I'm very pro Fallout 3 - But I selected the 2nd option, there are things I like, and things I dont like. The first outweighs the second.

However, given the story direction of Van Buren, I'm happier with FO3 than I think I would have been with Van Buren.

I think Lyons' Brotherhood moving a notch or two into the "Good" column is actually acceptable given the conditions. The BOS are not farmers. They are warriors and technicians. They would need a supply line - the Brotherhood gotta eat too.

And the Split with the outcasts also equally valid, however if they were the main BOS, I'd be less happy - That would essentially make the BOS a bunch of raiders, which I think we'd all hate more.

Ok, "day one" of voting close to done aand...

Hm. Not exactly the turnout I was expecting. Baised on my (admitedly sketchy) research, I thought that choices numbers 2 and 3 would have the most votes (with a possibility of it leaning towards 3 rather than 2.) I expected choice 4 to have the third highest votes, and choice one to barely have any at all.

I'm surprized, and pleased with the turnout. This is what I had hoped for, and there's little arguments! I was half-expecting this thread to not be as civil as it is.

Let's keep this poll and discussion going!

Option 1 has so many votes likely because many voters didn't actually play Fallout 1 and 2, only 3.



Well, I would definitely be happier with Van Buren myself. It was very much going into the right direction, fixing some of the things that were wrong with Fallout 2.



Actually they are in a way, in that the plot rehashes the old factions and actually focuses on them, instead of new ones that originated on the East Coast.

Do you have to remember the votes you see here will be biased towards beth's fallout. After all, these are their boards and the people that are attracted to these boards long term, will tend to be "Pro Beth". If you were to post somewhere else, I'd expect different results.

That right there highlights why canon is an overblown "die-hard" realm of bickering. I've debated canon in the Star Trek world many times, but this is far worse.

Bethesda owns it, they create it. Period. No picking and choosing who decides what is or isn't because you don't like it. Not to mention Van Buren's plot sounded horrible anyway.

People complaining about re-using the Enclave that they believed were wiped out (in what Franchise or movie does the entire organization die altogether? it's rare beyond rare) or Vault 87 or whatever, sheesh.

I just can't imagine being obsessed with 1 and 2 enough to be upset by anything different put in or changed by Beth. I mean, if you don't like it, you don't like it. Posting here all day every day to complain is the most backwards logic imaginable. If I don't like something, I don't obsess over it. (Not you Ausir, the group that does this)

Had Black Isle not gone under/closed up, would people be happier? Oh you will say yes but in truth you wouldn't simply because people make up in their heads, what is canon. The truth of the matter is, that even if the original developers made FO 3, if it did not meet with what you have in your head as canon, you would dispute it.

What really matters is how they use what they have created, what has been said in the past, and so on, to make the next games in the series fit together and that the majority of end-users actually enjoyed themselves playing them.

It's your opinion. For me, it was by an order of magnitude better than Bethesda's Fallout 3's. I'd rate it second, after Fallout 1, actually, and before Fallout 2.

It's kind of a Catch 22, isn't it? It seems these threads start because someone doesn't like an opinion voiced in another thread. But these "canon" debate threads aren't exactly going to help with keeping the "complainers" quiet, either.

If I say I have my own views on what I consider "canon" in the Fallout world - I don't expect anyone to agree with me. I'm just saying those are my views. But when someone tries to tell me I'm "wrong" and that there's only one "correct" view on the subject - then I'm hardly going to just stop posting on this forum.

The whole mad scientist, B.O.M.B platform/escape from jail thing was weird, it didn't make much sense and it was cliche in the mad scientist part.

However the game could've been horrible, even if you liked the storyline. You'll probably never get a chance to know, so griping constantly about Bethesda's choices is absolutely pointless. They won't change what they're doing because the so-called "die-hards" can't accept a new take on their beloved franchise.

Mind you I understand where you're coming from, but if it was A) No game being made and B) Someone else making a Fallout game, I'd go with B everytime regardless of their take or interpretation. I don't think you can accept points A, B and C from Bethesda and ignore the rest either. Accept it as a package, or don't.

