So in the end, did the Super Mutants add to anything?
- Thread starter The Dutch Ghost
- Start date
;x lolSyphon said:
Yeah, I can definitely see a central bad evil being in New Vegas, like a big mobster.In my mind I see this as a "side quest" game, not a direct sequel so I don't think it will touch on anything big in the Fallout universe(like Project Purity did in F3). Probably just something local that needs to be dealt with.
Project Purity was a big thing?
Hell no!
The Super Mutants and the Master were a big thing.
The Enclave and their super bio agent were a big thing.
The Calculator and its robots were a big thing.
Professor Presper, Limit 115, and B.O.M.B.001 would have been a big thing.
Project Purity was barely noticeable.
Check out earlier topics and posts why you honestly don't need to a big complex with gee whiz technology to clean water of radiation.
Now if Project Purity would have restored the wasteland back to life or something, then it would have been a big thing.
Hell no!
The Super Mutants and the Master were a big thing.
The Enclave and their super bio agent were a big thing.
The Calculator and its robots were a big thing.
Professor Presper, Limit 115, and B.O.M.B.001 would have been a big thing.
Project Purity was barely noticeable.
Check out earlier topics and posts why you honestly don't need to a big complex with gee whiz technology to clean water of radiation.
Now if Project Purity would have restored the wasteland back to life or something, then it would have been a big thing.
When you play a game like fallout, you tend to need to accept certain things as differences in universes, even if they're science fiction.
Obviously in that universe it is a complex process to remove radiation from water, people don't die from massive amounts of radiation and instead live longer by being a ghoul,a bunch of building still stand,etc.
Any of you heard of a gaiden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaiden That's what I feel New Vegas means to the story of the Fallout universe as it doesn't not have a 4 at the end of the title. jmo, we'll see what it turns out to be.
Obviously in that universe it is a complex process to remove radiation from water, people don't die from massive amounts of radiation and instead live longer by being a ghoul,a bunch of building still stand,etc.
Any of you heard of a gaiden? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaiden That's what I feel New Vegas means to the story of the Fallout universe as it doesn't not have a 4 at the end of the title. jmo, we'll see what it turns out to be.
That's what non-wapanese people call "spin-off". And if anything, Fallout 3 is such side-story, as New Vegas takes place much closer to the locations of Fallout 1 and 2, and will likely have more ties to the storylines of previous games than Bethesda's Fallout 3 does.
And Project Purity might be a big thing locally for the Capital Wasteland, but it's not really a big thing for the whole known Fallout universe. Certainly nothing comparable to the main stories of previous Fallout games.
And Project Purity might be a big thing locally for the Capital Wasteland, but it's not really a big thing for the whole known Fallout universe. Certainly nothing comparable to the main stories of previous Fallout games.
Haha, I really don't feel as if the fact that New Vegas or Fallout 3 is or isn't a successor to the originals is up for debate. Fallout 3 is THE sequel to fallout 2, no matter how bad you think it is. New Vegas can be a great game, but its a spin off and will never be a sequel to Fallout 1+2. The location of the game is irrelevant.
Weren't we talking about mutants anyway?
Weren't we talking about mutants anyway?
UnidentifiedFlyingTard
Vault Fossil
Fallout 3 is not a sequel to fallout 2 at all.
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
It is? I hope you aren't saying that because it doesn't have a number at the end.
Fallout 3 is a "threequel" which means a second sequel; a third installment of a book, movie, event, or other series. This is indicated by the number "3"
This is most certainly the third installment.Prove me otherwise.
dictionary.com defines a spin off as: any product that is an adaption, outgrowth, or development of another similar product: The paperback is a spin-off from the large hardcover encyclopedia.
I think this applies here. Either way I think it's safe to say that we can place Fallout New Vegas in the same boat as Tactics and BoS.
This is most certainly the third installment.Prove me otherwise.
dictionary.com defines a spin off as: any product that is an adaption, outgrowth, or development of another similar product: The paperback is a spin-off from the large hardcover encyclopedia.
I think this applies here. Either way I think it's safe to say that we can place Fallout New Vegas in the same boat as Tactics and BoS.
So by that definition, every form of media that uses the name of a previous product that was either the original or a sequel, also fits in the franchise.
The quickest comparison that comes to mind is the Halloween series of movies, in that series there was also a movie that did not fit the previous movie storylines at all, and yet was called a sequel because it had the same name and a sequel number.
I think it is in general disliked by all fans of that series.
I guess when it comes to considering Fallout 3 a sequel it comes to the opinions of the people who played the series, before Fallout 3 came out.
You can bring up the whole "Fallout 3" as much as you want but it is not a sequel to the series, rather than trying to connect the storyline even in the slightest way to the previous ones but expanding on it and making the game its own thing, it bluntly cut and copied and pasted elements from the previous games without any thought of trying to be original at all.
Super Mutants had to be brought back without any good connection to the previous game, other than them being a 'different strand' (which doesn't make sense as Mariposa was the ONLY source).
The Enclave had to be brought back despite that Fallout 2 makes it clear that they were defeated, gone, effectively eliminated as a grand power as the majority of their forces were eliminated along with their production capabilities.
