people ar just taking story writing wrong because in a world that we know nothing about 99% of anything could be writen in as long as its believable. it says they were destroyed in the west big deal. the world is huge maybe the talked to govnt people from england germany and many other counrties and and it was not a us only thing. people want to know why fo3 enclave had better equip than fo2 enclave it tells me they r producing stuff somewhere. i always felt in fo3 that this enclave came from somwhere else and im not talking about the 2 people left in the west. im talking about big time. to just roll out hard like they did tells me they have more men then we saw in fo3. if they were weak they wouldn t roll hard like they did. they came from somewhere else outside the map. govnts are sneaky and there s no telling what the plan was and who was al involved before the war. others would join that cause before the war because it sounds like a good idea.

Once again, not knowing anything about the world is new to Fallout 3, because they didnt care to explain the setting, that would detract from time spent on making explosions bigger, the originals went to great lengths to provide a great storytelling experience.

You aren't getting it :facepalm:

Fallout 2 makes it clear that there was only the Oil Rig and Navarro! The Enclave only had those two bases. The entire Enclave leadership was on the rig went it was nuked. Fallout 3 says there was no Enclave in the East till after Fallout 2. New Vegas backs up Fallout 2. Fallout 2 says the Enclave only had the two bases.

They don't have world wide bases. They were meant to be a one time protagonist. They arn't believable in Fallout 3 and they sure as hell would not be believable if they came back as a super power again.

The really un-believable bit is... Where did the Enclave in FO3 get the that kind of membership when they would never recruit mutants into their ranks. They recruited a thousand vault dwellers?

**I suppose its possible, but I don't believe it myself. The Enclave should not exist past FO2, except as stragglers trying to hide their past.

QFT~IMO

our military makes mistakes today about enemy size and movement and we ve got alot of stuff to help with that. so in a world where enclave are the only ones i know of to have controled a satellite and make drones its not possible to know anything except what you see or records you read. all im saying is to be objetive think outside the map and outside the game. enclave that we have see were defeted but we dont know the current status of enclave as a whole if there is a whole. if im a writer for fo i could write them back in and make it believable. i could make them stronger than you ever dreamed of and it would be believable. there s no sitrep on enclave all you can see is whats in the game which is like nothing compared to the world wheres fo london??? or berlin??? or the middle of africa where a missle didnt even come within 80 000 miles because no one cared. whats the cannon for there?? we dont know because it hasnt been written yet

That is the single worst anology in the history of anologies.

But what has been written and confirmed makes that an impossibility.

@ Weightaholic, Actually, it is pretty accurate.

Did you play (and possibly complete) Fallout 2?

In Fallout 2, NPC dialog (via computer video call) betrays surprise from the Enclave that the PC (whom they mistake for Enclave for a time), is out on the mainland instead of the oil rig or the Navarro base. The Enclave had no other bases. They were all on the rig, but for Navarro ~their first toe-hold on the coast. The Navarro base was brand new, and understaffed; with new personnel still arriving.

then please tell me about the rest of the world at this moment in 2282 fo because as i said i did hours of on line reseach to try to understand it and the rest of the world is not mentioned. tell me what did fo 1 and 2 say is going on in the congo??? or the arctic circle???

they didnt need to, they only needed to tell us that the Enclave was on the oil rig and at navarro. process of elimination, if they are only there, they arent anywhere else, what dont you get?

still not getting it :stare:

We have three games worth of proof the Enclave were only in America. They were only in the West and only had two bases until their main one was nuked taking the bulk of the Enclave and all their leaders with it. Then the Lone Wanderer did the same to them again in Fallout 3, which they were already unbelievable. Chicago is all thats left. They are remnants now.

Fallout 2 the Enclave were working on a Virus that would kill everything on the planet that did not get an inoculation. FEV from the only place FEV existed was used to make the inoculation. The Modded FEV Virus was to be let in to the Jet stream and it would have got into every "nook and cranny on the planet."

Enclave don't have the means to talk to one another across America let alone the world. So their virus would have killed any Enclave anywhere in the world.

Enclave were only on the Rig and Navarro, Raven rock was a fall back.

Problem with Raven Rock is. They had all that tech in DC and they must have known about Liberty Prime. So why did the Enclave not take back America right after the Bombs fell? They could have taken back America from West to East and East to West.
From 2077 to 2241 the Enclave were on the Rig studying and building up their numebers and making new tech like Advanced PA. Fallout 3 makes me think why the hell did they not just use the Mountain of tech in DC?

Now you are saying there could be thousands more some where else. So that would mean they would have had an easier time taking back America. America would have been rebuilt by 2277 if they had tens of thousands of Enclave and world wide bases and the means to travel around the world.

Sad fact is they don't have the means to Travel around the world. They don't have world wide bases, they can't even talk to one another from DC to Navarro. The Enclave are dying out and are and should be nothing but remnants. Logic and canon demands it!



In short, II The Rook II. What Mako just said :thumbsup:

i get it but what u dont get is that an on going fictional story doesn t have to be right or tell u everything because it needs to be kept as open as possible. back to the history guy at one point the world was flat and you would sail off of it at one point pluto was a planet now its just a moon even real life histry changes when its proven to be wrong. and in fo world history would be real easy to prove wrong.

That's how they write Soaps.

What you describe seems more akin to finding out centuries later that Columbus sailed to Plymouth Rock, and was murdered by vikings.

No, actually, it's rubbish. History actually happened.

