Who will the next big villains be?

Z

Zorbe

First time out of the vault
The first three games focused on factions that were a threat due to technology. New Vegas took a different direction, with a villain who's power was based on numbers and savagery. What I'm wondering now is who's left in the wasteland with either?

The Enclave is defeated, twice, the super mutants are nearly extinct, making the Legion the villain again would be cheap. It's stated that the Legion controlled quite a bit of the southwest. The NCR pacified the Core Region. Any West Coast Fallout game would have to go pretty far to find anyone as dangerous.

One possibility, I guess, is the Midwestern Brotherhood of Steel. I never played Tactics, but from what I hear they sound pretty threatening. On the East Coast, I guess there's The Institute, but they didn't sound like an organization with a large military.

Thoughts?
 
The next big bad is the ''Dark NCR'', depending on New Vegas endings ans Lonesome Road ending the NCR can get destroyed immeaditly or on the long term. I predict that the NCR lost Hoover Dam ( Yes Man or House won) and didn't get nuked in Lonesome Road but because of the loss of Hoover Dam and the backfire of the annexing too many territories, the NCR economy breaks down, poverty starts spreading, famine attacks frontier cities ( is weaker if vault 22 quests end in NCR favor) new annexed cities claim independence and them riots starts. In in a last chance of surviving, the military takes the power and reclaim the cities around Shady Sands and then the republic turns into a military dictatorship but they big shotst don't acknowledge it and still claims that they are a republic and are the best for the wasteland.
[h=4][/h]Basically, the next big bad on the West Coast depends on New Vegas cannon ending.
 
Eh, the thought of the NCR as a villain crossed my mind, but considering how pathetic they were in New Vegas, it would be hard to take them seriously.

Also, making the sequel depend on the ending of New Vegas would be cool, but I doubt that's the way they'll go. They'd be setting the precedent of multiplying their work every game they put out. The next game has four beginnings, the game after that would have to have 4 * (number of ends to the next game) endings.
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't think they should do another army as the main villain, it has been played out.
Working on my own Fallout Texas idea I wanted to do something similar to Dr Presper and Ulysses, rather than the villain being a threat to communities in the wasteland (though he could become one) the villain was more of a personal antagonist to the player himself/herself.
The reason why the player is after him are of a personal nature rather than to 'save the wasteland'.

There would be armies within the setting which the player can ally themselves with or fight against, low tech armies, high tech ones etc, but defeating them is not the goal of the story campaign.
I would like it to be that rather than armies being clearly good and evil, that they are more grey in nature like Fallout New Vegas strove for, the reason why the player wants to join them or help them (or fight them) being based on how their ideology or mentality connects with the player's own.

I think that should be a focus again in the next Fallout game. No stereotypical good vs evil.

I do however also now say that the Enclave which seems to have become an obsession for some of the newer Fallout fans should not be re invented for that purpose. If there is something I am tired of than it is re inventing old ideas in order to fit the tastes of a fickle audience.
 
That's a great idea. I guess it's kind of what they tried to do with Benny in New Vegas. You're right, that would be a great way to go for a new game.
 
I liked the ideas from FoT dev team for their intended sequel, with the mutated wildlife as main ennemies.

But even with widlife, there should be a focus about different kinds of post-war societies, which is kind of the point of the fallout setting.

I would also like to have an episode within the Legion territory or its borders, with Legion not as antagonist, but as the only form of government in the area. Basically, it is dictatorship or anarchy. It would allow to give them more layers.

Otherwise, i am not too fond of the player character personnal ennemy. I like the fact that you play some kind of everyday man, that start with no reputation, is unknown by everyone (except his home/vault/tribe) and could choose his own path, within issues that are more important than him. If it's too much personnal, it wouldn't fit with Fallout in my opinion. It could have some personnal elements but it should be 1. A relationship built during the game, not before 2. The personnal aspect should be optional 3. There should be a greater purpose/piucture.
 
Last edited:
Personally I feel that the idea of the player, an unknown at the beginning, being the only one who can take out some army or big threat that wants to conquer the wasteland/destroy humanity on its turn is an overplayed trope.

At some point you are going to ask "How many armies are out there?"
 
It's Bethesda, better prepare yourself for the worst case scenario! I do expect superadvanced android US-AMA B1nLADN Mk2 issued with synthetic beard.
:monocle:
 
naossano said:
We're talking about Fallout Games, not Bethesda games with the same name.
Click to expand...
:roll:

They do own the license. So. Wishful thinking. As this is the Future Fallout Game Discussion, I think presuming that Beth will sell the [strike]cash cow[/strike] Fallout license any time soon is a bit far fetched.

On topic: I'm not sure one should start with the villain - that approach (beginning with Fallout 2 even) let the franchise deviate from what Fallout did so well in the first place. There should be an overarching theme and if there are any great villains then those should arise from the main theme, not the other way around. A different genre, but take the TV series The Wire as an example where each season concentrates basically on a single aspect of the same (greater/global) issue.

