Anyone else tired of the old factions?

I include Van Buren/Tactics/New Vegas landmass in the west. They are close enough to be influenced by past events.

People don't have to cross 9999999999999 kilometers/miles like the BOS/Enclave to continue their stories.

 

I don't think the core region is as spent or civilized as some might believe. Just because there are lines drawn around certain territories on a map and they all pay taxes to the same guy doesn't mean the NCR states are safe or organized.

Their military is mainly a tool of the state, stretched thin in foreign campaigns or assigned to guard the assets of the core's well-to-do while even something as important as the NCR's major internal trade routes are unprotected and plagued by bandits. They're growing faster than they can sustain their population in terms of power, water, or food. They're in a drawn out guerrilla war with a technologically superior force within their own borders. Said organization has succeeded in ruining their gold reserves, leaving them no choice but to force shaky fiat currency onto an increasingly unsatisfied populace. Their Office of Science and Industry has shown a ready willingness to poke at any old-world hornet's nest they can get their hands on. And they've all but banished the only major non-state source of humanitarian aid available to their populace.

I don't have any real worry about the core region gettng too stable or civilized anytime soon. It might be kind of heartbreaking to see how much of it they'd try to cram onto a map the size of F3/NV, but once we got over that I'm sure it'd be a wasteland worth exploring. Settlements come and go all the time- mines dry up, vaults are stolen out from under squatters, nukes go off under the odd cathedral, what have you- so I imagine there'd be more to see than just the same old stuff.

 

Do they have to continue on with the Core region's stories with every installment? It's good to know what will happen next but we don't have to have the next part of that story take place in the very next installment every time. Otherwise there's no way other new factions or towns could be explored because the player would have to stay within the same region every single game, unless you want to use "this character survived their town being raided and now they built a new one", which can only be used so many times before it gets old.

I would just like to see what's happening throughout the rest of America. That doesn't mean I'm against more Fallouts taking place on the the West Coast, it just means I want to see more elsewhere and what stuff is there.

 

FO2 was pretty far north of the area FO1 took place in with only a couple of overlapping areas. FNV moved even further west. Regardless of how influenced they were by the events of their predecessors, they were also largely independent of them. There has to be something that ties them all together. If a sequel has nothing to do with the other entries, it might as well be Wasteland or I dunno... Gamma World, maybe?

 

But like I said, Fallout wasn't made to just focus exclusively on the West, it was made to see a possible alternate reality after a nuclear apocalypse, it doesn't have to stay in the West just because the first two games were. If there needs to be ties with the West just so it can be a Fallout game, then have some of the factions move out East (and not in the BoS kind of way, a plausible reason) or have events from the West make it to the ears of people in the East.

 

We could have both a new region (complete with new areas, new factions and a fresh start) and good old Core Region - just in different games. That is why spinoffs were invented. Just please, no migrating factions.

 

Is it wrong i hope the FoA is a migrating faction? I rather donate to them than some church. Atleast then i KNOW its being used for good. Speaking of which i think donating shouldnt raise your Karma (i think Karma should be gotten rid of) but rather it should temporarily raise your Speech and Barter by a certain amount, 1 for 10 caps, 5 for 50 caps, and 10 for 100 caps. Donating multple times will increase the amount of time you have the skill raise, to a maximum of 12 in game hours.

 

I'm conflicted about cutting Karma entirely (for admittedly stodgy reasons-- it's been more or less broken from the start, but it's also been there from the start), but I think you're spot-on about religious/ideological donations not effecting it. Rather than a temporary skill/stat bump to your character, though, I think the benefits should be more realistic and concrete-- a Reputation boost from the faction you're donating to, as well as perhaps benefits from or within that faction. Ideally, it'd be nice to see the accumulated total of your donations actually helping the church or organization spread within the game world and/or advance its aims, but even New Vegas didn't put in that much elbow grease, so I'm not holding my breath as far as seeing it in the franchise proper anytime soon.

Edit: And no, I'm with you on the followers, though within reasonable limits-- I'd be happy to see them in Idaho, Oregon, Baja, the Four Corners region, etc., as those are fairly close to home and the NCR takes an increasingly dim view of the FoA operating within their borders. Given that they're stretched even thinner than the NCR military and with (presumably) a fraction of the manpower, though, seeing any evidence of their existence aside from perhaps the unlikely itinerant scholar or two much further out than that would be pretty lame. And they have absolutely no business on the East Coast.

 

Part of me would have rather seen the Followers (or a faction inspired by the Followers) in the Arlington Library instead of the Brotherhood. Collecting pre-war books seems like something you would do for the Followers and not the Brotherhood. Though i doubt the Followers would send a bunch of people to East Coast i wouldnt be surprised if one or two went on a journey there and told people about them thus creating another Followers of the Apocalypse, related and inspired by the original. Because dang it, i just like those guys. The only groups i think were justified in going to the East Coast are ironically the ones who did: Brotherhood (tech) and Enclave (nations capital, a place where most dont know who they are so they can start again).

 

I'm not conflicted about removing karma completely, or at the very least removing any impact it has on gameplay. It either serves no purpose whatsoever, or does way too much. It's better if the choices in the game do not give you any indication of their morality, this could remove this 'good character/evil character' bullshit and require employing actual traits to behaviour of the character, going for what the player wants to go for, instead of the desired karma score.

