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

[SL33TBL1ND]

Who cares? The most important thing for a game to get right is the gameplay, which it did.

 

[Vault101]

.... but that's not my problem with it. I think my problem with that and a lot of the other smaller aesthetic changes in Fallout 3 (like how the mole rats or the plasma rifle look) was that they seemed like overkill. Bethesda had already distanced themselves from older Fallout fans and changed a lot about the games we loved, and each one of those small aesthetic changes just seemed like it was done in [b/]further spite.[/b]

[quote/]further spite[/quote]
[quote/]spite[/quote]

WHAT?......that makes no friggen sense....developers dont do thease things out of somthing as nonsensical and petty as spite...and even then (int he case of the doors) 1. there can be an explanation 2. IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER

by that I mean small changes....like lets say you switched the designs around (FO3 guns and FO1 guns for instance) people would still moan only for the sole reason they are different..not because one design is supirpor...but because its slightly different..hat kind of blind fanboyism is friggen stupid

I can understand why some hate FO3 but some people really just cannot accept change...and thats too bad

 

[Vault101]

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.

yeah, because thats the thing about revitalising or doing seaquels to IP's that happen to be a bit old

nothings allowed to change...aparently

 

[teebeeohh]

what happened at the east coast doesn't effect anything so i really don't care. i got the game i wanted with NV and will only ever care about fallout3 if we get a game centered on the MIT commonwealth.

and the main factor with the jet is time, there was no reason for people to bring it west with them(since the east coast appears to be underdeveloped) and 30 something years is too short a time to travel that far, even assuming this is not original jet a knockoff.

fallout 3 was a beta, testing if fallout works in 3rd in the 21st century, it did so they used the tech behind it to make a good game

IMO, if the Wasteland Survive Guide was able to make it from the east coast to the Mojave in 3-4 years time, I don't see the problem with Jet making it to the east in what? 30 years time?

the NCR is on the west coast, the richest nation in post-war america, you can make a shitload of money selling the survival guide there. and the survival guide is useful enough to make me believe someone with the ability to move across the US in 3 years(BoS, enclave remnants, possibly also commonwealth and the NCR rangers) would take it across the country. there is no reason for any of those to transport a large enough quantity of jet to make it popular and reverse-engineer it. and it wouldn't make sense for crime lords to get jet to the east coast because the east coast is largely a dumb without major powers with high population, thus not enough potential customers(bandits don't count since they are way to unreliable as business partners) .
and while word to mouth and the jet on the east coast not being original jet is plausible, word to mouth in the post apocalypse just doesn't ravel fast enough to make jet established and widespread on the east coast. if they decided to make a plot point about jet being the new shit it would have been fine by me.

 

[SajuukKhar]

the NCR is on the west coast, the richest nation in post-war america, you can make a shitload of money selling the survival guide there. and the survival guide is useful enough to make me believe someone with the ability to move across the US in 3 years(BoS, enclave remnants, possibly also commonwealth and the NCR rangers) would take it across the country. there is no reason for any of those to transport a large enough quantity of jet to make it popular and reverse-engineer it. and it wouldn't make sense for crime lords to get jet to the east coast because the east coast is largely a dumb without major powers with high population, thus not enough potential customers(bandits don't count since they are way to unreliable as business partners) .
and while word to mouth and the jet on the east coast not being original jet is plausible, word to mouth in the post apocalypse just doesn't ravel fast enough to make jet established and widespread on the east coast. if they decided to make a plot point about jet being the new shit it would have been fine by me.

No one on the East Coast shows any indication of knowing that the NCR exists, them going over there to make money selling the guide really doesn't make sense.

 

[MaulYoda]

.... but that's not my problem with it. I think my problem with that and a lot of the other smaller aesthetic changes in Fallout 3 (like how the mole rats or the plasma rifle look) was that they seemed like overkill. Bethesda had already distanced themselves from older Fallout fans and changed a lot about the games we loved, and each one of those small aesthetic changes just seemed like it was done in [b/]further spite.[/b]

[quote/]further spite

[quote/]spite[/quote]

WHAT?......that makes no friggen sense....developers dont do thease things out of somthing as nonsensical and petty as spite...and even then (int he case of the doors) 1. there can be an explanation 2. IT DOES NOT FUCKING MATTER

by that I mean small changes....like lets say you switched the designs around (FO3 guns and FO1 guns for instance) people would still moan only for the sole reason they are different..not because one design is supirpor...but because its slightly different..hat kind of blind fanboyism is friggen stupid

