Or will you be able to carry on exploring and developing your character.

One of the things I hated about FO3 and FONV was how the game forced you to reload a previous save after the MQ if you wanted to carry on. I hate the idea of not being able to progress the MQ at a pace that feels right because I am worried about being locked out and needing to reload

Any information on if the game will be left open?

I think I heard no.

Can you quote a source?

I don't know where, but I think they learned their lesson.

I really hope you can. That was one thing I hated about NV and pre-brokensteel 3.

Todd Howard said in a really old interview that they learned their lesson with FO3's hard ending, so I think this one is gonna end in a way that lets you continue like morrowind and skyrim and etc.

They had commented many times that it was a huge mistake to end the game after the main quest and that Broken Steel was their way of fixing things. I think we can be pretty confident that they will not do that again this time around.

With the amount of new players that will buy this game, it would be suicide to do that again.

Normally I wouldn't say this, but I'm going to do it: No, but it absolutely should. Given Beth's track record the game world won't react to the end of the main quest at all, meaning it's pointless to continue on playing in a static world. The only way the game should continue after the end is if your choices are visible in the world.

it should not end i never won nv becose of the hard end i just cant bring my self to do it

I sure hope not.

Leave that poor writing to obsidian. You know you did a bad job when one would rather not see your awful endings.

Fallout 3 ending was not a bad ending as far as I'm concerned. But I'm talking in general, for a game like this an ending that concludes the game and removes your ability to keep playing is a bad idea.

i only want it to continue if beth has actually made your existence matter, if nothing changes then it should just end

I never do any of Bethesda's main quests a second time. So I guess it doesn't much matter to me one way or the other.

But if I had to vote, I would vote for the game to continue after the main quest. Generally speaking, I can't stand games that have an "ending."

I'll go with the hope it doesn't end afterwards. I wouldn't mind if it wasn't a huge area changing event either. Being a local hero like in the sidequests is plenty for me.

I would expect it to, based on past games. And as a huge free-roam/explorer type..... I've never had a problem with it.

First playthrough of Fallout 3, I made a save just before going into the last part of the MQ (at 25 hours played), went through it, saw the ending... and then reloaded my save and continued another 50 hours with that character. Ditto with NV. Made a save at the point they said "Hey, you're at the point of no return!", and then went back to it afterwards.

No biggie.

Im sure Bethesda has figured out by now that we dont like the "free-roam open-world" to end. It is always nice to see your decisions change the world after the story has concluded

Since Fallout 4 is developed by Bethesda Game Studios and Todd Howard I believe said he hates it when video games like open world RPG video games end after you complete the quests. After you complete the main quests in Fallout 4 there probably will be no ending.

Who's to say they won't be? Really, a story doesn't have to transform the whole setting to be good. The story could be more personal in nature, or about dealing with a menace that most of the wasteland is oblivious to. In other words, it is possible to write an engaging story that doesn't require the whole setting to reflect or even be aware of the results.

If the story is primarily about the player character rather than something cliche like what faction controls the wasteland, then post quest results could easily be portrayed.

At any rate, I'd like to finish the story this time. To date, in spite of hundreds of hours of play I've never finished New Vegas. Since the only way to keep the game open ended was to keep the status quo in place by not progressing the plot, I never progressed the plot. Besides, I was backed into a corner where I had to either take out Mr House or the Brotherhood of Steel, and I refused to do either.

One of the things I heard said regarding this was during the E3 discussion about building buildings. How if you built buildings, built a settlement, that Raiders would come (if you build it, they will come!) to attack it. Interesting, although it was not qualified beyond that. Fallout has never run out of Raiders and their terrible armor. This sort of implies that no matter how many times or how many settlements you built, Raiders would attack it (at least once if not more). Therefore it implies that you can build a settlement, defend it and make it grow or otherwise build your own city/town/village/whatever. I would imagine that would be some sort of impact aside from the MQ.

That's funny; I've seen both the truely independent new vegas and the NCR endings, and I didn't think either of them were awful. Must be playing a different game.

This goal in game does not have to be to save the world, has done it so many times its boring, and yes you can save the world by stopping someone from using the rest of the nukes, this might have no impact on the world except the ones who knew about it will like you a lot better. If could still be an awesome endgame but does not have any effects.

It could be two factions fighting over control, result would be something like Skyrim civil war, some town leaders and guards replaced, the losers driven of and work more like raiders now.

Else I agree, I did not finish Fallout 3 until broken steel, it would not fit my pretty neutral / shades of good character to kill herself in an idiot plot.

Finished NV mostly as I was pretty bored of fallout at that time

Now the last point, its probably easier to sell DLC with an open ending, Many people will finish the game and move on, feel like an DLC is a bit like an follow up to titanic

i [censored] hope so, because all Fallouts end after the Main Quest.

And we all know that wont happen.

You're totally right, but there's one problem: Bethesda has specifically said that they want there to be big choices in this game and real decisions. So we know for a fact that they're at least trying to give the player big, world-changing decisions, and we also know how that's worked out in previous, especially in skyrim where after the civil war ends nothing happens, you never fully defeat the stormcloaks / empire, and no high king is ever crowned. That was a kick in the nads with spiked cleats for me, and I'm not going through that again.

I do hope that while the MQ ends, you get to just continue on afterwards with the side quests and just exploring in general.