I was just giving an example. Yes i realize it would take some time to add in all the different combination's of endings. You would have to get rid of certain npcs destroy certain buildings etc. I don't see it being extremely complicated. Way to be a smart ass quoting a certain phrase over and over.

I'd like to punch you in the face repeatedly.

re: doing things you didn't finish.

I did that in FO3. After watching the closing video, I reloaded the save from just before and went out into the wasteland to do all the things I hadn't. Spent twice as long doing that, as I had before the "end."

Of course, the world is so big, I didn't actually see and do "everything". Which was good, because in each of the subsequent times I've started a new game of FO3 (4 or 5 more, now), I've been able to discover new stuff.


Meanwhile, with other RPGs with clear ends (console games like the Final Fantasies, Xenosagas, etc; PC games like Mass Effect or DA; etc) I've typically played them multiple times as well. Either to try other classes, or to do "100% clear" playthroughs using a hint guide. (That's more a console thing. Another handy thing in the console games is: when you get near the end, someone typically speaks up and says very clearly "Once you go through this door/into this dungeon/on this ship/whatever, you can't come back. Is there anything else you wanted to get done first?")

Starting over again is fun.

the thing is, if the game ends it seems far more dramatic and gives it that special feel, whereas if it continues, then you just get bored of it, and thats not a very good ending to the story, is it...?

Well that is 100% opinion. You might get bored of it, but I sure as hell won't.

I used to say the same thing, but in reality. After you complete the game especially post-Broken Steel, there's nothing to do. You've done everything. It gets quite boring. Now there is no END..Its basically like living forever...its a curse...

You're not thinking long term... Keep the endings of Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics in mind. Not Fallout 3 where the changes are few and within days.


And I wasn't pissing you off, that comment wasn't directed at you personally. But since Fallout 3 is a Bethesda game, it drew a lot of fans from TES and they all expected continuity after the ending and got pissed off when they got none, while all the Fallout fans expected this and were ok with it since... well, it's a Fallout game. And I'm saying that they're ok with the fact that it ended, and not how good/bad the ending was (the Fallout 3 ending couldn't compare to any other Fallout ending)

Having an ending doesn't automatically make the story better nor does not having a definitive ending make a story worse as some would have you believe. Both can be done in good and bad ways.

Personally, I don't get why folks want a forced ending with a few lines of scrolling text telling me that same random npc lived happily ever after, big deal. If you want a definitive ending that badly, just quit playing. Problem solved.

I'd rather have the game continue after the MQ and actually be able to see and experience these changes I've made to this world rather than just be told about them. Having a definitive end though at least allows the developers to not have to bother actually creating that content. Whether that is a good or bad thing is up to the individual.

I like to be a smart ass every once and a while, I don't do that very often, and I think I can stand a few punches too.

Anyway, the point is that supporting the endgame content in a game like this likely eats too much time and resourses from the core game, thus making the core experience suffer. And it really isn't "(please don't hit me)" if you really have to consider all the possibilities the story offers for the ending and craft the map to support all those things indiviually (and knowing that some people don't even experience half of that as not everyone bothers to play more than once, or even continue after the ending; meaning, too much effort for things that really don't matter in the long run).

I doubt you've done everything there is always something to do. Don't even try to
argue that it isn't opinion. Doesn't matter if I am the only one who enjoys it's still opinion.

You have two options:

You can either play after the end and "see" what your actions have wrought, but with the caveat that nothing of substance will change, much like Broken Steel and how for entering the virus, you get two lines about how the purifier had problems that have since been resolved.

OR

You can have a Fallout 1/2 style end with Ron Perlman ending narrations (!!!) that discuss, often in great detail, what happened as a result of your actions. This gives the writers the freedom to have endings like Fallout 1's Shady Sands = NCR vignette (which otherwise wouldn't be possible until FO2), or FO2's "Broken Hills began to thrive... Then the uranium ran out and the town dispersed" ending vignette.

In an ideal world we'd see the results of our actions in the game world itself, but that would take a massive amount of developer time to implement unless you halfass it like BS did. Text + Some still images + Ron Perlman's voice is a lot cheaper and allows the writers to have huge consequences for your actions, rather than nonsense "oh you had these wonderful changes... Yet none of them matter in the game world."

You know, like BS.

hehe not really. You know, opinions and all that.

The big difference between Fallout 3's ending and the classics' ending http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SalRLxBLu0. In Fallout 3, you have... 3 (?) possible endings. In the others, you can have over a hundred (Or more? I don't remember). The consequences of your actions in the classics happened a long time after the main quest.