I can understand why some hate FO3 but some people really just cannot accept change...and thats too bad[/quote]I assume you read the rest of my comment and aren't taking that out of context. If not:

I'm NOT saying it was, and they do have reasonable explanations (different mole rat species or plasma rifle model for the examples I gave), but they didn't seem necessary. So could Bethesda have changed the door mechanism and given a reason as to why it was different? Sure. But could they have just made it look the same as it was in the original Fallout games without it affecting the game whatsoever? Yes. But in short, I have NO PROBLEM with this, it just seems unnecessary, and it comes off like it MIGHT'VE been done in spite as such

Basically, I don't think the people at Bethesda are assholes and I'm not saying they made all these extra changes for the sole purpose of pissing off older Fallout fans (although they weren't on the best of terms with them). What I'm saying is that there was no reason for them to make those changes to the weapons or enemies or anything else. If they just went with the designs from the original Fallout games, nothing would've been affected and no one would be pissed off about it. But I really wasn't bothered that much by the small aesthetic changes (the changes to the super mutants and the BOS bothered me a lot more). Although since you brought it up...

They aren't "slight" changes; the way those things look in Fallout 3 is COMPLETELY different than how they looked in Fallout 1 and 2. And yes, there are explanations for some of them. But again, Bethesda wouldn't need to explain anything if they just stuck to the original designs

And I can't accept change? Fallout was changed to be an action RPG (and ended up an FPS with RPG elements with Fallout 3; New Vegas was at least an action RPG). Fallout was changed to have real time combat. It was changed to be in first person. The developer changed to Bethesda because Interplay changed their minds about how much they needed Black Isle (they didn't think so, but they did) and shut it down. Then Fallout 3 changed from what it would've been as Van Buren. It changed locations. It changed art designs. It changed to exclude familiar factions. It changed the SPECIAL and stats system into a much more streamlined version. It changed the super mutants to not make sense. It changed the BOS to not make sense. It changed quality in writing. It changed the perk rate. It changed combat mechanics. It changed to remove traits...I could go on. The point is, that's A LOT of change to put up with, and most of it wasn't for the better. So it is so much to ask that the mole rats have hair, or something like that? I think not

Also, you want to talk about superior designs? Okay. The power fist in Fallout 3 is some box-thing and looks really stupid. The mole rats look like the pigmy rates from Fallout 2, and those didn't look anywhere near as intimidating as the mole rats in Fallout 2. The little beady eyes on the Enclave power armor in Fallout 3 don't look as intimidating as the giant bug eyes on the advanced power armor in Fallout 2 and New Vegas. The T-51b power armor was a classic, so it's hard to compare the T-45d in Fallout 3 to that. But going by the lore, the T-45d is vastly inferior to the T-51b, so I'll go with that. The hunting rifle in the original games looks better. I actually liked the plasma rifle design in Fallout 3, but the one from the older games looks more futuristic and more powerful (which it is). I didn't like the blockiness of the laser rifle and laser pistol in Fallout 3. The laser rifle fared better compared to its counterpart in the originals, but the laser pistol in Fallout 1 and 2 looks much cooler than the one in Fallout 3. The combat armor in Fallout 3 looked way too normal and paled in comparison to the combat armor in the original Fallout games. The super mutants in Fallout 3 looked like ogres (and their appearance was inconsistent regardless). The alien blaster doesn't use small energy cells, which made it not worth my time. And the gauss rifle is now an energy weapon for some reason

So yeah, I didn't like a lot of the aesthetic changes made in Fallout 3 because I didn't think the result looked as good. And yet, as I said in an earlier post, I still didn't mind them THAT much. I put up with them far more than other problems I have with the game

 

[MaulYoda]

I did not mean that the world must be made whole and good and pure again. I meant that Fallout takes place in a world that tries to rebuild itself. It explores HOW people rebuild. That's what I meant.

Then you'd be correct

 

[MaulYoda]

Who cares? The most important thing for a game to get right is the gameplay, which it did.

As a game, yes. As an RPG, no

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.

