Fallout 3 did not ruin the lore established in previous games.
- Thread starter Nomanslander
- Start date
Never forget man Never forget......... seriously though in the old fallout 3 RUINED EVERYTHING threads I don't think a single interplay fan boy argument lasted for more then a few posts after BOS is mentioned. Its just so devastating and makes it so obvious that the series was dead in the ground and that Bethesda were the only ones who could bring even a semblance of it back that it really makes complaining impossibleCD-R said: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?AnotherAvatar said:
This.
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!!!
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.
Did you just mention the greatest evils ever?CD-R said:
I thought that... that... THINGS name was banned from all corners of the internet?
Doesn't this qualify as unleashing one of the seven seals of the apocalypse?
.
.
While that game may be the worst ever..... this one was still pretty bad, though not as bad.
I know a lot of people that were pissed when Bethesda made that game canon.
The plot was pretty funny, a bunch of BoS dissidents who wanted to open recruitment were exiled from the main BoS, though they were given an armada of airships anyways, and sent east.
Eventually a storm caused their main airship to go down, and after landing near Chicago they came into contact with super mutants led by the former boS leader of their group, who was presumed lost in the crash, and then ran into the robot armies of the calculator.
The Calc was some machine whose robot armies were supposed to be used to help vault people rebuild, despite the fact the entire vault system was designed to fail.
That kind of explains why they are so far behind the west though.blindthrall said:
I mean, they are literally rebuilding from NOTHING. In the west there were a few cities that survived, some government and a few factions that had a little more. In the east, roving tribes of raiders. (Cause the PItt wasn't really a city, it had like three blocks in the end).
Truthfully, I LOVED FO3. I enjoyed the hell out of the game, and suspect I will enjoy the hell out of FO4 too. If bethesda makes it, there is a distinct chance I will like it. (as long as they keep multiplayer out of the game).
Oi! I Like Tactics!SajuukKhar said:Did you just mention the greatest evils ever?CD-R said:
I thought that... that... THINGS name was banned from all corners of the internet?
Doesn't this qualify as unleashing one of the seven seals of the apocalypse?
.
.
While that game may be the worst ever..... this one was still pretty bad, though not as bad.
I know a lot of people that were pissed when Bethesda made that game canon.
Kinda makes me think of Jagged Aliiance 2
Tactics is an odd game, Ive seen lots of hate, and lots of love, for it.CannibalCorpses said:
Its nowhere near BoS level bad, so Bethesda sorta hand waved it into canon saying "only the high level events" are canon, despite not being clear on what they consider high level.
Same country? What country? There is no USA, there is no America in FO 1, 2, and 3, and hasn't been one since the bombs fell. So how are remnants of a fallen society suppose to keep ties in their cultural and industrial advances when vertical collectivism has been removed from the equation?Ultratwinkie said:
I've not played Fallout 1 & 2, and my only experience with them has been reading the wikipedia articles on the characters and events therein, but, I'd have to say that Fallout 3 was actually pretty good for what it tried to do.Soviet Heavy said:
I've thought about it for a while and I agree that it's an addendum, but, perhaps more precisely, a test. Since FO3 was establishing a real-time engine, there could have been millions of things that could go wrong, and in a way, they avoided messing around with the equasion by sending you to the other side of the continent.
If you had no choice during your dealings with the NCR, or perhaps Ceaser's Legion, fans would be even more outraged, by showing a standalone tale in a new location, if they happened to do something wrong, it wouldn't affect the story that people had grown to become invested in.
Like I say, it was a test, and, I'd say it was successful. Look at New Vegas? Mechanical issues aside, we had more choice, more options, and I'd say that captured the supposed spirit of the franchise better than FO3 supposedly did.
I'll always love FO3, I loved the game to death, but during my playing it, and seeing how New Vegas improved on it, and reading the arguments people will make over how FO3 wasn't any good, and certainly seeing all the somewhat ridiculous nitpicking going on (the vault door didn't open like you wanted it to, really? How petty can you be?) I feel as though people are missing the point. It had a good story to tell, and a good story that keeps you interested is worth giving at least some credit to.
