I feel this subject could keep going, so new thread!

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1581028-needs-a-peaceful-ending/page-1

Regarding named scientists at the Institute

Regarding the organizational de-escalation instituted by gaining leadership of an organisation: I've been there and done that. When you gain the lead of an organisation you do have a significant influence on policy and, yes, you can redirect the organisation's alignment, especially, if you gain control of policy and membership. Other groups and individuals, however, take longer to accept the changes. In the beginning of the reform process, some of the people, originally opposed to the organisation entering the reform process, will also oppose any reform of the organisation and provoke conflict with the consequence of slowing or setting back the reform process. This is because such people are motivated to battle with the organisation, not to improve overall social conditions, but as an excuse to engage non-consenting parties in sadomasochistic behaviour. This kind of behaviour is easily broken if the organisation being reformed maintains a strict "no regression or you're out" policy in conjunction with a evidence-based system of due process. People within the organisation who are inclined to respond to the hostilities will, in preference to being made an example, generally leave of their own accord. And, thusly, sadomasochistic interest in bringing the organisation to "justice" pretty much dies with the exodus.

It's definitely doable - but the road is much rockier in application (especially at the beginning) than it is in theory - and if it's going to be made more realistic, everybody pushing some kind of solipsistic agenda, whether on an individual or organisational level, will be telling more and more easily exposable lies as their stratagem gradually loses its influence.

In case of the institute the problem, they may not want to leave this cosy place. So they may oppose you secretly behind your back, however

That is exactly the reason why I would like to have something like this in the game. That sounds like a huge potential for tons of branching quests . Figure out who would support reforms, and who opposes them. Put the loyal persons in the right positions to keep your current position. When many don't express their opinion openly, that can become difficult.

With the current ending I have three problems

a ) while we have 4 faction-endings, we have gameplay-wise only one FPS ending. That is getting old pretty fast ( at least for me )

b )I see no motivation for my char to end the main quest at all. Those factions may be antagonists and are unable/unwilling for any compromise. But why exactly is that the problem of my character? Kellogg is dead, I have found my son - my personal MQ is over.

c ) It's too simple. Shoot your way through one or two end levels, and that's it - meh. Not really a challenge and you don't have to use your brain at all.

I agree that there should be some sort of political ( not necessarily peaceful ) ending, but it should be

the most difficult ending, some sort of mental challenge, a real labyrinth of decisions where you can not easily see the outcome. It should be hard to succeed, and easy to loose. ( yes, IMHO it should actual be possible to loose the main-quest )

and before someone come with the argument that a political ending would be unrealistic - a lawyer who was frozen for 210 years becooming some sort of uber soldier who alone decide a war - that is not realistic either

Discounting the magical ability the PC has to ignore quests until he/she is comfortable in fulfilling them, one would assume that Shaun (due to the fact he has limited time left in the world) would not be so patient in forcing his parent to choose a side permanently. The reactor will eventually be ready. The beryllium agitator will need to be removed from Mass Fusion. He will still give his order to destroy the Railroad and he will not brook disagreement on performing that task.

In reality, any position where you are subordinate to another also means time considerations are subordinate as well.

Logically, if you want the Institute to keep teleporting you around, providing you with X6 as a companion, and giving you access to their resources, then you'll have to step up and follow Father's orders or he'll cut bait as the Survivor prevaricates.

It's my opinion that the Survivor's ability to go do whatever quests they want when they want should be regarded more as game mechanic than actual ability.

I got a weird Minuteman ending on my last game. I'm still able to do quests for the Brotherhood, the Railroad, and the Minutemen, but it just doesn't seem right. Also, I can still roam around with Danse as I never went that far into the Brotherhood ques line. When I approach Maxson all he says is "I can't talk right now. I've got a lot on my mind." I can't help but wonder if he's contemplating weather the Minutemen are a threat or not.

The MM ending where the RR and BoS both are around seems the least well set up.

Some dialog works just fine and seems to reference events with no real issues (Dez, Quinlan, Ingram). Other dialog is either missing (Maxson) or references things that didn't happen (Glory dying -- which also causes Glory to break and she just meanders around RR HQ silently) or regard a completely different ending (PAM giving out missions to kill BoS remnants).

I'm betting the MM ending was the last one they put together.

"War, war always has a peaceful ending with everyone holding hands in a circle...." Said no one ever

Would he actually banish the Sole Survivor for that, snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

That option is not available within the default game MQ tree. Either you do it, or you choose to side with another faction which inevitably leads to the Nuclear Option one way or the other.

Like the magical ability the PC has to ignore quests until s/he is comfortable with fulfilling them, this is purely an artifact of gameplay. There's no IC reason why you shouldn't be able to outright refuse and then see what he does.

Agreed, you should be able to.

My statement is more to indicate that 'I don't know, the answer's not in game' and anything else would be speculation.

I speculate that yes, if you don't maintain loyalty past a certain point (and ignoring a direct order would be a major issue), he would Banish you.

