I'm kind of confused as to how Bethesda "completely screwed up" the Fallout lore. I never played 1 or 2, but from what I'm hearing so far, the main complaints are that 1) The Enclave/BoS aren't that big and 2) ALL the Enclave were on the rig and Narravo. Well, who said this? I mean you tell me, cause as I said I haven't played 1 or 2, but when people say "how does the CW have so many BoS and Enclave," I logically want to answer "because gaming engines have improved and now they can afford to implement more people?" Am I wrong? Were the Enclave specifically referred to as a small group before? If not, then yeah.
As as for "all the enclave were on the Rig and Narravo," according to who? Did the game specifically tell you this and promise you this or did a person in the game tell you this? I mean, characters in New Vegas get their sh!t wrong all the time. Why? Because it's more realistic that way: not everyone is a walking encyclopedia that has all their facts straight, and people have different opinions and experiences with groups. Again, if you're basing that argument off of one statement by some random character, I can't help but find that a bit ridiculous. If I were hardc0re into the lore, then I'd say "well clearly, that person was wrong" and move on. Even if the game or the devs themselves specifically said they were all dead, I don't see what the big deal is. The game and the story is constantly developing.

The President of the Enclave stated they were housed on the Oil Rig, and only there and Navvaro.
The CW's Enclave miraculously survived and marched all the way across america for no reason at all and before you say "They recruited more", they don't. If they recruited mutants, that would defeat the entire purpose and goal of the Enclave.

You know, I would figure the President of the entire enclave to know what he's talking about.
The BoS were in the West Coast, but also marched for no apparent reason.

My point is more that, the way people complain, you would expect contradictions. I've never seen it as a big issue, but people complain for example about Cyrodiil being described as a rain forest and then you find out it's....well a forest-forest. The way people complain, I would expect a BIG mistake, like the Enclave suddenly recruiting people or being involved with China or something.
Perhaps people don't like the lore that Fallout 3 added in (wasn't exactly academy award winning), but I'm not seeing any contradictions. John Henry Eden contacted the West enclave as soon as Richardson died. Yes I get that it's very sketchy, "how does Richardson not know of Eden but Eden knows of Richardson," but again the point I was just trying to make is that I don't see logical flaws, I see logical gaps. People are making things out as if Bethesda completely tore the lore apart instead of just doing a shoddy job on FO3's story, copy-pasting a lot and leaving a lot of questions unanswered. Besides, I would expect that Bethesda is put in charge of all east coast affairs and Obsidian with the Core Region, so I doubt Bethesda has much room to "mess up" anything else.

Enclave showing up as a powerfull villain again?
It'd be like George Lucas making a new Star Wars sequel after Return of the Jedi, where the Empire strikes back... again! And they have built a new Death Star! And they have a new Emperor!
If there'd be a Star Wars VII (although there's no need for that at all, it had its happy ending) then the Empire would just be remnants, former Stormtroopers forming loads of small factions on the systems they are stationed on, and such. Remnants, just like the Enclave, who has also had their donkey kicked twice, like the Empire.

The Enclave has been defeated 3 times, there is no need to bring back them again, we have another faction who needs more protagonism

They did do copypasting.

Play Fallout 1 and 2 and then it's not hard to put two and two together.

Aside from aesthetics (how something looks is very much a part of the lore) there wasn't much in the way of contradictions. There were a couple of inconsistencies with the GECK, but that's all I really noticed. Some of the more knowledgeable individuals may have caught on to more inconsistencies that I didn't notice though.

No they werent. The enclave werent in the beginning and the BOS are an optional side quest.

QFT :tops:

Talon, I'd say the BoS and Enclave even being on the east coast is a contradiction of there lore. FEV in Vault 87 I'd also consider a contradiction in FEV's lore.

I would think that any FEV not found in West-Tek, or Mariposa, or with the Master would contradict lore.

.... and come up with 3 ... Fallout 3.

"Copypasting" is that the new word for building on the previous sequels to produce the subsequent sequel. Yet other gripers will say there is nothing of the original, contradicting the "copypasting" claim ... (must get act together)

Seems just a new novel way dreamt up to take a swipe at the game. Laughs.

Fallout New Vegas = 4

Fallout 3 never built anything, they lifted the story and put new words on it. That is not continuing, that is ripping off.

Re lore, so Fallout 4 being located in a different place(see the topic "where would you like F4 to be), in your views is outside of lore. No, the location of Fallout need not be a specific to follow the overall lore of the Fallouts.

The story needs to be related or it's not a continuing story, that is what you call a spin off.

New Vegas and Fallout 3 should be reversed, and it would all be fine and dandy. But it isn't.

Should New vegas be a Continuation of Fallout 3?

Answer - No are you crazy?

New Vegas is a Fallout Spin-off!!

I honestly have less issues with what Fallout 3 did to lore than what it didn't do. Namely add much of anything that was interesting or new.

