Fallout 4- doesn't have to be incremental, chronologically

Yazman

Yazman

It Wandered In From the Wastes
The next one doesn't have to follow on from Fallout 3 chronologically. "Fallout 4" could always be set in the same time period, but in a different part of the country. I don't see any reason why Fallout 4 has to be set in the years after the others.

Hell, I don't see why most of the events that were meant to play out in Van Buren couldn't STILL have taken place anyway. They are set in entirely different parts of the country and IMO Bethsoft could easily make Fallout 4 using VB, making adjustments for stuff that is incongruent - and there doesn't seem to be much, really. Are there any reasons why VB's setting and storyline (all of it) could not take place anyway? There might be a few minor changes here and there but I don't see why it couldn't have happened.

Or it could be in an entirely different part, but in a similar time frame parallel to Fallout 2/3's period of time. How about up north in Canada, in a post-apocalyptic irradiated tundra environment? Canada was part of the pre-war USA so they could easily have had vaults there. I can imagine arctic-type cousins of the Yao-Guai, etc. OR we could see a return to the areas in Fallout, decades later. We check up on Necropolis, the glow, see what the brotherhood is up to now, etc although I guess this would all be taking place within NCR territory, so it doesn't seem so feasible.

This is just a late night thought (its 5am here) and I thought it seemed cool anyway. Any ideas?
 
Re: Fallout 4- doesn't have to be incremental, chronological

Yazman said:
The next one doesn't have to follow on from Fallout 3 chronologically. "Fallout 4" could always be set in the same time period, but in a different part of the country. I don't see any reason why Fallout 4 has to be set in the years after the others.

Hell, I don't see why most of the events that were meant to play out in Van Buren couldn't STILL have taken place anyway. They are set in entirely different parts of the country and IMO Bethsoft could easily make Fallout 4 using VB, making adjustments for stuff that is incongruent - and there doesn't seem to be much, really. Are there any reasons why VB's setting and storyline (all of it) could not take place anyway? There might be a few minor changes here and there but I don't see why it couldn't have happened.

Or it could be in an entirely different part, but in a similar time frame parallel to Fallout 2/3's period of time. How about up north in Canada, in a post-apocalyptic irradiated tundra environment? Canada was part of the pre-war USA so they could easily have had vaults there. I can imagine arctic-type cousins of the Yao-Guai, etc. OR we could see a return to the areas in Fallout, decades later. We check up on Necropolis, the glow, see what the brotherhood is up to now, etc although I guess this would all be taking place within NCR territory, so it doesn't seem so feasible.

This is just a late night thought (its 5am here) and I thought it seemed cool anyway. Any ideas?
Click to expand...
I like my little ten year old Lore with as little raping by Uncle Bethesda.
 
Uh, Yazman, no offense but there was no logical reason whatsoever to set Fallout 3 after Fallout 2 chronologically. In fact, by doing so Bethesda made it so the setting makes zero sense. Since they don't care, why not continue on the same foot?
 
Fallout 4: 500 years after the war and people are still squatting in a ditch drinking radioactive water and cramming radioactive pork n' beans down their gullet.

In Canada.
 
generalissimofurioso said:
Fallout 4: 500 years after the war and people are still squatting in a ditch drinking radioactive water and cramming radioactive pork n' beans down their gullet.

In Canada.
Click to expand...

A much better idea would be to have Fallout 0, set at grond zero (ironically). Imagine, being able to play right when the war started and surviving, and having to scavenge a miserable living before any of those small towns and all that developed.
 
Uh, Yazman, no offense but there was no logical reason whatsoever to set Fallout 3 after Fallout 2 chronologically. In fact, by doing so Bethesda made it so the setting makes zero sense. Since they don't care, why not continue on the same foot?
Click to expand...

Why was there "no logical reason?" Sequels are USUALLY set after their previous titles... I never said there was "no logical reason" for Fallout 4 to be set after Fallout 3, I said it didn't HAVE to be. As in I was just posing ideas for the next one to be set in a similar time period so we could see whats happening in other parts of the country parallel to Fallout 2/3.

I fail to see how the setting no longer makes sense because Fallout 3 was set after Fallout 2. VAN BUREN WAS SET AFTER FALLOUT 2 AS WELL. What are you smoking?

