Game Skyrim Forum

Obvious spoilers ahead

I think I just finished the main campaign, but Im not even sure, because all I saw was a 2 min generic video...is this the ending or theres something more to be done? (I destroyed the Institute as a Minuteman, the video played after the explosion).

If that is the ending, why Bethesda decided to remove the retrospective of my actions through the game (as we saw on FO3)? I have 25 settlements, why no word about how I helped so many people? Why no mention on how the destruction of the Institute will change the commonwealth?

Also, that means that all factions have the same ending (with little changes)?

There is only one ending cutscene. It's the protagonist telling you that war never changes for the twentieth time. And yes, all factions have more less the same ending. The wasteland changes in theory, but no matter what you do you always have to blow up the opposite factions and watch the exact same final cutscene.

How exactly does that make any sense?

They had ending slides with playing past the ending in FALLOUT 2.

EIGHTEEN YEARS AGO.

I dont know if thats really true, many games (including FO3, no?) have the slides and allow us to play further.

Fallout 3 didn't really have much of an ending slide section.

And they required Broken Steel to get you to continue playing.

But yea, it's ridiculous.

The game is good, great even. But why not invest some more effort in the ending...cmon, its not that hard. Games with way smaller budget have ending slides and bigger/more diverse end cutscenes.

Ahh Fallout 1 and 2, near to my heart. and they brought some of us here today to experience this. I do miss a lot about them when playing these newer incarnations too. Mostly the dark twisted humor, less juvenile view and loads of culture references but the dynamic ending so you really could decide how the future was shaped was cool too. Accepting this game for what it is, and commenting on the OP's topic, I'm itching for the creation kit to be released, I think different endings might be something a lot of people might aim for. As strange as it might sound, I want to work out peace at the end and keep at least one more faction around. I don't jive with the polarized views on all the issues at play, but I'm kind of blaming corporate lawyers for what I don't like about it moreso than the dev team or producers.

U all base your complains on a game that didnt get DLC yet, maybe isnt over. Like Fallout NV ending for the DLC feel totally not tide to everything else show when the game end.

I know ppl get "nostalgia" for old stuff, but u cant live holding everything old game did, remember this is a new game. For me the ending are find bc i know the story probably will keep going with DLC, like happen on Skyrim and it happen on Fo3. Someone i hate from NV that everything finish after the 2 war for the dam. (opinion)

Why this thread was moved to the New Vegas forum?!?

But, there's a major flaw in that in that you can just go out and render whatever the ending slides say null and void immediately after. That may have flown way back in the 90's/ early
'00s, but if it happened today you can bet your ass people would be complaining about it.

"Ohh, the consequences of your choices are fake because you can just go and change them, oh!"

I agree that there has to be some elusive middle ground you can find though.

This is what you get when you insist on free play after the main quest is finished.

You get either no real change to the world or the developer has to code every possible ending into all the quests, dialogues and everything else that you could possibly do after the main quest. Obviously the developer is not going to do all that work so you get "endings" like Skyrim and Fallout 4 - no real effect on the world.

Or you can have a hard ending like New Vegas and be able to go into exacting detail as to how the world changed due to your choices.

I much prefer the New Vegas style.

Except, you did both in Fallout 2.

Actually Fallout 2 didn't really go into as much detail as New Vegas.

In the Slides? I disagree.

But to each their own.