The nesssesity of the prequel and Prequel ideas.

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 4:17 am

Ooooh! A good idea... Perhaps, then, the badguy could be the Overseer/VaultTec. That'd allow a nice loophole through which you could gain access into the vault. Find out whatever evil thing the overseer is involved in, but you can't tell the people of the vault, since they'd kick him out and they die due to their reliance on him. But to make sure you don't tell anyone, the Overseer will allow you to join the vault... I dig it. Ah... And maybe the player was able to get into a make-shift bomb shelter, to outlast the first blast. (NOBODY would survive a nuke just on the surface). So he stays in for a few weeks, but doesn't have enough food. So, out into the world we go, with a limited radiation suit and very little supplies, to go to the vault we should have been in in the first place. I'm diggin' this, man....

Peace and much love...

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:48 am

I think people over evaluate the level of civilisation in fallout 2. Firstly there's the whole multiple endings thing. you cant start fallout 3 with the multiple endings intact. You could give this a valid reason to make it a prequel, or you could take the alternate rout and realise that the endings for the settlements in fallout 2 would take a lot of time to realise.

Really, the level of civilisation in fallout 2 is still desolate. perhaps not as much as Fo1 but desolate none-the less. there is little tech around except in VC and san fran, there is little to no light or heavy industry, the commercial and service industries are almost non-existent. which means you're not going to get massive civilisations over-night.

Even if you choose to ignore that, the fact that Fallout 2 occoured in a slightly different geographical location to fallout 1. this means the focus area can be shifted once more to ignore the previous events while encompasing v13.

I'm just not hot on the idea of a prequel. in my experience anything set before another installment will suck. allow further free-range with a sequel. dont look back, look forward.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 8:52 am

The problem is the enemy. I'm getting a bit bored of fighting something big mean and muscley, that has a big gun. Why not a swarm of tough critters, or mabye a group of small assasins and spec-op soldiers sent from China to clean up the U.S, and find the vaults. Or mabye you see Vault-Tec demolish a town with a hi-tech airship thing, to make people stay in vaults and carry on with the experiment.

I dunno.

Nirvana · Post by **Nirvana** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 10:08 pm

hum i like the idea of having an enemy that was good in previous fallout
series , like vault tec or even bos ( i am not regarding tactics )

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 10:39 pm

that FoT is disregarded is taken as given on this board. they had no idea what they were doing.

I dont think BoS would become an enemy. If they stayed true to BoS philosophy they would not have anything to do with the wastes and keep themselves segregated.

I think the whole vault tec thing has been done. what with the enclave and everything.

I'm not sure what enemy should be the main focus in fallout 3, but I do know it should NOT be robots. the Mutant threat should be continued but not as the main threat because they are separated and leaderless. Raiders, while they are a constant problem, they wouldnt really threaten the entire wastes like the enclave or mutants did.

The idea of a threat from China would be interesting, but a human threat isnt as ominous as the master.

Aliens are a complete no go. if the main threat in fallout 3 is aliens i would go on a killing spree at the development studio which produced it.

Really you have to look at the main evil of fo3 from a 1950s sci-fi perspective, mutants, ghouls etc. the other obvious threat is communism.

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:00 pm

I'd say making the overseer the enemy would be interesting... And like I said, it'd allow us to continue into the plots of FO1 and FO2. But, FireWolf, what do you have against a prequel? We could have Harold... Richard Gray... The Boneyard pre-regulators... There would be true lawlessness, and that alone would get back to the post-apocalyptic survival theme of the first Fallout. As for a different geographical location... we've gone north. We've gone south. And since V13 is right in the middle of the map (on the east-west axis, that is) it'd be hard to go east and still keep V13. With the prequel, the map could encompass both FO game worlds (north AND south, man)...

Peace and much love...

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:18 pm

the idea of a prequel irks me. for one thing, anything that happens in the game will have no relivance. say you complete the game, your actions are not continued to the next fallout, there would be no recognition.

then there's the issue of blood-lines. fallout 1 and 2 follow the vault dweller's bloodline from the emmergence from vault 13 to the rescue of the village.

the idea of trying to get into the Vault is a bad one. firstly i doubt very very much that the bastard overseer who refused to allow a vault citizen to enter the vault after 250 days out in the wastes is going to let anyone in so soon after the war. it would risk the vault dwellers too much.

