Fallout: New Orleans trademark registered in Europe

[Mr Fish]

Admit Genghis has done a better job.

The fuck are you going on about?

 

[Throatpunch]

The fuck are you going on about?

The fuck do you think? That the mongols conquered most of Asia in 70 years and it took Caesar about 40 to steal some states in America.

 

[Izak]

Genghis Khan didn't need to worry about factions with access to nuclear weapons, sentry bots, high explosives and high tech weaponry though

Neither do the Khans, as far as we know. What's the most threatening faction out there? The Midwestern BoS? They don't have any nukes, the one they did have they ended up using. Crap, as far as we know the Mid-West BoS is a quasi-state, if not, well, I'm sure there's some historical context for technologically superior foes being defeated by fancy barbarians (or they could just write some bullshit plot device to get around that little problem).

or did he need to worry about wasteland monsters.

The Mongols had to deal with some pretty horrific stuff, dude.

I simply do not see the Khans just suddenly conquering like a quarter of the US. It could be interesting if it happened, but I don't find it feasible in the slightest.

Questions of feasibility are unwarranted, considering the group the Khans are named for did something very similar to conquering the US.

And for them to just ever so conveniently stretch enough to make it to New Orleans feels forced.

Convenient for what? For the game to land in an interesting city?

 

[Throatpunch]

@Mr Fish why do you want to get into a Mongols vs Caesars Legion debate? Because Mongols auto win.

 

[Mr Fish]

1. Neither do the Khans, as far as we know. What's the most threatening faction out there? The Midwestern BoS? They don't have any nukes, the one they did have they ended up using. Crap, as far as we know the Mid-West BoS is a quasi-state, if not, well, I'm sure there's some historical context for technologically superior foes being defeated by fancy barbarians (or they could just write some bullshit plot device to get around that little problem).

2. The Mongols had to deal with some pretty horrific stuff, dude.

3. Questions of feasibility are unwarranted, considering the group the Khans are named for did something very similar to conquering the US.

4. Convenient for what? For the game to land in an interesting city?

1. I'm just saying, you can't draw an equivalent of what the mongols faced vs what the Khans would face. That's all.

2. Dragons?

3. The origin of their name is irrelevant to me. It doesn't make them the spiritual successors.

4. I honestly find it to be cheaply written. Like shoehorning something in through awfully convenient plot development just so that X can appear again.

@Mr Fish why do you want to get into a Mongols vs Caesars Legion debate? Because Mongols auto win.

I don't give a shit, man.

 

[Throatpunch]

I don't give a shit, man.

That begs the question then, why are you taking the time to discuss it?

 

[Mr Fish]

That begs the question then, why are you taking the time to discuss it?

What are you on about? I'm not talking about the mongols vs caesar, I'm not interested in discussing who's better at conquering shit. Obviously it is the fucking mongols. The only thing that I'm talking about here is how likely it would be for the Khans to manage to establish an empire and spread like locusts over to New Orleans when taking the post-apocalyptic stuff into consideration.

THAT'S IT.

Nothing else.

Why are you taking my posts out of context and twisting their narrative and trying to spin it as if I'm talking about something I'm not?

 

[Throatpunch]

Nothing else.
Why are you taking my posts out of context and twisting their narrative and trying to spin it as if I'm talking about something I'm not?

We were comparing legion territory to mongol territory and discussing who as better at conquering shit. Which is basically Legion vs mongols.
Anyway why are you getting so up in arms all of a sudden?

 

[Izak]

1. I'm just saying, you can't draw an equivalent of what the mongols faced vs what the Khans would face. That's all.

No, you can't, that doesn't rule anything out, though.

2. Dragons?

Disease, mostly.

3. The origin of their name is irrelevant to me. It doesn't make them the spiritual successors.

It gives them the motivation to be spiritual successors.

4. I honestly find it to be cheaply written. Like shoehorning something in through awfully convenient plot development just so that X can appear again.

I disagree, I guess. The BoS appearing in 3 was lazy because they genuinely had no reason to be there, but to me it makes sense for Imitation Mongols to conquer a whole lot of land.

We were comparing legion territory to mongol territory and discussing who as better at conquering shit. Which is basically Legion vs mongols.

No, we weren't. Fish said factions from the West, including the Khans, couldn't appear so far in the East, I disagreed.

