Bethesda can make it so the DC Wasteland never existed

[Sabirah]

How does this make the game any better if you are making shit up while you play it? This is one of the most stupid things I've read for a while.

Because the game is canon according to Bethesda whether you like it or not.

Now which version would you rather have as a canon part of the series; the version with giant robots and giant super mutants and lulzy nuclear explosions and saintlike BoS, or the version where all of that was a virtual reality simulation full of propaganda?

I don't like the {"Kewl"? My native language is retard.} robotz version and yet I am still able to accept that the game and the new canon is just that, shit. The story is crap aswell, but this is one of the lesser concerns about it (it's not like Fallout 2 wasn't stupid and did only bad to the canon) among so many failures. I don't need any justifications to make myself believe that "it's not a bad game!" or pretend it isn't so. Now if you can't accept that simple fact and like to invent many stories making it even more ridicolous (it's just a simulation!!1) you may do so, be my guest.

Also how the fuck is that "making shit up"? If it makes sense it's not "making shit up". Many people believe that Decker was a replicant in Blade Runner even though that was never directly stated to be truth, is that "making shit up"? No, because there were hints dropped throughout the movie that this was the case.

The difference is that Blade Runners director openly explained that Deckard is a Replicant, while there is nothing like that to be found in FO3 and none of the Developers hinted at such a thing. Unless no one officially says something like that, it's imaginary fanfiction and not your beloved "canon".

As Surf Solar heroically got infuriated over nothing, his seething rage unable to find a proper release being shunted into weird internet ramblings.

 

[Courier]

I don't like the {"Kewl"? My native language is retard.} robotz version and yet I am still able to accept that the game and the new canon is just that, shit. The story is crap aswell, but this is one of the lesser concerns about it (it's not like Fallout 2 wasn't stupid and did only bad to the canon) among so many failures. I don't need any justifications to make myself believe that "it's not a bad game!" or pretend it isn't so. Now if you can't accept that simple fact and like to invent many stories making it even more ridicolous (it's just a simulation!!1) you may do so, be my guest.

I'm not saying it's not a bad game, I'm saying that my theory actually makes fucking sense.

Fallout 3 being an exaggerated version of historical events that you're witnessing through a virtual reality simulation (keep in mind that virtual reality was introduced to the Fallout universe in Fallout 3) actually makes fucking sense. It makes more sense than the actual plot. It explains so many things, like why you have to fight alongside the Brotherhood of Steel.

The difference is that Blade Runners director openly explained that Deckard is a Replicant, while there is nothing like that to be found in FO3 and none of the Developers hinted at such a thing. Unless no one officially says something like that, it's imaginary fanfiction and not your beloved "canon".

Where the hell did I say it was canon? I said it was a fucking fan theory.

Just like Zion being part of the Matrix is a fan theory, just like "James Bond" being a code name instead of an individual is a fan theory; sometimes fan theories just fucking make more sense than canon.


Edit: Also lol if you're implying that creator's intention has anything to do with the meaning you draw from a work of art. It's like when Ray Bradbury tries to say that 'Fahrenheit 451' isn't about censorship. He doesn't get to make that decision anymore. His original intent has nothing to do with the message people draw from it.


Edit: From Wikipedia,

in literary studies, the question of the validity of the methods of determining authorial intent has been debated since the early twentieth century. New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. Preoccupation with intent was called by Wimsatt the intentional fallacy. The author, they argue, cannot be reconstructed from a writing. The text is the only source of meaning, and any details of the author's desires or life are purely extraneous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent

 

[Surf Solar]

You initially said that it would make the game better. How? Do events where you constantly had to facepalm now suddenly make me "hey that's so cool now that I know of this fanfiction explaining this"?

It explains so many things, like why you have to fight alongside the Brotherhood of Steel.

How would it make "sense" in your story that I can kill every BoS Soldier (except, ofcourse the named ones) on sight, nuke their main base and/or even support the "enemy" faction? How does it make "more sense" that me as a potential test subject in your simulation pod can totally ignore all this BoS stuff and instead roam the wasteland themepark to kill molerats or help people with their inane totally unrelated quests?

