I am sure it has been pointed out but I must rant! :swear:

Enclave were not in Fallout aka Fallout 1. I also have a feeling that by "from the beginning" you are talking about Fallout 3 :banghead: New Vegas is not a continuation of Fallout 3. If anything its a continuation of Fallout 2, still its not but in spirit imo.

The Brotherhood come from the West. You don't even have to interact with them in Fallout. Fallout 2 there are only a couple of them literally theres only like two brotherhood. New Vegas, has alot of them.

As I already said Enclave arn't in Fallout and were destroyed in Fallout 2 and confirmed gone for good in the West in Fallout New Vegas. Fallout 3 destroys them twice.

End rant.... :stare:

again no cnn we dont know how many of anyone there really is. the writers have the ability to make what even they want happen and make it believable. bos brought in new people in fo3 there is no telling how huge they r now. its called adapting now the dc bos has major comm equipment in dc and with control for the black mount equip nv bos has major comm equip they could talk to each other and change their ways for survivals sake. there is even an ending in nv where the bos does change their ways and help ncr so dont try to say bos and enclave r no more. u think that what is said and happens in the little map pertains to the whole world and its not true we dont know and if u believe word of mouth u need to check your head gear. enclave had the best chance to move to the best places from the jump because they knew where they were no way to tell how big they got in 220 years. they can change thier ways too. it only makes sence to survive

Brotherhood in DC would not be that big in only four to five years since Fallout 3. Brotherhood back West, their size is not known.

Enclave are gone. Why? Because the games tell us! This "there is no CNN" is crap imo. The Devs can't just pull things out of their butt and make it believable. If you go by what has came before IE Canon (Fallout and Fallout 2.)

starts rant
Preaty much all the enclave where on the oil rig there was about 10 scientist and 15 soldiers at navarro and that's about it so how is that belivable if they have thousands of troops in 3
belivable?! Fallout 3 was nowhere near beleveable slow down on the jet!
1. Thousands of enave even though they had a few guys at navarro in f2
2. Bos only had a couple hundred to 1 thousand to begin with yet they have that many in f3!
3. Why do bobble heads increase your skills and s.p.e.c.I.a.l?
4. Why don't the cw bos have t-51? Cali ones do
5. Why did bethseda have to make t-45 pa?

And finaly

does a bear s*it in the woods

ends rant

i dont think fo nv is fo3 2 i think it is pretty much what black isle would have made fo3 if they out bid bethesda. black isle people went to obsidian and from what i ve read this is really close to what black was going to do. i never played fo 1 or 2 but i did hours of reading about them and even fallout tactics bos which i dont know if that counts but i read about them to try to fully undestand the whole fo picture. i d play the old ones but my pc is trash it couldn t even run those simple games. anyway im glad bethesda got the rights becaue fo3 was much better than fo nv imo nv is good but fo3 is the best game i ever played. taking fo out of the desert and putting it in the nations capital was a great move. someone asked how fev got to vault 82 in fo3 the terminals in 82 tell u. the stuff is pre war. u think u know everything because u played 1 and 2 but you cant know everything that happened before the war during the war and after the war because the info isnt there.

What does this have to do with anything? Fallout 2 tells that the Enclave were all on the rig or Navarro. The Brotherhood did not start until after the great war.

"The end of the world occurred pretty much as we had predicted; too many humans and not enough space or resources to go around. The details are trivial and pointless, the reason as always, purely human ones."--Fallout 2 intro.

navarro only had a few people so none where at navarro preaty much

Well, you see, unlike in Fallout 3, Fallout 1&2 were very good at telling the story of the Fallout world.

It now IS canon. It was canon as soon as Bethesda wrote it into the game.

I agree there were not that many at Navarro. Some stayed and fought NCR, others gave up and tried to join NCR only to be killed. Some went to DC. So that small number was divided by three. So that means the ones in DC sure as hell should not have ended up with thousands. Also why did they not have thei superior from Fallout 2 in DC?

I would have loved to see advanced power armor from fallout 2 there
and how did they make enough armor in f3 in 2 they had some guys in t-51 and combat armor

Yes but it contradicts the first two games and caused alot of plot holes. Fans of Fallout have turned on another game for doing just that :shifty: Still no one is saying Fallout 3 isn't canon. At least no one I see. Just not happy with the writing of Fallout 3 that made little sense and caused plot holes. Also Bethesda gave the Ok for eveything thing in New Vegas which means Bethesda contradicted their own Canon , which I hear they do alot.

you say that like it is a good thing :/

It's a game. Don't take it so personally.