The story was a mish mash of elements of Fallout 1 and 2 (get a GECK, save the Vault from thirst).
There was absolutely nothing good, original, or something that expanded on Fallout 1 and 2 while remaining its own thing.
I usually do not resort to this but as your posts follow a certain pattern I am going to ask; are you some Bethesda board member who has come here as part of an initiation rite, proving your undying love for Bethesda and their crappy game while sticking it to us NMA'ers which Bethesda wants to portray as backwards basement dwellers who fear and abhor any kind of changes?
Then get this; we don't mind changes or progress as long as it makes sense, what we do not like is being insulted, get the bird rubbed in our faces, or told what to like whatever the masses are pampered with at the moment.
No , I am not. A Bethseda employee wouldn't waste his time time coming into a den of lions with a bunch of sausage wrapped around his neck as I have done.
I really like Fallout 3. I feel as if everything can be explained away what one deems bad as I have done.
I still feel as if it is a sequel in the way I have stated before. The Halloween reference doesn't change my mind; it enforces my thought. I'll agree to disagree though.
I really like Fallout 3. I feel as if everything can be explained away what one deems bad as I have done.
I still feel as if it is a sequel in the way I have stated before. The Halloween reference doesn't change my mind; it enforces my thought. I'll agree to disagree though.
Watchmedo said:
No, you can't.
Numbers are irrelevant. By your logic, we should call Quake II a sequel to Quake I and Quake III a direct continuation of Quake II, which is bullshit.
Quake 4 is the sequel to Quake II.
Another example: the Doom series. Doom II is a sequel to Doom, but Doom III is not a sequel to Doom II, but a remake of the original.
Moreover, by your logic, we can't call Tiberian Sun a sequel to Tiberian Dawn, because there's no number there. The claim is bullshit.
Oh, what about the Final Fantasy series, hmm?
Or maybe Red Faction. Red Faction 2 barely qualifies as a sequel. It's a full blown spin off. However, Red Faction: Guerilla is a direct sequel to the original Red Faction, despite not having a number, yet by your logic, it's a spin off.
See what I did there? I just ripped your logic apart and it took me three minutes.
Ausir said:
I meant as far as the story goes, it's obviously going to be setup in the same matter Fallout 3 was. If it's not a sequel to anything, what then do we call it? There is no such term that 100% fits here, but I believe it's a sort of spin off, a side quest, a paragraph in a Fallout book where Fallout 1,2,3 would be chapters. Whatever you want to call it, just don't call it a sequel as you stated.If you're going to go outright and say that Obsidian said that, post a reference. Here's mine:
"It's not Fallout Tactics -- it's not Brotherhood Of Steel. It's another Fallout game," said Hines. "It has no impact on what [Bethesda Game Studios game director] Todd Howard and his guys are planning." -Pete Hines on Fallout New Vegas
No impact to me means it has nothing to do with Fallout 3. Before you say ,"The quote you just posted blows your 'same boat' bs out of the water", don't take what he said or what I said out of context. I strictly mean that it is not of the #'ed series and can be taken as a side quest game. Please don't argue over semantics folks.
Tagaziel- Who made up the rule that a sequel has to have more than marginal links to the preceding game? I never said that you should see Fallout 3 as a continuation of the event Fallout 2 leaves us at the end of the game- stop implying that. All those examples are precisely what I am talking about as well. Fallout 3 is exactly what I have said it is, I won't repeat what I have already stated but my posts are there for everyone to see.
I'm done arguing over silly numbers and the like, if someone wants to talk about in-game logic in this thread I'll be glad to chime in otherwise I'm through here.
Who says it won't be a sequel to Fallout 1 and 2? We only know it won't be a direct sequel to Fallout 3 in terms of storyline.
http://www.linkedin.com/companies/o...co_search_results&goback=.cps_1265246342595_1
"We're currently developing Alpha Protocol, a modern-day spy RPG, and Fallout: New Vegas, a sequel to the blockbuster Fallout 3, in addition to several unannounced titles."
But it doesn't mean nothing to do with Fallout 1 and 2.
Watchmedo said:
The term sequel, as defined here:
This definition clearly shows that Fallout: New Vegas is a direct sequel to Fallout 2, while Fallout 3 is a spinoff, that simply happens to be named as a regular sequel.
Fo3 has little in common with other games - it doesn't continue their stories, doesn't expand their gameworlds, it's almost a completely separate universe.
But that's the meaning of "sequel".
Given that you're contradicting multiple dictionary definitions, I'm not going to give you benefit of the doubt.
bobbythekitten
Stanislao Moulinsky
Vault Fossil
Watchmedo said:
What do you think "no impact on what Todd is planning"? It refers to FO4, genius. He even says "it's another Fallout game".
Professor Danger!
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
The Dutch Ghost said:
I'd put Frank Horrigan and Project Purity in the same "Who Cares?" category, actually.
Hah, you're thinking of Special Agent Frank Horrigan, I think Ghost was referring to the Airborn FEV the Enclave were planning to let loose in Fallout 2.Professor Danger! said:
Bio Agent
Special Agent