Why is there no option to talk to the different factions and negotiate a non-massacre ending? It makes absolutely no sense.

I am about to take over the Institute as Director. So why can't I tell Desdemona there's no need to kill all the scientists and loyal stunts to free a few independent spirits. And certainly no need to detonate a nuclear reactor in the heart of the Commonwealth! As soon as Father dies,I can free the synths with no bloodshed. I can ensure all future synths get free choice.

Or, maybe even more sensible, I can create only gen 2 synths from now on, work with humanity openly, provide technology to everyone, live in peace. The BoS would have no problem with robot gen2 helpers, it's only borderline Ai human replicants they object to. And there's really no reason the Institute have to make more of them. All four factions could live side by side.


Why, especially with a high CHA build, can't I say the darned obvious non-genocidal things??? Why am I forced into killing characters I've worked alongside and organisations whose goals are not necessarily incompatible?

Did no one at Bethesda ever play Mass Effect? I got the whole freakin Galaxy united there.

I love the game but frankly the scripting at the end is seven tonnes of DUMB.

Bethesda was trying to replicate what made Skyrim a smash hit -- which was the faction contention amongst fans.

One man uniting the whole damn galaxy in Mass Effect was ridiculous. But then, the Mass Effect series was designed from start to finish to build up the player and make them the heroic savior of the universe - it's a space opera, not exactly a realistic sci-fi setting.

The point of Fallout is that there's never a right answer and that you can't save everyone, or convince everyone to get along. You have to make hard choices.

Life is not always that easy, just like with real life, these issues don't just magically go away by talking. Peaceful solution like that is just a power fantasy. it may be better for games like Bioware, but Bethesda is more cynical in their approach. It's just not realistic to be able to just talk things over. It doesn't work in real life and it shouldn't work in the game either.

Thanks for your thoughts: but none of you address the specific questions and events I mention. Why would the BoS or Railroad or Minutemen have a problem with the Institute as run by me producing only gen 2 synths?

And how is nuclear devastation and mad murder a better plan?

Leave out the Mass Effect matter, you seem distracted by it.

As for real life: actually, going for mass murder and nukes is *fairly* uncommon for large established organisations, thankfully.

I've always thought it was strange that the Brotherhood didn't just claim the institute and destroy the synth production technology, but I think they did that because they wanted the Institute to have something only they got.

1. Well, the BoS code is that no high-tech civilization should exist other than themselves. They also intend to annex the Commonwealth. They also intend to kill all non-humans in the Commontwealth.

2. The Minutemen can ally with you as Director of the Institute.

3. The Railroad is a bunch of extremist nutjobs who think the Institute is evil and they are good. They're not wrong but they don't think slavers deserve consideration like you're trying to give them.

4. Even so, I agree it would have been nice to do diplomacy with one faction or another. For example, an option to kill Desdemona and replace her with Doctor Carrington and sign a Peace treaty with the Institute or Brotherhood.

Which is cool because Carrington is an ass and no one likes him.

Also, remember, Maxson isn't framing this in terms of confiscating technology. He's framing it in terms of eliminating an abomination.

I.e. Lyons terminology.

Elder Danse is the one who frames it in terms of the Institute being a danger, not Synths.

Maxson wants every Institute member and their abominations destroyed.

because it is a fighting game, more sim elements than ever before but still no play nice with everyone in the end. You get a massive battle or a massive plosion. Would be rather anticlimactic to just say lets all just get along and the game ends with a dialogue choice. You could fight someone else and have some other groups reach a happy ending but thats not how it is, not the story that was written and would have to involve some kind of final battle against some kind of enemy.

How lame would Star Wars have been with it ending in peace talks instead of the destruction of the Death Star?

This is my grip with the game. I think there should be some variations in the ending like replacing Maxson with Danse (which was cut), then maybe we could side with either the RR or the Institute, or replace Desdemona and replacing her with Carrinton, which open up some options with the other factions. I think it would give more replay values and create some more interesting dynamics. Even if you still have to destroy the other two factions, it still gives me some choices in who you choose to follow. Maybe it could bring about a worse result, at least, it gives us more RP experience.

Yeah, my biggest complaint is the game is so damned combat focused. It's still an RPG but we lost so much in the way of dialogue and options.

Skyrim had way-way more options and it's SKYRIM.

Is that even an option? The Institute has been dedicated to the perfection of Synths for over sixty years, and your character was brought in without qualifications and promoted above everyone's heads without their consultation. Sure, you might win most of them around by the end, but if you try and make them turn their backs on the research most of them have dedicated their entire lives to, do you really think they'll let you keep your job?

1. The Brotherhood makes it clear they consider Generation 2 Synths as bad as Third Generation Synths. Also, you're still a technological power they don't control. Also, you're standing in their way of ruling the Commonwealth.

