disappointed with the main quest (ending spoilers)

Drakortha

Drakortha

First time out of the vault
disappointed because the ending is already decided for me because of a decision i made when i was level 35 (im level 60 now) There could have been some more options later in the game if you have a change of heart.

I joined the brotherhood at level 35 thinking they were a cool option without knowing it would lead to the murder of my only son, and the destruction of everything he cared about.

I joined the brotherhood earlier in the game because i thought they were neat. but as the story progressed i didnt agree with their way of doing things.. but there was no way story wise i could leave them and join someone else, or have a change of heart.

there needed to be more choices in the story. I feel like i only got one choice, and it was much earlier in the game, and it just sets you on a one-way path,

far harbor I feel is actually an improvement, there are lots of choices from what ive seen, big and small. And they seem to be more immediate, and they are clear on telling you what the repercussions are. But the main story? Join BOS, you murder your son and everyone else and you get no say in any of it.

Anyway, I hope they do better on the next game. I really didn't like being railroaded like that. Why couldn't I change my mind late game and betray the brotherhood? That is an option I would have gladly taken in a heartbeat. I hate who the brotherhood turned out to be, and I want to destroy them.
 
Drakortha said:
Anyway, I hope they do better on the next game. I really didn't like being railroaded like that. Why couldn't I change my mind late game and betray the brotherhood? That is an option I would have gladly taken in a heartbeat. I hate who the brotherhood turned out to be, and I want to destroy them.
Click to expand...

No offence friend, but I don't think bethesda is capable of actually doing something like that. Look at Skyrim, you had to choose one faction of war and could not change for the rest of the game.

The lack of C&C, roleplaying and anything like this should be obvious giveaway. Bethesda caters to console players and dumbs down their games with each release, they might stop before they reach toddler level, but expecting a good out of them is a lost cause.
 
Ediros said:
No offence friend, but I don't think bethesda is capable of actually doing something like that. Look at Skyrim, you had to choose one faction of war and could not change for the rest of the game.

The lack of C&C, roleplaying and anything like this should be obvious giveaway. Bethesda caters to console players and dumbs down their games with each release, they might stop before they reach toddler level, but expecting a good out of them is a lost cause.
Click to expand...

Did you play Far Harbor? It is actually quite a lot different and you get a lot of options how you want to proceed the story. I think they are capable, they just didn't do it for the main quest for some reason.
 
Unfortunately Bethesda has been railroading the player in all of their games since years ago:
-Fallout 3, you have to save daddy and help him, no matter if you hate his guts and want to kill him, then you have to join the Brotherhood, even if you agree with the Enclave ideology, then you have one choice of using the FEV altered vial to poison the water or not and still no matter what you do nothing will change except some water beggers will be dead and you will die if you drink 3 bottles of water, then you once again follow the Brotherhood orders and attack the enclave, you have to explode the mobile base even if you don't want to, I guess you can also explode the Brotherhood citadel but nothing really changes either much if you do that.
-Skyrim, you are the Dragonborn and have to defeat the dragon, you can't join it or anything, you can choose to join in the civil war on either side but that doesn't matter for the game because no matter which side you join the game will still be the same except some guards change in some cities and you had access to some side quests that you wouldn't in the other side.

I don't think Bethesda will change in the future.

For me TES and Fallout future games are both dead for me (to be honest Bethesda's future games are dead for me unless they start making RPGs again and get good writers).
 
Drakortha said:
Did you play Far Harbor? It is actually quite a lot different and you get a lot of options how you want to proceed the story. I think they are capable, they just didn't do it for the main quest for some reason.
Click to expand...

A separate team worked on it, so that is why the difference in quality is visible. However, I don't think that will be the case in future bethesda titles. I honestly gave up on that company, not to mention they relased 4 crafting dlcs, 2 story dlcs, upped the price of season pass (IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE WORTH IT) and many many more.

Not to mention THEY STOLE A MOD FROM NEXUS, AUTUMN LEAVES.

What @Risewild said.
 
