Poll: Fallout: New Vegas - No play after end?

[GiantRaven]

No. A story has to end sometime afterall.

 

[Doctor VonSexMachine]

It tells you that there's a point of no return, so why did you expect a return? I like the definitive ending, anyway.

I pretty much agree. If they do make a DLC that extends, they should take into account what ending you picked.

 

[Joe Rowland]

Keep playing... I never wanna complete the game now seems like a waste of time spending forever hunting down weapons and armour. "Look I got This Machine, some Holy Frags and an Alien Blaster... but the game says NO" It's harder to bring someone back to life than it is to say this is what happened between... its not like you do whatever ending you got and then rest and boom you are 90 years old.

 

[ChupathingyX]

No because it gives more closure to the end. Depending on what path you choose there are lots of massive changes; companions leave to go do other things, entire factions are destroyed or move on, different people are put in charge, just imagine all the different things Obsidian would have to change, plus like it has been said before these things happen over time.

Fallout 3 on the other hand, the water becomes clean.....wow that's such a big difference. Personally for me it glitched and the water didn't become clean anyway. Not to mention that even after "destroying" the Enclave there were still numerous camps located everywhere.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Whoever said no was stupid.

I mean after the whole epilogue thing I want to see how the world changes with your actions. I mean it will to take time to make a DLC that would make separate worlds for NCR, the Legion, House, or You in control with the other teams pretty much gone, but that would be awesome. Go help NCR wipe out the last of the Legion, help House keep control of New Vegas, or help the Legion just take over rape/pillage/speak in latin or whatever.

Unless they release content that logically must take place after the credits roll, then I have no problem with the game ending. What's more, I find this complaint baffling. When Fallout 1 ended, I was cast into the wastes and the game was over. When Fallout 2 ended, I traveled back to California and the game was over. When Fallout Tactics ended I was merged with the Calculator and the game was over. Continuing the game after the credits roll was something that was never a part of Fallout until Broken Steel was released.

What is so terrible about a game having a concrete ending, a moment where your actions are inventoried and accounted for?

 

[Hookman]

You think Obsidion would have learned from Bethesda's mistake?! I decided to rule New Vegas by myself and I would have loved a Fable 3-esque part of the game where you have to make decisions on the future of the city.

EDIT: Christ on a bike! I'm gone for one week and suddenly there are captcha's everywhere and I have to type the thrase 'Toodle oo' just to make a post! I find it demeaning for some reason.

 

[Dorian]

Absolutely not. The ending is good enough as it is. And the resources necessary to make a DLC of the aftermath is just unrealistic.

If they can maybe find a new threat or enemy to New Vegas to actually continue on would be cool, and better if they would actually change the world more to each different ending's ruling faction. Wouldn't it be interesting to see what the Legion or NCR would do in control of New Vegas? Or If Vegas was free? Plus if you helped the new ruling faction finish off the old enemies and fend off a new threat?

Also known as a sequel. But since making four different games is too much hard work and would chop the canon to hell and back, odds are that it'd only follow one patch. My money's on Mr. House's path.

 

[gellert1984]

No, Unless they release one that makes whatever decisions you made have a serious effect on the story, NCR/caesers legion running vegas for example. But I think thats more likely to be a sequel.

 

[linwolf]

I prefer a game to have a ending. Just make a save before point of no return, problem solved. I find that games where you continue after the credit to be anticlimactic

 

[zombiestrangler]

Spoiler

They most likely will. Why? Because for anyone keeping up with some of the plot points and developer commentaries, there will be a DLC (the last one probably) that will have you duke it out with one of the cut companions in some place called the Divide. I think it would be stupid if they had it so all your exploits with the different factions weren't mentioned in said final battle, so in order to make this fight with Ulysses a better story, they will most likely have it after the main story so it makes sense to the player.

 

[TheIronRuler]

I just completed Fallout: New Vegas a few hours ago. Here were my thoughts:

1. Wow, great game.
2. OK, credits. Skip.
3. Hmm. Reset to the main menu. Weird. I'll try clicking continue.
4. What? I can't continue? Damn it, damn it, DAMN IT!

