You're right. Fallout 3 should have been about flying pigs and giant squirrels, continuity be damned, we wanted a Fallout 3 with nothing resembling the previous games! Then we'd have basked in the glory that felt nothing at all even slightly like a fallout game!

The enclave likes to think of itself as being the last remaining american government. Fallout 3 would have felt odd with some sort of other bad guy (see above ). It had been like 10+ years since the last fallout game.

Would Fans really have meshed with New Vegas if it had come first? I don't think so. I think the people that were fans of 1 and 2 wanted to visit the same content again to get back into the story. It would be WAY weird to all the sudden play a sequel 10+ years later and try to piece together the story of the old games. FO3 worked really well to get people interested in the Fallout universe again.

You need to put yourself in someone elses shoes for a minute!

You're a company and you're all also a big fan of the Fallout series, which is dead.

You decide to try to buy the license to it and succeed.

You, as a fan see: (not the creator or in any way related to the original creators of the original games) have to now do your best to work with someone elses storyline.

Ripping off would have been if they tried to do Van Buren. They (thankfully) left that untouched and the original creators got to re-create it into New Vegas.

You should be thankful to Bethesda for bringing new life to the Fallout games, otherwise you'd still be playing the demo of VB and wishing upon a star that'd never fall. Furthermore, without Fallout 3's engine, New Vegas could be radically different.

I say both games are fun and leave it at that. I'd also like to point out that J.E. SAWYER wasn't involved in Fallout 1 and 2 and was barely involved with VB, btw so New Vegas isn't -exactly- by the original creators entirely. *wink*

It would not have felt odd with any other Faction then the Enclave. You talk about continity with other games but FO2 has the Enclave being destroyed. FO3 had to come up with a half ass reason why they should be in DC and never explained why they have so many in DC or why they have the downgrade in armour.

New Vegas does not have the Enclave, we have new factions Caesar's Legion and it feel way more Fallout then FO3 IMO.

Would Fans really have meshed with New Vegas if it had come first? I don't think so. I think the people that were fans of 1 and 2 wanted to visit the same content again to get back into the story. It would be WAY weird to all the sudden play a sequel 10+ years later and try to piece together the story of the old games. FO3 worked really well to get people interested in the Fallout universe again.

You need to put yourself in someone elses shoes for a minute!

You're a company and you're all also a big fan of the Fallout series, which is dead.

You decide to try to buy the license to it and succeed.

You, as a fan see: (not the creator or in any way related to the original creators of the original games) have to now do your best to work with someone elses storyline.

Ripping off would have been if they tried to do Van Buren. They (thankfully) left that untouched and the original creators got to re-create it into New Vegas.

Sure it would have. You say that now but you're talking out of your rear. If you booted up Fallout 3 for the first time and the bad guys are... I dunno... Italian mobsters or something, you'd be like ehhh... this is Fallout?

What do you really remember from FO1 and 2? I remember Mutants, Ghouls and THE ENCLAVE.

America isn't THAT big of a place that there can't be Enclave (which have flying vehicles) in more than one state.

And? Chris Avellone was, If I wanted to recreate Fallout, I would just leave it the way it WAS, And no, Ripping off is using content already existed, You can't rip off what was'nt made, Oh, Fallout 3 was just awful, Yes, People would have meshed well if it came first, Because it's actually ORIGINAL, And you know what? A game thats actually RELATED to the first games would be great.

There wasn't a GECK in FO1.

Water wasn't purified either.

You needed a water purifying CHIP, completely two different things.

Also, there isn't a super mutant VAT in FO3. Furthermore *rolls eyes* it's really not that far-fetched that an AMERICAN army would be involved in a retro-AMERICAN POST APOCALYPTIC SEQUEL IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS GAME HAD THEM.

I enjoyed both games. Sorry for the off-topic, I'm just tired of the ignorant FO3 hate because it wasn't made by the original 'doodz'.

