One Fallout fan thinks this “cruel” but necessary optional ending to Fallout 3 might just be the best way to finish the game… but I’d argue that you can make the ending way worse than this.
Fallout 3’s original ending was absolute dogwater.
I understand why Bethesda chose to do things the way they did at the time, as continuing the story from where they originally left things at the water purifier in the mission Take it Back likely seemed like a huge ask, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s dumb as hell.
Thankfully, of course, we would eventually receive the Broken Steel DLC, which extended the main story beyond this point.
Advert
Broken Steel doesn’t technically have an ending, as you simply continue the game once you finish the final mission, but there is one specific choice at its conclusion that offers players two wildly different outcomes.
Once you make your way to the final terminal at the end of the mission Who Dares Wins, you're offered a binary choice; destroy the Adams Air Force Base, the Enclave compound in which the mission takes place, or destroy the Citadel... which is home to the Brotherhood of Steel.
The choice is pretty straightforward, as wiping out the Enclave stronghold seems like the obvious choice.
This user over on the r/Fallout subreddit argues otherwise though, as destroying the Citadel would result in one of Fallout 4’s primary antagonists, Arthur Maxson, being obliterated.
However, there’s definitely a bleaker way to do things, personally.
If you used the FEV to poison the water supply at the end of the mission Take it Back, Sarah Lyons will be alive during the ending segment in Broken Steel… and she’ll ultimately turn on you if you decided to bomb the Citadel too.
So, you’ve wiped out the Brotherhood of Steel, poisoned the majority of the Capital Wasteland, and rubbed this all in Sarah Lyons’ face. That’s the cruelest way to complete Fallout 3.