I know he's egotistical, but I find it hard to believe he's quite that dumb. He's basically choosing to declare war on the Sole Survivor in a situation where he really doesn't have to.

If he is how I believe he is, anything less than utter loyalty to him and his legacy (the Institute) is unacceptable for his surviving parent.

This is based on my assessment of the character, of which I believe you've seen my thoughts on his psyche.

What does loyalty to him matter? He's about a week, tops, away from keeling over. Loyalty to the Institute is another matter, but I don't think that the Railroad's destruction is necessary for the Institute, and I'd appreciate being able to make that argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Shaun say outright you destroying the Railroad is basically for the benefit of the rest of the Institute? As in, if they see you do it they'll be convinced you're firmly on the Institute's side and not plotting to deprive them of their convenient work force, which in turn would mean they'll be happier to accept you as their new leader?

I may be wrong and this might be what he says about another mission though. Still, he does seem to be trying hard to endear you the rest of the scientists and make the power transition as smooth as possible.

For some funny reason, I always thought those hands would be too busy pushing up daisies

Well, for it to work as an RPG, the player does need some autonomy when it comes to choosing what to do and when. And it makes sense in terms of the Sole Survivor doing quests as favours which often carry some reward but are certainly not contracts or employment arrangements. If anything, quests are meagrely confluent with activities which provide far more resource and materiel value for the Sole Survivor.

Basically, if you can find a way to live within your own means, you will have a great deal of autonomy - that much is quite realistic. And if your association with an organisation is based on their need of you and not vice versa - then you get to make quite a few calls because you're not the one who looses strength if you just walk away. Bear in mind, moreover, the Institute isn't the only organisation looking for a troubleshooter. As someone with either legal training or formerly partnered to a lawyer and, thus, privy to the process of negotiation, it's not unreasonable to expect that the Sole Survivor could hold her/his own at the negotiating table.

So, it would make sense that long before the Sole Survivor would rise officially to leadership, her/his cooperation and non-defection would depend heavily on the Institute's respect of key behavioural boundaries and this is the kind of often-overlooked dynamic which, in practice, sees an organisation adjusting to the character of a member instead of trying to force a member to be untrue to her/himself.

1. This criticism seems to be coming out a lot - although getting it out of the more common "game's too easy" statements feels like pulling teeth. I totally agree with you. There's not nearly enough cerebral challenge and some of the mysteries (e.g. Cabot House) are not the real deal because there's no objective basis for a decision - it's either just a role of the dice, a subjective judgement call, or deferment to blind anolytical procedures like Ockham's Razor due to insufficiency of evidence that is:
   
   i. Relevant,
   
   ii. Verifiable and
   
   iii. Probative.


2. I know I'm cutting you off mid-sentence, here, but I just keep coming back to this idea of yours. I think there's a need for at least the Main Quest to be much deeper and riddled with multiple outcomes and consequences. I mean, if I don't like where a decision leads, well, that's a good excuse to retire my character, start a whole new story and see where it leads when I am more thoughtful of the broader considerations. If it's not such a big deal, then it's either minor enough to add "character" the the evolving narrative or else, I can always load a savegame

I have to say, if I were to draw out a roadmap for a more labyrinthine main quest....that motley cast of faction leaders would make the planning a lot of fun. I reckon turning the roadmap into a mod, on the other hand, could involve a lot of work.

I can't say I'm familiar with your character assessment of "Father" but I have to agree that if we consider temperament, we're talking about someone who believes his way is the only "right" way - which makes anything else "unacceptable". This does make "Father's" character problematic for a subversion stratagem like what I've suggested. For something like that to work, there would have to be a lot of groundwork done, not just to get the train rolling, but also to maintain sufficient autonomy in the face of someone who, ultimately, believes his way is the most ethical path to take and has profound difficulties accepting the fact of someone-else's decision really being someone-else's call to make. I think @Xilizhra's got a point about loyalty not being the issue. People like "Father" are more concerned with leaving a legacy big enough to muffle the voice of their "inner critic". And an obsession with legacy really does make things worse in light of him knowing he only has a week left.

Not egotistical - I think that's more than likely Maxson's problem. "Father", on the other hand, strikes me as having a deep smouldering repressed rage. I suspect that a need to judge others severely makes him a target for his own criticism because he is equally fallible. So he needs a rigid regime of order within his environment to minimise distractions and focus him on the task of walking that tightrope between judging others harshly and judging himself harshly. As a very precise path of objectives, this tightrope is perceived as the only right way, not because the man thinks he's special, but because it is the only way for him to mentally direct his rage at others while minimising blowback when he makes similar mistakes. This tends to lead to oversimplified thinking, an almost callous dismissal of the need for administrative transparency (in lieu of the "greater good") and decision-making based on what "should" be according to the tightrope he walks - all while neglecting the vastness of reality beyond the tightrope.

Anyway, that's just my impression...

