Fallout 3 did not ruin the lore established in previous games.

[Nomanslander]

For years now I've been hearing a slew of complaints coming from old FO 1 and 2 players on how FO3 ruined the series and turned it's lore on it's head, and for years I've been confused as in how. With any series or franchise - given enough time - there will always arise inconsistencies here and there that could make or break canon (Example: comic books and simply look at Star Trek). And as vocal as a lot of groups have been - and a lot of times for good reason - I've found the fanboys of Fallout to be some of the most unreasonable and least forgiving. I mean if you want to look at disasters in canon look at Star Trek Voyager and dare I even mention the SW prequels. But as for FO3, I haven't found anything that really stuck as a good enough reason for all the hate.

Anyways, here's a list of complaints I've picked up from NoMutuantsAllowed forums. So please someone explain to me how any of these complaints (except for the last one I've tacked) really holds any weight...?


- Why are there Super Mutants in the Capitol Wasteland, and why are they dumber?

Because they're not the same Super Mutants that were created by the Master on the West Coast. The Super Mutants in FO3 are all an experiment from Vault 87 that didn't produce the same results as their West Coast counterparts, hence why they are dumber and and tend to grow in size over the years becoming behemoths.

I mean, this was all explained in FO3 completely. So why are people still calling this a gaping plot hole, I really have no clue.

-The BoS on the East Coast are way too soft

Here's another complaint I see all the time on forums like NoMutantAllowed and one that's also made me question whether these people really ever played FO3. Because it's very well explained in detail how the leader of the East division of the BoS (Lyon) had decided to abandon many of the BoS ways in favor of taking on more humanitarian ways. And if you look into the BoS Outcast, you'd see it wasn't exactly a favorable decision by everyone.

-Jet in DC, when it's a west coast creation

How would I explain this? I don't know? How do you explain McDonald's in China when it generally an American creation?


-Vault doors open differently

Are people seriously complaining about this? You do realize that when it comes to construction, different models and layouts would be used to suite the lay out of the land and enviroment. Plus, there's never "one model to rule them all" in any form of product. Is everyone's PC the same? Do we all use the same video graphics card? Does everyone have a screen door with a mail slot on their front door? NO!

-The Uniforms for the Vault dwellers seem to be made of cloth when in FO1&2 it was more like latex.

/facepalm

Really? Gamer's are complaining about this? I think my answer for the vault doors can pretty much explain this.

-East Coast considerably primitive compared to the West.

Okay, has anyone that's making these complaints ever read a history book before? Because I don't know if they've ever noticed but not all civilization advance at the same pace. Feudal Japan was happening around the same time Europe was colonizing the entire world, and Aztecs still hadn't discovered the wheel while Conquistadors were using gun powder. So I really don't see how anyone can be taking this complaint seriously when recorded human history has proven just how flawed this logic is.

-Why are there Enclave in the Capital wastes when they were irradiated a little after the FO2 storyline by NCR and BoS forces.

In the lore, it's been stated that the Enclave shortly after FO2 storyline were hunted down by NCR and BoS troops. And even though FO3 has in many ways gone back to rewrite this to suit their interest in bringing back the Enclave, I'm not completely against the idea either. Truth of the matter is, how can anyone really completely irradiate an entire group or organization to begin with? There's always something left behind. So I totally except the idea that a contingent group was sent out far from NCR and BoS reach to reestablish a new order, also explaining why over the years they had changed in being less dark in their motives and interests.

 

[Sutter Cane]

I'm still calling major bullshit on Jet since it was created after the war, and since as you said the east coast was still incredibly primitive compared to the west, there would really be no reason to send people on a cross country trip, not to mention the difficulty of sorting out the logistics of such a trip. Jet still doesn't make sense.

my biggest issue with fallout 3 was that it felt out of place time wise. it felt like it should be set a decade or two after the war not 200 years.

Also that, although that wasn't my biggest problem with the game (that would be plot holes, lack of player choice in the main plot and a general lack of internal consistency and logic)

 

[Soviet Heavy]

It didn't ruin the established lore, it ignored it. Little of what happens in washington has any bearing on the West Coast settlements, so it can be included in the storyline as its own series of events, or ignored and only treated as an addendum.

