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

[Nomanslander]

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.

Well, that's the thing with statements made in story like this, you can't say if everything that's stated can actually be taken seriously if it's not being done by a narrator or a figure in the lore that would know better.

There's a difference between some joe-shmoe character in Fallout 1 and 2 saying that compared to the Master or some BoS Scribe.

Just like in the real world, you have to old sway who you give credibility and who you don't.

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.

I won't say ignored, more like moved the setting to the east coast in order to start anew without having to dive into the lore already established and possibly messing things up.

I mean, in a post apocalyptic world, human civilization has been scattered to the point where the world is no longer a smaller place. You can't hop on a plane and be in New York from LA in under 5 hours, so it's become very difficult for survivors to have any influence from one side of the US to the other. For all anyone in the NCR could know, there's nothing left of the East Coast after the bombs fell, or giant sea monsters created from the fallout have taken over Manhattan and... well... you get the point.

Basically what I'm getting at is I can at least understand why so little was mentioned from the lore build up in the first two games because FO3 was taking thousands of miles away. Where in post-apocalyptic world might, as well be on another planet.

 

[endtherapture]

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 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

The situation with the BoS and super mutants is similar to the Dunmer in Skyrim. The world has changed so they are adapting to the change - could you imagine if every single TES game was the same political situation in the world?

Same with the enemy in the game changing - Super Mutants in FO1, Enclave in FO2 - when both those factions are defeated, they're going to have to disappear or become less powerful otherwise the game will stagnnate and be crap.

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.

Or it could be a comment on religious fanaticism...

 

[Sharpiez]

-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?

This is the only thing that is totally off base. McDonalds gets to China through globalization. Because we can now fly on planes and bring our businesses with us. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Capital wasteland and the West Coast are connected AT ALL. In fact, more evidence is brought up to the contrary. There is even less evidence that, with a connection, jet could make the journey and then be reproduced.

Edit: The above probably bothers me so much because my college major entirely relates to how populations interact and how culture/tech flows... So I was particularly incensed

I agree with you about the whole East vs West coast tech thing though -- in my mind the Capital was probably hit way harder so needs a lot more to recover.

Finally, the last little bit about the Enclave... You can't really say it didn't ruin the established lore when you are saying they rewrote parts of it -- regardless of how you personally feel about it. That was an instance of them actually, absolutely, changing what was already done.

 

[SajuukKhar]

The situation with the BoS and super mutants is similar to the Dunmer in Skyrim. The world has changed so they are adapting to the change - could you imagine if every single TES game was the same political situation in the world?

Same with the enemy in the game changing - Super Mutants in FO1, Enclave in FO2 - when both those factions are defeated, they're going to have to disappear or become less powerful otherwise the game will stagnnate and be crap.

You are aware that by the time of Skyrim the Dunmer have already rebuilt large portions of Morrowind and are on their way to recovery?

The Dunmer aren't dyeing out, they aren't defeated, they didn't just take their losses and give up, they persevered, and made themselves better for it,

Getting your ass handed to you shouldn't cause the factions to just give up and die out, that's terrible writing, they should learn from it, make themselves better, and then come back, changed, and better because of it.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

-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?

... Globalization? Fucking duh.


There are McDonalds in China because the people who make McDonalds have the resources to put them there.

However I know for a fact that a post apocalyptic world in the style of Fallout wouldn't be globalized, so therefore this makes very little sense.

Now it's as easy to explain away as someone wandering over and telling everyone the recipe, but still... Why would you even try and argue against this if you're just going to throw up your hands and then show how totally ignorant of global economics you are?

I feel like you just defaulted your argument to being wrong.



That aside, I feel like you're stretching to explain a lot of things that are as easy to explain as this: Bethesda wanted to make some cash, and perhaps some of them were fans of Fallout (or perhaps they just realized that the company that made the once MAJOR title was having trouble and knew they could get the rights for a mildy expensive song), so they bought the license and then decided to set it where they lived (as fanboys will often do that shit. Hell, I'll admit to being excited that the original Fallout 3 was going to have bits in Denver. Who wouldn't want to see their town after the apocalypse?) and then they shoehorned in all the factions they liked, leaving out the one's they didn't (Seriously, no mention on NCR? The largest culture probably on that whole continent? Wow), and then they just slapped in some "Here's why this is okay, and you can't ***** because we own it".

