Fallout 3 at E3 - Armchair Empire

[Kyuu]

why can't there be sub-branches of this fine organisation?

You mean besides the fact that such a thing was never even hinted at in Fallout 1 or 2?

 

[Tagaziel]

Hello Kyuu

That's an interesting theory; however, the BoS logo clearly imprinted on the power armor makes it pretty explicit that they are, in fact, BoS, not a new faction with access to power armor.

I think you misunderstand me.
I was suggesting an idea for a new 'original' faction at Washington DC that uses Pre War Power Armour without having it to be the BoS.

why can't there be sub-branches of this fine organisation?

Because they do not exist? It's a small, techno-religious knight order, not a goddamn WalMart with branches everywhere in the States.

 

[Stag]

Well, considering the "chain" of sorts of the BoS in F2, it's possible that they stretched farther than just the west coast region, but I doubt they could've, or would've wanted to go to DC. It's too far, and likely more irradiated.

 

[Vault 69er]

If FEV ever, ever, ever had the slightest chance of being infectious, let alone airborne, don't you think the Master would've unleashed it already? Unity for everyone!

Not that I agree FEV is necessarily airborn, but keep in mind that the Master didn't know mutants were sterile, either.

Yes, but I put this down to the Master's single-mindedness in spreading Unity. Given their long life and general vunerability of children, reproduction wouldn't have been an immediate concern.
Spreading FEV on the other hand would've been. I'm sure the Master would've been interested in something more efficient than the vats, surely.

 

[Salkinius]

I was hoping the "we don't know yet" would end with the wave of previews. But apparently, it'll never end.

Is my english that bad that I simply can't make you understand my point? Or is it that you, for the sake of arguing, just don't want to understand it?

There are things that we do KNOW is very dubious in the game. But as so many previewers have noted, they, and I would be very surprised if the game was as action packed as the demo shown. Why is it so difficult to understand that Bethesda did not show a demo of the finished product. There are however some things in the demo that are hard coded. Wave after wave of super mutants isn't one of those. That why I said that you shouldn't read too much into it.

EDIT - lol, thanks pope viper for the head up.

 

[Pope Viper]

Based on the above, I would say that your thoughts aren't coming across.

That why I said that you should read too much into it.

 

[Salkinius]

a sequel to a game should not have completely different gameplay. Gameplay is what makes a game a game. Why is it too much to expect an updated, modern version of a turn-based combat system?

I'm getting tired of this... A sequel is nothing more than a game, movie, book or some other creative work that is set in the same universe as the original and plays out after the previous work. A prequel is the same as above except it plays out before the original, Star Wars is an example.

So with other words... Fallout 3 IS a sequel of the two original games. So it has nothing to do with gameplay or any other technical issues.

Of course, you can always discuss if it's true or not, but a sequel it is.

I'm not out to troll you guys, I just want to make it clear that FO3 will be a sequel no matter what you think. You may then decide if you will think of it as a true one or not, much like if Star Wars 1 through 3 is true prequels or not.

 

[Black]

Maybe you haven't noticed yet, but computer games sequels and book/movie sequels aren't the same.
Do you have gameplay in books/movies?

There is FO's core, and that core is emulating P&P role-playing games.
First person shooters don't emulate P&P now, do they?
A game in the same universe WITHOUT THE CORE OF THE ORIGINAL isn't a sequel.
World of Warcraft isn't Warcraft IV.
Starcraft: Ghost wasn't supposed to be Starcraft II.
Fallout: Tactics wasn't Fallout 3.
Todd scrolls: Post apo shooter isn't Fallout 3.

So, this oblivion mod beth is making isn't Fallout sequel. If it is, so is PoS.

 

[A.S.S.R.]

Building a manufacturing plant from scratch would be a very big job, and not something that you'd expect from the BOS. You have to remember that there'd be a million different parts in each of those vertibirds: circuit boards, valves, tyres, nuts/bolts and a large number of specially shaped metal pieces (rotors, side panels etc).
...
It's more likely that the BOS could use the plans to repair existing vertibirds, or create a new one from some scavenged parts they'd found from old broken vertibirds.

This seems about right. The Enclave seems to be the only organization active in the Fo2 universe with the resources and manpower to pull this off, and they've probably been maintaining some of the same models for some time. Mind you, the Enclave bases were extensively planned for long-term sustainability and are supposed to have been maintaining a failed space program

The BoS is likely to have manufacturing technology slightly superior to the post-Vault communities (Vault City and NCR), only with a much smaller work force and trade networks. VC/NCR seem to be making mostly small arms, defensive measures and medical supplies, and are still largely dependant on scavenging the vaults for power and computer gear.

I'm curious to see how exactly the BoS may have made it to the East Coast in considerable numbers. The Enclave's birds couldn't make decent incursions into California without refuelling at Navaroo (correct me if I'm wrong here). Establishing a route to D.C. would require a chain of simillar bases across the Midwest and Northeast: a considerable acheivement for a weakened BoS that barely staffs several minor outposts (even in 20-30 years).

- A.S.s.R.

 

[Salkinius]

In video game media, the trend for sequels seen in other media such as film often seems to work in reverse; as increasingly sophisticated technology allows the story to be portrayed more effectively. In fact, some sequels have even overshadowed their predecessors, becoming huge successes on their own right (as evident with Street Fighter II and Metal Gear Solid). However, despite this, there are examples of game sequels that are interpreted as inferior to the original or earlier sequels. This could be because of a change in concept or gameplay, an inability to integrate new technology effectively, or simply poor production values. Master of Orion III is one notable example that seems to suffer from all three. Another not uncommon occurrence is that a low-budget game meets critical acclaim and becomes an underground hit, but is followed up with a sequel that is simplified from the original, rather than expanding on the original's innovative qualities, in an attempt to be more accessible to the mass market. Recent notable examples include Deus Ex: Invisible War and Serious Sam II.

