Fallout 4 vs Fallout 2

Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by justsettheradio, Mar 9, 2016.

  1. DirtyOldShoe

    DirtyOldShoe Some kind of lucky

    Dec 15, 2015

    Yes it does.

    No it isn't. If Emil took a shit and Todd put a Fallout label on it ,it would not be a fallout game, especially by my definition. But I think that might have already happened.

    Not a personal attack, just my person observations.


    I'm not trying to insult you, I do find it entertaining that you were insulted though. Chin up sport. I'm just having fun.
  2. ZigzagPX4

    ZigzagPX4 The Swiftness of the Ranger

    Nov 22, 2015
    Well, that just kills the whole point of my rant, doesn't it? If it's your subjective opinion that Fallout 4 is not a Fallout game, sure, no one's policing your thoughts. It's still legally a Fallout game, though. If you deny that, you may as well deny the fact that Bethesda Softworks exist.

    Condescending to someone and assuming they have lower intellect isn't insulting? Would hate to live where you live if that's the case.
  3. Mr Fish

    Mr Fish Snug Rubber

    Sep 11, 2010
    Doesn't matter to me if it is officially part of the series. I understand fully well that Bethesda owns Fallout and can declare whatever the hell they want to. I just don't care. Bethesda ain't my god so I'll defy their word of law as much as I can. Fallout 4 is objectively part of the Fallout franchise. That's true. But that doesn't mean it is objectively "Fallout". Bethesda doesn't get to declare that. They can buy IP's as much as they want to but just because they own the IP does not mean they own the ideals that made up the IP. You can't own that, you can only adhere to it. Which Bethesda chooses not to do.
    • [Like] [Like] x 5
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  4. DirtyOldShoe

    DirtyOldShoe Some kind of lucky

    Dec 15, 2015
    You confuse your own defeatism with my optimism.
    These can be tricky words, so take your time in becoming familiar with them. I believe in you.
  5. ZigzagPX4

    ZigzagPX4 The Swiftness of the Ranger

    Nov 22, 2015
    Do you get paid to advertise online dictionaries or something? :roll:

    Now this entire paragraph, I agree with.
  6. whirlingdervish

    whirlingdervish Brahmin Cavalry Commander

    Jul 3, 2007
    There's a reason we use the term retcon, instead of calling everything currently considered canon to be so without qualification.

    If I don't play Fallout 4 (and never will) it doesn't matter to me in terms of my ability to play and enjoy the actual Fallout games, if they were to change how Jet was invented, or propose that the US govt had the inclination to build a giant nonsensical battle robot when they already had men in fairly impervious power armor moving mechanized warfare toward the smaller scale from things like big battle tanks/robots, or if they made the vertibirds nuclear powered.

    Those are retcons. They affect the current products and their lore, and can and should be ignored if they are stupid.

    If someone bought up the rights to Tolkien's work and put out a silly novel that stated Gandalf was really a werewolf orc hybrid that ate babies, it would not change The Lord of The Rings. It would only change the quality of future installments in the series, which I would not buy.
  7. DirtyOldShoe

    DirtyOldShoe Some kind of lucky

    Dec 15, 2015
    I also quote answers that were already given.
  8. ZigzagPX4

    ZigzagPX4 The Swiftness of the Ranger

    Nov 22, 2015
    I'm sure whoever you're trying to impress is very proud of you.

    Well, who does the canon belong to then? The legal owner of the franchise? Fuck no, not by the definition we're going with here. The fans? Having continuity of a franchise be determined by its fans is grounds for a colossal mess, of arguments, disagreements and compromises. The original creator? I only have to say "George Lucas" and this argument is downed immediately. All of the above? That sounds like grounds for an even larger mess.