Risewild said:
Unfortunately Bethesda has been railroading the player in all of their games since years ago:
-Fallout 3, you have to save daddy and help him, no matter if you hate his guts and want to kill him, then you have to join the Brotherhood, even if you agree with the Enclave ideology, then you have one choice of using the FEV altered vial to poison the water or not and still no matter what you do nothing will change except some water beggers will be dead and you will die if you drink 3 bottles of water, then you once again follow the Brotherhood orders and attack the enclave, you have to explode the mobile base even if you don't want to, I guess you can also explode the Brotherhood citadel but nothing really changes either much if you do that.
-Skyrim, you are the Dragonborn and have to defeat the dragon, you can't join it or anything, you can choose to join in the civil war on either side but that doesn't matter for the game because no matter which side you join the game will still be the same except some guards change in some cities and you had access to some side quests that you wouldn't in the other side.

I don't think Bethesda will change in the future.

For me TES and Fallout future games are both dead for me (to be honest Bethesda's future games are dead for me unless they start making RPGs again and get good writers).
Click to expand...

Damnit you're making me depressed about how little choice you have in Fallout 3 and Skyrim...

Could you argue that Fallout 2 had this issue? You HAD to get the GECK, and you HAD to stop the enclave, no joining them, no saying 'fuck you, I ain't getting the GECK' to the tribe, nothing.

Fallout 1 at least, had the only choice to ignore the quest (and thus lose the game... DX) or join the mutants (Also...Lose the game. I wish we could play as a mutant if we did that...)

NV still kinda had the issue of "Choose NCR, Legion, or do it yourself" with the main questline, be cool if we could help the weaker factions gain power, the Followers, Brotherhood, or something else.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Damnit you're making me depressed about how little choice you have in Fallout 3 and Skyrim...

Could you argue that Fallout 2 had this issue? You HAD to get the GECK, and you HAD to stop the enclave, no joining them, no saying 'fuck you, I ain't getting the GECK' to the tribe, nothing.

Fallout 1 at least, had the only choice to ignore the quest (and thus lose the game... DX) or join the mutants (Also...Lose the game. I wish we could play as a mutant if we did that...)

NV still kinda had the issue of "Choose NCR, Legion, or do it yourself" with the main questline, be cool if we could help the weaker factions gain power, the Followers, Brotherhood, or something else.
Click to expand...
Yep, Fallout 2 suffered from being rushed too. But at least it allows us to beat the main quest in different ways, there is no different way of beating FO3 or Skyrim, your character won't make it to the end unless they are proficient to kill everything.

For example in Morrowind (A Bethesda game), you could kill someone important to the main quest and a message would popup saying you couldn't beat the game anymore but you could continue playing if you wanted, or load a previous save to continue playing the main quest. It had a choice...
EssentialCharacterKilledMorrowind.png

And that is what hurts most, Bethesda used to make RPGs with a lot of choice and consequence and player/character freedom. Hell in Morrowind you could learn or use items with levitation and flying spells. Your character had more freedom than in Skyrim or Oblivion where they removed the ability to fly over walls and be inside a town, because towns are made in different cells and so you can't access them unless you use the damn doors/gates... See that mountain? You can climb that mountain (they said on Skyrim), big deal, we could do that in Morrowind already, and we could levitate to the top if we wanted... What we can't do anymore is climb this town walls and jump inside... Step back
 
Risewild said:
For example in Morrowind (A Bethesda game), you could kill someone important to the main quest and a message would popup saying you couldn't beat the game anymore but you could continue playing if you wanted, or load a previous save to continue playing the main quest. It had a choice...
Click to expand...

And consequences. Whereas now all important characters are essential.

EDIT: Fixed quote tag.
 
Prone Squanderer said:
And consequences. Whereas now all important characters are essential.

EDIT: Fixed quote tag.
Click to expand...

Watched some Fallout 4 footage, its fucking SICKENING.

Jesus fucking christ, can you actually kill ANYONE in that game!?

Everyone just hops back up like a god damned phoenix!
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Watched some Fallout 4 footage, its fucking SICKENING.

Jesus fucking christ, can you actually kill ANYONE in that game!?

Everyone just hops back up like a god damned phoenix!
Click to expand...

Don't worry there's plenty of Super Mutants, nameless Raiders and Gunners to kill.

