Sould the Master be brought back?

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 12:47 pm

Exactly. Same goes for Enclave, BoS and a huge mutant army.


Not quite the point I was making, though I do agree with you on some counts.

Enclave, I don't want to see Eden back, or anyone else named in a previous game. With the possible exception of Autumn.

Same goes for BoS, I don't want to see Lyons(Either of them), Veronica, Ramos or any of the old chrs at all.

Though I wouldn't mind the return of the groups themselves.

I agree completely with the mutant army though. The master is dead and gone and vault 87 is out of FEV, so there is no way of making new ones(Other that mutie six and I don't really want to hear about that.)
User avatar
Lexy Dick
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:15 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 12:42 am

Not quite the point I was making, though I do agree with you on some counts.

Enclave, I don't want to see Eden back, or anyone else named in a previous game. With the possible exception of Autumn.

Same goes for BoS, I don't want to see Lyons(Either of them), Veronica, Ramos or any of the old chrs at all.

Though I wouldn't mind the return of the groups themselves.

I agree completely with the mutant army though. The master is dead and gone and vault 87 is out of FEV, so there is no way of making new ones(Other that mutie six and I don't really want to hear about that.)


You see, here is where alot of FO3 fan's and FO1/2 fans mess up.

FO3 fan's always say we are stuck in the past, but when we want to move on with overused subjects and factons, they always say "NO, FALLOUT ISN'T FALLOUT WITHOUT THEM"

Example: A FO1/2 fan wants to see new factions instead of having a recycled Enclave and BoS, but when we move on they say "No, falloutneeds them or it isn't fallout", so it ends up having FO3 fans being 'stuck in the past'.

Sorry, I just got worked up in being reminded about this.
User avatar
Ladymorphine
 
Posts: 3441
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:22 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 6:10 am

One off? He was in one, two, The burned game, There was "A" Harold in tactics (not sure if it's him), he was going to be in VB.

I don't like the way they did it, but frankly I'm glad that beth got rid of him. I was getting fed up with him tbh. and we don't need the same chr's in every game.


No I said the tree growing out of his head was a one-off joke not the character himself.

See I'm just not sure why Beth needed to get rid of him. Harold was clearly in the game at all for only the most blatant of fan service reasons (or so I hope since the alternative is they wanted an Oasis area like area from the start) and his appearance was completely unsatisfying to most people who knew anything about the character. I wouldn't have minded at all if Harold hadn't appeared or would not appear in any future Fallout game. But if he's going to appear they should do the character right not ruin him for all time for absolutely inane reasons.
User avatar
Lizs
 
Posts: 3497
Joined: Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:45 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 1:34 am

You see, here is where alot of FO3 fan's and FO1/2 fans mess up.

FO3 fan's always say we are stuck in the past, but when we want to move on with overused subjects and factons, they always say "NO, FALLOUT ISN'T FALLOUT WITHOUT THEM"

Example: A FO1/2 fan wants to see new factions instead of having a recycled Enclave and BoS, but when we move on they say "No, falloutneeds them or it isn't fallout", so it ends up having FO3 fans being 'stuck in the past'.

Sorry, I just got worked up in being reminded about this.


You quoted me before making this statement. Yet I'm unsure weather this is a rubuttal of what I said or that you are using my argument to back yours up.

I do want change in FO, of course I do, that is why I said I don't want many previous characters to return. However I would like these factions in later games. Not because "It wouldn't be Fallout without them. But because I don't feel like their stories are finished yet. I want to know more about them.

No I said the tree growing out of his head was a one-off joke not the character himself.

See I'm just not sure why Beth needed to get rid of him. Harold was clearly in the game at all for only the most blatant of fan service reasons (or so I hope since the alternative is they wanted an Oasis area like area from the start) and his appearance was completely unsatisfying to most people who knew anything about the character. I wouldn't have minded at all if Harold hadn't appeared or would not appear in any future Fallout game. But if he's going to appear they should do the character right not ruin him for all time for absolutely inane reasons.