Where does this "it makes sense" actually come from? We are talking about fictional characters and factions, not the real life. Other people aquired an intellectual property of the original creators of these characters and wrote a story in their way which now makes "sense" for them.
Really, I don't even care that much if you like or hate that game, I am pretty neutral about it and don't really care, it's just funny to see people coming up with "hey guys I finally found something which makes the game less shittier!" while in reality it doesn't change anything. It's just that, fan fiction.

 

[Courier]

You initially said that it would make the game better. How? Do events where you constantly had to facepalm now suddenly make me "hey that's so cool now that I know of this fanfiction explaining this"?

Because it provides an explanation for how the events of the game can actually fit in with the rest of the series' universe. I don't know how important verisimilitude is to you, it's kind of a big deal to me though.

How would it make "sense" in your story that I can kill every BoS Soldier (except, ofcourse the named ones) on sight, nuke their main base and/or even support the "enemy" faction? How does it make "more sense" that me as a potential test subject in your simulation pod can totally ignore all this BoS stuff and instead roam the wasteland themepark to kill molerats or help people with their inane totally unrelated quests?

Because it's a fucking simulation, it's meant to simulate reality as closely as possible. In real world war simulations it's also possible to kill people who are on your side or go wandering off into the wilderness. It's your own damn fault if you go around killing BoS soldiers for no reason, the question you should be asking isn't "why does it allow me to do this?" but "why am I doing this even though they're on my side?". You realize that even if you go around slaughtering BoS soldiers they'll still worship you as a messiah right?

Where does this "it makes sense" actually come from? We are talking about fictional characters and factions, not the real life. Other people aquired an intellectual property of the original creators of these characters and wrote a story in their way which now makes "sense" for them.

My theory has more internal consistency within the game's universe than the accepted canon. Verisimilitude. Google it.

Really, I don't even care that much if you like or hate that game, I am pretty neutral about it and don't really care, it's just funny to see people coming up with "hey guys I finally found something which makes the game less shittier!" while in reality it doesn't change anything. It's just that, fan fiction.

"How dare you try to find some sort of solution that makes your games internally consistent!"

 

[Surf Solar]

Thank you for your lesson on Verisimilitude, I never heard of it before and cannot comprehend it when I play a game.

Because it's a fucking simulation, it's meant to simulate reality as closely as possible. In real world war simulations it's also possible to kill people who are on your side or go wandering off into the wilderness. It's your own damn fault if you go around killing BoS soldiers for no reason, the question you should be asking isn't "why does it allow me to do this?" but "why am I doing this even though they're on my side?". You realize that even if you go around slaughtering BoS soldiers they'll still worship you as a messiah right?

Judging by this "theory" I could slap the same on each game out there. Don't like how the story/gameplay/combat in game XY turned out? No problem, just slap the "it's a simulation thingy!" on, then it's all some kind of super mastermind at the developers who intentionally made that I can't kill character XY. Seriously?

By the way - you still haven't explained to me how this makes "The game better" how you wrote on the last page. Care to elaborate?

That's the whole point. I want you to explain to me how some random internet theory actually changes the game and why we should care.

"How dare you try to find some sort of solution that makes your games internally consistent!"

To find a "solution" for what?

I usually shun people being oversensitive when they say "it's just a videogame" but in this case it applies really well. Why do you seek some sort of "solution" for something which you can just ignore? The game won't change because of this "solution", why do you care?

 

[Ohaimerk]

A good guy pacifist who's never even shared an angry hateful word with anyone suddenly punches a man in the face unprovoked and the man he punched dies. We can try to make sense of it or we can just say he's suddenly gone crazy and forsake him for the rest of his life. Which should we do with fallout?

