If everyone is so bothered with the ending being the same as Fallout 3's ending, why don't you threaten a boycott or something of F:NV until they change it?

( but i personally am not bothered, and will be getting the game no matter what)

Luckily, not everyone is.

I' not bothered myself, because it's going still be (hopefully) a fantastic game, even though when I played Fallout 3 and got to the ending (before Broken Steel), I was a little annoyed to say the least.

I knew it was going to end so the only thing that was disappoionting was the execution of the ending. Otherwise I was happy to have a conclusion.

I din't think that when Fallout 3 ended, it would be unplayable after the cutscene, thats what got me annoyed.

Same here, Very true.

I just don't get why people feel entitled to some sort of continuous play. Obsidian's focus has always been first and foremost on strong storytelling when it comes to their writing, and they probably just feel that a definite ending is better for their story. It is their story and they know what's best for it.

I actually hate open endings. There is no point to continue playing game if you have beated everything. Usually thoughest battles will be fight in the end of the main plot, so why i should keep playing after finishing those battles as i know i will defeat anything that comes ahead with easily because i just basically won a toughest battle in the game? exactly.

I rather keep those unexplored areas for next character what i make, so it keeps fresh the game as you find still new stuff.

I still find new stuff in fallout 3, even i have played it a lot and many times through, because i play that way.

The start of the Broken Steel is triggered by the ending of the last vanilla main quest (the main "quest" is really 12 quests, the ending of one triggering the other), so, after you load the BS .esm, you would open the last of the main quests and remove the Broken Steel trigger, and add that Broken Steel trigger to, say, MQ01, and set the stage of that first Broken Steel quest to a stage where you can just go talk directly to Palvin. That way, you can play BS as soon as you leave the vault,a nd still have your vanilla ending.

im assuming that they are going to have DLC like broken steel again. i dont mind as along as i get my moneys worth of extra content. what i hope they dont do is change the level cap again. pick level 30 or level 20 as the max and stick with it.

I think extending the level cap after so many hours of DLC makes a certain amount of sense.

The original game is meant to go X number of hours for the MQ, and the content levels up to a certain point. When you add a bunch of quests with DLC, you often add more powerful enemies, weapons, new perks, etc. You're extending the game past the original design.

I'm going to laugh if they DON'T have a Broken Steel-esque DLC. I swear, you guys are crying about stupid stuff. "Waaaah, I can't get 100% completion if it ends!" Save before the end. Play the rest of the game. You act like this is a freaking dealbreaker; I saw a guy crying that because there is a definitive ending he'll only rent the game.

Sure i hated the FO3 ending, it was a good ending story wise, but i meant i couldnt play on afterwards. But you know what i did? I made a new character and played again. It called replay value, by having an ending, you are able to start again and relive the experiences with missions and change things you done with your last character.

I'll drink to that.

More over, it (imo) makes much more sense to add an "independent" expansion (should the game even need to be expanded questcontentwise) that doesn't require rebalancing the core game, levelcap raises or altering the endings.

Oh I'm confident that if there isn't one, the same complainers will find something else ridiculous to complain about.

As long as the ending is better than it was last time, i don't care if I get to keep playing after the end.
My characters are usually pretty close to max level by the time I get there, so I wanna start a new character anyhow...

If they do good job with the main quest, it should be fairly obvious that you are getting close to the end.

Yeah, I suppose. But that sense of incompleteness - doesn't seem like enough to trigger some of these over-the-top "they're deliberately ripping us off by making us pay for the REAL ending!1!1!1one!1!1" / the game is ruined / they'd better give us a free game-extending DLC now, reactions.

Seems excessive.





The problem there is that it doesn't seem like the level cap increase was planned for. It didn't fit with the skill point and perk distribution of the first 20 levels and really screwed up the game balance. Gave a very good impression that the cap increase, as well as the "tougher" monsters, were crowbarred in to satisfy the internet complainers.

I'll admit that the level 20 cap was too easy/quick to get to in vanilla FO3.... but that could have been solved by just increasing the number of XP needed and leaving the cap where it was. /shrug

Heh, thanks I guess.

I still don't see why people are so mad about this. The developers have warned you months before the game is released. And, if you are smart when it comes to Bethesda games, you make a [censored]ton of saves. Before I get to the "ending" of Fallout 3(not really an ending with Broken Steel), I will probably have anywhere from 200-500 saves. It would be no issue for me to just reload to an earlier save. And, now that I have a warning months before the game even comes out, I know that having all those saves will pay off.

