Ah - right. What was I thinking? Yeah - Bethesda didn't make Fallout: New Vegas. Still, I don't like how you can't continue the game after you beat it; you should be able to. Like I said, I think that it's just a tactic used in order to get people to buy DLC. Good or not, I don't think that it's right.ArcWinter said:
Fallout New Vegas - Why does it stop? SPOILERS
- Thread starter Syphous
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Broken Steel was fun gameplay wise, but it also means that the final choice of the original, which was a big deal initially, is now worthless because sacrificing yourself or the other is now irrelevant.
In New Vegas your choice actually has impact. To "continue" the already concluded story (as some of you seem to think will happen) they would need to either make four DLCs and release them (not going to happen) or make it so that all four endings have the exact same impact on the world, thereby making the whole game pointless.
In New Vegas your choice actually has impact. To "continue" the already concluded story (as some of you seem to think will happen) they would need to either make four DLCs and release them (not going to happen) or make it so that all four endings have the exact same impact on the world, thereby making the whole game pointless.
The problem with Fallout 3's ending wasn't that the game ended but that the game ended STUPIDLY. And, at least on some small level, that the game didn't really need to end at that point.
New Vegas has a legit reason for being a closed-ending game. As someone pointed out, they'd need to make a DLC megapack to account for four different ways the game could end, and even then the faction-rivalry thing only works up to the point where the ending happens. It's natural closure.
Not to say I wouldn't love to continue playing just to soak up the ambience of the game (much the same way I continue to wander the Wasteland finding stuff even after the events at Adams AFB in Broken Steel), but I can simply put off beating the main quest and I don't feel like I've missed anything (kind of like Oblivion---even though that game doesn't "end" it's not like I feel any real need to do the main quest to its completion!)
New Vegas has a legit reason for being a closed-ending game. As someone pointed out, they'd need to make a DLC megapack to account for four different ways the game could end, and even then the faction-rivalry thing only works up to the point where the ending happens. It's natural closure.
Not to say I wouldn't love to continue playing just to soak up the ambience of the game (much the same way I continue to wander the Wasteland finding stuff even after the events at Adams AFB in Broken Steel), but I can simply put off beating the main quest and I don't feel like I've missed anything (kind of like Oblivion---even though that game doesn't "end" it's not like I feel any real need to do the main quest to its completion!)
I happen to enjoy the defined ending. Most stories that leave the world open to exploration at the end have no contunity with the actions of the story. In fable 3, "horray! the king who beat the uber evil is buying at my shop", that's it. No "holy freaking crap, it's the king who saved six million of us, let's atleast offer him a nice cup of tea." Even Broken Steel didn't fully correct to massive perception shift that should've occured with the world's NPC. "He saved the wastes and almost died to give us free water, you think he could haggle with these guys in power armor for us?" The story is epic and, to remain so, needs it's D-Day to cap off the epic struggle. After saving the world, do you really want to see your character wandering into every single rathole and random shack looking for crumbs of new story fluff missed in the main game. If you've played games with no defined ending, then you've probably realized that those games are fun for about 1 hour after you've won, then you go back to Fallout 3 or NV to try a Legion/melee build.
Obsidian was dead set on making all the same mistakes that were made with Fallout 3.
I mean, honestly, it almost seems like they were trying to do it on purpose.
Was their one shot to get above the stigma of shitty QA, but they failed harder than ever and have absolutely no excuse whatsoever this time around.
I mean, honestly, it almost seems like they were trying to do it on purpose.
Was their one shot to get above the stigma of shitty QA, but they failed harder than ever and have absolutely no excuse whatsoever this time around.
Oh cool, then I am playing it right then. I have clocked in countless hours, my character is level 13 and I havent been to New Vegas yet. And the thought of it ending, well, sucks. I have to admit, I am addicted to New Vegas. I don't want to do anything else for leisure at the moment. I have 60-ish unwatched of my favorite shows on my DVR and counting.
Just as a note... In Fallout 3 if you let the purifier just explode the broken steel DLC won't be played through because the Broken Steel events require the purifier to be around to make sense.
I'm actually pretty sure they didn't originally intend for the "Broken Steel" DLC to be added on at the end of Fallout 3. They just ret-con the fact the main character dies, and it instantly makes sense.
I'm actually pretty sure they didn't originally intend for the "Broken Steel" DLC to be added on at the end of Fallout 3. They just ret-con the fact the main character dies, and it instantly makes sense.
I think (I'm not sure) that Jason Bergman said that one thing that will not be appearing in an add-on is the ability to extend the game, like in Broken Steel.
the game comes to a very good conclusion. I think these games SHOULD stop when you beat them because you can put off ending the game indefinitely. One of the DLCs I'm sure will remove the "arbitrary" endgame, but until that point, I'm happy to just finish the game and load an earlier save if I want to continue playing that character.
Why is everyone so up in arms about a game's story having an ending? Every Fallout game has had a definitive ending where your character walks off into the sunset and your play pretty much ends. Frankly, Broken Steel was a smart investment because it wrung the last drops of cash out of whiny fans.
Each Fallout game has had a story that is fully encompassed within the gameplay. Its as if they designed the games to have a beginning and an ending with the player being the person to fill in the blanks between the two.
Anyway, there's a point during New Vegas where a message will pop up basically saying "This is the point of no return. Still feel like continuing?" If you ignored the message and went on to finish the game, then that's your fault. I liked the fact that New Vegas ends because it sets the stage for more Fallout games once Obsidian and Bethesda can decide which of the endings was canon (probably NCR or House)
Each Fallout game has had a story that is fully encompassed within the gameplay. Its as if they designed the games to have a beginning and an ending with the player being the person to fill in the blanks between the two.
Anyway, there's a point during New Vegas where a message will pop up basically saying "This is the point of no return. Still feel like continuing?" If you ignored the message and went on to finish the game, then that's your fault. I liked the fact that New Vegas ends because it sets the stage for more Fallout games once Obsidian and Bethesda can decide which of the endings was canon (probably NCR or House)
Funny that. lol Who would imagine such a thing. A story having an ending? Poppycock!Vern5 said:
Probably won't be a canonical ending. We probably won't be back to the Mojave in a new game for a long while, and by then enough of the dust will settle that probably all of the endings will be rendered moot by some other thing
Yeah while it seems that they did not learn their lesson this game is far more difficut to continue. They would practically have to rebuild the world to show how it had changed under the rule of the new factions. WOW cataclysm but more interesting.GamesB2 said: