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

[Terminate421]

Finally! Someone gets another reason why I love Fallout 3!

 

[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!

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.

Making a game that resurrected interest in what was a dead series by introducing it into a new market, with a new format, to new customers as well as old isn't how you ruin a franchise, it's how you keep it going.

Fallout 1 and 2 fans seem to think to ruin Fallout, you just had to make Fallout 3, a fun game on its own that, despite what many believe to be on par with trampling on the cloth used to wipe Jesus face, may have scuffed up some minutiae but not much more.

Fallout three didn't deny or erase anything that happened in the previous games that would just cut out chunks of history as far as I can tell. It did its own thing; doesn't mean it set your old one on fire.

No, THIS is how you'd ruin Fallout!

[HEADING=2]*BOOM!*[/HEADING]​

[HEADING=1]TWAS BUT A DREAM!![/HEADING]​

Nary more than a passing day dream in the eyes of the great wizard Merlin as he surveyed the kingdom of Camelot!

A vision of what possible future the world may one day perhaps take except it won't!

 

[silver wolf009]

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.

Side stories are a thing. You don't need to be a direct sequel to be the next instillation in a series.

Because it had nothing to do with the older games, it didn't deal with them.

 

[mrhappy1489]

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)

Is it seriously that hard to imagine that someone decided to venture east to see what was out there? The are literally hundreds of ways that Jet could have found its way to the east coast, the biggest being that some of the BoS members were addicted and considering all the tech they have it's no surprise that they could have produced it, got kicked out and started teaching others.

 

[Terminate421]

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.

Unless it was through a speech check. In which case you dip them towards the east coast BoS and give them a smart idea that helps them and the world.

 

[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.

Making a game that resurrected interest in what was a dead series by introducing it into a new market, with a new format, to new customers as well as old isn't how you ruin a franchise, it's how you keep it going.

Fallout 1 and 2 fans seem to think to ruin Fallout, you just had to make Fallout 3, a fun game on its own that, despite what many believe to be on par with trampling on the cloth used to wipe Jesus face, may have scuffed up some minutiae but not much more.

Fallout three didn't deny or erase anything that happened in the previous games that would just cut out chunks of history as far as I can tell. It did its own thing; doesn't mean it set your old one on fire.

No, THIS is how you'd ruin Fallout!

[HEADING=2]*BOOM!*[/HEADING]​

[HEADING=1]TWAS BUT A DREAM!![/HEADING]​

Nary more than a passing day dream in the eyes of the great wizard Merlin as he surveyed the kingdom of Camelot!

A vision of what possible future the world may one day perhaps take except it won't!

HAHAHA.

Okay, we have a differing opinion here, but just because of the last bit of that post I like you.



It's hard to explain how it ruined it, but it did.

I suppose the best way to put it is this: Fallout 1 and 2 were very slow and tactical with a deep well written faction-based plot that didn't take it's self too seriously (fourth wall breaking, etc.) but that could also at times be bleak and hopeless.

Now while Fallout 3 did get a bit of the tone (the mix of light and dark isn't beyond my notice, and I do need to note it is one of two Bethesda games I have beat, which says something as I only beat games I enjoy, especially ones so long), it totally missed the tactical nature of the combat engine and the faction based plot.

Fallout is supposed to be about how 'War never changes', the endless grind of faction into faction into faction with no end in sight.

Fallout 3 was not about this, it was about planting mines in people's pants and launching shoulder nukes.


Now I will agree that it ignited a renewed interest in the series, but I don't really think among the hardcore RPG crowd that interest ever waned. I think Fallout 3 just got the FPS-action-junkie crowd to adopt the series as their own.

What this means is that if future games were to, oh I don't know, say return to Isometric view and make the combat system a grid-turn-based again that the legions of Fallout 3 fans would ***** that it's too slow.

And because right now the action-junkie crowd is bigger than the RPG crowd, I can say right now that the deep, tactical, grid-based, turn-based combat system that is more satisfying than I can explain will probably never be coming back.

And that is how you ruin a series.

Think of it this way: Sonic 3 to Sonic Adventure, only it's not the same team.