You say that his appearance was unsatisfying to anyone who knew anything about the character. Well I know about him and I know I was sick of him appearing. The tree in his head thing just felt wrong to me and I didn't really enjoy interacting with him after 1. Even though the way they got rid of him was pretty lame, they did get rid of him and for that I was happy.
User avatar
GabiiE Liiziiouz
 
Posts: 3360
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2007 3:20 am

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 12:58 am

I said to most people who knew anything about the character. So you didn't want him to appear but you didn't mind his appearance because now he's guaranteed to never appear again?

So if they'd just left him out you would've in fact have been completely satisfied and the many people who didn't like what happened to Harold would've been satisfied as well. Which is precisely why his appearance in Fallout 3 is rightfully criticized by so many.
User avatar
Dona BlackHeart
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:05 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 10:06 am

Harold was going to have a "happily ever after" ending in Van Buren if I understood right. I would've preferred that to having to put him out of his misery, or adding to it.

In fact, I can't help but feel a bad bit of symbolism about the way Harold went.
User avatar
Cathrin Hummel
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2007 7:16 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 9:42 am

BETHEDSA ADDED CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT
BETHESDA KEPT THE SAME CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT


Interplay ran Fallout intot he ground.
Don't forget it, Kids.
User avatar
ShOrty
 
Posts: 3392
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 8:15 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 5:30 am

BETHEDSA ADDED CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT
BETHESDA KEPT THE SAME CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT


Interplay ran Fallout intot he ground.
Don't forget it, Kids.


Seeing that I've never seen any posts by you, I don't believe you have credibility in saying this.

:shrug:
User avatar
X(S.a.R.a.H)X
 
Posts: 3413
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 2:38 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 11:32 am

Interplay ran Fallout intot he ground.
Don't forget it, Kids.


Who said we did? We don't give a... Well brahmin excrements about Interplay. Interplay can go to hell, because it's not the company that it once was.
User avatar
TWITTER.COM
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 3:15 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 12:14 am

Who said we did? We don't give a... Well brahmin excrements about Interplay. Interplay can go to hell, because it's not the company that it once was.

of course it isn't.

but you have to admit.. all this complaining about what bethedsa did and didnt do right... but really
interplay ran the franchise into the ground.
there were huge disparities between 1 and 2 that go so far as to change the lore (thats right)
developers on the (first two) games not agreeing on why the things are the way they are in the fallout universe
(the fallout bible was actually creataed to handle these iInconsistencies)

people get all ridiculous, but really there is no seamless "this is fallout" other than Fallout 1, which was really just Wasteland with better graphics, anyway.
User avatar
Kevan Olson
 
Posts: 3402
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:09 am

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 2:18 am

I see hardly any inconsistency between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.
User avatar
Daniel Holgate
 
Posts: 3538
Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 1:02 am

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 6:49 am

I see hardly any inconsistency between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

I lovew this experpt from fallout bible 0, I've read on this and other forums for years how gamesas "ruined" fallout because they changed the lore without a good reason, or any in game references as to how the change came about. This experpt shows just how hypocritical that viewpoint is.

s, why would they want to purposely see their own country men die when the vaults were societys last chance at a good survivial. I like to think that lots of people died because the vaults just didn't work. Like in FOT there is a terminal that says that money had been diverted from much needed common sense things to an underground game hunting facility or whatever it was. experiments was a bit over the top, but corruption is far more believable. thats what i think anyhow. and Fallout 3, is it a possibility or not?

Michael

Answer: The vault experiments were an idea created by Tim Cain, and I don't really know the reason behind them, but I can offer some speculation.

First off, thematically, it's pretty creepy, and we all know that developers will pull all sorts of crazy [censored] to try and mess with players' heads. It's possible that Tim had just finished watching an X-Files episode and had conspiracy theories swimming around in his subconscious. As to your comment about the experiments being a bit over the top, well, yeah. We're guilty as charged.

Secondly, as proven time and again in Fallout 2, the Enclave isn't a particularly rational bunch of fellows. Thematically, they embrace a paranoid view of the world and a heightened sense of superiority over everyone else in Fallout.

