Harold?

T

The Suave Gambler

First time out of the vault
Do you think Harold could possibly make a cameo (or maybe return??) in NV? There are theories that seeds have sprouted other Harold throughout the wasteland. I know he of course hasn't made an appearance so far, but what about DLC?
 
he appeared in FO3, and he was stuck to the ground as he was a tree now, so no, unless some major retcon is made he will not reappear in a future fallout game.
 
He's a tree in DC, either mercilesly slaughtered, mercifully slaughtered, ungrowing or spreading through the wastes.

Given the canonical ending of FO3, it seems the canon character there was fairly nice so at the very least he's probably still around DC.
 
CourierAlex said:
He's a tree in DC, either mercilesly slaughtered, mercifully slaughtered, ungrowing or spreading through the wastes.

Given the canonical ending of FO3, it seems the canon character there was fairly nice so at the very least he's probably still around DC.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping for the latter, and that he remains the same in each seedling.
 
Well, Bethesda killed Harold, either way. Unfortunately.
As a tree he cannot move, so unless some future Fallout game is set in and around DC (which will probably never happen - not that I complain), he won't appear again.
Sad but true.
 
I have accepted Fo3 to be a Fallout. No hard feelings against Bethesda except...


...They really went and did this to our Harold.
 
The seeds have sprouted in the Capital Fucked-up Wasteland. So basically, everything there is Bethesdas. Even Harold, who is clinically brain dead right now.
I remember Treebeard from LoTR saying if you sleep in one place too long you will not wake up. Imagine Harold now.

What is so fucked up is that we didn't even get a good closure on him, he just wandered there and hit a stop button and there he became a tree. That's the shittiest excuse they could make on why he is in that game, and to tell the newbs that he was once important and lived long. The idea of him being a tree to me sounds ok in a way since he has Bob with him always, but killing him is the shittiest thing Failout 3 did to the series. In F1 and F2 he was way more talkative also, the best of the best NPC you can encounter. He should have been left alive and appear in every game till the end.

Even if he appears again, he is a tree. Or you could say Bob ate him. Last i heard trees don't talk.
 
yeah but poor Harold is pretty high on it. Bethesda should have left him out instead of doing "that" to him It is like a kick to the groin to all the fans out there. Not to mention he had totally stupid dialogue. Like the rest of the Fallout 3 NPCs
 
True, the top of the list goes something like this:

1. Fallout lore and world, atmosphere etc.
2. Gameplay
3. Right mind
4. Mutants & FEV
5. BOS
6. Enclave
7. Ghouls
8. Harold
9. Organisations
10. Pip-Boy
11, 12...∞

Something like that for me...
Also, some of this "categories" range into subsequent categories.
And the order on the Top 10 might differ, but it's some of the basic stuff.
 
I suspect they did that on purpose for the fans. We would all complain, newbs wouldn't know why and Beth is not guilty of making a shit character return because only we know who he is exactly. What bothered me was that they actually killed him, i knew they would take him for appearance.
 
did they really ? I mean I dont know WHY Bethesda really had to get Harold or such. But I have my suspicion. Harold is in probably for the "Fallout" reason. The same reason why you have "Enclave" and "BoS". If it makes sense is not important. It has to scream F A L L O U T in to your face. I mean take away those visuals and obvious references and what do you have left ? Some Shooter looking similar to Oblivion then anything else. I dont even argue that the wasteland feeling is "ok" (most of the time). But ask your self. If you take away most of the obvious Fallout reference like Vault Boy and such. And would ONLY compare Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 by pictures or the gameplay and some story parts. Would one really think that Fallout 3 is a sequel ? I doubt it. Without Harold and other elements one would hardly notice that he is playing a Fallout game afterall. Because F3 basically has no content when it comes to story and NPCs. Not all of course. But the large pulk of the people in F3 are just some generic filler.

There are many things which dont make sense. Like why they had to change the vault doors among other things. But I think they did it so it has a "bethesdian" touch. The Vault door was always iconic for the past games. Now we have a "new" game and you see the new vault doors evrywhere ... even in F:NV. Call me nostalgic or stupid. But I really would have loved to see Obsidian using the "old" Vault doors for the Vegas vaults.
 
I won't call you nostalgic nor stupid, because I completely agree with you.
The way I see it is little different than most people on this forum do, simply because I finished (not played) Fallout 3 before Fallout 1/2, and then later played the latter.
So, as you can expect, my initial impression after playing games in this order was: they're great games, each has flaws, but they're good.
But I was practically looking at it upside down.

When you finish FO3 first, you get the feelings such as:
-BOS is very good
-Life in wastes is hard
-Mutants are stupid
-Enclave is very bad
-Raiders are psychos with IQ less than a shovel etc.

All of this impressions are quite normal, for a person who played FO3.

Then later, you finish 1 and 2, and you feel woozy about it since:
-BOS is not good nor bad
-Enlcave is not good nor bad
-Mutants aren't stupid nor smart
-Raiders are (sometimes) psychos, but they have IQ higher than a shovel etc.