From what I know about FO 1&2 (played 1 and most of 2) there seems to be no major screw ups by Beth, yay! As it is their game now, what they say goes. No matter what the 'veterans' say. Also the only plot hole I can't figure out is how mutants got their captives into Vault 87

Less cliche than using the same villainous organization as Fallout 2 again, which Beth did. I very much hope we won't see the Enclave again in future games, especially not as the main villain.

And I don't see how it didn't make sense. Maybe you just didn't read enough about it? And read just the short summary of the plot at The Vault? I've read most of the design documents and it makes quite a lot of sense to me.

And mad scientists might be a cliche, but one that very much fits the 1950s retro science fiction vibe.



Well, I can compare gameplay choices that I know were being made in Van Buren with what I saw in Fallout 3. We (those who actually tried to get some insight into the project) pretty much know what the game would be like gameplay-wise as well. Sure, it could have been buggy, but that's pretty much all we don't know.

Yeah I'm done talking about this with you. Stick to idolizing a dead game homeboy.

I'm not idolizing it. There were many things that I had issues with in Van Buren. I just know I would enjoy this kind of game more than Bethesda's Fallout 3. E.g. I wasn't happy with many of the changes to SPECIAL in Van Buren, but they're not that bad compared to what Bethesda did with it. I actually didn't even like the plot that much when I just initially read a short summary, but I liked it much more when I read the actual design documents and understood that the summary didn't do it justice.

Well it's hard, nay, impossible to say a game would've been good based on everything you've read about the gameplay. There's been hundreds of games I've followed in the development stage that sounded amazing, and ended up complete garbage.

Of course, it might not have been that good were it released in an unfinished state, like many games that sound good during development but end up bad. But I am talking about a situation where the game would be finished based on the actual design documents, which are freely available to be read, so it's quite different from just following the previews and PR talk for a game and being disappointed with the end result.

And I can definitely judge the gameplay *style* itself, given that e.g. combat was mostly based on the one in Fallout 1, 2 and especially Tactics, with changes that I know about from JE Sawyer's elaborate posts on this (same with the SPECIAL system). It's also easy to see how many paths the developers intended to be for each quest, the intended level of choices and consequences, and e.g. the ending narration being actually based on your action in various places, like in FO1 and 2, not just on the endgame choice, like in FO3.

Sure, some of it might have gotten cut due to time and budgetary constraints, but even with half as much content it would likely end up being my second favorite Fallout game. Keep in mind that Bethesda had much more time and money at their disposal, being in much better financial situation, and that many of the things I dislike about Bethesda's Fallout 3 had nothing to do with time or budgetary constraints, but were simply deliberate changes made to appease a wider audience and/or make it more similar in gameplay to Elder Scrolls. And of course, many people who like Bethesda's Fallout 3's gameplay would probably not like Van Buren's that much.

Also, the game is not actually dead for me, I run a pretty fun PnP campaign based on it.

Regarding the original question: This is how it boils down for me: I see it as a different continunity. Why? Because when I play Fallout 3, I don't feel like I'm in the same world as Fallout 1 or 2. Too many little changes all over the place. Like having water issues that the west didn't have.

See the problem is, you're just following a loop that's as old as time for any franchise ever. When Fallout 2 came out, the die-hards of Fallout 1 griped and [censored]ed and moaned much the same. "Too many pop culture references!" "Ruins the feel!" etc.

When Battlestar Galactica got remade, same thing. X-Men movies, same. etc on into infinity.

Accept it and move on, or make your own gaming company, buy the rights and create Fallout as you want it. If you choose not to pursue the second option....what's the point in griping? You won't accomplish a thing.

Actually, this isn't the best counterexample, given that the new BSG does explicitly take place in a different continuity from the old one. It's not part of the same canon.

Exactly! So Fallout 3 is in it's own continunity, just like BSG was, and the X-Men movies were. I'm glad we could agree on something.

I wasn't saying it was in the same, or different continuity. I was saying fans of the old [censored]ed about the new.

