this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
12 points (77.3% liked)

Let's Talk About Games

467 readers
1 users here now

Where Am I?

Welcome to Let's Talk About Games - A Feddit community for video games, the community around them and the ways in which we play, interact and consume them.

Rules

Links

founded 10 months ago
MODERATORS
Oneeightnine@feddit.uk
12
Is it wrong to send Fawkes in your place? (Spoilers for Fallout 3) (lemmy.world)
submitted 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) by MacedWindow@lemmy.world to c/letstalkaboutgames@feddit.uk
4 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

SPOILERS FOR FALLOUT 3 ENDING

At the end of Fallout 3 you need to enter an irradiated chamber to fulfill your family dream of bringing pure water to the wasteland. Both of your parents die dreaming of accomplishing this mission. That is until the Broken Steel DLC released adding more options to the game.

Fawkes is Super Mutant, a mutated human imune to radiation. You find him trapped in a cell, and can either release him, end him, or ignore him. If freed he will come to your rescue later in the game, helping you escape an evil faction. In the original ending he refuses to enter the end game irradiated chamber, saying he would be stealing your fate if he activated it on your behalf. In the update, he will say that as you changed his fate, he will change yours.

My friends and I have debated for years whether the game was wrong not to have the option from the start, if Fawkes original refusal makes him a monster, if it really makes sense to follow your fate if it means death, and so on.

When I was younger I hated Fawkes for sending me to my death, but looking at it now I see the devs point. Id be curious were others land.

top 4 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NakariLexfortaine@lemm.ee 16 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think his refusal makes him a monster, but I do think it was a cheap copout "But thou must" for no good reason, and it's still stupid that the game treats you worse for choosing to send Fawkes in.

Yes, it was a "noble" sacrifice, but for what end? Clean water? Great. Now the only thing tying potentially several disparate factions together is a martyr whose death they can puppet for their own causes.

It was a cheap end, and one of the weakest parts of FO3 for me, and BoS didn't really make it better by tacking on "You survived, you hero".

[–] MacedWindow@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I hated him when I first played. He was my favorite character and it was a real, "Et tu Fawkes?" moment.

Most people wont even know who the vault dweller was, the only fame would come post death as people spin the tale. It all feels a bit half baked.

[–] Pronell@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have never played the games but friends of mine have.

My opinion has always been that including a character who could survive the chamber and not letting him do so was a mistake that undermined the drama of the end of the game.

It wasn't until recently that we finally got RPGs that do let you make actual choices with consequences, and even then they're not easy to pull off. This was meant to be the way the game ended and was always meant to end.

Having Fawkes just took a highly emotional moment and went "Hey by the way this is a game, remember that. You're on rails and have no agency. Have fun with your game over screen!"

[–] MacedWindow@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yeah, I think scripting him to show up and reconnect with you right before makes it an even bigger blunder. Almost makes me wonder if they did it on purpose to make a statement idk. I would have done it differently.