Your the person that brought it up, If your tired of it, Stop posting here.

Fan-Mod? I would'nt mind it if it was, But since its canon, Its a pile of [censored], I never said Avellone is the [censored] lead designer? But no, You can't read what I'm saying correctly, Avellone was attached to Fallout: New Vegas, Helped write some things, And other [censored].

Yes how original of them to mash a Fallout 2 MacGuffin with a Fallout 1 theme.



Well yeah it was you were just looking for different solutions to the same problem of contaminated water.



Yes just like how the Enclave's plan in Fallout 3 is to poison the water with the modified FEV instead of the air. Two completely different things.



Vault 87 I think it was? Considering the only possible ending to the previous game involved the utter destruction of the Enclave their sudden reappearance as a major antagonist on the other side of the country is a bit far-fetched.



There's nothing ignorant about the criticism Fallout 3's main plot gets.

Um no, my first post was directly quoting yours which was making fun/complaining about FO3 in all capslock. FO3 was great tyvm and a lot of fun to play.

You're really disregarding that Sawyer (not your beloved Avellone) is the one who was in charge of the entire game design of NV...? And he wasn't a part of the old FO team ..

My post was in reply to someone saying "Fallout 3 was original" or something, Chris Avellone was attached to Fallout 2, And designed New Reno, I'm not saying AVELLONE WAS THE MOTHER [censored] PERSON WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE GAME.

If you could read correctly, Maybe you would know this.

Avellone, Was also attached to Van Buren as the lead designer, after he left, J.E. was put in charge, Then he left.

EDIT: I played FO3 hoping they would have SOMETHING decent, But no.


Mothership Zeta was crap, Point Lookout was original, But was just straight down weird, Anchorage was pretty bad and linear, Broken Steel made everything horrible.

My point stims from the fact that people like you are saying FO3 "stole" content from previous FO games but NV is "original" because it was designed by the "original team" But I'm trying to INFORM you that Sawyer is the LEAD DESIGNER OF NV. Not anyone from the old team, in other words... he calls the shots, not Brian Fargo, not Chris Avellone.

Why did you play FO3 so far if you hated it so much, btw? Seems to me you had fun if you stuck with it all the way to vault 87.

Well I couldn't disagree more. When I think of a nuclear wasteland I think of water being a problem and it is in all the games... does that make it a bad plot element? I don't see why it would.

If anything I find NV doesn't feel like a Fallout game at all. Running around a cowboy world and playing card games while fighting roman soldiers just doesn't feel fallout-ish, the game is still fun though and I praise it for that.

About V87.. I guess there were VATS there but I didn't see any, just empty 'rooms' with failed experiments, I didn't see any giant VAT tanks for dipping people in. Mainly saw super mutants and enclave soldiers.. doesn't matter though. For all these people who seemed to hate FO3, they sure played through it pretty far..

Well I couldn't disagree more. When I think of a nuclear wasteland I think of water being a problem and it is in all the games... does that make it a bad plot element? I don't see why it would.

If anything I find NV doesn't feel like a Fallout game at all. Running around a cowboy world and playing card games while fighting roman soldiers just doesn't feel fallout-ish, the game is still fun though and I praise it for that.

About V87.. I guess there were VATS there but I didn't see any, just empty 'rooms' with failed experiments, I didn't see any giant VAT tanks for dipping people in. Mainly saw super mutants and enclave soldiers.. doesn't matter though. For all these people who seemed to hate FO3, they sure played through it pretty far..

My post was in reply to someone saying "Fallout 3 was original" or something, Chris Avellone was attached to Fallout 2, And designed New Reno, I'm not saying AVELLONE WAS THE MOTHER [censored] PERSON WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THE GAME.


Avellone, Was also attached to Van Buren as the lead designer, after he left, J.E. was put in charge, Then he left.

EDIT: I played FO3 hoping they would have SOMETHING decent, But no.