Well, wrong again Bethesda.

And wrong on you for attempting to support this bullshit.

You know, the first and second Fallout were actually differently named spiritual sequels to a game called Wasteland, honoring the original while adding a unique spin on it.

Now my question to you, sir, is why Bethesda couldn't take that cue, save themselves the money and fan backlash, and just call the game something other than Fallout renaming the exact same factions?

And to be a dick, I will answer that: Greed, and the promised lump of cash that comes with reviving an old series. Also they are too lazy and uncreative to come up with anything as shocking as original content, preferring to use cliche and outright plagiarism.

No matter what Todd Howard says: Fallout New Vegas is the real Fallout 3. Fallout 3 was "Wasteland Scrolls".

 

[hoboman29]

Some of these are minor nitpicks by fanboys. I personally prefer New Vegas but that's my opinion. For some of these though I might have answers.

Super mutants: Gen 2 mutants (The ones in Fallout 2) were stupid as the Enclave wanted soldiers they could control. Why they are in Fallout 3 I'm not sure but from a dev standpoint it was a Fallout staple so why not include it.

BoS: While generally I don't approve of them it is based on how Lyons thinks the Brotherhood should work. Off topic I side with the outcasts as they are the BoS from F1 and F2 essentially

Jet: Some junkie could have gone to DC between 2 and 3 and started to produce it in an attempt to get their fix. From dev standpoint again series staple.

Next 3: nitpicks moving on.

Enclave: I think the lore states they moved East to avoid being hunted and it seems plausible. About nitpicks though...what the hell is with that armor it looks terrible.

 

[silver wolf009]

-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?

... Globalization? Fucking duh.


There are McDonalds in China because the people who make McDonalds have the resources to put them there.

However I know for a fact that a post apocalyptic world in the style of Fallout wouldn't be globalized, so therefore this makes very little sense.

Now it's as easy to explain away as someone wandering over and telling everyone the recipe, but still... Why would you even try and argue against this if you're just going to throw up your hands and then show how totally ignorant of global economics you are?

I feel like you just defaulted your argument to being wrong.

This may make me sound stupid, but I remember hearing something about how three different people, without coordination, have "discovered" Physics. Maybe we have one of these going on?

That aside, I feel like you're stretching to explain a lot of things that are as easy to explain as this: Bethesda wanted to make some cash, and perhaps some of them were fans of Fallout (or perhaps they just realized that the company that made the once MAJOR title was having trouble and knew they could get the rights for a mildy expensive song), so they bought the license and then decided to set it where they lived (as fanboys will often do that shit. Hell, I'll admit to being excited that the original Fallout 3 was going to have bits in Colorado and Denver. Who wouldn't want to see their town after the apocalypse) and then they shoehorned in all the factions they liked, leaving out the one's they didn't (Seriously, no mention on NCR? The largest culture probably on that whole continent? Wow), and then they just slapped in some "Here's why this is okay, and you can't ***** because we own it".

I just thought that since they were so far away, and the organizations that knew of them had bigger things to worry about, like each other, that they weren't mentioned by anyone because they were of no consequence to the story. And it makes sense they weren't of any affect on the area, even more so when you consider Ceaser's in the way.

Well, wrong again Bethesda.

You know, the first and second Fallout were actually differently named spiritual sequels to a game called Wasteland.

Now my question to you, sir, is why Bethesda couldn't take that cue, save themselves the money and fan backlash, and just call the game something other than Fallout renaming the exact same factions?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they wouldn't have saved money if they hadn't made Fo3.

And wrong on you for attempting to support this bullshit.

That's just uncalled for. Double Edit: Looking back, that lacked the venom I originally thought it contained. Don't know why; maybe being on the internet has poisoned my brain to assume the worst. Mistook an opinion for an insult, and now I feel silly. Ignore what I said.

