Uhh...which one is it gonna be? Too healthy or not healthy enough?

You missed the point. He said there wasn't enough vegetation after 200 years. He then said that the city didn't look like it had been hit with several nuclear weapons. Where did you get the idea that it was one or the other?

Both are perfectly fine complaints but they don't mesh together even if you think they do. You can't say "there should be more stuff here, it's been 200 years" and then say in the next sentence "there should be way less stuff than this". There probably should have been a better balance between those two in the game, but I'm fine with what they did. If Bethesda had made a Wasteland teeming with life people would say that it wasn't Fallout, and if they had used completely new factions and elements they'd say the same thing, too. F3 was a lose-lose situation as far as the die hards are concerned.

Overall I wouldn't say they exactly stepped on the lore to the point where they directly contradicted everything, but rather they added points that were a MASSIVE stretch. Such as...

-Super Mutants in the Capitol Wasteland. The hell did they get there, how did they come to be and why do they have this needless desire to find and dunk other people? The original Super Mutants were created by the Master, who had a purpose, lived on the West Coast and is now dead.
-The Enclave. Again, they were announced dead and now it's a "LOL JUST KIDDING" and they're on the east coast. Sort of a stretch.
-The BoS on the East Coast and how they act in general
-Jet on the East Coast, along with the book Tales of a Junktown Jerky Vendor

I guess what I'm saying is that....In the Elder Scrolls you can find points where Bethesda completely contradicts themselves to the point where they're forced to retcon things over and over. Here, that hasn't happened (yet), but there's a multitude of events and happenings that make you think "Bull-[censored]-[censored] that happened...." because it's so farfetched and unbelievable, or in cases like there being super mutants on the west AND east coast, it's just TOO big of a coincidence to be taken seriously.

It all depends on how they would've handled it. If they did a halfass job, sure, they would've gotten flak from it (like they do now). But on the other hand, had they done a good job as far as internal consistency goes, and focused more on things behind the visual parts, they would've given praise for it.

The CW already felt like walking in a themepark, the atmosphere tried really hard to look and sound like a postapoc wasteland ripe with destruction, yet there was more life there than there is in a rainforest - you couldn't walk five minutes without seeing something crawling near by (be it raiders or animals). And more over, none of that life (the intelligent one) had done anything to progress from the squalor they lived in even with all those decades to do something. The whole set up was quite effectively playing against itself as far as suspension of disbelief goes.

But the city should have been destroyed by the nuclear bombs, as in there should be nothing there, and then 2 centuries later, vegetation should have started to grow again. The arguments make perfect sense. It isn't one or the other.
Van Buren had a bunch of factions that hadn't appeared in the original games. In fact, the Brotherhood of Steel and NCR were only prominent in Hoover dam and Maxson Bunker. The rest were all completely new. Fallout had the Hub and Junktown which were populated places, with the Hub being a large city. Fallout New Vegas had a lot of life in the wasteland, and that was well recieved on NMA. So it was Bethesda making mistakes and inconsistencies, rather than they made a good game and the 'die-hards' just refused to accept it, no matter what Bethesda did.

Van Buren was never a game and is largely irrelevant to the argument. But if it were a game it would have been developed by the original devs instead of Bethesda, so it wouldn't have mattered anyways, people would have accepted it. If Fallout 3 was a game set on the East Coast with completely different factions and creatures and nothing similar except maybe Vaults and the name, people would still be complaining to this day about it being a "generic post-apocalyptic RPG with the Fallout name so it would sell".

The city can't be completely decimated and then have crops growing just up the hill. That doesn't make sense. If DC was in the condition that you think it should have been in, then crops definitely would not be growing anywhere. I'm not saying there aren't mistakes or inconcistencies, because there's a ton, but the argument that it should be empty, and also not, makes about as much sense as what we have in the game (which is to say, not much). The city and the wasteland contradict each other in both versions presented in this thread, just in reverse. New Vegas's world makes a lot more sense in this way, nobody is denying that, least of all me. At the end of the day though I don't play these games for lore and realism, I play them for a world that interests me and gameplay, so all of this is moot.

