Fallout 3 is The Force Awakens

[Lucas9]

Honestly, Fallout 4 feels like about as an incomplete a game as Knights of the Old Republic 2.

Except KOTOR2 felt like it would have been awesome (and was) if it had been completed.

The only decent things in Fallout 4 are the graphics, the Glowing Sea, the return of the Capital Wasteland Brotherhood, and the Institute's Raygun Gothic look.

I was going to make an edit of my post to add more things as I read the replies of this thread, but I'll say it now since I'm at it.

Bethesda had no reason at all to introduce people to the "lore of Fallout" by mashing things from the previous games together. The best way to experiment the originals is to play the originals. The Force Awakens is a terribly film, IMO, and I'm no Star Wars fans, but I notice a plot mash-up from previous films when I see one. When the new "Death Star" was revealed, I was choking back laughs because I couldn't believe the writers didn't come up with anything better.

These are 40-year old films we are talking about. Forty. If people can't bring themselves to watch three old films and three relatively new films, then I should kill myself for having to watch a 5-hour long silent film from 1927 just because college tells me to (Napoléon from Abel Gance). If you don't like the originals, then most likely you won't like the new ones either (this is my case, I think Star Wars is the most overrated film franchise of all time and its binary display of "good" vs "evil" is enough for me to dislike it). And it makes sense to me that the people who don't like the original games are also the ones that LOVE Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, and dislike New Vegas. Because they don't care about the lore or the roleplaying, they just want to explore and shoot at things. FO3 is not a replacement for FO1 and FO2, in the same way The Force Awakens is not a replacement for the six films that came before it. It would work if it was a reboot, but it wasn't.

Assuming your train of thought is correct, Bethesda did all these things on purpose, but the issue is, for what purpose? Nothing stopped them from creating new factions. They could have expanded on the lore and it would have not made a difference to the new players, because again, mashing up lore elements in no way constitutes "telling the player the stories of the previous games". I've watched The Force Awakens, and it doesn't tell me the story of Anakin, Darth Vader, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Luke Skywalker. Same with Fallout 3: it doesn't tell me the story of the Vault Dweller and the Chosen One.

My conclusion: Fallout 3 drew on aspects of FO1 and FO2 for two possible reasons:

1) To appeal to older fans, in which case they definitely failed.
2) Because they didn't have the creativity to come up with new things, in which case, it shows (since they even butchered the portrayal of the BoS, Super Mutants, and the wasteland).

I wish Fallout 3 was a reboot, that way, the originals would act as a completely different universe where everything makes sense. And thus FO3 and FO4 wouldn't have the terrible continuity issues they have.

And then, maybe, Obsidian could have been able to make New Vegas exactly how they would have wanted to: a game that belongs to the universe of the first two Fallouts, that follows their design philosophy, completely free from the shackles of Fallout 3's lore.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

According to the Fallout Bible, FEV is responsible for all of the mutations everywhere because the nukes hit the location in the Glow.

First of all, the Fallout Bible isn't 100% canon. Ghouls are created solely by radiation, therefore your point of FEV being the sole cause is false.

Secondly, I said a vial, not huge tanks of FEV.

Well, there's enough to evacuate your entire tribe and the dwellers of Deathclaw Vault despite the fact they're prisoners in the middle of it.

Yes but they escape on the ship you enter the rig with, whilst there are far more Enclave citizens and troops that would have to reach a vertibird in time to escape.

Depends on if there were other bases. They could also start recruiting from Vaults.

Most Vaults are mass graves or abandoned.

Autumn says Eden was on the chain of command to begin with, not that they started worshiping a computer when they arrived. That opens a bunch of questions, I admit, but it explains why they agreed to work for him and why Colonel Autumn is more respected.

They obey a ZAX computer because it's the smartest thing alive but Autumn is their actual leader.

Both he and his father are the only two people who ever knew (before LW) that Eden's a computer (which in itself is questionable). Now the Enclave is a militaristic force but they still elected their president. A voice claiming to be the POTUS from all the way across the country is daft in my eyes. People would wonder why the President hasn't been seen by anyone else. In fact I'd argue realistically people would suspect Autumn to be full of shit.

But it's Bethesda so what do I expect.

I don't like the Master and consider him a cartoonish villain who just so happens to see the error of his ways but I know I'm alone in this. I felt John Henry Eden was a very well written character for the fact he was an embodiment of Pre-War America as the literal gestalt of all previous Presidents. Seeing him destroyed allowed America to at last move on.