Even though the article say that some sequels could be poor sequels, they are still sequels. About Fallout tactics and BoS they are not sequels because they are spin offs where the BoS is primarly the good guys and the organisation you "work" for.

 

[Black]

Common sense > Wikipedia
But if you insist on using wiki-logic then Tactics is sequel to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 is sequel to Tactics.
How nice.


V
Oh, it seems you can't read, even the things you alone wrote.

I'm getting tired of this... A sequel is nothing more than a game, movie, book or some other creative work that is set in the same universe as the original and plays out after the previous work.

 

[Salkinius]

Oh, I just answered your question in previous post.

 

[Maximous]

Why do we even waste our time with this crap...forget FO3

 

[Sander]

Even though the article say that some sequels could be poor sequels, they are still sequels

*yawn*
What a useless hump of logic. Just the fact that something is called a sequel does not mean it is a worthy or valid sequel.

 

[Salkinius]

Even though the article say that some sequels could be poor sequels, they are still sequels

*yawn*
What a useless hump of logic. Just the fact that something is called a sequel does not mean it is a worthy or valid sequel.

It's not a matter if something is called a sequel or not, it's matter if they are a sequel or not, which FO3 most definetly is. I have no idea if it's a valid or a worthy one yet, but a sequel it is. If it's bad... let's hope FO4 will be a better one. And I really hope that number 4 will be made, if number 3 was bad.

Granted that FO3 might not be a true sequel in a technical sense, but it's still a sequel in the true and general meaning of the word.

Tactics is not a sequel because the game emphesizes on a completely different subject, story and characters than the previous two games.

 

[Sander]

It's not a matter if something is called a sequel or not, it's matter if they are a sequel or not, which FO3 most definetly is. I have no idea if it's a valid or a worthy one yet, but a sequel it is. If it's bad... let's hope FO4 will be a better one. And I really hope that number 4 will be made, if number 3 was bad.

Yeah, thanks for missing my point. Again: your logic here is absolutely useless. Yes, it's an official sequel. So? What consequences does that have for the game itself? None whatsoever, except for the expectations people have of such a game.

 

[Salkinius]

It's not a matter if something is called a sequel or not, it's matter if they are a sequel or not, which FO3 most definetly is. I have no idea if it's a valid or a worthy one yet, but a sequel it is. If it's bad... let's hope FO4 will be a better one. And I really hope that number 4 will be made, if number 3 was bad.

Yeah, thanks for missing my point. Again: your logic here is absolutely useless. Yes, it's an official sequel. So? What consequences does that have for the game itself? None whatsoever, except for the expectations people have of such a game.

I didn't miss it, I just clearified it. Perhaps not needed, but still.

And I agree that the announciation of a sequel tends to raise certain expectations from the fans of the previous titles. When these expectations are not met we end up on a site or forum as this one.

I for one always hoped for a great new Fallout game and always on a regular bases checked NMS for news about a Fallout sequel. Over the years this hope has gone up and down, up and down until the point I had none left. And then Bethesda picked up the title. And I could finaly perhaps be able to play another Fallout game, and one in a FP view which I always hoped to be able to someday.

So I didn't have the same expectation as some of you guys perhaps seem to have had. I would also be surprised if the majority of the players that eventually will buy the game (fallout fans or not) have the same expectations. But I could bw wrong.

 

[Per]

Granted that FO3 might not be a true sequel in a technical sense, but it's still a sequel in the true and general meaning of the word.

Tactics is not a sequel because the game emphesizes on a completely different subject, story and characters than the previous two games.

My contradiction meter just fell off the wall.

 

[lisac2k]

I'm curious to see how exactly the BoS may have made it to the East Coast in considerable numbers. The Enclave's birds couldn't make decent incursions into California without refuelling at Navaroo (correct me if I'm wrong here). Establishing a route to D.C. would require a chain of simillar bases across the Midwest and Northeast: a considerable acheivement for a weakened BoS that barely staffs several minor outposts (even in 20-30 years).

Agree completely. However, I'm pretty sure Bethesda will come up with some serious inconsistencies about the whole game universe anyway.

Boosting it up a bit.

Like: Enclave got four jillions of vertibirds, and the BoS is a bit weaker, but you can choose whom to help and become evily-devily, goodie mcgood goodish or pH neutral. Man, it's now or never, the future of DC and the whole new states has to be determined!

Most of the players won't notice something's wrong with the numbers. Making things easier for Beth.

Cheap development.

 

[Salkinius]

Granted that FO3 might not be a true sequel in a technical sense, but it's still a sequel in the true and general meaning of the word.

Tactics is not a sequel because the game emphesizes on a completely different subject, story and characters than the previous two games.

My contradiction meter just fell off the wall.

Do one have to rewrite everything one says in previous posts.

Granted that FO3 might not be a true sequel in a technical sense, but it's still a sequel in the true and general meaning of the word.

If you apply a technical criteria for something to be called a sequel, then FO3 might not be one. But there is no such critera; Fallout 3 is therefor a sequel.

Tactics is not a sequel because the game emphesizes on a completely different subject, story and characters than the previous two games

It's spinn off, which is somehting completely different than a sequel or a prequel.

Everything I say seem infected for this thread.. So I'll just leave it be. Should I continue, I feel that I could fall into a troll trap.