Duck and Cover

Sorry if this has been covered, but I didn't see a recent topic that addressed it and digging up long-dead topics is probably worse that starting repeat ones...

Any idea what Bethesda will concider canon and what they won't? Are they taking FO:T into account, for example, and in the few cases where FO1 and 2 disagree, which gets preference?

I'd really like to read up on and understand all of the Fallout world backstory, but I find the Fallout Bible to be a bit disorganized and difficult to read. I was hoping I'd just be able to catch up with FO3.

Think I read somewhere it was implied they would be basing it more on Fallout 1 than 2 i.e. New Reno is probably going to be swept under the carpet so to speak (thank god). I hope they take some fot stuff into account, even if its just acknowledging that half the brotherhood buggered off east at some point in time. Is the stuff about vault 0 etc in contradiction with the original 2 games? that could also be worth bringin in if not.

Read up on Fallout here:

http://vault.duckandcover.cx/

It's kind of the whole point of it.

Fez wrote:Read up on Fallout here:

http://vault.duckandcover.cx/

It's kind of the whole point of it.

Indeed.

As I said, I find most of it poorly organized and difficult to read. Most articles are stubs, the ones that aren't are often TOO wordy. I realize the wiki is a new project, but it's not going to progress much as long as people are insistant on ignoring the parts of Fallout history that they don't like. The whole point of a wiki is about being unbiased. If someone has info, they share it. They don't censor it because it's unpopular.

Hence the question as to whether or not FO:T is concidered canon. There are a couple of stub articles about it, but for the most part the game is completely ignored. That's why I asked here. The link you posted didn't answer my question.

The wiki does give the consensus on that question. You either didn't bother looking and you are a liar, or you are an idiot.

http://vault.duckandcover.cx/index.php?title=Canon

Wow, that was hard work to type in "canon" into the search box, I must be a genius to think of that.

Here's the quote as you probably still won't find it on that page:

Fallout Tactics is not considered to be Fallout canon, due to its many inconsistencies and contradictions. If something in Tactics does not contradict Fallout or Fallout 2's version of events, then it can be considered somewhat canon.

If you don't like something in a wiki, you can change it and add to it. Everyone can help out. That's how they work. Complaining when it is just as much your responsibility as anyone else is silly.

Wow. Interpersonal skills certainly aren't a prerequisite for this board are they? Suppose that isn't surprising... the web is full of antisocial deliquents anyway. Lets address this point by point, shall we?

Fez wrote:The wiki does give the consensus on that question. You either didn't bother looking and you are a liar, or you are an idiot.

The wiki doesn't give a "concensus." That's the problem. It's one guy's opinion, and that guy doesn't work for Bethesda, who I assume will be responsible for what does or does not make it into Fallout 3.

http://vault.duckandcover.cx/index.php?title=Canon

Wow, that was hard work to type in "canon" into the search box, I must be a genius to think of that.

Hey, he can use a keyboard. So can semi-trained chimps.

Here's the quote as you probably still won't find it on that page:

Fallout Tactics is not considered to be Fallout canon, due to its many inconsistencies and contradictions. If something in Tactics does not contradict Fallout or Fallout 2's version of events, then it can be considered somewhat canon.

See above. One guy's opinion does not a concensus make.

If you don't like something in a wiki, you can change it and add to it. Everyone can help out. That's how they work. Complaining when it is just as much your responsibility as anyone else is silly.

It's not my job to fix someone else's website. This wiki is set up for one of two purposes. Either it's intended to be a way to congradulate yourselves on your vast knowledge of a franchise of video games, which would be exceedingly pathetic, or it's set up to provide information about a franchise of video games to the general public who may not already possess that information.

Since, in my benevolence, I'm willing to grant you the benefit of the doubt, I'll assume it's the latter. If that's indeed the case, I'd imagine you'd want feedback from your target audience (of which I am a part) to make your wiki database the best it can be. However, when I attempted to provide that feedback (with absolutely ZERO malice on my part I might add) I get a weak, childish flame post from a weak, childish poster.