Turns out that setting is one of the most important thing for me...
I'm going to take a pretty controversial stand here: I didn't like the first Fallout on the PC. True enough I was pretty young, and I didn't play far enough to really get a sense of the characters and plot, but I couldn't really get engrossed. But you know which RPG had also come out that same year AND had a world I of which I DID want to be a part: Final Fantasy VII.
FF7 had worse combat mechanics, a more convoluted story and less-believable characters than Fallout. But you know what it had? An awesome city where magic and machines are combined in which I had a clear goal of blowing up those magical machines.
Meanwhile, in Falloutville, you have to leave an underground house to travel a desert looking for a water thing you have no hints in finding. And no one is friendly, in fact a bunch of people just attack you. Forcing myself to play that would've been like forcing myself to smoke until I couldn't notice the bad taste anymore.
I realize that adults found, and maybe even me NOW would find, more enjoyment, but the point is that the grayish-brown setting drove me away.
---
I guess what I'm saying is that, for the reason of enjoyment, I don't give much of a crap about the original lore of Fallout. I don't care if BoS were supposed to be unhelpful jerks because teaming up with them and their giant mech was awesome. I don't care if the Enclave was supposed to be wiped out because they made a clear opposing force that I REALLY enjoyed shooting. I especially don't care about where Jet came from, and arguing about that is really REALLY nerdy.
Someone brought up a good point though: While progression is neat in a long-running story, you can't just erase the interesting bits, leaving you only with real life as experienced in a video game. The ghouls are a fun ally/enemy race thing. Super mutants are a great enemy with a lot of potential.
If the designers of a franchise are removing all the unique bits from that franchise in the name of progression, then it's time to let go of the franchise. In fact, that's what I see Bethesda's retcons are for: Getting out the corners that Interplay wrote Fallout into.
I'm going to take a pretty controversial stand here: I didn't like the first Fallout on the PC. True enough I was pretty young, and I didn't play far enough to really get a sense of the characters and plot, but I couldn't really get engrossed. But you know which RPG had also come out that same year AND had a world I of which I DID want to be a part: Final Fantasy VII.
FF7 had worse combat mechanics, a more convoluted story and less-believable characters than Fallout. But you know what it had? An awesome city where magic and machines are combined in which I had a clear goal of blowing up those magical machines.
Meanwhile, in Falloutville, you have to leave an underground house to travel a desert looking for a water thing you have no hints in finding. And no one is friendly, in fact a bunch of people just attack you. Forcing myself to play that would've been like forcing myself to smoke until I couldn't notice the bad taste anymore.
I realize that adults found, and maybe even me NOW would find, more enjoyment, but the point is that the grayish-brown setting drove me away.
---
I guess what I'm saying is that, for the reason of enjoyment, I don't give much of a crap about the original lore of Fallout. I don't care if BoS were supposed to be unhelpful jerks because teaming up with them and their giant mech was awesome. I don't care if the Enclave was supposed to be wiped out because they made a clear opposing force that I REALLY enjoyed shooting. I especially don't care about where Jet came from, and arguing about that is really REALLY nerdy.
Someone brought up a good point though: While progression is neat in a long-running story, you can't just erase the interesting bits, leaving you only with real life as experienced in a video game. The ghouls are a fun ally/enemy race thing. Super mutants are a great enemy with a lot of potential.
If the designers of a franchise are removing all the unique bits from that franchise in the name of progression, then it's time to let go of the franchise. In fact, that's what I see Bethesda's retcons are for: Getting out the corners that Interplay wrote Fallout into.
I just hope that future games in the series follow the example set by New Vegas when it comes to skills, dialog choice, branching story arcs, and overall narrative.
FO3 was an okay game, I played it, I liked it when I played it...I like it less now that NV exists, as I see that as a vastly superior title, but it had some serious issues, mainly in terms of player choices, and by that, I mean...there are none.
