Fallout 3:Locations from FO2

[Sander]

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.

Travelling the entire USA, while fighting god knows what kinds of enemies (who knows what lurks in those places, like another Brotherhood) and only one source of new mutants (The Vats)? Not likely. There are again a multitude of possibilities in which those mutants could be stopped, if they appeared at all. But the player in a sequel doesn't need to know any of that.

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.

True, yet the only option you have is to stop the Enclave in Fallout 2. Granted, by my logic one could just ignore them.
However, inner strife, moral conflicts, the Brotherhood without the help of mr. One could stop them. You don't actually need to tell the player that.

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!"

Not really, part of the setting is that there are almost no cars. Part of the story is that the Vault Dweller emerged from the vaults. There's a clear difference between setting and story, and I'm advocating a seperate, new story in the same setting.

As for game design, see it as a challenge to either write something in the way that as few assumptions are made as possible (possibly the most annoying thing in this respect was the Fallout 2 manual, where they detailed the Vault Dweller's every move), or to write it for a different location. If done well, this doesn't really need to be a problem. For Fallout 2 it was still doable to do such a thing without offending too many people, which was done well (apart from the manual) in most cases. The fact that they had a statue of the Vault Dweller and still commemmorated him in NCR was overdone, and Tandi was..well....a bit of a stretch. If they had done this a bit differently they could've had Shady Sands eventually rise on its own without telling too much of a backstory. The same goes for the raiders in Vault 15, why did they have to be descendants of the Khans?

But yes, I'll say that it is rather hard to create any kind of continuity without tying things down and that tying things down is not necessarily bad. However, I feel that it's something you should avoid as much as possible, especially if done just for the 'cool factor'. A lot of people seem to want Dogmeat and Ian to re-appear as old fossils, just for the hell of it. And the risk of things being tied down too much is large in a game with the scope, size and freedom of Fallout 2.

It can be useful on occasion though, it could be used to correct the canonical errors that were New Reno and San Fran, for instance.

Then, the uranium ran out.

That's a good example of how to treat canon in a series like Fallout, make it so that the actions of previous games are let loose as much as possible.

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

Yes, but considering the structure of New Reno it isn't logical to assume they just forgot their families.
It could be done, though.

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

Well, I did level Vault City, those duders aren't really that powerful in the game.
But yes, it does force you to assume something.

 

[Silencer]

There are again a multitude of possibilities in which those mutants could be stopped, if they appeared at all. But the player in a sequel doesn't need to know any of that.(...) You don't actually need to tell the player that.

The words "illogical", "obscure" and "arbitrary" come to mind. If they were such a capital constituent of the storyline, I for one would feel cheated, had I learned they were stopped by something other than the protagonist and not even be told exacltly what., why and how.

The fact that they had a statue of the Vault Dweller and still commemmorated him in NCR was overdone, and Tandi was..well....a bit of a stretch. If they had done this a bit differently they could've had Shady Sands eventually rise on its own without telling too much of a backstory. The same goes for the raiders in Vault 15, why did they have to be descendants of the Khans?

Well, agreed, this was a stretch.

A lot of people seem to want Dogmeat and Ian to re-appear as old fossils, just for the hell of it.

They can't, they're dead! LOL

Actually, I think this is an example of the most poorly handled item in terms of what we're discussing: The Fallout 1 NPCs.

It can be useful on occasion though, it could be used to correct the canonical errors that were New Reno and San Fran, for instance.

Ah, so new you want to negate players' experiences? What about those who found SF and NR enjoyable?

That's a good example of how to treat canon in a series like Fallout, make it so that the actions of previous games are let loose as much as possible.

Agreed, but then again, that Broken Hill couldn't have been saved was detrimental to the ending of the game itself. It didn't bring that much satisfaction.

Yes, but considering the structure of New Reno it isn't logical to assume they just forgot their families.
It could be done, though.

Maybe by introducing a brand new familyalthough this would fly in the face of the argument in the beginning of my post.

 

[Sander]

The words "illogical", "obscure" and "arbitrary" come to mind. If they were such a capital constituent of the storyline, I for one would feel cheated, had I learned they were stopped by something other than the protagonist and not even be told exacltly what., why and how.

No, I'm not saying you get told that they were stopped at all, or where, because they could have been stopped by the Vault Dweller as well. If you're in New York and you somehow hear of the super mutants, you get told that they were stopped eventually, although no-one nows how, for instance.
But yes, that is a bit farfetched.

They can't, they're dead! LOL

Actually, I think this is an example of the most poorly handled item in terms of what we're discussing: The Fallout 1 NPCs.