Fallout 1 and 2 are leading towards a next installment. a continuation of the story of the wastes, backtracking would just be looking at the fairly bland story.

before fallout 1 the place would be very desolate, fine, but what are you going to fight? what's the big plot? who's the enemy... the master wasnt a threat, the mutants weren't around... all you'd be fighting would be radscorps, Deathclaws and the occasional raider. plus, once you've defeated the enemy, no one in the following fallouts would mention it and the game would not be a part of the story but more of a spin-off.

we've seen that a prequel (fallout tactics) can be handled very badly. for one thing the ending in fot would influence the events in fallout 2 immensely, talk about fucked up big time.

what i'd like to see, is that the best of intentions lead to the most bitter of consequences. say, you do what you set out to do, destroying an evil which threatens the wastes, but in doing so you bring about devastation, the wastes get knocked back once more, civilisation even in the poor state it is in, gets smashed once more. large settlements are devastated.

not sure how you could accomplish this, but the whole "happy ending" thing isnt needed. just look at fallout's ending. there was no happy ending there, you were kicked out, shunned by the ones you sought to save.

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:27 pm

But the oppurtunity to influence the future could be great. I mean, your actions in FO1 influenced FO2 (<coughshadysandscough>) and the same could occur in this prequel (to clarify, from now on I'm simply gonna call it Fallout 0... cliche, neh?). And your right about not being able to get into the vault... But if the overseer were the enemy (or VaultTec, which is basically just the overseer's boss) then you could, at the end, essentially blackmail your way into the vault. As for general enemies... Tons of Raiders, mutated animals, maybe even mutants (altho the timing would be a bit... iffy... but that's workable). The first mutants, of course, and probly more along the lines of Harold and The Master (i.e. f*cking freaks, not strong or smart). And as for the next fallouts not mentioning them... There's a LOT of backstory mentioned, people discussing their lives and so forth. You could work with Harold's caravan, perhaps, or help start Junktown. Work with the BoS, maybe (the split is viewpoints and whatnot). Numerous possiblities. And as for the happy ending... It sure as hell ain't happy. If you find out that the Overseer is corrupt, there's no way you can get rid of him. The Vault couldn't work without him, especially not that early. So you're essentially dooming the Vault (in some way, not quite sure how the corruption would be manifested)... Not a very happy ending, muchacho....

Peace and much love...

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Wed Jul 17, 2002 11:54 pm

i still think the idea of a prequel is a bad thing. its a spin-off essentially. like "fallout: the lost years" you may as well make "fallout: begining of BoS". that i wouldnt mind seeing. seeing how the BoS started. fighting alongside maxson etc.

but back to fallout 3. I want the story to progress, not get stuck in the timeline. the restrictions of a prequel are too great to allow true freedom to the developers.

I dont think there's any way to blackmail a vault, afterall, they were sealed and the only communication came from vault tec (at least that's what's indicated by fo2 vault 8).

perhaps fallout 3 could be the return to vault tec. a vault expedition from v13 to establish contact with the vault tec corporation. but not like fallout tactics. lets face it, that concept was murdered by their designers... robots... ugh.besides, fot didnt look for vault tec, but for vault 0. vault tec corp must have had a vault under their HQ...

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 12:27 am

Actually, I'd think they'd have what would basically amount to an intercom... Otherwise, how did they open the door for you in Fallout when you came back with the water chip? Most likely, this'd be routed right to the Overseer, which'd give you that oppurtunity for blackmail. And there's still a hella lotta freedom. Look at the world maps sometime... How many abandoned cities are there? Each of em could've been abandoned by survivors after the war. And there are tons of people who'd have died between the bombs falling and Fallout, all of whom could be met. As for VaultTec... A lot of FO2 indicated the corruption/idiocy of VaultTec (and the Overseer... After all, Overseer was replaced by a computer) So if we could think of a way to tie em together it'd work. Besides, if VaultTec is still around, wouldn't we have seen at least a glimpse of it? None of the Vaults ever opened except from "weird" circumstances.

Peace and much love...

Icabod · Post by **Icabod** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 6:28 pm

So the PC would be what? Almost everything leading up to the start of FO1 was 1. killed by nukes 2. radiated by fallout (ghouls) 3. a few people who are from other vaults are normal. The only thing that happened pre-FO was defending small towns from raiders (the hub, boredom) or founding the BOS (played it already: see FOT) What would be the main plot of the game? Is there a new villian? If not, then there is no hope for a entertainment (unless it was Fallout: the first person shooter). If it's something like shooting raiders/radscorpions throughout the entire game, I don't want no part of it.