No they wouldn't have entirely accepted it. Some fans didn't like parts of Fallout 2. It isn't just because Bethesda made it, its because they had no respect for the canon, and ripped off everything from the previous games.

And to answer your second point, the city can be decimated and have crops growing up the hill. Because DC was hit by the bombs 200 years before Fallout 3, so in that time, the radiation would be gone and vegetation would return. Which is why some people are annoyed, because Bethesda go both of those aspects wrong. By your logic, Hiroshima should have no vegetation at all, but thats clearly not the case, as its been nearly 70 years since the US dropped an atomic bomb on the city. In a timespan thats over double that, the capital wasteland should have a lot of vegetation.

Heh, think you missed my point, or I wasn't clear enough. My point is that whatever standard caps represent, for the capitol wasteland, it's the beleif that a cap has an intrinsic worth, that it doesn't "represent" something such as water or gold. Like the US dollar.

For instance, let's say that we'll use Widgets as money, and I want to buy an apple from you using Witdgets. If you say that the apple is worth three Widgets, and if I agree to pay you three Widgets for the apple, we've just established that an apple is worth three Widgets. Now, say that you run a store, and put a price, in Widgets, about what you have in there. If I agree to those prices, we would then established how many Widgets any given item is worth is in that store, without saying what the actual value of a Widget is.

Get what I'm saying?

Yes you can. Have you played the orginal Fallouts? The man made pre-war buildings should have been heavly destroyed in DC. Plant life should have then taken over much of the DC wasteland. So yes you can have both.

+1 my friend
as a non fo3 hater on these forums I completely agree with you

This actually isn't true because the "die hards", as you call people who have played and enjoyed the originals, know that Fallout is about much more then a devastated post-apocalyptic wasteland. Its about the human races never ending struggle against itself that just happens to be in a post-apocalyptic wasteland. If the wasteland had made sense and there hadn't been these inconsistencies then Fallout 3 would have been given a lot more favour.
It has been said many times by many dinosaurs that not a lot of them actually hate Fallout 3. I don't hate Fallout 3, the only one who I know for sure does is Arya Stark.

This.

Fallout 2 is still widely criticized for the unnecessary amount of pop-culture references.

There is also still some crtique on Fallout 1 for its use of a time-limit (something I personally didn't like either.)



That's a little hyperbolic. Its not like Bethesda when they were making Fallout 3 were rubbing their hands together and thinking "heh, now how can we [censored] up this series completely? Muhhaaa!" They genuinely tried to respect canon and keep it true to its original feel. First off they didn't retconn anything and attempted to make homages to the originals by including elements of their storylines (however this ended up being more repetitive than anything.)

In any case, it was Bethesda's first crack at a Fallout game and they were experimenting with it. They were attempting to adapt the game to fit their own style of game design while at the same time keep some resemblance to the series. Added to this is their own doubts on whether or not the game would actually sell.

Considering what Fallout: 3 could have been (aka another Burned Game) they did a fair job. I'm all up for citicizing Fallout 3's storyline and pointing out to Bethesda what they could have done better, but to say that Bethesda just didn't give a [censored] and decided to purposefully "tromp all over Fallout canon" just because they could is a bit ridiculous.
.
To be honest, in my view the only thing they really need to improve is the writing (which is a significant issue) and perhaps the town design. Had the storyline been on par with New Vegas it would be almost perfect. The rest of the issues with Fallout 3 are, in my view, able to be overlooked.

I didn't mean it as they purposefully stomped all over it, but they did change the Enclave and the Brotherhood of Steel into more black and white factions, which dosen't show much respect for the established canon.

East Coast Mutants came from Vault 87 exclusively, or did you overlook the dead Vault Dwellers on gurneys there?

The slides for Fallout 2 are for the regions of Fallout 2 exclusively. Prior to Bethesda's purchase of Fallout, the Bibles indicated that Avellone intended there to be remnant chapters elsewhere. Plus, Eden states he had the Enclave come to him to regroup once the Rig was lost.

The BoS in D.C. are no longer considered an official chapter by the Elders back in California, and a large part of it is because of Lyon's more sympathetic attitude towards the locals of D.C. The Outcasts are a splinter faction of a splinter faction, they believe the Western Elders way is right, but have no way of getting back to them during the game.

Aside from random spawning loot chests, in general it's not impossible to assume people walked the country with their goods from wherever. I mean, the Vault Dweller walked from Vault 13 to an area north of California. Then there's the BoS who walked to D.C. some people get lucky and can avoid people and raiders, others are brutally tough. Plus the ghoul who is making Super Jet knows the recipe, meaning he's likely from the West too.

Lol, YOU'RE missing what I'm saying. All I'm saying is the sole reason for a cap in D.C. is likely it's far less easy to counterfeit. Belief in a backing has nothing to do with counterfeiting. It's basic economics, spread to much money out in a system and you devalue a currency, if you make new caps you'll devalue to cap.

The gameplay wasn't really spectacular either. The rulesystem was completely tromped in favor of presenting a cheap shooter experience (NV did better, but it wasn't all that good either) - resulting in both poor RPG experience and poor shooter experience (needles to say I care more about the former).

The BOS wasn't changed at all.However Lyon's BoS emerged as a splinter group faction which held diffferent values from the original BOS and aren't really considered to be part of the orignal group. Bethesda made this very clear, which is one reason its a none-issue. People just overreacted originally. An entire faction is devoted to pointing out the difference between Lyon's group and the original BOS: The Outcasts. People mistake change for "tromping over canon." Lyon's BOS in and of itself was fine, its just that the writing could have been handled better to point out some of the flaws of the faction and to give the player a choice not to join them. Lyon's BOS shoots ghouls on sight, now if the wriiting was better, that point would have been emphasized more in order to shows that Lyon's BOS, while good, is not total angels. They're also incredibly arrogant.

Same goes for the Enclave. The Enclave is Fallout 3 really isn't that bad morally compared to Fallout 2. In Fallout 2 their plan was to wipe out the world's population, in Fallout 3 they have two plans. Eden wants to cleanse the Capital Wasteland (and just the CW mind you) area of all mutated creatures which includes dangerous mutants and other such creatures (along, unfortunately, with some wastelanders who don't make the cut, however this also includes "evil" wastelanders like raiders). While Autumn's plan is essentially the same as the BOS's. Once again however, it was Bethesda's writing which failed to show these points in detail and to give the player a choice. The details were there, they just aren't easily descernable.

In any case, how is the difference between the Enclave and the BOS any different than Fallout 2's storyline, with the single choice of Kill the Enclave? Fallout 2 did it better in that there were a multitude of minor factions to join and to roleplay as, however ultimately the main storyline from that game was just as black and white. In fact Fallout 3's was less black and white, its just that the options weren't really there at all (once again though, the Fallout 2 and 1 main storylines didn't really have much choice either. In fact, they had just as less).

Fallout 1 and 2 had amazing minor storylines choices however, which is really where Fallout 3 failed at.


Yes, certainly the gameplay could have been improved. Once again though, that was part of the experimentation process. New Vegas got it right by improving on Fallout 3's flaws in gameplay and by returning some features from the originals.

Yes, but Lyons is said to have had no problem killing almost everybody in the pitt (Which has [censored] gangs, but is civillised enough that people are raising children?) and then just changed when he got to the CW. That seems like a bad excuse so Bethesda can have their good-guy faction.
"Well, they were like the old Brotherhood, but now they're not."
And with Fallout 2, they explain that you can't join the Enclave because they don't accept outsiders because they aren't prime normals. Fallout 3 also had this, but messed it up by saying you are also a Vault Dweller, despite the fact you aren't from a Vault, which to me seemed like a poor attempt to make the LW more like the Vault Dweller, which was unnessecary. Yes Fallout 2 was black and white, but it has a very simple explanation for it, whereas Fallout 3 ruins it by ripping off elements from the older games. IMO, Bethesda caused several plot holes by just taking stuff directly from the older games.

Here's the thing: this was explained in the game. The BOS troopers reflect on how "Lyons was just as hard as we were once" (the Outcasts say this), but "he went soft". Its explained that after the Pitt, Lyons went through a change of heart in which he began to realize that just going into a town and klling everyone in it wasn't going to get the BOS anywhere. The Pitt changed him. Its called character development and *gasp* yes, Fallout 3 has it to some degree.