I wouldn't mind if the geographic scale of the game were totally different. I think I commented on that in a recent discussion over at Facebook... Imagine a big city - New Vegas like - a giant urban sprawl, but packed with meaningful NPCs and stuff to do. The goal could be to outlive natural hazard or something or other without a single monotheistic villain on top of a mountain close to endgame. As an RPG it could concentrate on the character, but on a micro scale - literally how everyday interactions with people influence said people's lives. Most games have achievements - why not integrate that further and figure it into the "end slides" in whatever form they'll incarnate. Thus there'd be no real success/fail scenario, but a sum of your actions and how that makes you as a player feel.

Screw monotheistic villains :?
 
I mean that if you want to have expectations you only have chances to get them fullfilled by Obsidian or a dev team that actually try to respect the franchise (like Micro Forte, for instance)

Considering that there is barelly any real characters amongs the antagonists in Fallout 3, it seems irrelevant to have expectations about an upcoming Bethesda's Fallout. We all know they won't fullfill either the expectation we had before playing, either those we come to have during the first half of our playthrough, when everything is still possible. So, there is no need to discuss about it.

The only hopes that i have about possible scenarios involving Bethesda :
- Them not trying to do anything in the West Coast or with West Coast lore & factions. They should stick to their east coast. For the best or the worst, they should focus on their own lore, and leave the core Fallout Universe to real RPG dev.
- Aknowledge that they are far better publishers than devellopers, and stop devellopping once for all.
 
A fully canon Midwest Fallout game where everyone starts rebelling against the Midwest BoS would be lovely.
 
Well, seing the immages from the Ukraine maidan riots and how eerily they looked like the world after the end I immagine the next one could take place in either Detroit or Chicago or somewhere around the great lakes. You've got enough Fallout faded americana in there (and early 20th century gangster lore) to make it a broadly speaking Fallout universe game, and enough Urban deacay to get that fresh-in-the-memory stalker-in-the-us kind thing going on. The maidan protest photographers practicaly worote their next game for them in terms of a nice chunk of immagery, they'd be silly not to go for it.

As for who the antagonist is - CANADA. First part of the post was dead serious, but the franchise has a penchant for over-the-top-silly-concept villans anyhow.
 
valcik said:
It's Bethesda, better prepare yourself for the worst case scenario! I do expect superadvanced android US-AMA B1nLADN Mk2 issued with synthetic beard.
:monocle:
Click to expand...

Sided with Aliens and Frank Horrigan who miraculously survived that explosion by hiding in a incontinently placed fridge. Then the Chinese ghouls attack and you have to chose to side with the rogue aliens or the rogue Enclave, and with a DLC pack you will be able to side with the rogue Chinese ghouls.
 
The Brotherhood of Steel, in part or in its entirety should be the main focus of conflict in Fallout 4.

The reason I say this is because, as I've stated elsewhere, the Brotherhood are done to death. Having a game where the canonical ending is to blow the crap out of their headquarters and scatter them to the winds would ensure that the Brotherhood wouldn't be hanging large over every Fallout game to follow.

I'd also like to see the NCR taken down. They just annoyed the hell out of me in New Vegas for some reason.
 
I'd like to see a game with an almost entirely new set of factions without any clear "villains" - it would be up to player to decide which group to join, if any.

A player who gets a rush off of attacking settled communities could join a band of raiders; a player who is more about "law and order" could drive them off or wipe them out on behalf of the settlers; a player who enjoys diplomacy could negotiate some kind of truce between the raiders and their victims, or the player could ignore both groups entirely.

RE: The Brotherhood, I'd like to see them mostly or entirely absent from a new Fallout. There should be an opportunity to obtain power armor, but it should not be through joining the Brotherhood - maybe from looting it off the corpse of a dead Brotherhood scout, or found in an abandoned military base, or obtained from a completely new faction - they have more than played their role at this point and should be retired. Include a few encounters or references as a nod to them, but no more making them the focus.

Alternatively, we could have a region that is awash in old world tech, where many factions employ some variety of powered armor, without making it a hallmark of any single faction, whether the "heroes" or the "villains".
 
Judging from what I've read one would assume the next "Big Bad" is gonna be some Commonwealth hot shot who's having the time of their lives oppressing da robots!!1!!
 
Cyberfiend said:
Judging from what I've read one would assume the next "Big Bad" is gonna be some Commonwealth hot shot who's having the time of their lives oppressing da robots!!1!!
Click to expand...

The Commonwealth angle not only sounds incredibly stupid, and will no doubt put the series out to pasture. Though also, it seems that Bethesda has a fascination with transparent villains who all engage in what we would consider authoritarian behavior, and therefore we as the savior of the wastes are compelled to fight them.

What's the next theme going to be, Fallout: Android Apartheid
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top