The F4 BOS retcon and the Capital Wasteland

[mrchaos]

Seeing F4 let´s play, reading the wiki and lurking frequently in NMA forums I realized something about the state of the CW after F3.

1. The BOS under Maxson became the dominat power in the D.C area, meaning at some point they had to stop being the little b*tches to a bunch of retarded orcs and started being a effective fighting force.

2. The fact that the brotherhood became feudal overlords in the capital wasteland means they had to force the innabitants to get of their lazy asses and start farming (something that a lack of has been a major complain in these forums)

 

[zegh8578]

One of the first impressions I get from FO4's BoS is that their power armor is colored the way the "Outcast" armor is, suggesting that they ended up the dominant force (whatever that entails)
They were supposedly representatives of the BoS "as they should be", but that means they should be holed up in a bunker, avoiding everyone, and gathering technology for safe-keeping, while waiting for the world to end.

Instead, they represent a 3rd form of BoS, one that we have seen before, in Tactics (and this, in turn, is exemplified by their air-ship)

In the end, the BoS in FO4 seems - to me - like a half-arbitrary mix between the Midwest expansionist BoS - and the Capital Wasteland "Outcasts" - or rather a consolidation between the Outcasts and "Lyons" BoS, imagining they re-united (seeing that the FO4-BoS are concerned with the wellbeing and progress of humanity)

In the end, I don't think there's a lot to read into it, other than Bethesda haphazardly throwing together a militarist faction, with "a little bit of this, and a little bit of that"

 

[mrchaos]

Well, this little mix appears to have been the best thing to happen to the capital wasteland.

 

[Gaddes]

Well listening to some of the Brotherhood chatter, the Capital Wasteland is STILL a lawless hellscape because reasons.

 

[comscar]

So why is the Capital Wasteland still a problem 10 years later? Didn't the BOS waste all the ebul enclave and mutants? Didn't the kid fix the water to save everyone?

IT'S LIKE FO3 NEVER HAPPENED. The biggest thing in fallout was for things to move FORWARD not STAGNATE.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

I honestly wonder if they're going to set a DLC in the Capital Wasteland, just to touch on that stuff. Also, because they can write off a lot of the complaints about Fo4 as "people didn't like that it was different from Fo3" so they'll just give you Fo3 again.

 

[Gaddes]

So why is the Capital Wasteland still a problem 10 years later? Didn't the BOS waste all the ebul enclave and mutants? Didn't the kid fix the water to save everyone?

IT'S LIKE FO3 NEVER HAPPENED. The biggest thing in fallout was for things to move FORWARD not STAGNATE.

Interestingly enough, they mention the Enclave, but only in the fact that they defeated them at Adams Air Force Base, which is where they build the Pyrdwen. So either their still out there, or they just retconned it that their defeated.

 

[mrchaos]

I honestly wonder if they're going to set a DLC in the Capital Wasteland, just to touch on that stuff. Also, because they can write off a lot of the complaints about Fo4 as "people didn't like that it was different from Fo3" so they'll just give you Fo3 again.

Has long its not another alien DLC it´s fine by me.

 

[Meurzh]

I certainly like the BOS in FO4 than the BOS in FO3, but I'll take the New Vegas chapter over them. They're still good (better than I expected, really), but could be better.

 

[TomJ]

So why is the Capital Wasteland still a problem 10 years later? Didn't the BOS waste all the ebul enclave and mutants? Didn't the kid fix the water to save everyone?

IT'S LIKE FO3 NEVER HAPPENED. The biggest thing in fallout was for things to move FORWARD not STAGNATE.

Speaking of stagnating, I've had an issue with each successive game being farther along in the time line. My point is that its getting harder to believe that the world is as fucked as it is when the NCR exists in Southern California. At some point, somewhere, someone else would have founded another nation state. It would be easier and give whomever more of a creative license if the games were set between Tactics and 2. The existing factions (BoS and NCR) wouldn't be as spread out and they'd have to come up with new groups, which means more thinking and that isn't Bethesda's thing, but food for thought.

 

[Dr Fallout]

So why is the Capital Wasteland still a problem 10 years later? Didn't the BOS waste all the ebul enclave and mutants? Didn't the kid fix the water to save everyone?

IT'S LIKE FO3 NEVER HAPPENED. The biggest thing in fallout was for things to move FORWARD not STAGNATE.

Speaking of stagnating, I've had an issue with each successive game being farther along in the time line. My point is that its getting harder to believe that the world is as fucked as it is when the NCR exists in Southern California. At some point, somewhere, someone else would have founded another nation state. It would be easier and give whomever more of a creative license if the games were set between Tactics and 2. The existing factions (BoS and NCR) wouldn't be as spread out and they'd have to come up with new groups, which means more thinking and that isn't Bethesda's thing, but food for thought.

Agreed, I'd love to see a game set ten years after the bombs go off.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

It's Bethesda's damn insistence that each game takes place after the other, and that there is absolutely no progress as that would damage the atmosphere they first set up in Fallout 3.

I think it is one of the many reasons why Bethesda does not 'get' Fallout. The universe is not a perpetual crapsack one, in time there is recovery and growth, even if it would be totalitarian states.