Master: "I want to make everyone the same so we will no longer fight each other and survive this cruel world."
Eden: "Kill all mutants so we can play baseball again!"

(Disclaimer: Not literally what they say)

 

[AlphaSlayerZX]

I think Fallout 3 is better than Fallout 1 and 2

Wow....I think I should quote the Master here.

"You must be joking."

 

[CT Phipps]

Wow....I think I should quote the Master here.

"You must be joking."

I admit, it's a tough call because Fallout 2 has New Reno and the ability to talk to the Enclave. I wish they'd gotten more John Henry Eden as a character because if he'd been written like Dick Richardson, the game would have been even better.

Also, no porn studios or gangs to join in Fallout 3.

 

[Lucas9]

I admit, it's a tough call because Fallout 2 has New Reno and the ability to talk to the Enclave. I wish they'd gotten more John Henry Eden as a character because if he'd been written like Dick Richardson, the game would have been even better.

Also, no porn studios or gangs to join in Fallout 3.

If you could point out why you like Fallout 3 better than the rest, would you be able to?

I ask because it is fundamentally impossible to hold a discussion when the two parties discussing have drastically different opinions and work with different logics (regardless of "right" or "wrong", but more of "I like apples" and "I like oranges", in the sense that the orange guy will never like apples, and viceversa).

 

[CaptJ]

I took the theme of tragedy from that because you try desperately to save your father but fail.

Tragedy isn't really a theme. Also, you didn't fail to save your father; he killed himself. The whole main quest wasn't in order to save the father. He left under his own accord. The Father's death isn't just about how it affects the main character but also his reasons.

I'm fairly certain you're insane. You're basically saying the Mona Lisa can't be art if it's sold versus displayed in a gallery. Of course, you actually think I approve of any of those practices, which is another sign you're insane.

Art is about expression and making something in a certain way because you think that it what would sell isn't expression.

it should be judged as a remake.

I wouldn't call it a remake but a soft-reboot like what DC did by introducing n52 which no one wanted.

My conclusion: Fallout 3 drew on aspects of FO1 and FO2 for two possible reasons:

1) To appeal to older fans, in which case they definitely failed.
2) Because they didn't have the creativity to come up with new things, in which case, it shows (since they even butchered the portrayal of the BoS, Super Mutants, and the wasteland).

The reason is to ride off the brand power of the franchise, take all the elements that they think people associate with Fallout, and be able to pick or ignore whatever was in the previous games.

 

[Kohno]

whoever thought the original ending was good is an idiot for MULTIPLE reasons and the Broken Steel one is an Author's Saving Throw of epic proportions

The core idea of the ending wasn't bad. But the build up and final execution was beyond horrible. Broken Steel didn't fix the ending; the ending was bad, but BS (broken indeed) made it actually worse as it rendered the whole thematic upbringing of the main storyline meaningless. It was a hasty bone thrown at whiners who couldn't handle a game that ends. And Bethesda chose to do that, instead of fixing the horrible ending (and the path to it). They don't give a shit about storytelling or narrative design, all's fine as long as you get to rummage trhough the shit in the world infinitely.

 

[Lucas9]

The reason is to ride off the brand power of the franchise, take all the elements that they think people associate with Fallout, and be able to pick or ignore whatever was in the previous games.

The funny thing is that, from all the things Bethesda could take from Fallout, they took the wrong one: the setting.

This is why I say Arcanum is essentially the real Fallout 3. Not New Vegas. But Arcanum. If you did a setting swamp, it would be impossible for you to know that it used to be something other than a Fallout game.

Grab Fallout 3 and Fallout 4, swap the setting around, and you won't even know you are playing a Fallout game in disguise. It will feel, indeed, you are playing a TES game if you swap the setting, because everything that makes a TES game a TES game is there: the big world, the exploration, the terrible main quest, the choices that barely matter, almost no consequences for your actions. Fallout 4 takes this up to eleven by directly making use of Skyrim's loading screens.

 

[CT Phipps]

The core idea of the ending wasn't bad. But the build up and final execution was beyond horrible. Broken Steel didn't fix the ending; the ending was bad, but BS (broken indeed) made it actually worse as it rendered the whole thematic upbringing of the main storyline meaningless. It was a hasty bone thrown at whiners who couldn't handle a game that ends. And Bethesda chose to do that, instead of fixing the horrible ending (and the path to it). They don't give a shit about storytelling or narrative design, all's fine as long as you get to rummage trhough the shit in the world infinitely.

I would have a problem with this if I accepted Sacrifice was a theme when I adamantly reject it and also think it's a stupid theme to go for Fallout as a whole, especially with the theme of Fatherhood. Your parent is willing to sacrifice everything for YOU and your future. Having you die a few days later isn't a good ending, it's horrible and a tragedy.

*cough* A certain movie *cough*

Hell, it's the exact same way as James creation kills his son/daughter. That essentially means he probably regrets ever building it.

Another reason the vanilla ending is shit.

If you could point out why you like Fallout 3 better than the rest, would you be able to?

I ask because it is fundamentally impossible to hold a discussion when the two parties discussing have drastically different opinions and work with different logics (regardless of "right" or "wrong", but more of "I like apples" and "I like oranges", in the sense that the orange guy will never like apples, and viceversa).

There's like five different posts I have to respond to and I'm a bit overwhelmed but if people want to know why I like Fallout 3 over Fallout 1 and 2, I'm happy to discuss it.

 

[CaptJ]

The funny thing is that, from all the things Bethesda could take from Fallout, they took the wrong one: the setting.

No, it is more about the amusing aspects of Fallout.
Dogmeat is a funny name. Let's name every dog that!
Bottlecaps as money?
Wacky 1950's alternate future?
Vault boy is inappropriately friendly looking? Let's make everything pre-war comically evil!
Knights in Power Armor? They look cool they must be the good guys!
Let's shoot some orcs!
Yeah! Violence and gore. It' isn't like this was suppose to be a statement or something.
You get the idea.

 

[CT Phipps]

Serious question: Do people just not count the Brotherhood Outcasts when talking about the EBoS? Because it seems like everyone doesn't register them as existing.

 

[CaptJ]

I would have a problem with this if I accepted Sacrifice was a theme when I adamantly reject it and also think it's a stupid theme to go for Fallout as a whole, especially with the theme of Fatherhood.

What is this? Bible study? Just because you disagree about the message, doesn't mean that you have to reinterpret the story. The Romance of Three Kingdom had one scene where a dude fed a general his wife's flesh and it was treated as an act loyalty.

 

[CT Phipps]

What is this? Bible study? Just because you disagree about the message, doesn't mean that you have to reinterpret the story. The Romance of Three Kingdom had one scene where a dude fed a general his wife's flesh and it was treated as an act loyalty.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor

I also mentioned this above. It doesn't matter what they claim the theme is or whether they're telling the truth. It's what the book/video game actually SHOWS. One of the first lessons I was taught by my writer's group.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Serious question: Do people just not count the Brotherhood Outcasts when talking about the EBoS? Because it seems like everyone doesn't register them as existing.

That's because they play no role in the game outside of being some encounter where you can deliver some junk to. If the Outcast actually had a more meaningfull role in the game, let us say a chance to take over the BoS, with a real leadership more quests and somehow tied into the main story, we would maybe see them as a real part of the game.

 

[CaptJ]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor

I also mentioned this above. It doesn't matter what they claim the theme is or whether they're telling the truth. It's what the book/video game actually SHOWS. One of the first lessons I was taught by my writer's group.

Can you give an argument for why you think that Sacrifice isn't the theme besides that you don't like it to be the theme?

 

[CT Phipps]

Can you give an argument for why you think that Sacrifice isn't the theme besides that you don't like it to the theme?

James sacrifices himself, you sacrifice yourself (potentially). This is two elements in the main story which are significant character beats, yes. However, the simple fact is you can't take these two elements and say the game is about sacrifice. Especially an open world game. You can say the main quest is about sacrifice but Fallout 3 is a lot bigger a game than just James story. It's a game about exploration, saving or damning people, and the choices in the game.

What does sacrifice have to do with the setting of Washington D.C.?
What does sacrifice have to do with Sierra Petrovita?
What does sacrifice have to do with Mister Burke?

If you're going to say a game is ABOUT something then it needs to be part of the whole experience.

Take Saints Row 2, for a random example.

Saints Row is about fun and crime.

They're EVERYWHERE in the game.

Yet, the main quest has you against an evil corporate executive out to gentrify Stillwater. Would you say the theme of Saints Row is gentrification?

It plays a pretty big role in the main quest but I'd dare say it's not about that.

To explain why I love Fallout 2 over Fallout 1 and 2, it boils down to the fact of immersion and stakes. They're two things which I think Fallout does an amazingly good job with and one which manages to improve of the retelling of the first two protagonist's story. BTW, I agree with the comparison to the Nu52 and the idea this is a soft reboot too.

