Fanatic for the Enclave - Glory to the Enclave

What?
Cartoonish is Enclave, which is just trying to kill everybody, not just them of course.
Where do you see those classic cartoonish villians like Master? Creating some god race to help all world?

Enclave wanted to help themselves, and it's the classic example of disney evil and typical antagonists, which could appear ever.

That's not forced conversion to mutants like the Unity
Click to expand...
Forced? Ehh... :(
They "forced" only those, who wanted this. All others could live, but only without reproduce, man.
 
That whole "they just want to kill everything and gives you the finger" is just the opposite of a deep character.
Any villain that is depicted as completely unlikeable is quite a shallow villain. If a villain faction is deep enough, you'll find at least a few points where you agree with them, just as with normal people.
 
Mameluk said:
This thread is basically dead, but I'd like to add my two cents.
The Enclave was the best villain Fallout ever had.
Not the Unity - despite how interesting the concept and Master were, that faction was still typical, cartoonish villains.
Not the Legion - they were something fresh, interesting, but also rushed and incomplete. If only more time and locations were given to the Legion, I'd call them my faves.
Not the Calculator, because the concept was boring. Really. Tactics were cool but the notion of different races cooperating to defeat robots... Too cliche.

Enclave were the scariest, the most intriguing and the deepest faction in all Fallouts. What made them so good was that they were, simply, people, with their better and worse units, old world ghosts that burned the world and came back to claim whatever was left. That's what in my eyes made them the most evil - they're not genetically engineered freaks like the mutants (except Horrigan) or luddite social-darwinists (Legion), they are descendants of people who hit the red button and who now plan another, delibarate genocide on the mainland, while at the same time cooperating with the locals, until they're no longer needed. Not to mention their ties to vault experiments.
That's not forced conversion to mutants like the Unity or resetting the clock like the Legion. That's a plain evil, power-armor clad middle finger pointed at you until they blow your head off with a plasma rifle.

And because of that, I wish the Enclave to die a good death. They had one twice - once at the oil rig, second time in New Vegas. They deserve to leave the stage to the sound of fireworks. This is why I loved how New Vegas handled the concept, the remnants having their last word going all guns blazing at Hoover Dam. They were the good folks believing in loyalty, not genocidal freaks in charge hiding on their oil rig.

I wish Enclave will never again appear in any Fallout. They did a good job as a faction. Let them sleep.

(forgive me any spelling/grammar mistakes, it's past midnight here and I'm sleepy)
Click to expand...

i stated earlier that i considered the enclave to be great classic villains but still extremely shallow in their 'evilness'. the master was a much more complicated villain, you could actually see some logic in what he was talking about and man, mass forced conversion? that's some pretty scary shit. plus he was just fucking terrifying to meet. if i met him in real life i honestly might just submit and join his cause, if i didn't have a quick reload button.

i still think the enclave were a more satisfying villain to rid the planet of. they were american nazis and a joy to murder, their plans ridiculously evil for the apparent sake of evilness. the master was definitely more of a grey moral issue, so to that end i think that whole idea was better written but it didn't feel as satisfying to kill him. enclave was just pure evil with no redeeming qualities, besides their armor.

if indiana jones was in a post apocalypse story, he'd probably be fighting the enclave.
i don't have any such comparison for the master. maybe one of the 'smarter' bond villains.
 
Cartoonish is Enclave, which is just trying to kill everybody, not just them of course.
Where do you see those classic cartoonish villians like Master? Creating some god race to help all world?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should've elaborated more - to me, the concept of the main villain being the army of mutants is kind of cartoonish, even with Master's and Lieutenant's depth, I always prefered the Enclave because they were humans. Monsters that looked like humans, you could say, but still humans. Don't get me wrong, Unity was a damn fine villain faction, but I always prefered when the main evil is human.
I could agree that Enclave was also cartoonish to some point, but, as opposed to FO3, you could see some better sides of its members. Hell, the enclave in FO3 was totally cartoon like villain.
They "forced" only those, who wanted this. All others could live, but only without reproduce, man.
Click to expand...
Allright, it's true, but still - when you meet both Lieutenant and Master they give you a choice: either you convert or you die. Also, Unity would raid communities (Lily mentioned she's from a vault whose inhabitants were dipped) and force people to mutate. Just because Master says that some will be left human without reproducing doesn't mean they wouldn't force everyone to be dipped - if Master is intelligent enough to rule muties, he's intelligent enough to try to cheat Vault Dweller with false promises.