You mean the Cafe of Broken Dreams? Or Tandi?

Ah, so new you want to negate players' experiences? What about those who found SF and NR enjoyable?

What? No I don't. What I mean, is that this could be an opportunity to have New Reno turned into ruins, after New Reno happened at all. Hell, it's what you've been promoting. Sheesh.
Also, I think we can all agree that SF and NR were highly inappropriate for the setting. A way to incorporate those places but in a style consistent with the setting would be rather welcome.

Agreed, but then again, that Broken Hill couldn't have been saved was detrimental to the ending of the game itself. It didn't bring that much satisfaction.

I thought it was rather appropriate, really. Just like I thought that the fact that it was nigh impossible to save Gecko was interesting as well, even though it was due to a bug (if I recall correctly).

Maybe by introducing a brand new familyalthough this would fly in the face of the argument in the beginning of my post.

But still, if all the families were dead, except for the Wrights...
Meh, a general 'they all went down in flames' would be the bets option, though, if you're going to incorporate New Reno.

 

[Silencer]

You mean the Cafe of Broken Dreams? Or Tandi?

Rather the text in the manual. CBOD can't be considered canon since it's an SE.

What? No I don't. What I mean, is that this could be an opportunity to have New Reno turned into ruins, after New Reno happened at all. Hell, it's what you've been promoting. Sheesh.

Oh. All righty,then. That would be nice.

But still, if all the families were dead, except for the Wrights...

Again, who says so? The player needen't have sided with them, or could have killed all families, or could have sided with none... So the best option would be to invent a new power factor.

We're both becoming victioms of our own logics, which just goes to show that a rotten compromise is necessary.

Meh, a general 'they all went down in flames' would be the bets option, though, if you're going to incorporate New Reno.

Agreed.

 

[Sander]

Rather the text in the manual. CBOD can't be considered canon since it's an SE.

Ugh. Poor fan fiction is what that was.

Again, who says so? The player needen't have sided with them, or could have killed all families, or could have sided with none... So the best option would be to invent a new power factor.

We're both becoming victioms of our own logics, which just goes to show that a rotten compromise is necessary.

To be fair I was referring to the possibility of that having happened as well.
But yeah, the rotten compromise emerges:

Meh, a general 'they all went down in flames' would be the bets option, though, if you're going to incorporate New Reno.

 

[Brother None]

What I'm failing to see is the big problem you're seeing here, Sander...

Why is it a big deal if there's a canon story that doesn't match my experience playing Fallout 1? Hell, the second time I played Fallout 1 doesn't match the first time nor should I expect it to. You forge your own world in the game, but how does that mean that a set world contradicts the open-endedness?

 

[Sander]

What I'm failing to see is the big problem you're seeing here, Sander...

Why is it a big deal if there's a canon story that doesn't match my experience playing Fallout 1? Hell, the second time I played Fallout 1 doesn't match the first time nor should I expect it to. You forge your own world in the game, but how does that mean that a set world contradicts the open-endedness?

In a way, yes. It throws away basically everything you've done during any of those games, and says "This is how you played it." It takes away some of the accomplishments you get each time you complete a game, the scenarios that happened to the cities, usually being different, was a great way of telling a story of influencing the Wastes. That dissappears when a sequel sets the story in stone.
Sure, I can see it is something that almost needs to be done if you want to tie the games together, but it's also something that I feel needs to be avoided as much as possible, since I really hate to see my experiences in previous games get nullified. At least when I played Fallout for another time and changed the outcome, I was the one who changed, not MCA & co. (although I'm not sure who exactly decided the previous story) who decided quite a bit about the Fallout story, more or less on a whim.

 

[Brother None]

In a way, yes. It throws away basically everything you've done during any of those games, and says "This is how you played it." It takes away some of the accomplishments you get each time you complete a game, the scenarios that happened to the cities, usually being different, was a great way of telling a story of influencing the Wastes. That dissappears when a sequel sets the story in stone.

Conversely, however, removing every game from the other game's canon has much the same effect in taking away from enjoyability. There is no continuity and continuity takes away from a sense of accomplishment. You see Shady Sands again, you see what your character from the 1st game does in the end, even if it's not your character exactly.

While both options are not perfect, I think your option is the weaker one, mostly because in a practical sense it'll make for a disjointed and inevitably terrible series.

 

[Sander]

Conversely, however, removing every game from the other game's canon has much the same effect in taking away from enjoyability. There is no continuity and continuity takes away from a sense of accomplishment. You see Shady Sands again, you see what your character from the 1st game does in the end, even if it's not your character exactly.