The thing is, there was a classy route to take here: Bethesda could have just not taken the name of the Fallout franchise.

To elaborate on something I've mentioned here:

The original Fallout was based on a game called Wasteland. This game pretty much had exactly the same setting and a lot of the same feel. At the start of both Fallout and Fallout 2 it says "Presented by Brian Fargo". Brian Fargo had nothing to do with Fallout 1 & 2 (at least that I'm aware of), however he was the creative director of Wasteland.

The classy route would have been to make the same game with a totally different name, and open it with "Black Isle Presents" or "Tim Cain Presents"...

Instead we got Fallout 3, which starts "Bethesda Studios Presents"... Humble yeah?

 

[SajuukKhar]

Unless it was through a speech check. In which case you dip them towards the east coast BoS and give them a smart idea that helps them and the world.

Except you don't.

Elder McNamara only allows for a peace with the NCR, in Veronica's quest he animatedly refuses to help others using technology.

He didn't solve the problem, he just delayed his own end by a couple years.

The Mojave BoS is still the same dieing, isolationist, technocultist group who only cares about itself.

 

[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)

Is it seriously that hard to imagine that someone decided to venture east to see what was out there? The are literally hundreds of ways that Jet could have found its way to the east coast, the biggest being that some of the BoS members were addicted and considering all the tech they have it's no surprise that they could have produced it, got kicked out and started teaching others.

Still it doesn't seem like i should run across it nearly as much as I do, but still that's more of a minor gripe about the game for me. Its more stuff like the way the enclave are handled in game (note this is not me complaining about the enclave being used, but rather the way they're used), the actions of your father, the lack of player choice in the main plot, and just the weird things about the setting that don't really make sense that REALLY bother me. The stuff about jet is really just a nitpick.

 

[SajuukKhar]

Extremist groups do exist, yet they're very small groups and live in a society where you're not allowed to wipe out people that annoy you.

And yet, the NCR seems perfectly able to make peace with the BoS, and leave the super Mutants alone for the most part, there is nothing preventing those factions from continuing to exist.

As far as I remember, there haven't been any new Ghouls since the bombs fell, except for Moira, who was at the epicenter of an atomic blast. I could be mistaken though.
It's already been established that the Government moved all their FEV research to Mariposa. That was just blatent retconning, sorry.

Raul didn't become a ghoul when the bombs feel, in fact it happened several years later, on top of that many feral ghouls wear raider armor, showing that raiders still become ghouls today by staying in high radiation areas.

The only evidence that the Enclave moved all of its FEV research to Mariposa comes from documents made by people with limited knowledge. To say that The Encalve, a group that orchestrated the vault projector, wouldn't be able to orchestrate having more then one FEV research plant that people didn't know about is idiotic. You are taking what someone with limited knowlege said as 100% unchangeable truth, it is silly.

I thought you had the option to send the bombs to both? I guess I'm misremembering. It's been a while since I've played Lonesome Road.

You can send missiles to both the NCR and the Legion, ONE OUTPOST OF EACH though.

That crazy bomb-worshiping cult of, like, five people? Yeah. Truly invaluable.

Sure is a lot of hand waving in your post. You're basically saying "Yeah the game doesn't make sense, but if you pretend it does, then it all makes sense!"

Other games don't seem to have a problem with size and scale. New Vegas seemed pretty well populated, and their towns had a logic to them.

And yes, Whiterun only having 12 buildings doesn't make sense, although Bethesda did get better about towns in Skyrim.

And even if the Lamplighters could survive on fungus alone, there's still the ravenous deathclaws and supermutants they cant really defend themselves from.

Umm no, it isn't hand waving, its TREATING THE GAME LIKE A GAME.

No game, from Fallout 1, to Baldur's Gate, to Mass Effect, has EVER, EVER showed a 100% accurate scale of population/town size. To treat a games portrayal of a world as 100% accurate is dumb, and illogical because every game scales down.

Not even Daggerfall, which had a landmass the size of Great Britain, was to scale.

Learn what scale is, please, your just making yourself look silly.
.
.
Also goodsprings had what 8 people? the Vegaas strip had like 10?

