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

Recommended Videos

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Nomanslander said:
Dude, please chill out. Of COURSE it didn't screw up anything. I'm a fan of the series, so I know. Just don't make this all look like a rant from NMO. All the people making big old arguments about the (Hah) continuity or the (Hah hah) programming glitches of the games seem to forget that {A} even if it were trying that hard to fully account for every detail of the previous games (tall order, given the all choices you can HAVE in those games) it doesn't matter, and {B} there has never NOT been a time where Fallout is glitchy. None of that actually makes a damn difference.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
nikki191 said:
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.
Yes this was my main issue with the game
It was supposed to happen after FO2, but judging by destruction and state of society, it felt more like before FO1 or in between FO1 and FO2.

P.S. I personally expect FO4 to be set directly after the Great War.
 

tmande2nd

New member
Oct 20, 2010
602
0
0
Base game? I prefer Fallout 3 to NV. Though NV wins in terms of DLC.

Seriously though Fallout 1/2 were very goofy and ran off of B movie SCIENCE and such.
Mostly I think its the ISOMETRIC fanatics at work.

You know that kind of gamer, the one who cant accept anything that is not purely ISO.
 

Darthbawls77

New member
May 18, 2011
115
0
0
blindthrall said:
Did you play 1 or 2? Just wondering, because technically the Capital Wasteland shouldn't exist. Somebody says in 1 that the whole East Coast got glassed.
I would think it safe to say that east coast pretty much is glass. Very little survived and most are mutants and other creatures. The people on the west coast prob just think that everything is dead on the east so thats why they talk like nothings left of it probably. I doubt many have tried to visited the east since the bombings in general.
 

Mortamus

The Talking Dead
May 18, 2012
147
0
0
For the record, the argument that it shouldn't have been labeled "Fallout 3" and should have just been a side story with a different name can't really use this as a proper means to say that there is a problem with the game.

I'll let Jim express my opinion on this.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6038-A-Game-By-Any-Other-Name
 

MaulYoda

New member
Apr 6, 2010
48
0
0
wrightguy0 said:
I think it's time that Fallout left the west coast behind. Society's been rebuilt, the factions that ran through the early post war world are dying away, Mankind is Reasserting it's position as the Dominant species on earth and the variants of man that were created are withering, from ghouls to super mutants

I think Fallout should stay on the east coast and follow their path to reconstruction


(for anyone who bitches about the technology gap, the east coast, as the center of american commerce, government and education was a primary target, it was probably heavily bombed, even more so than the west coast, which would have been harder to bounce back from)
Depends who makes it. If it's Obsidian, I'd like them to explore other areas of the West Coast like Arizona and Colorado. If it's Bethesda, it should stay on the East Coast

Also, L.A. got hit just as hard as D.C. and it seemed to rebound just fine
 

MaulYoda

New member
Apr 6, 2010
48
0
0
tmande2nd said:
Base game? I prefer Fallout 3 to NV. Though NV wins in terms of DLC.

Seriously though Fallout 1/2 were very goofy and ran off of B movie SCIENCE and such.
Mostly I think its the ISOMETRIC fanatics at work.

You know that kind of gamer, the one who cant accept anything that is not purely ISO.
And Fallout 3 and New Vegas didn't? Actually, if anything, Fallout 1 and 2 tried to explain all of that "wonko science" (i.e. there were weapon descriptions that tried to explain how they worked), so they were a little less goofy than Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Fallout 2 was only goofy because of all the fourth wall jokes and pop-culture references (and I mean way more than there should have been), but I felt Fallout 3 took itself way too seriously. Fallout 1 and New Vegas were more serious Fallout 2, but they felt more light-hearted than Fallout 3, and I think Fallout does better when it takes itself less seriously

But the problem isn't that Fallout 3 isn't isometric (well, for a lot of people it isn't as big a problem as other things). Sure, that's unfortunate, but I don't think anyone expected it to be isometric in the 21st century and given the kind of games Bethesda makes. But there's a right way to do a modern Fallout game (New Vegas) and a wrong way (Fallout 3), and that comes down to the story and canon consistency and RPG mechanics still present, NOT the perspective
 

MaulYoda

New member
Apr 6, 2010
48
0
0
FalloutJack said:
Dude, please chill out. Of COURSE it didn't screw up anything. I'm a fan of the series, so I know. Just don't make this all look like a rant from NMO. All the people making big old arguments about the (Hah) continuity or the (Hah hah) programming glitches of the games seem to forget that {A} even if it were trying that hard to fully account for every detail of the previous games (tall order, given the all choices you can HAVE in those games) it doesn't matter, and {B} there has never NOT been a time where Fallout is glitchy. None of that actually makes a damn difference.
1. New Vegas did a pretty good job of being consistent and Fallout 3 certainly could have had Bethesda put in the effort. And yes, it doesn't matter as a game in general, but it does matter as a FALLOUT game. And it's called taking certain endings and making them canon while dismissing others; most RPG series do this when they're trying to establish some sort of continuity. So, for example, the ending of Fallout 1 where the BOS destroys the NCR and rules over an era of darkness is not canon, while decisions in Fallout 2 that led to the NCR acquiring Redding and Vault City are