While both options are not perfect, I think your option is the weaker one, mostly because in a practical sense it'll make for a disjointed and inevitably terrible series.

Well, the ideal option would be to look at endgame saves or let the player answer a bunch of questions about his decisions in the first game. But that's really a lot of developing work, especially with a game that has as many different outcomes as Fallout 2 had, so it's not really feasible.

I personally prefer my option, I don't really see the need to tie inFallout 3 with Fallout and Fallout 2. I believe you were a big supporter of the East Coast option, for instance. And, hell, Van Buren had no tie-ins, and it looked to have a decent story and setting (lacking in some places). I doubt having a lack of tie-ins will lead to a poor series, since there are still a lot of options left. You only really explored a part of California in the first two games, so there's plenty of space, and there's the option to place the games in different time periods as well.

 

[Brother None]

I'm a big proponent of the East Coast option once they wrap this up, I'd like one more game tied in directly into Fallout 1 or 2, either as a prequel (which would be very tough unless it's a prequel that just hints a lot towards Fallout 1 rather than having a storyline which directly brings up Fallout 1) or a sequel. Finishin' up the trilogy and stuff.

 

[Xavierblazer]

a sequel. Finishin' up the trilogy and stuff.

Yes. I cant live with a Bilogy

 

[Brother None]

Change your av. It's sickening x 2.

 

[Silencer]

Take it to PMs, Kharn! Bad, bad admin!

Also, Xavierbalzer, yous sig is a wee bit to large.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

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

The Master's goal is to turn the entire humanity into mutants. That includes New York as well.

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

No, it isn't. It is hypothetical. Fallout games have epic plots. Player's actions determine the fate of the entire world. Removing that aspect would be a sacrilege.

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.

Now you are speaking from your own perspective, and I daresay your view of desireable storytelling in a CRPG series is shared by an insignificant minority.

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?

FO2 storyline is directly tied to Vault 13 and Military Base, which are in immediate geographic vicinity of Shady Sands / NCR. The only alternative is to have a black blotch on the section of the map where Shady Sands is supposed to be or pretend the village never existed.

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!'

Straw man argument. Creating a sequel which ties in with the previous games isn't even remotely analogous with disemboweling the series with an FPS spin-off.

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.

Amazing, yet you advocate the following:

Travelling the entire USA, while fighting god knows what kinds of enemies (who knows what lurks in those places, like another Brotherhood) and only one source of new mutants (The Vats)? Not likely. There are again a multitude of possibilities in which those mutants could be stopped, if they appeared at all. But the player in a sequel doesn't need to know any of that.

True, yet the only option you have is to stop the Enclave in Fallout 2. Granted, by my logic one could just ignore them.
However, inner strife, moral conflicts, the Brotherhood without the help of mr. One could stop them. You don't actually need to tell the player that.

So in other words, the player's actions in Fallout and Fallout 2 are irrelevant, because even if he/she joins the mutants, someone else stops them? It's nice to know that my actions as the player have no long-term effect upon the game world. Wait, isn't that what you are arguing against?

There's a clear difference between setting and story, and I'm advocating a seperate, new story in the same setting.

Then why not use the Final Fantasy approach, where every game takes place in a different universe, but with a similar setting? Personally I'd hate that, but it seems congruent with what you are proposing.

I believe you were a big supporter of the East Coast option, for instance. And, hell, Van Buren had no tie-ins, and it looked to have a decent story and setting (lacking in some places). I doubt having a lack of tie-ins will lead to a poor series, since there are still a lot of options left. You only really explored a part of California in the first two games, so there's plenty of space, and there's the option to place the games in different time periods as well.

I too would prefer a sequel set in a different geographic region and with little or no recurring characters (which generally serve no purpose other than "OMG LOOK, HAROLD!!!11"). However, I would like the story to be connected with that of FO1 and FO2, because there are many questions which still remain unanswered. What political forces were behind the FEV? What was the role of the Enclave? How does the Vault Experiment fit into all this? What's with the eerie Illuminati insignia in that old Fallout alpha screenie? I feel FO1 and FO2 are just pieces of the puzzle and would be a bit disappointed if FO3 had no relation whatsoever with the story of the previous games.

 

[Sander]

The Master's goal is to turn the entire humanity into mutants. That includes New York as well.

The argument has already been noted, and counterpoints have been offered as well. Be so kind as to address those instead of to bring this up again.