I enjoyed the reinventing of Fallout, and enjoyed FO3, "plot holes" and all.

I enjoyed the evolution of the reinventing with FNV, plot holes and all....

Isn't that what being a fan of a franchise is supposed to mean, that you care?

Unlike some people on these boards, I don't consider myself the ultimate arbiter of "what Fallout is", so I consider it to be neither a good thing or a bad thing... just a fact.

I take Fallout Seriously.

I also Enjoyed Fallout 3 but I would have loved it as much as the others if it did not have those plot holes. If it did not take the plots of One and Two and put them togther to make Three. If it had Damage Thresold and a Reputation System. I just don't feel it is a good Fallout Game.

I Love New Vegas and I have yet to find any plot holes.

but just beause fo2 said somethibg doent mean its true enclave had around 200 years and your telling me that 15 men and 10 scientists is the best they could do????? now that is not believable. with the info they had accsess to and the centuries they have had you re telling me that s the best they could do????? doesnt sound right. sounds like fo3 enclave is more believable. we re still missing the point that even if richardson said this is all we have this is all we have he was more than likely not telling the truth why would he???? there is no way they went on for 200 years and produced 25 men. and if the game said they were wiped out then u really cant believe it because its a fictional story that is writen as it goes. we dont know what is in north dakota let alone the world. some said there was only 5 years between fo3 and fo nv i thought it was more like 20 but even in 5 years the people of the capital wasteland see bos as heros and would join them just to have a fighting chance they are huge

Bethesda makes amazing games, simple as that. At first, when I played Fallout 1 and 2 when my girlfriend gave them to me, I was amazed and awed. It was like Final Fantasy only with much better gameplay.

But when Bethesda came along, I was skeptical, and truly believed it was just Oblivion with guns. When I got Fallout 3, it was better than 1 and 2, at least the gameplay was. Open World FPS, best move they ever made. There are quite a bit of good things with Fallout 3...

1. More immersive as it's first person rather than top down view.
2. It feels more like you ARE the Lone Wanderer rather than you're controlling the Lone Wanderer
3. Less light humor and more dark humor, which is good considering the wasteland is a dark place.
4. Graphic sensory overload...considering it's your first time playing in 2008 - 2009.
5. Amazing terrain, minus some weird bugs.

But of course, I'm a lore fan so I hated Fallout 3 in the lore aspect. But I can overlook that just this once, why? Because New Vegas was all the good aspects of Fallout 3 and all the good aspects of Fallout 1 and 2 rolled into one. When Bethesda makes Fallout 4, they have to base it in a new location with little to no ties with the Brotherhood of Steel or Enclave. But it would be nice to have them as a remnant faction or have returning characters(nostalgia for the win).

Its not like we are going by one damn line. Its what many people said in Fallout 2, what we see, and the endings. Its also backed up by New Vegas. Two games say they are dead and gone in the West. Fallout 3 tells us that there was no Enclave in the East till after the events of Fallout 2. So its now Three games. Three Fallout games worth of information all pointing to the Enclave being destroyed in the West and now in the East. They just have one outpost left in Chicago.

Fallout New Vegas is a spin off of Fallout 3, because there is no conection neither with the protagonist and the main quest (project purity, ect)

not long before the bombs fell all the enclave moved to the oil rig then afte the bombs they set up navarro which only had about 10 scientists and 15 guards since it wasn't completed(I think)
then the chossen one came nuked the oil rig and only
people at navarro survived and 1/3 sated and fought
1/3 tried to merge with ncr and the last 1/3 went to dc
are you serious just cause f2 says it dosent mean it's true! Yes it does it's called canon!

I recently graduated from my university with a degree in history

If at some point my history professor had rewrote a portion of the book we were using with something completely ridiculous and said "well I wrote it in there so now it's true" I'd look at him kinda strange and probably proceed to drop the class and report him.

It's not canon because they wrote it in. They might be able to get away with that for The Elder Scrolls because that is their IP but I could see a lot of backlash if they changed as much lore for Skyrim as they did for Fallout 3's lore. Bethesda did not originally own the IP for Fallout and there is an established history. Just as it would be silly for me to ignore an established history because my history teacher "wrote it in", it's silly for me to just say "oops Bethesda wrote it in so it must be true!" :bowdown: Bethesda

Sorry it just doesn't work like that :shrug:

I not take the games seriously, but I take the Canon, Lore, and inconsistencies of a game seriously,

Well Said :celebration:

Its why "The Burned Game" is called "The Burned Game" and not canon. Just because it was "writen in" did not make it a canon game.

Still I am not saying, Fallout 3 isn't Canon.