So your saying the strip, the largest place in the Mojave, only having the same amount of people as a small town makes sense?

now your just being illogical.

 

[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!

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.

Making a game that resurrected interest in what was a dead series by introducing it into a new market, with a new format, to new customers as well as old isn't how you ruin a franchise, it's how you keep it going.

Fallout 1 and 2 fans seem to think to ruin Fallout, you just had to make Fallout 3, a fun game on its own that, despite what many believe to be on par with trampling on the cloth used to wipe Jesus face, may have scuffed up some minutiae but not much more.

Fallout three didn't deny or erase anything that happened in the previous games that would just cut out chunks of history as far as I can tell. It did its own thing; doesn't mean it set your old one on fire.

No, THIS is how you'd ruin Fallout!

[HEADING=2]*BOOM!*[/HEADING]​

[HEADING=1]TWAS BUT A DREAM!![/HEADING]​

Nary more than a passing day dream in the eyes of the great wizard Merlin as he surveyed the kingdom of Camelot!

A vision of what possible future the world may one day perhaps take except it won't!

HAHAHA.

Okay, we have a differing opinion here, but just because of the last bit of that post I like you.



It's hard to explain how it ruined it, but it did.

I suppose the best way to put it is this: Fallout 1 and 2 were very slow and tactical with a deep well written faction-based plot that didn't take it's self too seriously (fourth wall breaking, etc.) but that could also at times be bleak and hopeless.

Now while Fallout 3 did get a bit of the tone (the mix of light and dark isn't beyond my notice, and I do need to note it is one of two Bethesda games I have beat, which says something as I only beat games I enjoy, especially ones so long), it totally missed the tactical nature of the combat engine and the faction based plot.

Fallout is supposed to be about how 'War never changes', the endless grind of faction into faction into faction with no end in sight.

Fallout 3 was not about this, it was about planting mines in people's pants and launching shoulder nukes.


Now I will agree that it ignited a renewed interest in the series, but I don't really think among the hardcore RPG crowd that interest ever waned. I think Fallout 3 just got the FPS-action-junkie crowd to adopt the series as their own.

What this means is that if future games were to, oh I don't know, say return to Isometric view and make the combat system a grid-turn-based again that the legions of Fallout 3 fans would ***** that it's too slow.

And because right now the action-junkie crowd is bigger than the RPG crowd, I can say right now that the deep, tactical, grid-based, turn-based combat system that is more satisfying than I can explain will probably never be coming back.

And that is how you ruin a series.

Think of it this way: Sonic 3 to Sonic Adventure, only it's not the same team.


The thing is, there was a classy route to take here: Bethesda could have just not taken the name of the Fallout franchise.

To elaborate on something I've mentioned here:

The original Fallout was based on a game called Wasteland. This game pretty much had exactly the same setting and a lot of the same feel. At the start of both Fallout and Fallout 2 it says "Presented by Brian Fargo". Brian Fargo had nothing to do with Fallout 1 & 2 (at least that I'm aware of), however he was the creative director of Wasteland.

The classy route would have been to make the same game with a totally different name, and open it with "Black Isle Presents" or "Tim Cain Presents"...

Instead we got Fallout 3, which starts "Bethesda Studios Presents"... Humble yeah?

Live and let live I suppouse.

I'm just glad that Fallout 3 got made, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten into Fallout at all.[footnote]I have played them before, but I never liked isometric games.[/footnote] The newer release brought in new blood, which I'll argue is a good thing.

Plus I've sunk so many hours into Fo3 that I can't remember how many I've sunk into it. That makes it a good game in my book.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

Live and let live I suppouse.

I'm just glad that Fallout 3 got made, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten into Fallout at all.[footnote]I have played them before, but I never liked isometric games.[/footnote] The newer release brought in new blood, which I'll argue is a good thing.

Plus I've sunk so many hours into Fo3 that I can't remember how many I've sunk into it. That makes it a good game in my book.

More than fair enough, and I wouldn't argue that: I too have invested at least 100 hours in my first Fallout 3 playthrough, and as I started another run with mods recently I'm sure it will get at least 100 more (if only for the fact that the zombies reanimate now, which somehow always scares the crap out of me).