I'm not a fan of playing an entire rpg then losing. I played one game like that and I had absolutely no desire to ever touch the game again. I'll probably never buy another title from the company again. I can see ending with less than desirable conditions, and I actually don't really like that, but I can deal with it.. sort of.

You're definitely right, the reason for the destruction of The Railroad is two-fold:

1. To eradicate a known threat to The Institute

and

2. To remove any doubts about where your loyalties lie. Shaun mentions that some of the people in The Institute have been wondering about the extent of the SS's involvement with The Railroad (natural, seeing as how it was through their help that he got in) and wiping them out removes all lingering doubts in their minds.

I don't know how this could be such a biggie. I mean, I'm one of the top losers when it comes to playing RPGs:

I die

I lose

I reload the last save

Only to later, oups! Rinse! Repeat!

I can understand the problem with a dead-end campaign branch beyond which further gameplay would make no sense (e.g. the ending for Fallout 3). My attitude is that there is always a way - so such endings make no sense to me.

But "losing" in an RPG need not be a terminal thing so much as the emergence of a different style of world and gameplay dynamics; in which your character continues on.

Having the wrong faction come out on top, for example, could lead to a world where radient guerrilla quests operate amongst almost unbeatable concentrations of force. Overt settlements would take heavy attacks by this wrong faction. And, so, the playstyle changes to reflect the outcome rather than there being a win/lose kind of ending because, it ain't over if your still breathing.

Equally, having the right faction win could still see an army of trained and disciplined supermutants invade to raise the bar against the player character's higher level and offer a radient driven continuity of play which doesn't feel like just more of the same.

[EDIT]An example of the whole scenario of how life goes on after losing the war is the story revolvig around Mal Reynolds in Serenity and the Firefly series[/EDIT]

The old isometric Fallout games did a good job of laying out timetables so the player knew that they had to do something. The fact that the game world is only reactionary is always disappointing (to me at least) because it removes any sense of urgency.


I actually wish more games would take the Dead Rising approach where certain events will take place and the player can change the outcome by their action or inaction.


I don't want a peaceful ending, I want an ending where trying to play the neutral party shows the player how their inaction would actually make the whole situation worse because right now the quest system makes it seem like the player instigates all of the conflict.

The Battle for Bunker Hill answers this question though and that's only with regards to 4 synths. If you kill the courser and either kill the synths or release them and go back and tell Father what you did, he'll banish you. It is kind of fun telling Father that he's a tremendous disappointment though.

Sorry if I was unclear, I worded my response the way I did because I was responding directly to Xilizhra.

My assessment of Father is that he is a narcissistic psychopath. He is able to maintain a congenial front, to fool others into thinking he is rational and even empathetic, but in the end he is a monster that feels little to no connection with other human beings. Each person around him is a tool to be used and possibly discarded to achieve the goals he has set forth. Whether that be turning people into supermutants, or turning his parent into an assassin, he neither hesitates or feels even the slightest hint of remorse.

In the end, the goals he puts forth are about him. They are about making sure everyone knows that he and his legacy are what they should be thankful to. The creation of a child synth in his image is a huge give away in regards to this, as it has the dual purpose of allowing him to keep on living (in a way) and to play God a little by bestowing a child on the childless parent.

Agreed. It's why I feel it's silly to argue over whether Father would Banish the player for refusing to assassinate Desdemona. Of course he would. The way it's handled in game is that you have to choose to join another faction to advance the main storyline, which will inevitably banish you.

If he'd banish you over the fate of four synths -- four pieces of property or even over the results of a heated conversation, he'll banish you for being insubordinate and refusing to assassinate the leader of their direct opposition, to whom your loyalties are in question.

So if you do tell him, you automatically get banished and there's no way to repair the conversation from there?

So why not find a way to falsify the intelligence to him, like you can with Bunker Hill? It'd be, narratively, a perfect move if you're joining the Institute to fix it, for the good of the Commonwealth.

I'm sure that's what the joining another faction is meant to be handwaving, just as numerous different conversations and day to day details get handwaved away between you and your companions (yet still get referenced in the difference affinity dialogs like Nick mentions seeing your 'dirty laundry' and knowing Dogmeat's name and existence and Cait mentions you being nice to her even if you've never had a dialog tree since the Combat Zone).

Essentially, it's the 'Yeah, Shaun, I'm figuring out a way to do it and not get killed, just give me more time... . it'll happen any day... sure thing Shaun... yeah..." You're BSing him, but if you think about it with even a modicum of realism there will be eventually be a breaking point where he goes 'you have until XYZ time or you're banished' as he realizes you're just procrastinating. He's not stupid.

The player character's ability to interact with quests in the order he or she chooses is a narrative construct designed to allow the player to enjoy the game more, and I can understand that and handwave it away.

I think I didn't end up blowing up the Institute in my current playthrough until about June (you wake up in November 2287) of 2288. I doubt it would take so long if the story of the sole survivor was somehow novelized.