No, it isn't. It is hypothetical. Fallout games have epic plots. Player's actions determine the fate of the entire world. Removing that aspect would be a sacrilege.

See above.

Now you are speaking from your own perspective, and I daresay your view of desireable storytelling in a CRPG series is shared by an insignificant minority.

I'd dare differ, but hey, that's not going to get us far.

FO2 storyline is directly tied to Vault 13 and Military Base, which are in immediate geographic vicinity of Shady Sands / NCR. The only alternative is to have a black blotch on the section of the map where Shady Sands is supposed to be or pretend the village never existed.

To paraphrase you, your lack of imagination surprises me.
Come on Ratty, you can do better than that. The Fallout 2 storyline has about as much to do with specifically Vault 13 as dick with a drumset, as a friend of mine tends to say. At first it's about the GECK, no need to incorporate Vault 13 itself yet. Then it's about the Enclave kidnapping the Vault 13 citizens for experiments and whatnot. Quite necessary to take Vault 13 for that, eh (and populate it with talking Deathclaws).
It's not that hard to take the exact same storyline, yet have it expand north instead of south, taking a new vault and hence avoiding all problems. This doesn't detract much from the story, it only removes the tie-in with the previous game and changes the player's motivation a little.

Yet, as has also been noted, I recognize that if you want to tie-in the games, these things are necessary. I was (and still am, to an extent) arguing that wanting that is not needed.

Straw man argument. Creating a sequel which ties in with the previous games isn't even remotely analogous with disemboweling the series with an FPS spin-off.

Straw man? Excuse me?
"If someone is unhappy with the canon, they can simply opt for not playing the subsequent games in the series"
That's not an argument, that's basically saying 'If you don't like it, go away'. I feel that setting the canon contradicts the freedom of the original two games, and is hence a form of contradicting the games. I use a hyperbole (hyperbole, not a straw man) to illustrate this as a counter-point to your example, and it's a straw man, yet you used the exact same logic and it's a completely valid argument.

Amazing, yet you advocate the following:

Travelling the entire USA, while fighting god knows what kinds of enemies (who knows what lurks in those places, like another Brotherhood) and only one source of new mutants (The Vats)? Not likely. There are again a multitude of possibilities in which those mutants could be stopped, if they appeared at all. But the player in a sequel doesn't need to know any of that.

True, yet the only option you have is to stop the Enclave in Fallout 2. Granted, by my logic one could just ignore them.
However, inner strife, moral conflicts, the Brotherhood without the help of mr. One could stop them. You don't actually need to tell the player that.

So in other words, the player's actions in Fallout and Fallout 2 are irrelevant, because even if he/she joins the mutants, someone else stops them? It's nice to know that my actions as the player have no long-term effect upon the game world. Wait, isn't that what you are arguing against?

Again, a point already made and adressed. Please be so kind as to reply to those instead of the old ones. Again.

Then why not use the Final Fantasy approach, where every game takes place in a different universe, but with a similar setting? Personally I'd hate that, but it seems congruent with what you are proposing.

More or less, yes. Except that I'm not advocating a different universe, but different places and times in the same world, meaning that the backstory and setting are entirely the same.

I too would prefer a sequel set in a different geographic region and with little or no recurring characters (which generally serve no purpose other than "OMG LOOK, HAROLD!!!11"). However, I would like the story to be connected with that of FO1 and FO2, because there are many questions which still remain unanswered. What political forces were behind the FEV? What was the role of the Enclave? How does the Vault Experiment fit into all this? What's with the eerie Illuminati insignia in that old Fallout alpha screenie? I feel FO1 and FO2 are just pieces of the puzzle and would be a bit disappointed if FO3 had no relation whatsoever with the story of the previous games.

Ugh. Again, a point made and adressed. I was talking about not tying in the stories of the game, this is seperate from setting. All of the points you just described could not only be sufficiently adressed in a location removed from the previous two games, but also in no way contradict anything about the player's actions in the first two games.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

The argument has already been noted, and counterpoints have been offered as well. Be so kind as to address those instead of to bring this up again.

Not much of a counterpoint, there:

No, I'm not saying you get told that they were stopped at all, or where, because they could have been stopped by the Vault Dweller as well. If you're in New York and you somehow hear of the super mutants, you get told that they were stopped eventually, although no-one nows how, for instance.
But yes, that is a bit farfetched.

Basically, it all comes down to the same thing - if the Vault Dweller doesn't stop the super mutants, someone else does. Which means the Vault Dweller's actions don't matter on the grand scale. Which totally kills the game for me.

See above.

See above.