It makes me laugh when the game tells you Dogmeat is in trouble. He isn't, he just whimpers until you defeat or escape the enemy then suddenly pops back up right as rain again.
 
Prone Squanderer said:
Don't worry there's plenty of Super Mutants, nameless Raiders and Gunners to kill.

It makes me laugh when the game tells you Dogmeat is in trouble. He isn't, he just whimpers until you defeat or escape the enemy then suddenly pops back up right as rain again.
Click to expand...

Dogmeat was pretty weak in Fallout 1, I did quite like what they did to him in Fallout 2, he's fairly good, about the same as K-9 or so (less damage, but more attacks/AP IIRC)

I guess its a bit silly how tough and fast he was in Fallout 2, but Fallout was never about balance.

Can any of the companions actually die? Even in survival mode?

That just seems to say that letting them tank the hits, then run away so they get back up, and return to wittle the enemy down, would be a strategy.
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
Dogmeat was pretty weak in Fallout 1, I did quite like what they did to him in Fallout 2, he's fairly good, about the same as K-9 or so (less damage, but more attacks/AP IIRC)

I guess its a bit silly how tough and fast he was in Fallout 2, but Fallout was never about balance.

Can any of the companions actually die? Even in survival mode?

That just seems to say that letting them tank the hits, then run away so they get back up, and return to wittle the enemy down, would be a strategy.
Click to expand...

I think as long as you're still in good standing with them and they're actively with you they cannot die. Not sure about Survival mode though.

Todd Howard said:
It's a reload scenario. No one plays and the dog dies and they say, "Fuck it, I'll just keep playing." So we wanted to make him...when he's your follower, your actual companion in the game - there's a number of them, not just the dog - they can't be killed when they're in that state.
Click to expand...
 
Prone Squanderer said:
I think as long as you're still in good standing with them and they're actively with you they cannot die. Not sure about Survival mode though.
Click to expand...

You know, Dogmeat being 'unkillable' is actually kinda fine with me, IF he 'respawns' and is said to be the next generation of him, like that perk in Fallout 3.

The rest though, they should die forever if they do...Although...Lets be honest here, the reason why they don't, is because their AI is absolutely garbage.

EVERY gameplay footage I have seen, the companions fucking die.

I lost Cassidy in Fallout 2 recently, which pisses me off, but he's staying dead...Although I have no idea how he died. DX

Aren't they quest characters though? Surely they can't die even in survival mode then?
 
ThatZenoGuy said:
You know, Dogmeat being 'unkillable' is actually kinda fine with me, IF he 'respawns' and is said to be the next generation of him, like that perk in Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

I disagree. You can meet a guy selling dogs in Fallout 4, so I like the idea of being able to get another different dog should Dogmeat die. There's also that random encounter dog you can heal and give a name. So why not be able to take in a dog or something?
EDIT: Makes more sense than having a replica of the one dog suddenly appearing.

ThatZenoGuy said:
Aren't they quest characters though? Surely they can't die even in survival mode then?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. Looking it up most people say they can't die whilst other posts say they can die but not while with you.
 
Prone Squanderer said:
I disagree. You can meet a guy selling dogs in Fallout 4, so I like the idea of being able to get another different dog should Dogmeat die. There's also that random encounter dog you can heal and give a name. So why not be able to take in a dog or something?
EDIT: Makes more sense than having a replica of the one dog suddenly appearing.

I'm not sure. Looking it up most people say they can't die whilst other posts say they can die but not while with you.
Click to expand...

Buying dogs is a better idea, yep. ;D

Hell, why not number of dogs is allowed at Charisma divided by 2, rounded up? ;D

Of course, make them not so stupidly powerful.
 
It makes sense that you destroy the Enclave in the end, as they would destroy the wasteland and yourself otherwise. Still, doesn't change the fact you can influence pretty much everything else.
 
naossano said:
It makes sense that you destroy the Enclave in the end, as they would destroy the wasteland and yourself otherwise. Still, doesn't change the fact you can influence pretty much everything else.
Click to expand...

The mutants do exactly that, or at least every surrounding area and then maybe the Enclave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top