If Fallout 3 had been Canon...

[SATMA]

I don't know. I didn't play Fallout 1 and 2 very long before deciding they were more frustrating than fun. I like Fallout 3 the way it is. I'd probably still like it if it meshed better with the previously-established canon. I don't really see how it would change much though. It'd still be Fallout 3.

This is me basically, but knowing what I do of Black Isle and the kind of products they did, I do enjoy using mods that restore some of the aspects of the old Fallouts into FO3, though I think the automatic shotgun is a bit OP in FO3. :P

 

I think the MAIN story line of fallout 3 was rather subpar to the other fallouts, honestly.

 

And I know at least some people are upset with what they did with some of the other factions.

For whatever reason, the supermutants around DC are pretty much ogres: they're dumb as hell, bestial, and like to eat people. They weren't quite like that in fallout, and in fallout 2 you even had a town full of intelligent if not very overtly friendly supermutants.

Well there is Fawkes and Uncle Leo. As well, DC super mutants aren't all strictly the same as the classic ones, though, from what I understand; yes, they were made by exposure to FEV, but I think it would actually be less realistic if it was assumed that the results of that exposure are going to be the same every time. Organic life is never uniform in that regard. As well, they talk about eating people but we only ever see them trying to kidnap people. :P

 

The BoS is supposed to be neutral. Though they end up helping your character in the other fallouts because of the great evil or whatever, they don't ever take direct action, which fo3 changes.

You're ignoring the Outcasts, though; they obviously do take major issue with this new direction, to the point of outright rebellion. You really can't pretend Bethesda ignored their previous history completely.

 

You eradicated the enclave in fo2. There's really no reason to make them a recurring villain, it's pretty irritating; would've been interesting to see perhaps a tiny remnant, but as it is, they are a prevalent presence throughout the wasteland. Besides which, I would've thought that they would've recalled their soldiers when they're about to unleash A GLOBAL DEADLY VIRUS. IIRC they're always about to release the virus in a short while as soon as you enter the rig.

I guess I can't speak to this as much. On the one hand, I can see why an enemy like the Enclave could be so tenacious. It is, after all, the black heart of FO3's US government, and I can see how such an organization would be difficult to ultimately destroy. On the other hand, constantly harping back to it because you can't think up a better antagonist does seem somewhat uncreative.

 

The majority of the ghouls you meet are feral, compared to the previous fallouts where even when evil, they were intelligent. Plus I'd say the gecko town was much more interesting than underworld. Also, was anyone else a tad annoyed that the intelligent ghouls are just people with their skins changed? Ghouls had a much more distinctive look in the other fallouts...

 

Some of these changes aren't bad, they're explainable and can make sense. This is much later than the other fallouts, so its conceivable that ghouls really do go feral after that long, for example. It's just that changing so much of it at once can really destroy the feeling of continuity from other games, and I'm not sure bethesda really took the fallout series in the right direction. It's still fun though, once you mod it =)

I'd not known that about FO1/FO2 ghouls. Yeah, I guess that doesn't make a lot of sense. Couldn't they at least have shoehorned some kind of explanation in as to why there are ferals out in DC but nowhere else (say, FEV, our Diabolus ex Machina)? I like the dynamic overall, but that extreme a change does seem a bit off.