 

I don't actually remember if karma ever had much meaning. Except maybe for F3, but it's still was mostly useless, also due to being easily exploitable. You can blow up a town, donate 2000 caps to a priest, kill a priest for minimal karma loss, get caps back and still be recognised as saint.
Besides:
Good karma: access to two companions, assasins going after you, some random and mostly useless gifts in one of the towns.
Bad karma: access to two companions, assasins going after you, some random and mostly useless gifts in one of the towns.

Karma in NV was broken and useless. I've seen a guy doing "kill everything" playthrough, and he finished the game with... neutral karma.

I dont't remember karma affecting my Fallout 1&2 playthroughs in any way... Maybe I missed something, but I definetely wouldn't miss it.

 

Funny how in FO3 the good karma charaters were the PA wearing woman from BoS and an overpowered SM, while bad karma were an old ex-raider and a slave chick. But that is beside my point. My point is that many players may direct their decisions at having a Jesus/Devil in their PIP-Boy (talking just FO3 now). I want karma system gone (along with the Numbered Canine dipshit), so that the decisions are no longer made based on the interface holding the player's hand and there are no good or evil characters other that what the players believe them to be. This could also open the way to alternate opinions on the game's decisions. For instance, no matter how many karma points are taken from me, I won't believe that slaughtering and then blowing up the entire town of Megaton was somehow a bad thing.

 

I think people's reactions to you should be based on your actions, not your karma. For example, if you do something really bad, people WILL remember it and will treat you differently regardless of your current karma level, if Karma still exists. This can range from shunning to higher prices to trying to kill you. Your actions WILL have consequences.

 

I vote for the removal of the karma system, it doesn't add up nothing for the game. The only meter that the player should be held to is the reputation system and of course, their choices that they made trough the game.

 

If Obsidian ever gets to make another Fallout, I hope NCR dies off. It's not at all a badly-written faction, but it would make sense if NCR fell and lost its control over the Core Region. That way we could have another game in Core Region with a fresh approach, though I hope the main antagonist will not be a menacing army of power-armored goons/mutants/Roman cosplayers/imperialists again.

It should be something like Victor Presper from Van Buren. Just a mad scientist and his group of renegade NCR soldiers.

A lot people don't want to see BoS in the next Core Region game, but I think it could work. Imagine if New California Republic was no more but what remains of Brotherhood and their bunkers is still around. They could start harassing some former NCR settlements for technology or just out of revenge, though I'd prefer if there was a more original motive for doing so.

 

I don't think removing it totally is the best solution, I feel getting rid of some nonsensical features and making Neutral a more viable option would fix things.

Contrary to the popular opinion, I actually like the way Karma effected your ending slides ever so slightly in NV, though I dislike the fact that Neutral was just the Good slide with dialogue cut out.

 

I would prefer an invisible system (like Metro 2033) that have limited impact, than a notification shoved into my face everytime i grab a broken mug from the ground.

Anyway, Karma isn't much necessary, if there a reputation system, like Fo2 & FoNV. (technically, Fo1 has also it)

 

I like it, too, but the karma system itself is messed up. I always have very good karma in New Vegas just because I kill fiends, ghouls and powder gangers who attack me. There is a lot of nonsense stuff - killing powder gangers gives you good karma, but healing injured powder ganger gives you good karma... but killing him gives you good karma. And of course stealing from powder gangers (or other evil characters) gives you bad karma. Even if they're dead because you killed them before (which gave you good karma).

Also, karma system is negation of Fallout concept - there's no black and white, every choice has two sides and sometimes you don't know what's good and what's bad... but, of course, there's a karma meter which tells you, so don't worry.

And I don't agree with some karma penalties, for example eating dead people with cannibal perk - I don't see why is it bad (unless it was some innocent person whom you killed just to eat them), living in the wasteland is supposed to be harsh and it's not like a dead person is going to need their body.

In Fallout 3 karma system is broken beyond believe. It's nonsense how your karma reflects your reputation, for example - when you get bad karma by stealing stuff (and no one has seen you doing it), people know you're bad and don't like you (except for those bad guys who gives you random useless stuff just for being evil). There are also people who don't like you because you're good and hire mercenaries to gun you down. What.
Killing people in virtual reality (which was the shittiest part of this already shitty game) gives you bad karma, but killing them in different way gives you good karma.

This good&evil system which was presented as the great feature in Fallout 3 is just treating player like an 8 years old kid. In New Vegas it is fixed a little and plays a minor role, but it's still bad and unnecessary. I opt for removing it and expanding reputation system instead.

 

Regarding cannibalism Mef, I think it is still considered a taboo in the Fallout world by most people as it is a sign how low one can sink, basically becoming something more animal like.
And despite how harsh the conditions of the wasteland are and the limited amounts of food and water people want to hold on to what humanity they have.

The White Glove Society's ancestors might have started out of desperation but when they had enough food some members thought they should continue eating people because it had become a tradition.
More, they felt they should eat only certain type of people that met their desired standards or whatever they were looking for at the moment.

 

I know, but because of this being caught on cannibalism should affect your reputation, not your karma. Karma is something subjective and shouldn't be measured for this reason - someone might think cannibalism is bad, I think not necessarily. White Glove Society's acts of cannibalism are bad, but if I kill some raider who assaulted me and I eat him afterwards (because I lack food), why is it wrong?