 

[Dr Fallout]

It's Bethesda's damn insistence that each game takes place after the other, and that there is absolutely no progress as that would damage the atmosphere they first set up in Fallout 3.

I think it is one of the many reasons why Bethesda does not 'get' Fallout. The universe is not a perpetual crapsack one, in time there is recovery and growth, even if it would be totalitarian states.

Agreed, it's a shame that after two centuries very little has changed in terms of society.

 

[ZigzagPX4]

It's Bethesda's damn insistence that each game takes place after the other, and that there is absolutely no progress as that would damage the atmosphere they first set up in Fallout 3.

I think it is one of the many reasons why Bethesda does not 'get' Fallout. The universe is not a perpetual crapsack one, in time there is recovery and growth, even if it would be totalitarian states.

The slower the progress in change, the more sequels they can get out of it. The more sequels they can get out of it, the more money they make. Otherwise they run into the Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty gambit where if they milk it too fast, they'll hit the modern age and there'll be nowhere else left to go. If Fallout hits the "completely rebuilt" age too fast, they'll be able to get less games out of it.

It's aiming at becoming another yearly franchise, just like CoD and AC. Released every year, a bit of new features here and there. That's what I'm seeing and what I'm hoping isn't true.

 

[TheChosen1]

Unless of course they just decide to sacrifice more logic for "immursun" and never expand on humanity's progress after the war. 80 years pass, the world is a shithole, 200 and people still haven't moved forward, so what's stopping them from having the next game 400 years later and still without any progress?

 

[ZigzagPX4]

Unless of course they just decide to sacrifice more logic for "immursun" and never expand on humanity's progress after the war. 80 years pass, the world is a shithole, 200 and people still haven't moved forward, so what's stopping them from having the next game 400 years later and still without any progress?

I'm going with the optimistic response and assume that you can only stretch bullshit so far (I'm bad at metaphors). No one apart from trolls deny that Fallout 4 had a lot of bullshit, not even the people outside NMA. It is accepted because quirky fun handwaves away a lot of flaws.

The problem is, like Borderlands or Far Cry, when you don't focus on anything but ttr action, each sequel gets more stale. It's why Borderlands had to take a break and fund a spin-off by Telltale (which I enjoyed dearly), or why Far Cry is going back in time with Primal. You can't repeat stale formulas forever, no matter how much gimmicks you put in it.

I enjoyed Fallout 4 partly because I had a slight smug satisfaction that this is presumably gonna be the last Fallout game they can pull this kind of laziness in. At least, that's what I think. So I felt "probably going to be the last feral-filled shoot and loot, just roll with it while you can". The only two ways left to go is to innovate, or to sell out, PAYDAY 2 style. I don't think Bethesda could take that kind of hit, so they've got to innovate, which means progress in the setting.

...right? I mean, this isn't some pipe dream I'm having? I'm going to reach critical mass ranting if Fallout 5 turns out to be a shinier Fallout 4, again.





someone reassure me they're not gonna do this again

 

[TomJ]

It's Bethesda's damn insistence that each game takes place after the other, and that there is absolutely no progress as that would damage the atmosphere they first set up in Fallout 3.

I think it is one of the many reasons why Bethesda does not 'get' Fallout. The universe is not a perpetual crapsack one, in time there is recovery and growth, even if it would be totalitarian states.

The slower the progress in change, the more sequels they can get out of it. The more sequels they can get out of it, the more money they make. Otherwise they run into the Assassin's Creed/Call of Duty gambit where if they milk it too fast, they'll hit the modern age and there'll be nowhere else left to go. If Fallout hits the "completely rebuilt" age too fast, they'll be able to get less games out of it.

It's aiming at becoming another yearly franchise, just like CoD and AC. Released every year, a bit of new features here and there. That's what I'm seeing and what I'm hoping isn't true.

They can just make prequels, or just create different series within the same universe.

With how many locales and disconnected stories there are in Fallout, its better to refer to it as a universe and make games set at different points with different stories than to call it a coherent series. At least from my view on what constitutes a series. Setting games at different points in different locales will give the series more life. Why move into the future when you can just set a story farther back in a new locale?

 

[Ninja]

someone reassure me they're not gonna do this again

It's okay buddy....

but they're definitely doing it again.

 

[cruddas]

Bethesda had a chance to reboot the entire series with their own fallout, start at the heart of the nation 20 years after the war, spread out slowly from there telling about the entire nation and how things went down in those areas one state at a time, the only thing bethesda seems to be good at is making a gameworld look good, they should just hire some other company to do all the writing and storyline stuff for them.

 

[TomJ]

Bethesda had a chance to reboot the entire series with their own fallout, start at the heart of the nation 20 years after the war, spread out slowly from there telling about the entire nation and how things went down in those areas one state at a time, the only thing bethesda seems to be good at is making a gameworld look good, they should just hire some other company to do all the writing and storyline stuff for them.

My dream Fallout game has a Bethesda made map and a story written by literally anyone. Preferably Obsidian. The rushed feel on New Vegas and the setting is why if found New Vegas less engaging than 3. But the writing in NV was by far better.