It Black Isle's series, but that's just mincing words. Regardless, you didn't need to ruin the lore to save Fallout; ruining the lore was exactly what got Fallout in its hole. Bethesda made Fallout more mainstream in order to "save" it, and I understood that. But New Vegas proved that just because Fallout was more mainstream doesn't mean it still couldn't be Fallout. That mass appeal didn't have to mean canonical inconsistencies and (mostly) streamlined mechanics. It's a shame Fallout 3 did not do that

 

[Vkmies]

I don't really have that big of a problem with the way FO3 handled the lore and I actually quite like the game. Really the biggest problem I have with the game is that it felt way more just the TES-team trying out a different style as opposed to a heart-felt sequal to the originals. In my eyes, the series is an isometric RPG. The Shooter-RPG-sandbox I got from Bethesda was fun. A great game, great atmosphere, nothing wrong there gameplay-wise, but I really want Fallout to be what it was, as opposed to what it is now, but meh. Can't complain. It could've been much, much worse for the Fallout-fans.

 

[MaulYoda]

Fallout 3 is the nostalgic fan-service the community needed, while New Vegas helped progress and evolve the lore of the Fallout universe.

Fallout 3 brought the Fallout series back. New Vegas was the nostalgic fan-service the community needed AND helped progress and evolve the lore of the Fallout universe

 

[MaulYoda]

Who cares? The most important thing for a game to get right is the gameplay, which it did.

As a game, yes. As an RPG, no.

Pffft. It's a CRAP shooter with the worst balance and lowest amount of replayability possible.

That's my point. If Bethesda was trying to make an RPG, they failed, instead making an FPS with light RPG elements (and obviously the FPS elements could've been done better). As a game though, it was a fun...I think "hiking simulator" is the term I've seen used that fits pretty well

 

[teebeeohh]

the NCR is on the west coast, the richest nation in post-war america, you can make a shitload of money selling the survival guide there. and the survival guide is useful enough to make me believe someone with the ability to move across the US in 3 years(BoS, enclave remnants, possibly also commonwealth and the NCR rangers) would take it across the country. there is no reason for any of those to transport a large enough quantity of jet to make it popular and reverse-engineer it. and it wouldn't make sense for crime lords to get jet to the east coast because the east coast is largely a dumb without major powers with high population, thus not enough potential customers(bandits don't count since they are way to unreliable as business partners) .
and while word to mouth and the jet on the east coast not being original jet is plausible, word to mouth in the post apocalypse just doesn't ravel fast enough to make jet established and widespread on the east coast. if they decided to make a plot point about jet being the new shit it would have been fine by me.

No one on the East Coast shows any indication of knowing that the NCR exists, them going over there to make money selling the guide really doesn't make sense.

the bos knows the NCR exists, so does the enclave and if jet can make it to the east coast via word to mouth so can knowledge of the NCR. but of course, telling people about the emerging superpower is much more unlikely than transporting large amounts of drugs for no good reason.
but let's assume nobody was interested in selling it, it just takes one guy to take a copy because it's a useful book and after the read it he can just give it to someone else or make a copy, something that is easily done with a book but really fucking hard with jet.

 

[SajuukKhar]

That's my point. If Bethesda was trying to make an RPG, they failed, instead making an FPS with light RPG elements (and obviously the FPS elements could've been done better). As a game though, it was a fun...I think "hiking simulator" is the term I've seen used that fits pretty well

I don't see how it was a bad RPG, it had legitimate character progression unlike New Vegas.

getting better weapons and armor actually meant something because it didn't have the terrible DT system to make higher ranked armor worthless.

 

[QAOSbringer]

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

Anyways, here's a list of complaints I've picked up from NoMutuantsAllowed forums.

I don't think NMA is a good place to discuss Fallout games. It may be my prejudgment, but any NMA user I talked, was very narrow minded on games.

First of all, many "NMA users" thinks FO1 is the only "real Fallout game" and not even FO2 come close to the glorious of the first game.

I think FO1 was really good, but FO2 was a better game, because of some elements: removing the time restrict from the first game, adding more weapons, adding some cyberpunkish feeling (high tech low lifes, especially in the later cities), and that Louis Armstrong song.

I also think FO3 was a fun game, I really enjoyed seeing and exploring the Fallout world in 3D and in First Person View.
Although I liked Daggerfall/Morrowind but disliked Oblivion/Skyrim, I admit Bethesda is an awesome choice for expanding the lore with books and many different materials.
Fallout 3 was really beautiful for the lore materials. As I read books in Skyrim, I hacked computers in FO3 just to read different e-mails.

