Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Except Fallout 3 is not a reboot.
They would have ate up anything. At least if they didn't recycled them they would give us the courtesy of not seeing them be butchered.
Am I in the minority when I say I'm not bothered by Super Mutants in Fallout 3?
- Thread starter Sn1p3r187
- Start date
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Clowncarcrash
First time out of the vault
Its effectively one. Brand new studio doing it in a completely different genre. Its pretty divorced from 1+2, not that many references to those games.
LOOOTS of people got into Fallout when Fallout 3 released.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Its plot couldn't happen if Fallout 1 and 2 didn't happen since actively mashes both together. A lot of it wouldn't exist if Fallout 1 and 2 didn't. If anything, Fallout 3 is like a siamese twin attached to those games because so much of it from characters, lore, factions and other things are directly linked to the first games.
Fallout 3 wouldn't exist without Fallout 1 and 2. So no, it's not a reboot, not even a soft one. It's an active continuation, happening later in the timeline makes this even more apparent.
Fallout 3 is the definition of something that owes its entire existence to something else.
So? Tons of people were introduced to series like Fire Emblem and Final Fantasy through games that came out after several entries. That has nothing to do with reboots.
Clowncarcrash
First time out of the vault
Sure. But narratively its pretty stand alone. No one who played FO3 has ever said "wtf this is so confusing, maybe i need to play 1+2 to get the whole story". You don't need to know any of that information to get whats going on. Thats my point, the game was a perfect jumping on point for new people into the series. Hence why I compared it to a soft reboot when it retreads a lot of old ground. That's why Bethesda played the hits and put in a bunch of their favorite ideas and creatures from the previous two games.
It being a continuation doesnt stop it from being a soft reboot, thats why its a soft reboot. This allows you to still use the legacy of the previous stuff while catering to a new crowd. But in this case the new was guaranteed to be way more popular so they gave the new crowd waaay more deference than say, ghost
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
You kind of do? The game does a piss poor job explaining stuff like The Enclave and BoS and their history. Same for Super Mutants and GECK. The only reason their fans didn't give a shit is because their fans don't give a shit about story or writing.
And narratively is literally one of the reasons why it's not a reboot since what is happening is what happened in the first two games, except far worse.
Clowncarcrash
First time out of the vault
idk man, the way 3 resets a status quo in a brand new engine and replays thsoe hits, that sounds like soft reboot to me. curious what standard it doesnt meet.
I think the game gives an adequate job at most of those things....except BoS. But Lyon's brotherhood is dramatically different than anything else in the series.
....That's why I said soft reboot.
"
A “soft reboot” is when you don't do any of that, but build a story within an existing universe that's essentially so far removed from the original characters or events from past entries that it becomes a new “jumping on” point, or reintroduction."
FO3 does that, if not exactly PRETTY close. It's a new jumping on point, and it's pretty far removed from the original characters. And if it helps my point, this is mentioned on the tvtropes page:
I agree with this assessment.
I think the game gives an adequate job at most of those things....except BoS. But Lyon's brotherhood is dramatically different than anything else in the series.
....That's why I said soft reboot.
"
A “soft reboot” is when you don't do any of that, but build a story within an existing universe that's essentially so far removed from the original characters or events from past entries that it becomes a new “jumping on” point, or reintroduction."
FO3 does that, if not exactly PRETTY close. It's a new jumping on point, and it's pretty far removed from the original characters. And if it helps my point, this is mentioned on the tvtropes page:
- Fallout and Fallout 2 were isometric turn-based RPGs both set in post-apocalyptic California and tended to be focused primarily on the issue of survival in a world after nuclear war. Fallout 3, Fallout: New Vegas, and Fallout 4 are set significantly later, have more focus on the Retro Universe setting and indications that the pre-Great War era was, in some senses, a Crapsack World, and instead of showing people just trying to eke out an existence show civilization rebuilding with the major conflicts not being simple survival but what type of societies will emerge. In addition, 3 abandoned the turn-based combat system and isometric perspective in favor of an FPS with RPG elements, with future games following suit.
I agree with this assessment.
Norzan
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Because if it was actually divorced from Fallout 1 and 2, it would be. But it's not since it reuses factions, characters like Harold, mutant types and actively uses events from the previous games as the driving force to some events in this game (The Enclave for one). It couldn't exist without Fallout 1 and 2, Its DNA is made of Fallout 1 and 2.
Plenty of games out there with stories that really don't tie to anything from previous games and yet are not considered even soft reboots. So i fail to see how a standalone story can be used as a qualifer for any kind of reboot.
Except you said it was effectively a reboot.
Nothing in that quote supports anything you are saying.
Plus if we are gonna use changing combat and the perspective as evidence of any kind of reboot, does that mean New Vegas is one? Because it's not. It's entire existence is owed to the first two games. If anything New Vegas is actually divorced from Fallout 3, except when it mentions it to mock it for dumb shit like its Super Mutants.