Totally not saying it's a bad game, I do think it's a good game rather, which is why I wished they would have called it something different so I wouldn't have to fanboy hate on it.

And if you don't like the Iso ones then you're not really a Fallout fan per-se, but rather a Fallout 3 and New Vegas fan.

Still, that said, when I think about it I bet a lot of other people went back and tried the games after 3 came out and so it probably did expose a lot of people to the older ones, so I should really quit my bitching, even more so as I do think F3 is a good game in many respects.

As you said: Live and let live.

 

[CannibalCorpses]

This entire debate revolves around 'those who can use their imagination to come up with storyline explanations' vs 'those who need to be told/have everything explained to them in-game'. I guess some of it is also just bitterness that 3 wasn't made by the same people as 1&2. I enjoyed playing all of them, even that Brotherhood of steel roaming-shooter garbage on the PS2.

OP: I like most of your original explanations. Rather than trying to prove something to be impossible, you have looked at what is there in front of you and rationalised it.

Let me offer you another explanation for Jet though. Maybe some Jet did make it across the country and maybe it didn't. I'm pretty sure the legend of the super drug would be much more likely to get there(word of mouth) so we will work on that assumption. If you could manufacture a very strong drug with jet-like properties (doesn't have to be exactly the same because frankly, who would know unless trying both right?) wouldn't it be sensible to steal that legendary brand name to sell your own product as? That would kind of fit with the Fallout humour aswell since there are records of corporate attempts to steal technology from other companies in the past...the future repeats the past but in a more simplistic way.

 

[SajuukKhar]

They exist, but in very small numbers, because when they grew large and militant, the NCR kicked their asses. Since Super Mutants are sterile, they will most likely continue to exist in small settlements until they go extinct.

Considering that Super Mutants don't die of age, that we know of, as long as they can make some peace with the NCR, they will lose the one thing that would kill them. They could easily remain alive for quite some time.

Well that's the thing about Baldur's Gate and the Strip. You didn't see all of it. There were large chunks of Freeside that you couldn't access (as I recall), and in Baldur's Gate you had the big overworld map. In game you were only seeing hubs and points of interest.

In 3 and Skyrim, what you saw was what you got.

All those buildings in Freeside and the Strip were abandoned and there was no mention of anyone living in them. On top of that almost all of them had boarded up doors.

What we saw is what we got.

 

[CD-R]

Because it ruined the franchise.

No.No No. No. A thousand times no. Bethesda did not in any way ruin the franchise with Fallout 3. You want to what game really ruined the franchise? What game truly raped Fallout's Lore inside an out?

This.

Spoiler

That my friend was the last Fallout game made by Interplay. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. You think Bethesda fucked up the lore? You have no idea the sheer lengths of lore rapage that occurred in Fallout Brotherhood of Steel. Just to name a few off the top of my head. Let's see.

In the first in game town you meet the Vault Dweller( yeah from Fallout 1) and he's a grizzled old white guy with a beard. And he's just chilling out. He's just there as an npc you can chat with.

Harold is there. You know what you do for him? He's lost some of his limbs and you have to go out and find them for him.

The main villain in the game is a super mutant general who happens to find another vault that that just happened to be doing FEV research and somehow uses it to turn into a new Master.

You want to know what the biggest betrayal of all was? The one that tops all of them? You know Nuka Cola? One of the most iconic images of Fallout. You want to know what they did with it? They fucking replaced it with product placement!!! You know what product they replaced it with?

This!!!

Spoiler

I am completely serious. They replaced all mentions of Nuka Cola with Bawls energy drink!!! Don't even try and tell me Bethesda ruined the franchise. The franchise was a smoldering heap of fail and suck before Bethesda came along. Did Bethesda mess up some of the lore? Sure. But at least they tried. At least they put effort into it. At least they cared. At least they didn't replace Nuka Cola with Bawls fucking energy drink!!!!!

I defy anyone out there who thinks Fallout 3 ruined Fallout forever to play through Fallout Brotherhood of Steel from beginning to end. Play the whole game. By yourself, no co-op nonsense. And play as the black guy. Every time he swings a melee weapon he says "Shiiit". Every friggen time. Play it and come back and try and say Fallout 3 was the worst in the series.

