Van Buren ending

Post » Tue May 22, 2012 7:03 am

So I've finally read all the Van Buren design documents (which is why I haven't been posting in so long and missed an entire freaking convention). After crying myself to sleep over what-could-have-been I realized they could have made the ending better.

The ending in Van Buren has you in a nuclear armed space station along with the guys who you've been alternately chasing and running from. The 8 nukes in the station are aimed at Shady Sands, New Reno, Vault City, Hoover Dam, New Canaan/Jericho, Brotherhood Main Headquarters and Maxson Bunker. Also known as the largest and most succesfull cities in the wasteland, so it's a pretty big deal. You only have 2 hours to stop the launch while fighting off or reasoning with the bad guys. But no matter what you do, 2 missiles are gonna launch, but luckily you can reaim them at 2 cities you've visited and built into thriving civilizations or destroyed over the course of the game, posing a moral conundrum.

But then I thought, what if you could save all the cities you've helped, and still have a challenging moral dilemma? You could reaim the missiles back at the space station, and yourself. This would spare all the cities of nuclear death, but to make you actually think if you don't sacrafice your self you can play after the end. And it has to be a awesome, post-game play to make it even harder, all new dialogue, the cities change drastically, maybe even all new quests. The player would either have to give all that up, or if they've been Mr. Goodytwoshoes sacrafice themselves.

So what do you guy's think?

If not, then I reccomend aiming at Burham Springs. It's only populated by three not particularly friendly guys, and dozens of terrifiying Hell Monsters. Even solving all the quests it's just a very small town.
User avatar
Chris BEvan
 
Posts: 3359
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 4:40 pm

Post » Tue May 22, 2012 4:32 pm

I didn't read through all the files but I was aware that some cities will have to be nuked in the end. I personally liked the dilemma. Deciding who deserves to be nuked or what city deserves to live more than the other is something that I haven't seen in many games.

But thinking of what could have been makes me a sad panda. :sadvaultboy:
User avatar
[ becca ]
 
Posts: 3514
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2006 12:59 pm

Post » Tue May 22, 2012 3:51 am

Ehh id rather fire all the missles at targets inhabited by the NCR, Legion and Lyons Brotherhood lol either that or conserve the missles and use them for Enclave purposes >:)
User avatar
Agnieszka Bak
 
Posts: 3540
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:15 pm

Post » Tue May 22, 2012 12:08 pm

I didn't read through all the files but I was aware that some cities will have to be nuked in the end. I personally liked the dilemma. Deciding who deserves to be nuked or what city deserves to live more than the other is something that I haven't seen in many games.

But thinking of what could have been makes me a sad panda. :sadvaultboy:

I liked it too. What I'm saying is that you can save everyone, but at the cost of awesome post-game play.

I like to imagine that It will be there in Heaven, right next to the second season of Firefly.
User avatar
Mr.Broom30
 
Posts: 3433
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 2:05 pm

Post » Tue May 22, 2012 1:30 am

Ehh id rather fire all the missles at targets inhabited by the NCR, Legion and Lyons Brotherhood lol either that or conserve the missles and use them for Enclave purposes > :smile:

You can let the missiles go there way, or sleep throught the apocolypse and join Presper, or wake up in a world inhabited entirely by ghouls.
User avatar
Trent Theriot
 
Posts: 3395
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:37 am


Return to Fallout Series Discussion