The only reason i'm even arguing this is that this argument irks me. People trying to justify Bethesda sheer lazyness by claiming it's a soft reboot or anything similar, like that justifies so much recycling.
Clowncarcrash
First time out of the vault
Sure. The DNA. FO1 and FO2 is there. But its divorced in that it takes place thousands of miles away. Harold is like the only character from 2 thats in there, and its not crucial to the plot. Thats consistent with how soft reboots work. It takes place in the same universe, same contininity, but you tweak some stuff and revert to a status quo.
I think EVERYTHING in that quotes supports what I'm saying. Your assertion is that there's too much FO 1+2 DNA in 3 to make it count as a soft reboot. That quote asserts that a soft reboot can take place in the same universe no problem. There aren't any characters in the main story of 3 that exist in 1+2, or share a strong connection. It was a perfect jumping on point for millions of people because it didnt require any knowledge of 1+2. I didn't mention this before, but I feel the whole premise of the Enclave coming back made it feel like a reboot to me.
That's an interesting rebuttal regarding New Vegas! Not sure how to answer that, maybe? It kinda marries the two styles from a gameplay perspective.
Idk, millions of new people got into Fallout, it makes sense for Bethesda to introduce the world to the hits of the IP they liked. Maybe you're right and the regurgitation is unnecessary, but I think I can accept it. I don't think Fallout 3 is bad because they used super mutants, I think its bad because they didnt do anything interesting with them.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
That's not it at all. 3D is fine—3D is easier, and [these days] comes with more potential, and better results. The issue is why make a thing that isn't the thing you claim; why call it ice-cream if it's a non-dairy product with no cream, and served warm? Who does one try to please with that, and why would the name ice-cream matter to them? ( It matters to people who expect ice-cream though.
)*It occurs that some equate 3D with first person perspective, but of course that's not always the case, as there are 2D fpp games, and there are 3D side scrollers.
It does not build upon the foundation, it does not improve anything; it replaces them. (Not only that... but with replacements that often use the same name, but behave nothing like what those names used to indicate.) I mean... V.A.T.S. was a map location, not a magical time-stop insta-win button—that bears no relation to the Aimed Shot in Fallout 1 or 2.
This kind of thinking (about reboots) could imply that show Fraisure was a soft-reboot of Cheers—which it's not; despite sharing characters.
Having FO3 as a numbered sequel is a bit like having Relic's Spacemarine be an official Dawn of War sequel, and that just doesn't fly. It's in the same world, and shares factions, but they are mechanically unrelated.
The entire Warhammer universe is used by all of the Warhammer games, but that doesn't make interchangeable sequels or soft-reboots. IMO your definition for Soft-Reboot is otherwise known as a spin-off; being precisely intended to attract new fans and the older ones to a new format, but in a familiar setting.
FO3 would have been just fine (and spared them a lot of enmity) if it had been presented as a spin-off game like FOBOS, and not been the official Fallout #3; again... what does the IP name mean to anyone who has never seen it? It only has meaning to those who know what it means—and they then changed the meaning of everything in it.
It's not even an RPG; the player controls the weapons, and there are no meaningful consequences to any action. The player can shoot BOS paladins in the face, then ask them for admittance to the Citadel. Hell... the player can shoot all the BBs at the dad's face in the Vault, and then ask him for more [and receive them] to do it all over again.
Last edited:
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
A similar example would be Saints Row IV. SRIV is so radically different from SR1-3 that it probably should've been a spin-off itself. Going from urban gang crime to fighting aliens with superpowers was too large a leap for a mainline installment. Even Saints Row The Third for all it's flaws was more of a Saints Row game than IV was.Having FO3 as a numbered sequel is a bit like having Relic's Spacemarine be an official Dawn of War sequel, and that just doesn't fly.
The entire Warhammer universe is used by all of the Warhammer games, but that doesn't make interchangeable sequels or soft-reboots. IMO your definition for Soft-Reboot is otherwise known as a spin-off; being precisely intended to attract new fans and the older ones to a new format.
FO3 would have been just fine (and spared them a lot of enmity) if it had been presented as a spin-off game like FOBOS, and not been the official Fallout #3; again... what does the IP name mean to anyone who has never seen it? It only has meaning to those who know what it means—and they then changed the meaning of everything in it.
Iprovidelittlepianos
Vault Senior Citizen
This part of the tv tropes quote is ironic considering it describes the world of Fallout 2 much more than it describes the world of 3 or 4.
You played the first two games yet?
Agree on Enclave, they're one dimensional as hell. Master's Army is not. It might seem that way on the surface though. But a similar thing could be said for the Legion really. Legion did not get fleshed out well enough to make them feel like a morally grey option and rather just a cringelord option. They mention their better parts but we don't get to see any of that.
Atomic Postman
Vault Archives Overseer
The Legion are more depthful in that their origin, society and all the political themes that go into them are more textured than the pulp fiction of the Unity.