 

[THEMILKMAN]

Exactly what Soviet said. It just had nothing to do with the other games. If it was called something else and the Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave had different names, no one would even know it was a Fallout game.

 

[Lionsfan]

What's up with all these Fallout 3 complaint/defending threads I've seen lately? You would think the game had just come out or something, and not 4 flipping years ago.

Does this mean in 2016 we'll get a flood of Mass Effect 3 ending threads again?

 

[SajuukKhar]

As much as people hate on Bethesda for "ruining the lore" lets take a good look at how Interplay/Obsidian was taking the west coast storyline.

On the West Caost
-Super Mutants? almost completely gone
-Ghouls? almost completely gone
-Enclave? gone
-BoS? dieing out at an extreme rate

If we look at the overall storyline of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas a clear patterns emerges. Interplay had been systematically killing off everything that made Fallout... well.... Fallout.

Had Interplay been allowed to continue to Fallout series there would be nothing Fallout left in it by the time Fallout 5 got around, it would just be
-Normal Humans
-Mutant monsters

In Fallout New Vegas super mutants, enclave, and BoS felt like Easter eggs in their own game.

People Hate on Bethesda for ruining the Fallout lore by making a new source of super mutants, bringing back the Enclave, and making a larger BoS but that whats made Fallout 3... FUN.

Bethesda may have "ruined the lore" with Fallout 3, but they only had to do that because Interplay was driving the series into a creative pit by destroying everything that made their series unique.

 

[Eddie the head]

As much as people hate on Bethesda for "ruining the lore" lets take a good look at how Interplay/Obsidian was taking the west coast storyline.

On the West Caost
-Super Mutants? almost completely gone
-Ghouls? almost completely gone
-Enclave? gone
-BoS? dieing out at an extreme rate

If we look at the overall storyline of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas a clear patterns emerges. Interplay had been systematically killing off everything that made Fallout... well.... Fallout.

Had Interplay been allowed to continue to Fallout series there would be nothing Fallout left in it by the time Fallout 5 got around, it would just be
-Normal Humans
-Mutant monsters

In Fallout New Vegas super mutants, enclave, and BoS felt like Easter eggs in their own game.

People Hate on Bethesda for ruining the Fallout lore by making a new source of super mutants, bringing back the Enclave, and making a larger BoS but that whats made Fallout 3... FUN.

Bethesda may have "ruined the lore" with Fallout 3, but they only had to do that because Interplay was driving the series into a creative pit by destroying everything that made their series unique.

Ok I just want to stress that I mean no offence by fallowing statement. But I think you hit an oil field when you where mining for gold. What I mean by that was that would be a good answer but not to this question.

What I think this answers best is "why are triple A games becoming Stagnant?" And the answer simply people don't' want them to change. I mean all the changes in Fallout NV kind of make sense.

There are only so many Ghouls and Super Mutants that can be exist, so they will die off in time. The Enclave and BOS kind of saw them self's as "above" the rest of the human race, and those groups don't tend to do well over time. And yes the BOS is better Enclave, but they do sill see them self's as better. IE, "We hold knowledge they must never have."

Everything they did had a reason behind it and good one at that, so it needed to change it couldn't stay the same. I would rather them evolve the story then invent contrivances to make things the same as they where before. And if you are relay resistant to it changing like this then you can't complain when things become stagnant. If you are ok with things never changing ok ignore this but if you don't like that then, well this is part of the problem.

 

[endtherapture]

As much as people hate on Bethesda for "ruining the lore" lets take a good look at how Interplay/Obsidian was taking the west coast storyline.

On the West Caost
-Super Mutants? almost completely gone
-Ghouls? almost completely gone
-Enclave? gone
-BoS? dieing out at an extreme rate

If we look at the overall storyline of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas a clear patterns emerges. Interplay had been systematically killing off everything that made Fallout... well.... Fallout.

Had Interplay been allowed to continue to Fallout series there would be nothing Fallout left in it by the time Fallout 5 got around, it would just be
-Normal Humans
-Mutant monsters

In Fallout New Vegas super mutants, enclave, and BoS felt like Easter eggs in their own game.

People Hate on Bethesda for ruining the Fallout lore by making a new source of super mutants, bringing back the Enclave, and making a larger BoS but that whats made Fallout 3... FUN.