FO3 was an okay game, I played it, I liked it when I played it...I like it less now that NV exists, as I see that as a vastly superior title, but it had some serious issues, mainly in terms of player choices, and by that, I mean...there are none.
I find that very unlikely.Zenn3k said:
Bethesda has always been more about environmental story telling rather then quest story telling.
Also there were many instances in Fallout 3 were you got to make choices, to say there was none is pure hyperbole.
Well I suppose what I mean then is, I hope they allow Obsidian to write it.SajuukKhar said:
Seriously, if FO4 is more like 3, and less like NV...I'm going to be extremely disappointed, possibly to the point of non-purchase. I can't handle such a massive backwards step in direction.
Considering almost no publisher wants to hire Obsidian anymore I find it unlikely Bethesda would get Obsidian to write Fallout 4.Zenn3k said:
I wouldn't call New Vegas a failure...far from it, as would most FO fans.SajuukKhar said:
Plus having some of the old FO devs on the team still holds a lot of weight with Bethesda, they are a pretty respectable group of guys over there.
Unlikely, maybe, but good for the Fallout series? Absolutely. Anyway, I still hold that if Fallout 4 doesn't at least ATTEMPT to use the lessons learned from New Vegas from a design standpoint, I'll probably skip it...which hurts me deeply, as I've loved the series since I was 14, even if I sucked at it back then
New Vegas failed to the point that Obsidian lost the bonus they would have gotten had it gotten an 85 or higher average score.Zenn3k said:I wouldn't call New Vegas a failure...far from it, as would most FO fans.
Plus having some of the old FO devs on the team still holds a lot of weight with Bethesda, they are a pretty respectable group of guys over there.
Unlikely, maybe, but good for the Fallout series? Absolutely. Anyway, I still hold that if Fallout 4 doesn't at least ATTEMPT to use the lessons learned from New Vegas from a design standpoint, I'll probably skip it...which hurts me deeply, as I've loved the series since I was 10, even if I sucked at it back then
Obsidian couldn't even pull off an 85 average for New Vegas, Fallout 3 on the other hand got a 91 average.
The only lessons I can see Bethesda learning from New Vegas are
1. Don't make faction armor systems, because they suck
2. Don't make your locale boring
3. Damage threshold is a fucking dumb idea
4. Don't railroad people for the first half of the game
5. Don't make the game end after you beat it
6. Don't make your caves/vaults/cities boring and uninteresting
7. Don't put random areas of high level monsters right next to starting areas.
And that's just a small handful of things from the base game.
Look, mate, it's a lot of BS to be sure, but you really shouldn't let people get you down. Keep in mind, the critical success of Fallout 3 helped garner enough recognition for the series in the current main stream of games in the industry.Nomanslander said:
Nitpickers will nitpick as they always will. Some of them will be content in their own opinion where the fact that 3 has so many fans won't bother them. Some will feel the need to validate their criticism to the point where they force it upon people and argue night and day about it [small](most likely in numerical list form)[/small].
The game doesn't cause any harm to the series with its existence, and your preference for it shouldn't be challenged. You just got to be content with your own opinion. Keep on trucking forward, man.
Also, stay away from No Mutants Allowed. Even critics of 3 prefer to keep distance from that wretched hive of scum and villainy.
1: Wasn't well handled, but it did work for what it was designed for...basically, allowing you to pretend to be of the opposing faction to sneak in somewhere.SajuukKhar said:New Vegas failed to the point that Obsidian lost the bonus they would have gotten had it gotten an 85 or higher average score.Zenn3k said:I wouldn't call New Vegas a failure...far from it, as would most FO fans.
Plus having some of the old FO devs on the team still holds a lot of weight with Bethesda, they are a pretty respectable group of guys over there.