Of course, FO3 was not a perfect game. There were some things I didn't like:
- I wish there was a "isometric view" in the game. It was not that hard, I've seen First Person / Third Person / Isometric camera in some games before FO3.
- First Person combat was not great. For example combat in Borderlands 2 is much fun (I know it is action based game like Quake, and not tactical like Fallout). At least they could made a combat similar to Counter-Strike or VTM: Bloodlines.
- VATS was an interesting idea, however it became a "IWINbutton" in the game. I wish it was a bit more tactical and turn based instead of "press mouse to kill" feature.
- Using the weapons were enjoyable, however I really wanted to see classic guns like Desert Eagle, Ak-47, Bozar, H&K G11E, Pancor Jackhammer.
- I expected skills like Repair/Computer/Science were more useful in the game. But they had just simple usage.

New Vegas improved many aspects of Fallout 3. Especially the combat was more fun (however there was still no isometric view and VATS was still not that tactical).

But I don't think Fallout 3 was an absolute crap and New Vegas was the best game ever made, or something like that.

I find such arguments absurd.

 

[Nomanslander]

Also, you're willing to excuse that in TMNT but not Fallout?

With suspension of disbelief, and with every sci-fi series, there is a line that's being drawn on what can be acceptable and what can't be. With TMNT that line was very far from reality and much closer to fantasy (or just straight up bullshit). Turtles turned into humanoids and learned martial arts from a rat? OK, what ever. Alien's led by a talking brain and a evil Ninja want to take over the world? Fine I'll buy it.

But now I turn to Fallout, and I see players complaining about radiation half life in water, or probability of jet being reproduce, and what happens is a I get the picture that maybe this series is grounded more in reality. But it isn't! There are elements that are just as ridiculous as TMNT. I'm suppose to accept giant blob monsters that merges with computers and develops split personalities, but I'm not suppose to accept the capitol wastes still have radiation in water after 200 years?

No, I'm sorry, that's being hypocritical towards the games.

Fallout 3 was no masterpiece, but it was totally believable in the confines of the suspension of disbelief the series had drawn its line with.

;/

 

[MaulYoda]

That's my point. If Bethesda was trying to make an RPG, they failed, instead making an FPS with light RPG elements (and obviously the FPS elements could've been done better). As a game though, it was a fun...I think "hiking simulator" is the term I've seen used that fits pretty well

I don't see how it was a bad RPG, it had legitimate character progression unlike New Vegas.

getting better weapons and armor actually meant something because it didn't have the terrible DT system to make higher ranked armor worthless.

Except as I described earlier, DT wasn't worthless. Also, that's not what I'm referring to. How about the less balanced skills or less important SPECIAL? How about the fact that you could make a perfect character in Fallout 3 in skills and SPECIAL stats? How about the fact that there were hardly any skill checks for skills other than Speech in Fallout 3, and of those that there, most of them were so low that you could pass them without specialization and they weren't important to completing the quest regardless? How about the lack of a low intelligence character playthrough in Fallout 3? How about the lack of weapon strength requirements? Should I go on?

 

[MaulYoda]

Also, you're willing to excuse that in TMNT but not Fallout?

With suspension of disbelief, and with every sci-fi series, there is a line that's being drawn on what can be acceptable and what can't be. With TMNT that line was very far from reality and much closer to fantasy (or just straight up bullshit). Turtles turned into humanoids and learned martial arts from a rat? OK, what ever. Alien's led by a talking brain and a evil Ninja want to take over the world? Fine I'll buy it.

But now I turn to Fallout, and I see players complaining about radiation half life in water, or probability of jet being reproduce, and what happens is a I get the picture that maybe this series is grounded more in reality. But it isn't! There are elements that are just as ridiculous as TMNT. I'm suppose to accept giant blob monsters that merges with computers and develops split personalities, but I'm not suppose to accept the capitol wastes still have radiation in water after 200 years?

No, I'm sorry, that's being hypocritical towards the games.

Fallout 3 was no masterpiece, but it was totally believable in the confines of the suspension of disbelief the series had drawn its line with.

;/

Um, yeah, you're supposed to accept that FEV turns Richard Grey into the Master. I mean, you accept the premise of genetic mutation in Fallout games. You accept that humans could be turned into super mutants and that Harold could be turned into a ghoul/mutant thing/tree. You accept that numerous creatures were created by FEV. So isn't it possible that with such massive exposure to FEV, someone could become the Master? By the way, just because there's fantasy elements in TMNT doesn't mean that there were things like radiation half-life. Realistic concepts still apply to any world, suspension of disbelief just covers the sci-fi stuff (it was also a kid's cartoon and people weren't going to get into that)

