Fallout 3:Locations from FO2

[EvgeniBuzov]

Wouldnt it be great to see some towns/locations from FO2 in Fallout3?
For an example, I think it would be pretty cool to visit... let's say Klamath, and find some cool things there(like the Dunton Brothers graves ) Or something like that. I wouldn't mind to see how New Reno developed in the last 5 years, after the Chosen One destroyed the Enclave and saved Arroyo.

Anyways, I just wanted to know what you guys think about all of this.

 

[RPGenius]

Comig across the new Arroyo would be fun, especially if it had become corupt, (Think NCR, only more extreme.)
It would be a nice touch of irony if it turned out that the G.E.C.K had caused the corruptoin.

 

[Sander]

Nah, I don't think that that's going to be good, mainly because it'll cause, as I've said so many times, a breach of canon for a lot of people. In the same way that Fallout 2 assumed a lot of things about the way Fallout 1 was played.

Take, for instance, Vault City and Gecko. There are a shitload of possibilities there, and to assume that one specific one of them happened would be annoying to say the least for all those who played Fallout 2 in a different way.

 

[RPGenius]

Yeah, that's fair, but as far as I'm aware, Arroyo had just the one ending.

So to find out that what the "Chosen One" had done had caused Arroyo to become a right wing police state type city would be a nice touch of irony.

 

[Morpoggel]

Nah, I don't think that that's going to be good, mainly because it'll cause, as I've said so many times, a breach of canon for a lot of people. In the same way that Fallout 2 assumed a lot of things about the way Fallout 1 was played.

Take, for instance, Vault City and Gecko. There are a shitload of possibilities there, and to assume that one specific one of them happened would be annoying to say the least for all those who played Fallout 2 in a different way.

Just like they did with Yuri's Revenge, it assumed you won with the Allies... I thought that was kinda lame...

It would be cool if there was someone who mentioned something about Arroyo and how it went...

 

[EvgeniBuzov]

Just like they did with Yuri's Revenge, it assumed you won with the Allies... I thought that was kinda lame...

Yeah, 100% agree with you there.

It would be cool if there was someone who mentioned something about Arroyo and how it went...

I would really want to come across Klamath and take a look at the Dunton Brothers or
even better i would like to see their graves


IMO it would be pretty intresting to see some towns from FO2 in neater 3D graphics from Fallout 3. Like the Super Mutant military base(which has been destroyed 2 times) or maybe the Den with it's narcotically addicted population .

 

[Sander]

Yeah, that's fair, but as far as I'm aware, Arroyo had just the one ending.

So to find out that what the "Chosen One" had done had caused Arroyo to become a right wing police state type city would be a nice touch of irony.

Yeah, but what if you'd chosen to annihilate the town or, hell, not rescue the people from Arroyo but just blow up the whole platform with them still on it?

Also, Evgeni, all you can think of as an argument is "it would be cool"? Sheesh.

 

[RPGenius]

IMO it would be pretty intresting to see some towns from FO2 in neater 3D graphics from Fallout 3. Like the Super Mutant military base

I think that the only way I'd like to see a Military base return, would be if the Brotherhood Of Steel had set about trying to finish what the master statred.

The BOS and the Super-Mutants always seemed very similar to me, both believing they were superior to all others, claiming to wish to help or "unite", the people of the wastes, and both using their considerable power to do so.

 

[Morpoggel]

They should however definitely put in something similar to the SAD... god, I just loved the atmosphere in there... and then when you read all the e-mails...

 

[Member of Khans]

I'd prefer to visit some Fallout 1 locations instead. I miss Junktown.

 

[Morpoggel]

They should make a critter that resembles a pup and place it in Junktown... guess what that reference is supposed to be

 

[General Felipe]

Hum... i really like military bases, so it will be good if there's some BOS HQ and the Enclave. Another ones can be NCR, SF... some places what make difference on the game.

 

[Silencer]

In the same way that Fallout 2 assumed a lot of things about the way Fallout 1 was played.

Actually, it dealt quite good with this issue: "The Overseer was overthrown or killed, I don't know which..."... The NCR "states" were not actually described, so we didn't know who ran Junktown or Boneyard, for example. Of course, it was assumed that you had saved Shady Sands, made pact with the Brotherhood and not killed Rhombus, and of course not joined the Master, but hey - you've had to have at least some continuity.

