there is no way they could ever make an better fallout game, not even half as good since it already is the worlds best game...
only thing they could do is inprove the game they already maked! it would be a total waste to just throw fallout 3 away like that and start something new... if i had the money id pay to make you still working on it but after finishing the game already over twenty times am getting tired, still not bored do but they should think about a last dlc a really big one as big as the capital wasteland! a dlc as a part 2 when you travel to california whit three dog whit an enclave helipad that's driveble! all new items and a new citadel. you cant stop making dlc's for fallout 3... you just cant! continue the travel as they go seek the commonwealth to the north helping dr.li whit an new enclave problem at alaska and i am sure youl make it interesting whit history and such... liked the op anchorage but it should be towns there and not an simulation program! alaska snowed whit radiation, the town known of the ice cold nuka colas just plz for the love of atom continue the story or let us go around in the capital wasteland as the great war has just started and start whit a short movie clip of d.c blows and becomes a waste!!!!! fallout :flamethrower:

SRRY ABOUT THE EARLIER SPAMMING WONT HAPPEND AGAIN!

I KNOW THAT THEY WONT CONTINUE FALLOUT 3 BUT IT'S STILL B[censored]! HOW COULD YOU MAKE A BETTER GAME THEN THE WORLDS BEST GAME? YOU TELL ME DEVEN TARN!( :nerd: ) FALLOUT 4 COULDNT BE HALF AS GOOD THEN FALLOUT3!!!!!!!!!! :fallout: (3)! I REALLY WISH F4 WOULD BECOME A BETTER GAME BUT IT JUST CANT HAPPEND... :grad:

Erm...two things.

1) Bethesda are done with Fallout 3. They have already confirmed this multiple times. They have other projects to do.

2)Quoting your own post and making a second thread with it is classed as spamming.

heh. . certainly is an enthusiastic lil bugger, though, huh?

Nowt wrong with a bit of enthusiasm.

I curbed it a little with a delete and edit.

God lord, NO!
Let bethesda continue on with their other projects, they can't put all of their efforts into sticking to FO3.

A edit onto this. If FO4 comes out and it happens to be "better" than FO3 (which i can see possible, since FO3 was'nt that great to start with, but i'll leave that to another thread) i'll laugh at you're post of saying how they should stick to that new release.

I wonder what is it with F3 fans that they think the Enclave should be in every game. It was supposed to be destroyed in F2, and it was again in F3. I mean, geez, let's just let the dead dog rot, shall we? <_<

A great point made, why do the fans want The Enclave back. Can't they think of a new type of enemy, instead of bringing The enclave, and the super mutants back again.

The way I see it, the Enclave only had local branches destroyed in fallout 2 and Fallout 3. After all, one oil rig and one underground bunker does not constitute world-wide (or at least USA wide) destruction or an organization that was formerly the US Government. What about Norad, Fort Benning, or Fort Dix and a myriad of other military installations?

It's not about logicly speaking, it's about prolonging something that does'nt need to be stuck around.

Wow...and I thought Moira Brown was bat[censored] crazy...
All kidding aside, how old are you, judging by your grammar I predict your are about 12.

This post is painful to my eyes.

Let the old dog die , for god's sakes.


Yes, Fallout 3 was a great game indeed, but let the Enclave and SM's rest in peace!

Sure, random encounters with the Enclave and muties, but for loves sakes let a new antagonist be made!


Better yet, no antagonist, just numerous factions.


The only faction I EVER want to see again is Talon Company and random encounters with the Enclave.

Wouldn't it be awesome to see the remnants of the remnants of the remnants of the remnants of the United States government!

No.

OP, there are so many things wrong with your idea.

One of the things I am going to nitpick is your Vertibird idea. First of all, the game engine doesn't allow it. They would have to recode the engine and a bunch of other things to let you use a vehicle. Second, there are probably more technical problems with flying vehicles.

I can imagine that the Brotherhood will appear in Vegas, their story supports a presence. I don't want to see the Enclave there unless I see (eventually) a good reason for their being there.

That said, I have confidence in the future.

to play devils advocate, if youre going to remove the enclave, couldnt the case to not enclude the vaults be made?

i mean, if they do control all of the vaults, which are spread throughout the US, wouldnt there be enclave across the US?
i shoud think that if they set them up for experimentation, they wouldnt put all of their eggs into one basket, knowing that in order for those experiments to even begin, nuclear war would have to happen.. and if nuclear war happens, putting all of the enclave in one or two primary locations that could be destyoyed, have blocked access or lose all communications with remote vaults would be a bonehead idea, even for the enclave.



i do agree that new antagonists would be cool.. but its not tto say you couldnt have it both ways, taking the main storyline away from battling the enclave.

haha, im not even sure if a new faction was introduced, people wouldnt scream anti-canon.

