Fallout 3’s Ending Still Doesn’t Sit Right With Fans, Though a Minor Tweak Could Have Fixed It

[Pelican Press 0]

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Fallout 3’s Ending Still Doesn’t Sit Right With Fans, Though a Minor Tweak Could Have Fixed It

It has been more than a decade since Fallout 3 first came out, and its ending still remains controversial for many fans. It is one of the most debated moments in the franchise’s history, and it’s not because of some emotional or moral dilemma but because the studio awkwardly executed it.

You play as the Lone Wanderer, and during the final moments of the game, you sacrifice yourself in-game to reach the water purifier in the last sequence. The dilemma? Someone else could have done it instead, or as one player says, the studio could have just put in a simple mechanic to make the whole scene feel ‘less jarring.’

What Fallout 3’s ending could have been

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Fallout 3 is often criticized by fans | Obsidian Entertainment

In the context of the main game, you, as a player, get a choice to sacrifice yourself within Fallout 3, which would have then initiated Project Purity and cleaned the water supply of the Capital Wasteland. In case you have the Broken Steel DLC for the game installed, then you are also given the choice to let Fawkes, a radiation-resistant supermutant, take the fall instead, opening up another ending.

The problem with the original ending is how it forces you to give up your life in-game, despite other characters standing right beside you who could have gone in instead. Suggesting a better alternative, a user on Fallout’s subreddit has even suggested how the studio could have just added an elevator during the last sequence that only allowed the Lone Wanderer and Sarah Lyons to go through, which would have made the final sacrifice seem more impactful.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

by

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

in

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

The poster states that this way the ending could have seemed less jarring to the player than what originally panned out, adding that it is better than someone else simply pinning your sacrifice’s purpose on ‘destiny’ and reducing its impact on gamers.

A fix for Fallout 3’s ending was released, but it was paid in true megacorp fashion

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

Fallout 3 eventually came, locked behind a paywall | Obsidian Entertainment

What makes the game’s ending worse is how easily it could have been fixed, not with a total rewrite, but with a simple gameplay constraint like the one we talked about above. Bethesda did take note, and their solution was releasing a DLC that did allow you to sacrifice other characters, but you had to shell out more cash for it.

Yes, you heard that right. The Broken Steel DLC that I mentioned before, and the one that allows you to sacrifice the life of other characters instead, is a paid extension to Fallout 3, meaning you only get a better ending in case you are willing to pay more for it.

The

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

post also brings up Fallout: New Vegas, where the studio’s writing is frequently praised, but nobody ever calls out the game for finding loose fixes for problems. Like how it just delivers a pop-up message when you aren’t allowed to bring companions into areas you are not supposed to.

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

#Fallout #Doesnt #Sit #Fans #Minor #Tweak #Fixed

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up