Fallout series

[Burned Man]

I always felt that Lanius should have been the one that offers Hanlon a quick death out of respect for a worthy adversary rather then Caesar considering how frustrated Caesar gets and Hanlon really messed with his plans back in the day.

I'd also like to give a shoutout to the crazy not veteran rangers that try to knife fight the large armored man with a giant sword.

 

[Strange Wilderness]

I think it boils down to Lanius being a bloodthirsty monster who appreciates violence as a form of Social Darwinism. Note how in one ending Boone goes on a suicidal killing spree when the Legion wins and Lanius, before he has him crucified, personally congratulates him for going all Charles Whitman on the Legion. Hanlon fights with his brains and seeks to minimize casualties, using traps and deception to beat his enemies. Lanius hates deception, as evidenced by his disdain for Vulpes. Hanlon also surrenders peacefully which makes him weak in the eyes of the vicious Lanius, so he crucifies him.

Caesar by contrast does have a appreciation for the NCR due to being from there, he praises the government in a twisted way due to his view it was a pseudo-dictatorship, lets the Followers leave Old Mormon Fort without casualty due to being a former member, and probably kills Hanlon quickly because he appreciates he used his brains to beat him in his previous moment of triumph instead of just brute force like Oliver is using this time around. It makes sense he would give Hanlon a quick death due to his ego and his past life vs. the vicious Lanius who has only known violence as the answer to everything.

Also who do you think would win in a fight? The psychopathic Monster of the East and Legionary Badass or the Unkillible, badass, Mormon missionary, the Burned Man, and Destroying Angel?

 

[Ruin]

So what exactly was the institute's long term plan? As far as I can tell it's

1 - Build robots that are indistinguishable from humans
2 - replace surface humans with said robots
3 - remain underground
4 -?
5 - profit!

It's like the fallout version of the underpants gnomes.

 

[Snekposter]

Maybe hes only good at warfare and not actually ruling a country.

Well, Lanius isn't exactly known for restraint, and the Courier needs to have an extremely high skill level in order to convince Lanius to back down. A good way to think of post-victory Lanius is that he gets drunk on victory, and unknowing of the strengths of the Legion's foes in the region, carelessly sends his men after them. That and well, according to the Fallout Wiki Lanius means "Butcher", so while he may be known for carving up his foes, not really the sort of man you want running a nation instead of an army. Not every foe can be beaten with strength and cunning. Many, especially those faced by rulers, require subtlety and tact, and those are nowhere to be found in him.

EDIT:

So what exactly was the institute's long term plan? As far as I can tell it's

1 - Build robots that are indistinguishable from humans
2 - replace surface humans with said robots
3 - remain underground
4 -?
5 - profit!

It's like the fallout version of the underpants gnomes.

Pretty much. Bethesda did a pretty terrible job of explaining the Institute beyond "Evil Scientists", but a fairly good hypothesis I've heard around is that they actually did redefine humanity with the synth project, and the fact their creations are so much better than them terrifies them. Faster, stronger, smarter, and yet undeveloped in moral virtue. Father himself says as much for the latter part, although it mostly just comes off as half-assed rationalizing on the Institute's part because again, Bethesda never explained things.

 

[Burned Man]

I think it boils down to Lanius being a bloodthirsty monster who appreciates violence as a form of Social Darwinism. Note how in one ending Boone goes on a suicidal killing spree when the Legion wins and Lanius, before he has him crucified, personally congratulates him for going all Charles Whitman on the Legion. Hanlon fights with his brains and seeks to minimize casualties, using traps and deception to beat his enemies. Lanius hates deception, as evidenced by his disdain for Vulpes. Hanlon also surrenders peacefully which makes him weak in the eyes of the vicious Lanius, so he crucifies him.

Caesar by contrast does have a appreciation for the NCR due to being from there, he praises the government in a twisted way due to his view it was a pseudo-dictatorship, lets the Followers leave Old Mormon Fort without casualty due to being a former member, and probably kills Hanlon quickly because he appreciates he used his brains to beat him in his previous moment of triumph instead of just brute force like Oliver is using this time around. It makes sense he would give Hanlon a quick death due to his ego and his past life vs. the vicious Lanius who has only known violence as the answer to everything.

Also who do you think would win in a fight? The psychopathic Monster of the East and Legionary Badass or the Unkillible, badass, Mormon missionary, the Burned Man, and Destroying Angel?

