You as well !! ... tut-tut Laughs.

Change in attitude or approach to the game and it's evolvement is the way to go. The early Fallout sequels really are of the past now in every sense.

Come join us in this twenty first century. Walk towards the light .........

Funny, you seem to have completely ignored the context that he was speaking in. Fallout 3, therefore, follows on from previous sequels and lore that they established regardless of age.

Really the essentials are all that are needed to make the sequel complete and I never felt that anything in Fallout 3 was incomplete ... all that was necessary in detail was given to complete a great game.

It's true that there will be a tiny few who for whatever reason will refuse to see this game as great ... and the same will happen with whatever game follow this one.

It's also true that Bethesda are great game writers as the vast majority will agree.

Saying something is subjective does not make that untrue.

Having played the originals, they were legitimate, but it's not essential to play them to appreciate the legitimacy of the sequel Fallout 3 ... I wish people would just play it and accept it's legitimacy. It does need to be played well to fully appreciate all that it is.

I don't think that was the point. I think they comment was directed at those who seem to believe the Fallout series started with Fallout 3.

IE: "The Enclave should be in they've been in since the beginning' That sort of thing.

I've seen posts in other topics about how stuff wasn't in New Vegas or even the originals, but was in Fallout 3 and therefore they think that it's a 'major Fallout feature'.

Exploration is a major part of any RPG that I know of, whether it is of buildings or wasteland. In fact there was hardly much of anything in the early Fallouts wasteland to explore or find anything, it was a major defect. Happily that defect has been removed with Fallout 3.

Yes. I said added exploration was a good thing, but the way it was added was not. Fallout was never about dungeoncrawling anyway, so the exploration really was not necessary addition, but I don't mind it being there as long as it serves a purpose other than being a mere random timekiller and yet still the selling point of the game.

While you could explore small parts of these games it wasn't really the major aspect of them: Baldurs Gate, Baldurs Gate 2, Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Torment, Deus Ex, Alpha Protocol, Fable, Mass Effect 1/2, Dragon Age Origins,

Sooooo....

The games that were RPG and did have heavy exploration on them: Oblivion, Morrowind, probably Arena and Daggerfall (haven't played them), Fallout 3, New Vegas, Blue Dragon.

So erm, yeah, I wouldn't say that exploration is a must of an RPG, it's more like a bonus or a taste in design.

Then there are action/adventure games with RPG mechanics that had focus on exploration, but I don't consider these real RPG's: Diablo, Diablo II, Borderlands, Dead Rising, Dead Rising 2.

It's MORE of a game WITH exploration than without it, anyway....

GameSpot -- Best PC Game-- Best RPG

GameSpot gave it the Best Role-Playing Game of E3 2007 award.

IGN -- Best overall RPG 2008

Game Critics Awards gave the game Best Role-Playing Game and Best of Show for E3 2008

At the 2009 Game Developer's Choice Awards, it won overall Game of the Year along with Best Writing

PC Gamer gave Fallout 3 2nd place on its '100 Best PC games of all time' list, praising its user-modifications, deep gameplay and overall polish

At the end of 2009, Fallout 3 was featured in IGN's Best Video and Computer Games of the Decade (2000–2009), with the game being placed top game of 2008 and 7th overall game of the decade.

That's 2007, 8, 9. just a selection of awards.

Bethesda made a far better sequel in Fallout 3, there is no doubt of that. Continuation of Fallout 3 should be Fallout 4 not the spin-off New Vegas.

Not necessarily.
Fallout is not about exploration or dungeon crawling, it's about quests, dialogue, specialization and action and consequence, that is what they should focus on, exploration is merely a bonus but not what Fallout should revolve around.

Yet the comms officer on the oil rig is shocked to see a transmission from the mainland that doesn't come from Navarro. So either they weren't Enclave, or they had all moved to the rig.



Then they aren't Enclave.

They may have been members of the pre-war conspiracy that gave birth to the Enclave, but they aren't members of "the Enclave".

