Fallout 3 QA guy on subject of "200 years later"

[Phancypants]

So if the Enclave were on the east coast in FO1 it would not be okay for them to still be there in FO3?

I was actually thinking along the terms of the Enclave being there at that time and getting wiped out by the PC. thus forcing them to concentrate operations on the west coast.

Prequel foreshadowing and all that.

If we go with the idea that the Enclave could have existed on both the East and West coast at some point, then there's no way you can logically be upset that they're on the west coast in FO3. A large big-brotherish shadow-government is humming along fine, and one day the world blows up.

1) Arguments between the factions cause them to split, each considering themselves the true Enclave.

2) Communication lines are cut, each group assumes the other has been destroyed

3) East coast enclave learns that West got messed up by some guy with a spear, and that the leader is dead. East-coast says "Well, that sucks, better get a new leader and keep running our show over here!"

I don't see why an organization born from the former US government wouldn't stretch across the nation.

 

[Brother None]

If we go with the idea that the Enclave could have existed on both the East and West coast at some point, then there's no way you can logically be upset that they're on the west coast in FO3.

Yes I can, as I just did.

But note several things here, first and foremost of which is the one that I don't actually have that big a problem with the Enclave being in Fallout 3, assuming their backstory won't be as f'd up as the BoS one.

More to the point, it's about leading up or walking out. I can tell any story for the Enclave I want leading up to Fallout 2, it's not completely open but it is pretty open. But I can't tell any story I want leading out. Why not? Well, it's a pretty closed book, you killed most of them and you're given the distinct impression that's all of them. Them then returning from the grave, no matter how well you can retcon it, does feel like a Oh Noez The Monster Is Still Alive cheesy horror-film moment.

 

[Ausir]

Well, it's a pretty closed book, you killed most of them and you're given the distinct impression that's all of them.

All of the Oil Rig, but there is no canon ending for Navarro.

 

[Per]

Why did a vault which spawned 3 different groups of raiders and was supposed to have been thoroughly looted still have 2 lockers on the first floor with flares, stimpaks and a medkit? Because it gives the player something interesting to find.

You don't see how that's different? Imagine that Aradesh in Shady Sands had told you, "We need flares. I remember that when my people left the Vault, I noticed two flares lying on the floor in a corridor. Could you go and get those for me?" And then when you go to the Vault which has been a) inhabited and b) looted in the meantime, the flares are there on the floor as described. That's not how it happened, though, because it would have been obviously jarring and stupid. That a bunch of ravaging raiders who already possessed "the best equipment" from the Vault would overlook a few things when sacking it, or just not be able to carry it all out of there, is neither the same kind nor the same level of stupid. (Some might argue it's not stupid at all!)

The difference is one of those choices ruins the game for yourself and the other is sane.

Are you saying a "go get medicines" quest cannot be designed without resorting to an Idiot Plot? Because it sort of looks like a false dilemma to me.

 

[ArmorB]

Members of the Enclave that were the guys that roamed the desert in the random encounters find out about the leader getting killed and decide to band together and move east and start anew? for me I see it as there are plenty of possible reasons for them being on the East coast that I don't bother to question it. And I'm not doing the whole ass kissing of Beth thing, simply saying that in a matter of 30 seconds I can come up with 3-4 plausable explanations in my head and that's good enough for me to wait and see what Beth does.

And to really be silly the fleeing Enclave could have gathered the tech data on the mutants and brewed their own new version. I mean really if some guy with a spear can find all sorts of info about it why can a few dozen high tech dues find the same/more? Not that I like this one as much but it could be what happened...

 

[Brother None]

Well, it's a pretty closed book, you killed most of them and you're given the distinct impression that's all of them.

All of the Oil Rig, but there is no canon ending for Navarro.

I said most of 'em, Ausir.

That said, yeah, I totally forgot the great Tidal Wave of 2267, which conveniently carried all creatures, factions a number of NPCs from the west to the east coast on its great bilging frothy top of destruction. Boyhowdee, how could I forget such a sensible thing as mass migration in an agrarian society expedited by forces of nature.

Fallout 3. It makes sense. Because we paid for it to.

 

[SpecialtyDrone]

Well, it's a pretty closed book, you killed most of them and you're given the distinct impression that's all of them.

All of the Oil Rig, but there is no canon ending for Navarro.

I said most of 'em, Ausir.

That said, yeah, I totally forgot the great Tidal Wave of 2267, which conveniently carried all creatures, factions a number of NPCs from the west to the east coast on its great bilging frothy top of destruction. Boyhowdee, how could I forget such a sensible thing as mass migration in an agrarian society expedited by forces of nature.

Fallout 3. It makes sense. Because we paid for it to.

Don't forget the Stupid Plot Device Epidemic of 2241 that induced psychic dream visions in some tribals, as well as the Grand Gambling Economy Theory that apparently let two large casinos and five crime families thrive in a wasteland which apparently adopted and minted a unified currency.

Bethesda's description of why the Brotherhood's over there is fine with me, and the fact that the canon ending for the Super Mutants as well as Marcus have it that they fled eastward tenuously makes sense.