Also, a worldmap from FO1 wouldn't be any fun, since we've already played that once.

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 7:17 pm

So the PC would be what?

Like I said, the PC would be someone who was "signed up" to go into Vault 13, but didn't get in in time and was forced to find a home-made bomb shelter, etc. the live in until he or she could go out and try to get back into the Vault. After food runs out (a few weeks) the PC must go out into the world in their broken radiation suit (RadBoy!) to get to Vault 13 where they can actually survive...

Is there a new villian?

Well, I for one think using the Overseer/VaultTec as a villain would be interesting (and allow a convenient loophole for getting into the Vault...) And of course it'd be more than shooting and raiders. There'd be a hella lot of people who die in the first year or two after the bombs fell, due to radiation and such. But in that time, they'd have tried to survive, and that can be shown. There must have been a ton of attempts to form settlements that failed, either due to raiders or everyone in the town dying from radiation.

Peace and much love.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 10:29 pm

Vault-tec. Now that's a fallouty thing that has been left surprisingly unnoticed. It must've been a huge corporation pre-war. What would Vault-tec exactly be after the apocalypse? I'm sure such a huge corporation has survived(in their own vaults) and they could introduce new gadgets and new persons to the fallout world. No, I'm not talking about a new Enclave. Yet, the Vault-tec idea could be well developed for Fallout3. And because there hasn't been any traces of V-t in previous fallouts, the idea would be something new and fresh if introduced in FO3.

I don't like the idea of prequel. Whatever you do, you can't change the history, I mean the stuff that happens in Fallout 1 and 2. It would fell like time traveling and it would be a rather boring and uninteresting setting for Fallout 3. That's right Fallout 3. It means, the story must continue.

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 11:08 pm

dont forget the lovely little random encounter in fallout 2 when you go back in time to vault 13 and break the water chip

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Thu Jul 18, 2002 11:32 pm

FireWolf wrote:dont forget the lovely little random encounter in fallout 2 when you go back in time to vault 13 and break the water chip

Damn straight. I for one don't see any difference between a prequel and just playing Fallout 1 after you've played Fallout 2. I mean, it's possible for the "future" to be hosed when you play Fallout 1. Doing a prequel would be no different. You could screw up the future, or you could play it so it matches with what you know will happen. Your choice.

Peace and much love.

FireWolf · Post by **FireWolf** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 9:57 am

nah, the idea still grinds. you cant really compare playing fo1 after fo2 to a sequal because fo2 was based on the events of fo1 whereas a prequel will not have an influence on fo1 nor will it be able to relate as much to the content of fo1 or 2.

Any ideas which are produced for a fallout prequel are flawed. You can't follow the master's ascention because the master only presented himself in fallout 1. mutants were unheard of before then.

I just dont think there is the variety or freedom available in a prequel to what there would be as a sequel. In some instances it would be okay. say if fallout was not the first in a series but a continuation of a series which the previous titles were not released due to various reasons. that would at least offer some scope because fallout 1 would not have been written as the first, as the begining, but as a continuation.

The Shrike · Post by **The Shrike** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 11:22 am

I feel the same way about a prequel for the reasons you listed. Unfortunatly I think that Black Isle screwed the universe over too much with Fallout 2 to make a third game that has the same atmosphere as fallout 1. I covered this in a previous post.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 4:49 pm

Actually, there's little we know about history before Fallout 1. I don't think a prequel would be a bad idea. I want the story to continue, we've waited long enough! And there's still more to wait before FO3 gets released.

DeepOmega · Post by **DeepOmega** » Fri Jul 19, 2002 8:12 pm

Eh, there's merits to both. I just thought of a problem with a prequel tho. No supermutants. And most likely no ghouls. Although, Harold did comment on the number of mutants during his caravan trip... I suppose the best way to do a prequel would be during the time of that trip w/ Harold and Richard Grey. We could still have mutants, raiders and large critters. But I have no ingenious plot device for that one....

MSG · Post by **MSG** » Wed Aug 21, 2002 8:37 am

FireWolf so if I understand you (which I probably didn't) you don't like the idea of a prequel because of the continuity problems (ex. go back in time and kill your mother before she had you), But a prequel has the same continuity problems as FO2: How could NCR exist if you left Tandi with the raiders, or Shady Sands was attacked by mutants. I think this is called a "writers prerogative" where the writer decides that you had to have done the game this way, so he can make the game.