Lanius mentions being displeased that he is up against Oliver and not Hanlon. He views Hanlon and the rangers as worthy foes because of their ability to adapt and counter the Legion rather then just try and fail to match the Legion's brute strength. Lanius is capable of showing respect even when he is bested in words and not a fight so I can believe him respecting Hanlon's ability to exploit weakness on the battlefield. I think that is the criteria for Lanius on the difference between a Hanlon and Vulpes, if its on the battlefield like luring an advancing foe into an ambush its fine but poisoning their drinking water before the fight isn't.

I could see Hanlon's crucifixion being because Hanlon is a bit broken and defeatist rather then a cunning fox like he used to be. It might be disappointing to see the guy that disgraced the Legion and ruined the old legate so worn down.

I might be a little bias against Caesar and how he takes his defeats so I guess time healed the wounds and cooled him off. If he lets the Followers get free passage I guess he can show some respect to a worthy foe.

Generally I'd give it to Lanius but depending on circumstances I could see Graham able to win some encounters with guerilla tactics. In terms of in game naturally Lanius wins every time.

 

[Ruin]

You know what I really don't like about Fallout 4? How fucking brutal the sole survivor is. Fallout 3 and New Vegas have tons of options for bypassing combat, in New Vegas especially you can fucking talk down the final boss into surrendering. In Fallout 4 literally every quest is solved by murdering a half dozen people. It's especially jarring when playing as Nora or whatever the female SS's default name is because pre cryo she was a former lawyer and stay at home mother who never fired a gun and an hour into the game she's like

"hell yea lets ambush that drug deal and murder 50 people and then steal the drugs!"

To be fair the voiced protagonist was a huge fucking mistake and limited role playing but still, jarring as fuck.

 

[WinchesterPremium]

So what exactly was the institute's long term plan? As far as I can tell it's

1 - Build robots that are indistinguishable from humans
2 - replace surface humans with said robots
3 - remain underground
4 -?
5 - profit!

It's like the fallout version of the underpants gnomes.

Basically they wanted to use human robots because they're cool.

They do the Lizard Man thing because they're idiots who steal power, water, and probably food from the surface since their underground bunker isn't self sustaining. So they replace random settlers to basically tap into the settlement's cable. They manage to take over the one town that exists in the commonwealth mostly to keep the peasants from murdering them.

The whole business with building a nuclear reactor is that they currently don't have one despite such things being just kinda everywhere. Like the vault they infiltrated just to steal test subjects. The one where everyone is dead and they could have just moved into. So they take everyone else's power.

 

[Burned Man]

You know what I really don't like about Fallout 4? How fucking brutal the sole survivor is. Fallout 3 and New Vegas have tons of options for bypassing combat, in New Vegas especially you can fucking talk down the final boss into surrendering. In Fallout 4 literally every quest is solved by murdering a half dozen people. It's especially jarring when playing as Nora or whatever the female SS's default name is because pre cryo she was a former lawyer and stay at home mother who never fired a gun and an hour into the game she's like

"hell yea lets ambush that drug deal and murder 50 people and then steal the drugs!"

To be fair the voiced protagonist was a huge fucking mistake and ruined role playing but still, jarring as fuck.

It feels so much easier to be a scumbag in 4 with all the options to use your charisma to shake down people for extra money and then do their wet work. Even in one of the rare chances you get to use speech to nonviolently end a conflict you also get an option to use extra violence in it instead.

 

[Ruin]

It feels so much easier to be a scumbag in 4 with all the options to use your charisma to shake down people for extra money and then do their wet work. Even in one of the rare chances you get to use speech to nonviolently end a conflict you also get an option to use extra violence in it instead.

It's not possible to play a non psychopath in Fallout 4. I've tried, seriously tried. 95% of dialogue options lead to shootouts.

 

[JektheDumbass]

Finally decided to venture to the Pitt in TTW (seriously, Fallout 3 works better as DLC for NV than it did as it's own game) and I'm struggling here. On the one hand Ashur seems to genuinely want things to get better. On the other hand he's going about it in the worst possible way imaginable by aligning himself with vicious psychopaths and enslaving people.
Even Caesar's Legion looks benevolent in their treatment of slaves by comparison.
And it's hard not to notice that the slaves seem to be recieving almost none of the benefits here. The Raiders seem to have decent food while the slaves are forced to eat slop made of irradiated water and trog guts. Then there's the fact that they're being worked to death and shot if it's percieved they're "slacking off" by their drugged up overlords who look for any excuse to kill.

Even if a cure is found I'm pretty sure the raiders would never let things change. Quite a few of them show an absolutely insane amount of disdain for the slaves, despite a few of their own having come from their ranks.