You have to see it this way : Wouldn't it be rather strange if the east coast would be exactly like the west coast ? Both ends of the USA are very different, have always been so. Logically they have different problems.

The city density on the east coast is higher than on the west coast. Logically the east coast recieved a much denser nuke pounding than the west creating more intense Fallout which left its traces.

This can also explain the lack of progress compared to the west.

Also, Fallout 3 is the equivalent of one city on the West Coast. Considering it seems to suffer from a higher grade of isolation and many more problems (continuing growth of the Super Mutant threat in the DC area, the best source of all supplies in the Capital Wasteland.

Also, I'm pretty certain the West had water problems. Given, they did have different solutions, but anytime I saw water actually in Fallout 2? It was far from healthy.

And finally, I feel Fallout 3 is canon, however I don't agree with a lot of decisions. The game focused even MORE on combat than Fallout 1 and 2 ( I mean, the latter had you fighting right at the beginning rather than giving you a tutorial that had other solutions. what?) and barely had any story. All Settlements were small in composure too, lacking depth to them. And finally, they had a lot of new and unique things mentioned/added (the Institute, the East Coast Super Mutants) that they never really fleshed out.

Given between Fallout 3 and Van Buren, I would have to go with the latter. Then again, given between VB and Fallout 1 and 2, I'd go VB too. Had the best plot from what I read.

But... this a thread asking people for their opinions...

How is it griping just because I don't happen to agree 100% with everything? Sure, I think it's a given that it was kind of inevitable I wasn't going to be behind every single thing Bethesda did. I'm not 100% behind everything Fallout 1 did. But if I see a thread asking "How do you feel about X?" I'm going to put my two cents in. Just because I might not want to get in line and say "Yay! There's no concievable way Bethesda could have possibly done anything better, and there's no room for improvement" shouldn't mean that I don't have just as much of a right to voice my opinions.

It also doesn't mean that there's nothing I like about the game. Besides, the overwhelming majority of posters around here have nothing but good things to say about the game - I hardly think Todd Howard is losing sleep because of half a dozen or so people being a little critical of his baby. I don't see why anyone else should, either.

Of course nothing is going to get accomplished in this Forum. That kind of goes for everyone, though, doesn't it?

But back to the topic at hand - I think most of the major things I don't agree with are more for a lack of explanation than anything else. Vault 87 for example - I wouldn't rule out that it's possible for there to have been another FEV research base, or that there might be another source of Supermutants. But they don't really go out of their way for to supply a dearth of information in that regard. Kind of the same thing for Jet. The source and effects of Jet, from it's invention, to it's creation and dispersal - played kind of a big role in Fallout 2. That wasn't just some other Pre-War drug that people happened to find lying around. I'm not saying that there's no way it could have come all the way across the continent (even though my "official" character actually pretty much put a stop to it.) I was actually kind of looking forward to discovering the story behind that. But it's just another thing that I'm supposed to take for granted.

And it's not like we're dealing with a new game company that doesn't like to put a degree of lore and backstory into their games. I can read quite lengthy historical accounts (for a videogame) in the Elder Scrolls. There's a wealth of information to pore over, if you're into that sort of thing. There's a wealth of literature and backing information to be found in Morrowind and Oblivion (possibly the earlier ones in the series - Morrowind was my first Elder Scrolls game.) I don't see why they didn't bring that particular strength to bear on Fallout 3.

Hey, those are just my opinions. It's not like it keeps me awake at night, or anything. But that's what this thread seems to be about - I don't see any reason to not participate in it.

Well said, nu_clear_day! Well said!

This thread isn't supposed to give any definite answers, it's for people got their their opinions out there. I wouldn't be surprized if Bethesda was looking at this thread to gain an insight as to what they need to work on, and what they did well.

I might wander over to NMA and place a similar poll up, so I can see what the people on the "other" side of the issue say... to get better results of what the vets think of FO3.

But it's not, though... it's made quite clear that Fallout 3 is in the same continuity as Fallout and Fallout 2.