FO3 iplot idea

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:22 am

Megatron wrote:
Soldier87 wrote:Well how about instead of fighting to stabilize the region and make everyting ok again, etc... you are pinned up against foreign invaders. Mad Chinese or poed Russians, maybe Canadians (F3 needs some humor too). Perhaps aliens.
yea, a crpg needs lots of combat against stereotypes! Mabye make fo3 a squad-based combat game instead?

ok i dont know if you're offended because of the canadian remark (it was a joke people dog out americans all the time its ok no offense meant there) or if you tried to make a point because i missed it sorry.

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 4:01 pm

The problem is that your idea involved too much combat maybe lol? I like killing as much as the next man but you can't just center the story around it. Also it kind of reminds me of all those squad based combat games that use the Fallout name.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 7:06 pm

Too much combat? How so? All I said was that while go through the midwest, you might have to do battles in "SOME" places. And that in the end you have to do battle with either your squad, or Arroyo. It's no different from Fallout 1 or 2. In those games combat is unavoidable. And you have to fight the end boss at the end as well. In Fallout 1 you fight the main boss but not at the end. But you still have to fight a few mutants here and there, so how's my idea combat based?

NumberZero · Post by **NumberZero** » Mon Sep 01, 2003 9:14 pm

No, you don't. It is possible to complete both fallout 1 and two without killing anyone (except horrigan)

also the main plot of the game has to center around searching around to find something important in the wasteland. exploring being the operative term, the land has to be new to you, an outsider who needs something and along the way encounters various people who he helps/screws over/has no impact on. You should also be able to NOT affect any major effects on the world if you choose to, snatch the item you need, mabey make a deal with the uber evil bad guys who don't directly threaten you and come back. GAME OVER. then, after the game is over, mabey you can wander around the wasteland and defeat that uber evil, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:27 am

NumberZero wrote:No, you don't. It is possible to complete both fallout 1 and two without killing anyone (except horrigan)

also the main plot of the game has to center around searching around to find something important in the wasteland. exploring being the operative term, the land has to be new to you, an outsider who needs something and along the way encounters various people who he helps/screws over/has no impact on. You should also be able to NOT affect any major effects on the world if you choose to, snatch the item you need, mabey make a deal with the uber evil bad guys who don't directly threaten you and come back. GAME OVER. then, after the game is over, mabey you can wander around the wasteland and defeat that uber evil, but it shouldn't be mandatory.

A battle should be mandatory, at least a few, otherwise it's just another myst game.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:51 am

Soldier87 wrote:A battle should be mandatory, at least a few, otherwise it's just another myst game.

Then I guess that Fallout was "just another myst game". You could actually get through it and not fire a single shot since you could sneak into the Cathedral, talk one of the Psykers out of a Psychic Nullifier, then convince the Master to commit suicide. If you couldn't shoot your way into the Miltary Base you could always have the BoS send some paladins to help you out.

FO2 had two neccesary deaths, the first being the President, the second being Frank Horrigan. However, you could get help w/the second kill and still didn't have to fire a single shot to win the game.

There should be exactly 0.0 mandatory battles. FO is about a class-less character system where characters can use whatever skills they have to win the game. If you're into combat, blast away. If not, you can find a way around fighting. That's the beauty of the system. If you don't have that, FO is reduced to just another hack-n-slash game that compete w/dozens of other clones for the most spectacular death animations and particle effects. No thanks.

OTB

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 1:16 pm

Soldier87 wrote:Too much combat? How so? All I said was that while go through the midwest, you might have to do battles in "SOME" places. And that in the end you have to do battle with either your squad, or Arroyo. It's no different from Fallout 1 or 2. In those games combat is unavoidable. And you have to fight the end boss at the end as well. In Fallout 1 you fight the main boss but not at the end. But you still have to fight a few mutants here and there, so how's my idea combat based?

Well for starters the whole plot is based on confrontation - the remnants of WWIII and all that. Second, it sounds far too military. Third, it sounds exactly like Fallout Tactics. Fourth, couldn't you have more fun with this idea in an RTS or something along those lines than a Roleplaying Game?

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:52 pm

OnTheBounce wrote:
Soldier87 wrote:A battle should be mandatory, at least a few, otherwise it's just another myst game.
Then I guess that Fallout was "just another myst game". You could actually get through it and not fire a single shot since you could sneak into the Cathedral, talk one of the Psykers out of a Psychic Nullifier, then convince the Master to commit suicide. If you couldn't shoot your way into the Miltary Base you could always have the BoS send some paladins to help you out.

FO2 had two neccesary deaths, the first being the President, the second being Frank Horrigan. However, you could get help w/the second kill and still didn't have to fire a single shot to win the game.

There should be exactly 0.0 mandatory battles. FO is about a class-less character system where characters can use whatever skills they have to win the game. If you're into combat, blast away. If not, you can find a way around fighting. That's the beauty of the system. If you don't have that, FO is reduced to just another hack-n-slash game that compete w/dozens of other clones for the most spectacular death animations and particle effects. No thanks.

OTB

Fallout 2 did have two necessary deaths, but one of them wasn't the president, actually it only had one necessary death, that was Horrigan. There were two necessary "battles", the temple fight, and Horrigan.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 2:57 pm

atoga wrote:
Soldier87 wrote:Too much combat? How so? All I said was that while go through the midwest, you might have to do battles in "SOME" places. And that in the end you have to do battle with either your squad, or Arroyo. It's no different from Fallout 1 or 2. In those games combat is unavoidable. And you have to fight the end boss at the end as well. In Fallout 1 you fight the main boss but not at the end. But you still have to fight a few mutants here and there, so how's my idea combat based?
Well for starters the whole plot is based on confrontation - the remnants of WWIII and all that. Second, it sounds far too military. Third, it sounds exactly like Fallout Tactics. Fourth, couldn't you have more fun with this idea in an RTS or something along those lines than a Roleplaying Game?

Well however they make Fallout 3 ("if it gets made") then i'll play, but it better not be another myst-like game. If it's not combat based then it should have the option like Fallout 1 did to go through it the heroic path.

PS for those of you who keep saying my idea is pure combat based FOT like, read my first post on this idea, i said "you have to go through combat or "negotiate" on some areas to get past it" I only metioned one required combat scenario, the end when you either fight your squad or Arroyo. But whatever, its not up to us.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:03 pm

Soldier87 wrote:Fallout 2 did have two necessary deaths, but one of them wasn't the president, actually it only had one necessary death, that was Horrigan. There were two necessary "battles", the temple fight, and Horrigan.

You could talk your way out of the temple fight and you could win the battle against Horrigan without even participating in combat with help from the Enclave troopers outside the main hall + turrets.

OnTheBounce · Post by **OnTheBounce** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 7:38 pm

Soldier87 wrote:Fallout 2 did have two necessary deaths, but one of them wasn't the president, actually it only had one necessary death, that was Horrigan. There were two necessary "battles", the temple fight, and Horrigan.

The fight in the temple isn't necessary, since you can talk your way out of the tribal stationed at the end, and you can avoid the fights against the radscorpions and ants by simply running away from and/or sneaking past them.

If you want to activate the counterinsurgency program you need the Presidential Passkey, which can only be taken from the Pres once he is dead. If your character is a pacifist and/or incapable of taking on Horrigan you will need this, and it's probably also a good idea to talk Sgt. Rock and EC squad into fighting on your side.

It is possible to get through the game having only two kills show up on your tally; one human; and the "end boss". (A term that should be outlawed on these forums.)

OTB

BlackDog · Post by **BlackDog** » Tue Sep 02, 2003 11:31 pm

the BoS are not weak. NCR is not strong. please don't bring your crappy stories here. I shall kill thee with my chaingun and stomp on your corpse with my power armor boots. heathen!

atoga · Post by **atoga** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 2:22 am

Soldier87; your entire idea is about war. It screams militaristic, and as such is centered around conflict (be it preventing confrontation through speech or whatnot or actually shooting shit). It's still a military campaign, given the sides involved and the scope of it. No matter how you look at it.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Wed Sep 03, 2003 3:13 pm

Yeah and your idea is all about peace in a wasteland teaming with evil. So my idea is based on a militaristic campaign, your point being? Many of you dont relize that FOT was "all" about combat. It didnt have side quests and an optional negotiating way out. My idea is not combat based for the ONE MILLIONTH TIME so stop repeating your damn selves. It's story is about working for the enclave and going throughout the US to find out what happened to the base in California ( my first idea anyways). Not about total combat. Plus an all peaceful way out probably wont interest most gamers. They either need the option or they want it to be based on combat but not in the sense that FOT was. I mean cmon, its a game and you all are complaining cause there is some combat involved. Then dont buy it. If Fallout 3 were made the way you say it should be, "peaceful" hardly anyone would buy it. Its a game and they want to shoot people. Something we cant rightfully do in real life for no reason. But if Fallout 3 were made all combat like - then it probably wouldnt sell well either ill give you that. Cause then it would just be another FOT game. If you would read and try to comprehend what I say instead of rushing to conclusions, then maybe you would get my frikin idea. I said its not combat based, it has one at least one required battle. And on your way to Cali, you would need to accomplish a few side missions first, getting food, etc...

Carib · Post by **Carib** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:14 am

Anyhow, since ALiens, commies and the ENclave are out, since the Enclave may be scattered pockets, practically extinct.

What about the Unity or a variation of it starts back up - led by none other then everyones favorite mutant - Marcus!!!!

That would be a sort of twisted twist of fate and well, a nice reunion of some Fallout 2 Party members would be nice. Vist the wisened and old Sulik. Or find Skynet in a new mainframe... Possibilities are pretty endless.

Also the mutant factor shouldn't be forgotten. Remember, even 80 years after the Master, the mutants still felt he was correct and perhaps if they had a tank or two of FEV they may start again.

And this time, the BOS shouldn't be a bunch of pussies!!!!