I liked Fo3 a lot, Heaven knows more than Vegas, and I don't see why people get upset about it not dealing with previous installments in the franchise, when the events of those installments have little affect on the plot and setting. Plus I feel there's great potential for the Capital Wasteland to be used on the larger scale as a faction.

EDIT: Also, I butchered all these quotes. Huzzah, poor text editing skills!

 

[SajuukKhar]

It had been said time and time again by every mutant:

"we are the first and last generation."

Its been 200 years, and when you cant reproduce and FEV is gone forever its an inevitability they will die off.

Fallout is about change, not sitting around with the same factions every single game. Fallout is not Call of Duty. Its about progress.

Actually Fallout is about everything BUT change, its entire motto is "war, war NEVER changes"

Fallout is about humanity as a whole being unable to learn about its past mistakes and thus dooming themselves to the same failures over and over again.

There is no progress in Fallout, just endless repeats of the mistakes of old over and over again, the NCR isn't progress, the legion isn't progress, the BoS, isn't progress, the super mutants aren't progress, they are just the same mistakes repeated endlessly.

Also there's nothing preventing there from being more FEV.

 

[SycoMantis91]

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. Also, if it had even completely embraced the lore, it still would have made said lore a lot more boring to play through

 

[Nomanslander]

-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?

... Globalization? Fucking duh.


There are McDonalds in China because the people who make McDonalds have the resources to put them there.

However I know for a fact that a post apocalyptic world in the style of Fallout wouldn't be globalized, so therefore this makes very little sense.

Okay, let me give a better example.

How do you explain silk in Europe as early as the Roman Empire? And silk was a product that China enforce laws and punishments of death to anyone that tried to trade secrets with the west on how it was produced. Was there "globalization" in 550 AD when silk worms were finally smuggled into Europe and the secret of the trade was discovered there?

Also, why would there be any mention of NCR in FO3 when they're present never exceeded New Vegas unlike the Enclave and BoS?

 

[SajuukKhar]

Okay, let me give a better example.

How do you explain silk in Europe as early as the Roman Empire? And silk was a product that China enforce laws and punishments of death to anyone that tried to trade secrets with the west on how it was produced. Was there "globalization" in 550 AD when silk worms were finally smuggled into Europe and the secret of the trade was discovered there?

Also, why would there be any mention of NCR when they haven't never been made present any further east as New Vegas?

I always assumed someone from the BoS brought it with them, or the Enclave, or hell, even Harold.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

-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?

... Globalization? Fucking duh.


There are McDonalds in China because the people who make McDonalds have the resources to put them there.

However I know for a fact that a post apocalyptic world in the style of Fallout wouldn't be globalized, so therefore this makes very little sense.

Now it's as easy to explain away as someone wandering over and telling everyone the recipe, but still... Why would you even try and argue against this if you're just going to throw up your hands and then show how totally ignorant of global economics you are?

I feel like you just defaulted your argument to being wrong.

This may make me sound stupid, but I remember hearing something about how three different people, without coordination, have "discovered" Physics. Maybe we have one of these going on?

That aside, I feel like you're stretching to explain a lot of things that are as easy to explain as this: Bethesda wanted to make some cash, and perhaps some of them were fans of Fallout (or perhaps they just realized that the company that made the once MAJOR title was having trouble and knew they could get the rights for a mildy expensive song), so they bought the license and then decided to set it where they lived (as fanboys will often do that shit. Hell, I'll admit to being excited that the original Fallout 3 was going to have bits in Colorado and Denver. Who wouldn't want to see their town after the apocalypse) and then they shoehorned in all the factions they liked, leaving out the one's they didn't (Seriously, no mention on NCR? The largest culture probably on that whole continent? Wow), and then they just slapped in some "Here's why this is okay, and you can't ***** because we own it".

I just thought that since they were so far away, and the organizations that knew of them had bigger things to worry about, like each other, that they weren't mentioned by anyone because they were of no consequence to the story. And it makes sense they weren't of any affect on the area, even more so when you consider Ceaser's in the way.

Well, wrong again Bethesda.

You know, the first and second Fallout were actually differently named spiritual sequels to a game called Wasteland.