Bethesda may have "ruined the lore" with Fallout 3, but they only had to do that because Interplay was driving the series into a creative pit by destroying everything that made their series unique.

So would you prefer the series to simply stagnate as no storylines or plots get revolved.

New Vegas was awesome because it took old and familar stuff (BoS, Vaults, Super Mutants) and put them in a world that was being rebuilt. The whole Brotherhood storyline was about them failing to adapt to the changing world - and it was brilliant.

Fallout isn't just super mutants and BoS just as how Elder Scrolls isn't just about Uriel Septim.

 

[C. Cain]

Everything they did had a reason behind it and good one at that, so it needed to change it couldn't stay the same. I would rather them evolve the story then invent contrivances to make things the same as they where before. And if you are relay resistant to it changing like this then you can't complain when things become stagnant. If you are ok with things never changing ok ignore this but if you don't like that then, well this is part of the problem.

I can see where you're coming from but the actual changes they made aren't necessarily any good. Especially as far as gameplay is concerned. That said, however, it's a problem that runs much deeper than Bethesda. How can you reach the depth and complexity of your predecessor if you have to put up with an ever more demanding market; at least as far graphics are concerned? You can't make a game with a mere dozen unique copy-pasted character models and maybe three environments/buildings in this day and age. And expect it to sell. So their choices were reasonable.

Anyways. As far as Fallout 3 is concerned - it felt like a shallow, if prettier, addon compared to its sequels. It's not too bad on its own merits, but not what I was looking for.

And the people over on the NMA forums are notoriously hard to please. Broken base, indeed.

 

[SajuukKhar]

So would you prefer the series to simply stagnate as no storylines or plots get revolved.

New Vegas was awesome because it took old and familar stuff (BoS, Vaults, Super Mutants) and put them in a world that was being rebuilt. The whole Brotherhood storyline was about them failing to adapt to the changing world - and it was brilliant.

Fallout isn't just super mutants and BoS just as how Elder Scrolls isn't just about Uriel Septim.

There are more ways to resolve storylines besides killing everything off forever, and/or turning everything into nothing but cameos and easter eggs.

And no Elder scrolls isn't about Uriel Septim, its about the 10 races, and the Daedra, and the Aedra, and if Bethesda started removing those, I would rather have the series go into someone elses hands.

I loved what Bethesda did with the BoS in Fallout 3, a group that has enough self-awareness to know their outdated way of life isn't getting them anywhere and thus they change to the world around them in order to survive, THAT'S how you advance a storyline.

New Vegas's portrayal of the BoS, aka the same as ever, adamantly refusing to change, makes them look like idiots, and poorly written. the New vegas boS was a bunch of spoiled brats throwing a temper tantrum because they can't get what they want, they were frankly childish.

 

[Syzygy23]

It didn't ruin the established lore, it ignored it. Little of what happens in washington has any bearing on the West Coast settlements, so it can be included in the storyline as its own series of events, or ignored and only treated as an addendum.

This. FO3 is basically... whats the word? A microcosm? I think that's it.

Weird, just felt deja vu after saying that...

 

[mitchell271]

-The Uniforms for the Vault dwellers seem to be made of cloth when in FO1&2 it was more like latex.

/facepalm

Really? Gamer's are complaining about this? I think my answer for the vault doors can pretty much explain this.

Remember, this is the same demographic that complained about the buckles on Sonic's shoes being wrong.

 

[C. Cain]

There are more ways to resolve storylines besides killing everything off forever, and/or turning everything into nothing but cameos and easter eggs.

And no Elder scrolls isn't about Uriel Septim, its about the 10 races, and the Daedra, and the Aedra, and if Bethesda started removing those, I would rather have the series go into someone elses hands.

I don't see how giving definite closure to narrative threads is supposed to be something negative. As far as I am concerned it should be something to strive for. It's a lot better to conclude a franchise while it's still good rather than see its inevitable decline as it is kept on life-support by dragging out the same old antagonists again and again.

You also make it sound as if Interplay were only removing content. Has it ever occurred to you that their actions could have paved the way for the introduction of new interesting factions?

 

[BeeGeenie]

I never knew it was that much of an issue, but then again, it's your own fault for going to NoMutantsAllowed.