 

[Brandy Beavers]

I do feel like the Khans are supposed to just die out like the BoS was /supposed/ to do. If a hypothetical New Orleans game had any connection to the West Coast it'd probably be like one small band of NCR troops or something and you find most of them at their base camp with smaller recon groups in other parts of the map.

And maybe some members of the now-broken Legion, but it'd have to be mainly the NCR, right? They're basically the main faction of Fallout, ignoring all of the BoS fanboy games.

 

[Mr Fish]

1. Disease, mostly.

2. It gives them the motivation to be spiritual successors.

3. I disagree, I guess. The BoS appearing in 3 was lazy because they genuinely had no reason to be there, but to me it makes sense for Imitation Mongols to conquer a whole lot of land.

No, we weren't. Fish said factions from the West, including the Khans, couldn't appear so far in the East, I disagreed.

1. Well, that's true. Then again, radiation?

2. The will to do something and the means to do something are different though. I simply don't see how they'd have the means to cut through the Legion-aftermath as well as MWBOS in a mere decade or two (cause Bethesda doesn't want to go backwards in the timeline so there is no way they'll allow Obsidian to set the game 70 years after FNV).

3. I agree, if they were to want to be spiritual successors then it would make sense for them to eventually end up in Louisiana as long as nothing held them back and they were able to slice through it. I disagree with the idea that they'll be able to steamroll over Legion-aftermath and MWBOS (and maybe even Mutant Liberation Army?) in a mere decade or two. If it happened in 2350 then I wouldn't find it badly written but it happening in 2300? Too soon.

And another problem I have with this is that you'd basically kill off 2 (maybe 3) big factions off screen just so that the Khans could end up in Louisiana. I don't like that. I want to see Legion lands and what happened with MWBOS (and MLA) before they're just steamrolled by the Khan Empire.

 

[Izak]

I can't imagine the Legion post-defeat being able to put up a very good defense, otherwise, yeah, it'd be a pretty big cheat if the Midwestern BoS were just killed off, wouldn't really make sense either.

you'd basically kill off 2 (maybe 3) big factions

What's the third?

I do feel like the Khans are supposed to just die out like the BoS was /supposed/ to do.

The good New Vegas ending for them made it sound as though they'd be pretty darn prosperous in Wyoming.

If a hypothetical New Orleans game had any connection to the West Coast it'd probably be like one small band of NCR troops or something and you find most of them at their base camp with smaller recon groups in other parts of the map.

Sounds to much like Fallout 3's BoS.

 

[Risewild]

Hmm why would the Great Khans have to conquer the land until they would reach New Orleans? Why not just being nomad and gather more "extra tough" people (like lore says, Great Khans were mostly the most tough bastards that could be found, specially because their initiation was so brutal that would kill any weaker people). So they might have been nomadic while gathering strength and numbers until they reached New Orleans and decided to settle there.
There is no particular reason they would be conquering all the land in between.

But judging by the endings of FNV. The Great Khans moved into the opposite direction:

Those few who avoided the Courier's wrath moved north, into the wilderness of Idaho, where they tried once more to rebuild.

The NCR's pressing need to expand proved greater than its promise of amnesty, and before long the government decided the Khans had to go. The surviving Great Khans were relocated to an isolated, barren reservation, well north of NCR trade routes.

The victorious NCR turned its attention to those who had allied themselves with Caesar. The Great Khans were among the first tribes to suffer this fate, and the few who survived Hoover Dam were driven north, into the wilderness of Idaho.

The Great Khans quickly evacuated Red Rock Canyon and headed north and east into the plains of Wyoming. There, they reconnected with the Followers of the Apocalypse and rebuilt their strength. Bolstered by ancient knowledge of governance, economics, and transportation, they carved a mighty empire out of the ruins of the Northwest.

So all endings where the Greath Khans or some of them survived (and weren't assimilated by the Legion) mentions them moving or being relocated to the north, sometimes north east and others north west (mostly Idaho or Wyoming), never south/ south east (which is where New Orleans is).

 

[Practicat]

I would be interested in a new Fallout game if there's a skills-based character system and an engine that is not Creation engine or another iteration of it. Something would have to be done about the ghoul design and behavior.

The future of the lore is currently unaffected besides the issue with the ghouls. For past reference, Fallout: New Vegas only explicitly references Fallout 3 in ED-E's story arc. Veronica doesn't count, because her statement about a civil war in the BoS is too vague to conclude or confidently imply that it was the one between Lyons' group and the outcasts.

 

[Izak]

There is no particular reason they would be conquering all the land in between.

Well, they are raiders, it'd make sense is they made states pay tribute after moving through them, which, as far as I know, was what the Mongols did for the most part.

 

[Kohno]

the way I see it should be explored incrementally

That's what I implied at the end of my post. I don't see the harm in taking a bit of distance just as long as it is done right, and it might well start to tie in with the past games whilst doing its own thing. Some things may be better served by giving them a rest for a while and bringing them back on to the spotlight when the time is right again to do something worthwhile with them. I find it rather tiresome when an expansive series like this forcibly clutches on to certain initials and drives itself to a corner and keeps recycling them to no end (there's always going to be that "But what happens next? I want to know what the Khans/Enclave/BoS/Legion/NCR/Vipers/etc do/did next" aspect to it).

 

[Mr Fish]

Wouldnt be so bad if we didnt have to wait nearly a decade for a new canonical game though. (bethesda games ain't Canon to me.) if we got a new canonical game every 3 years then i wouldnt mind a new orleans game but waiting like 16-20 years for the next game to touch upon west coast lore? What a waste.

 

[Kohno]

Well, it's not like the game - were it New Orleans or West Coast, which ever - wouldn't end up with another factional cliffhanger anyway.

It's not really that I would object to a "well made" game tackling with the familiar faces again. Were that to happen, hey that's great. But I would prefer to see something new, new groups and individuals with new conflicts. I'm not that much of a lorehawk that I'd lament not knowing something about Khan's or NCR's possible future -- just as long as I get a good and well written game that's consistent with the background setup, I'm happy.

(bethesda games ain't Canon to me.)

I don't much care whether they are or not at this point anymore. As long as they keep making shit games, I'll remain happily not a customer of theirs.

 

[Mr Fish]

I think I'm getting besides my original point here. My point was that the gameplay mechanics could work and I could tolerate them for another Fallout game by Obsidian if it touched upon the west coast. But I can't find any enthusiasm for a game set in a region where previous lore won't be expanded upon. So like, another scaled down shooting game with a voiced protagonist and dialogue wheel with a perk screen ala Fallout 4 but this time around written and designed by Obsidian? If set on the west coast or near Legion/MWBOS then I'd deal with that kind of stuff just to experience the lore. But if set in a new region I just can't find any enthusiasm for it. If we finally got a game that explored the Barnaky ending of Tactics then fuck yes, I don't care if it plays out like FBOS as long as Obsidian writes it; I'm game.

That was my original point.

Now, look, if New Orleans happens and it is by Obsidian with Sawyer at the helm then I'll definitely keeps tabs on it. But I until something really juicy happens I have nothing but apathy for it. I simply don't care. It's not my preferred gameplay and it is not a region of the world I give a shit about. It's a big bag of "meh" for me.

I'm more excited for Bethesda Game Studios' next project just to see how big of a fuck-up that'll be.

If Fallout New Orleans happens and it is made by Obsidian then once it is released I'll probably buy it if it gets good score around here and it meets NMA's standard but I need a hook. And an announcement of a game by Obsidian is not enough of a hook for me at this point. I'm so tired of the future of this franchise that it just isn't enough for me any more. I need something far sharper and shinier to hook me and reel me in. And considering I can't stand Bethesda's engine, that I can't stand their first person shooting gameplay, that I can't stand the change in perspective in the first place and that I can't stand the scaled down world they are going to need a really big shiny sharp hook and a strong wire to reel me in.

FNV was IMO the 'best out of a bad situation'. FNO would be 'meh, it's a Bethesda game but slightly better'.

Then again if FNO is an isometric turn-based cRPG... I might just succumb to the reel and let them capture me for dinner.

 

[Kohno]

I don't care if it plays out like FBOS

There's a fundamental difference in our philosophies. I can't really consider "plays like shit, but is decently written and laced with memorabilia" to be a real bargain. That sort of thing is what eventually killed New Vegas for me, it's difficult to enjoy the good bits when getting at them is more or less an act in tedium. And I never took Fallout as an interactive lorebook to begin with.

if it gets good score around here and it meets NMA's standard

What is the "NMA standard" these days? From reading this board I'm getting a mixed message (by comparison to what I remember about this place) and sometimes the discussions read almost identically to the Fallout Series board from the old Beth forums.