In fall out 1 your main enemy was the masters super mutant army,

In fall out 2 your main enemy was the enclave,

In fall out 3 your main enemy is super mutants and enclave,

This was extremely dissapointing for me. I wished to find a new enemy to battle against but i got two returning enemys,

My opinion and i wish you respect it as much as i respect yours.

You're right there. If you play Fallout 3 again, you'll notice its story was pretty much a montage of the series so far:

Hopefully Fallout 4 will have an original story.

I thought that the FEV in Fallout 3 was the original unmodified strand?

It's not.

Well, arguably the F.E.V shouldn't even be in Vault 87. The original strain was created at West Tek, and then hurredly transfered to Mariposa. Vault 87 had finished construction by 2071. And the beginnings of F.E.V hadn't even been founded until 2 years later under the name "Pan-Immunity Virion Project"(PVP) and then renamed "Forced Evolutionary Virus"(FEV) in 2075, a whole 4 years after Vault 87 was already completed. How Vault 87 was built for an experiment that didn't even exist both during and after its construction is a mystery. But then Vault 13 was officially the last Vault to finish construction in 2069, so how Vault 87 is suddenly finished 2 years later is yet another inconsistency.

My point is, that in the light of these mistakes that completey defy any deep thought process, I don't think Bethesda even care what strain their F.E.V is, so long as they can have big green mutants running around everywhere.

But the argument that the D.C strain is different from the original can be deduced from Behemoth's. And that the original FEV strain worked well when introduced to uncontaminated humans, "prime normals" of which the original residents of Vault 87 would have been, having not been exposed to radiation or airbourne FEV.

I like different things about each of them and dislike different things in each as well. What I hated them are really minor things in most folks minds I believe. In Fallout I hated the inventory most. In the second one I disliked the silly over the top pop humor. In Fallout 3, I dislike the way the mutants look.

They are all excellent games and I've enjoyed them all. I was happy with how Bethesda made them their own style rather than trying to do the impossible and try to emulate someone else's work. I think doing that would have made the game a failure by every one's standards.

I think the "collage story" is a side-product of Bethesda trying to cram a lot of the universe of the original games into this one. Rattling down a bunch of plot points and creatures like a checklist. Super Mutants? Check. Enclave? Check. Brotherhood? Check.

The game would have probably been better with an original villain(though Eden is probably one of the better aspects of FO3's story as it is) and possibly even scrapping the Brotherhood, but under the circumstances I think this can be understood...if not forgiven.

Bethesda is rebooting the series, in a sense. They had to introduce a wide audience to the Fallout world. So including a long list of things from the previous games was pretty inevitable. It might seem a bit hodgepodge, but they did quite a bit better than they could have.

You forgot this one:
-President, the main villan in F3, is a computer (just like Calculator in Fallout Tactics, although a bit different take)

I wonder how many FO3 players, or even Fallout players REALLY CARE about any of this?

A good chunk of them, although I would imagine most of those were the fans of the originals (I suspect newer players may not be that into the original lore of the game...)

It was obviously important to the developers before Bethesda stepped in, given the amount of effort put into fleshing out the lore, and there was a lot of fans who recipocated the importance of the lore. There's not too many games out there that get that level of attention to it's storylines and lore.

Also, I would not discount people who want the games story to be consistent as much as possible. After all, a lot of people were upset at the ending, not because the game ended, but because of the existance of NPCs who broke the consistency of the game, and therefore ruined the ending. If someone who played Fallout 3 decided to say "I want to see what the first two were like...", and went and purchased them, wouldn't many people want all the games to follow the same consistency? With in reason of course, but storyline wise? It's much like how movie goers, or readers of popular novels who see glaring plotholes. Those plotholes, especially when left unexplained, hurt the experience.

Why even ask? The more important question is "How many FO3 developers really care about any of this?"

*The new fans are easily forgiven, but the team that wrote the game for a company that paid millions for access to a richly documented game world, then mostly ignored it, and tossed out the series mechanics (the two most valuable aspects); All they kept was the name and the cartoon ~That's seemingly all that they needed, and perhaps all they really ever wanted [based on the outcome]. :sadvaultboy:

Oh, I'm sure it's important to some, although "a good chunk" seems (for you) hopefully excessive. What your are talking about here aren't plotholes, but loreholes, and I would imagine that most of us are more interested in story continuity within the game, not the franchise. I don't think most players would expect consistency to the extent that you folks would.

And why should the new developers strictly adhere to minute detail franchise dogma that doesn't fit into the new game world? Let's face it: If they want to include Supermutants in the Capital Wasteland, they need a way to make it work in this game, regardless of the franchise canon. I don't think they did a bad job, if we just consider this game.