In the end I think I'm going to have to put a bullet through this faggots skull. If he had at least provided better food, medical care, reasonable working conditions, and forbid his men from just murdering slaves like they were animals, maybe I would have been able to swallow the shit and agree it's for the best. But really, it doesn't look like it is. Fuck, even one of his own fucking men, Werhner, realized nothing is going to change under Ashur and tried to overthrow him.


This is the closest Bethesda got to the nuance of New Vegas, and it's still insanely unsatisfying with how limited everything is. Why can't I convince Ashur that there's a better way or at least to tell his men to stop being absolute shitheads?

Might be too late but the answer is obvious if you think about it. Take the cannibal perk and eat the baby.

 

[c-no]

Part of it might be that Caesar can't use doctors and tech outside of very specific situations because it puts the whole structure of the Legion at risk. Look at who makes up Caesars army; a bunch of uneducated tribals who have never heard of Ancient Rome and really do think Caesar is the son of Mars and a God. Having them come into too much contact with civilization to kidnap a doctor, forage for parts for an autodoc, or find a machine shop to forge the replacement part for the howitzer makes them more likely to learn that Caesar is full of shit and they don't need to listen to him. Look what happened when Ulysses explored too much of the world, he left the Legion seeing how unsustainable they were. According to Sawyer one of the reasons he tried to kill Graham was because Graham was an educated man from civilization, knew Caesar was making shit up, and Caesar saw him as a political threat because he knew the truth. He can have the Courier do all this because the Courier is from civilization, knows its all a lie, but for some reason is working for the Legion so go enough for Caesar.

He has to keep his army as a whole ignorant and fearing of progress otherwise they will eventually learn he isn't a God, just a guy who read a lot of books and turn on him. His inner circle can have more contact with the civilized world because he knows they're loyal and fanatical, thinking nothing of their leader hypocritically using modern medicine and authorizing the use of more modern weapons. He can keep his closest followers under his thumb but if too much of the rank and file got too smart his ass would find itself lashed to a cross by his bloodthirsty goons.


Its kinda odd that the game shows that Lanius is actually intelligent, maybe even a little wiser than his boss because he can be persuaded to see how foolish it is to keep trying to take the dam, but the endings with him as the new leader of the Legion make him out to be a total idiot who does the stupidest thing possible. Maybe hes only good at warfare and not actually ruling a country. Or hes just a bloodthirsty butcher who gets off to mindless slaughter, whichever.

I wouldn't be surprised on that either. His soldiers coming across info that would show Caesar's full of shit would be a possibility though it makes one wonder if they'd really be able to find a book about Roman civilzation and history and piece the two together. On top of that, one also wonders how many of the tribals making up the Legion are illiterate beyond singing glories and praises to Caesar. As for Lanius himself, I can imagine he's both intelligent and a blood thirsty butcher. He's not dumb enough to think he can succeed taking over New Vegas and fighting NCR when you manage to convince him how it'll be a folly at the moment, and when he takes over the Legion should Caesar die from whatever reason, Lanius shows just how brutal he truly is as a leader in having survivors killed, enslaved, or crucified. As for good at warfare and not leading a country, Marcus laid out the entirety of the Legion in that they follow Caesar but not his ideals since Caesar's death will spell the end of the civilization he envisioned. All that aside, it's likely they were deliberate in putting in conflicting information of the Legate just to build up an image of a monstrous being that fights for the Legion, both in NCR and Legion propaganda.

 

[The handsome tard]

Does anyone wonder why Bethesda doesnt bother setting any Fallout games at the east coast? Sort of make an actual Fallout 3 set in california? Part of me wishes we could see a game actually set within the NCR itself. And Bethesda has shown they are capable of following the canon set by Interplay well for the most part (now before someone begins to say this and that, pay attention I said they are CAPABLE of doing so, not that they always do).

I feel like Bethesda wanted Fallout 3 to be a "soft reboot" of the series and focus on their "own side" of the universe with only vague references to the West Coast. But I always wondered why they never considered making a game set there (and throw the "they would botch it" isnt exactly a real reason).

Maybe they feel there is no story to tell there? It would be cool to explore what remains vault 13 or the now city of Arroyo, hell having an elder Chosen One giving us quests would be the tits, wouldnt it? Him talking about his younger days, saving his village and then the whole wasteland from the enclave and etc, maybe giving his opinion on the situation at New Vegas, depending if the NCR won or not...or maybe the game could bet set before New Vegas, or at least before the second battle at hoover dam.