Now my question to you, sir, is why Bethesda couldn't take that cue, save themselves the money and fan backlash, and just call the game something other than Fallout renaming the exact same factions?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say they wouldn't have saved money if they hadn't made Fo3.

And wrong on you for attempting to support this bullshit.

That's just uncalled for. Double Edit: Looking back, that lacked the venom I originally thought it contained. Don't know why; maybe being on the internet has poisoned my brain to assume the worst. Mistook an opinion for an insult, and now I feel silly. Ignore what I said.

I liked Fo3 a lot, Heaven knows more than Vegas, and I don't see why people get upset about it not dealing with previous installments in the franchise, when the events of those installments have little affect on the plot and setting. Plus I feel there's great potential for the Capital Wasteland to be used on the larger scale as a faction.

EDIT: Also, I butchered all these quotes. Huzzah, poor text editing skills!

Because it ruined the franchise. I mean we got lucky and New Vegas came out, but it wasn't even called Fallout 3 like it should have been.

Think about it this way: What's your favorite game series?

Okay, now imagine the studio that makes it just shut down. So now almost a decade passes, and some other company buys the rights and decides to put out a sequel that takes all the core concepts and throws them out needlessly replacing them with bland bullshit.

This is the story of the Fallout Series. Try and see it from our side.


Also, when I mentioned them saving money, I meant on buying the name. They could have EASILY called Fallout 3 something different, sold just as much if not more because fallout fans would have liked it, and still kept everything the same, just call the Enclave and BoS something slightly different.


Same reason I hate shitty hollywood remakes, which I've already mentioned is what I feel Fallout 3 is.

 

[Nomanslander]

Okay, let me give a better example.

How do you explain silk in Europe as early as the Roman Empire? And silk was a product that China enforce laws and punishments of death to anyone that tried to trade secrets with the west on how it was produced. Was there "globalization" in 550 AD when silk worms were finally smuggled into Europe and the secret of the trade was discovered there?

Also, why would there be any mention of NCR when they haven't never been made present any further east as New Vegas?

I always assumed someone from the BoS brought it with them.

That could also be another explanation.

But the issue I'm trying to bring up is, how are any of these complaints considered "ruining" the lore and all "logic" when you can pretty much think up of several sound reason for there existence. For the existence of Jet on the East Coast. Because based on this logic. There is NO WAY Europe in 550AD could have discovered how to create silk, totally illogical! lol

0o

 

[AnotherAvatar]

-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?

... Globalization? Fucking duh.


There are McDonalds in China because the people who make McDonalds have the resources to put them there.

However I know for a fact that a post apocalyptic world in the style of Fallout wouldn't be globalized, so therefore this makes very little sense.

Okay, let me give a better example.

How do you explain silk in Europe as early as the Roman Empire? And silk was a product that China enforce laws and punishments of death to anyone that tried to trade secrets with the west on how it was produced. Was there "globalization" in 550 AD when silk worms were finally smuggled into Europe and the secret of the trade was discovered there?

Also, why would there be any mention of NCR in FO3 when they're present never exceeded New Vegas unlike the Enclave and BoS?

Because they still take up a massive chunk of the nation and therefore would be talked about by any civilization that CLEARLY managed to get one of it's features: Jet.

Not to mention that the Brotherhood of Steel are there.

The silk thing I have no reply about, I'm not enough of a historian to debate that and will leave it to one of my more capable fears. My theory is that the Roman empire stretched so far and explored so much that it is probably likely they ran into a civilization that had silk.

And this thin guess of an answer is all Bethesda needed to put in their game to explain it. Hell they could have even just said Harrold brought it over, I mean they already raped the character so why not?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

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.

But the fraction of the BoS you see in New Vegas are just that, a fraction. A fraction clinging onto old values and dying while the adapting faction you encounter in Fallout 3 is becoming more and more powerful. Seeing a handful of BoS dying in New Vegas doesn't invalidate the fact that in Fallout 3 they've become rock solid.

And of course they made the BoS were less important in New Vegas, they weren't about to immediately reuse the major factions from Fallout 3. How does killing that one small part of them equate to wiping out the entire BoS? If anything Obsidian knew that they could put them to the side because they had been made so powerful by the end of Fallout 3. They can't make them the stars of every show.