The Enclave thread is pure theorycraft until we see Bethesda's reasoning ingame.

 

[Anani Masu]

What's that? A flaw? In Fallout 1? It's not like we haven't already recognized that three times over already.

Jesus H. Christ, AM, please at least try to bring up a new argument.

And no, the gameist answer of "dungeon = loot!" doesn't work. That's exactly why "You enter a room of 4x4 meters. Standing to one wall is a single orc guarding a chest" is so incredibly stupid. You have to massage your game elements into your setting, not over your setting.

The gamist answer ALWAYS wins because THESE ARE GAMES. The fact that there was still stuff in Vault 15 isn't a flaw. It was a design decision that having something for the player to find makes it a more interesting game than a rigid adherence to realism. I happen to agree with the designer of the old Fallouts(and Fallout 3 where it makes the same decision) and you don't. You don't have to like it, but don't pretend that your opinion that it's a problem actually makes it a problem.

Heh. You're trusting Bethesda to offer logical explanations for these kind of things? That's funny.

Also, where was I assuming they've been sitting on it for 200 years? It's not necessary for my argument. Whether they sit on it 200 years or 2 years doesn't matter; why didn't they trade the medicine?

But yes, you can hide behind "they could explain it in the final game" for now, if you wish. I could point out how Fallout 3 has way too many flaws which all needs stretching to make acceptable, meaning the stretching becomes a flaw in and of itself.

I'm not trusting Bethesda to explain anything about the Super Duper Mart. I'm trusting my self not to get all aspergy about the exact details of how the supplies survived to this point. I'm hoping that since there are supplies, the people surrounding it have appropriate reactions. So far they seem to, with the raiders hoarding and the survivors wanting access.

Uh...huh? If Bethesda wanted to use the factions from the first games, they should have set the game after Fallout 2 on the west coast. The decision to move cross-continent should, to any sensible designer, automatically preclude the choice of playing with a lot of the original factions, thus making a time-shift viable.

Hell, if Fallout 3 were set at the same time of Fallout 1, an Enclave presence on the east coast would actually make sense.

You are neither the arbiter of what makes sense design wise or in control of the future of the fallout factions.

 

[DarkCorp]

Well having SOME medicine on the shelves isn't too unbelievable. Raiders quite possibly would have used the abandoned and fuckedup mart as a storage facility or base of operations. Now if its stocked to the brim like your average supermarket, thats a problem.

East coast enclave, possible I think although their motives I am sure would be a bit different then what beth has seen. Infact doesn't fallout wiki have something about how there is an enclave patrol company and speculations that there could havebeen other facilities?

The enclave trying to rebuild america again? I don't think so. An even more aggressive but smaller enclave military junta? Not entirely implausible.

That wouldn't make them the primary badguys though.

 

[Brother None]

The gamist answer ALWAYS wins because THESE ARE GAMES.

Please reread what I wrote. There is no "winning", the game elements have to be massaged into the setting. There is no reason to sacrifice consistency of setting to game elements - except in some extreme cases - unless you're a bad designer.

You don't have to like it, but don't pretend that your opinion that it's a problem actually makes it a problem.

Funny, because you seem to be pretending that your opinion that it's not a problem makes it not a problem. Stalemate?

I'm trusting my self not to get all aspergy about the exact details of how the supplies survived to this point.

Good Frith, how many times do I have to explain that "it doesn't matter to me" is just not a relevant argument to make.

You are neither the arbiter of what makes sense design wise or in control of the future of the fallout factions.

And now we resort to "you're no authority!" That's an ad hominem.
Cute. You're inching towards a strike with all this bullshit, AM.

That said, no I'm not, but my arguments are. Refute my arguments, drop the bullshit ad hominem fallacies.

 

[sonicblastoise]

why don't you guys just pick one premise and stick WITH IT

jebus

"A GOOD GAME IS A GAME THAT EMULATES REALITY!" but it may not be a fun game

"A GOOD GAME IS A GAME THAT LETS ME DO WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT WITH NO CONSEQUENCE!" but then it may not be a good game

jebus

 

[Anani Masu]

Please explain what exactly your argument is. All I'm getting on my end is "I put a higher priority on realism vs fun except when I don't." which is kind of difficult to say anything about.

 

[Per]

why don't you guys just pick one premise and stick WITH IT

I have in fact no idea who you're addressing or what you're trying to tell them.

 

[Brother None]

"A GOOD GAME IS A GAME THAT LETS ME DO WHATEVER THE HELL I WANT WITH NO CONSEQUENCE!" but then it may not be a good game

Ugh. Those words are A Horror here.

Please explain what exactly your argument is. All I'm getting on my end is "I put a higher priority on realism vs fun except when I don't." which is kind of difficult to say anything about.

Verisimilitude, dear boy, verisimilitude. A setting must have an inner consistency to be convincing. Realism schmealism, nobody cares about realism, except what the setting determines is real.