The clue is actually in the name- what is an Enclave? Mr Wiki if you please:



In this case, its a bit metaphorical - the "Other Territory" is just simply seen as "Enemy Territory" or the wasteland.

The organisation "Enclave" are named after the oil rig - the Oil Rig is the true "Enclave".

So you had no clue what you were talking about when you claimed exploration was such a major component of an RPG and are now falling back on an appeal to authority that has absolutely no bearing on what's being discussed. Or were all those reviewers awarding it points solely based on its fidelity to the Fallout series?

Nice to see you haven't lost your touch.

Hmm... Not sure that I can agree with you there. The name of the Enclave can be debated I suppose, everything else I agree with. That line from the bible is not getting brought back, it's forgotten; the bible also said that nobody knew what happened to Navarro but there you go, we do. It was flavour material to keep some Fallout activity going through an empty period of releases, Avellone probably didn't have the authority to say that the Enclave were dead so just said that, it doesn't make sense canonically for many reason, the main one in my opinion being that all of the other Enclave "around the globe", or whatever, would have been killed by the Project. Besides, I would imagine that a game which found an excuse to bring them back, again, might finally start to get a little bit of negative press for being predictable or whatever.

In short, that line will never be brought up again, just like how a lot of little details from Fallout and Fallout 2 have been forgotten. Think the Remnants are nice people? Think that maybe some of the Enclave lower ranks weren't all that bad? Well in Fallout 2 all of the Enclave Patrolmen (which the Remnants were) were absolute dikes, who laughed at you before brutally pasting you to a rock formation, they didn't say, "Sorry, the leadership is a bit mean but we just want to civilise things." Probably this one done to give the Enclave a bit of depth and humanity which they lacked from their last appearance, and we know that the Devs must have looked back at Fallout 2 because they even included the obscure Doctor Henry from NCR (Enclave deserter) who had like a few lines and a mini-quest.

Pluto is not a moon. What dont you get?

Anyways you obviously dont understand, the history of the game world is set in stone, because history is history. If the Enclave are destroyed then thye are destroyed, it is truly not rocket science. You just cant go back and say that that never happened.

And could you try to us proper grammer and punctuation and all that good stuff, because your posts are in fact hard to read.

No, probably not.



The Enclave patrolmen in Fallout 2 all shared one set of generic dialogue for the sake of simplicity; this doesn't mean that all Enclave patrolmen let alone all Enclave members in general were dikes in the lore. On the contrary, there were plenty of decent folks at Navarro and the Oil Rig in Fallout 2.

What? They had http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/ECELVPAT.MSG actually, and they were mostly mocking, condecending and arrogant remarks. The statements of everyone at Navarro and the Oil Rig are suspect because they think that you are an equal member of the Enclave, of course the Enclave are decent to eachother but not to outsiders. Name some Fallout 2 only decent members of the Enclave who aren't only being decent because they think that you are on their side.

That's one set of dialogue.



The Enclave at Navarro at the very least were well aware that the Chosen One was a tribal; this is pointed out by the guard at the gas station.

Well, this got heated real quick - that's a lot of posts for this board in such a short amount of time.

Here's some advice that will be strictly followed from here on in, else the thread gets locked:

• Don't play grammar cop, or insult someone else's writing. At best, it's a good way to drag a discussion off-topic. At worst, it can be considered flaming, and therefore warn-worthy. If you can't read or understand someone's post, then you don't have to read it.
  
  
• Play nice. There's this trend I've seen over the years in relation to Fallout 3, the Fallout series, what-have-you; where people have a tendency to think that painting one game or the other as "the worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world, with absolutely no redeeming qualities - and isn't a wonderful gift to mankind that Fallout 3 came along to fix the fractured stinking mess that was the Original Series/ horrible terrible travesty that Fallout 3 came along to beat the old games to death and then spit on it's grave by in no objective manner having even a modicum of respect for the series, it's creators, or the people who play them -" is any way to have a serious, civil, or constructive conversation. Or that it lends credence to either point.