Unlikely, maybe, but good for the Fallout series? Absolutely. Anyway, I still hold that if Fallout 4 doesn't at least ATTEMPT to use the lessons learned from New Vegas from a design standpoint, I'll probably skip it...which hurts me deeply, as I've loved the series since I was 10, even if I sucked at it back then
Obsidian couldn't even pull off an 85 average fr New Vegas, Fallout 3 got a 91 avrage.
The only lessons I can see Bethesda learning from New Vegas are
1. Don't make faction armor systems, because they suck
2. Don't make your locale boring
3. Damage threshold is a fucking dumb idea
4. Don't railroad people for the first half of the game
5. Don't make the game end after you beat it
6. Make your caves/vaults/cities boring and uninteresting
And that's just a small handful of things from the base game, I don't even want to get into the travesty that was New Vegas DLC.
2: You mean like a giant green and gray landscape with maybe 1 interesting location?
3: DT exists in FO1, FO2, FOT, and FO:NV. Fallout 3 is the odd man out. DT is part of Fallout. Might as well tell them to remove Nuka Cola.
4: Half? You're only "railroaded" until you deal with Benny, which takes about 10 hours if you do everything you can along the way, but can be accomplished in 1 if you just run straight for Vegas...btw, there is a path you can take directly north that avoids all the nasty critters like Deathclaws.
5: They did the same thing in FO3 until people complained and they changed it in the DLC.
6: FO3 had better vaults. Otherwise, Vegas had more interesting locals, but thats just opinion.
7. Should they hold your hand for you too? I've never had any problems with this. Its certainly better than "Oh look, I'm level 15 now, all the Mole Rats are now Deathclaws!".
I guess you didn't like New Vegas much. Speaking of DLC...Operation Anchorage anyone? The Vegas DLC is superior IMO.
PS: Call of Duty gets 10 every year, there is no accounting for taste in our world.
Yeah I loved being able to walk around in a full suit of T-51B power armor that covers my face entirely without the NCR getting angry, despite the fact I could easily be a BoS member who just covered the symbol up, but the second I put on Caesar's armor, which doesn't cover my face, they attack me, apparently forgetting who I am.Zenn3k said:
You mean like the Mojve wasteland? yeahZenn3k said:
Good thing the Capitol wasteland had places like
-The Dunwich building
-The Citadel
-Paradise falls
-Megaton
-Arefu, the cannibal town
Lol comparing DT to Nuka cola, that's rich, no really you deserve a medal for that because of the lulz.Zenn3k said:
-The entire bottom half of the map is one giant railroad.Zenn3k said:
-that's 10 hours to much
-I shouldn't have to use an exploit path to get around bad game design.
Yep Bethesda learned from their mistake, Obsidian didn'tZenn3k said:
I don't remember a single place in New Vegas that matched the dunwich building, or The Citadel, or Old OlneyZenn3k said:
It got an 84 average. Are you seriously bitching that it didn't get one percent higher in rating?SajuukKhar said:New Vegas failed to the point that Obsidian lost the bonus they would have gotten had it gotten an 85 or higher average score.Zenn3k said:I wouldn't call New Vegas a failure...far from it, as would most FO fans.
Plus having some of the old FO devs on the team still holds a lot of weight with Bethesda, they are a pretty respectable group of guys over there.
Unlikely, maybe, but good for the Fallout series? Absolutely. Anyway, I still hold that if Fallout 4 doesn't at least ATTEMPT to use the lessons learned from New Vegas from a design standpoint, I'll probably skip it...which hurts me deeply, as I've loved the series since I was 10, even if I sucked at it back then
Obsidian couldn't even pull off an 85 average for New Vegas, Fallout 3 on the other hand got a 91 average.
I'd hardly consider just barely failing to gain their bonus to be a "failure to the point of..." anything. That's BARELY failing, not failing to a large or even moderate degree.
Failure is failure, no matter the degree, Obsidian failed to make a game that could even get a high 80's score in an age where they had out 90's to every even half-decent game.chadachada123 said:
Its kinda pathetic.