I could also agree that Enclave at times is shallow, but during the course of the game you meet some of its members that are not genocidal psychos, hell, you can even convince that scientist on the oil rig that killing everyone on the continent is wrong. Some moral grey shows up from their spooky representation. If you want a faction that is totally cartoonishly evil, it's the Legion.
 
Mameluk said:
If you want a faction that is totally cartoonishly evil, it's the Legion.
Click to expand...
Actually, they looks evil compare with NCR or BOS, they are good faction. If they apeared in fo3, they would be reasonable choice to change the wasteland safe. :lol:
 
Mameluk said:
If you want a faction that is totally cartoonishly evil, it's the Legion.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with being 'cartoonishly evil' if done right. I think the Enclave was done right, but it was still a very archetypal enemy.

The Legion is definitely over the top but I could definitely see something like a Legion happening in a post apocalypse. Hell, I'm almost positive it would. They're also not inherently evil, they have a pretty pure goal, it's just they're using the ends to justify the means and that makes them pretty vile in how they go about that. Similar to the master, I guess. And the Enclave, too, but their end result is a retarded one.

The Enclave is just so evil it's good. I get the appeal for both types of villains. I just think they're the most effective villain at eliminating for a satisfying end to a story.
Click to expand...
 
I think the Enclave was done right, but it was still a very archetypal enemy.
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. :)
The Legion is definitely over the top but I could definitely see something like a Legion happening in a post apocalypse. Hell, I'm almost positive it would. They're also not inherently evil, they have a pretty pure goal, it's just they're using the ends to justify the means and that makes them pretty vile in how they go about that. Similar to the master, I guess. And the Enclave, too, but their end result is a retarded one.
Click to expand...
Yes, but you see - the problem with the Legion is that only Caesar seems to actually understand what's the Legion's purpose in the first place, while the rest of his commanders are either psycopaths (Vulpes), butchers (Lanius) or simply follow him because he's charismatic. I can't really agree that their goal is pure, since they try to install a totalitarian social-darwinic ideology in the area that is slowly getting civilized.
Also, there's a kind of ambiguity - Caesar is bent on conquering Vegas and NCR and he believes that once Legion controls western states its structure and ideology will somehow change (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) while he maintains a strict dictatorship in the lands he controls and changes nothing.
Finally, Legion would fit better in the timeline of the first two Fallouts, when getting outside any settlement was basically a death sentence, their social-darwinism would be much better justified. In a post-post apocalyptic settlement of New Vegas it seems a bit off, unless we assume that for the last 150 years or so without the Legion the Four States Commonwealth was indeed a neverending festival of violence, which would explain why when they arrive in the Mojave they maintain their point of view on the wasteland.
 
Mameluk said:
Yes, but you see - the problem with the Legion is that only Caesar seems to actually understand what's the Legion's purpose in the first place, while the rest of his commanders are either psycopaths (Vulpes), butchers (Lanius) or simply follow him because he's charismatic. I can't really agree that their goal is pure, since they try to install a totalitarian social-darwinic ideology in the area that is slowly getting civilized.
Also, there's a kind of ambiguity - Caesar is bent on conquering Vegas and NCR and he believes that once Legion controls western states its structure and ideology will somehow change (thesis, antithesis, synthesis) while he maintains a strict dictatorship in the lands he controls and changes nothing.
Finally, Legion would fit better in the timeline of the first two Fallouts, when getting outside any settlement was basically a death sentence, their social-darwinism would be much better justified. In a post-post apocalyptic settlement of New Vegas it seems a bit off, unless we assume that for the last 150 years or so without the Legion the Four States Commonwealth was indeed a neverending festival of violence, which would explain why when they arrive in the Mojave they maintain their point of view on the wasteland.
Click to expand...