I'm surprised you guys don't seem to give a flying fuck about ideas for another Fallout game. I'm no Bethsoft lover but I am still interested in their plans for future titles, it surprises me that you would immediately dismiss it without even entertaining the idea..
 
Yazman said:
Why was there "no logical reason?" Sequels are USUALLY set after their previous titles...
(...)
I fail to see how the setting no longer makes sense because Fallout 3 was set after Fallout 2. VAN BUREN WAS SET AFTER FALLOUT 2 AS WELL. What are you smoking?
Click to expand...

Van Buren explained why society was still backward despite Fallout 2 showing progress from Fallout 1 - Van Buren embroiled the game world in a civil war in a dangerous area exactly so the chronological problem of restoration would not crop up.

That's where Fallout 3 has 'no logical reason' - and I hope you don't honestly think "they usually are" is a logical reason. Fallout 3 sets the game at a point where there's no way that any pre-war tech has not been looted, nor any way that people would not have had to rebuild agriculture because pre-war foodstuffs has run out. Yet that is what Fallout 3 does, and it is completely illogical.
 
First of all I didn't make the damn topic to debate the validity of Fallout 3, this is not about ****ing Fallout 3. I was just speculating as to whether the events of Van Buren might still have happened.. I can't find anything in the lore that excludes that possibility.

Van Buren explained why society was still backward despite Fallout 2 showing progress from Fallout 1 - Van Buren embroiled the game world in a civil war in a dangerous area exactly so the chronological problem of restoration would not crop up.
Click to expand...

Yes and this could still play out in the setting... The next Fallout could easily use the Van Buren "script" as its basis.

That's where Fallout 3 has 'no logical reason' - and I hope you don't honestly think "they usually are" is a logical reason. Fallout 3 sets the game at a point where there's no way that any pre-war tech has not been looted, nor any way that people would not have had to rebuild agriculture because pre-war foodstuffs has run out. Yet that is what Fallout 3 does, and it is completely illogical.
Click to expand...

I didn't make this topic to have this argument and I really don't think we should be getting into it in this particular thread. However, your logic seems to assert that there's no reason to develop further games? First of all I don't see how either of us are really in a position to dictate where food comes from, given that there is plenty of food - meat is a WELL covered food source, and we know that there is plenty of fruit and people are well able to cook and bake, so flour and other foodstuffs must be coming from somewhere. Just because we aren't shown wheat fields it doesn't mean they don't exist... Also think for a second that the vaults are well able to sustain populations, and there are plenty of populated Vaults in the DC area, and this "commonwealth" to the north. All three of these places (vaults, DC area, commonwealth) are supported by a vast network of Caravans. Wheat-based foods are obviously coming from somewhere if people are making bread, cakes, grain-based alcohols, etc. Fruit is aplenty and often traded and used, so it must be being grown somewhere. Its obvious where all the meat comes from too. You seem to think about this in depth and analyse it over us not actually being shown a wheatfield, but I think its pretty much obviously implied that all this stuff is happening, especially given the fact we are shown people cooking with raw ingredients in the Fallout series (2 and 3).

Also, how do you assume that there's "no way" there would be unlooted tech? In the Western area of the Fallout series this is a logical assumption but we can only make this based on what we have been shown, and you are essentially saying that what happens in California/Nevada/The places in the first two would be exactly the same everywhere. I don't think this would be so, and I think its folly to assume that.

All this said, can we please get back to the initial topic? Ignoring your hardcore anti-Bethesda attitude for a second. Are there any reasons why the next Fallout couldn't be "Van Buren"? I can't find anything in particular that conflicts.. the connecting elements between Fallout 2 & 3 all add up pretty well.
 
The next Fallout could easily use the Van Buren "script" as its basis.
Click to expand...

Not a chance.

re there any reasons why the next Fallout couldn't be "Van Buren"?
Click to expand...

Bethesda wouldn't want to base it on other people's plot and prefers to make its own. Perhaps some elements of Van Buren could be incorporated into Bethesda's canon (like the T-45d Power Armor was), but not the actual story.

However, there's nothing in FO3 that contradicts Van Buren either.

Just because we aren't shown wheat fields it doesn't mean they don't exist... Also think for a second that the vaults are well able to sustain populations, and there are plenty of populated Vaults in the DC area
Click to expand...

The only vault with a normal human population in FO3 is Vault 101.
 
Only as an "early power armor prototype". The actual T-45d designation was used in Van Buren first, and later in the Museum of Technology in FO3.

Although we still don't know whether the default Power Armor in FO3 is the T-45d and they ignored the "running on power cells" part or whether it's a model somewhat between T-45d and T-51b.

By the way, would be cool if the Chinese Hei Gui stealth armor appeared in Operation: Anchorage.
 
Interesting conflict there, I guess the devs never really thought much about the different suits too much, which I can understand. As long as somebody clears it up though, its cool.

Bethesda wouldn't want to base it on other people's plot and prefers to make its own. Perhaps some elements of Van Buren could be incorporated into Bethesda's canon (like the T-45d Power Armor was), but not the actual story.

However, there's nothing in FO3 that contradicts Van Buren either.
Click to expand...

ok, I agree that they probably wouldn't do it, I was just saying that if they could, there's nothing really to stop them in terms of conflicts etc. If they want to visit that part of the continent, which hasn't been done in a Fallout game, they could just use the VB stuff.

The only vault with a normal human population in FO3 is Vault 101.
Click to expand...

This is true, although there could be other populated vaults we didn't see trading. We do know that Vault 101 trades with the outside world, and I assume they must trade food and water as part of that.

Also... yeah it would be cool to see the Hei Gui stealth armour in Anchorage.
 
Chancellor Kremlin said:
A much better idea would be to have Fallout 0, set at grond zero (ironically). Imagine, being able to play right when the war started and surviving, and having to scavenge a miserable living before any of those small towns and all that developed.
Click to expand...

I really like this idea. It would fit Beth's inability to create a visually entertaining Fallout world, and everything could be bleak and brown as hell, as the bombs had just been dropped. I mean, in FO3, it looks as if the bombs had been dropped 20 mins before I walked out of Vault 101.

Handled properly, and with the appropriate care given to lore and cannon, a FO game set immediately following the events of the initial conflict could be pretty cool, methinks.
 
rcorporon said:
Chancellor Kremlin said:
A much better idea would be to have Fallout 0, set at grond zero (ironically). Imagine, being able to play right when the war started and surviving, and having to scavenge a miserable living before any of those small towns and all that developed.
Click to expand...

I really like this idea. It would fit Beth's inability to create a visually entertaining Fallout world, and everything could be bleak and brown as hell, as the bombs had just been dropped. I mean, in FO3, it looks as if the bombs had been dropped 20 mins before I walked out of Vault 101.

Handled properly, and with the appropriate care given to lore and cannon, a FO game set immediately following the events of the initial conflict could be pretty cool, methinks.
Click to expand...

Yeah I had hoped Fallout 3 was going to be based at the start of the bombs being dropped.

This Fallout 0 idea is quite good.
[I will ignore the bethesda-bashing you seem to have to include in every comment]
 
I rather don't have Bethesda make anymore Fallout stories, but if you want plots that recreate the atmosphere of Fallout 1 or 2 without using the same region you could do it around the same time setting but in another region.
This requires it neither to be a prequel or a complete sequel to the earlier games.

Of course you wouldn't be able to use all of the factions as they are already occupied elsewhere.

For example no BOS at the East coast during Fallout 2 as they are still at the West Coast and perhaps some of the region around that.
 
jamesmcm said:
[I will ignore the bethesda-bashing you seem to have to include in every comment]
Click to expand...

That wasn't bashing, it's a fact. If you think FO3 looks like 200 years have passed since the war, you're kidding yourself.
 
For example no BOS at the East coast during Fallout 2 as they are still at the West Coast and perhaps some of the region around that.
Click to expand...

Fallout Tactics is set between FO1 and 2.
 
Ausir said:
For example no BOS at the East coast during Fallout 2 as they are still at the West Coast and perhaps some of the region around that.
Click to expand...

Fallout Tactics is set between FO1 and 2.
Click to expand...

I know Ausir, I was more speaking of a Fallout game that doesn't take Fallout Tactics as canon.

I almost wanted to mention Mid West.
 
I know Ausir, I was more speaking of a Fallout game that doesn't take Fallout Tactics as canon.
Click to expand...

Well, Bethesda does, at last partially. As does Chris Taylor (but Tim Cain doesn't).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top