Mothership Zeta was crap, Point Lookout was original, But was just straight down weird, Anchorage was pretty bad and linear, Broken Steel made everything horrible.

World history in the Fallout world was exactly the same as in reality up to the end of World War II, which is where it started gradually diverging from real history.

Caesar is the one who's wrong about Rome, Roman history wasn't different in the Fallout world.

The pros and cons of the realism of the Legion can be debated back and forth all day. What I consider to be appallingly absent is that NOBODY surrenders, ever (except Pilus). There's no arguing that the core groups may be "fight to the last man" fanatical: Mongols Golden Horde, Persian Immortals, Roman Praetorians, French Old Guard, etc. Those are elite troops, chosen and trained for just that kind of dedication. However, _elite_ troops generally accounted for less than 10% of the large numbers of troops that an army will field. Of the remaining 90%, sure, many might be intimidated by the consequences of a _failed_ surrender attempt. That is, "What happens if our guys _actually_ win?" Or failing to be "aggressive enough", at which point the Soviet NKVD troops WILL machinegun any soldiers that try to retreat, or Prussian sergeants stick a pike in anyone that falters.

When all is said and done though, MOST people actually want to live. If the ONLY tactic an army employs is "Banzai!", the grunts will start to realize that "Following orders WILL get me killed, sooner or later." As a result, throughout history, EVERY army has been plagued with desertion and had many soldiers surrender rather than die fighting. Even Imperial Japanese and SS troopers have been known to surrender. So suggesting that out of the entire Legion army, spread out all along the Colorado River and committed in 2- to 4-man units, a significant number WOULD take the opportunity to surrender rather than continue fighting a losing engagement. And all the NCR would have to do to ensure that the Legion failed would be to plaster the front lines with leaflets that read, "Surrender now and start a new life in the NCR!" Between desertions and plummeting morale as the Legion clamps down on Security HARD (decimation, etc.), the NCR would be hard pressed processing the flood of surrendering POWs.

There are several obvious examples in History upon which Caesar's Legion is based, the Roman Empire being the obvious one. There are also the Aztecs, The Persians, the Mongols, the Zulus, the Napoleonic French Empire, etc. All of them were militarily aggressive empires that would conquer neighbors, and then draft the conquered nation's military forces into its own army. However, in FNV all legionaries are shown to be suicidally committed to the Legion. This is contrary to actual History, where it has been demonstrated time and time again that draftees for the most part do NOT willingly throw their lives away just because their new masters command it. Most conscripted nations usually just "go through the motions" and when confronted by pointedly capable opponents, surrender at that first opportunity.

Soldiers of the core nationality -- Romans, Mongols, Persians, etc. -- often fought as fanatics, to the death. Not so the draftees from conquered nations/empires/tribes.

Additionally, the Legion is portrayed as VERY hostile towards the use of higher tech weapons (which makes them futuristic Luddites: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite). In terms of domestic production, that might be acceptable, but certainly NOT when facing opponents armed with Space Age weapons. The Aztecs disintegrated when facing off with the Spaniards armed with a few score matchlocks, a couple cannon, and a handful of horses. Legionaries armed with machetes, some slug-throwers, and a few laser rifles would literally melt under the attention of a squad of Brothers armed with Gatling lasers. Furthermore, the Legion soldiers would KNOW that outcome was inevitable. There's nothing soldiers hate more than the thought that their lives are being literally thrown away with no hope of success. The leaders' staunch refusal to use readily available superior weapons would definitely de-motivate the rank-and-file Legion grunts.

Lastly, Caesar MUST realize that his mighty empire is doomed to disintegrate as soon as he dies. He's obviously enough of a historian to recognize the similarity to the Macedonian Empire, and what became of it when Alexander died. Knowing that without him, there is NO unifying force to hold all those defeated tribes together, one wonders what made him think that the cost of all that death and destruction was a worthwhile investment. If he did believe it to be so, just _what_ was it that made it worthwhile?