As I said, upside down.
But then you think, ok, they at least used some stuff from 1 and 2.


After that, you finish games (again) in different order 1-->2-->3, and then you realise: "What the fucking fuck, Bethesda totally fucked that up", and get how 3 was wrong in so many aspects.

But then comes that, if Bethesda didn't feature all those stuff, it wouldn't be Fallout. But why not?
I certainly wouldn't mind to see some other new factions, characters and stories, but noooooo, they want to keep with the lore, and kill it.

So, we get to that (in)famous "To be, or not to be".

What if Bethesda made a game their way, didn't shit on stuff from 1 and 2, would people like it? Yes, sure.
But would Fallout fans like it?
I don't know, and I have my doubts, but as it is already, they (we) don't like it.
So why didn't they make totally different? Old community hates them, and they got almost no profit from them.

The other "(not) to be" we've seen.

And what is key to the whole thing is that Bethesda was pretty sure what they were doing.
They knew they were raping the lore, making a copy/past/edit/shit story, changing the game from the core, but all that because of one word that would be featured on that game's box, and main menu. One word.

In the end, I personally wouldn't mind the game if they still made it the way they already did. But only if they worked and though just a little harder to make it more belieavable, more consistent. To make it worthy of that one word.
 
well the Enclave is or always was "pretty" bad. Something F2 took some criticse for. THough I always liked the Enclave. Even when it does not always fit in to the world of Fallout. And I wish they would have expanded a bit more on it. Not making it such a lulz faction (lol wut going to mars, forget earth!)
 
I had a discussion about that sub plot earlier with Leon.

Yes I know its another "What would we do" reaction but I am sure the FO2 designers might have something similar in mind.

Removing the Hubologists or not, the player would be able to enter the space shuttle in San Fransisco and perhaps find more details about the Enclave's space program and perhaps even some hints that tie into the Vault Social Experiments.

Once at Navarro or the Oil Rig the player might have been able to talk with scientists or access some of the computer records and learn more about the Enclave's off world colonization ambitions and its connection to the social experiments.

At some point it would be brought up that the Enclave decided to drop the whole "We board space shuttles and leave for another planet" plan when they realized the technical difficulties, trying to colonize a new planet without backup in probably a very hostile environment.

Even the wasteland, hostile as it was, was still at least as far as habitable that you don't need a pressure suit or dome, unlike for example a planet like Mars or one of the gas giants' moons.

The whole colonization plan after all was made up by people who are long dead and never actually had to participate in it.
 
Crni Vuk said:
well the Enclave is or always was "pretty" bad. Something F2 took some criticse for. THough I always liked the Enclave. Even when it does not always fit in to the world of Fallout. And I wish they would have expanded a bit more on it. Not making it such a lulz faction (lol {"Wut" ain't a place I ever heard of. English, motherfucker, do you speak it?} going to mars, forget earth!)
Click to expand...

I know Enclave got criticised for being "Oh, DIE! I'm EEEVIL!" at some moments, but I don't find them evil... at least not completely...
I find them to be a very believable organisation, where lower castes of it (aka soldiers, citizens, workers etc.) have no clue what's going around them, because the higher ranking staff (presidents, some officers etc.) who know the real deal, don't tell them.

It's something that happened millions of times in human history, and it's going to happen again, and again. So at that point, I wouldn't call Enlcave evil to the core.
Their ideas and purpose is sinister, yes, but you cannot mark everyone in the organisation evil because of their ignorance.

On a side note, their appearance in Fallout 3, although questionable, is one of the things I personally wouldn't mind if it was featured right.

In Fallout 3 they're totally made "I evil!!!", which spreads a lot of confussion.
An outpost of a military organisation from pre-war days near DC isn't something impossible. Infact, that is quite believable, if you ask me, but badly featured (like most of the game).

It's like, they give us crap propaganda, and when we first see them, James just knows they're evil, which is very stupid.

If they made them more like in Fallout 2, gave you the option of joining them, and gave them some proper armor, I would be glad to see them in the game.

Same goes for BOS.

Traveling couple of thousand kilometres across the continent is little overdone, but not impossible (and if you ask me, far more believable than making zeppelins and planes fly), so in that context, BOS presence wouldn't be bad, if they were featured right.

They're shown as knights in white armor, which is instantly stupid. But then they feature Outcasts (the real BOS) and ghoul hatery as mitigating circumstances.
Now, that would be ok, infact, and again, something that isn't unbelievable, but Bethesda had to poop on that to.

If they explored ghoul and mutant hatery a little deeper, and gave you the ability to join Outcast, featuring BOS in Fallout 3 would be okay.

Brotherhood Vs. Enclave is featured in a classical "good Allies Vs. bad Jerrys" way.

In the end, it comes to that.
If Fallout 3 wasn't that black and white and linear, it would be a wayyyyy better game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top