I'm interested... :nod:

I can see both perspectives. The "Idea" that the PC is to decide what makes sense to him, your own interpretation of what is right to you speaks to me. But yet again Fallout Kris makes logically practical points, and I would put my checkings account on it being a inconsistancy than just the Ghouls just never happen to be wearing armor in combat when you run into them. I think armor would do more damage to them than protect them, I have been attacked again and again by Ghoul highway men & bandits and never have they worn armor. Even when Fallout Kris was in the Broken Hills they didn't, it is pretty safe to say that it is a change of lore introduced by FO3. They shouldn't but they are, it's that simple, anything further into this topic would prove redundant. I rarely check in on this topic and it's sad to come back to see the exact same conversation happen over again. :shakehead:

It doesn't matter what anyone believes as long as it seems right to you. (Not saying that your imput and point of view isn't welcome)

Retracting back a little I would have to agree with the idea that the Enclave has established more than one base. It would prove foolish not to, I mean, look at what has happened to some of the Vaults, what if they created one giant **s Vault? It would be long gone, no Vault Zero, no BoS, no a lot of things. Which can continue into the possibility the since there is many Enclave bases that they might have formed different "sects" all within the one large Organization. Working towards the benefit of all the Enclave, explaining a lot of little things. But again, that is what just makes sense to me. Not what is written in stone but what just seems logical from my perspective.

Chris Taylor (FO1 lead designer) resolved the issue at the Interplay forum:



http://interplay.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=630

I'm waiting for his second reply

Oh, jeez. This is really wierd. Do you think it's just true that no ghoul ever wore armor because they were too lazy/didn't have the funding to make it look like they were?

Them wearing armor despite not being shown wearing any would be confusing to the player. In the case of the party NPCs, you know that your party members are wearing armor, even if the armor is not visible, while in the case of other characters you wouldn't.

This is why I don't want to believe this is the reason yet, however if that is indeed that case, then I guess I'll have to accept it. I mean ,during this debate I have rationalised in my mind why it would be likely that they wouldn't wear it, even if they physically could. So even if I can't convince anyone else, I'm happy enough to consider that the ghouls in the originals were just that much more fussy than the ones in FO3

Oh, well that clears that up. Straight from the mouth of God and all...

Well, it's my limited understanding that in game design you're always working on a pretty tight schedule. There's any number of issues you're trying to resolve before the game ships, and it's usually a matter of prioritizing and deciding what's really important and what isn't. The whole "Ghoul in armor" thing might have been one of many things they were wanting to implement but just didn't have the time for.

Well, this is true a lot of games have had their work cut short because of time constraints. Many Many Many companies have done this to games. But, I think since none in general wear in, except for one. Who you have to make wear it. I'm going to stay my way with they shouldn't, even if it was because they were cut short on time. It's not like Fallout 3 isn't a completely different game already anyways, I'll just have to get over the fact that a lot has changed. ^_^

That's what I loved about the individual development staff of Interplay and whichever company they ended up at. They took time to speak to the fans. Even if they couldn't say anything specific, they still acknowledged the fans directly.

Speaking of Lore screw ups, what about the GECK? It seems silly they would turn the GECK from seeds and chemicals with directions to create a garden of eden, to a suicide machine that kills everyone in a rather large radius (it affects the entire room, and doesn't show any indication of slowing down...)

Star Trek II I believe....

Well, yes, but they didn't have to push the button that's right on the device in Star Trek II

In terms of the Fallout setting, Fallout 3's GECK is a pretty stupid idea. How do you decide who gets to die to turn it on? Unless the PC is an idiot and can't figure out if there's a timer on it or not lol...

But I don't get why they felt the need to change it. It's rather...stupid to be frank. They could have had it so the secret to purifying water on that scale was locked in the documents or chemicals in the GECK, and there would have been little to no effect on their story. No magical transmutation field needed

Note to self: Stop using random words in place of words that I mean to use ><

I second this.

i think it's easiest to assume the geck in fallout 3 is damaged so it emits a deadly burst of radiation or it explodes when activated without proper care being taken to make sure it doesn't happen, i myself haven't actually turned it on, so i don't know what happens exactly except that you die.