Having a hard time remembering a lot of the Legion's stuff. I know where they come from is the warring tribes of that area which are unified and then they spread out. So, like I said, being that I don't remember a whole lot about them, whereever they started, their methods of justice might have been the norm and they've just started spreading into more 'civilized' areas of the world like new vegas and bringing their methods with them. So, them all being warring 'tribals' under one banner and such, it makes sense in their time and setting.

And yeah I don't even remember what Caesar wanted really, but I am pretty sure he wanted to wipe out the impure and instill fear so people would obey and join him. Yeah it's a dick move but he did bring peace to a bunch of warring tribes, it seems logical he could instill peace elsewhere. It explains why his commanders are such dicks, too, they're all born and bred killers from places where conquering your enemies meant your family's survival.

Again I'm just talking out of my ass since I don't remember a lot of this stuff. Replaying new vegas now so I've got some bits of info that's starting to come back into my memory banks. Overall I don't think it's a bad faction at all, but it did leave one of the weakest impressions on me. My stance really is just they're still a complex enemy, whilst moderately silly in their roman gear (but still a cool idea), they're not really cartoony to me. They seem like a realistic threat that would eventually arise in the ashes.
 
Actually, the cool thing about New Vegas was, you got to pick who the enemy was. You got to see how things were in Vegas, and base off your own opinion who the "real" enemy was.

But regardless, I prefer the concept of a common enemy.
 
Finally, Legion would fit better in the timeline of the first two Fallouts, when getting outside any settlement was basically a death sentence, their social-darwinism would be much better justified. In a post-post apocalyptic settlement of New Vegas it seems a bit off, unless we assume that for the last 150 years or so without the Legion the Four States Commonwealth was indeed a neverending festival of violence, which would explain why when they arrive in the Mojave they maintain their point of view on the wasteland.
Click to expand...

Well, in FNV "outside" is still pretty dangerous. Fiends, deathclaws, a lot of mutants, small raiders groups and so on... Mojave isn't safe California of 4 states.
Even Cass praises Legion for safety in wasteland, and it's clear that Legion have better ability to keep Mojave in check.
 
Man everyone lost their minds on this thread, the guy repeated over and over again that he was just role-playing in the context of the universe and nearly everyone,except yamu, took it personal.

I understand you stand strongly by your beliefs as well (especially considering all the use of profanity), but you must understand that this is just about a video game, there is no need to get too upset.
Click to expand...

He was even polite and didn't disrespect anyone, even when they had it coming. Shame on some of you.
 
Languorous_Maiar said:
Shame on people supporting genocide. :)
Click to expand...

After Pearl Harbor, people wanted to wipe Japan off the map.

After 9/11, America has a very "us or them" mentality.

Why do I feel that in the 1950s-1960s After WWII where we saw the power of the atom, that people were less desiring of the use of that power against our enemies.

JFK even was nervous about starting a new war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

While I haven't heard any politician call for nuclear weapon usage, there are people out that that want to wipe the middle east out.

When the bombs fell on Japan, not only did the President have to do it the first time, but then order it again after seeing it's power.

I would never want to be in that position or see any country in that position. But that was genocide and for their own reasons they chose to to kill so many Japanese to prevent the lost of American lives.

They chose genocide in a situation that would have likely caused the war to last much longer.

And it was genocide. Wiping out the culture of two cities (peopel made up that culture). Should they feel shame?

They amde the decision they felt necessary to protect their country's interest. And it wasn't out of hate or a belief in inferiority. It was out of survival to them.

When you are trying to survive in a situation you've never been in, you will either take on new actions or you risk not surviving.

Genocide out of hatred or a sense of superiority is wrong. But killing someone else to protect your life or the lives of people you care about is typiclaly acceptable. This is just on a larger scale.

I see value in his roleplay, but I wouldn't actively support it in-game or out.
 
Mrxknown said:
And it was genocide. Wiping out the culture of two cities (peopel made up that culture). Should they feel shame?
Click to expand...
More than 60 Japan cities were destroyed and much more people were killed by American firebombing before dropping the A-bombs. Burning the civilians with napalm is a much greater reason for shame feelings.