California is still a very relevant setting in my eyes, just because its a safer and more developted location, that still doesnt make that great stories cant be set there.

Edit: I put "East Coast" instead of "West coast", my bad.

 

[Dom Cruise]

Does anyone wonder why Bethesda doesnt bother setting any Fallout games at the east coast? Sort of make an actual Fallout 3 set in california? Part of me wishes we could see a game actually set within the NCR itself. And Bethesda has shown they are capable of following the canon set by Interplay well for the most part (now before someone begins to say this and that, pay attention I said they are CAPABLE of doing so, not that they always do).

I feel like Bethesda wanted Fallout 3 to be a "soft reboot" of the series and focus on their "own side" of the universe with only vague references to the East Coast. But I always wondered why they never considered making a game set there (and throw the "they would botch it" isnt exactly a real reason).

Maybe they feel there is no story to tell there? It would be cool to explore what remains vault 13 or the now city of Arroyo, hell having an elder Chosen One giving us quests would be the tits, wouldnt it? Him talking about his younger days, saving his village and then the whole wasteland from the enclave and etc, maybe giving his opinion on the situation at New Vegas, depending if the NCR won or not...or maybe the game could bet set before New Vegas, or at least before the second battle at hoover dam.

California is still a very relevant setting in my eyes, just because its a safer and more developted location, that still doesnt make that great stories cant be set there.

You mean the west coast, the east coast is where Bethesda sets their games.

As for a return to the west coast, I'd love to see a new game set in California, but I'm not sure I'd want it to be done by Bethesda, ideally I'd want some of the New Vegas team to be brought back somehow to do it.

The trouble with Bethesda's take on Fallout isn't that they don't follow the lore close enough, but the overall difference in tone, Bethesda's take on Fallout is a little more wacky without the darker edge of 1, 2 and NV, that'd be lame to see them bringing that to the original setting of Fallout 1 and 2, keeping it on the east coast makes it easier to appreciate Bethesda's Fallouts for what it is instead of always comparing it to the original.

 

[JektheDumbass]

I'd like to see a fallout game in the South, or maybe another Midwest fallout.

 

[Dom Cruise]

I'd like to see a fallout game in the South, or maybe another Midwest fallout.

I think Florida would be a great setting, but they've already blown their load on using an amusement park with Nuka World.

 

[WinchesterPremium]

Does anyone wonder why Bethesda doesnt bother setting any Fallout games at the east coast? Sort of make an actual Fallout 3 set in california? Part of me wishes we could see a game actually set within the NCR itself. And Bethesda has shown they are capable of following the canon set by Interplay well for the most part (now before someone begins to say this and that, pay attention I said they are CAPABLE of doing so, not that they always do).

I feel like Bethesda wanted Fallout 3 to be a "soft reboot" of the series and focus on their "own side" of the universe with only vague references to the East Coast. But I always wondered why they never considered making a game set there (and throw the "they would botch it" isnt exactly a real reason).

Maybe they feel there is no story to tell there? It would be cool to explore what remains vault 13 or the now city of Arroyo, hell having an elder Chosen One giving us quests would be the tits, wouldnt it? Him talking about his younger days, saving his village and then the whole wasteland from the enclave and etc, maybe giving his opinion on the situation at New Vegas, depending if the NCR won or not...or maybe the game could bet set before New Vegas, or at least before the second battle at hoover dam.

California is still a very relevant setting in my eyes, just because its a safer and more developted location, that still doesnt make that great stories cant be set there.

Yes, you are the only one who wonders that. California is a functional nation that doesn’t need murderhobos anymore, and Bethesda is physically located on the East coast so they write what they know. The endings already tied everything up, the Enclave and Master where already dealt with. Fallout 1 and 2 take place on the opposite ends of California so you’d have something *new* to explore since exploration was always an important part of the story. So the story has:
1. Developed past post-apocalypse so there is nothing for adventurers to do
2. Run out of places to explore, so there is nothing for adventurers to do.
3. Run out of enemies, so there is nothing for adventurers to do.

If they did do something in California it would have to be completely different in setting and tone, defeating the point of a sequel. Thus further fallouts had to be in different locations where everything was still wild and murdery. Bethesda chose the East Coast because they live there and it hadn’t been developed in lore yet. The other guys chose Nevada because it hadn’t been developed and they live near there. There is nothing good left to do in California.

 

[CWCissey]

I think a game in the Washington State region centring on the fledgling Great Khan empire that's alluded to in one of the endings of NV could be good.