If New Vegas were to be playable after the ending, the following things would have been considered:

- The consequences of your actions can't take effect the time you finish the main quest.
- The consequences of your actions can kill important quest NPCs, destroy entire villages, split a faction in half, make a settlement prosper, etc.

This requires a whole new game. A company wouldn't have the budget and time to "make a sequel" (Because that's what it'd look like)
People would request new quests, like helping a settlement, etc.

All in all, Obsidian is making the ending. à la Fallout Classics. I will surely not be disappointed by it and I'm eager to watch the slideshows telling me what happened because of what I did. And hear Ron Perlman's voice again.

I get what your saying. I wouldn't want the core game-play to suffer at all. I just don't see continuing the story taking up that much time and resources. I mean it would definitely take some, but I don't think it would be enough to hinder the core game. I could be wrong though. Most likely am lol

Bad news, everyone! The game ends! Blasphemy! A thing yet unheard of! How could they, in this series, always known for its grand open-end gameplay!

I was speaking as in everything you wanted to do. Not everything in the full game >_>

It has a ending, just save before the ending and keep on playing. There's nothing stopping you from exploring everything you want.

i wanna be able to continue, and to all you poeple who say it would be better to end it, when you complete the main quest, quit, problem solved.

/shrug Certainly takes all the tension out of the main quest though doesn't it?

"Hey Mr. Courier, the big bad guy over there is doing something terrible, you're the only one that can stop him!!"

"Meh, I'll do it later. If I stop him now I won't ever be able to do anything else. Think I'll go poke around a few areas I haven't explored yet. Surely the big bad guy will conveniently wait for me to finish all my little side quests before he puts his plan into action."

Totally agree. Remember Lyons saying something along the lines of if we need to attack the purifier now blah blah blah? Then your just like yeah w/e and never come back because you don't want the game to end. Yeah that totally makes sense.

A lot of the urgency is lost when you do that.

i wanna be able to end, and to all you poeple who say it would be better to continue, when you complete the main quest, reload a save, problem solved.

Fallout 1 had a time limit. Sure, go venture in the wastes, help people, travel a lot. But the Master's Army is growing they're planning on destroying your Vault.

If you played for too many months/years, you'd eventually see the very nice cutscene of your Vault being attacked and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfyqlMBeQFU Game Over.

That's something I'd like to see. With a reasonable time limit so you can still have time to do some side quests.

I just noticed this post on page 2. Exactly. freaking exactly. I think you actually understand my thought process. Marry me, lol that was a joke but yeah.

Why be forced to stop playing when you could continue? I know I know all you like throwing "well you can just reload a save" back at my face. Well you shouldn't have to reload a save, you should be able to keep ALL your progress and ALL those little trinkets you picked up doing the last quest.

If you are on PC, you can expect a Play After Main Quest mod to be available very soon after release.

I don't play on pc. I'm too poor to afford a gaming pc. :cryvaultboy:

Wouldn't play on pc anyways because I'd end up using mods.
To me mods are kinda like cheats. I'm going to use them since they are there. Even if I don't want to.

Some are pretty cool though. Like the ones that add whole new areas. Still though would be to tempted to use cheat commands and stuff lol.

thats certainly your opinion, but i don't see how just because gameplay stops somehow that makes the game better. that makese no sense, so you enjoy the game better if you can't play it?

Dont Buy it then.. Oh wait your going too, stop complaining accept it how it is.

Its more than that really. I've always kinda rolled my eyes at slide show endings in games.

Does having all the time you spent amount to nothing more than an alternate flavor text really feel that meaningful? Certainly doesn't to me. Why should I as a gamer care if a particular settlement in the game thrives or is wiped out if I never get to experience it? Sure you got Ron Pearlman's velvety voice telling you about it, but me, I'd rather go out there and see it and experience it.

Part of me tends to feel like this sort of ending is just laziness on the part of developers, but that isn't giving them enough credit I think. Still, I'd prefer to see the outcomes reflected in the game world. Would it be challenging? Sure, but it certainly isn't unobtainable. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask developers to challenge themselves.

Does it take away from the story telling? No of course not. The MQ still ends, it can still be epic, and unless the story ends with (a rather played out and frankly boring) death of the main character, then they obviously lived on to do other things. They didn't just dematerialize after the MQ ended.

I think its just an issue of perspective. Some folks see the MQ as the end all be all of the game. Once its done, you're done. Others see the game as more than just a task list to complete. Its certainly why I prefer open ended games to being lead around on an amusemant park ride.

In the end though, the course has already been charted. FO:NV will have an end, and I'm sure I'll roll my eyes at it just as I do to 98% of the games out there. Doesn't mean it won't be a fun and excellent game.