Third, the federal government (or whatever branch of federal government was responsible - it was not necessarily the Enclave) may not have ever considered the Vaults as society's best chance for survival - the government may have considered themselves the best candidates for rebuilding the world and already had their asses covered in the event of a nuclear or biological war by relocating to other remote installations across the nation (and elsewhere) that weren't necessarily vaults. The Enclave certainly didn't seem to be devoting much effort to digging up any other vaults and trying to use the human stock there to rebuild civilization.

Fourth, a lot of people did die because the vaults didn't work. Some suffered worse fates.

Nonetheless, even members of the Enclave probably could not answer the question of who created the Vault experiments and their reasons, as many of the people responsible for the creation of the Vaults died long ago, and many records were lost in the great static of 2077. President Richardson was familiar with the purpose of the Vaults, but he never saw them as more than little test tubes of preserved humans he could mess with. "


To change the entire purpose of the vaults is most definately lore changing.
and whats more, there is no reasoning as to why given in game or otherwise. only speculation.

essentially the same thing that happened with fallout 3., only its a different developer and publisher, which also changed the vantage and mechanics.
i can undersand taking issue with those a lot more than people who whale about "Lore" changing.
User avatar
Toby Green
 
Posts: 3365
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:27 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 11:10 am

How did this go from a discussion about the master, to people arguing about how the series was "ruined"? I can understand how/why fans of the originals would be angered by the new ones (I feel the same way about the stories of RE4+5, and the game play of silent hill homecoming), but everyone need's to except it and move on. If you don't like it, just ignore it (as far as I'm concerned the story of RE 4+5 never happened, but I still think they were fun to play and it doesn't bother me anymore). Besides, would you rather there be no future fallout games (past tactics), or have ones that revive the series, getting others to play the originals, but have continuity errors. Besides, I've noticed that many late 90' games (such as medieval) have some things that just don't make sense, so its probably just due to a lack of though on minor issues by the creators and a lack of communication between creators of the first and second when it was being made. FO3 and NV (despite there MANY flaws) are amazing games that introduced many like me (who had never heard of fallout before) to the series and its rich back story and characters. When it comes to characters, I think many shouldn't reappear (unless story reasons for BoS leaders means it wouldn't make sense to not have them), but don't think any faction should be eliminated. With the mutants (my fav enemy/faction), either someone should find/make more FEV (maybe enclave), or some scientist should alter them to make them able to reproduce, cuz they are dieing out and are WAY too cool to lose. With the enclave, I agree that no past leaders should reappear, but neither them, nor the BoS should be removed. Mostly because of the emphasis on tech and the creepy/cool experiments the enclave does they are all my 3 fav factions.

Overall, people should just stop arguing about the changes in the series. It's not going to change back, so there's no point arguing about it.
User avatar
LuBiE LoU
 
Posts: 3391
Joined: Sun Jun 18, 2006 4:43 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 4:25 am

people get all ridiculous, but really there is no seamless "this is fallout" other than Fallout 1, which was really just Wasteland with better graphics, anyway.


You've never actually played Wasteland have you?
User avatar
RObert loVes MOmmy
 
Posts: 3432
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2006 10:12 am

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 12:38 am

Seeing that I've never seen any posts by you, I don't believe you have credibility in saying this.

:shrug:


So because he hasn't posted as much as you, his argument is less valid? Because he's new to these forums, he isn't entitled to his opinions? Because this appears to be what you are saying.

I think that it's probably comments like this one that fuel the "Eliteist" view that people have of "The dinosaur club".

Though I do agree he didn't need to TYPE ALL IN CAPS.
User avatar
A Lo RIkIton'ton
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 7:22 pm

Post » Tue May 17, 2011 5:33 am

BETHEDSA ADDED CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT
BETHESDA KEPT THE SAME CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT


Strawman and hyperboles aren't helping ye cause. No one hates Bethesda, just sayin' ;)
User avatar
^~LIL B0NE5~^
 
Posts: 3449
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:38 pm

Post » Mon May 16, 2011 11:52 pm

BETHEDSA ADDED CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT
BETHESDA KEPT THE SAME CONTENT AND RUINED FALLOUT



If a cook poured vinegar over your pancake instead of bluberries, would you just eat it and like it or would you ask what hell did he think when he added the vinegar?
User avatar
joeK
 
Posts: 3370
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:22 am

Previous

Return to Fallout Series Discussion