    We're really just talking about fiction here, which means there's never any solid facts because fiction isn't real, so I guess it just falls down to the subjective opinions of each individual who follows the franchise. My opinion is that Fallout 4 is a bad Fallout game but is still a Fallout game. I'm not an officer of the thought police and if someone disagree, good for them, no one minds. My sole problem is with people denying the legal status of series. Canon is a fairly loose term, so while denial over legal status gets annoying for me, I don't really care who believes what is canon or not canon because in the end, it's all fictional, and getting seriously flared up over something that is not real is complete nonsense.
  9. DirtyOldShoe

    DirtyOldShoe Some kind of lucky

    Dec 15, 2015
    Mission accomplished
    It was you!
    Thank you @ZigzagPX4

    I was in the bathroom all day with the FO4s so I wasn't in the best mood. I think someone slipped some ex-lax into my chocolate fondue.
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2016
  10. whirlingdervish

    whirlingdervish Brahmin Cavalry Commander

    Jul 3, 2007
    It is a vague term, but if you think of canon like how we treat a living document, ie the US Constitution, you will probably end up in the right vein.

    If the legislature tried to make stupid amendments to the US constitution that broke it, or added in things that we're obviously diametrically opposed to things that were clearly stated in it, there would be a public outcry and a loss of respect for the quality and usefulness of that living document. Our system of government based on it would lose credibility and the parts of it's structure wholly based on the constitution would be called into question at the very least.

    Canon, like a living document, CAN change but it should never change for the worse: it should evolve for the better.

    The real problem lies in who thinks what is "better" in our situation, but things can be objectively defined as better than other things. It's not a purely subjective argument.

    While one group may think that lots of shooty shooty bang bang is superior to well thought out choice and consequence or character development thoughout a cRPG, we can look to things like the definition of a cRPG for guidance.

    'Splosions might be an essential feature of some games, and all cRPGs are inherently games, but it does not follow that all cRPGs need 'splosions at all.

    When it comes to Canon, internal consistency is a good yardstick to use to determine if a change/retcon is "better" than what it supplanted. Using that yardstick we can follow a logical process like above to determine what which is better and what deserves to change.
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  11. Tom Bishop

    Tom Bishop It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 12, 2015
    This is the kind of argument that led the TES lore community to adopt C0DA. We need someone who worked on one of the older Fallout games to write a long, rambling story that concludes with the idea that canon is nothing more than what we individually choose.
    • [Rad] [Rad] x 1
  12. Millim

    Millim Half-way Through My Half-life

    Oct 13, 2010
    Canon can be used very loosely. Nothing really abides by its own canon anyway.
    Look at the Metal Gear series in which the lore changes with every release.

    The difference with Fallout canon and Metal Gear canon however is that Fallout allows you to tell your own story.
    So there are somethings that happened in the story, not all of it.
    There are some issues I can overlook, but others I can't like the kid in the fridge, considering an important plot point of the first game heavily involved making sure the Ghouls have water.
    I think at this point, Bethesda has made their own series.
    In fact, I don't get why they didn't just make their own IP instead of buying one up.
    Did they honesty do it cause they sat there and was like "look at all this cool shit we can advertise?"

    I mean, the Fallout series wasn't one that was particular popular among console gamers, I never heard of the series until 2008.
    Plus the 2nd game was released 10 years before the 3rd game meaning they started in the middle of the series.
    Then there's also the fact they kind of lost what made Fallout good to begin with so they weren't targeting it to the old fans of the series.

    I really don't know with this, were Bethesda just... lazy?
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  13. Spacemunkey

    Spacemunkey Vault Senior Citizen

    Dec 4, 2015
    It really does. Can they erase the past, no, but as the present owners of the IP they can d
    I understand the sentiment, but are we really going to compare video game canon to the framework of our country? Bethesda owns all things Fallout and if in the next game they decided that the BOS blimp would lead a squad of aliens to the west coast and destroy the NCR that would be their right as the owners of the IP. Do we as fans have to buy it, no, do we have to like it, no, can we criticize and ridicule it, yes, does that change the fact that for better or worse that is now Fallout, no. Canon is made and changed at the whim of the owner of the IP, just look at Star Wars, fucking like it or not Jar Jar is canon. We as fans of the series feel a connection to it for all our time spent in the world and we hate to see where it's been taken, but we don't own it and we don't decide where it goes,unfortunately BGS does.
  14. whirlingdervish

    whirlingdervish Brahmin Cavalry Commander

    Jul 3, 2007
    While I understand that angle, I'm talking more specifically about certain canon changes that they can and do make that render the result something inherently un-Fallout.