 

[AnotherAvatar]

Because it ruined the franchise.

No.No No. No. A thousand times no. Bethesda did not in any way ruin the franchise with Fallout 3. You want to what game really ruined the franchise? What game truly raped Fallout's Lore inside an out?

This.

Spoiler

That my friend was the last Fallout game made by Interplay. Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. You think Bethesda fucked up the lore? You have no idea the sheer lengths of lore rapage that occurred in Fallout Brotherhood of Steel. Just to name a few off the top of my head. Let's see.

In the first in game town you meet the Vault Dweller( yeah from Fallout 1) and he's a grizzled old white guy with a beard. And he's just chilling out. He's just there as an npc you can chat with.

Harold is there. You know what you do for him? He's lost some of his limbs and you have to go out and find them for him.

The main villain in the game is a super mutant general who happens to find another vault that that just happened to be doing FEV research and somehow uses it to turn into a new Master.

You want to know what the biggest betrayal of all was? The one that tops all of them? You know Nuka Cola? One of the most iconic images of Fallout. You want to know what they did with it? They fucking replaced it with product placement!!! You know what product they replaced it with?

This!!!

Spoiler

I am completely serious. They replaced all mentions of Nuka Cola with Bawls energy drink!!! Don't even try and tell me Bethesda ruined the franchise. The franchise was a smoldering heap of fail and suck before Bethesda came along. Did Bethesda mess up some of the lore? Sure. But at least they tried. At least they put effort into it. At least they cared. At least they didn't replace Nuka Cola with Bawls fucking energy drink!!!!!

I defy anyone out there who thinks Fallout 3 ruined Fallout forever to play through Fallout Brotherhood of Steel from beginning to end. Play the whole game. By yourself, no co-op nonsense. And play as the black guy. Every time he swings a melee weapon he says "Shiiit". Every friggen time. Play it and come back and try and say Fallout 3 was the worst in the series.

I hope parts of this post are a joke... Namely the "shiiiit"... Part of me wants to play this to find out but another part fears my soul dying slightly from such an experience.

But yeah... Good point, totally forgot that one, I forgot that when Black Isle was dissolved Interplay was abusing the title.

Honestly, now that you mention that, I change my position totally.

I thank Bethesda for saving Fallout from more of that. And really, at least they let New Vegas happen!

Edit: Also, this is probably the first time I've ever been in a forum debate where my mind has been totally turned around on a subject, so... Good job! You, sir, win the Internets.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

There's a lot of old schoolers in here, and I respect that. You know what I liked about Fallout 3? It came out on a console, which means for the first time I got to play a Fallout game. Sure - I'd been gaming for the years Fallout 1 and 2 came out, but I wasn't privileged enough to have a PC to play them on. I missed out. By the time I was old enough and able to get my own, the games were old tech and playing them on a fancy new computer (which I tried) resulted in a number of errors and bugs that made them pretty much unplayable.

So that's why I liked Fallout 3. Maybe it wasn't what people who could appreciate the vintage versions wanted, or at least not all of them I don't know, my fiancé thought it was pretty good and he played both the older ones. It did let people who missed out have a shot at the series though, and that's something. Also, New Vegas was awesome too.

About the Jet... I've been reading and it's all very technical and specific, but let me throw out a little wrinkle. Maybe what's being called Jet isn't actually Jet original formula? I mean, pot in the 70's wouldn't recognize pot today. Cocaine, same thing. Lots of drugs evolve and change once people get a gist of "some of this makes you high" and spin their own road to that end. Could be people didn't know how the heck to make Jet, but since people on the one coast probably had only the foggiest idea of what it should be, whatever is in those little inhalers now is just being passed off as Jet to the ignorant masses? Just a thought to add I guess to the mix here.

 

[Xdeser2]

hmm.. seeing as I was intorduced to the Series With FO3, played NV when it came out, then the original 2 after that, I never saw a problem with the lore...

could just come down to the ever-so-popular "its new so it cannot be as good as the originals" mentality