2. No one is complaining about glitches. Didn't care about them much in Fallout 1 and 2, and didn't care about them much in Fallout 3 and New Vegas either
 

MaulYoda

New member
Apr 6, 2010
48
0
0
blindthrall said:
Did you play 1 or 2? Just wondering, because technically the Capital Wasteland shouldn't exist. Somebody says in 1 that the whole East Coast got glassed.
I don't remember anyone mentioning the East Coast in Fallout 1. I remember Tycho talking about Texas being overrun by storms, but that's it. You could be right though
 

SextusMaximus

Nightingale Assassin
May 20, 2009
3,508
0
0
Lionsfan said:
What's up with all these Fallout 3 complaint/defending threads I've seen lately? You would think the game had just come out or something, and not 4 flipping years ago.

Does this mean in 2016 we'll get a flood of Mass Effect 3 ending threads again?
People talking about old games on a gaming forum? What is the world?
 

Do4600

New member
Oct 16, 2007
934
0
0
The reason I think Fallout 3 isn't a good fallout game has little to do with any of these facts, but...
Nomanslander said:
-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?
The reason it's in the game is because Bethesda made a sequel. Today making a long overdo sequel means you have to bring back every last memorable part in the game but miss exactly one glaring incongruity that anyone who even had a passing interest in the original game could tell you is a bad idea, it has to be law by now. The point here is that Jet was created on the west coast some 40 years before Fallout 3, meaning that in those 40 years the east and west coasts have been connected enough to share illicit drug recipes. The problem is that that's supposed to be nearly impossible. The first two games cement the fact that nobody knows what happened to the east coast, only rumors. Even when the Brotherhood of Steel tries to go east they barely make it through because of massive lightning storms over the rocky mountains and they can't contact the west coast anymore, if the Brotherhood of Steel barely makes it through intact in a mass migration and never returns or is heard from again, what chance does anybody else have?


-Vault doors open differently

Are people seriously complaining about this? You do realize that when it comes to construction, different models and layouts would be used to suite the lay out of the land and environment. Plus, there's never "one model to rule them all" in any form of product. Is everyone's PC the same? Do we all use the same video graphics card? Does everyone have a screen door with a mail slot on their front door? NO!
I was never once annoyed by this in the game, I am annoyed that your using this in your argument. This part in particular:
You do realize that when it comes to construction, different models and layouts would be used to suite the lay out of the land and environment. Plus, there's never "one model to rule them all" in any form of product.
This simply isn't the case here and it misses the point of Vault-Tec completely. Vault-Tec is a several trillion dollar company that pre-fabricates a little over one-hundred of these extremely advanced long lived facilities. It fits into the 1950's aesthetic of mass producing and prefabricating structures because of the G.I. bill, and also with the idea of a modernist ideal man which is why Pip-Boy is used to represent every person in every vault ever, even when there are more than one shown. The whole aesthetic they represent is the idea of hundreds of thousands of families who look exactly the same, who live in tiny houses that look exactly the same but for a slightly different shade of paint; except here it's thousands of families in hundreds of vaults that look exactly the same. Look no further than the Fallout 2 intro movie. Another reason all Vaults are built exactly the same is because they are all experiments and experimental enclosures need to be identical to have comparable results. This was already established when Fallout 2 was in development and can be seen in many of the decisions that are made in Fallout 2's vaults.

The reason Fallout 3 is a great game but not a good fallout game is because they missed the entire point of the atmosphere that's thick in the first two games and didn't add anything comparable to it in Fallout 3. Fallout one and two are extremely bleak and unforgiving, the reason they never use hope in the main plot is because there is no hope, and there's no sense blubbering about it because it'll dehydrate you even more than you already are and give your position away to the gigantic mutated face eating rats.

The way Fallout one and two balance the bleakness of the world is by making the whole world and everybody in it one huge hilarious cruel joke and they remind you every two minutes of this and give you laugh because of it. This is why the enemies in Fallout tell jokes after you just castrated them with a combat shotgun. The main plot of Fallout 3, actually the first two minutes and on, tries to change this formula and I think it's a failure of a strategy.

It tries to make it a place where there is room for "Hallmark emotions" where three dog is telling us a tender story about James the vault dwelling widower who is trying to save the unfortunate orphans of the waste over the chorus of old women playing violins. It comes off as an alienating vapid attempt at emotional engagement and makes the world that much more barren and awful because it seems so simple and desperate to communicate. This actually works in The Elder Scrolls series because the environment is charmingly fantasy based, so simple pathos becomes lightly endearing. Something like a khajiit being vexed at the disappearance of her pots is amusing in fantasy but seems like an inane concern in a place where the world has already ended. Because the depression in a nuclear wasteland is so utterly complete the simple pathos portrayed feels disturbingly hollow. So much care is required to make emotional content in post-apocalyptic environments feel valid, and I don't think they showed that care. Interplay didn't even try that and what they ended up with I found more interesting anyway.
 

SajuukKhar

New member
Sep 26, 2010
3,434
0
0
Do4600 said:
The reason it's in the game is because Bethesda made a sequel. Today making a long overdo sequel means you have to bring back every last memorable part in the game but miss exactly one glaring incongruity that anyone who even had a passing interest in the original game could tell you is a bad idea, it has to be law by now. The point here is that Jet was created on the west coast some 40 years before Fallout 3, meaning that in those 40 years the east and west coasts have been connected enough to share illicit drug recipes. The problem is that that's supposed to be nearly impossible. The first two games cement the fact that nobody knows what happened to the east coast, only rumors. Even when the Brotherhood of Steel tries to go east they barely make it through because of massive lightning storms over the rocky mountains and they can't contact the west coast anymore, if the Brotherhood of Steel barely makes it through intact in a mass migration and never returns or is heard from again, what chance does anybody else have?
The first two games also have no real civilization or central government, with the advent of organizations like the NCR, and Caesar's Legion, who have the ability to pool mass resources together, long distance, cross country, travel is FAR from impossible.

The BoS is a bunch of dying, tech cultists, who care more about hording crap then actually learning how it works or how to make it better, that they, with little to no resources, were able to pull off a cross-country migration shows that anyone else has a FAR more likely chance of pulling it off.

The comments made during Fallout 1 and 2 are from a time of lawlessness, where superstition and rumors reigned over all facts. there was never any real credible evidence that getting to the East was impossible, just that almost no one ever tried, and thus it was impossible because no one had done it.

Also the Mid-Western BoS silence isn't due to inability to reach the normal BoS, its due to an unwillingness to contact the group that exiled them and left them to die.

Do4600 said:
This simply isn't the case here and it misses the point of Vault-Tec completely. Vault-Tec is a several trillion dollar company that pre-fabricates a little over one-hundred of these extremely advanced long lived facilities. It fits into the 1950's aesthetic of mass producing and prefabricating structures because of the G.I. bill, and also with the idea of a modernist ideal man which is why Pip-Boy is used to represent every person in every vault ever, even when there are more than one shown. The whole aesthetic they represent is the idea of hundreds of thousands of families who look exactly the same, who live in tiny houses that look exactly the same but for a slightly different shade of paint; except here it's thousands of families in hundreds of vaults that look exactly the same. Look no further than the Fallout 2 intro movie. Another reason all Vaults are built exactly the same is because they are all experiments and experimental enclosures need to be identical to have comparable results. This was already established when Fallout 2 was in development and can be seen in many of the decisions that are made in Fallout 2's vaults.
I am sorry but this argument doesn't fly.

Even in an era of mass production, there are always several variations of products based on where they are made, to accommodate that large region's specific tastes, or necessities, be they economic, or environmental.

Vault-Tec being a trillion dollar company, with a headquarters on both coasts, gives strong credence to the fact that there would most likely be regional design variants based on were the Vaults were built because of the large area they covered.

Nothing about it goes against logic, or the aesthetic of the Fallout series.
 

Lionsfan

I miss my old avatar
Jan 29, 2010
2,842
0
0
SextusMaximus said:
Lionsfan said:
What's up with all these Fallout 3 complaint/defending threads I've seen lately? You would think the game had just come out or something, and not 4 flipping years ago.

Does this mean in 2016 we'll get a flood of Mass Effect 3 ending threads again?
People talking about old games on a gaming forum? What is the world?
It's not just talking about an old game, it's the fact that it's devolved into a 200 reply Versus thread. That's normally the sort of stuff that you see when a game has first come out (see ME3, Skyrim), not 4 years after the game has been released (along with expansion packs and another game I might add)
 

twohundredpercent

New member
Dec 20, 2011
106
0
0
lol people are claiming to like the turn based shit because it's "deep and tactical"? ***** please. The only tactic was crank up agility and aim for the eyes.
 

BrionJames

New member
Jul 8, 2009
540
0
0
Fallout 3 is a good game. Is it like Fallout 1 & 2? No. Do you have a right to ***** about it? yes. Do any of us who played all four games, liked all of them for what they were and what they were trying to do in the context of their game have to give a shit? NO. Those of us who have played Fallout 1 and 2, enjoy its consequence based storytelling and RPG elements and while Fallout 3 does have these elements it was also done by a completely different developer with a entirely different style of gameplay and storytelling. Live and let live, I say. They're both good games and good developers. Not everyone has to like change. Not everyone has to agree with you.