What about it?



There was a year limit in Fallout 2, but it was pretty large. I don't even know what the exact number is, eventually however you do get "Game Over".

I am thinking the same thing.I m just hoping they are not complete morons and have multiple endings.I like FO3 ending it was done well but I just prefer my games to be able to go after the MQ ends.

As for beating everything before the MQ I am not really into that.In my first play troughs sometimes i might do the fair majority of things but not very often.once I beat the game once its all Role Playing for me.I will stay optimistic with this but this bit of news is not very favorable.

DLC conjecture.
Fallout: New Vegas-- The Great Power Play
Due out March of 2011.

Softnerd basically said if they made money off it before then they'll do it gain. That's how companies work.

Bethesda, contrary to (apparently) popular belief, isn't a money-hungry, satanic developer that loves nothing more than draining money from their fans and using it to pay for Todd Howard's many mansions. Why is it so taboo to actually end a game?

This is good and bad, because I dont want to wait for the G.O.T.Y edition, but I also dont want to pay 100$ for the game and DLC, its just a rip-off. Well im kinda sad now :cookie:, no :shakehead:

I think it goes more to...you know, paying their employee's and other associated parties, since, you know, they got families to feed and bills to pay, amongst other things. Employment is funny like that.

Larry confirmed multiple endings at 26:56.

Exact quote from Podcast "26:29 -26:56":
""No, no. There will be an ending to the game. It will be definitive if by- if they're talking about being able to beat the game, have the ending, and then go back and um see the world after the end. We won't do that in the core game, we will have a definitive end. Uh that said there will be multiple, there will be multiple endings to the game." - Larry Liberty

Now, maybe this is just my personal interpretation of his words, but it sounds like he's saying there will be a definitive end in the sense that the game actually ends the storyline, but not a definitive end in the same way as Fallout 3 had done it.

Also, did ANYONE other than myself actually take the time to listen through the entire podcast? Larry does speak quietly at some portions of it, and some portions seem downright inaudible [with Larry], but overall you can hear him pretty good, and it's the best way to get the actual information [from the firsthand source I mean].

That's pure opinion.

But, I agree with your opinion.

I've been saying this a lot, and nobody actually cares, but make it so that you have to work in order to survive the ending, like in Mass Effect 2.

Whether you know it or not, all companies are money-hungry. They need the money. That's how it works.

First of all, whether there will be DLC or not will be determined by how well New Vegas actually sells. Second of all from what I've read about the main quest it sounds like they'd have to account for some major changes depending on your choices. For games like Morrowind and Oblivion this isn't a big deal as your choices are generally insignificant and don't impact the game world in a massive way.

Broken Steel really downplayed your choice at the end of Fallout 3, and I'd wager the work of trying to account for all possible changes post-main quest has more to do with Obsidian's decision than they or Bethesda simply wanting more money.

I'm not saying that they will...I'm just saying that there might be both precedent and incentive to do it again. I don't work for Zenimax and don't claim to have the foggiest about their stance on such things.


I don't claim to know which companies are money-hungry, satanic developers anymore. Bethesda's kind of at the mercy of Zenimax, though, and Obsidian is at the mercy of Bethesda in some ways. I don't see anything wrong with ending the game, nor am I advocating any distrust of the companies involved. No point in getting worked up over speculation.


This was my first thought as well. I think folks are jumping the gun by crying foul this early in the news feed.

They already confirmed there will be DLC, so yeah.

Don't ya just hate it when people jump the gun so early?
Hands down, this game is going to be great, we know this. I don't see the need for us to set the studios ablaze just yet.

Anyways, if you can survive the ending I won't mind but if you die and have to pay for a DLC to keep playing well then I'll be disappointed.

Whether you know it or not, they can make just as much money by making a DLC that doesn't extend the ending than one that does. You guys are far, far too quickly jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon. I seriously doubt this definitive ending is just because Bethesda wants to release a DLC later to extend the ending.

Where exactly did they confirm DLC? All I've seen are the developers mentioning the possibility of DLC. Even if they did confirm DLC that doesn't mean any of it will allow you play past the ending.

[I think] what he means is that Bethesda is not the type of company that will intentionally work some sort of flaw into the game that requires the player to play to have it defeated. For instance Oblivion had an ending that allowed you to continue after the game ends, but Fallout 3 did not.

Many people saw this as intentional, but really it was about the story; if you actually payed attention to Fallout 3's storyline, it's theme was sacrifice. Your mother is sacrificed for your life to be born, your father sacrifices his life in order to save you, and at the end you (or Sarah) are sacrificed in order to save the people of the wasteland. The ending works with you dying because of that theme, not because they were planning Broken Steel from the start and making people pay to continue to explore the wasteland after the game ends. Oblivion on the other hand, it's storyline was about finding Martin, rising him to power, and then stopping Mehrunes Dagon. But they worked in a way that the ending did not require your sacrifice, where as for Fallout 3 it couldn't have been any other way (aside from Sarah, but it's suggested, non-Broken Steel that both of you are sacrificed to save the water facility).

...unless it's just for fun. Nothing personal, I just like fire. :flamethrower:

I think this is pretty much how it is. Multiple endings, but they're all definitive. In any case, multiple endings don't make an RPG. I find multiple middles to be a lot more intriguing than multiple endings (makes me actually want to play the game over rather than just the end decision).



I found it harder to NOT survive in Mass Effect 2. Surviving was just a matter of solving your crew's family problems and psychological issues then picking the most logical choices.

Can't remember exactly but I think Chris Avellone said it.

Okay, so maybe Mass Effect 2 is a bad example when it comes to actually doing hard work to survive, but it still makes you do some work in order to survive.

You had to upgrade your ship too, and that involved surviving lengthy exposure to the mining mini-game.

That's just proving my point that they are money-hungry. You went off the point a bit but anyways, at least we get spore plants, eh?

Ok just voted and saw I am the only person happy at some form of an ending.
I never was angry at bethesda for the ending, Just the sloppy main story. The dlc's I just downloaded and started fresh every time a new one came out.
So I did not pay to continue playing the old, But to play the new. NV will win me over with a good story not lose me because I cant play the same character forever.
So is this just an issue with companies in general, Or a real problem?