Point being, I'm obviously wasting my time here. You obviously don't know the answer to my question, and no one else seems inclined to answer. Sorry to bother you, you can go back to drinking your Mountain Dew and eating your BBQ porkrinds in your parents basement again.

So you expected a magic time machine to tell you the answers? You are a fool.

"The wiki doesn't give a "concensus." That's the problem. It's one guy's opinion, and that guy doesn't work for Bethesda, who I assume will be responsible for what does or does not make it into Fallout 3."

You obviously have no clue at all about what you are talking about. If you'd have spent some time in the community you wouldn't sound like the dickhead you do now.

"Hey, he can use a keyboard. So can semi-trained chimps."

But yet you couldn't even manage what a chimp could. Oh dear.

"See above. One guy's opinion does not a concensus make."

Try reading, one bone-idle idiot who can't be bothered to research something has no arguments. It's all in the open if you'd just be willing to put in some effort into something other than crying.

"It's not my job to fix someone else's website. This wiki is set up for one of two purposes. Either it's intended to be a way to congradulate yourselves on your vast knowledge of a franchise of video games, which would be exceedingly pathetic, or it's set up to provide information about a franchise of video games to the general public who may not already possess that information. "

You have missed the point and displayed your foolishness again. You do not understand what you are talking about. You have no clue whatsoever and you are wrong. If you'd listen rather than go in a strop like a child you'd understand more.

"Point being, I'm obviously wasting my time here."

No one is forcing or begging you to stay. Bye then. Maybe one day you'll crawl back, break a sweat and try thinking before you post. I doubt it though. You're the worst newb I've seen in ages. Zero marks for effort.

Dexter wrote:Interpersonal skills certainly aren't a prerequisite for this board are they?

nope


FOT is to FO1/2 as chronicles of riddick is to pitch black. its a spinoff

For a chap who goes by the name of Dexter, I was pleasantly surprised, even pleasantly shocked by his contributions thus far. I would shake him by the hand, but apparently Fez chased him off (shame on you Fez !!), so weeping and wailing at the thought of what might of been will have to suffice.

. . . But I can dream.

Sorry I haven't played any of the fallout games for at least 2 years- berate/flame me if you must- What exactly does FoT contradict from the first 2 games? Is it the Enclave virus versus the Vault zero robots?...oh god there's so much more- sorry, I'm going to go away now and play all 3 through as repentance for my sins.

REPENT, SINNER !

CombatWombat85 wrote:Sorry I haven't played any of the fallout games for at least 2 years- berate/flame me if you must- What exactly does FoT contradict from the first 2 games? Is it the Enclave virus versus the Vault zero robots?...oh god there's so much more- sorry, I'm going to go away now and play all 3 through as repentance for my sins.

Most people complain about the talking furry deathclaws, the futuristic looking robots and the technology that would obviously need transisters to run. Also, FoT's weaponry selection is a) senseless and b) doesn't match the arsenal of the RPGs very well. It seems alot of the stuff that isn't canon about FoT has to with its graphical representation.

The other point people bring up again and again is that the Brotherhood of Steel is not an aggressively military organization, despite the fact the story amply explains why the Midwest Brotherhood is doing what it's doing.

ah okay-ta very much- just re-installed f2 anyway, shame i can't get the first to run on xp tho.

Did you set it up to run in compatibility mode? That worked for me.

how do i do that?

Right click on the .exe, click on the "properties" option, then choose the "compatibility" tab. Set the compatibility mode (there's a tick box and a pull down list of options) and set the display settings (three tick boxes). It's fairly self explanatory once you are in the menu. Compatibility mode lets you run a number of old programs, just play with the settings until you find a mix that works.

Wow. Apparently they're training chimps in XP now, too.

Cry more, noob.

The resentment, the jealousy, the hurt, collectively they burn brighter than a sparkler ! Ahahaha.

Perchance you changed your opinion of what a waste of time this forum was, wonderful Dexter ? Ehue.

I just can't resist taking cheap shots at someone so obviously insecure as this guy. And to clarify, I was referring to my question as a waste of time, not the forum as a whole. I may stick around a bit, I've enjoyed it so far.