[censored], if you've ever used the internet im the MAJORITY

Yeah and I've seen that everyone on here who used to [censored] about it have gone to play Skyrim or Gear or War or whatever other mindless exploration simulator or kill fest; the majority of people left here are the real fans of the series, of its lore and stories. Even most of Fallout 3's defenders admit that Broken Steel - story-wise - did nothing but weak an already plot-hole ridden ending and added little in the way to show the consequences of our actions, much like Skyirm because that doesn't have a real ending - or plot - either.

Some majority.

While I admit that it would be nice to see the effects of my decisions in person rather than in the slides, in all honesty I have to say that it's better that the game ends when the MQ does.

For one, the whole point of the MQ (and the majority of the side quests) is building up to Second Hoover Dam, so continuing past that wouldn't make much sense. For another, the fact that a single faction out of the Big Four ends up with total control of the region means that almost all content would be locked out in any continuation, because the givers thereof have been either killed or sent packing, which would leave you with essentially nothing to do. Furthermore, adding even one of the Four's post-MQ state would be a tremendous amount of work and expense to do properly, and anything less would render it a waste of time and effort as well as piss off those who want their decisions to actually matter.

For what it's worth: FO2 did allow post-MQ play, however the game explicitly warned you that the dialogue and quests were not set up to accommodate doing so; as a result, it quickly became apparent that you were better off restarting because nothing was making any sense anymore.

Post-MQ play does work in the TES series, though, because nothing you do has any real impact and almost nobody even knows you did anything. Then again those games emphasize exploration and free-roam above story and plot, so the ability to play post-MQ isn't really a problem. Instead, the problem is that you don't get to see the effects of your actions while doing so, which for some of us greatly lessens the point thereof. In fact, for me it completely removes any such point, which is why I retire my Skyrim characters after they finish the MQ. Of course, I tend to do it last, so by that point they've done everything pertinent to their roles and have no real reason to keep going anyway.

It removed whole quest-chains - like everything in Vault City - and was really more of an easter-egg as NPCs (especially in Reno) began making open references to the developers and what not. Maybe Interplay said it had to be included so they just made it a silly easter egg

That's flame-baiting.

I already explained why this wouldn't work and it is not necessary with the multiple difficulty levels.

Lol you call me a moron by what I suggested does the same thing. you have all you stats, your still in the game world. Enemies spawn with the higher levels.

"its my opinion and since its mine I everyone must agree with me"

You know you sound like a complete jerk in this thread? you don't seem to understand that you are in the MINORITY in all this, barely anyone wants to play after the end of this game, you know why? its called an ending for a reason. Bethesda only released Broken Steel because Fallout 3's ending was terrible, not because it wouldn't let you continue you playing, because it was freaking terrible.

If you don't like it go play some other game.

As I explained in other threads.:

There is a reason why FO3 is as it is and why New Vegas is different.
FO3 for all ends and purposes is FO3 built by a Software company on an existing premise using similar mechanics as their other franchise. In other words a free roam RPG with focus on exploration.
FO:NV is keeping the main mechanics but built with the older games in mind. IE the game more resembles an older FO title.. and is more focused on story and NPC interaction.

Fans comming into the series out of TES will undoubtedlty like FO3 more... because the focus is more similar.
FO:NV is however (including a defintive ending) more reminscant of the first two games and therefore more in line with the existing franchise.

So why can't they add it... Repeat: The different endings will not be represented, new game + would not work because enemies are only partly leveled and finally the game offere several methods to avoid the ending or replay.

never mind what i just put lol well you wont see it so yeah

I like seeing my actions actually have an effect in-game (like in Fable 3, where if you don't raise enough money, the game would become almost completely unpopulated). But Fable doesn't have all the extra endings Fallout does, and it code them all would be too time-consuming.

I'm sure there's mods out there that allow play following the end of the main quest.

There are, but pretty much all they do is put you back in the game world after the ending credits roll. As such, you don't actually get to see the effects of your decisions since the only change that's actually occurred is that the MQ is now complete.

Basically, all they do is disable the automatic drop to main menu after the credits roll and teleport you back out of the special cell you get sent to during the fade-out following the final dialogue exchange, both of which are pretty easy to implement.

I actually like that NV has a definite ending. It means what I did mattered. It changed the Wasteland... I changed it. I love how all my actions have consequences, therefore, a solid ending is the crowning achievement of the game.

After that... a new woman awakes at Doc Mitchell's house!

Better go tell on him!

What a childish thing to say.

I was simply warning him since he hasn't been here long.

I agree, I don't see the need for New Vegas or any of the Fallout games to have an open ending just because the Elder Scrolls games are open ended. If anything a true ending makes the game feel stronger and not weaker narratively.

They realesed broken steel.not because the ending was terrible(it was a good ending) but because people like the op [censored] n moaned that the game actually ended ala no free roam.

I hope beth tell us bs is no longer cannon .Wich would mean people like me would beable to sleep easier without that MQ ruining dlc
While joe bloggs can still run around punching brahmin

Fixed as in how you fix a male dog, whom you don't want to breed anymore, with a sharp metal object? Because that's effectively what happened there.

I could let new vegas go, but hopefully in FO4 you can continue after the ending. and maybe not so many factions, like have two sides which in which you can join or 3. so it isnt too hard to make the ending continuable. And more side quests. like the Sunset sarsaparilla star caps quest for the Pew pew.

Making it simpler just so we can see what little we have accomplished? That would be a terrible thing to do. I'd much prefer having lots of unique and interesting endings then to be able to play on after my character has already been finished.

While there's something to be said for being able to see the effects of our decisions in-game, it's better that we don't get to. You see, it would be so complicated to do that they would end up


Which, as the rest of the quote that snippet is from says, would indeed be a terrible thing to do, since the results would almost certainly be wholly unsatisfactory to almost everyone.

Which is basically the difference between a TES/FO3 and NV.
FO:NV tries very hard to be an RPG (so you roleplay in condensed, closed adventure with different outcomes, with characterbuild soft skills and hard skills alike.. having an impact on the outcome of the game)
FO 3 is (with broken steel) a sandbox FPS with strong RPG elements..

I would rather, though it is a matter of taste, see the first.. (FO:NV)

I don't get it Dean so your saying you'd like a "dumber" game just so you can do random roaming around killing stuff, without having to just use the load button to reload to a point previous to the main quest finishing to do the same thing?

XD

That's what it sounds like, and I don't get it either.

While the two are different on paper (MQ is still going vs. MQ is completed), in practice they're identical since there's no way they could actually show the effects of our decisions. Yes, in one case the MQ is completed, but if you're not going to see the effects of your decisions (and I can guarantee that you won't) it doesn't really matter.

You see it in the ending slides!