ending is supposed to do.

Hurr hurr durr

But they know they don't have to.... You know that too. After broken steel you would think they would just know better. I'll be patient... But what is the point of finding stuff out in the wasteland and spending time doing anything extra if it wont even matter? People actually like to play their characters after putting 100+ hours on them, believe it or not.

Why is a definitive ending automatically incompatible with freeplay after the end? Fallout 2 had a definitive ending yet allowed you to roam northern California and do any quests you missed. Heck, it even included postgame content in New Reno and Vault City. It's just that stuff you do after the end has no effect on the Ron Perlman ending narration.

Admittedly, I haven't listened to the podcast in question, so maybe it is vanilla a FO3 style end. Then again, FO1 had a definitive ending with no play after the end, yet I certainly didn't feel cheated.

I'm too indifferent. On one hand, when ever a game such as this ends, I always feel like it's over for good. But on the other hand, if the game allows free-play, I always feel like there's no point, seeing as how I already beat the main quest. Broken Steel should have added one thing for it's free-play, [censored] respawns! I go in, clear one building, and never come back because there's no point.

Will New Vegas have Respawns?

Possibly in some areas, but it is doubtful. The game has a ending so there would initially be no point in respawns except for in the wasteland. Thats just my opinion. :shrug: