Hating progress (fallout)

[TheDrunkNinja]

This is the second time a thread like this about Fallout has come around, and I'm seeing the same thing as I saw before with the "lore inconsistencies".

Now, this time, will someone please explain to a non-Fallout1&2-player what these "lore inconsistencies" are and how they are so damaging to the game that it is considered to have "ruined" the series?

In regards to stories between sequels, I never see "lore inconsistency" as a viable argument for the quality of a game as long it still has a solid turn out. I know people who claim to have hated WoW:Cataclysm (a reasonable opinion), but the first thing they bring up as a huge element that ruined the game was the addition of the playable Worgan and the "lore inconsistency" it brought that "ruined" the game.

As a writer, I firmly believe that the only question an author should answer in regards to lore is not whether or not to change it but should it be changed in the interest of bettering the story.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Fallout 3 was my first Fallout game. So for me, it'll always hold a special place. I cannot speak much about the tone or the writing for the originals. I went back and played them after the fact, but as entertaining as the dialoge and setting were, they were older games and that made it hard for me to get into them despite all the glowing praise and solid story that they had going for them.

All things considered, I enjoyed Fallout 3 more than most games. I'd put it high on my "Best of the Gen" list and it might even crack my all-time top 10. Of course I'd never try to say that my opinion is any more valid than longtime fans who felt less enthused than I am about FO3. Nor is my positive opinion any less valid in the light of their disdain. I'd file this one under "Different Strokes for Different Folks" and call it a day.

 

[Gennadios]

To be fair, Interplay also put out Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. That game is exhibit A for developers dumbing down a franchise for consoles (and I'm a console gamer primarily).

It wasn't so much a case of dumbing down for consoles as a case of Interplay completely giving up on quality design and trying to milk all their IPs before the collapse. The guy the put in charge couldn't even spell "Stimpak" properly and had no grasp of the series timeline. Any Fallout game he made would have sucked, whether console or PC.

Now, this time, will someone please explain to a non-Fallout1&2-player what these "lore inconsistencies" are and how they are so damaging to the game that it is considered to have "ruined" the series?

...

As a writer, I firmly believe that the only question an author should answer in regards to lore is not whether or not to change it but should it be changed in the interest of bettering the story.

Read Freaky Lou's posts, he lists the big lore inconsistencies.

I don't really share his complaints aside from the complete mishandling and incomplete writing of the Supermutant subplot.

This isn't a case of lore being changed in the interest of bettering the overall story arc, this is a case of lesser writers inheriting their betters work and changing lore simply so that they could work in more of the original's elements to give their own work legitimacy.

Case in point, the resurgence of the Enclave after their destruction in Fallout 2 was well done, if vague. However, the supermutants felt totally incomplete and lacked all personality of the orignal game's. Almost as if they were to be the original threat with some kind of mastermind behind them, only to lose priority to the Enclave somewhere in the writing process and left incomplete as a directionless red-herring enemy. I can just see some Bethsoft dev thinking "What's fallout without Supermutants? I'll leave what we have just so we'll have them to show on trailers. To hell with doing something sensible like saving them for a sequel!"

Black and white morality. Fallout never did that. Only two bit hacks write this shit.

My hat goes off to you, sir.

 

[ChupathingyX]

Now, this time, will someone please explain to a non-Fallout1&2-player what these "lore inconsistencies" are and how they are so damaging to the game that it is considered to have "ruined" the series?

To add to what [user]Ultratwinkie[/user] said:

*Aliens were never canon in the Fallout games, they were just a joke. Fallout 3 made them canon (which was retconned in New Vegas...I hope).

*In Fallout 3 the raiders were given no story or origin or any explanation as to group structure and unity (except for those in The Pitt).

*Fallout 3 did not let you choose your side in the main quest conflict.

EDIT: Oh yeah and what they did to Harold was utterly stupid.

 

[Mestraal]

I agree with the fact the Fallout 3 disregarded lore for the best part (especially with how backwards the Capital Wasteland is), but Harold was in line, to be honest. The poor guy had a tree growing out of his head in the previous games. Bob getting too big and making rooting him down does kinda make a progressive sense.

 

[Musicfreak]

1. Not sure about that one, but is it really impossible for some of them to exist outside of the oil rig?
2. That was entirely explained, and even had an entire faction war (outcasts) over the brotherhood's purpose.
3. A large portion of fallout 3's main story was dedicated to exploring a vault where super mutants were capturing humans and irradiating them to make more super mutants. I'm not sure where you got that.
4. I'm not sure how you can consider that to be an inconsistency.