Off the top of my head, I think we could have a ghost town that once was Broken Hills, or a New Reno ran by a mob, originating from never mind which one of the crime families. Or a Vault City with an independence/stagnation sceenario. But more open-ended locations, like San Francisco, NCR or even Redding ought to be left out; Modoc ought to be levelled with the ground for good measure....

 

[Sander]

Actually, it dealt quite good with this issue: "The Overseer was overthrown or killed, I don't know which..."... The NCR "states" were not actually described, so we didn't know who ran Junktown or Boneyard, for example. Of course, it was assumed that you had saved Shady Sands, made pact with the Brotherhood and not killed Rhombus, and of course not joined the Master, but hey - you've had to have at least some continuity.

Why do you have to have continuity? What did the fact that NCR used to be Shady Sands really add to the game other than 'Oh cool, it's from the previous game'?
Really, it assumed a shitload more, as well. It assumed you killed the raiders (as opposed to going the peaceful way), that Dogmeat got killed in the Mutant Base (as described in the manual, which assumed a lot of other things as well), it assumed that you blew up the mutant base, it assumed that you were male (as evidenced by the statue), and I believe there were some references to the Hub as well.
To put this in contrast, in my first game I killed Shady Sands because their incompetence was annoying me, I (accidentally) antagonised the entire Hub because I wanted one of those cool armors and didn't have the money to buy one, so I killed a policeman. I did murder the raiders there, but Dogmeat got killed early in the game.
And all that was changed in Fallout 2 because they, for some reason, wanted to include Shady Sands as the NCR. They could just as well have taken any other entity.

Off the top of my head, I think we could have a ghost town that once was Broken Hills,

Oh? And what if I saved Broken Hills and did everything right there? And what of the references people will be making about the history of Broken Hills?

or a New Reno ran by a mob, originating from never mind which one of the crime families.

Again, what of the history? Unless you place this hundreds of years in the future, it's completely unreasonable to assume that no-one remembers the originating family, or any of the events surrounding probably the deaths of some of those families, or the end or continuing existence of the stables, or the laser pistol deal?

Or a Vault City with an independence/stagnation sceenario. But more open-ended locations, like San Francisco, NCR or even Redding ought to be left out; Modoc ought to be levelled with the ground for good measure....

Who says I didn't level Vault City because the bastards annoyed me, and what to do with Gecko in the case I didn't? Were those raiders ever stopped? What of the bond with New Reno and NCR?

Really, tying it in with the previous game in any way but vague references is undoable unless you want to annoy people, or have those people tell the saga of the Vault Dweller and the Chosen One at the beginning of the game to determine the surroundings. And the only reason to include previous locations is either for the coolness of it, or a storytelling purpose. Yet Fallout's story was one created by the player during the game, so why set it in stone, then?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

You know, in Fallout the player could join the Unity and aid the Master in turning the entire humanity into supermutants. According to your reasoning, it would be impossible to have a sequel taking place in any chronologically subsequent time period. In fact, it would be impossible to have another game in the same universe, seeing as a prequel would likewise have the player make choices which affect the fate of the entire world.

When creating a CRPG series, the writers inevitably have to decide which outcomes are canon and which aren't. Furthermore, a game often leaves many unanswered questions and loose ends (like Fallout did), hence the story of a sequel is inevitably tied to the story of the original and often includes revisiting locations. Which means there will always be hypersensitive fans whining about a marginal issue that could only be resolved by developers coming up with fifty different games to accomodate everyone. Boo-hoo.

If someone is unhappy with the canon, they can simply opt for not playing the subsequent games in the series. The rest will familiarize themselves with the official storyline and enjoy the sequel.

 

[Sander]

You know, in Fallout the player could join the Unity and aid the Master in turning the entire humanity into supermutants. According to your reasoning, it would be impossible to have a sequel taking place in any chronologically subsequent time period.

Bullshite. New York is completely unaffected by the Master's actions, for instance. It closes off that part of the game world, though, yes.

In fact, it would be impossible to have another game in the same universe, seeing as a prequel would likewise have the player make choices which affect the fate of the entire world.

...
Now this is just stupid. I hope you can see that this claim is completely false.

When creating a CRPG series, the writers inevitably have to decide which outcomes are canon and which aren't. Furthermore, a game often leaves many unanswered questions and loose ends (like Fallout did), hence the story of a sequel is inevitably tied to the story of the original and often includes revisiting locations.

Hence? That's not 'hence'. There's no reason whatsoever to use the word 'hence' there. It is in no way a necessity to tie up all of those loose ends. In fact, one could easily say that those loose ends fuel the imagination and especially the replayability of the game.

