[priscillaaa]

thread 1: http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1523978-fallout-4-timeline

Continuation of previous thread.

-

EDIT: additional information added below.

Looking at the information from the original thread, I suggested a number of reasons why I believe that Fallout 4 will start in 2285. One additional reason for this would be the inclusion of certain characters from previous games in the series, especially those seen in Fallout 3.

I have already suggested Arthur Maxson, and have demonstrated fairly strong evidence to support this, although we are still only speculating at this stage.

But there are other characters of particular interest, the most prominent of which, in my opinion, are Bryan Wilks, and the residents of Little Lamplight.

Bryan Wilks managed to survive completely on his own after the attack on Grayditch, in spite of being only 8 years old at the time. After we complete the side quest "Those", we are given opportunity to send him to Rivet City to live with his aunt, Vera Weatherly. If this option is considered canon (which is more than likely), then Bryan and Vera could potentially have later relocated to the Commonwealth in order to make a 'fresh start'. Bryan may then perhaps be able to offer us a new side quest or two.

As for Little Lamplight, we have a whole host of options open to us that would be interesting if brought into Fallout 4. One particular point, similar to the case of both Wilks and Maxson, is their age. Being that all of the residents of Little Lamplight were below 16 in Fallout 3, if some of them were perhaps also to relocate to the Commonwealth, they would be aged between 17 and 23. For example, at 19, Lucy could be practising as a doctor somewhere in Diamond City, or we could even find a 22 year-old Knick Knack running a weapon shop in Scollay Square (after all, he did have a schematic for the Bottlecap Mine). Note that Lucy actually had knowledge regarding the "Replicated Man", and so her turning up in the Commonwealth would be quite fitting, as well as more than a little 'mysterious'.

EDIT: just to clarify, I am talking about a handful of individuals from Fallout 3 possibly showing up in the Commonwealth, not an entire community relocating. Also, this could be any combination of advlt or child NPCs.

[Dustin Brown]

My point on boy king is if he 18 and some leader of the BoS leading expeditions with people twice his age under his command, then yeah, it boy king. I mean I like the movie Excalibur just as much as the next person, but what is next? He gonna pull a Plasma Rifle out of a rock?

Also I don't put to much stock in his "rank" in FO3, as I feel that was more an honorary title for him than anything else, because he 10 years old, and more importantly than anything else, he a Maxson.

If the time line is advanced, I don't mind seeing him in the game. I just don't want to see Blade Runner, Excalibur, or any other movie plot, and making him some bad ass commander, as a teenager, would be treading pretty darn close to that story line, and I don't like it. There nothing wrong with him being a Knight, or if later on, a Paladin.

So, none of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSukMQHQLIs

And none of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUfbAVLP14E

[Margarita Diaz]

New info added to OP.

[Erich Lendermon]

The ranks in Lyons BOS.....

On the whole age issue, the quasi-religious side of the Brotherhood should not be forgotten and could easily explain Maxson's faster than usual rise to command, frankly who he is makes him vital to Elder Lyons as his mere presence with Lyons' BOS's ranks validates Lyons' actions on the east coast.

I'd guess it depends on how much of Lyons' BOS (if its them) is being commited to a Boston Expedition as to what rank would be in command.

[Luis Longoria]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D-r0tMK9_rE according to an interview with Todd Howard. I dunno if it's absolutely true, but felt like sharing.

It's been out for a while, so it's probably been touched upon, but can anyone inform me if it's BS or not?

[Alada Vaginah]

So every kid in fallout 3 should be in fallout 4 because "they're old enough" sorry but that's kinda poor logic. especially when considering little lamplight who would've all gone to Big town.

[Guinevere Wood]

I'm not familiar with the Telegraph sorry. But I haven't seen anything that say it's bs.

[Symone Velez]

Todd already stated that we begin the tutorial on "a beautiful Saturday morning, with the threat of nuclear war looming". The date he is referring is, of course, Saturday 23rd October 2077, which is the day of the Great War, as seen http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Great_War. It would appear that the interviewer for the Telegraph simply misquoted this information, and so the date in the video you posted is also incorrect.

