I haven't read Sagan's book (should read the others too). Right now I'm reading a few "Black Company" books (Glen Cook).
*I'm not sure if I read Ringworld or not (though I should if I did); I may have started it and lost or not finished it. It sounds very familiar (besides knowing about it).

Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Your_Scattered_Bodies_Go pronto if you like Sci Fi. One of the most unique premises for a Sci Fi book I have seen, its even better if you know a thing or two about history. Like who Sir Richard Burton was. The end of the series is startling and brilliant, you'll read through the half dozen books in a week to find out whats really going on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ringworld is an epic adventure and a fairly short read. I read it in a day. A brief brush up on physics isn't required but is recommended. So much so that revisions had to be made in the sequels, because a bunch of MIT nerds anolyzed it and found out that the Ringworld would actually be unstable. Niven also wrote Lucifer's Hammer, a Post Apocalyptic novel regarding meteors.

Who ever said Halo created ringed habitats anyway? lol

Back on topic. Hypothetically if we add the ability to be a ghoul, I think it would best be implemented with a story based Perk. Although if its effect were not to be irreversible, a stern warning would have to be given to the player before hand.

It would be cool, but not even in fallout 4 it will happen. (Most likely)

Did anything in fallout 3 look like the things from the old games?
Not even vault doors had the same design.

I know at least the deathclaws look like their old clay counterparts. The ferals looking somewhat like old ghouls. (I wonder if anyone has tried to switch the non-ferals meshes to look like them. Then again they would have to be reclassified as creatures) Also some vault set pieces and wreckage. I think you could remake Junktown with existing pieces. Though the gate piece is a bit smaller and needs to be scaled up.

Yup, some parts are recreated.
But most parts are completely new.
I wonder why.
I mean, it is possible to recreate things from the old sprite/critter animations to full 3d.
So why did they choose to change the majority of stuff?
I'm thinking it might have to do with them first purchasing the license to create 3 games only and didn't want to create any legal issues with it so they created new stuff to avoid such things.
But then when they purchased the entire IP from Interplay they had already created so many different counter-parts that they just stuck with it.
Or maybe their design/concept artists wanted to have more freedom for their own creativity to create new things instead of just copying off old work.
But that isn't very lore-friendly IMO.
Only explanation I can think of.
I hope they really try to recreate the old designs for Fallout 4.
It just felt so off for almost everything to have new designs in Fallout 3.
Hmm, but is getting offtopic. This should be in the "What do you hope they omitted from Fallout 3" thread.

This.

Creativity is not exclusive to fans and past games, developers have ideas too and when you own the Ip you can as I have been trying to say make anything "canon" if you wish. Canon exists because someone created it and then it was expanded upon by others, there is no one aspect of life in which there is a single written document with only one theory, there are many documents and they all aspire to different theories on the same topic. Equally there are many impressions of what is canon or lore accurate and of all these varied opinions none of them have any grounds stronger then those of the IP owner to decide what is and is not their world.

I kinda like the idea as well Hadn't really thought about it before though...

Even if they own the IP it isn't lore friendly to change a lot of stuff.
And in fallout 3 there were far less stuff that was accurate from the old games than there were new designs.
There's nothing wrong with a new design but as I said, almost everything had a new design.
That isn't lore friendly at all.

Lore and canon is there for a reason.
What point is there to lore or canon if they're just gonna change it every game?
They own the IP, sure, they can change whatever they want, sure, but is it good for fallout to do that?
IMO, no. It is not.
One time this is http://www.fallout3.phx.pl/obrazki/nowiny/deathclaw_model.jpg and the next this is http://www.billcasselman.com/monster_bigger.jpg and then this is http://www.pollsb.com/photos/o/59924-next_monster.jpg.
The lore just becomes a joke and nothing is accurate anymore.

The artists are of course allowed to let their creativity be shown, but there needs to be an explanation for it.
Molerats, they could've just had Dr Lesko say something like "Well, because of bla bla bla they lost all their fur".
And BAM! Right there we have an explanation for why molerats look different.
They could've had some log at RobCo factory which explained the newer designs for Robobrains and Mr Gutsy's.
But they didn't do that.
They just changed a crap load of stuff without giving any explanation.
Which is why IMO it isn't lore friendly at all.

So, what good can come out of changing lore every time?

Too long : Didn't read: Artists are of course allowed to show their creativity but if they're gonna do something that contradicts lore than at least let the writers come up with an explanation for it so it's at least somewhat acceptable.

Pretty much everything was a legitimate complaint but this part, it's [censored].

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20060905001007/fallout/images/e/ee/Maroboaa_se.gif

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20090107121216/fallout/images/thumb/d/d7/Robobrain.png/250px-Robobrain.png

Same applies for the gutsy/handy thing. Apart from their slight color variations. Theres next to no design change (apart from F3 robots having internal weapons as opposed to using a Laser Rifle or Sniper Rifle like the previous generation did which I may assume is something in the engine, or it may just be a miniscule improvement)

Point in short. At this point, I think you're just trying to find a reason to call Fallout 3 a complete failure. Not to sound hostile, but you never seem to have anything good to say about Fallout 3, when there is alot of good things about the game.

Robobrains did not have built in lasers in the old games.
And Gutsy's does not look like the original design.

