Question Involving the Good End

[stickemup]

Here's how I think the decision tree ought to branch out- see if you disagree anywhere:

 

Good choices:

-Choose self, self-sacrifice -> death, good cutscene

-Choose self, have rad suit/high rad resist -> game continues, large karma gain

-*Choose Lyons or any human companion and give them anti-radiation meds and/or rad suit- game continues, small karma gain

 

Neutral choices:

-Choose Fawkes -> game continues, no effect on karma (no risk, no sacrifice, no karma)

-Choose Charon -> game continues, no effect on karma

-Choose Sgt. Gutsy -> game continues, no effect on karma

 

Evil choices:

-**Choose Lyons -> evil cutscene, game continues, player is denied access to Citadel, Cross leaves, large karma loss

-Choose self and use FEV -> death, evil ending

-Choose self and use FEV w/suit or high rad resist -> game ends, evil ending (since almost all the NPCs in the game would be dead)

-Choose Clover -> game continues, large karma loss

-**Choose Cross -> evil cutscene, game continues, player is denied access to Citadel, large karma loss

-Not telling Dogmeat to wait outside if player enters chamber -> karma loss (Dogmeat dies)

 

*Butch or Jericho would refuse to enter the chamber unless you offer them meds and/or a rad suit. Speech checks apply for Butch and Jericho; if player fails speech check then Butch and Jericho will still refuse; Cross has no speech check as she is a 'good' character and would be willing to take the risk just like Lyons; Clover would accept no matter what because she takes orders unquestioningly, but there would still be an option to give her the meds/suit. The karma gain from sending someone else in your place (properly equipped) would be lower than if you'd gone in yourself, so you only get the karma from giving them the meds/suit.

 

**Sending either Lyons or Cross in without the meds/suit would trigger the "sent a hero in your place" cutscene, but the game would still continue after it- but the BoS would no longer be considered a friendly faction as you sent one of their own to die needlessly. They would not become hostile, but neither would you be allowed into the Citadel. If you send Lyons to die, and have Cross as a follower, then Cross would leave you (having proven yourself to be a dishonorable person).

 

Thus, the player can still die or otherwise get a 'game over' from making certain choices, other choices have consequences, and still others have little to no effect on the game. More choices are better. Did I miss anything?

 

you can insert the fev into the console and send Lyons in, that's one you missed. you can put it into the console when Dr. Li is speaking, I think. might be wrong, though.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Haven't tried that one... didn't know you could do that. Good catch. :)

[dretcher2]

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that anyone should have to die. Fawkes, who is a Super Mutant(or Meta Human), and who has proved that he can withstand ridiculous amounts of radiation is standing right there following me around. And more importantly, he has pledged that he will pretty much do anything for me since i saved his life and all that.

 

Now i thought something like this was gonna happen, cause we were gonna have to go back into the highly irradiated room to activate project purity. So the whole time, pretty much since Fawkes left me before the Enclave captured me with parting words to the effect of "I'm sure we'll meet again", i figured that he would end up going in and doing the work to save us all, and he would survive it like he survived getting the G.E.C.K. All's good, i can go finish my wasteland survival guide and finding the android and deciding whether i wanted to Nuke Megaton or not and all that good stuff. My thoughts were pretty much guaranteed, in my opinion, when Fawkes was standing outside of Raven Rock, asking to follow me around. I accepted, and went to do the last mission.

 

When i get in there, i have to die??? Come on, this is unnecessary. Fawkes little speech about not messing with people's destiny's is just a lame little thing Bethesda put in when they realized having Fawkes there would ruin the whole "Player has to die" thing. It's completely uncalled for.

 

Even if you ignore Fawkes, the player should be able to survive this, as proven by Colonel Autumn. He survived before by injecting something into his blood(probably rad-x). So why can't i do the same? This is another plot hole by Bethesda.

 

So after i was thoroughly pissed off that the plot ended there, i tried being the bad guy, just so i could continue the story. I told Lyons she could go in and die. She did. AND THE GAME IS STILL OVER!!! Oblivion never had this stupid end game thing after the main storyline was over, in fact it pretty much encouraged you to continue, giving the Imperial Champion title to you and giving you the godly armor. I didn't play the first two fallout's, but from what others said and reading the fallout wiki, i don't think they did either. Why does this game have to?

 

I really hope Bethesda does something to fix this, and I'd rather it not be a DLC i have to pay for. Optional free patch maybe? Deadguy's suggestions are all good, more options are better. Either way, considering that every game they've made in like the past 5 years has ended up being game of the year, Bethesda made some pretty pathetic plot holes here. I just don't get it.

[grumbler]

I didn't play the first two fallout's, but from what others said and reading the fallout wiki, i don't think they did either. Why does this game have to?