To paraphrase you, your lack of imagination surprises me.
Come on Ratty, you can do better than that. The Fallout 2 storyline has about as much to do with specifically Vault 13 as dick with a drumset, as a friend of mine tends to say. At first it's about the GECK, no need to incorporate Vault 13 itself yet. Then it's about the Enclave kidnapping the Vault 13 citizens for experiments and whatnot. Quite necessary to take Vault 13 for that, eh (and populate it with talking Deathclaws).
It's not that hard to take the exact same storyline, yet have it expand north instead of south, taking a new vault and hence avoiding all problems. This doesn't detract much from the story, it only removes the tie-in with the previous game and changes the player's motivation a little.

I agree, but we were talking about Shady Sands specifically. If Fallout 2 had a different storyline and took place elsewhere, then no, there would be no reason to include Shady Sands.

Straw man? Excuse me?
"If someone is unhappy with the canon, they can simply opt for not playing the subsequent games in the series"
That's not an argument, that's basically saying 'If you don't like it, go away'. I feel that setting the canon contradicts the freedom of the original two games, and is hence a form of contradicting the games. I use a hyperbole (hyperbole, not a straw man) to illustrate this as a counter-point to your example, and it's a straw man, yet you used the exact same logic and it's a completely valid argument.

It wasn't an argument in the first place, but a suggestion. And a reasonable one, too. If one doesn't like how the story of the series is evolving, moving on to a different game is as good an option as any. On the other hand, if your statement was supposed to be a hyperbole, it turned out rather badly.

More or less, yes. Except that I'm not advocating a different universe, but different places and times in the same world, meaning that the backstory and setting are entirely the same.

See, that's what I simply can't accept. It would mean my character's actions in the previous game had no consequences on the global scale. KotOR II does the exact same thing, and it pisses me off to no end.

Ugh. Again, a point made and adressed. I was talking about not tying in the stories of the game, this is seperate from setting. All of the points you just described could not only be sufficiently adressed in a location removed from the previous two games, but also in no way contradict anything about the player's actions in the first two games.

Not really, the mere fact that humanity still exists somewhere implies that a) someone stopped the Master and b) someone stopped the Enclave. And if those "someones" weren't the Vault Dweller and his descendant, respectively, I would be *really* disappointed.

 

[dude_obj]

R: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
S: No it isn't.
R: It is.
S: Not at all.
R: Now look.
S: (Rings bell) Good Morning.
R: What?
S: That's it. Good morning.
R: I was just getting interested.

 

[Sander]

Not much of a counterpoint, there:

No, I'm not saying you get told that they were stopped at all, or where, because they could have been stopped by the Vault Dweller as well. If you're in New York and you somehow hear of the super mutants, you get told that they were stopped eventually, although no-one nows how, for instance.
But yes, that is a bit farfetched.

Basically, it all comes down to the same thing - if the Vault Dweller doesn't stop the super mutants, someone else does. Which means the Vault Dweller's actions don't matter on the grand scale. Which totally kills the game for me.

The difference, dear Rat, is that you don't get told at all how the Super Mutants were stopped. So you really need to explicitly get confirmation that you stopped the Supermutants yourself if the game takes place in a completely different part of the game?

It wasn't an argument in the first place, but a suggestion. And a reasonable one, too. If one doesn't like how the story of the series is evolving, moving on to a different game is as good an option as any. On the other hand, if your statement was supposed to be a hyperbole, it turned out rather badly.

Yet again, how is this different from 'If you don't like where the series is going gameplay-wise, then go play different games.'
It's an attitude that I think no-one here has, as we can all see how Bethesda is being flamed.

Not really, the mere fact that humanity still exists somewhere implies that a) someone stopped the Master and b) someone stopped the Enclave. And if those "someones" weren't the Vault Dweller and his descendant, respectively, I would be *really* disappointed.

Yet again, you aren't told how they were stopped, this doesn't mean that they weren't stopped by you, it leaves that up to the player to determine, just as you leave how someone plays the first game up to the player.

 

[Lumpy]

Sander, the problem is that they were stopped. Meaning that even if you did not stop them, someone else did. Therefore, you didn't really change the history of the world at all, since someone else would have stopped the Master anyway.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

*ding, ding* We have a winner!

Obviously, if someone else stops the mutants even if I fail, then my actions have no impact upon the game world. Surely that isn't so difficult to grasp.

Yet again, how is this different from 'If you don't like where the series is going gameplay-wise, then go play different games.'

Because, like I said, turning a game into a crappy shooter and picking one canonic ending from several equally valid ones are two entirely different categories.