Killa-Killa · Post by **Killa-Killa** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:26 pm

Rama Stryfe wrote:What about the Unity or a variation of it starts back up - led by none other then everyones favorite mutant - Marcus!!!!

Also the mutant factor shouldn't be forgotten. Remember, even 80 years after the Master, the mutants still felt he was correct and perhaps if they had a tank or two of FEV they may start again.

And this time, the BOS shouldn't be a bunch of pussies!!!!

The BoS aren't "pussies" per se, just very closed off. Remember: their goal is to maintain/further technology and not to police the wastes. Nothing like Fo:T shall ever be included in a fallout game, for any reason, ever. EVER!
And if I remember right, doesn't marcus die in the Broken Hills ending? or do they not mention him? And all the muties are really old and decrepid. They live longer than normies, but not as long as gouls. Assuming that fallout 3 is 80 yrs. or so past FO:2, very few mutants if at all.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Fri Sep 12, 2003 10:53 pm

Killa-Killa wrote:doesn't marcus die in the Broken Hills ending?

I don't believe so. I think the only NPC that was specifically mentioned was Myron.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 12:18 am

Soldier87 wrote:Yeah and your idea is all about peace in a wasteland teaming with evil. So my idea is based on a militaristic campaign, your point being? Many of you dont relize that FOT was "all" about combat. It didnt have side quests and an optional negotiating way out.

We don't? We do.

My idea is not combat based for the ONE MILLIONTH TIME so stop repeating your damn selves.

no ur

It's story is about working for the enclave and going throughout the US to find out what happened to the base in California ( my first idea anyways).

It's a bad idea.

Not about total combat. Plus an all peaceful way out probably wont interest most gamers.

FO3 shouldn't be about what could sell the most units. It's about a good game with non-linear thingy-majiggys.

They either need the option or they want it to be based on combat but not in the sense that FOT was.

That's what it is at the moment. What are you complaining about, son?

I mean cmon, its a game and you all are complaining cause there is some combat involved. Then dont buy it.

stfuplzkthnxbye. It could have combat involved, not should. It worked in fallout 1+2, so why force the npc into fighting in fo3?

If Fallout 3 were made the way you say it should be, "peaceful" hardly anyone would buy it.

nein. We're saying you shouldn't have to. have and could are different words.

Its a game and they want to shoot people. Something we cant rightfully do in real life for no reason.

what does that have to do with anything? play another game if you want to shoot people.

But if Fallout 3 were made all combat like - then it probably wouldnt sell well either ill give you that.

you don't need to have a complete combat/non-combat game. Did you play fallout?

Cause then it would just be another FOT game. If you would read and try to comprehend what I say instead of rushing to conclusions, then maybe you would get my frikin idea.

Pot. Kettle. swell guy.

I said its not combat based, it has one at least one required battle. And on your way to Cali, you would need to accomplish a few side missions first, getting food, etc...

Ah, so more combat? You shouldn't HAVE to fight, like you shouldn't HAVE to talk. Try fobos, it seems like you might enjoy it?

Carib · Post by **Carib** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 12:38 am

Okay, but seriously, the mutant thing shouldn't be forgotten.

In the end of it all, Broken Hills was wiped off the map. Be it the mines run dry or the anti-mutant elements run the muties out of town. Marcus lives, yes.

And Myron was stabbed to death by a jet addict in Den.

But remember, Marcus still felt the Master was correct and had set out to find the Unity Remnant. Mutants live long so, I mean, the old generation will come to bite everyone one in the ass.

As for the Enclave, the BOS and NCR must have assimilated them. I mean, after all, The Captain of the Valdez desserted the Enclave and that flaky Cybernetics Doctor in NCR was formerly Enclave.

Besides, the Enclave are as pure blood as they get and I think the seizure of Navarro either by the Chosen one or the BOS would be seen as prudent. Hell, Grante and his crew may have joined.

Sadly 95% of Enclave tech went up in Nuclear smoke when the Oil rig was dusted...

And the part of the BOS splitting in Tactics could be feasible. I mean, there would have to be those within that feel military force is the way while others may not feel so. Just minus the Zeplin and some stupid stuff, and well, it would be workable. And though a machine threat may seem stupid, look at the intelligence of Skynet, the Calculator and even Zax... Machines can be just as dangerous, especially with a corrupted system and superior AI.

But ignore the machines for now, we have enough Pulse grenades in the sack for those fools.

Soldier87 · Post by **Soldier87** » Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:51 am

Megatron dont have a heat attack now, calm down ok, breathe in breathe out. breathe in breathe out. like i said, its an idea that will most likely go nowhere, i was just expressing my ideas, and some of you (not all of you or even most of you just some so dont get offended everyon!) need to accep the fact that i have a freedom of expression. jeez relax. dont get your panties in a bunch. its just an idea. its not supposed to attract everyone. calm down. i dont go and bitch bout your ideas.

Duck and Cover

FO3 iplot idea

PLOT IDEAS ATE MY BALLS