2. Elder Maxson doesn't want anyone questioning his "The Institute and everyone in it deserves to die." Scribe Hanlon mentions these kinds of genocides and lack of seeking peace is something which has turned her against the BOS.

3. In RL, yes. In Fallout, the irredeemability of man to learn from its mistakes is in the motto. "War...never changes."

No, it really didn't. Literally every quest, and conflict, in Skyrim was a one-way-road. There were only two decisions: which CW side to support and the Parthurnax dilemma. Danwguard added one more, Dragonborn none.

Silver Hand, Thalmor, Summerset Shadows, Emperor's death, Mercer... everything concerning those was forced and non-negotiable. And it doesn't make sense either as some of those factions should have been possible to avoid: for example, the Silver Hand are hinted to be fans of Ysgrammor and the old Companions (they sure do love books about them and have an interest in collecting Ysgrammor's weapon... all suggesting that they may have been trying to save the Companions).

Or not being able to tell Blades to svck it up and follow you no matter what. Literally every Dragonborn before you did just that when they brought up Paarthurnax X(

Quick question to the OP: When was a Bethesda ending actually good?

I don't play Bethesda games for their storytelling. I play them as a series of adventures to shape my character. Open world with open ending doesn't make for good story content. FNV being a possible exemption, but that wasn't made by Beth.

While you are correct, you also had the option of destroying the Dark Brotherhood over siding with them.

The Silver Hand is an offshoot of the Vigilants of Stednarr so it was nice to actually see a bunch of Vigilants actually portrayed as the hate-crime practicing psychopaths which lore always portrays them as. Also, the Silver Hand had a bunch of tanning equipment. You know, to make their werewolf trophies.

Dudes were messed up.

Fallout 2 did it.

And Skyrim did pretty well for making it so that killing Alduin was just the beginning of the adventure.

Mark DB: I'd like the option to try it. There ought, I feel, to be a mechanic in game to influence factions to follow you and, at the highest level, to change course. And I do think there is hope in the Institute reforming. Plenty of the synths are unhappy. Lots of the scientists are unhappy with the course of synth tech. Lots of the scientists are focused on other areas of research. And I am a smart INT 8 science 4 guy. And it was my son who changed the course of the Institute 60 years ago.

Plus, all the factions must be aware I am kitted in Top tier X01 power armour and can melee stealth kill any of them at level 61 even on legendary. So there's an added incentive for them to come to an agreement

I didn't play Fallout 2, but I did play Skyrim. Did that really draw you in?

Maximized freedom and you could do the story at your own pace.

Abaris: perhaps if Bethesda read this thread they'll get some ideas to do better next time. I do really like the game as a whole.

As an example: the Paladin Danse synth storyline has a negotiable ending where the BoS compromise. Yes. The BoS. And they do so because of the trust you have built up with them. That is a glowing moment of potential which sadly the final chapter of the game throws away for the 'drama' of a tough choice (mainly because illogical) between four flawed sides. I get what they were shooting for in the ending but I think they stuffed it up because it left me with no dialogue options which corresponded with reality or common sense!

- unfortunately, that was done more because of "We want this, but we also don't want to force the player to go with it just because they helped a kid... but we still want this!" issue, not to mention it was weird: "We know where they are, we know their password but we are afraid of Astrid so we don't want to attack!". Seriously, Astrid was not a superwoman and a bunch of assassins are nothing in direct non-stealthy confrontation with an army of professional soldiers. I love Beth and their games to heaven, but they are not really into complex trees of choice&consequence (Daggerfall was an exception that I'd like to see again... though looking at cut content of FO4, they at least tried this time, even if it was never implemented)

- I don't remember them ever being a offshoot from the Vigilants nor can I find anything about it on UESP. From what I remember, only the Dawnguard were an offshoot of them

- The ones Reman met must have been even more so. I understand that they wanted you to choose between being a Dragon or a Dragon Hunter, but this could have really been done with a better motivation... maybe than not almost everyone would be choosing Paarth

All in all, I just hope that Beth actually implements the cut content they obviously planned to have. I don't want a happy ending to be possible due to a theme, but molding my faction's future should really be there.

In nv I wish I could have united all the factions under me but I dont think that was an option everybody wanted everyone else dead.

That's not Bethesda's forte. I love the game, but they will never win the Pulitzer with their writing. There are quite a lot of companies delivering much better stories and I certainly don't hold my breath for Beth delivering at any time. Not as long as they stick to their open world concept. And that's their money maker.

I for one am glad that I'm no longer John or Jane Doe. That, in my book, was the major weakness of every Bethesda game. The world not reacting to what and who you are. Most obvious in Skyrim where you could rise to the top of every guild without anyone changing how they approached you.