I wouldn't say they're more nuanced however for the simple fact that I could see myself legitimately considering the benefits of the Unity had the sterility not been a factor. Whereas if you're someone with a modicum of empathy for women at all or believe human beings flat out shouldn't be property, the Legion are a hard no.
Alphons
National Beholder
- Rad stags
- Rad bears
- Rad chickens
- Rad gorillas
- Rad wolves
- Rad crabs
- Rad dogs
- Rad crustaceans
- Rad rad rad rad rad rad rad rad
Morgan_
Duckerz
Most of the way through the first one and watched people play through both.
If gene editing can’t turn you into the most perfect looking olympian athlete/cat person what good is it?
Lol how could one forget. Thank you though, shows Bethesda really didn't try too much.
Typical Atomic Postman good take to be honest.
Clowncarcrash
First time out of the vault
That's not it at all. 3D is fine—3D is easier, and [these days] comes with more potential, and better results. The issue is why make a thing that isn't the thing you claim; why call it ice-cream if it's a non-dairy product with no cream, and served warm? Who does one try to please with that, and why would the name ice-cream matter to them? ( It matters to people who expect ice-cream though.
*It occurs that some equate 3D with first person perspective, but of course that's not always the case, as there are 2D fpp games, and there are 3D side scrollers.
OK..... that's not the point. The point was that seeing creatures as sprites in an isometric game in the 90s is going to be different than seeing them in fully realized 3-d in a first person perspective in the late aughts. I think that is a meritorious reason to bring back creatures from previous installments.
Sure, I think those are valid critiques, but I think it makes sense for what the role of Fallout 3 was going to be for Bethesda. Eh, I think VATS is one of the coolest features, it's how Bethesda imagined how Aimed shot would or could work in an FPS. They had to call their cool new feature something for marketing gimicks. I think that worked out well.
Eh, maybe if Frazier was about a bar in Seattle. And Frazier shows up for a few episodes a season. Then maybe. I could see that.
Eh, there is precedence for game series that changed genres. Wolfenstein used to be a stealth series. Resident Evil used to be a survival horror series. GTA used to be a top-down game. Yakuza is a JRPG for some reason now.Having FO3 as a numbered sequel is a bit like having Relic's Spacemarine be an official Dawn of War sequel, and that just doesn't fly. It's in the same world, and shares factions, but they are mechanically unrelated.
The entire Warhammer universe is used by all of the Warhammer games, but that doesn't make interchangeable sequels or soft-reboots. IMO your definition for Soft-Reboot is otherwise known as a spin-off; being precisely intended to attract new fans and the older ones to a new format, but in a familiar setting.FO3 would have been just fine (and spared them a lot of enmity) if it had been presented as a spin-off game like FOBOS, and not been the official Fallout #3; again... what does the IP name mean to anyone who has never seen it? It only has meaning to those who know what it means—and they then changed the meaning of everything in it.
It's not even an RPG; the player controls the weapons, and there are no meaningful consequences to any action. The player can shoot BOS paladins in the face, then ask them for admittance to the Citadel. Hell... the player can shoot all the BBs at the dad's face in the Vault, and then ask him for more [and receive them] to do it all over again.
But regardless, I'm 100% on board with you when it comes to player choice sucking. To me, I'd rather push for that than moaning about a super mutant tribe showing up in FO5 or whatever. The lack of choice and writing is waaay more important than me than making sure all the ts are crossed and i's are dotted in canon. Thats the case for any long running media franchise.
Aurelius Of Phoenix
Psued.
Best decision ever. It's ludo.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I'll show you something...It's an old, quick&dirty mock up—two in fact, there is another one. Both were fun to make at the time; both pre-date the release of FO3.
The first was the preferred, the second was the prediction.
They could have made it closer to the West Coast then and just had less mutants and make it make more sense though. It’s not like Bethesda’s Fallout 3 HAD to take place around Washington DC. They very much so chose to do that as much as they chose to shoehorn in elements they felt were iconic.
Besides Harold, who you mentioned, and Arthur Maxson who happens to be a descendant of the founder of the Brotherhood of Steel. I mean the BoS and the Enclave both happening to exist all the way out there isn't some isolated incident. They came from the West. Except maybe now the Enclave isn't destroyed and they're literally everywhere but not everywhere just Washington DC and the Oil Rig and this time they're for sure gone for good, right? Right?
I get your point, it could be in some sense a soft reboot but they even go to mention the NCR in Fallout 4. And if that NCR is acceptable due to New Vegas, well that NCR was most definitely founded upon the same story as the Fallout 1 and 2 NCR. They aren't reboots of any sort. They're a continuation but with a general disregard for continuing major stories from Fallout 1 and 2 besides the BoS, Enclave, and Vault-Tec and add on any major companies that also existed across the nation.
I wouldn't say you're in the minority throughout the fanbase as a whole, but here? Perhaps.