Edited post when you posted. It's from a developer, good news though - spore plants!

of course, anyone with common sense can tell that some dlc will show up 4-5 months later to get rid of the ending. I also bet, that dlc will contain +10 extra level cap and bunch of perks for lvl30-40. and possibly a few quest extending the main quest by allowing few combat areas that ends up dropping loots that you can sell for 30-40k bottle caps.

how do i know this? well...it is just a concindential thought, really.

Hard to say. It may or may not be an incentive to buy DLC. It might just be how they want the story to end. I'm not familiar with any rules about RPGs having/not having definitive endings. :shrug:


There still might be multiple endings...in fact, I'm sure there will be. I don't really see it as killing my role-playing either. If something happens at the end of the game that significantly changes the landscape it might be very difficult to allow people to continue playing. It sounds like they're also making changes to the way characters are developed that might compel me to play again with another character anyway. :thumbsup:

Guys, let me point out that earlier Fallout games did have endings. They were still OGMGHJDHFGHfanflippingtastic. Don't lose all hope.... maybe I should've put this in my other post.

Read my other post, it just really screw people who Roleplay.Its an RPG for Christ sakes it should not have one ending.

Yeah but as Miller said, what if something big happens? I don't want to miss out on it only to have my game end on me.

As long as the ending is good and is more than less than a minute of slides voiced by Ron Pearlman, I'm perfectly fine with a definitive ending.
Hell, I'll even go so far to say I'll gladly pay for an after-ending DLC.

I don't know why you guys are getting so worked up over it. Like someone said earlier, now that you know, make a save well before the ending and reload it. I really don't think they'll be making another Broken Steel. The reason Bethesda made broken Steel was to appease the massive amount of fans moaning about the definitive ending. They learned their lesson about ending a game like that, and the only reason it would have an ending that wouldn't let you continue afterward is if Bethesda and Obsidian agreed that the definitive ending was best. You guys are pretending there's some sort of mass conspiracy going on here. If Bethesda and Obsidian release another Broken Steel type DLC, it will only be because of all the moaning about it they see on the forum. The more people complain about it, the more likely it is they'll make one. So I'd suggest dealing with it and remembering to save the game beforehand instead of complaining about it and giving them a reason to make another Broken Steel.

Actually, maybe they're doing the classic Fallout ending? Where you see a slide show of what happens after you? The effects of your actions? That would be nice.

Lots of RPGs have an ending that ends the game. Lots and lots. And lots.

Anyway, if it is to push DLC I'm willing to bet it was Zenimax's call rather than Obsidian's. It was funny how the Xbox magazine guy referred to DLC as "post-release support" rather than "a money-making opportunity" in the interview with Sawyer. "Post-release support" of Zenimax's bottom-line is more like it. *rim shot*

Yes but there was many and I believe some didn't end the game. This is the days of DLC...

There were three. I think Fallout 1 and 2 both had endings. The other was Tactics. It did too, but it wasn't an RPG.

And no, I am NOT considering the other one.

I am hoping we are not getting the full story and there are 5+ endings.they should go like this

1.Good and you die
2.Good and you live
3.Neutral
4.Bad and you live
5.Bad and you die

Hopefully.

It would be very nice. I thought Dragon Age handled that sort of thing nicely, at least the ones I saw.

Yeah it's just that I don't want to pay just so I can continue the game. Otherwise, great but I just don't like how we have to pay so we can continue. I bought all the DLCs except for MZ and so I am supportive of the game but I just don't really like the game ending like that. Unless the ending isn't dumb like FO 3's.

Edit: And by the dumb ending, I mean seriously...You just wake up after you got electric shock or something? You were irradiated a lot, there's no way you could of survived. The ending also svcked because it was very predictable.

I know but how many sandbox ones do?Then think of what Bethesda has done.I know its Obsidian's game but Bethesda owns the Fallout series right now.Also its not just an ending that ends the game.I hope at eh very least there are different endings even if they all end gameplay.

I will not believe it in tell I beat it, but if it turns out to be true I will be disappointed.

Fallout 2 let you play after the ending. I never bothered, though; if the main quest is good enough, provides enough choices, and is well integrated into the other storylines, then faffing about after the ending collecting bobbleheads or whatever is less rewarding than starting a new character and approaching the story a different way. Most RPGs don't really need that feature -- it's pretty much to Bethesda's design style, for better or worse ("worse" meaning that the main quest and the other questlines tend to exist in separate planes of existence).

Don't know. :shrug: Some.


Yeah, we'll have to see. I'm pretty confident that there will be multiple endings, but as far as DLC that continues the game...who knows? If Zenimax made good money off of doing that the first time (I'm assuming they did) then they might do it again. I'm guessing that Obsidian doesn't have a lot of say in that type of decision.

Still, though, I'm more of a "let's play again with a different type of character and see what that's like" kinda guy than a "gotta finish every quest with this character before the game ends" kinda guy, so I'm sort of indifferent.

What makes you guys think there even will be DLC that lets you play past the ending? I think one of the major reasons there won't be post-main quest playing is because what happens at the end is a really big deal. They'd have to make significant changes to the game world depending on who you picked as the leader of New Vegas, and probably account for a whole bunch of other stuff as well. It's just not practical to be able to continue the game after making huge changes to the game world unless you want the player to feel like their choices didn't matter as in Broken Steel.

Scoundrels!

*sigh* Look at that post above you...

It did? Didn't it end after a certain amount of time, though? Or was that Fallout 1. I haven't played them in a good bit.

I want my Pip-Boy 3,000,000,000.

:angry: