I finished the main story line of Fallout 4 last night and its been playing on my mind since. Maybe I’m getting old but but the ending is nagging at me. I think the ending it's too black & white, it left me a little disappointed after putting the time into finish the main story line.

The ending was basically which two of the 3 factions do you want to kill off, (I'm discounting the Minutemen as they are fairly benign by the end of the main story). I’d liked to have seen an ending where you had the choice not to just wiped everyone out, but take the best from all the factions and create a new hybrid with you at the helm.

I’ll outline below how I would have liked to see it end.

Being the new Father of the institute you could have changed its direction. You'd probably have to do some missions to take out those who would oppose you and keep your access to the relay open.

The end game could be Father sending the last of the Coursers to assassinate you when you're in one of your settlements, actually make use of what you have constructed, maybe the minutemen could help out a bit? Fending off the attack you head back to the Institute to find Shaun on his death bed, the last dialog would be along the lines of:

1, You say what he is doing is wrong, he is no better than anyone else in the wasteland and finish him off yourself,

2, He blames you for the downfall of humanity and passes away , along the lines of what actually happens if you don't pick the institute ending.

3, (charisma) you convince him what you are doing is for the best, forgive him for what he has done and he passes away.

This could allow you to bring the Railroad into the institute and work to give the Synths a choice if they wanted to stay and work at the institute or leave to live in the commonwealth and beyond. If they chose to leave then the Railroad would continue to work help them against the dangers they face with the institute’s help. Those who stay are treated as equals and continue to work and keep the institute running.

For the BoS it seemed to me that it was just Maxon who was pushing the destruction of all non-humans and non-human sympathisers. Perhaps a shoot out at the Airport including having to take down Liberty Prime could be a good way to finish him off. From there you and a host of Synths teleport to the Prydwen and give Paladin Dance a choice (seems fitting he takes charge uponr Maxon’s death):

1, (charisma) Join forces,

2, Leave the commonwealth, the Prydwen fly’s off the map.

3, Die, shoot out on the Prydwen which is then destroyed.

If you were able to get the join forces option your reward could be Proctor Ingram, working with the Institute scientists, to make you some Institute Power Armour. Not just a painted set of X-01 armour but something completely new. Seems like there is a lot of scope for new Weapon’s and Armour, Institute gattling lasers and such.

This ending could lead into some future expansion packs for Fo4 with other BoS factions taking a dislike to what you’ve done and coming after you maybe a kind of BoS “Civil War” expansion??

?If you picked either of the other endings BoS/Railroad then there would have to be some backstory made up about survivors of the institute teaming up with defecting BoS members to make the third faction.

Anyway thats getting a bit ahead of myself, just think there was an opportunity to end the main story in a more satisfying way and allow for some continued game play as a "new" faction.

Kind of beside the point, but do you know that not all of us read this board using a black background?

All factions have their own shade of gray, not really black and White, the Minute men ending lets you keep 3 out of 4 factions alive and only kill the Institute.

Some good ideas there, not bad m8

Railroad would never work with the Institute, even if they gave up the willing synths the Railroad are to bloodthirsty and hateful towards the Institute to consider anything but the Institute's destruction.

That's kind of my point, they all seem to be hell bent on destroying each other, there's no compromise. I think some more mature story writing could have made for a much richer game or at least a more satisfying ending. Just my opinion though.

I agree. Seems like Beth worked hard to bring moral ambiguity to the story (everything is a shade of gray) but then the end is like an on-off switch. Brotherhood - off, RR - off, Institute - on. Yes, we have the MM ending, but the main problem with this to me is that the ending assumes that EVERYONE in each faction is so dedicated to their own way of thinking that they would never deign to work with or work it out with any of the other factions. Each faction is altruistic in their beliefs while pursuing a goal that has moral ambiguity. There is a depth of goals (the goals of each faction are deep and bring moral questions with them) but the actual characters are one-dimensional, single minded, and NONE of them know how to compromise or change their point of view.

I just find that this breaks my immersion and really is a detriment to the overall enjoyment of the main story. The goals are very advlt but the characters are like little children. I know that this does mirror a lot of real life, but I'd think that SOME of the people involved would be able to open their minds a little, especially when faced with a common enemy.

Someone mentioned in another thread that there should be a peaceful ending, meaning don't blow up the Institute, but use its research to help the Commonwealth. I also feel that blowing up a highly advanced technical institution is detrimental to furthering the development of the Commonwealth.

Sure, you can take over the Institute and change the direction its going in, but in doing so, you will automatically make many enemies. Maybe in time, you could convince people that with you in charge, things will be different. So far, I've only done the Minutemen ending and honestly, I don't know if there is a better one right now. My 2nd character has not joined any of the factions yet (told Preston - No, I'm not your savior) lol and just cleared Arcjet with Danse, but haven't seen him since.

Ohboy. It's more mature then expecting this group who has been hounded by the Institute for 80 years, been beaten to hell and back and lost a good number of it's support and own people then "Yaaaaaaaay let's all hold hands and get along guys!"

Not to say there wouldn't still be distrust, anger, etc within both factions. However the institute is now being run by "one of their own" a person who's helped the Railroad free synths and has removed those in the Institutes old leadership who oppose him/her. I'm sure there will be power struggles and plots to overthrow the new regime from within the Railroad and the Institute. I can see all of these things enhancing the game and allowing for additional content to be produced. Destroying a faction removes those paths for the writers and developers to move the story on.

