I've been replaying Fallout 3, and I was wondering, what if Bethesda made it canon that the Lone Wanderer blew up the Citadel and the Eastern BOS along with the Enclave? Because in the first Fallout, you could join the Super Mutants and takeover the wasteland, which is a huge bad karma decision, but implementing it would of made Interplay have to completely change the location of Fallout 2 from California. But with blowing up the BOS, it would also be a huge bad karma decision, but it could be pretty easily worked into the story. And I also believe it would be the first negative decision of this size to ever be canon in Fallout. What do you guys think of this? I love the BOS, but I would actually want this to be canon, I think mainly because it would make the Lone Wanderer the first canonically evil protagonist in the Fallout series. Bamit11 (talk) 06:19, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
- That would be a huge twist and I'm sure it would receive polarized reactions. Юра 06:20, June 22, 2013 (UTC)
- It's pretty tough to say even what point in time Fo4 takes place in, let alone whether it'll be a time where the events of Fo3 could even be referenced. Regardless, if a reference even makes sense, it'll probably be very nonspecific. Digital Utopia (talk) 13:13, June 8, 2015 (UTC)
I think it's pretty far fetched that they'd make nuking the BoS canon. If Bethesda was going to make the Lone Wanderer an evil bastard they'd probably just have him side with the Enclave and taint the water in the Capital Wasteland. If you look at it from a mercenaries point of view it wouldn't make much sense to take out both the Enclave and the BoS, that's like eliminating both of your most powerful potential contractors.
- That to me is the greatest difference between F3 and New Vegas. In New Vegas, you had the chance to side with or against virtually every major group. You could see both the good and the bad, and as the player, you could route out corruption or tend its roots. For me, I saw the NCR as flawed hero and the Legion a scourge that must be removed from the waste, but not because either was written into the script as good or bad. It was my choice and opinions lead to the enemies and allies I made, and I was able to feel strongly about those choices because they were more uniquely mine. In Fallout 3, there was no choice. Even if you do poison the water you aren't even siding with the Enclave; you are just doing a single evil thing that barely effects the players relationship with the Brotherhood or Enclave. Hell even Col Autumn is against poisoning Project Purity and thinks that Eden is crossing a line. The Enclave was presented as a grand evil, and they definitely have a history of dastardly deeds, but their past is barely touched upon in F3 and doesn't fully mirror their actions. Having them be a purely antagonistic faction only makes me wish I could have sided with them. Perhaps after doing so I could have been able to step back and say "these truly are some evil sadistic bastards" with no pause, but I would have liked to make that choice rather than be shoehorned into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!
- Well, I'm not so sure about that. House or Yes Man? Sure. Those are pretty base, objective sides; but the Legion had all the makings of your typical villain trope. Very little character development, or humanization of the main characters, save for Caesar himself, and even then pales in comparison to all the storylines and attention the NCR got. Then toss in plenty of evil actions, such as defeating and assimilating tribes, using women as slaves and breeders, torturing and killing "innocent" people based on their own set rules, terrorism, etc, etc. In fact, the only so-called redeeming qualities of the faction, revolves chiefly around ruling with an iron fist, and destroying anything they come across. Which is why trade routes are much safer in their territory. The only thing they could've done to make The Legion any eviler, is by having them kick puppies.
- It's also worth mentioning that the writing surrounding Yes Man or House wasn't very deep either - in fact, the only reason to choose those two paths, is entirely on what they represent. With Yes Man, it's the inherent belief of the player, that they can run New Vegas better than anybody else. With House, it's simply making the decision that if things aren't broke, then why fix it? Maintaining the status quo, so to speak. Granted, even despite all the writing time spent on the NCR, that decision wasn't any tougher. It's obvious they were intended to be the "good guys" from the beginning - and it's only their faults, faults typical of the government/military of a republic, that keep them from being the obvious choice for every player. But make no mistake, the only people choosing the Legion side, are the same ones that pick the Sith in a Star Wars game. They want to play the bad guy. Digital Utopia (talk) 13:13, June 8, 2015 (UTC)