Fallout ended just like this game ends. Fallout 2 allowed play after completing the main quest. It baffles me that BethSoft went the F1 route in this game, when they hadn't done this kind of thing since Arena.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

However, since the endings were included, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be made impossible to reach by making certain choices in gameplay. Yes, the existing setup is too restrictive and has plot holes big enough to fly a Vertibird through- but Bethesda would not be doing us any favors by retconning out all of the existing material when they could instead judiciously snip off the ragged edges and leave the rest well enough alone. There are players that like having an ending, and I believe that there are enough possibilities- if well handled- to satisfy everyone with a bit of reworking.

[grumbler]

However, since the endings were included, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever that they should be made impossible to reach by making certain choices in gameplay. Yes, the existing setup is too restrictive and has plot holes big enough to fly a Vertibird through- but Bethesda would not be doing us any favors by retconning out all of the existing material when they could instead judiciously snip off the ragged edges and leave the rest well enough alone. There are players that like having an ending, and I believe that there are enough possibilities- if well handled- to satisfy everyone with a bit of reworking.

I must confess that I have no idea what point(s) you are trying to make here (no insult intended, I just don't understand the assumptions implicit in your post). Why is any given included ending impossible to reach? What is "the existing setup" to which you refer? What are the plot loopholes (other than that only one of your companions is willing to die for you)? How could Bethesda "retcon" out "all the existing material" (Existing in the game as written, or in Fallout per se)? What are the "jagged edges" that could be "snipped?" If you mean that BethSoft should not make it impossible to end the game via dying in the final quest of this game when they introduce the third DLC, I agree. I would suspect, though, that the DLC will assume that the final quest in this game hasn't happened yet, and so the ending that this game has could still occur in the modified version of the game.

[WrathOfDeadguy]

Why is any given included ending impossible to reach?

 

Never said that; please re-read my earlier post.

 

What is "the existing setup" to which you refer? What are the plot loopholes (other than that only one of your companions is willing to die for you)?

 

Exactly that- the player can partner with several companions who are either immune to radiation or wouldn't say no in spite of its lethality, and one (Fawkes) who volunteers to enter a similar environment two quests earlier but refuses to do so again. Then there's Col. Autumn's survival (we assume that was thanks to meds), which means that there should be some way for the player to survive even if he/she chooses to go into the control room. Those are plot holes.

 

How could Bethesda "retcon" out "all the existing material" (Existing in the game as written, or in Fallout per se)? What are the "jagged edges" that could be "snipped?" If you mean that BethSoft should not make it impossible to end the game via dying in the final quest of this game when they introduce the third DLC, I agree. I would suspect, though, that the DLC will assume that the final quest in this game hasn't happened yet, and so the ending that this game has could still occur in the modified version of the game.

 

You answered your own question there- Bethesda simply replacing the entire ending sequence would be a retcon. "Retcon" being short for "RETroactive CONtinuity," or changing part of the story after having already released it for public consumption- in this case, pulling a "that didn't really happen" and replacing the entire end of the game (I really, really hope they won't do that). That would be akin to releasing a movie which features a prominent character dying in the final scene, then later going back and re-shooting the scene so that the character could appear in a sequel.

 

See also: "George Lucas" ;)

[grumbler]

Exactly that- the player can partner with several companions who are either immune to radiation or wouldn't say no in spite of its lethality, and one (Fawkes) who volunteers to enter a similar environment two quests earlier but refuses to do so again. Then there's Col. Autumn's survival (we assume that was thanks to meds), which means that there should be some way for the player to survive even if he/she chooses to go into the control room. Those are plot holes.

Fawkes may not be able to survive the radiation in the control room, as she could the earlier radiation, so that's no plot loophole. You may not have the medicine Autumn used (in fact, I am willing to bet you don't even know what it is), so that's not a plot loophole.

 

You answered your own question there- Bethesda simply replacing the entire ending sequence would be a retcon. "Retcon" being short for "RETroactive CONtinuity," or changing part of the story after having already released it for public consumption- in this case, pulling a "that didn't really happen" and replacing the entire end of the game (I really, really hope they won't do that). That would be akin to releasing a movie which features a prominent character dying in the final scene, then later going back and re-shooting the scene so that the character could appear in a sequel.

I would agree that simply replacing the existing ending with a new one would be retconning, because "retcon" is short for "RETroactive CONtinuity," or changing part of the story after having already released it for public consumption- in this case, pulling a "that didn't really happen" and replacing the entire end of the game. After all, this is my point. I am not sure that this is what they are doing, however. In none of their other DLC did they do such a thing. I am not sure what to make of Jeff Gardiner's comments on the 15th that players would "continue on past the game ending… by changing it." If it means that they are simply given the option not to finish the Main Quest, that's okay. If they turn it into "it was all just a dream" or "the radiation didn't kill you after all" then it is not, because I have already seen in the postgame vids that I am dead. The latter case is a retcon, the former is not (it is just a delay of what we have seen).

