Five Common Misconceptions about Fallout: The Series

[Bradylama]

Bud's Buds is goin global

 

[R.Graves]

2277 being the fall of shady sands is also weird because it's also the year they took hoover dam so like I mean the timeline is wonky as fuck even if you can find some mental gymnastics to make shit line up.

 

[CT Phipps]

2277 being the fall of shady sands is also weird because it's also the year they took hoover dam so like I mean the timeline is wonky as fuck even if you can find some mental gymnastics to make shit line up.

I mean if you're going to say when everything went to shit from 2277 to 2282 (when Todd said the nuke happened), then that's as good a time as any. The Legion, economic collapse, the destruction of the Divide, and other shit all happened in a relatively short period of time.

 

[R.Graves]

I mean if you're going to say when everything went to shit from 2277 to 2282 (when Todd said the nuke happened), then that's as good a time as any. The Legion, economic collapse, the destruction of the Divide, and other shit all happened in a relatively short period of time.

I think you're fundentatlly misunderstanding what a timeLINE is see it lines events up in a line instead of just lumping them all in one year they didn't even happen in. This is all pure cope dude

Besides what you're describing is an alleged decline and not a fall anyway so it's just badly written and badly presented

 

[TheGM]

Turns out 2277 was Vault-Tec the entire time.

 

[CT Phipps]

I think you're fundentatlly misunderstanding what a timeLINE is see it lines events up in a line instead of just lumping them all in one year they didn't even happen in. This is all pure cope dude

Besides what you're describing is an alleged decline and not a fall anyway so it's just badly written and badly presented

No...because when an empire "falls", you talk about the beginning of the descent into things.

Fall of Rome
Fall of Byzantium

You know, history.

What you're describing is not how the fall of nations are talked about.

 

[Bradylama]

No...because when an empire "falls", you talk about the beginning of the descent into things.

Fall of Rome
Fall of Byzantium

You know, history.

What you're describing is not how the fall of nations are talked about.

Empires rise and fall based on their historical context and the unfolding dialectic of history. The nuking of Shady Sands has fuck all to do with the actual history of the city, because it was done off-screen by some guy nobody had ever seen before. Why does it present the "fall" of Shady Sands and its nuking as related topics? Whatever caused Shady Sands to "start" falling was rendered totally irrelevant by its nuking. They wouldn't care to teach about the hard times Shady Sands had during the war in the Mojave because children only need to be taught simple narratives, and the nitty gritty details of wartime shortages and recruitment drives aren't that important.

It's just badly conceived and written. There's no getting around it.

 

[R.Graves]

No...because when an empire "falls", you talk about the beginning of the descent into things.

Fall of Rome
Fall of Byzantium

You know, history.

What you're describing is not how the fall of nations are talked about.

If you were to put the fall of Rome onto a timeline would you put all 2 and a half centuries of it under one year and just label it "the fall I guess idk" and also refer to by the wrong name?

 

[Hassknecht]

No...because when an empire "falls", you talk about the beginning of the descent into things.

Fall of Rome
Fall of Byzantium

You know, history.

What you're describing is not how the fall of nations are talked about.

But in those cases you usually put a year on singular events that mark the decline. Like the sack of Rome by the germanic tribes, or certain other decisive events that would heavily influence further history.
The "Fall of Shady Sands" coincides with a decisive victory for the NCR, and while it's described as being stretched thin in NV, there is nothing mentioned that could be considered a "Fall". No singular event that would be the catalyst for a decline.
So it just opens up more questions. What even was this mystical "Fall", and if it was falling, why did Hank feel the need to nuke it?
I think it's really just that some set designer didn't check the timelines and just put a number on the board, and now people bend over backwards to explain it. There's no need to explain, it's a simple mistake. It can happen. It shouldn't, but worse inconsistencies have happened in the history of television.
But instead of just saying "oh yeah, sorry, that just kinda went past us, it should say 2282, really", everyone is bending over backwards to try and make shit up why it totally makes sense and is akchually gloriously good writing or whatever.

 

[CT Phipps]

But in those cases you usually put a year on singular events that mark the decline. Like the sack of Rome by the germanic tribes, or certain other decisive events that would heavily influence further history.
The "Fall of Shady Sands" coincides with a decisive victory for the NCR, and while it's described as being stretched thin in NV, there is nothing mentioned that could be considered a "Fall". No singular event that would be the catalyst for a decline.
So it just opens up more questions. What even was this mystical "Fall", and if it was falling, why did Hank feel the need to nuke it?
I think it's really just that some set designer didn't check the timelines and just put a number on the board, and now people bend over backwards to explain it. There's no need to explain, it's a simple mistake. It can happen. It shouldn't, but worse inconsistencies have happened in the history of television.
But instead of just saying "oh yeah, sorry, that just kinda went past us, it should say 2282, really", everyone is bending over backwards to try and make shit up why it totally makes sense and is akchually gloriously good writing or whatever.

Except we know that the events lead up to the nuclear destruction of Shady Sands. You wouldn't say the "Fall" at the nuclear destruction of Shady Sands. You'd start the events that lead up to it. Which is the Battles of Hoover Dam and the events before NCR's collapse.

 

[Bradylama]

But in those cases you usually put a year on singular events that mark the decline. Like the sack of Rome by the germanic tribes, or certain other decisive events that would heavily influence further history.
The "Fall of Shady Sands" coincides with a decisive victory for the NCR, and while it's described as being stretched thin in NV, there is nothing mentioned that could be considered a "Fall". No singular event that would be the catalyst for a decline.
So it just opens up more questions. What even was this mystical "Fall", and if it was falling, why did Hank feel the need to nuke it?
I think it's really just that some set designer didn't check the timelines and just put a number on the board, and now people bend over backwards to explain it. There's no need to explain, it's a simple mistake. It can happen. It shouldn't, but worse inconsistencies have happened in the history of television.
But instead of just saying "oh yeah, sorry, that just kinda went past us, it should say 2282, really", everyone is bending over backwards to try and make shit up why it totally makes sense and is akchually gloriously good writing or whatever.

It wasn't just the set designer, the end credits of an empty Shady Sands shows the last library cards dated for 2276, which means the production staff were all told that Shady Sands was nuked in 2277. The showrunners or whoever, made a continuity error, because they didn't even care enough to google it or check the wikis.

 

[CT Phipps]

It wasn't just the set designer, the end credits of an empty Shady Sands shows the last library cards dated for 2276, which means the production staff were all told that Shady Sands was nuked in 2277. The showrunners or whoever, made a continuity error, because they didn't even care enough to google it or check the wikis.

Right, so we're now just saying the production crew is lying because corporation bad.

 

[R.Graves]

But in those cases you usually put a year on singular events that mark the decline. Like the sack of Rome by the germanic tribes, or certain other decisive events that would heavily influence further history.
The "Fall of Shady Sands" coincides with a decisive victory for the NCR, and while it's described as being stretched thin in NV, there is nothing mentioned that could be considered a "Fall". No singular event that would be the catalyst for a decline.
So it just opens up more questions. What even was this mystical "Fall", and if it was falling, why did Hank feel the need to nuke it?
I think it's really just that some set designer didn't check the timelines and just put a number on the board, and now people bend over backwards to explain it. There's no need to explain, it's a simple mistake. It can happen. It shouldn't, but worse inconsistencies have happened in the history of television.
But instead of just saying "oh yeah, sorry, that just kinda went past us, it should say 2282, really", everyone is bending over backwards to try and make shit up why it totally makes sense and is akchually gloriously good writing or whatever.

If it is supposed to say 2282 the phrasing is still nonsense especially when the timeline extend past the fall and THEN it's nuked in an unspecified year with and emoji. It pure stupid and people defending it is mega goofy

 

[Bradylama]

Right, so we're now just saying the production crew is lying because corporation bad.

Ok, serious question. Have you been diagnosed with schizophrenia or any other kind of disordered thinking? Because you keep carrying on conversations with something completely different than what people actually say.