They could have just made up new factions and just foregone the original characters. However, they wanted to do a game in FALLOUT with Fallout's lore and characters. It's a bit like doing a sequel to Star Wars (ha!) and not including elements like the Empire, Rebellion, Jedi, or Sith.

The Brotherhood of Steel, Enclave, Super Mutants, and so on are ICONIC elements of what makes Fallout good so it's important to show them to new players. Expecting them to just go back in time to play the original games BECAUSE is silly--especially since so many people DID go and play those games because they loved Fallout 3!

For me, Fallout 3 successfully transported me from my home in Ashland, Ky to Washington D.C. in two centuries later. It's not wholly believebale, not even the slightest, but I suspended my disbelief because the post-apocalypse world had the qualities of a nightmare.

The empty repurposed buildings, the 1950s music, the horrific skeletons as well as apocalyptic logs despite it being centuries later made the place feel like the Lone Wanderer was trapped in a otherworldly hell which sacrificed realism for emotional impact. None of it made literal sense but it didn't have to because it thrived through the power of storytelling.

The original games were wonderful and on my top ten list of favorite games of all time (underneath Vampire:
Bloodlines, KOTOR, KOTOR 2, Skyrim, and Fallout 3/New Vegas) but they were limited by their graphics and inferior combat. They could only rely on your imagination to take you to the literal post-apocalypse world which felt less like hell than a ore literal post-apocalypse sci-fi setting.

Fallout 3 made me FEEL things and feel them a lot. I felt a lot of fun during Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 but was never actually MOVED save a couple of times when I accidentally did something nightmarish like the rape sequence at Vault City (swift reload!) or shooting a man with his grandkid holding a gun.

However, I felt something when I saw those skeletons cuddled together on a bed surrounded by Med-X. I felt stuff looking out on the vast wasteland of America's capita. I felt something when I saw the Lincoln memorial and when I recovered the documents which the nations were founded on. I believed Three Dog when he said I was last best hope for humanity because I believed that humanity was going to die in the Capital Wasteland.
Which brings me to the stakes that it is a game which, like Mass Effect, truly made me feel like both a badass as well as a hero.

That my choices MATTERED.

Fallout 1 did, to an extent, but Fallout 2 left me feeling more ambivalent--perhaps because my Chosen One was kind of an asshole.

I also much prefer shooter gameplay to turn based combat.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

What does sacrifice have to do with the setting of Washington D.C.?
What does sacrifice have to do with Sierra Petrovita?
What does sacrifice have to do with Mister Burke?

Ah yes! The old "bring up two characters with little significance other than their involvement in a side quest" argument. Truly brilliant.

The player character and one of the main characters sacrifice themselves. It's poetic because they're related. The father passes the torch to his son by sacrificing himself, and then the son also sacrifices himself- for the betterment of mankind.

It's actually a significant theme because it happens before the story (James moving to the vault), at the very beginning (mother dying to give birth to a child), at the center (father dying to stop the Enclave), and at the very end (with the protagonist) dying to guarantee potable water to the wasteland.

I never said it was good, but it's there.

 

[CT Phipps]

Ah yes! The old "bring up two characters with little significance other than their involvement in a side quest" argument. Truly brilliant.

Which would be a valid argument were not for the fact I straight up said the main quest cannot be the total sum of the game's theme source.

The player character and one of the main characters sacrifice themselves. It's poetic because they're related. The father passes the torch to his son by sacrificing himself, and then the son also sacrifices himself- for the betterment of mankind.

Okay sure. I'm glad it's gone, at least as I much prefer the themes of the setting as a whole.

But I'm sure some people like sacrifice as a theme.

 

[Lucas9]

Serious question: Do people just not count the Brotherhood Outcasts when talking about the EBoS? Because it seems like everyone doesn't register them as existing.

In my case, it's a matter of priorities. Bethesda wanted the player to join the BoS and have them be the good guys. The Outcasts don't really matter, because realistically, the Outcasts should have been the people sharing the Elder's ideas, not the opposite.

That there are Outcasts doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculous to think of a Brotherhood of Steel who dedicates their lives to helping the people of the wasteland. It's directly against what they should do. Personally I think it would have been very interesting to see in-fighting inside the BoS, and have the player decide who to team with.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

That there are Outcasts doesn't change the fact that it is ridiculous to think of a Brotherhood of Steel who dedicates their lives to helping the people of the wasteland. It's directly against what they should do. Personally I think it would have been very interesting to see in-fighting inside the BoS, and have the player decide who to team with.

Conflict of interest? In Fallout 3?

Don't be silly, the developers don't want you to do that