 

[Courier]

Judging by this "theory" I could slap the same on each game out there. Don't like how the story/gameplay/combat in game XY turned out? No problem, just slap the "it's a simulation thingy!" on, then it's all some kind of super mastermind at the developers who intentionally made that I can't kill character XY. Seriously?

A theory actually has to make sense with a universe's canon. Fallout 3 introduced virtual reality simulations and armies using virtual reality simulations as propaganda. Therefore it is not difficult to believe that, while the events of Fallout 3 are based on historical events in the Fallout universe, they are merely exaggerated and propaganda filled versions of those events that you're viewing through a virtual reality simulation.

By the way - you still haven't explained to me how this makes "The game better" how you wrote on the last page. Care to elaborate?

You don't enjoy having games that actually make sense on some level? Sorry, I don't find nonsensical games to be as enjoyable as ones that actually make sense. Apparently I can't speak for everyone on this board when it comes to that.

That's the whole point. I want you to explain to me how some random internet theory actually changes the game and why we should care.

I'm sorry that I made an attempt to reconcile a pile of horseshit with the series' universe's canon. I guess I should just accept that giant robots and mutants and Enclave remnant armies are part of the Fallout universe now, since that obviously makes so much more sense.

To find a "solution" for what?

I usually shun people being oversensitive when they say "it's just a videogame" but in this case it applies really well. Why do you seek some sort of "solution" for something which you can just ignore? The game won't change because of this "solution", why do you care?

You really don't get it do you? Some fan theories make more fucking sense than the official canon. You don't have to believe those fan theories if you don't want to, no one is forcing you of course, but you can't deny that they sometimes make more sense than the fucking canon.

Doesn't it make more sense that "James Bond" is a code name instead of one immortal person who changes bodies every couple years and stays young while everyone he knows ages? It's not official canon, but you have to admit it makes more fucking sense than just accepting that the "James Bond" in the film's universe is one individual.


If everyone adopted this "lol why try to make sense of things when you can just ignore them instead" attitude we'd still be living in caves.

Lol Darwin why are you trying to explain where the diversity of species comes from when you can just say that God did it?

Lol Newton why are you trying to come up an explanation for why things don't float away from the Earth when you can just say that God did it?

Lol Copernicus why are you trying to prove that the Earth revolves around the sun when you can just accept that the Earth is the center of the universe?

It's what humans do. We make sense out of chaos. Deal with it.

 

[Walpknut]

As Surf Solar heroically got infuriated over nothing, his seething rage unable to find a proper release being shunted into weird internet ramblings.

Shhhhh! guys, don't argue, you'll make Sabirah cry and contribute nothing to the topic.

 

[Surf Solar]

You don't enjoy having games that actually make sense on some level? Sorry, I don't find nonsensical games to be as enjoyable as ones that actually make sense. Apparently I can't speak for everyone on this board when it comes to that.

This is still no explanation how this makes the game a better game. I am sorry, maybe I am missing some neurons in my brain to understand how this "theory" makes the game better. I am still seeing robots, vampires and White Knight BoS people there. The gameplay isn't changed, like you said. How does it change the game? By the way, do you have some of these theories for Fallout 2 and its numerous nonsenical elements too? Boy I'd love to here them so I can pretend the game is better than it is.

I'm sorry that I made an attempt to reconcile a pile of horseshit with the series' universe's canon. I guess I should just accept that giant robots and mutants and Enclave remnant armies are part of the Fallout universe now, since that obviously makes so much more sense.

Bethesda decided that these things are cool and make sense in their universe. Your theories on how it makes sense or not are irrelevant, since they decide what makes sense for them and what not.

You really don't get it do you? Some fan theories make more fucking sense than the official canon. You don't have to believe those fan theories if you don't want to, no one is forcing you of course, but you can't deny that they sometimes make more sense than the fucking canon.

As said above, it is irrelevant what some rambler on an internet board invents for theories behind the games, the canon is the canon and the people who own the franchise decide what it's in their games and what not. If it helps you to invent some stuff what could go on behind the curtains to make for a better game, all power to you, but don't call it "it makes the game better". That was all I wanted to say, what I found completely ridicolous.