 

[R.Graves]

Except we know that the events lead up to the nuclear destruction of Shady Sands. You wouldn't say the "Fall" at the nuclear destruction of Shady Sands. You'd start the events that lead up to it. Which is the Battles of Hoover Dam and the events before NCR's collapse.

you'd START there and build the timeline from it not ONLY use year where the NCR wins a decisive battle in a war thus securing a large chunk of territory and then give no details for it at all. its pure dogshit why are you coping so hard

 

[CT Phipps]

you'd START there and build the timeline from it not ONLY use year where the NCR wins a decisive battle in a war thus securing a large chunk of territory and then give no details for it at all. its pure dogshit why are you coping so hard

The "Decisive Victory" that mires them in a war that they lose (and since Shady Sands is nuked and NCR loses, I think we can say they did--ambiguous canon ending or not)?

This is like saying, "George Bush said MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. Why would you say the Iraq War was a failure?"

It's also weird because the Mojave Campaign is literally full of call backs to the War on Terror and what a fuck up it is.

(Whether you agree or not in RL)

 

[R.Graves]

The "Decisive Victory" that mires them in a war that they lose (and since Shady Sands is nuked and NCR loses, I think we can say they did--ambiguous canon ending or not)?

i dont think we can say they lost definitively but not that it matters the show was written in a way completely to shit over 1, 2, and new vegas and destroys any chance of them having any lasting impact on the series moving forward. either way all of that supposed losing would be the fall and would come AFTER 2277 how is this so hard to understand? do you not understand linear time? tbh that would go a long way to explaining why you like bethesda's fallout games i aint gonna lie

 

[CT Phipps]

"Shit all over?" That's weird because you're implying NCR was some sort of big good when it was already a shitty corrupt government by FO2 and they kept that going by F2.

Also, Van Buren was going to destroy NCR.

So this is just going with original authorial intent.

i dont think we can say they lost definitively but not that it matters the show was written in a way completely to shit over 1, 2, and new vegas and destroys any chance of them having any lasting impact on the series moving forward. either way all of that supposed losing would be the fall and would come AFTER 2277 how is this so hard to understand? do you not understand linear time? tbh that would go a long way to explaining why you like bethesda's fallout games i aint gonna lie

Yes, all of that happened afterward. Hence why....the Fall.

This is when things start to go bad.

It's very simple.

The Mojave Campaign is when NCR started to go to shit and this is canon in NV. They win at Hoover Dam but get bogged down in a quagmire that they ultimately are probably not going to win.

 

[Hassknecht]

Right, so we're now just saying the production crew is lying because corporation bad.

No, we're saying production crew including script writers and set designers just didn't do a good job checking the timeline, and have decided to double down on this.

Except we know that the events lead up to the nuclear destruction of Shady Sands. You wouldn't say the "Fall" at the nuclear destruction of Shady Sands. You'd start the events that lead up to it. Which is the Battles of Hoover Dam and the events before NCR's collapse.

But what are the events? How is that year more important than the capital getting nuked? And no, the events don't actually lead up to the destruction of Shady Sands, it's an unrelated event caused by Hank. Funny how the vault famine that Hank tells Lucy killed Rose also took place in 2277, innit.
No, fellas, I really think they just fucked up and forgot NV takes place later, and decided to go with the insane theories their retarded fans who picked up the mistake came up with. Because they are Hollywood writers and their word is law.

 

[R.Graves]

"Shit all over?" That's weird because you're implying NCR was some sort of big good when it was already a shitty corrupt government by FO2 and they kept that going by F2.

if you can quote where i held them up as a moral good in this thread go ahead and do it i guess. youre either schizo posting or strawmanning here

Yes, all of that happened afterward. Hence why....the Fall.

This is when things start to go bad.

It's very simple.

ok so you dont understand linear time. cool. idk why you cant just say that. this is also of course ignoring the half erased line under 2277 linking the nuke to that year but again either way its a shit timeline with basically no information on it other than a continuity error.

this is all extra retarded because amazon could easily just edit the episode and reupload it to their servers with a fixed timeline but instead they doubled down like retards

2277 to 2282 (when Todd said the nuke happened),

no the nuke didnt happen in 2277 like the show literally says it did it actually happened RIGHT after new vegas thus basically removing the game from the timeline. yeah all those ending slides and your whole journey? it didnt matter because I didnt work on it so its gay nyah

i could really care less what todd "lore destroyer" howard has to say about fallout