You're talking about an element in a fictional game, that has changed after 200 years, with little to no explanation or detailed history of just what has happened in that 200 years.

So, what you are saying, that if Bungee or whatever decides to make Halo 4, but make it centric on the guys from Ghostbusters playing ping-pong, it is perfectly fine because the game is a fictional story?


WHY DONT PEOPLE CONSIDER GAME HISTORY TO BE LEGITIMATE.

ok they are gone and there is no way a fictional story can make u think one thing but that not really be the case

History was written by the victors.

In this case Bethesda is the victor, and the new players are the ones learning their version of history. While series players know better.


What bugs me the most, is when an established antique in a later game bears no resemblance to how it looked in the previous one. :banghead:

So I can say "America was founded in 1942 by Some Guy and America is no longer called America, its now Bonerland." Does not make it so.

It has already been set. Its canon. Fallout should not be open as possible. Three games including Fallout 3 support the Enclave being gone, nothing but Remnants.

Funny how in another post you said you studied Fallout History but yet you seem to want to ignore it.

:foodndrink:



Poor Harold

So there is no established history of the Fallout universe? There is absolutely no evidence as to what happened to the Enclave or the Brotherhood of Steel?

Uh.

No.

So now let's talk about history (well Fallout history so I guess you'll tune out since you just want to listen to Bethesda)

Have you heard of the Fallout bible? Well if you haven't the Fallout bible was compiled and written by http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chris_Avellone.

He chronicles the events that happen in both Fallout and Fallout 2. Now Fallout 3 happens about 200 years after the great war (about 35 years after the events in Fallout 2) and F:NV happens about 39 years after the events in Fallout 2.

There is quite a bit of in game evidence in F:NV what happens between the games. The NCR crossed into Nevada and fought the Brotherhood of Steel who were defeated at Helios One http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Operation:_Sunburst, most of the Enclave have gone into hiding or http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Enclave#Remnants or may even have more outposts somewhere, and the NCR took control of the Hoover Dam after defeating Caesar's legion. There is not, as you sate, 200 years of non-information.

There is a great deal of information if you look.

I hope the Enclave never come back. They aren't the [censored] main villains of the series. They aren't Fallout's Bowser. The only reason they were in FO3 was because Bethesda was too [censored] lazy to think up some original factions.

i said i could write enclave back in stronger than ever dreamed and make it belivable the crap about columbus and vikings isn t what im talking aboutt take the terminator series at the end of each one it seem that they have rewriten the future only for another one to be sent back through time. the series has made billions id bet and do you act like this with that series. they destroyed the chip and all skynet info in t2 yet something went wrong because it all goes down anyway. a few pieces of paper didnt burn research backed up on off site terminals. that is how fictional writing works. look for what wasnt said and go from there. i could make it work with good explaination and i said it would be believable. still fit in the story. say what u want but you are not giving writers credit for thier imagination. bush said mission accomplished in irag but we still had men die for another 3 years there and it still isn t real safe there. real life is unpredictable and you think fo cannon cant be expanded

I'm a big fan of fictional lore and I appreciate it when it is consistent. I could bore you for hours droning on about Dr. Who lore, or Star Trek inconsistencies or the interrelationships in the Wold Newton Universe, etc, etc. I'm way behind you guys on Fallout but I'm getting there (until then, I will just ask Styles)

The thing is, all this stuff exists primarily as backdrop to telling stories. Creators and developers usually try very hard to not contradict themselves, but they rarely share the encyclopedic knowledge that fans have. There are probably a dozen people on this thread alone that know more about Fallout lore than any developer (except maybe Avellone -- he's just plain obsessed). Fans just know more, because we have the time and inclination to obsess. The creators are busy creating. And if they come up with a story that they feel will be good and popular, well, a few details of lore won't stop them from telling it.

It is abundantly clear that Bethesda will contradict its own lore; not even open for discussion. When it came to Fallout 3, it is also abundantly clear that they deliberately chose elements (factions, plot details, etc) that were intended as a primer on the previous games. So, we got water problems, eviction after saving our vault, super mutants, the Brotherhood of Steel and the Enclave. In the service of reintroducing Fallout to a new era, this was a good idea (imagine the outrage if the game was all new -- the old school fans would be incensed that there were no links to the older games).

But it left us with lore problems and a sense that every Fallout should be connected to what came before, as this thread proposes. I guess all we can do is try to connect the dots, and hope that every Fallout doesn't strain credibility to link itself to what came before.

So what you are saying is that you can write it so the Enclave can come back in large numbers and be believable by simply rebooting Fallout? To just say to to hell with the last five canon games and start over? Just so you can have your Enclave back? :banghead: :facepalm:

Those that say there is no history need to play Fallout and Fallout 2 and even Tactics. Fallout does not start with Fallout 3. Thats why its called Fallout 3!

I don't think Fallout 3 contradicted Fallout 1/2 much when it comes to lore. There were some strange plot holes, such as Vault 87 having FEV and the ridiculously large number of Brotherhood Outcasts and Enclave troops, but it's still salvageable. Heck I think Bethesda treated Fallout better than they treat their own Elder Scrolls series; I remember how Cyrodiil was described as being a warm jungle in the previous TES games, and in Oblivion it was a fairly normal looking rural landscape.

Honestly though, Fallout 3 had more unnecessary aesthetic inconsistencies than it did lore inconsistencies. I'm glad that Obsidian went through the effort of reintroducing much of the old stuff back into the world with New Vegas like the Combat Armor, P94 Plasma Rifle, Advanced Power Armor etc.