And it would ruin my... "immersion" if the game didn't imply that by leaving that other stuff undone was my choice and hence [consequence] or [blank] as in I can't tell unless I go for another round and see how it might affect thigns (which is another kind of consequence). See, I want an RPG where these sidequests don't simply exist in their isolated bubbles with only loose narrative ties to the world. Some must, obviously, but I want a game where there is a connection between the side stuff and the main story. That I am urged to see and do stuff (or leave stuff knowingly undone), and think about how I do it and how it might affect the rest of the game and the ending I get when I decide to go for it. I want to see what kind of storyline the PC that I create provides, the beginning, the journey and the ending. In my mind it's an asset that I can't possibly do everything in one go (nor leave behind to clean the the place of surplus quests); that's what drives me to start over and try those things I missed the last time around.

If the other Fallout games are of any indication: no, no there will not be. If there is anything, there'll hopefully be a warning to let us know we're about to reach the point of no return so we had better create a new save right before the final mission.

So again, you can quit at the ending and start over. Why is it necessary for you to force me to do the same?

Sorry but that breaks, wait for it, immersion!

Yep. I'm glad New Vegas did it and Obsidian didn't cave to fan pressure to change it.

Oh PLEASE.

Enough with this caving into pressure nonsense. I am sick and tired of this. Game developers are not artistes. They're making a product and we as consumers have the right to present feedback on what we want.

You know why FONV has a set ending? Because Obsidian's designers are the opposite of Obsidian's writers. They are lazy.

In FONV's files there is voicework and a few things pointing to a post-game beyond the Hoover Dam battle. They just gave up on that and made a set ending.

There's your artistic integrity for you. Developers who couldn't be bothered.

Obsidian didn't make post ending gameplay because the sheer number of things that would/could be changed would basically require them make another game, which they obviously couldn't do. It wasn't because they were lazy,

Though I will say that knowingly designing a game you can't finish is a stupid move.

You DON'T get dropped back, you just quit and start a new game. I, on the other hand, if I so choose, can keep on playing. HOW IS THAT A BAD THING?

Maybe I want to do a few more side quest with my hero. Maybe I want the people of the wasteland to say "hey, there's that guy that saved us all! Want a discount?" You don't need that so just quit. Why can't we both have the solution we want instead of my option being taken away by yours? You SPECIAL?

Fallout 2? And no I hate this point of no return messageboxes.

Well, that's something Obsidian became rather infamous for.

True, but that's another matter entirely.

Well i suppose we just have to agree to disagree, i just believe more options the better and if one way allows both sides to get what they want yet one only allows one sides vision to proceed i think everyone should get their way, Afterall with a post ending play option those against can always choose to end their characters run, while without it those of us who do want one have no way of continuing ours.

But end of the day i respect your opinion and point of view

Yeah, and you can keep playing as long as you like as long as you don't finish the main quest.

Perhaps the main quest shouldn't be about an impending doom, but about a personal journey where reaching the ultimate goal and ending is a choice in itself ("what will you do with what you've found" -- eg. leave the region, kill yourself, stay and do stuff, stay but don't pursue any specifc further goals in effect getting a different ending). And structured so that you can go straight there without getting but a gilmpse of the world and recieving a very brief closure, or follow the breadcrumb trails the way you choose to and get the more comprehensive closure through your actions.

In any case, like I said earlier, if the the ending can be comprehensive and unaffected of the prompted continuation, I guess it'd be fine.

And you don't need to fi.... yeah, I've said that enough times.

And I'm tired of fans calling people who work 70+ hours a week lazy. But whatever. And did I say you couldn't complain? Go ahead. I do it too. It wasn't feasible for them in about a years time to create that post ending content due to the number of ways the story can end. Not because they're lazy. I don't buy that and never will.

Fallout 3 is the only game in the franchise that has post-ending gameplay. I would love for Bethesda to at least pretend they have a different franchise on their hands and not make it as close to TES as they can.

Edit: Oh, someone else said the same thing.

To do it right, they'd need to only write the ending for the main quest, not the fates of any of the locations that can be affected once the MQ is over.

KOTOR2, Alpha Protocol, FONV and more, all released in various stages of incomplete ranging from mostly playable with some omissions to "oh my god there's only half a game here".

So yes. Lazy.

There were not THAT many variations in NV that absolutely needed to be reflected in the post game anyway.

Fallout 2.

As much as people [censored]ed and whined about it with fallout 3 I wouldn't be surprised if you could continue after the main quest ends in fallout 4.

No. The point of the ending is that it reflects everything (in the limits of possibility) you've done during your treck; not just a brief main quest. the main quest is the backbone of the story, the stuff beside it the meat.

How hard would it be to have a game option "Continue after MQ", where each of the sides here can both get what they want?

I think Mass Effect 2 had an option like that. Continue or quit. After the credits rolled.

I'd be fine with that.

This right here is what i think as well. It doesn't make much sense for ending slides to play, then i completely ruin settlements and factions afterwards during post endgame gameplay.

I'm of the opinion that the ending should be an actual ending, that way the story has a better sense of closure. It doesn't make sense if you become the savior of boston (or whatever) and then you just sorta dike around as a murder-hobo,

i wouldn't call obsidian lazy, but overly ambitious for the project's budget allows for.

Alright. Here's a thought. Stay with me on this.

If it doesn't make sense for you to wipe out a settlement that the ending said will prosper.. don't wipe it out.

Have you no self control whatsoever? I am really sick and tired of people saying my options should be limited because your immersion will be ruined by your own actions.

Yeah. I mean, they only had a [censored] year for christ's sake...

I have my gripes about New Vegas (and it's a rather long list too), but it's a damn miracle that they achieved what they did with what they got, and it that light it's pretty damn impressive.