Fallout 3 was a great game, I think it's one of the few singleplayer games I've spent over 500 hours on.
But was it a great fallout game?
Not great, but ok.
Not bad, but ok.
(IMO of course)

A lot of stuff were really great in it, awesome in fact.
But a lot of stuff was awful crap.

I have a love/hate relationship with fallout 3.
I wanna take it to bed and make sweet love with it while at the same time gut it with a machete.
So I don't hate fallout 3.
But I still do take my chances to pick on it.

I don't know if this is the right term but: Devils advocate?

Yes it is there for a reason, to tell a story and create a world, I never implied the lore would be changed every game lets not exagerate to make your argument seem more feasable and I also believe aspects of lore can be changed to suit a better world which will neither harm the IP or require everything about the world to be destroyed in order o affect the change.

As to your use of the term "lore friendly" I fear that is a matter of opinion on what is and is not beneficial to the world, Fallout 3 changed some things and apparently it did the game no harm at all judging by how many people bought it and pre ordered New Vegas.

Lets not blow it out of proportion here, the change in backgroud from "no new ghouls" to "new ghouls previously unknown about" is not and never will require the lore to be rewritten from page one and neither will it impact the games appeal for the vast majority of the fans. An explanation could be given and often is given when lore needs to be changed, often the people arguing against the change still refuse to acknowledge it which only proves an explanation dosn't do anything to placate them.

Ok.

Looking through my post I admit I exaggerated some parts.
New lore can be great for the franchise as long as it doesn't directly contradict old lore.

I would rather become a super mutant than a ghoul. Actually, I wouldn't want to become a ghoul at all and I'd very much like to become a super mutant.

Few things:

1. If your already a ghoul starting out a level one, then age is irrelevant to what the character can do - this wouldn't break the ghoul as a PC race.

2. Actually such transformations can happen much, much faster depending on how much radiation your exposed to and what mutations result. If your exposed to enough, the human body can pretty much melt in minutes. We go from that extreme to very low levels of radiation that has no effect, and everything inbetween. How fast does ghoulification take in all cases? As fast as Obsidian/Bethesda would want it to - so I don't see "rate of decay" as immersion breaking for a ghoul NPC anymore than the Vampire changes did in Oblivion (and those changes are very fast too considering).

Again I don't think they did this in FNV, but there isn't anything in the Canon that would have prevented them from doing so.

I think you weren't here for the big "It opens inward, and doesn't have the same number of teeth" argument. :laugh:

IMO there shouldn't be. Its true of reality, but should not be true of constructed settings. There is a lot of truth in the expression "too many cooks in the kitchen". Anything that happened (like the design of the Super Sledge say...) is assumed to have happened, but when you find an old relic Super Sledge that is presented as original... It should look plausibly enough like the original or you can't believe that it is. Same goes for the Mr.Handy Droids. Had they used the model for Mr. Gutsy, and used a different model for Mr. Handy (that looked like him)... That would have not broke with canon and would have bolstered the the historical presence that they were obviously trying to identify with. They called it Fallout 3, and despite FO2 they used bottle caps even though the only ones that would miss them are the ones that know why they were gone. :shrug: I find that odd.

:trophy:


I don't see ghouls as a race, I would liken them to disaster survivors that are recognized for life as having been there. I know that it is the vogue of late to invent ways to have more ghouls and to have new ones as PC's (and as I said, technically I'm not against it), but [to me] it just seems like extrapolating on what may have been a one time event that has no more repeatability that being able to track down Godzilla.

yeah, but what people fail to realise is: Fallout 3 sold what, more in its first WEEK than FO1 and FO2 total sales together? That means, dunno the figures (maybe someone has them) that 70% of Fallout 3 players never played 1 or 2. So for for 70% of people playing, the Fallout 3 stuff IS the canon. (and that includes me). The molerats could have been three headed with rainbow fur in 1 and 2, but that's irrelevant to me, to me they are bald and pink with big teeth :cheat: Same with ghouls, supermutants, power armour, etc etc.

Of course, in that respect, it doesn't matter to me what it looks like for Fallout 3 - whether it's identical to the first two, or completely different. However, it WILL matter in New Vegas, as I (we) expect a molerat to be pink and bald now. In essence, moving back to 1/2 design would break the canon now, for the majority of players. (Not for the hardcoe faithful, obviously, but the other 70% who bought and enjoy the game for what it is)

(apologies if my stats are all messed up, that's how I understand it at least)

So old fans needs to be force-fed with the new lore and happily accept it while new fans doesn't have to bother giving a flying crap about the old lore which was what made fallout in the first place?

By the way, are we still on topic?

Direct market percentages don't compare well, as the market that they reflect has changed size over the years.

Fallout 3 is not aimed at fallout 2 players (even though there is some overlap, and many returning fans that like FO3 despite the changes, or because of the changes).

How exactly would retaining key item appearances from the FO2 design affect the modern player's view of the game?

Fallout 3 has had more sales than F1 and F2, admitted, but this doesnt mean canon can be treated like the 'red headed stepchild' of the fallout series. Minor rewrites here and there? acceptable. Why is there a giant hummer that also works like a vertibird and can shoot puppies out of its headlights? BECAUSE WE WANTED IT TO BE CANON SO HAHAHA. That isnt acceptable.

The first page and last page of this topic bear no relation to each other. As it is now talking about the lore of the games you can take it to Universe or Series, but this one has run it's course.