Where did i say i wanted that feature?? i said it did'nt bother me either way. Why should it bother anyone having a free roam after completing the game? The thing that suprises me is all the people that are SO against it. You either use it or you dont.

the same way it suprises me of the people that want it in so badly when it's already there with loading a game before the final battle?

well its not there if you have to load a previous save, is it?
If it keeps a selection of fans happy by having free roam at the end, then im not against it. It makes no difference to me either way

It is basically the same thing, you are returned to the main land, and can continue doing what you wish. *shrugs* All it does would be to do it automatically after the slides or with a pop up asking "do you want to continue?" put "yes" and it loads the world back up right?

I guess some people like completing the game then exploring. Thats their preference.
The thing is, if some people want free roam after the end, then you, me, or anyone else have no right to tell them its wrong, especially when what they want wouldn't affect you me or the others that just start a new character. Why be against something that doesn't affect you.
When someone starts one of these threads (which is quite often) everyone jumps down there throat.
If thats what some fans want, then make it so in FO4. No harm done. no more of these threads (hopefully)

And here we return to the "Oblivion with guns" design of Fallout 3 :hehe:

Of course it does. It water-down the series characteristic even further and wasted good Bethesda resources for delivering something new.

water down the series characteristic?? how exactly would it do that?
Letting people roam the map after completion would take up absolutely zero resourses. If people want to do that then why not let them?
Some people on here are against something that would make absolutely no difference to the way they play and enjoy the game.

I believe it's because the Fallout series is known for having an ending sequence, since the very first one.
So, basically, if Bethesda, or Obsidian, or someone makes a Fallout game that doesn't have a definite ending, where you can keep on playing it, it basically ruins one of the big features of the Fallout games.

Well that why its only an option. Im not suggesting more missions or story. Just let the people that want to roam the map do it.
Its not what i would do but there are clearly players that wish to do so. It wouldn't affect anyone

I'd say better keep it as it is. If they simply open up the ending without having anything affected by the ending, they just get accused of being lazy - and quite frankly, I think they'd get more flak from it than praise. People should learn to let go from their characters and create new ones, or learn to evade the ending if freeroam is what they want (and freeroam is there from the start to the beginning of the last quest without a timelimit).

Its already like that (just prior to the end). :shrug:

(IMO its bad enough that you can wander indefinitely, while everything sits in wait for your return... But it is like that, and players can roam about at will).

The way it affects, has already been stated. Free roam after the end allows for discrediting the end; but more insidiously [IMO], it removes the finality of the game's end, and encourages the chance of future games in the the series' endings to be designed with a more ambiguous "end", and potentially no end at all. :banghead:
This would affect everyone.

** I would hate for the series to adopt a noncommittal approach to the "ending" slides; prefacing or disclaiming every outcome with "seems", "perhaps" and "likely"; As in, "The Brotherhood fought valiantly against the mutants, but were ~sadly, overwhelmed by the greater numbers and sheer brutality of the mutant army. It seems likely they were destroyed in the battle." :yuck:. Or "With the apparent death of their last remaining members, the Enclave has finally met it's end ~perhaps."

By your own logic then you could just load a save and walk away from the final battle.

I tried making the suggestion that being able to continue was an option before the game was released and the vociferous advocates of open ended games didn't react well, basically stating that it would ruin their 'immersion'.

I just find it weird why it bothers people so much. The players that didn't continue would be no worse off and the players that chose to roam the mojave would be happy.
I would never be against something that doesn't affect me or the gameplay. It would only discredit the end of game for those that chose to play on.
Have the normal end slides then let the player have the option of roaming the mojave.

Very true, I had suggested something as basic as "You have completed the game, do you want to continue playing (Yes/No)" appearing as a pop up which would have allowed those who desired to continue playing regardless of whether the post 'ending' gameworld had any continuity with how you played through the game or not, and those of us who prefer an ending to start again without wondering if we've missed something vital and thus have knackered the game's ending up.