Besides, this is a sandbox game. I'll be spending about a hundred hours doing everything besides the main quest.

You're using the wrong verb here. It's "spread" not "extend".

I doubt I'll buy any DLC for any game ever again. These are mostly poor executions of weak ideas after the development team has finished developing the game, and so devs are most likely in a different mind-set and surely have lower ambition.
A DLC could only meet the standard of the game if it's developed during the development of the game, meaning releasing the game with missing parts intentionally. If that's the case, what's my incentive as a player to take part in such a ruse... It's insulting, really. Will be perfectly content with my lacking copy of a game, DLCs were a waste of time.


F3' replay value isn't hurt by the patched-on open ending, it's hurt by the broken character development system. If all characters end up being the same, there's no point in creating new characters.

Before the first DLC was out, I beat the MQ in my first playthrough, and was extremely disappointed - my last save before that was a few hours old and there was no way I was going to reload. I started a new character, and you know what? It had the exact same build, precisely because I didn't have enough time with it. The ending came out of [censored] nowhere, a light slide show, credits, thanks for playing, get the [censored] out.
Sure, now everyone is like "meh, I don't mind it so much", well of course you don't, now you're getting a [censored] heads up.

Exactly. I didn't feel ripped off by Fallout 1's ending, even though there was no ability to play on after the end. If it's a meaningful ending with ending vignettes which depict the results of my actions in the wastelands, I won't feel bad about NV's ending.




My problem with Fallout 3's ending was that it was railroaded and contrived as all hell. When the game's primary theme is survival, particularly surviving radiation, and when the game gives you several methods of combating radiation (many of which can be used in conjunction with one another), having the primary kill mechanism be radiation is very foolish.



I can't see how it's a good ending story wise.

Yes, what's the point to playing a game that has an ending. Why watch movies either? Or go to a football game?

Yea, and who would want to watch a single movie for 300 hours? Eh? Anyone? That anology is weak. Comparing games with movies only goes so far. Works well when talking about cut-scenes, though.

The reason NV will have a definitive ending is because Obsidian designed so many different ones - it would be astronomically difficult and time consuming to write scripts and dialogues for the whole wasteland, expressing all the different outcomes your various actions had on everything.

It's not because one type is better than the other, stop feeling like you were right from the beginning.

Well that's a bit silly! Completely different things here...

Sometimes the idea of being able to continue a little role playing after the main events have occured is appleaing to some people.
And for the PC, perhaps that want to continue playing their character, and develope some new content with the GECK to extend the game.

It's good to know up front how it's going to be so, for some people at least, we can continue other things before finishing off that last quest!

My own two cents:

It doesn't really matter to me whether or not you can play after the game "ends." For me, that's my goal in a videogame, anyway - to "win" the game. All I'm really hoping for is a nice end sequence like they used to have in the old Fallout games, where you'd find out the consequences of all your actions and you'd learn what comes of all the major characters and settlements you've encountered. Whether or not you're popped back to the Main Menu, or dumped back into the game world after that's finished playing is of little consequence to me, personally. (Because that's when I'm usually going to stop playing, anyway.)

It's not a new concept for me to put off going towards that definitive end until I've gotten all I wanted to out of the game. If there was more that I wanted to do before the game finishes, there's nothing stopping me from doing all of that beforehand. Frankly, it confuses me a little bit (from my mindset) why this always seems to be a problem, given those circumstances. Even if you were allowed to continue playing on after the ending, there's nothing you'd be able to do afterwards that you couldn't have done beforehand - just don't play the ending until you're ready to stop playing the game; problem solved...

On the other hand, I'm not against the idea of playing on after the end, as a concept. Since it's not something I usually do, it's not like it would affect my enjoyment if the option were to be included.

DLC is a kind of a different matter. I don't go for this conspiracy theory that it's not a "complete" game until after you've played through all the DLC that will be coming out, or that it inherently contains content that "should" have been included in the game in the first place.

On the other hand, I am less likely to purchase DLC if it comes out after I've finished a game that requires me to load up an earlier save if I want to play it. I think it makes sense for the first (or one of the first) DLC to come out, to include the option to continue after you've beat the game. Because that then gives me the option of continuing my character's adventure without backtracking, or hoping that I'd remember to save right before going into the endgame.

In short, none of this really bothers me one way or the other.

Post limit.