Which means there will always be hypersensitive fans whining about a marginal issue that could only be resolved by developers coming up with fifty different games to accomodate everyone. Boo-hoo.

Bullshit, yet again. It can also be resolved by simply not creating direct sequels. Again I ask, what real advantage was gained by having Fallout 2 incorporate Shady Sands?

If someone is unhappy with the canon, they can simply opt for not playing the subsequent games in the series.

Hah! What a bullshit argument. It's on the same level as 'If you won't like FPS Fallout then you can just not play the next game in the series, because I certainly will!'

The rest will familiarize themselves with the official storyline and enjoy the sequel.

If there is such a need to completely and solidly create an official storyline, what's the whole point of making Fallout open-ended in the first place? Tying off Fallout basically means that all of those choices you made in Fallout were completely meaningless, it decreases the power of Fallout and marginalizes the influence you, as a player, had in the first game.

 

[EvgeniBuzov]

Also, Evgeni, all you can think of as an argument is "it would be cool"? Sheesh.

To tell you the truth, I didn't even want to argue I just wanted to read what you guys think about my question, that's all.

I think that Fallout 3 should not have too much locations or towns from FO2 or 1, but it would be intresting to see something from them.

 

[RPGenius]

New York is completely unaffected by the Master's actions

Well, since your arguement would seem to be thatanything short of creating a whole different game that has nothing in common with the Fallout setting, aside from name and engine; why not adhere to your own philosophy, and realize that the Master could well have spread to control New York for example.

...
Now this is just stupid. I hope you can see that this claim is completely false.

No, reading what you post, that seems to be what you suggest, that anything that involves doing something that could affect anything anywhere else should be scrapped.

 

[Brother None]

..
Now this is just stupid. I hope you can see that this claim is completely false.

No it isn't. If I chose to join the Master than the entire Wasteland would've been crawling with mutants in no time. Why? Because the Unity was an effective organisation and the race was strong, there would've been very little left of civilization to stop them spreading to NY as well. You'd have to move the storyline to Alaska before you'd stop noticing.

Let alone the Enclave. If I chose not to stop them, the entire human race would be dead. So no more games set after Fallout 2 in timeline? Well done, Sander, well done.

You're making a lot of logical mistakes, Sander. There is no way and no reason for open-ended games not to have tied ends for the sequel. You may panic and squeal and say "That's not how I played Fallout!", but allowing game design to be affected by something as inane as not wanting to set a defined canon is just stupid...

In fact, most people enjoy set canon, most people enjoyed seeing places from Fallout in Fallout 2. To tie everything down would force game designers to jump around from place to place and time to time randomnly, which would be very harmful.

The series would turn into a loose collection of games with no real tie-in except for the same setting (roughly) and stupidity could abound through lack of set game-canon. "Sure, there were no cars in Fallout 4, but this is Fallout 5, in another part of the US. FLEET OF CARS, BABY!"

 

[Silencer]

(...)If someone is unhappy with the canon, they can simply opt for not playing the subsequent games in the series. The rest will familiarize themselves with the official storyline and enjoy the sequel.

What Ratty said. Also, reminds me how unhappy I was with Starcraft's ending, making campaigns to ritght the wrongs ;D

Dogmeat got killed in the Mutant Base (as described in the manual, which assumed a lot of other things as well),

Bullshit. Dogmeat was well and alive in the COBD

it assumed that you blew up the mutant base

Hello, as far as I know, there as no other options ...

Oh? And what if I saved Broken Hills and did everything right there? And what of the references people will be making about the history of Broken Hills?

Then, the uranium ran out.

Unless you place this hundreds of years in the future, it's completely unreasonable to assume that no-one remembers the originating family, or any of the events surrounding probably the deaths of some of those families, or the end or continuing existence of the stables, or the laser pistol deal?

Why? All you have to assume is a violent power struggle, which might have turned the tables completely.

Who says I didn't level Vault City because the bastards annoyed me, and what to do with Gecko in the case I didn't? Were those raiders ever stopped? What of the bond with New Reno and NCR?

I don't know, but I think it's safe to assume a single individual (even with APAMKII, lawl) could nopt have wiped out the city entirely... Although that would be a strong and unnecessary assumption. The problem lies with VC's geographical location, which would sort of force you to assume SOMETHING, as it is not easily put outside the bounds of the world map as SF or NCR