As for Ghouls and Super Mutants, there were plenty of both in New Vegas. Ghouls just weren't as pushed to the forefront as they were in Fallout 3 (eg. meeting a ghoul bartender in the very first bar you go into and having him explain stuff) and the Super Mutants had their own communities. Two, in fact. They just weren't wandering monsters any more which makes them seem much rarer despite the fact that the number of actual Super Mutant characters is so much higher.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Well that's the nature of progress isn't it? The larger factions eventually assimilate or destroy their lesser rivals. It's why there are no city-states in the United States.

And yes various extremest groups of every kind from religious to political have existed, and continue to exist, despite being vastly outnumbered by moderates for ages.

The reason there are few ghouls and super mutants is because they were created in very specific ways that no longer exist. There are no more large bursts of radiation to make more ghouls, and the master and his FEV pits are gone so there's no more super mutants. Pretty straight forward. I don't need a series to ignore it's own logic just to staple on stuff from the previous iterations to convince me it's part of the same series.

Except people still become ghouls frequently all the time by hanging out in highly radioactive areas, and indeed several of them don't go crazy.

As for super mutants, the FEV was controlled by one of the most secretive, and crazy government in video games, there is nothing to prevent a plot about finding more FEV, or some scientist making more.

Part of that is why Chris Avellone included the option to wipe out both the Legion and the NCR at the end of Lonesome Road. He felt that civilization had progressed to much for any future installments to be recognizably post-apocalyptic. He didn't pull the bullshit Bethesda did and just ignore the inevitable progress of society because he and the rest of Obsidian are good writers.

Except you DON'T wipe out the NCR or leigion at the end of Lonesome Road, you destroy ONE, and only ONE outpost of each. What your saying is literally debunked by the DLC itself.

That said, I didn't really have much of a problem with Bethesda's additions to lore, mostly what I had issue with was the nonstop Fridge Logic [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FridgeLogic] of Fallout 3.

-Except, if you payed attention to what is told to you of Megaton's past, the only reason why they were able to build MEgaton is because of that crazy bomb worshiping cult helping them out, they couldn't built it anywhere else because the cult wouldn't have helped them had they tried to.

-Its a game, realistic population dispersal between towns isn't possible. 99% of all NPCs you will meet in the game are bandits, yet we know for a fact that their numbers aren't that high in reality. Any complaints of population numbers comes down to the fact that ITS A GAME, and thus is SCALED DOWN, and thus many small settlements would be removed entirely, and the existing settlements would be scaled down to a small size. The boS recruit number is entirely believable as long as you remember Fallout 3 is a game, and thus not 100 accurate to the universe it portrays.

-This is Fallout, which only ever barely stayed true to real science, they used super nukes.

-Slaves enslave, bandits, and people from towns both, shown and unshown, and sell them to various slaver bands such as the oens at the Pitt, and the ones that hang out at the Lincoln Memorial, and the other slaver bands that logical exist but would also logically not be shown because of the games scale.

-Actually the water in little lamplight is clean, and they eat fungus, in fact there is even quest dealing with trading fungus with them, and they tell you that is what they eat.

Next you are going to be saying that Whiterun only having like 12 buildings doesn't make sense, its a game, they have to scale it down, due to scale downs many things would logically get left out, and anyone who THINKS for more then 12 seconds should be able to figure out that game scale =/= real world scale.

Most of the things you claim don't make sense only don't make sense because people, for some ungodly reason, seem to want to take what is shown in the games as a 100% true scale model of the world, when games don't work like that.

 

[theguru]

See, that's the thing. Regardless of whether it actually violated any continuity (which it did, a lot, but lets ignore that for a second), it still betrayed the series canon. Nothing that happened in the first two games mattered at all to the developments in 3, and the elements carried over either make no sense or are just half-hearted re-hashes of the events of the first two games.

Fallout: New Vegas = Fallout 3: Actually-a-sequel-this-time Edition.

 

[teh_Canape]

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?

*slaps*
SHUT UP
don't tempt fate, mate