It has nothing to do with the radiation in the chamber. To quote the wiki:

okay that is kind of lame, it used to be seeds and manuals etc. oh well guess some people will always have to go for the flashy visuals instead of good old hard work.
that svcks big time.

There could be another explaination, you know.

In Fallout 2, the Chosen One frequently admits in dialogue to having absolutely no clue how the G.E.C.K. works or what it actually does. It's only through dialogue with other characters that you learn about the seeds and the like (I'm not sure if the holodisk regarding the operation of the G.E.C.K. came from the Abbey in the Restoration Project or not).

It's quite possible that in Fallout 2, the Player Character was operating off false assumptions when it came to the operation of the G.E.C.K.


Another possibility is that the G.E.C.K. was tailored differently for different regions. Washington D.C. and the area around it are pretty Urbanized, and have been for centuries. By breaking down all matter, you're clearing away any chunks of Urban Debris, at least.


Though the likeliest possibility was that in this instance, Lore was ignored in order to turn the G.E.C.K. into an homage to the Genesis Device from Star Trek II.

There was an ad for the GECK describing how it works in the FO1 manual.

Sigh these threads always devolve into this...

Even after one of the creators of the game says the most logical explanation some refuse to admit it.

And heres the other thing even if there are Lore descrepencies it doesn't make FO3 any less of a true and canonical game, then Warcraft 3 which fudged a lot of the lore/changed it. Resident Evil did as well.

And with the change from shambling to running zombies, Im glad shambling zombies werent scary I dont care what your nostalgia for old horror movies says and two in F1 and F2 zombies could somehow technacilly move quick but visually not.

Devolve into 'this' o_O

New canon is acceptable provided other already established canon isn't stepped on.

I assure you few people are getting up in arms because they're nostalgic for old horror movies, I for one don't care for horror movies, I've never found them very horrifying. There are no such things as zombies in Fallout, ghouls are mutated humans, they are alive and have their sanity intact (apart from ferals, whilst being essentially mindless, are still very much alive), and they cannot move very fast, both mechanically and visually.

So in Warcraft 2 a demon is canonically a teacher then in 3 made a chief commander means 3 isn't true? Or any of the other times that fantasy lore has contradicted itself?

Games Lore evolves and changes so long as the product is good at the end its fine, because in the end its not really the consumers story its the story of the people who make the game.

Warcraft's inconsistencies has nothing to do with Fallout.

Lore is lore, it gets established. It is when developers start replacing it that it becomes inconsistent. It is then difficult to take a developer seriously, or respect their lack of creativity.

It is very hard to take stuff seriously and get involved in the environment, or care about what's going on in the world you're in when the developers can't even get their own crap straight. If you don't care for lore then why are you in the fallout lore section? Get your post count up somewhere else, no one who is serious in the thread is going to get anything out of people saying "who cares about lore as long as the game is good.". That's the reason I started the topic, I wanted to see if people could relate with me about canon being broken.

So in short, if you post here please make it semi-relavent.

Warcraft was never really about Lore, but they did manage to save the earlier games from being illogical.
Warhammer on the other hand is all about Lore.

Note: Set in Necropolis is wearing armore is he not?

Obviously the G.E.C.K kills you when you use it for gameplay and story reasons. If you want a lore explanation then "broken" or "highly radiated" is as good as any.

Whilst that had nothing to do with what you quoted, I doubt the G.E.C.K was altered for 'gameplay' and 'story' reasons, if anything gameplay and story were affected just so you could see what a G.E.C.K shouldn't do. Activating the G.E.C.K kills you, it doesn't end the game and branch off into a different series of events, it just kills you, and then your last save is reloaded. There is little point to this except to say "omg look at the kool blue stuff". There is a clear explanation of how a G.E.C.K works in FO3, and nowhere does it mention seeds or fertilizer. In FO3 you open it, you run, and you let it cook, apparently.

This is a deconstruction of established canon, I cannot take it seriously.