There is absoultely nothing wrong with how Bethesda made Lyon's group. Yeah, they were the old BOS, now........they're not. They've become a new faction altogether and Bethesda makes this perfectly clear. Crystal in fact.

How is this a bad thing again?


Yes. However you could side with the Master (technically) in Fallout 1 despite not being a mutant. There wasn't even an option in Fallout 2 to just allow the Enclave to win. Regardless the Enclave in Fallout 2 is even more black than they are in Fallout 3.

Simply saying "well you can't side with the Enclave in Fallout 2 because you are a wastelander" isn't an excuse. Otherwise there is no reason to criticize Fallout 3. That's a blatant use of double standards.



Right....so why is the fact that Fallout 3's storyline is black an white suddely bad if the first two games did essentially the same thing? Its like I said, Fallout 3 suffered from a lack of writing. Yes there was plot holes, yes there were problem which ultimately hindered the game. That is more of the problem than the "black and white storyline." However the details were there, and you can see where Bethesda was trying to go with it. Their choice in the story wasn't really that bad, it was the way they handled it. Had they tweaked it a bit to give a couple choices and greatly improved and expanded on the dialogue, Fallout 3's storyline could have blown the first two's out of the water. That's where the real problem lies, in that they didn't go that extra mile.

It just seems to me that people often treat the first two games as if they are somehow godly and unable to be critically looked at. New Vegas was the first Fallout game to really have multiple choices for the main storyline, and yet somehow when looking at Fallout 3 its like this is a given.

No he didn't. As far as I know its never been explained that way. There is no mention of him feeling guilty for what he did in the Pitt at all in the game. Bethesda just says that he changed when he arrived at the CW.


Really? What about the majority of the expedition staying with Lyons? There is no discontent within the group. Only a minority which are the outcasts don't like him going against the codex, and the rest are fine with it, except for one member in DLC. Its not that they've changed, its that they've done it so suddenly without explanation, and then nobody raises any concerns for the next 2 decades.


The Fallout 1 example dosen't make sense. The mutants wanted to turn everybody into super mutant, so of course they would allow you to join them. And I said that Fallout 3 also explained that you couldn't join the enclave because you weren't a prime normal, but for some reason they decided that the LW should also be a vault dweller who's father gained entry to a Vault that never opens. If they had said you were just a normal wastelander looking for his Father, then it would make sense that you couldn't join them, but Bethesda decided that you had to be a vault dweller but then it turns out you aren't one so now you can't join them. I'm not criticising Fallout 3 but not Fallout 2 for the same thing. I'm saying Fallout 2 had a simple explanation, whereas Fallout 3 had one that made no sense by having plot elements from the older games which didn't need to be there. I wouldn't have minded it so much if it was better explained. And I will admit that the Enclave was morally black in Fallout 2, and that is double standards. Sorry, I'll try to avoid that in the future.



I never said it being black and white was bad, I'm saying that they ripped off several elements from older games and turned at least one Faction which was morally grey in the previous main game they had a major role in into a faction which suddenly turned into the crusaders of the wasteland with very little explanation. If it had some more detail, I at least wouldn't have a big problem with the Brotherhood. Bethesda also made a black and white story which was pretty much a combination of the previous black and white stories, so its understandable why Fallout 3 gets more flak than the first two, seeing as its copying a large part of its predecessors.

It is explained. Defender Rococo Rockfowl says that Elder Lyon's "used to be as hard as we were, but then he went soft after we scourged the Pitt." Furthermore, Lyon's own diaries discuss how he questions himself daily on his decision to become more humanitarian and whether he made the right choice.

Elder Lyon's himself also dicusses his choice by saying how he understands why the Outcasts left, he just can't argee with how they see things. He sticks by his decision because its what he believes is right.

So yes, Bethesda does explain Elder's Lyon's thought process.