As I'm mentioned/admited in other threads I'm an advocate of games having a definate ending as the majority of the open ended games I've played in my 'opinion' have had quest lines which were underwhelming and the end of the main quests were more of a damp fizzle which tends to result in my going "was that it ?????". Also a lot of them feel as if it doesn't matter what you do during the game it always turns out exactly the same way.

I couldn't agree more. Did Fallout 2's freeplay mode ruin the integrity of the game's ending? I don't think so. I don't see why this should be such a controversial issue. :shrug:

actually a game "ending" isn't that big a deal since you just avoid the last quest until you want the game to end...but having said that, its just annoying to have an open world sandbox game end after the main quest...its a lack of work on the developers side and this idea that all these "changes" happen so they can't continue past the ending, thats just nonsense, they just make a story that a lot of changes happen so that they don't have to work as much on the game, its a shortcut, a timesaver....its not about making the game better.

No it was just really boring and pointless. If Obsidian hadn't changed anything about the post-game world in New Vegas you know they would've gotten flak for it.

You can turn this argument around just as easily. People who want to freeroam can freeroam right now. Just don't start the last segment of the main quest. The definite ending crowd is satisfied and the freeroam players should also be satisfied because they get a big pop-up saying when they're at the point of no return and are free to wander around to their heart's content. However for some reason they aren't satisfied with that unless they can check off the main quest before doing it.

Why would anyone prefer a philosophy of design that stressed insignificant change? The whole point of it that the PC's interactions with the different areas of the world affect significant change (for the good, or bad, of the inhabitants). If you liberate the wasteland from major oppression, and they are said to live happily ever after, and be forever in your debt, then the developer should not have to implement all of the extrapolated changes that would occur (and that would likely tame the game environment); and they should not need to allow for contradicting events post ending, (like killing off the happy people).


Personally... I believe that its best to abruptly end it while one still wants to play, rather than to allow the player's last memories of the game to be that they got bored with it. Limitless free play [of this kind] devalues every aspect of a game IMO; and seems like it would be a nightmarish minefield to the creative writer, and their endeavor to craft a compelling story.

Wouldn't you be more annoyed if all these "changes" happened and you had no new quest's to do with any of it (they would almost have to make all entirely new quests due to the changes) and it would kill immersion and realism.Sadly what bs done:)(still a good dlc in ways tho ).

Every game that I have ever played (except F3 with Broken Steel) has ended
Let me look up the meaning of "end" for you:

Hm... still means what I remembered it as. A goal that you strive for, which will bring you to a conclusion, and then... you're finished.
Some games you even die, or they end in such a way that there need to be a sequel for it.

And on STALKER, I've played Shadow of Chernobyl, there were 7 different endings IIRC, I only experienced like 3 of them I think, and I didn't get to play after any of them because... 5 of them you die, 1 you get put in a tube and the "good" one you "fix" the whole Zone, make it a paradise. FUN to play post-ending after that! Then in Clear Sky, there is only one ending where you are captured, and turned into a mindless zombie. FUN to play post-ending after that! But I haven't played the third game.


The world would have to adapt to http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings in that case. And then you'd complain there's no new quests to do in this new world

Really?
You can't have played games like MS Flight Simulator, Train Simulator,Fork Lift Truck Simulator (etc!) Rollercoaster Tycoon, The Sims, Oblivion ... :biggrin:

Hoho, simulators! And a fantasy RPG.
I've played Rollercoaster Tycoon and The Sims when I was a kid, but got rather bored with them, they just wouldn't end!!! Or well, you could go bankrupt in Tycoon IIRC, and in The Sims, your characters could die before they got any children or anything but... you mostly played The Sims to kill your sims in different ways, and to build a house and decorate it and its garden.

Well thats the point. There not satisfied with it. So theres no harm in putting the option in. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if they added it to FO4, because i wouldn't use it