Also, which game do you think set "the confines of the suspension of disbelief the series had drawn its line with?" Fallout 1, and Fallout 1 said the Master was alright (which he was). And yes, Fallout 3 did follow that. The problems I'm pointing out, however, are not suspension of disbelief; they're inconsistencies with canon or sheer lapses in logic. So yes, the Capital Wasteland shouldn't be more irradiated than Fallout 1, and over a century after Fallout 1 at that. And whether or not this has to do with radiation half-life, it just wasn't the direction the series was going

And no, jet shouldn't be in the Capital Wasteland because there aren't trade routes there. With some experimentation, maybe someone in D.C. could've made jet; hell, I might even accept that it has the same name as on the West Coast even though it'd be unlikely. But no one in Fallout 3 shows any evidence that they know how to make jet. Even Murphy doesn't own the key ingredient to make normal jet, so how can he make ultrajet? That's not suspension of disbelief, that's called being inconsistent with the series

 

[MaulYoda]

I don't think NMA is a good place to discuss Fallout games. It may be my prejudgment, but any NMA user I talked, was very narrow minded on games.

First of all, many "NMA users" thinks FO1 is the only "real Fallout game" and not even FO2 come close to the glorious of the first game.

I think FO1 was really good, but FO2 was a better game, because of some elements: removing the time restrict from the first game, adding more weapons, adding some cyberpunkish feeling (high tech low lifes, especially in the later cities), and that Louis Armstrong song.

I also think FO3 was a fun game, I really enjoyed seeing and exploring the Fallout world in 3D and in First Person View.
Although I liked Daggerfall/Morrowind but disliked Oblivion/Skyrim, I admit Bethesda is an awesome choice for expanding the lore with books and many different materials.
Fallout 3 was really beautiful for the lore materials. As I read books in Skyrim, I hacked computers in FO3 just to read different e-mails.

But I don't think Fallout 3 was an absolute crap and New Vegas was the best game ever made, or something like that.

I find such arguments absurd.

Do you ever think that NMA users just have a different opinion that you do? The fact that they don't like Fallout 3 doesn't make them narrow-minded. Also, they don't hate Fallout 2. Older Fallout fans like Fallout 2 a lot, it's just that some think Fallout 1 was better while others think Fallout 2 was better (I would be the latter). However, I'm not going to act like Fallout 2 didn't take some leniency with the lore. The numerous pop-culture references and fourth wall jokes, while funny, were a bit too much, and the modern weapons didn't fit. Also, there were some jokes in Fallout 2 that, before being verified as jokes, were glaring inconsistencies. That being said, it's consistent with canon 95%-99%, and it's a much deeper RPG than Fallout 1. But like I said, it depends who you talk to; also, that song in Fallout 2 is "A Kiss to Build a Dream On" in case you didn't know

Fallout had always given you little insights in the form of terminal entries and holotapes and whatnot; Fallout 3 doing it was no different. But the numerous inconsistencies in Fallout 3 did not make it a good expansion of the lore (almost a regression in some ways). However, no one is saying that it was absolute crap or that New Vegas was the best game ever made. Yes, Fallout 3 was a sub-par Fallout game, but it wasn't FOBOS. And on it's own merits, it was a pretty good game; not a masterpiece, but fun for what it was. Hell, even NMA can admit that. One of their members did a review of Fallout 3 as if it wasn't a Fallout game, and their opinion was much more positive (http://www.nma-fallout.com/article.php?id=47192); I don't know how to link things, sorry. As for New Vegas, yes, it was very good; better than many action RPGs. And yes, it was nice for a game to capture the feeling of the original Fallout titles for the first time in a decade. And yes, NMA fans are going to stick up for New Vegas as it best represents them out of the modern Fallout games. But no one is acting like it's the greatest thing since sliced bread

 

[MaulYoda]

the NCR is on the west coast, the richest nation in post-war america, you can make a shitload of money selling the survival guide there. and the survival guide is useful enough to make me believe someone with the ability to move across the US in 3 years(BoS, enclave remnants, possibly also commonwealth and the NCR rangers) would take it across the country. there is no reason for any of those to transport a large enough quantity of jet to make it popular and reverse-engineer it. and it wouldn't make sense for crime lords to get jet to the east coast because the east coast is largely a dumb without major powers with high population, thus not enough potential customers(bandits don't count since they are way to unreliable as business partners) .
and while word to mouth and the jet on the east coast not being original jet is plausible, word to mouth in the post apocalypse just doesn't ravel fast enough to make jet established and widespread on the east coast. if they decided to make a plot point about jet being the new shit it would have been fine by me.