All they kept was the name and the cartoon? That hyperbole is even too much for you. There is a lot of use of franchise lore here...more than you apparantly care to admit. Vault-tec and the vault experiments, traditional mobs, the entire 50's PA setting, which, by the way, the Beth version suits me better with it's more serious, ominous feel.

Series mechanics is another story, and all your arguments tend to boil down to that. Again, in many cases, the FO3 system mechanics suits me better than the original.

So, to each their own, I suppose, but I'm going to stick with my initial argument that most FO3 players, and probably most of ALL franchise players really don't care about the minutiae of Fallout lore.

If Bethesda didn't include Enclave nor Supermutants, Fallout 3 could just have been named "Post-apocalyptic Washington D.C."

Not really. The Enclave especially is not an essential part of the series. It wasn't even in FO1. It was the main antagonist in FO2, it was meant to be destroyed in that game, and wasn't even going to appear in Black Isle's own FO3, aside from a few survivors.



We know that the majority of the Master's Army traveled East after his defeat. Why not simply have a handful of them reach the East Coast?

Clever. I still haven't completed Fallout Tactics, although I was aware of the calculator, well spotted.

I don't think it's a case of Bethesda 'strictly adhering' to 'minute detail franchise dogma' rather that they didn't make an effort to read up on information that was more than readily available. Vault 13 is something Bethesda evidently paid alot of attention to, most of the backstory and game-story that revolved around 101 is very much in keeping with events in relation to Vault 13, yet they seemed to miss the part that established Vault 13 as the 'last constructed Vault' now whilst this means absolutely nothing in-game, Fallout as a series was built upon a rich foundation of history and fan speculation. The games aswell as the story, the history, the world, and the canon, were Fallout's strengths. It was appreciated. Bethesda doesn't want to deal with any of that, they just want to create a mass appeal monster, and then move onto their next project. Which is fine, as like you say, why should the majority care. They likely don't. But it just strengthens the point that Bethesda may aswell have created any generic PA, as their mass market would have lapped that up just the same. And hell, then they wouldn't have had to 'put up with the old guard whining all the time'.

It is detail like this that makes you wonder why Bethesda even bothered.

This is the bottom line. (<< This actually is...too)

There are plenty of things that make Fallout Fallout and are important than the Enclave or super mutants. Well, I do think that super mutants should be included, but perhaps a few Master's Army survivors, not a whole new faction from yet another FEV research facility.

This collage of elements to please the fans, and the 'Oblivi-fication' of SPECIAL. Kind of an oxymoron, really.
They could very well have done without a mutant threat, without the BoS (which was so very absent in F2), maybe focusing more on stuff like the raiders in The Pitt, some new enemies, or maybe another enclave of the US government, and keep the character system having more of an effect on the game and actually ending up pleasing the fans of the originals more. ^_^

Aye, my point was less about the Enclave and Muties, and more to do with FO3 being PA:DC.

Then they made a big mistake of underestimating the keen-eyed scrutiny of a far more intimate fan-base. If anything these inclusions are more insulting. If this is the case it's more of a "there you go, shut up" than "we actually care enough to make this a kickass sequel for everyone involved."

Actually, most Fallout fans I know were hoping for Bethesda to make up new factions etc. in the East Coast instead of bringing ones from the West Coast there, especially ones that were meant to be destroyed already.

This.

I honestly wasn't expecting much more than a bit of a rehash of the original series. For better or worse, this game wasn't necessarily made for fans of the originals (and frankly I'm undecided of the value judgement inherent in that...) There's a bunch of stuff that you'd sort of have to put into the game to introduce to the new players - Supermutants, Power Armor, Brotherhood, Enclave, Vaults, and so on.

I had hoped they'd introduce new factions that'd play a major role, never imagined we'd be fighting against the Enclave as they struggle with the BoS, heh. Some of the things from the old games seem to be tossed in as some pathetic bone to the old fans (like Harold, for instance). I wouldn't say FEV's minutiae for the Fallout universe given it's role in the first two games, and seeing Vault 87 made me scratch my head a bit. Keeping consistent with the canon of a setting is important, not so much to new fans I guess.

Heres hoping they can think of an original antagonist in the the next one.

This^
Also, as a lover of all things Fallout (except Tactics...) and all things Beth, I felt FO3 was pretty much Fallout for Dummies. I love the game, I thought it was great and Eden was amzing as the antaganist (sp?) but like everone has pretty much said excessively, it was just a hodgepodge of the series to get new fans into the Fallout world

You thought Eden was a bad antagonist?