Not even commenting on your "if people like you, we'd still live in the stone age", it's been a while since I've read such a comparison. Fallout 3 is serious business, apparently.

 

[Courier]

This is still no explanation how this makes the game a better game. I am sorry, maybe I am missing some neurons in my brain to understand how this "theory" makes the game better. I am still seeing robots, vampires and White Knight BoS people there. The gameplay isn't changed, like you said. How does it change the game? By the way, do you have some of these theories for Fallout 2 and its numerous nonsenical elements too? Boy I'd love to here them so I can pretend the game is better than it is.

The gameplay isn't changed, like you said. How does it change the game?

See:

The gameplay itself is still terrible regardless, but at least my theory justifies the stupid stuff and makes the game acceptable canon.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? You're just making yourself look stupid now.

Bethesda decided that these things are cool and make sense in their universe. Your theories on how it makes sense or not are irrelevant, since they decide what makes sense for them and what not.

As said above, it is irrelevant what some rambler on an internet board invents for theories behind the games, the canon is the canon and the people who own the franchise decide what it's in their games and what not. If it helps you to invent some stuff what could go on behind the curtains to make for a better game, all power to you, but don't call it "it makes the game better". That was all I wanted to say, what I found completely ridicolous [sic].

Yeah this is called an "Intentional Fallacy".

Wikipedia is your friend:

Intentional fallacy, in literary criticism, addresses the assumption that the meaning intended by the author of a literary work is of primary importance.

...

(1) Internal evidence. Internal evidence is the actual details present inside a given work. The apparent content of a work is the internal evidence, including any historical knowledge and past expertise or experience with the kind of art being interpreted that is required to understand what that work is: its forms and traditions. The form of epic poetry, the meter, quotations etc. are internal to the work. This information is internal to the type (or genre) of art that is being examined, and includes those things physically present in the work itself. Analysis of an artwork based on internal evidence never presents an intentional fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy

Not even commenting on your "if people like you, we'd still live in the stone age", it's been a while since I've read such a comparison. Fallout 3 is serious business, apparently.

My point was that your argument was stupid. "Lol why try to make sense of things when you can just ignore them instead?"[/quote]

 

[sea]

I'm not saying it's not a bad game, I'm saying that my theory actually makes fucking sense.

Fallout 3 being an exaggerated version of historical events that you're witnessing through a virtual reality simulation (keep in mind that virtual reality was introduced to the Fallout universe in Fallout 3) actually makes fucking sense. It makes more sense than the actual plot. It explains so many things, like why you have to fight alongside the Brotherhood of Steel.

So you can pull anything out of your ass, and it's alright so long as it "makes sense"? What does "makes sense" mean anyway? By what standard? How does "it was all a virtual reality simulation!" make any more sense than the simple explanation that the writers at Bethesda are incompetent and terrible?

So long as we're making shit up, we might as well say all those prostitution mods on the Nexus are just as valid an explanation for why Fallout 3 is stupid. Incest and inbreeding led to fucked up genes! It makes sense!

Because it provides an explanation for how the events of the game can actually fit in with the rest of the series' universe. I don't know how important verisimilitude is to you, it's kind of a big deal to me though.

This might be a difficult concept for you, so I'll try to break it down.

There are things in the game.

There are things that you make up in your head.

These are not the same.

You don't enjoy having games that actually make sense on some level? Sorry, I don't find nonsensical games to be as enjoyable as ones that actually make sense. Apparently I can't speak for everyone on this board when it comes to that.

Once again: you trying to make sense of a game that makes no sense, does not make the game make sense. It only makes you think it does. This does not change what is in the game itself, nor does it change how Bethesda will handle Fallout 4 (just as incompetently, I'll wager).

I'm sorry that I made an attempt to reconcile a pile of horseshit with the series' universe's canon. I guess I should just accept that giant robots and mutants and Enclave remnant armies are part of the Fallout universe now, since that obviously makes so much more sense.