The East Coast was a blank canvas that could've been filled with so many interesting and novel factions, ideas and creatures and instead we got a bland, illogical rehash which mainly served to cheapen things from the previous games that should've stayed on the West Coast be it Harold, the Brotherhood of Steel, the apparently invincible Enclave or super mutants.

the pres would lie about numbers without a doubt i said that. bos sent men to the east to do what they do look for tech where there would be alot of it the capital "no reason." they then recruit from outside because it makes sense they even broke bos tradition becase people adapt soon as an enclave person sets foot in open air they would then be a mutant because we all wore their suits and rads got through.

No, Fallout 3 should have been something like New Vegas where it actually continues a story.

Current Fallout 3 should have been a spin off.

EDIT: @ Rook: No, it is confirmed that the Enclave literally marched from the west coast by the Remnants in New Vegas, there is no purpose.

Fallout 3 is a spin off. :shrug:
New Vegas is a ? step closer to Fallout 2 IMO. (Still nowhere near as it should be, but hey... You can't sell Vegemite to a sweet tooth).

Personally, I would expect a new story. If the locations were the same (regionally) then I would expect a bit of history and traces from the past games... but I don't think its required. The location is the same (country), and I would not have minded the DC setting if it had not grafted almost every local element from the West Coast, and incorporated the same plots in the new one. IMO it could still be a fitting Fallout 3 so long as the general attitudes, atmosphere were left retained (which IMO they were not ~with the exception of the art design).

*Personally I would have preferred an enhanced 3D/ISO game with TB combat ~as that was a major aspect of gameplay IMO, and one of the big draws of the series for me. Not including it as an option took significant points away from the game's credibility as a sequel IMO.

There is no sequel to Fallout 2. By the litteral definition of sequal, Fallout 3 is not a sequel to Fallout 2 and New Vegas is not a sequal to Fallout 2 or 3.

The only sequal in Fallout was Fallout 2 becaue it continues the story of the first Fallout. Nothing in Fallout 3 has anything to do with the story of the first two games other then the Enclave moving to DC. There are mentions of the originals in Fallout 3 but that does not make a sequel.


Plots of Fallout's Past

Fallout: Come from a Vault, find a waterchip so the Vault can have pure water and fight super mutants.

Fallout 2: Find a Geck and fight the Enclave

Fallout 3 Come from a Vault, find a Geck to get pure water, fight super mutants and Enclave.

Very much agreed.
:thumbsup:

The Way It Should Be:

If you are going to make a sequel then it has to be related in a noticable way that doesn't rehash the plot's from three games.
But, lets say you make a game on a different coast; It should give writer's an opportunity to write new character's, new faction's, new stories!

How it really is:

Look at what I posted above, they chose a new coast- an area where they could have written new things, and people... but they didn't.
They did what alot of games do; they used the first step on every single game, but they also took the plot and not just characters, but they didn't just make something related, they lifted the entire thing and just placed it in another area.

When they could have done what Obsidian done (as in introduce new areas and factions)... But guess what? They chose to copy paste and rip off the story!

Let's view at the most notable things they lifted, shall we?

The things they ripped off:
Fallout 1 Major: Vault Dweller, Leave Vault looking for something very important!, Seek Water, Destroy mutants, and their VATS and save many!

Fallout 1 Minor: Joining the Brotherhood of Steel, Harold, Water plot, being kicked out of the vault when you return...

Fallout 2 Major: Leave home and seek a GECK, Return home to find it in a state of chaos, find out about Enclave, defeat the Enclave, kill their leader and destroy their base to save many.

Fallout 2 Minor: Enclave take something of value to you, Harold (Again...), Helping the Brotherhood against the Enclave

Fallout Tactics: Being a Brotherhood of Steel Member, The Warriors Armor (Which is the Enclave's armor on the east coast, pah.)

What Fallout 3 Has (that's shamelessly ripped off!):

Being a Vault Dweller, Leave home to find something very important! Find GECK and Destroy the Mutant's and their VATS!
Join the Brotherhood the Steel! Purify Water to save your people! Harold! Discovering the Enclave! Assisting the Brotherhood against the Enclave!
Defeating the Enclave! Destroying the Enclave's base! Killing the Enclave's Leader, and commit overkill! (Twice.), Harold! (Once again...), The Enclave's Power Armor!

Bonus Ripoff: Being kicked out of a Vault when you return.

This about sum's it up.

Me as well.

Fallout 3 had some bad decisions. I can live with the Enclave being a decent sized force (just this once. It cannot work again) but I wouldnt call it a good decision.

Putting FEV into a vault - Bad idea. *Very* bad idea. Would I have have been as critical if it were a West Tek Facility? Maybe, but had I been able to see into the two paralell universes (One where its a west-tek facilitity, and one where its as it is in FO3) I think I would have shut up. Having a West Tek Facility I think could have encouraged the Supermutants into being less of a cardboard enemy.


I can live with the BOS decisions - I think Elder Lyons decision to bring winning a few hearts and minds up the priority list was logical given local conditions.

Edit: I'm currently eating a box of imported Wonka Nerds AND i have a craving for vegemite.