No one on the East Coast shows any indication of knowing that the NCR exists, them going over there to make money selling the guide really doesn't make sense.

the bos knows the NCR exists, so does the enclave and if jet can make it to the east coast via word to mouth so can knowledge of the NCR. but of course, telling people about the emerging superpower is much more unlikely than transporting large amounts of drugs for no good reason.
but let's assume nobody was interested in selling it, it just takes one guy to take a copy because it's a useful book and after the read it he can just give it to someone else or make a copy, something that is easily done with a book but really fucking hard with jet.

Except jet being on the East Coast didn't make any more sense than the Wasteland Survival Guide being on the West Coast. Neither the BOS nor the Enclave carried it over, and it's not like ED-E carried the Wasteland Survival Guide westward. It's just that the Wasteland Survival Guide was blatantly fan service. Jet was just including an aspect from Fallout 2 while overlooking its plausibility in Fallout 3

 

[Nomanslander]

Also, you're willing to excuse that in TMNT but not Fallout?

With suspension of disbelief, and with every sci-fi series, there is a line that's being drawn on what can be acceptable and what can't be. With TMNT that line was very far from reality and much closer to fantasy (or just straight up bullshit). Turtles turned into humanoids and learned martial arts from a rat? OK, what ever. Alien's led by a talking brain and a evil Ninja want to take over the world? Fine I'll buy it.

But now I turn to Fallout, and I see players complaining about radiation half life in water, or probability of jet being reproduce, and what happens is a I get the picture that maybe this series is grounded more in reality. But it isn't! There are elements that are just as ridiculous as TMNT. I'm suppose to accept giant blob monsters that merges with computers and develops split personalities, but I'm not suppose to accept the capitol wastes still have radiation in water after 200 years?

No, I'm sorry, that's being hypocritical towards the games.

Fallout 3 was no masterpiece, but it was totally believable in the confines of the suspension of disbelief the series had drawn its line with.

;/

Um, yeah, you're supposed to accept that FEV turns Richard Grey into the Master. I mean, you accept the premise of genetic mutation in Fallout games. You accept that humans could be turned into super mutants and that Harold could be turned into a ghoul/mutant thing/tree. You accept that numerous creatures were created by FEV. So isn't it possible that with such massive exposure to FEV, someone could become the Master? By the way, just because there's fantasy elements in TMNT doesn't mean that there were things like radiation half-life. Realistic concepts still apply to any world, suspension of disbelief just covers the sci-fi stuff (it was also a kid's cartoon and people weren't going to get into that)

Also, which game do you think set "the confines of the suspension of disbelief the series had drawn its line with?" Fallout 1, and Fallout 1 said the Master was alright (which he was). And yes, Fallout 3 did follow that. The problems I'm pointing out, however, are not suspension of disbelief; they're inconsistencies with canon or sheer lapses in logic. So yes, the Capital Wasteland shouldn't be more irradiated than Fallout 1, and over a century after Fallout 1 at that. And whether or not this has to do with radiation half-life, it just wasn't the direction the series was going

And no, jet shouldn't be in the Capital Wasteland because there aren't trade routes there. With some experimentation, maybe someone in D.C. could've made jet; hell, I might even accept that it has the same name as on the West Coast even though it'd be unlikely. But no one in Fallout 3 shows any evidence that they know how to make jet. Even Murphy doesn't own the key ingredient to make normal jet, so how can he make ultrajet? That's not suspension of disbelief, that's called being inconsistent with the series

Okay, you have your idea how to suspend your sense of disbelief, I have mine. I've read up on how the capital wastes were heavily more bombarded during the war than the rest of the country, and that was the reason the area stayed irradiated for much longer ( pockets of concentrated radiation still left behind influencing everything). Plus I'm willing to accept Jet being recreated somehow or manged to be traded to the East. You say there are no trade routes from East to West, I say there still could be. No one has been proven right or wrong about that.

Whether or not it's all scientifically possible I really don't care because I'm sure blob monsters with slit personalities aren't.

In the end, my issue and reason for creating this thread was to ask whether or not FO3 had inconsistencies that were lore breaking. And after this thread, after 5 years of hearing FO 1 and 2 players ***** and moan, I still say it hasn't. Any inconsistencies in the lore can be explained without breaking any sense of disbelief, because the series has already set that bar pretty freakin high.

You said it yourself. I'm suppose to except blob monsters, and Harold, and all that because the first game established that I should. Well, I accept Jet in the capitol wastes, FEV in vault 87, and DC still having radiation.

I'm done.