1. Yes. The oil rig WAS the Enclave. Beyond that was just some little stations that were wiped out by BoS. Tiny fragments escaped out into who-knows-where. You could argue that those refugees reformed the Enclave, but that doesn't explain why they have such numbers and so much equipment (So many helicopters! This is a post-apocalyptic world! Where are they getting and how are they fueling all these helicopters?), and it really makes their imprisonment of Nathan (the one guy on their side) baffling.

2. Yes, but old Fallout fans coming to see the Brotherhood of Steel would have been sorely disappointed. That's not the BoS.

3. You misunderstand. They kept the FEV (questionable, since that was a top-secret product being made on the west coast) and the old explanation for how Super Mutants came to be that way, but they act like mindless ogres now. Super Mutants are supposed to be intelligent, they just believe that they're the future of humanity now and thus ordinary people are obsolete.

4. There's just no reason for him to be a tree. He wasn't one before and there was no indication he would ever become one. It's one of those "wat" moments found all over FO3, like how Dukov is getting all this food and booze (valuable, precious resources) without leaving his hotel room, and why, when every day is a struggle to survive, people are concerned with collecting Nuka-Cola memorabilia, robot emancipation and super-hero cosplay.

1. This is one of the few true major inconsistency s I've come across in the game. I'll definitely give you that one.

2.I'm so fucking sick of hearing from fallout 1 and 2 fans how the BOS in FO3 is so terribly inconsistent with the lore, because it isn't. It isn't incredibly difficult to believe that there could be a split in leadership or disagreement with the way things are run, and there was. If you don't like that, fine that's your decision and opinion but stop calling it a fucking lore inconsistency.

3. It's been a while since I looked at the lore regarding this one but FEV experiments were going on at a vault in the DC Wasteland as well as Mariposa Base. The first Mutants in the West were created by the master. I don't really remember who created the first mutants in the east. It isn't too much of a stretch to assume that the east and west coast laboratories arrived at separate but similar results. Bit of hand waving going on but not a major inconsistency and certainly not one to ruin the game in any way.

4. Really??? Did you play Fallout 2???? In Fallout 2 Harold has a tree growing out of his head I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that it would grow bigger. Again not a lore inconsistency.

OH and I love how your complaining about "What??" moments in Fallout 3 lol as if fallout 1 and 2 were well known for their seriousness lol.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

Fallout 3, great game, bad sequel as many have said, I still enjoy it, but its very different from the rest

 

[Gennadios]

To add to what [user]Ultratwinkie[/user] said:

*Aliens were never canon in the Fallout games, they were just a joke. Fallout 3 made them canon (which was retconned in New Vegas...I hope).

*In Fallout 3 the raiders were given no story or origin or any explanation as to group structure and unity (except for those in The Pitt).

*Fallout 3 did not let you choose your side in the main quest conflict.

EDIT: Oh yeah and what they did to Harold was utterly stupid.

The original writers did an admirable job of covering Bethosft's missteps with the Enclave Remnants/ED-E questlines, and the crashed alien ship random encounter. As much as those points sucked in F3, Fallout:NV made them canon.

As far as not choosing sides, Bethsoft does that, it's just linear writing, not really a lore issue;

Spoiler

To be fair they did give you the option of sabotaging the water purifier but it did seem half assed and tacked in

 

[Imbechile]

Nostalgia is a powerful force.

As much as I may disagree with curmudgeons hanging on to their Mass Effect 1's, their BioShock 1's, their Halo 1's, they still have a right to their opinions as well.

I don't think it is entirely nostalgia that leads people to act like this. I also think it is the "I liked them way before they were cool" attitude. I am still waiting for an apology from bioware about the way they butchered liara's character in ME2, by the way.

I disagree.
I played the originals AFTER F3 and can say without a doubt that they are superior. F3 wasn't just a bad Fallout game, Imo it was a bad game.

New Vegas is pretty good.

 

[The_Blue_Rider]

2.I'm so fucking sick of hearing from fallout 1 and 2 fans how the BOS in FO3 is so terribly inconsistent with the lore, because it isn't. It isn't incredibly difficult to believe that there could be a split in leadership or disagreement with the way things are run, and there was. If you don't like that, fine that's your decision and opinion but stop calling it a fucking lore inconsistency.

I think that ones mainly because it made the Brotherhood really boring, the West Coast brotherhood were interesting because they werent generic mary sues in power armour, they had interesting backstories and motivations, the East Coast brotherhood is just really boring and cliche in comparison

 

[ChupathingyX]

4. Really??? Did you play Fallout 2???? In Fallout 2 Harold has a tree growing out of his head I don't see how it's unreasonable to assume that it would grow bigger. Again not a lore inconsistency.