Seriously. Fallout 3 happened. It's done. It will never go away. That doesn't mean anyone has to like it, and indeed, criticism of it and speaking out against Bethesda's "reimagining" of the franchise can hopefully lead to better things in the future (a long shot, admittedly). Trying to fit it in with the "proper" canon won't change the fact that the game sucks. You are creating a delusion for yourself, and it is not healthy or praiseworthy.

The butthurt of some of the original Fallout fans around here is more pathetic then Bethesda's storytelling.

I know you already got your due, but I still think it's worth reiterating: Fallout 3 has more plot holes than just about any other game (or work of fiction in general) I have seen, and the entire plot literally depends on all the characters acting like morons - in fact, it forces the player to be a moron in order to advance. Maybe you don't notice, being incredibly stupid yourself, but others do object to being forced into the role of a dumbass to satisfy the needs of the worst storyline in a videogame since Custer's Revenge.

 

[TorontoReign]

I think this thread will self-destruct soon.

 

[Courier]

So you can pull anything out of your ass, and it's alright so long as it "makes sense"? What does "makes sense" mean anyway? By what standard? How does "it was all a virtual reality simulation!" make any more sense than the simple explanation that the writers at Bethesda are incompetent and terrible?

Wimsatt and Beardsley divide the evidence used in making interpretations of literary texts (although their analysis can be applied equally well to any type of art) into three categories:

(1) Internal evidence. Internal evidence is the actual details present inside a given work. The apparent content of a work is the internal evidence, including any historical knowledge and past expertise or experience with the kind of art being interpreted that is required to understand what that work is: its forms and traditions. The form of epic poetry, the meter, quotations etc. are internal to the work. This information is internal to the type (or genre) of art that is being examined, and includes those things physically present in the work itself. Analysis of an artwork based on internal evidence never presents an intentional fallacy.

(2) External evidence. What is not literally contained in the work itself is external to that work, including all statements the artist made privately or published in journals about the work, or in conversations, e-mail, etc. External evidence is concerned with claims about why the artist made the work: reasons external to the fact of the work in itself. Evidence of this type is directly concerned with what the artist may have intended to do even or especially when it is not apparent from the work itself, and is an example of an intentional fallacy.

(3) Contextual evidence. The third type of evidence concerns any meanings produced from a particular work's relationship to other art made by the same artist—including its exhibition (where, when and by whom). The use of biographical information in a discussion of an artwork does not necessarily indicate an intentional fallacy. The meaning of an artist's work may be affected by the particulars of who does the work (identity) without necessarily that interpretation as an intentional fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy


I was using #1 (Internal evidence) as my justification for my theory "making sense". Virtual reality was introduced in Fallout 3 and had already been demonstrated as being used for propaganda/military purposes.

It's not like I'm taking something like Half-Life 2 and going "lol it's all a simulation", because that wouldn't make sense since there's no reason to believe that any such virtual reality technology exists in the Half-Life universe. It's now canon that that kind of VR tech exists in the Fallout universe.

This might be a difficult concept for you, so I'll try to break it down.

There are things in the game.

There are things that you make up in your head.

These are not the same.

"lol you obviously weren't Andrew Ryan's son in Bioshock since it was never directly stated that you were"

"lol it's impossible that Zion is part of the Matrix since it's never explicitly stated that it is"

You're just being stupid.

Once again: you trying to make sense of a game that makes no sense, does not make the game make sense. It only makes you think it does. This does not change what is in the game itself.

Yeah and with my theory the game actually does make sense. Does that bother you?

Seriously. Fallout 3 happened. It's done. It will never go away. That doesn't mean anyone has to like it, and indeed, criticism of it and speaking out against Bethesda's "reimagining" of the franchise can hopefully lead to better things in the future (a long shot, admittedly). Trying to fit it in with the "proper" canon won't change the fact that the game sucks. You are creating a delusion for yourself, and it is not healthy or praiseworthy.