 

[The handsome tard]

Yes, you are the only one who wonders that. California is a functional nation that doesn’t need murderhobos anymore, and Bethesda is physically located on the East coast so they write what they know. The endings already tied everything up, the Enclave and Master where already dealt with. Fallout 1 and 2 take place on the opposite ends of California so you’d have something *new* to explore since exploration was always an important part of the story. So the story has:
1. Developed past post-apocalypse so there is nothing for adventurers to do
2. Run out of places to explore, so there is nothing for adventurers to do.
3. Run out of enemies, so there is nothing for adventurers to do.

If they did do something in California it would have to be completely different in setting and tone, defeating the point of a sequel. Thus further fallouts had to be in different locations where everything was still wild and murdery. Bethesda chose the East Coast because they live there and it hadn’t been developed in lore yet. The other guys chose Nevada because it hadn’t been developed and they live near there. There is nothing good left to do in California.

Now to be fair, New Vegas wasnt exactly post-apocalyptic either, it was post-post-apocalyptic and it was able to keep a mixture of civilization and dangerous wild so who knows?

And I kind of doubt that new threats wouldnt come from both outside and inside. I mean, if you want to get balsy, what if the legion ending of NV is canon and the legion is coming to get California now? You could be playing as maybe someone The Chosen One trusts and trained personally? He obviously would want you to defend the NCR from the legion but you would obviously have the choice to join the legion and finish the NCR off.

Tho here is a twist for the late game. Ceaser is dead but Lanius is leading it and you actually kill him but...turns out there is a new Lanius, this was the old one. Thats right, someone actually took his place as the head of the legion. And when you finally meet the true Lanius...its revealed its none other than The Courier himself (and yes, I know so many will tell me thats lore breaking but its not like this is anything that actually exists).

I do admit its rather fanfiction-y but it would be rather ballsy to have things in such a tense and dark situation as the NCR now fights for its life against a faction lead by a man that clearly wanted all the power of the legion for himself.

 

[WinchesterPremium]

Now to be fair, New Vegas wasnt exactly post-apocalyptic either, it was post-post-apocalyptic and it was able to keep a mixture of civilization and dangerous wild so who knows?

And I kind of doubt that new threats wouldnt come from both outside and inside. I mean, if you want to get balsy, what if the legion ending of NV is canon and the legion is coming to get California now? You could be playing as maybe someone The Chosen One trusts and trained personally? He obviously would want you to defend the NCR from the legion but you would obviously have the choice to join the legion and finish the NCR off.

Tho here is a twist for the late game. Ceaser is dead but Lanius is leading it and you actually kill him but...turns out there is a new Lanius, this was the old one. Thats right, someone actually took his place as the head of the legion. And when you finally meet the true Lanius...its revealed its none other than The Courier himself (and yes, I know so many will tell me thats lore breaking but its not like this is anything that actually exists).

I do admit its rather fanfiction-y but it would be rather ballsy to have things in such a tense and dark situation as the NCR now fights for its life against a faction lead by a man that clearly wanted all the power of the legion for himself.

It kept everything it needed. You walk down the street and some bandits jump you, so even a mailman has to go around heavily armed. Monsters still roam the streets, there is still loot left to scavenge from untouched sources, there are still deadly monsters and warring factions. While the factions are here to civilize the place and it won’t last passed the end game, for now it is totally post apocalyptic. In California you would walk down patrolled streets where no monsters attack to a city you already know the location of to do literally nothing because they are passed the “shoot political opponents to death” stage for the few factions that exist and all essentially work together under a strong leader.

That won’t change if the legion invaded. They never showed the past protagonist before not only because it’s dumb and fanfictiony but also because everyone had a completely different play through so leaving the passed protagonist vague is the only way to not make that look stupid. If you did say “yeah this guy is totally the protagonist of the last game” nobody would care since they would by necessity look and act completely different from how “your” chosen one acted removing any attachment you would have had.

Like I said earlier, your suggestion completely violates the tone and setting. It’s not anything like how a fallout game “should” be in any way. There isn’t any opportunity for exploration when your defending known territory, you would be set on a linear path instead of being able to make meaningful decisions, there isn’t anything post-apoc about the setting since your fighting in a civilized land, and you wouldn’t even be able to clearly choose your own companions since your automatically a subordinate now. No part of this closely resembles a good idea.

 

[Dr. Geronimo]

I always thought a Fallout game set in the Ozarks would be pretty fun.