Not at all. I'm simply stating that some of the children featured in Fallout 3 could well end up being in Fallout 4. Seeing as the game is heavily based around the idea of progression, it would be more than relevant to see some of these individuals appearing as advlts. Even if it just in a 'cameo' role.

EDIT: there could just as easily be advlt NPCs from FO3 also featured, such as Sarah Lyons and Star Paladin Cross, as well as several others.

[^_^]

How about this, how about none of the kids from fallout 3 are in it! Yea that sounds more better, in fact let's not re-use old characters at all and start with an all new, none brought back cast, Yea that sounds even better!

[Craig Martin]

The advantage of Bethesda doing this would be due to the fact that these are individuals we are familiar with and are already invested in, but they would be far older in Fallout 4. And so they would be different in many ways which a lot of people, myself included, would actually find very interesting. It would be like seeing an old friend you hadn't seen for many years.

But I'm quite certain that the majority of NPCs we come across will in fact be brand new.

[Daniel Brown]

Gotta say the nostalgia factor is not a good reason. You see if it's one character that's fine, fallout 3 did that with Harold and New Vegas did that with Marcus otherwise having a ton of child characters in the game just because they would be old enough is not a good reason, it's forcing the nostalgia factor by going "HEY HEY REMEMBER THIS KID, HE IS GROWN! ALSO LOOK AT THESE KIDS FROM AN ENTIRE SETTLEMENT OF KIDS THAT CREEP PEOPLE OUT! BUT LOOK MORE GROWN UP KIDS BECAUSE WHY THE HELL NOT!"

It's just really stupid.

[danni Marchant]

For the record, I wasn't talking about all of the children in FO3, I meant perhaps one or two, as well as maybe a few of the advlts. Let me explain.

Following Project Purity, and especially if it is expanded further North as per my previous thread, several individuals decide to relocate. This could be any combination of NPCs, regardless of whether they were children or advlts. Some move to the New York area, but others travel a little further and settle in the Commonwealth. We already know that this is likely to include Madison Li and Dr Zimmer. So why wouldn't there also be others? Recurrent characters allows for a certain amount of continuity, and that goes for any series, whether it be movies, games, TV, or even books.

Any characters from FO3 would be around 8 years older by the time post-war Fallout 4 begins. But the difference would be far more noticeable in those who we previously knew as children, and that is why I have specifically mentioned this in the OP. Also, we are talking about a handful of familiar faces in an area that is likely to cover literally hundreds of square miles.

[Isabella X]

Still gotta say it would be pretty stupid. Keep the capital wasteland denizens in the capital wasteland.

[victoria johnstone]

Such is the beauty of the forums, we all have varying opinions

But I'm quite certain I am not the only person here who would like to see a few characters return from previous games.

[JLG]

OP, please stop saying you have provided "strong evidence" for the inclusion of Arthur Maxson. This is disingenuous and you've provided nothing more than baseless speculation regarding your own personal theories. None of this is confirmation, no one from Bethesda has said anything about Maxson, and assuming a minor character that has less than thirty lines of dialogue in the whole game and is hidden in a broom closet for most of it because the Airship has an obscure Arthurian reference attached to it is ... is just simply silly. There's no logic behind this at all. You're grasping at straws and sound like an unhinged conspiracy theorist.

On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that says it's October 23rd, 2277, yet you shoot all that in the foot because it doesn't match up with your bias. It's hilarious. You're very funny.

[Mike Plumley]

The only evidence of the timeline so far is the date of the Great War (already established lore) of 23rd October 2077 and the 200 years later tweet, which would place the game at the same time as Fallout 3 and before Fallout New Vegas.

So the only evidence is a tweet which has since been contradicted by reports that the game mostly happens (and we know the game starts in 2077) after Fallout 3, so there is speculation as to how and why they would try to crowbar another game into the same year that Fallout 3 happened in (2277).