A minority? Really? The Outcasts make up at least half of what used to be the BOS's total force. They aren't a minority by any means. They have the strength to fully oppose Lyon's group. And the reason Lyon's group stayed with him was due to loyalty, and likely many agreed with his policies. However even within his group there's discontent. Scribe Rothchild believes that Elder Lyons is being to soft and he believes they should stick to original goals (its one of the reasons he is insufferably arrogant). However he too stayed because of loyalty.

Its all there.





Granted that's true. I guess my ultimate point was that Fallout 2's storyline allows no option to join the Enclave as does Fallout 1. There isn't even an "hey Mr. Richardson, do with me what you will" choice. Even Fallout 1's is more of a "cop out" choice than a real choice of siding with Unity.

Fallout 3 allows more options in terms of supporting the Enclave than Fallout 2 does. Which really isn't saying much.

But yes, I agree with you regarding the LW's status as a Vault dweller/not a vault dweller. It would have been better in my view if the LW would have just been a resident of 101. That's one improvement I believe the storyline could have utilized.

Also forcing the player to work with the BOS was also a major, major, problem. Something Fallout 2 or 1 doesn't suffer from.



Yes and this is what I'm trying to say. The actual elements of the story weren't the problem, it was the way they were handled.




And I'm saying that's just not the case. Lyon's BOS is clearly made out to be not the original BOS.


I wouldn't say copying so much as referencing. But it certainly does seem to come across that way.

Still, some changes here and there and it could have been superb in my view. A choice between Eden, Autumn, the BOS, and perhaps a wild card would have done wonders.

I can't remember fully, but I think I remember shooting a protectotron in the head and seeing gore come out of it (if I remember correctly) which would imply that they put brains in protectotrons. But I could be wrong.

Ok, it does explain why he changed, but guilt for what he did in the pitt isn't the given explanation, and simply the statement 'it happened after the pitt' isn't much to go on. I would like to think he felt very guilty from what he did there, but there isn't as much info as I'd like on the subject, and one statement can't be taken as fact.


Ok, fair point, that does fit in Fallout: New Vegas, where the Paladins don't like the idea of directly challenging Elders, like at HELIOS One and McNamara and Hardin. I would like the ability to act on these doubts, rather than just having a mention and no more.

Perhaps its true that it could have been pointed out better, but I believe its more implied than anything. There may be something else I'm missing as well, but I don't feel like going through the diaries or his dialogue.

In any case, I feel the main point is that its there. Lyon's went through a transformation, it was probably due to the scourge of the Pitt and his journey east and this seems to be the explanation given by the NPC's. That's good enough for me really.



True that could have been an option. Especially to perhaps work with the Outcasts on a more personal level or to act on power shifts within Lyon's group. Like I said, more options and better writing would have improved the game significantly.

More options to alter the course of factions and game events are always welcome changes.

I don't see why there should be a option to join the Enclave, in Fallout 2 you're a tribal who's entire family has been abducted by these people who perform experiments on them. Why wouldn't you want to foil their plans and save your family?
And in Fallout 3 they are responsible for killing your father, stopping Project Purity and oh, they shoot you on sight, as you're not allowed back into V101, you don't really have anywhere to call home. Why wouldn't you want to kill the Enclave?
This is different from Vegas where you don't have anything that roots you down, you hold no grudge against any of the main quest factions, therefor it could be easy to join Legion.
But if your family had been crucified and killed by Legion then I don't see how it would be coherent for the storyline to join them.

I don't think that it's about that final quest for Fallout 2 though, it starts from a linear root, it's base point, and it ends at it's linear end, it's end point, but in between those two points are the choices to make until you reach it.

The difference from that and Fallout 3 is that in Fallout 3 you never really get any choice in the main quest at all, it's linear until the end at which point you're given a couple of choices.

[edit]

Anyway, my point is that joining Enclave makes no sense as they're responsible for horrible things happening to those close to you. Would you let a murderer go, who killed your sibling, child or parent, after he said some pretty speech? Hell, would you even "join" him in killing others who have families that loves them?
It makes no sense to me.

But the difference between them is that Fallout 2 has choices in between, while Fallout 3 only has some at the end, all of which are still pretty linear, apart from the final two with Broken Steel.