I researched a little and found that the project director wanted the player to feel that the changes shown in the end slides were major, so decided to give it a definitive end instead of allowing the player to continue afterwards.

So, what are your opinions on this and should Obsidian release DLC to change this?

P.S. I have downloaded a mod that allows you to go on, but it just doesn't feel right. Oh, well.

It;s the same as Broken Steel DLC is Fallout 3.
I'm sure they'll make the last DLC let you continue your tales.

 

[DustyDrB]

Back in November, I was sort of mad about the game ending. But now I see I was stupid. It is unreasonable to expect Obsidian to craft a post-ending game world that accounts for every variable. And if they were to choose one "canon" ending, then we would all be angry about that (and rightfully so).

The way they did it allowed for the best possible narrative. And most every other game has an ending. I think people (myself included) were spoiled by Oblivion's continuing after the main quest. But the thing about Oblivion is that it's story sucked and the world felt too static.

 

[Total LOLige]

It wasn't that bad, you can make a new game or load an earlier save. I recall Obsidian saying they weren't going to release an add on like broken steel for NV.

 

[spencergreenshow]

after the end of fallout 2 it asks you if you want to continue playing, and i accepted the the offer and played for a few more (in game) years, it was fun seeing how all the npc's reacted to your accomplishments and finding the secret after ending items like the 300% skill book in the tiny church in New Reno. I can't recall clearly but I seem to remember a similar offer made after the ending to fallout 1 also, but not in tactics

 

[spencergreenshow]

Whoever said no was stupid.

I mean after the whole epilogue thing I want to see how the world changes with your actions. I mean it will to take time to make a DLC that would make separate worlds for NCR, the Legion, House, or You in control with the other teams pretty much gone, but that would be awesome. Go help NCR wipe out the last of the Legion, help House keep control of New Vegas, or help the Legion just take over rape/pillage/speak in latin or whatever.

Unless they release content that logically must take place after the credits roll, then I have no problem with the game ending. What's more, I find this complaint baffling. When Fallout 1 ended, I was cast into the wastes and the game was over. When Fallout 2 ended, I traveled back to California and the game was over. When Fallout Tactics ended I was merged with the Calculator and the game was over. Continuing the game after the credits roll was something that was never a part of Fallout until Broken Steel was released.

What is so terrible about a game having a concrete ending, a moment where your actions are inventoried and accounted for?

i don't think it effects the endings too greatly to have a play after end experience honestly, because most of the fallout titles have little to do with eachother aside from 1 leading to 2 due to ancestry. playing after the end of fallout 2 had neat perks

 

[DustyDrB]

Necrooooooooooooooo

Though it's depressing to see all the banned users on this page. I remember almost all of them...

 

[evilneko]

It annoys me that there's no play after the main quest. This forces you to basically tell the factions, "hey, hold off on your war for a bit while I go hunt some bounties!" And sadly enough, they shrug and twiddle their thumbs while you do whatever.

With free play, you could at least imagine that they won't do that, and you aren't forced to do an immersion-breaking departure from the questline while everyone's talking about this imminent huge battle...

 

[Jitters Caffeine]

They've already dropped support for the game. There aren't going to be anymore DLC now. But why SHOULD there be play after the finale? That's why it's the FINALE. You reached the exciting conclusion, just reload your last save and keep going. And now you don't have the Skyrim problem of wondering why absolutely nothing has changed since you've essentially saved the world.

 

[fireaura08]

Nah, too many variables in the ending. The DLC would have to be huge (and expensive) to make it worthwhile.

 

[Altorin]

I don't have a problem with the way it is. It sort of lays it out that you're going towards a final end and gives you a lot of warning before you start the final mission. The only real things you miss out on are Lanius' and Oliver's items. There's no real NEED to allow you to keep playing afterwards. If you missed some stuff, you can load your save from before you started the mission (you made a save, right?) and then blam, go complete whatever you want and just consider the game "beat" until you want to end it again for whatever reason.

Or start a new game, follow a different path, try Hardcore mode, buy some new DLC and see how that is... The game has plenty of replay value.