If the tweet is correct then Lyons' BOS shouldn't be in Fallout 4 and given that they are Bethesda's version of BOS and BOS are in the game.......well speculation.

Unless Bethesda comes onto the forum or releases the info through a demo or interview then almost every topic on the forum is and will continue to be speculation.

[alyssa ALYSSA]

There is nothing disingenuous about the statement I made above. I actually said:

I have already suggested Arthur Maxson, and have demonstrated fairly strong evidence to support this, although we are still only speculating at this stage.

The evidence to which I refer, regarding Maxson and various other suggested elements of gameplay, is explained across a number of different threads. And it is not just from myself either, there have been several other contributors who also support the same line of thinking. But as I clearly stated above, we are still only speculating at this stage.

Also, 'baseless' speculation as you put it would imply that there were no materials to which we could refer, and yet we have been shown a great deal of footage between the trailer and the E3 showcase. There are also a large number of interviews that we have been shown, as well as thousands of references in the wiki and other sources that have been compiled from the previous five games in the series. And many of these tie directly with elements of the footage we have seen in ways that make perfect sense, and are therefore likely to be at least partially correct.

And as for logic, the entire premise of all of my various theories is actual based on logic and common sense, and not mere 'conspiracy theory'. I have never claimed to be Agent Mulder. Even the apparent 'coincidences' with dates that I have demonstrated are things that game developers often use, but don't necessarily reveal to the public. They are quite often discovered by fans at a later date, and so I have simply pre-empted a few of them.

Also, there are a number of very clear connections between a great many elements in the footage, the interviews, and other sources we have been shown. But some of these are not immediately obvious and can easily be missed, until of course someone finds them and points them out to others.

Finally, with regards to the start date for post-war gameplay, everyone on the forum has an opinion on this. Some agree with me that it is after FO3, or even after NV. Others believe, as you stated, that we emerge from the vault literally 200 years to the day after the start of the great war. Rather than throw childish accusations, I have explained in detail what I personally believe (which is 2285) and why, again across a number of different threads, and I have presented the evidence accordingly.

[Victoria Vasileva]

Oh and on the conspiracy theorist jab, I made a similar comment when we were discussing the first trailer, since I thought gkk7z was reading to much into the trailer, luckily I stopped myself from just arguing and decided to look at his theories with an open mind......while he did over embelish what could be happening at the start of the game he was correct about the basics, correctly anolysed that the game would start in 2077 and that the family included the protagonist before we saw the E3 footage.

So for me while I have a lot fun arguing the counterpoints to his theories, he has proven to be correct in the past and I've learnt that maybe Bethesda is putting a lot of clues in their trailers and in the E3 concept art footage than I expected.

It also gives us something to do while we wait for some offical facts.

[helliehexx]

We can see a 2077 calander in the E3 videos, and Todd says it beings that day, so the 2075 seems like a miscommunication.

[daniel royle]

Or just the usual high journalism standards.

[Vickey Martinez]

￡10 says todd is just screwing with us.

[tannis]

Maxson makes alot sense.

Until i read that i was pretty sure the year was 2277.

Now im just bout 50% sure its 2277 (a few months after.f3)

[!beef]

The only evidence? I wouldn't say that. There is some evidence which can be deduced from Codsworths' accuracy with the coffee temperature having parallel to his accuracy with the date. We have Todd Howard saying the game takes place 200 years later. We have Pete Hines reinforcing the 200 years via twitter, and we also have him saying "200 years after the bombs dropped," or whatever, in an interview with Polygon.

That is probably the poorest explanation I have ever seen to justify Liberty Prime being destroyed. Is it really that OP when a faction on the fringe of defeat, is able to destroy it with an 8 second orbital strike? Please. The only reason Liberty Prime did as well as it did when they took the purifier was because a} it was an ace in the boot; taking the Enclave by complete surprise b.) it was constantly moving, C} The Enclave didn't want to risk hitting the purifier with their orbital strike during "Take it Back."

