It's the first thing I'd quit a game for if it was in the [flawed] base mechanics.
PA was an equalizer though... [for one against many].

*Balance does always mean it has to be a fair fight.

I think it's far closer to the original concept though... but I agree that it should by no means be comparable to conventional armor. It should either be immune to small arms, or have a special case armor class bonus against small arms.

*And a vulnerability to anti-synth weaponry. [EMP]

Says who? What if I find being a walking tank more fun that being a squishy person?

Make the power armor balanced by requiring lots of materials to repair damage to it and making that the costly part.

Not a lore scrapping power source that lasts minutes when in canon the power armor would never run out of power thanks to the tiny nucleur power pack it runs on which lasts hundreds of years of constant use.

The lore defined power sources should all be depleted ~each and every one of them.

They only lasted a hundred years... (and that doesn't mean 100 years of active use).

I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it is plausible (to me at least) that a make-shift power source wouldn't run them as long as the original part.

Well so far, Beth technically have the right to retcon.

It's true. FO5 could be about power armored Leprechauns, guarding a rainbow with a pot of bottle caps at one end. Having the right, doesn't make it right.

Every historical change is like reaching into a Jenga stack, and swapping out logs.

I'm sure the people at BGS who bought the rights to Fallout would both disagree and agree at the same time, on different points.

Because removing power armor training, to PA wearing leprachauns defending a rainbow...Kind of a leap in logic.

Granted, I would pay to play a game where the antagonists were Fallout 2 Dwarves in midget Power Armor...maybe hoarding an underground water source, food supply for themselves.

The "right to retcon" means more than removing PA training.

It could be, but it won't be. BGS is not beholden to any of the lore or the events that took place. That doesn't mean they won't respect it in some way, shape, or form. Take Disney and their acquisition of Star Wars. They retconned the entire Expanded Universe, rendering everything not the movies or television shows as non-canon. That doesn't mean, however, that Disney still can't pull from much of what used to be canon and interpret it in a way that makes sense for their new direction of Star Wars.

The point is BGS can do whatever they want and certainly they won't let retro games stand in the way of game design and what they want to do. Does that mean they'll spit all over long-established lore in the process? Unlikely, but if they have a justifiable reason for doing so, then go for it.

But what won't be?

They have the right to change whatever they want; but they weaken the integrity of the lore with retcons, and eventually it might collapse (or https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvGopsM1G9g) from meddling.

Agreed, refreshing to see someone who doesn't treat the old lore like a holy bible around here.

The problem with this assertion is the idea that lore is unchanging, that it cannot evolve. Lore is whatever the creator wants it to be. Whether you agree with the creator's decision or not is irrelevant. Many Star Wars fans may not like the prequels, but they are still established lore for Star Wars. The "integrity" of lore for any franchise is purely a subjective term with no rational basis. You are a fan and a member of the audience. You are not the creator nor does your input determine what is "weakening the integrity" of the lore or not.

Lore is a very fickle thing. Some will uphold it as truth and law. Others could care less. What is without a doubt the truth is often lore is amended and changed over time, whether by the original creator or someone else. As long as BGS embodies the soul and spirit of what they believe to be Fallout and develops it in such a way that is compelling to the general public, that is all that matters. There will always be those who disagree.

Of course there will be those that disagree, and find offense; it's like watching someone kick a puppy behind armored glass with no way to stop them.
*Actually it only feels like that.. what it's actually like is learning of someone buying a treasured artifact and defacing it; much like those two that defaced the set of Goya prints by painting clown faces on them.

Like with the seller of those prints (should have known better), the blame rests solely on Interplay for this.

Your anologies are always over the top, but your frustration with the direction BGS has taken Fallout is duly noted.

What you perceive as being an "offense" is a "triumph" for the majority of the gaming community. In other words, one man's trash is another man's treasure. Just because you may perceive Fallout 3, NV, and 4 to be "trash" does not mean others share your sentiments.

Pff treasured artifacts, they where commercial products, 100% made for profit, like any other products.

Trash? Their games are impressive (I have them all); but in this case the treasure is like a National Lampoon's Citizen Kane II (and III ~the further adventures of).
It could be awesome in every way but as a sequel; because it's not trying to be one.

"[I]t's like watching someone kick a puppy behind armored glass with no way to stop them.
*Actually it only feels like that.. what it's actually like is learning of someone buying a treasured artifact and defacing it; much like those two that defaced the set of Goya prints by painting clown faces on them."

Your words. The first anology suggests your appreciation of BGS' interpretation of Fallout is on the level of being trash. The second reinforces this notion by suggesting what came before was a "treasured artifact" (Fallout 1 & 2) while what came after "defac[ed] it" comparing the new direction (Fallout 3, NV, & 4) to "painting clown faces on [the treasured artifact]."

It's not difficult to read between the lines and understand your intent. The words speak for themselves.

Regardless, I am personally in favor the direction BGS has decided to take power armor as it seems more in tune with the Fallout universe.

Indeed, but I miss your point.

Do you find it inconceivable to be impressed with a game (and consider it fun), while resenting the hell out of it for what it means, and inflicts?
There are people out there that actually liked the defaced Goya prints. Had they been any good, I might have appreciated the art on its own merit, but it still unconscionable of them.

Lets put it another way: what if JK Rowling acquired Dune and continued the story; retconning whatever might seem inappropriate for her audience? Opened up Dune to a whole new generation ~except not Dune at all not by a long stretch.

*Depending on one's opinion of Rowling's work... Would one hate the story or the damage it did?

I find it somewhat contradictory and a bit of a masochistic tendency to appreciate something yet despise it simultaneously. From my perspective, it's quite irrational and questionable to live in such a state. A more practical alternative would be to separate the two as being separate universes and you'd be much happier.

I see this a lot here. It's very common for members to be unable to separate preference for appreciation. Very often they will assume those arguing for turn based isometric ~for instance ~do so because they hate First person games. It can confuse even more when they love first person, and decry FO3 for being a first person game.

*Even if I loathed everything but FPP realtime games, I'd still argue that Fallout titles should be ISO3D / Turn Based. (And then wouldn't play it once it was. )

I was actually focusing more on the point of interpretations of lore rather than game design. You have it set in your mind that Fallout is one way. You enjoy the BGS games, yet you cannot accept them as part of the Fallout universe. My suggestion? Create two separate Fallout universes and your problems would be far more managable. Otherwise, I fear you will continue to be in a neverending cycle of pain, frustration, and disappointment. I wouldn't wish that on even my worst enemy.

Slippery slope huh?

You should go into politics.

"Gizmo wants you!"

I quoted you Redguard but I deleted it in the edit. I don't have anything to add to your paragraph.

And I would disagree. An IP should never be locked to a certain format. It has been quite obvious that Fallout 3 marked the beginning of a spin-off series that merely continues the timeline. FNV confirmed this, and Fallout 4 is looking to it set in stone.

To uphold the lore! First they come with the Retcon, next they come for YOU!

We certainly don't disagree there (with either point).

What are you intending to disagree with?

*NV is a FO3 spinoff all its own; it's not FO3.5 ~though it sure looks it.