    Something like Liberty Prime skirts the edge: his existence is plausible in the universe of Fallout but makes fairly little sense when they had other better options for heavy weapons platforms already established.

    Changing radiation into straight up magic, or changing the unique culture of the BoS into white knights ala FO3 from techno-hoarding isolationists, plunges right over the edge into "you had no right" territory.

    Jar Jar as an example, does not undermine ideas central to the core concepts and established history of the Star Wars universe.

    He shits all over the flavor of the Star Wars movie he is in, and makes it stupid and goofier than it was already going to be, but his existence (unsavory as it is) doesn't turn Obi Wan into a giant blue sentient jelly dong that spouts one liners.

    He doesn't make the Force into something that it is not, or change the "force will be balanced by person X" prophecy that is central to the overarching plot and which drove many of the choices people made in that plot.

    I think the developer or IP owner has the right to make changes, but if they go too far it is the job of the rest of us to consider it a one-off or a screwup or a terrible retcon that should be corrected in future installments.

    Gaming is an interactive activity, and without the Gamer, the game is nothing. Because it is not a solid tangible thing, without fans who care about it being consistent and good, canon is nothing.
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  15. ZigzagPX4

    ZigzagPX4 The Swiftness of the Ranger

    Nov 22, 2015
    That "rest of us" never seems to be very good at compromise or consensus. I feel it's detrimental to let fans have any major input in how a creator handles the writing of his or her creation.

    Fair point - in this case, Bethesda was not the creator, and should not have control over the canon - but there have been a few occasions where authors have been bullied by his or her fans into changing the outcome of a story, which is one of the cases where I find fan decisions to be negative overall.

    I know that's not the case here, but it's something I never like to see with any series. Shared input is one thing, the creator having less input is another thing. The latter is something I personally detest.
  16. whirlingdervish

    whirlingdervish Brahmin Cavalry Commander

    Jul 3, 2007
    I can see it from that side too.

    If people badger George RR Martin until he is forced to make Jon Snow not dead, I will be pissed. :0
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  17. Earth

    Earth Vault Senior Citizen

    Apr 7, 2013
    The precedent for Fallout "canon" was set with POS. If it's a POS like Fallout 4 is, then it is vatted.

  18. 0phantom0

    0phantom0 First time out of the vault

    Jul 25, 2016
    "Fallout" 4 is just mainstream game that stupid kids think is best game ever.
    First 2 fallouts are some of the best games ever>
    "Fallout" 4 for isn't RPG isn't just 3. and 1. person shooter that has no choice and no fucking sense..
    Here's a short review of fallout games.

    Fallout 1 - As i already said it's one of the best games ever. It's a real rpg where you have freedom and choice, awesome story and awesome quests. 9/10
    Fallout 2 - Similar to fo1 freedom, choice, quests... 8/10
    Fallout 3 - Fucking sucks. 12587 hours long tutorial,stupid story,no choice,you aren't even real protagonist,and worst ending ever... 2/10
    Fallout NV - True fallout. Fixed everything fo3 fucked up, cool story , characters, factions, everything! 9/10
    Fallout 4 - Not fallout, not rpg, not good, no choice, just regular open world 1.&3.ps 2/10
  19. 0wing

    0wing Все умрут, а я волномут

    Mar 23, 2015
    Strangely, I find these two games rather similar. Well, as sequels. But (a big BUTT) FO2 remained RPG and FO4 is not so. Almost Star Wars Ep.4 vs Ep.7 situation here, to be precise. But this comparison rose somewhere earlier so... IDK what I forgot here.
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2016
  20. Cooldawg86

    Cooldawg86 It Wandered In From the Wastes

    Dec 25, 2015
    Fallout 2 = No graphics
    Fallout 4 = all of them.