That doesn't stop it from being a dick move.

Now Harold can never appear in another Fallout game that doesn't take place around the capital wasteland and is now practically dead.

Harold held the record for being the only character to appear in all main Fallout games...not anymore, thanks Bethesda.

 

[Musicfreak]

2.I'm so fucking sick of hearing from fallout 1 and 2 fans how the BOS in FO3 is so terribly inconsistent with the lore, because it isn't. It isn't incredibly difficult to believe that there could be a split in leadership or disagreement with the way things are run, and there was. If you don't like that, fine that's your decision and opinion but stop calling it a fucking lore inconsistency.

I think that ones mainly because it made the Brotherhood really boring, the West Coast brotherhood were interesting because they werent generic mary sues in power armour, they had interesting backstories and motivations, the East Coast brotherhood is just really boring and cliche in comparison

I don't disagree in the slightest. I hated the Brotherhood in New Vegas but they were much more interesting. Fallout fans just really piss me off with their constant "IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE LORE" when it isn't in the slightest and there really just saying "I DON'T LIKE THE DIRECTION THEY TOOK WITH THIS PARTICULAR PLOT DEVICE." Which again is totally fine just call it like it is. It baffles me why die hard fans of the first two are so bad when it comes to this.

 

[ChupathingyX]

The original writers did an admirable job of covering Bethosft's missteps with the Enclave Remnants/ED-E questlines, and the crashed alien ship random encounter. As much as those points sucked in F3, Fallout:NV made them canon.

The Enclave base in Chicago, yes, but the Enclave just shouldn't have been so strong.

Aliens, however, are not canon in NV.

J.E. Sawyer said that anything added by the Wild Wasteland trait is non-canon, and aliens are one of the things added.

As far as not choosing sides, Bethsoft does that, it's just linear writing, not really a lore issue;

Spoiler

To be fair they did give you the option of sabotaging the water purifier but it did seem half assed and tacked in

I'm not just talking about lore, I'm also talking about "feel".

Not being able to join the Enclave (who thought you were pure) was stupid, and an evil character joining the BoS and fighting alongside them is just stupid considering how morally white they made the BoS. Yeah you can blow up the Citadel, but that isn't for the Enclave, that's just for teh lulz.

 

[ACman]

There was just a thread about this...
See? [http://new.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.330957-Why-is-everyone-so-down-on-Fallout-3?page=1]

Old Fallout fan's problems with Fallout 3 (not so much New Vegas) is that it inconsistent in lore and spirit to the original games. It's a good game. But it's a poor sequel to Fallout 1 and 2.

Fallout: New Vegas is given more leeway with fans of the Interplay Fallouts because it is consistent with those games' lore and it very much has the spirit (humor, themes) of them as well.

I think bethesda distancing Fallout 3 from the main narrative was intentional, but as far as I can tell there aren't any major inconsistencies with the universe itself. New Vegas feels so much like the original because obsidian has more people that worked on the first two fallouts then interplay.

Yeah but the real problem with FO3 is that it didn't feel like a real cohesive world and the inhabitants didn't feel like real people; a level of immersion that the originals actually managed to capture despite clucky interfaces and a graphically lackluster isometric viewpoint.

Bethesda had a grand opportunity show different communities that have formed on the East Coast, how they?ve adapted to the harsh new reality and managed to survive, and what problems they?ve caused and now face. Instead of this, Bethesda decided to populate the East Coast with the already familiar super mutants, Brotherhood of Steel knights, and Enclave troopers; but left their depth over on the West Coast and all have the complexity of cardboard cut-outs.

That's not to say that the game isn't fun. Just disappointing to old school fans.

 

[mireko]

It's a different genre. Is it even remotely surprising that fans of a tactical, turn-based RPG franchise will be annoyed that the new entry in their series is a first-person shooter (with RPG elements)? Worse yet, a first-person shooter (with RPG elements) developed by a different company. Worse, worse yet, a first-person shooter (with RPG elements) that just *happens* to look and feel a whole lot like this new company's other leading franchise (TES).

Your comparison to Portal and Half-Life doesn't hold up. Those games were made by the same developer and in the same genre. The criticism you're talking about with regards to Fallout is something we're seeing with the new X-COM and Syndicate reboots. While it's a valid argument that the original games still exist and fans can just ignore this new thing, isn't it reasonable to have certain expectations of games attached to a well-known franchise?


Another important thing is that the story and writing in FO3 was terrible. Bethesda can't write. They're the George Lucas of video games.