Fallout is retro-50s, and that expands boundaries of what fits in its scheme of verisimilitude. Power armor. Giant ants. Infinitely-preservable medicine and canned foods. Radiation that lingers longer than you'd figure. Wooden shacks that stand up longer than they should. Great! All a part of the Fallout retro-50s world

What Fallout never did was touch this retro-50s attitude on the basic motives of humanity. The optimism was there, sure, but it was there to be juxtaposed to people's selfishness. The raiders never thought twice about attacking Vault 15, The BoS never had any real interest in raising a finger to help a soul. And L.A. Boneyard was scavenged, picked clean before you ever set foot in the place.

Along comes Fallout 3. Now - again with the disclaimer Per originally added that this description: "One thing that stood out for me as iffy was the quest described in a preview of going to the Super Duper Mart to retrieve medicine. Because supermarkets would stock medicine, right? And then you actually find it on the shelf where it was being sold. " is a fair one (which we can't know for sure) - we're left with quite a few issues. We're in a densely populated area and suddenly we run across a supermarket that has a shelf of unlooted medicine, right there amongst the desolation, death, despair and hunger.

Did the raiders never find it? Why didn't they hock it? Why wasn't it stolen before? What is the likelyhood of medicine staying put for 200 years were for all intents and purposes supermarkets should have been scavenged clean within the first 10 years?

Now so far, the only argument you seem to be able to bring against this is that you don't care. Fine, so don't care. But I do. For me to enjoy a game, it has to be careful to keep its verisimilitude intact. There's no reason for my being bothered by broken verisimilitude to annoy you so much.

 

[Phancypants]

And now we resort to "you're no authority!" That's an ad hominem.
Cute. You're inching towards a strike with all this bullshit, AM.

That said, no I'm not, but my arguments are. Refute my arguments, drop the bullshit ad hominem fallacies.

To be honest, he's making more sense than half the posts I've read on here.

There are plenty of ways that the Enclave could have setup on the east coast. The (albeit brief) explanation of why the BoS is on the East coast makes sense. They collect technology, sent guys to go get the technology. The leader of the expidition, now seperated from the main organization and in a different environment, changes his priority and causes a schizm in the group. It's happened before.

For the super-duper mart (which is being argued as if it were the main quest, and not just an early-game fetch-quest), I don't see why it's such a huge issue. Would people still be upset if it were a blank shed with supplies in it? What about a bookcase in a house? It may have been restocked, the medicine might not have been useful to previous raiders. It really doesn't matter. The townsfolk need something the raiders have, and are willing to barter with you to get it.

 

[entropyjesus]

why don't you guys just pick one premise and stick WITH IT

jebus

The premise is pretty clear to me. He's simply saying that Bethesda is straying too far from the established Fallout lore and level of realism (or unrealism if you will) to even be worth justifying the changes.

It matters not that Fallout 1 was unrealistic in any form or fashion. What matters is that Fallout 1 established the world and setting and Fallout 3, supposedly a direct sequel to 1 and 2, is straying so far from its source material that many of the older fans are justifiably annoyed.

 

[Per]

Along comes Fallout 3. Now - again with the disclaimer Per originally added that this description: "One thing that stood out for me as iffy was the quest described in a preview of going to the Super Duper Mart to retrieve medicine. Because supermarkets would stock medicine, right? And then you actually find it on the shelf where it was being sold. " is a fair one (which we can't know for sure) - we're left with quite a few issues. We're in a densely populated area and suddenly we run across a supermarket that has a shelf of unlooted medicine, right there amongst the desolation, death, despair and hunger.

One note: As DarkCorp points out, the main problem is not that there's actually medicine there. There could be. That at the back of the top shelf, amidst a litter of fallen plaster and empty ransacked packages, you'd find some medicine is not a problem in itself. The problem is that the quest, as described, has the quest giver assuming it is there when there's no reason to think it would be. And then it actually is. That's when the presence of the medicine becomes a problem - because it becomes obvious that the universe stoops to accommodate the unreasonable assumption. The invisible threads become visible. Disbelief is unsuspended. But in response we get people still saying after five pages:

The townsfolk need something the raiders have, and are willing to barter with you to get it.

Notice how you dropped the offending details that were the only reason this was brought up in the first place? What are you even commenting on?

 

[Brother None]

Fo sho, fo sho, Per. Though I also have issues with it being there, albeit they're less big than the issue of the quest structure period.

The townsfolk need something the raiders have, and are willing to barter with you to get it.

So why don't they barter with the raiders to get it?

 

[Anani Masu]

I guess I'll just echo what Rad Hamster (whom I don't recall offhand does) posted just before Dan Ross.

A semiotician could add that in fiction, things often are as they could not be, because they are as they must be.

It doesn't matter to me that it's unlikely the supplies would survive til now because A. They obviously did somehow and B. Unlikely things happen all the time. Mixed up in that is a recognition that tilting things toward the unlikely makes for a better game than otherwise. What matters to me are the things I can observe in the game. If for instance, the supermarket had a stash of supplies that no one was interested in, that would be a problem. In this case I don't see the problem since the motivations of raiders hoarding a cache and townspeople trying to get at it are both understandable. As for trading, I would expect you don't get into the raiding "biz" because you want to give up things for what you acquire.

 

[ArmorB]

"Let's send Steve Jones to go barter with the raiders..."

Two weeks later..."So you think Steve is coming back?"