Also, Japan lost the war in battle of Midway. They did not pose serious threat without a navy anymore.
 
Mrxknown said:
Languorous_Maiar said:
Shame on people supporting genocide. :)
Click to expand...

After Pearl Harbor, people wanted to wipe Japan off the map.

After 9/11, America has a very "us or them" mentality.

Why do I feel that in the 1950s-1960s After WWII where we saw the power of the atom, that people were less desiring of the use of that power against our enemies.

JFK even was nervous about starting a new war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

While I haven't heard any politician call for nuclear weapon usage, there are people out that that want to wipe the middle east out.

When the bombs fell on Japan, not only did the President have to do it the first time, but then order it again after seeing it's power.

I would never want to be in that position or see any country in that position. But that was genocide and for their own reasons they chose to to kill so many Japanese to prevent the lost of American lives.

They chose genocide in a situation that would have likely caused the war to last much longer.

And it was genocide. Wiping out the culture of two cities (peopel made up that culture). Should they feel shame?

They amde the decision they felt necessary to protect their country's interest. And it wasn't out of hate or a belief in inferiority. It was out of survival to them.

When you are trying to survive in a situation you've never been in, you will either take on new actions or you risk not surviving.

Genocide out of hatred or a sense of superiority is wrong. But killing someone else to protect your life or the lives of people you care about is typiclaly acceptable. This is just on a larger scale.

I see value in his roleplay, but I wouldn't actively support it in-game or out.
Click to expand...

Four things:

1) Not saying you justify any of this, just want to make a point.

2) None of this makes Genocide right.

3) The drop of the Atomic Bombs were horrible, unnecessary things. The US just wanted to end the war (even though it was already nearly over) no matter what the cost, and to assert its new found power over the rest of the world. The Atomic Bomb wasn't dropped on a base full of soldiers or a weapons research facility. It was dropped on innocent civilians. The ones close to the blast died instantly. The ones farther away burned alive, screaming while being shredded by glass and wood. The ones even further than that were given the worst-of-the-worst. Leukemia, Cancer, etc. There were unborn children who, when they were born, were born with Leukemia and Cancer because of the atomic bomb. This was completely unnecessary, and a very horrible thing. Right up there with the "Final Solution". People who justified the Atomic Bomb were no different that those who justified the mass execution of Jews. There were just different ideologies between the two. Killing innocents that aren't involved in the conflict is never "necessary", not matter how anybody tries to justify it.

4) The people of the Wasteland were not opposing the Enclave, they were not "at war" with the Enclave. They were "just there". And that was reason enough for the Enclave to kill them. So they could come riding in as the US heroes who purged the world of mutation, and set itself up as the new government.
 
Im not gonna argue morality with you, I know that wont get me anywhere. Instead, I'm gonna use logic.

First off, EVERY SINGLE DAMN LAST ONE OF US is a mutant, both in real life and in the Fallout canon, even the Enclave.

And as for purity, let me tell you the definition of insanity: doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Evolution is made from mutations, genetic or otherwise, that allows a certain species to thrive. Evolution is defined as not the strongest/ most brilliant surviving, but the ones who are MOST ADAPTABLE TO CHANGE. Wastelanders fit this to a T. Lets give a real life example. Lets say modern technology gets destroyed. People who live tribal lives would be more likely to survive and thrive than people who are dependent on that technology. Ghouls are also evolution, they lack reproductive organs, but make up for this with 100% radiation immunity (as well as regeneration from it) as well as immortality (the degradation into ferality has never been proven).

The Enclave are simply not evolution. They are the past, Wastelanders are the future. Now, I like the Fallout 3 Enclave more, at least in ideals, because instead of "lets destroy most of the population" its "lets rule over it". Seems much more logical.

That being said i LOVE the Enclave as villains. I love to hate them, they give me so much motivation to want to see them destroyed.
 
Well, actually, ghouls do have reproductive organs. They're just sterile. Also, sterility is kind of a deal killer for evolution, since, even when they won't die of old age, they will eventually all die.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top