Would have loved to see the Brotherhood ending have the Brotherhood become the Directorate. Have them control which research is being conducted by each Institute member. Of course, that would require removing Maxson as Elder since he seems fanatical in his destruction of the Institute. Every leader except Preston seems fanatical in the destruction of the other factions. Would have been nice if there was a peaceful solution for those players that don't want to destroy every faction to get a peaceful ending. Of course, Preston gave up all power to the Sole Survivor the first chance he got.

Because war never changes mate...that's kind of the point. If you examine every Fallout game, lack of compromise on ideologies is at the core.

Fallout 1, Master wants to basically wage war on humanity with his creation, the super mutants. Vault Dweller and BoS oppose this

Fallout 2 Enclave believes only by killing off large swaths of humanity can it truly be saved. This again is opposed by the PC and BoS

Fallout 3 Almost the exact same deal as 2, enclave wants to seize the water purifier and use it as a transmission source for their kill all mutated humans virus...once again this is opposed by the PC and the BoS

New Vegas, Here at least there is more of a multi faction struggle all trying to control a key resource, the hoover dam. However as usual we are presented with factions who all differ in their ideology and thus are at conflict with one another. NCR wants to unite the wasteland of North America under one central government, whether the people like it or not. Caesar's legion wants to spread their brand of tyranny under well...Caesar. Mr House in the interest of returning the wasteland..or at least New Vegas, to prewar glory wants to push the other two factions out of the way.

Fallout 4, where we currently stand now etc etc.

Not really any room for compromise when you consider the themes of these games, they mostly focus on the destruction of the enemy or at least crippling them until they can't fight back. Someone, somewhere has got to get blown up. That is sort of why war never changes.

I understand your point but I think gaming has moved on since 97 when the first Fallout came out. They made the move from turn based strategy to free roaming open world. I'd like to see the storytelling move on to offer more choices, something more immersive than pick a side and kill everyone else. Obviously if thats what you want to do then the choices can still be there. I'm just struggling to see how Fallout will survive in the market if they don't move the storytelling on. As with everything its just my opinion, I'd like this series to continue but I'm more demanding of what I want from games these days.

But nevertheless - some wars in history ended with a draw - and no real winner. ( Egyptian Empire vs Hittite Empire for example, oldest known peace treaty ). Requires of course some sense of pragmatism on both sides. When both sides are locked in a stalemate, it is just pointless to continue

Mmmm... but the games have never really gloried in war though. If anything the subtext has always been anti-war and the resolution of the main story tends to be along the lines of using a measured amount of violence to avert conflict on a much wider scale. Admittedly, it seem rare that anything gets resolved without an atomic detonation, but it tends to affect out of the way bases or limited population centres, at least so far as my memory serves.

I think the lack of a clear antagonist changes the nature of the ending from "Evil Averted" to "Booya! Lookit that mushroom cloud!" Which is something of a change from earlier fallouts. It's not so much the unchanging nature of war that leaves a lot of players feeling uneasy as the changing nature of Fallout. IMO, obviously.

I think Fallout 1 and 2 had a more clear cut enemy that needed to be stopped or taken out, in order to bring peace to the wasteland.

Fallout 3 had the Enclave, but not everyone considers them as the true evil, since they are supposed to be the remnants of the true Government. Their means to an end were cold and calculating, sure and don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the Enclave, but there are many on the forums that see them more than just a black and white faction.

Fallout NV had The Legion, and I have never finished a play through on the side of the Legion. However, the areas controlled by the Legion are safe for travelers and merchants. Kaisar rules with an iron fist and I can't stand the way women are treated and the whole enslaving people thing. But, I don't think you could call them evil per se. Plus, all the factions pretty much want you to kill House, and House wants you to kill Kaisar and blow up the BoS and kill the Kings and get rid of the Khans. So, is House really the good guy here?

The Institute is made out to be the enemy, but you find out that they are not really evil, just indifferent to what goes on in the Commonwealth. Every government plants spies in strategic positions, the Institute is just more clever in the way they go about it.

I'm not defending the Institute, since I blew it up the first time around. I'm only saying that I don't think the nature of the games are changing that much. They are just giving us more grey areas and that is a good thing. In the end, you really don't know who the real enemy is anymore.

I suppose. For my money, the Enclave were pretty clear bad guys. I mean they launched an unprovoked attack, are led by an insane AI and a spittle flecked psycho martinet , they are plotting genocide across the whole of the Capital Wasteland and their claim to be the legitimate government of the US is questionable given that their president is a lying computer that's never been elected by anyone, even though he says he has. I can see why many would sympathise with the Enclaves stated aims and political stance, but I think the F3 group were clear bad guys.

NV ... isn't my favourite Fallout for a number of reasons, but the ending isn't one of them. Granted, the various factions were all shades of grey. I tend to regard the NCR as basically decent if going through some troubling changes and the Legion as basically bad guys but with some admirable qualities. But you can make a strong case for or against any of them. On the other hand, NV didn't require the player to nuke Freeside in order to resolve the plot, which is half of the problem with the non-institute endings for F4.

The institute not being evil per se, is what I mean by the lack of a clear antagonist. There isn't really any threat serious enough and unambiguous enough to justify the devastation that the destruction of the Institute should have caused.

I don't think it's a major problem with the game, but it's a niggle. It's difficult to feel any satisfaction at the outcome. Mind, I've only played the railroad one - maybe the others are better.