Fan theories pop up all the time, this is not a concept I created, it is not "delusion". The game still sucks, at least with my theory it actually fits in with the universe's canon.

I know you already got your due, but I still think it's worth reiterating: Fallout 3 has more plot holes than just about any other game (or work of fiction in general) I have seen, and the entire plot literally depends on all the characters acting like morons - in fact, it forces the player to be a moron in order to advance. Maybe you don't notice, being incredibly stupid yourself, but others do object to being forced into the role of a dumbass to satisfy the needs of the worst storyline in a videogame since Custer's Revenge.

Nice ad hominem. I can see you're a real intellectual.

 

[Surf Solar]

The gameplay itself is still terrible regardless, but at least my theory justifies the stupid stuff and makes the game acceptable canon.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? You're just making yourself look stupid now.

Yup, I do, but it seems that you can not, since I even said

The gameplay isn't changed, like you said.

on the "reading" comment then!

It's now the 4th post in a row where you avoided to answer a simple question now, btw. But don't bother, I can see where this thread is going.

 

[Courier]

Yup, I do, but it seems that you can not, since I even said

The gameplay isn't changed, like you said. How does it change the game?

on the "reading" comment then!

Or perhaps you need to work on your writing skills? I interpreted that as meaning, "The gameplay isn't changed, like you said it was" rather than, "Like you said, the gameplay isn't changed."

Grammar is your friend if you want people to comprehend what you're writing. Please forgive me for this comment if you're not a native English speaker, in which case your English is quite good.

It's now the 4th post in a row where you avoided to answer a simple question now, btw. But don't bother, I can see where this thread is going.

What simple question haven't I answered?

 

[DirtyWaterConnoisseur]

Good evening, Gents.
Simulation, eh? From a narrative standpoint I feel this only worsens the story (as crazy as that sounds) by attaching the cliched "it was all a dream" ending to the steaming heap.

 

[Courier]

Good evening, Gents.
Simulation, eh? From a narrative standpoint I feel this only worsens the story (as crazy as that sounds) by attaching the cliched "it was all a dream" ending to the steaming heap.

Not all a dream, just an exaggerated and altered version of actual events.

Much like Operation Anchorage was based on historical events in the Fallout universe, even if it wasn't 100% accurate.

 

[Moe Canibo]

Fallout 3 happened. Deal with it and go on with your lifes. It's canon, it happened and that's it. This kind of pathetic things takes hardcore Fallout fans dangerously close to guys shouting "You sold out" at Metallica concerts. Seriously, it's downright pathetic in so many ways.

 

[TorontoReign]

Fallout 3 happened. Deal with it and go on with your lifes. It's canon, it happened and that's it. This kind of pathetic things takes hardcore Fallout fans dangerously close to guys shouting "You sold out" at Metallica concerts. Seriously, it's downright pathetic in so many ways.

You can only say pathetic so many times before you start looking like a jackass. Use a fucking Thesaurus or something. Try pitiful or ridiculous.

 

[aboniks]

Since the premise of the thread was "Bethesda CAN..." I have to admit that, yes, Bethesda could use OP's theory to explain away the...um...quirks in FO3.

Of course they won't, but they could. Frankly, it's not a bad idea. I like it.

I was introduced to fallout by FO3, and I'm now playing through 2.

Obviously, I miss my giant robot friend. Not having played #1 yet, I don't have a frame of reference for what the BoS is "really" like. In FO2, they're a few random dudes who ask you to steal shit and then give you some completely illogical armor and some things that go ker-zap. The FO3 version of the BoS is essentially the same thing.

On the question of why the BoS would use such a VR simulation, I think that answer would be pretty simple. They give recruits enough rope to hang themselves, and see what they do with it. Maybe the ones who go off on a slaver rampage or start shacking up with Enclave poster girls never wake up from the simulator...they just get dumped out behind the chemical shed.

Cheaper than training them and then having them go AWOL with a minigun and a full suit of power armor, neh?