-The jet thing doesn't really make much sense, but everything else is pretty acceptable, far as I can see.

I agree with OP, especially on the following:
-The Vault doors thing actually makes MORE sense in FO3, because it actually shows the mechanisms that would be needed to make something like that work. The originals completely ignored the issue of how such doors would work in the first place.
-In FO2, when you get the Vault suit from the "ancient" temple, it looks like it could be cloth, but for all we know, it could be made of some other futuristic space fabric, and really, does it matter?
-The Enclave may have been *eradicated* (sorry, I'm a nerd) on the West Coast, but their existence on the East coast seemed reasonable enough. The West Coasters, (and their narrator) had no way of knowing otherwise.

 

[SajuukKhar]

I don't see how giving definite closure to narrative threads is supposed to be something negative. As far as I am concerned it should be something to strive for. It's a lot better to conclude a franchise while it's still good rather than see its inevitable decline as it is kept on life-support by dragging out the same old antagonists again and again.

You also make it sound as if Interplay were only removing content. Has it ever occurred to you that their actions could have paved the way for the introduction of new interesting factions?

Considering that they didn't in either the plans for van buren, or New vegas, they apparently were not.

Interplay's plan was
1. Kill off 90% of everything
2. homogenize everything else into the NCR and Ceaser's Legion.

The only thing interplay seemed to want to do was make one shot factions that will be forgotten in the next game like the boomers.

You don't kill off the BoS for the same reason you don't kill off the Daedra, they can be so varied you don't need to destroy them to make new factions.

We already have three entirely different BoS groups, each with their own personality and spin, destroying them entirely would be such a waste of a good plot device.

 

[blindthrall]

Did you play 1 or 2? Just wondering, because technically the Capital Wasteland shouldn't exist. Somebody says in 1 that the whole East Coast got glassed.

 

[C. Cain]

Considering that they didn't in either the plans for van buren, or New vegas, they apparently were not.

Interplay's plan was
1. Kill off 90% of everything
2. homogenize everything else into the NCR and Ceaser's Legion.

The only thing interplay seemed to want to do was make one shot factions that will be forgotten in the next game like the boomers.

If that's the case, which I can neither deny nor confirm, then two games would've sufficed. It was a good, in itself more or less consistent and complete franchise.

Rehashing the antagonists and aesthetics of its predecessorsIrrespective of whether it made sense in context. for no other reason than to make it look more Fallout-y made it a rather unnecessary addition to the franchise.

 

[silver wolf009]

my biggest issue with fallout 3 was that it felt out of place time wise. it felt like it should be set a decade or two after the war not 200 years.

Really, I always felt that was more of a, "Hah, look at Washington. The organized capital of the once great, corrupted American Empire hasn't gotten its act together."

Political satire is what it struck me as. Either that, or it's calling everyone in the D.C. area a bunch of lazy bastages. Could be either.

OT: As far as I'm aware, the previous games hadn't touched on the East Coast, with Tactics going farthest east by focusing on Chicago, so I call it up for grabs, and I like what Bathesda did with it.

And if challenged [footnote]Half hoping, half not[/footnote] I bet you I could come up with at least a half plausible explanation for stuff that seems, "Out of place."

 

[SajuukKhar]

If that's the case, which I can neither deny nor confirm, then two games would've sufficed. It was a good, in itself more or less consistent and complete franchise.

Rehashing the antagonists and aesthetics of its predecessors for no other reason than to make it look more Fallout-y made it a rather unnecessary addition to the franchise.

But changing those predecessors into something new, rather them letting them die off, makes the series better. Killing everything off is the path of the lazy.

-I loved how the BoS got their shit together

-I loved how, at the end, Autumn betrayed Eden and went on a considerably less harsh path then the Enclave normally took, which is why I let him live. Knowing Bethesda, if they reuse the Enclave again, they will write Autumn as having rallied the remnants of the enclave from Adams air force base together to form a considerably less genocidal, yet still "evil" enclave.

-given enough time I could see Bethesda also taking the super mutants in a similar, though more accepted, path as the West Coast ones are, aka peaceful and just wanting to be left alone.

there are many ways to change existing factions to keep them fresh rather then just killing everyone off.