That doesn't really make sense, as every Fallout game featured completely new primary factions, with older ones barely making to the sidelines, if at all. It was Bethesda's idea to suddenly feature all the 3 previous main factions having a tea party together. And it was heavily criticised for exactly that.

i know, but you add something like aliens in a DLC, and suddenly theyre breaking cannon, so..
sorry you cant see the humor in that.

also.. "every fallout game featured primary new factions"

now that doesnt make sense.
you meant the second one featured a new faction, right?
Fallout one.. fallout two..
there was an original and a sequel.
BoS and FOT arent sequels.
any rate, have a good night

1. No

2. No

3. No

This is a horrible idea. Can we move on now, please? Bethesda has other things to worry about besides Fallout 3 and Fallout can always be improved. There is no such thing as a perfect game, and despite Fallout 3 being amazing, a better game can always be made. I'm pretty sure Bethesda wants to move on to TES V and after that, Fallout 4. Seriously, Fallout 3 is over. Let's move on. New Vegas is coming out next year and Bethesda has something else they are working on.(hopefully and most likely, TES V) Fallout 4 should be following TES V, but I wouldn't expect Bethesda to make anything related to Fallout within the next few years.

bleg

What does that mean?

Aliens don't fit the lore because until the divergence in the 50's the Fallout world was OUR world. For aliens to exist they must have existed before the divergence, which doesn't make sense lore-wise. A case could also be made that they break the canon because, canonically, aliens were nothing but easter eggs, and MZ made them full-fledged actors. But ultimately, it was just inconsistent with the general tone of the previous games because it was just pushing it too much, not because they were new. The Commonwealth received nothing but compliments.

Tactics wasn't a sequel, but I said nothing about sequels, just other Fallout games.

your first line saying that since aliens didnt exist pre-50s is kinda moot.. plasma rifles didnt exist in the 50's in either timeline, but there they are in the game.. Roswell also happened in both universes in the 40's, so if you were indeed using that as a model, you would have just proved they may belong.....

any rate, ive read your examples from countless people on here and feel they prove or rather dis-prove nothing. . its not really gonna sway me, so lets chalk it up to me making a joke that most of you dont find funny

There's no reason something that happened after the "divergence" couldn't be found in the Fallout universe. For example, there's no reason Reagan couldn't have been elected, or the Cuban Missile Crisis happened, etc... Because it's just some guys putting together a setting they think is cool. It's not like the setting for Fallout 1 was planned out in minute detail by starting in 1950 and then working out in exruciating detail all of the different things that happened in a logical fashion. They wanted a post-apocalyptic game with a particular aesthetic - literally the only reason the whole "divergence" thing was invented was allow for the fact that you had things like vacuum tubes and such still around with all of this higher-level technology like rayguns and power armor.

The only important thing is that the end result of the Fallout universe be that 2077 ended up looking very much like the "Wold of Tomorrow," as envisioned by 50's pulp writers. Unless for some reason a real-life event or situation were to somehow specifically contradict that end result, the most anyone can say of whether it exists in the Fallout universe or not (unless, of course, you're one of the designers of the game,) is "maybe."

As that pertains to the whole alien thing - whether or not UFOs and such were popularized before or after some magical date sometime in 1950 really has no bearing on it's appropriateness for the game. Personally, I'd be against anything in a Fallout game (besides an easter egg,) that made too big of a deal out of any alien presence. Mostly just because I prefer the aliens to have a bit of a mystery and not end up being just another enemy that's worth x amount of experience points. So far, I don't really have a problem with anything Bethesda's done. I haven't played Mothership Zeta yet, so I can't say if they went too far or not (or if they completely ruined any remaining sense of mystery the aliens might have.) But it's DLC - so since it's optional, I can't really find fault with anything they do there.

If Fallout 4 were to come out and it was based around you and your incorrigable alien friend trying to save the galaxy from another race of eviller aliens, then I'd probably have a problem. Not because aliens were just easter eggs were Fallout 3 (though they were,) or that there's no room for Bethesda to give them a greater role in the game (because they can, and really I don't see why the justifications don't just stop right there.) But because I think once you take away the mystery, then you're just left with another "threat." It's like in a horror movie - once you finally see the evil monster, it stops being as scary. That's why a good horror movie only shows you bits and pieces of the monster until it really has to. Same goes for the aliens - once they stop being mysterious, then they lose any real interest to me.

i agree with this in quite a few places.

while i think that aliens existing doesnt break canon or lore, i dont necessarily want them to be main antagonists, nor protagonists in a fallout game. Much like the ants in "those!" they could have a small part, but they shouldnt be a central focus i dont think.
i just find it funny how many people throw out "they cant be there its against lore and cannon, because it just doesnt fit!!!one!! easter eggs!!"

You didn't understand my argument. *AFTER* the divergence, anything could happen (and to fit the setting, it should be in line with the 50's pulp sci-fi and the World of Tomorrow, with which plasma rifles are), the problem is something that doesn't exist in our world happening in the Fallout world *BEFORE* the divergence. Roswell may have happened in the 40's in our world, but there certainly wasn't real aliens there (unless you want to argue there were, but then we'd be way off topic), just the scare of them. But for aliens to actually exist in the Fallout world at any time, that means they should have existed *BEFORE* the divergence. Unless they were spawned and evolved to that state in the less than 300 years elapsed since the divergence to F3. Which didn't happen anyway, since from what I heard, according to MZ they were already around abducting people since the 1600's.