 

It still wouldn't have come up if they hadn't picked a poor way to end the game (compared to any of their other games, or any of the Fallout games). :mellow:

[grumbler]

Beyond character interactions, other things ought to happen- if you successfully activate the purifier, then all of the sinks, toilets, etc in the Wasteland should be affected by it (except those in highly irradiated or otherwise hazardous places), as should the Potomac. The "water bums" hanging around outside of towns should be removed as they no longer want for clean water. Things like that. If the game goes on, it can't go on exactly as before since you've done something truly significant to change the status quo. My greatest fear right now, for the DLC, is that Bethesda will forget about all that when writing in the continuation options.

I meant to reply to this earlier, but got caught up in other things.

 

How, exactly, does the water in toilets change because the tidal pool is changed? I suppose you could argue somehow that there is some kind of self-sustaining change to the water treated by Project Purity, but how does it reach places like toilets or Megaton (let alone The Republic of Dave)? The Potomac is dry or at best intermittent north of Arlington, and it certainly isn't connected by any continuous water source to the toilets or water fountains in the wastelands.

 

My impression of PP, from Dr.Madison's description ("The plan was to build a facility that could purify all the water in the Tidal Basin at once. No radiation, no muck, just clean fresh water"), is that it un-irradiates the massive amounts of water in the tidal basin, so creating a pool of pure water the size of the tidal basin (which in itself is a miraculous thing). Presumably, the plan was to refill the basin over and over and slowly change all the adjacent waters to non-irradiated water, but that still doesn't change water that cannot get to the basin.

 

Is there something in the game I am missing, or have you overstated the case?

[WrathOfDeadguy]

I think you've just dug up another plot hole here, and boy is it a big one.

 

The impression I get is that there was more to the purifier than a simple exchange filter (something that would draw water from the tidal basin, clean it, and return it); were that the case Project Purity would end up affecting only Rivet City and the extreme southeast of the Wasteland. While that is certainly an accomplishment, it is not consistent with statements made by James and Dr. Li- both of whom claim it will affect the entire Capitol Wasteland, which would include (for our purposes) everything from Raven Rock all the way down the Potomac. Then again, as you've pointed out, Li says that it purifies "all the water in the tidal basin at once," which is inconsistent with that claim.

 

If that is all it does, then you've still got the rest of the Potomac to think about- a river continually pouring contaminated water into the tidal basin, thus re-contaminating the source. It doesn't seem to make sense that way. :/

 

Here's how I'd do it.

 

Water enters at the purifier, is cleaned up then pumped to the DC area's surviving water delivery infrastructure- not directly back into the tidal basin- which then delivers it to the Wasteland. Before you say that isn't possible, think about it this way- if at least some of those facilities weren't still operating, none of the sinks or toilets in the Wasteland would work at all (except for those served by their own facilities, like Megaton and- probably- Tenpenny Tower and the Citadel. No infrastructure, no water pressure; no water pressure, no running water. However, they do work- even in areas that have suffered extensive damage. Most of the small settlements have no visible waterworks/pumphouse like Megaton does, either; they appear to be served entirely by the old system (whatever remains of it). This is a classic proof by deductive logic: If A then B. A in this case being running water throughout the Wasteland (true), and B as the infrastructure required to deliver that water. A is true, therefore B must also be true.

 

The river itself thus becomes irrelevant, as does the tidal basin (thus the plot hole), as the purified water exists only within the pipes and storage tanks and not in the open. However... well, it would work that way, as long as that all-important support infrastructure was maintained (which would in itself be a Herculean task, but one which is apparently possible since the water does flow).

 

Here's where the Super Mutants bungle up the Project. The Jefferson Memorial is, as portrayed in game, a very easy to defend position. If the purifier were the only objective requiring defense, then a handful of Brotherhood troops could have held it indefinitely... especially with the Taft tunnels connecting it more or less directly to the Citadel for resupply. However, if there are numerous objectives that need defending- say, a half dozen or so waterworks facilities in far less ideal locations- then those would tie up most of the Brotherhood's resources if they came under attack, and the entire network could not be effectively protected in the long term. Since the Super Mutants are literally all over DC, the Brotherhood (tasked with defending Project Purity at that time) finds itself having to piss out dozens upon dozens of fires. Since the purifier won't work at all unless the entire support system is also functional, defending it when the rest can't be defended becomes pointless and the Brotherhood pulls out.

 

The obvious flaw to that is, obviously, that the Super Mutants didn't destroy the support infrastructure. That may, however, have been the reason why Lyons agreed to help resurrect Project Purity- knowing that the purifier itself had become the only weak point, since the Super Mutants were apparently uninterested in anything else. Since James figured out how to actually make the purifier do what it was designed for, and since the support infrastructure turned out to not require defending, it then became possible to both defend and activate the system even though the Super Mutant threat had yet to be neutralized. Enter the Enclave, but we all know how that ends.

 

Mind you, I am just pulling all of this out of my rectum as speculation, but IMHO it seems to fit the facts about as well as anything else.