In reality, all of the games in the series have their good and bad qualities. And are better or worse at accomplishing various goals - which will matter to various people to varying degrees, based on personal subjective preference.

Okay, back to topic -

Personally, I liked all of the Fallout games (excepting Brotherhood of Steel.) I still see Fallout 3 as more of a parallel story than a sequel. Simply because it's not really continuing any specific story from the previous games, and is pretty blatantly a reboot, I feel. I don't have any issue with that, however. It's what I would have done had I decided to make a new Fallout game, as well (mine would have been a bit of a different game, but I'd still have made the first in my new series as something of a primer for the new fans I'd hope to attract.)

Fallout: New Vegas I still see as a spin-off. It's been stated and marketed as such, after all.

There's this underlying concept that a "spin-off" or whatever means that it'd somehow be "lesser" or something. I don't see that as the case. It's not as if the only way a game can be a "real" Fallout game is if it is universally "accepted" as a "sequel." It's all just nomenclature, after all. It just doesn't change what the game "is," as I see it.

So, still plenty of lines, of course there is only one set of dialouge for the Enclave patrolmen that only appear around Navarro.



No he didn't, only if you fail the charisma/speech roll. Everyone in Navarro thinks that you are on of them, you think Dornan knows that he's talking to a tribal, giving a tribal a suit of Power Armour?

Time to weigh in. I knew it was only a matter of time before II The Rook II found that one stupid like in the bible that said the enclave went to other bases. Sad FACT is the bible is not canon. It provides great information and lore but the games trump the bible. The games don't show the Enclave going anywhere but for the Oil Rig and Navarro. Fallout 2 makes it clear that those are the only two bases. Its backed up by New Vegas and even Fallout 3. The Virus would have killed anyone anywhere not given the Inoculation. All signs point to them being dead. The Devs of Fallout 2 that were working on Van Buren AKA Fallout 3 were not going to bring them back. Van Buren was to give more information about them and have remants but not back as a powerful faction. Enclave are just remnants. And should just be Remnants.

Really how many times do we have to kill them? Its three so far.

That wasn't my point. My point was that all Enclave patrolmen shared one set of dialogue for the sake of simplicity, and as such the dialogue set should not be taken as an indicator that every single Enclave soldier was a dike in the actual lore.



No, the dialogue track that results in him believing that you're a recruit is the one where he calls you a tribal. Not to mention it's clearly stated throughout the game that the Chosen One has a tribal accent; the Enclave at Navarro would have to be pretty brain dead not to notice that.

I love how you think you know everything!! and anything there is...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsWIrWQR-3w, if you don't convince the gaurd that you are a member of the Enclave, a recruit, then he knows that you are a tribal; otherwise he does not. The Enclave do not recruit anyone externally, if anything, the fact that they think you are a recruit is evidence, as far as I am concerned, to support the theory of other Enclave bases in the immediate vacinity.

Well I wouldn't say all signs.

There is at least some indication that the Enclave still survives in some form through the Chicago Outposts. New Vegas seems to make a pretty clear statement that there is something going on up there. I would also argue (and people can beat me up for it or whatever ) that there was at least a hundred or more Enclave troops who survived the DC debacle. Where do all those Vertibirds at Adams Airforce base go? (the ones doing strafing runs and that against the Brotherhood), I know I didn't destroy them, and I think it would be silly to assume that the LW killed every single Enclave soldier from DC, which leads to the possiblity that surivors from DC were able to escape and prehaps meet up with Enclave forces outside Chicago.

Are the Enclave completely destroyed? As in everybody dead and gone? I would say that its a bit too early to assume that. No developer has come out and said "thats it no more Enclave, they be all dead!" That said, is the Enclave weakend to the point of hanging on by a thread? Yes, but I would say that while they are not thriving, they are at least suriving in some limited form.