I don't understand why you insist on telling me that building an airship is easier, like it has anything to do with what the actual BoS's motives were at the end of Broken Steel. I mean sure, it's "probably" easier like you said, but they didn't set about building a [censored] airship, dude. They set about rebuilding Liberty mother [censored] Prime.

We don't know ANYTHING beyond that. So, telling me that the airship we see in Fo4 is evidence of the CWBoS isn't telling at all when there is evidence that heavily contradicts that assertion.

[FITTAS]

If I repeatedly tell my children that running out into a road is dangerous, that is a fact. If I repeatedly tell them that Father Christmas exists, that is a lie (sorry kids if you're reading this!) The point is that the method of communicating the "fact" about the start-date used here by the devs is no different that that employed by politicians the world over. A vague answer is given strength by repetition, and so "it must be true". And as I have previously stated, the only reason they would intentionally do this is if they did not want us to know the actual start date at this stage. If they were insisting on 203 years, that would be very specific. But "200 years", no matter how often it is said and by how many people, is always going to be a vague answer.

Think about it. If they were really being straight up with us, they would have clarified this information (which they have repeatedly been asked to do), by saying something like "exactly 200 years later" or by giving us an actual date. What they have done is like me saying, "meet me at the petrol garage", when there are actually three of them in the area. Now, if I had said, "meet me at the Red Rocket garage on Concord Turnpike at noon today", that is being specific.

As for Codsworth, remember that he is an in-game NPC coded by the devs, and so I'm pretty much guessing he's in on the act! As for an actual in-game explanation, the fact that he has been given a 'personality' means that he will at least try to be relatable. And so in spite of his occasional tendency to be overly specific ("173.5 degrees Fahrenheit"), he will also attempt to inject a little humor into what he is saying ("not eating properly for 200 years will do that I'm afraid"). Note that when he says this, we are given a dialogue option that says "200 years?" I'm more than certain that if we selected this option, he would have said something along the lines of "Well, it's actually closer to 208 years, but after such a long time one can easily lose count!"

Just because the orbital weapon was also OP does not mean that Liberty Prime was not. Prime was the in-game equivalent of an ant bully, a means to an end. And so, after the Enclave were pretty much wiped out (or at least as far as we know), the orbital weapon was used. But even that didn't outright destroy Prime. In order to protect the technology from getting into enemy hands, he activated his own self-destruct sequence.

As for the building of the airship, the evidence has already been shown in the footage, and considering the fact that the CWBoS is East Coast and is actually Bethesda's BoS tips the scales considerably. And just because the decision to put resources into building an airship was not mentioned during Fallout 3 does not mean this decision was not made. This is especially true if Fallout 4 is actually set a number of years after Fallout 3. Your claim is like saying that Bethesda could not have started working on FO4 until all of Skyrim's DLC was completed. And yet we have been shown concept art that is actually in-game that was drawn as far back as 2009.

[Damned_Queen]

I'm so tired of running circles with this discussion. It's tiring when I have to read about the possibility of game devs behaving like cut throat politicians, as if the timeline a game begins and ends in has any significant bearing on the story itself. Even without a solid confirmation, they never brought up FNV and they've stated that Fo4 takes place after Fo3. I can understand why individuals like snowden and turkeysocks get frustrated in these discussions, truly. We try to base our speculation off of what we do know, and it's shot down as the devs behaving like snake oil salesmen, or that it's a generality, or that codsworth is akin to a paleontologist rounding down the numbers.

Whatever. I'll stop participating in this discussion as I feel its run its course, at least I have. It has gotten to a point where trying to bring up a point that is evidence against the theory, is unconvincingly refuted with information that raises more questions than it answers, and the theory is just pushed no holds barred. We keep coming full circle to this airship discussion, and it all weighs in on the notion that 208 years have passed because Bethesda never lies and they keep their games moving forward. It's so quaint that the information they give on their own game is considered deception, but a statement about the dev from 4-5 years is fact and that Bethesda would never go back on their word.

I'll wait until quake con.