Talk:Fallout (franchise)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Brahmin

I've heard from a reasonably reliable source that the name for Brahmin was in fact chosen as a modification of the breed of cattle, Brahman. http://brahmousin.org/ documents the breed and the physical similarities in terms of colour and shape can clearly be seen here. The reason for the name being slightly different is obvious - over any period of time without much writing being done and most use of names in language being vocal rather than written, spellings and pronunciations change. --Badharlick 15:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure about that, but the Hindu term 'brahmin' in Sanskrit means 'twice born', thus it may have been a perfect reference to the mutated cattle with two heads.

Solution: click Brahman. Anarchangel (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Child Killer

I remember some fuss with ratings board over being able to kill children and get the label "Child Killer". In some versions of the game children were taken out. I don't know the specifics, bit if anyone does it would be nice to add it. JayKeaton 17:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Child Killer kharma tag and yes, children were removed from the European version because European's don't like that sort of thing. There's a patch you can get which puts the children back in though. It might be worth adding a section on the kharma tags and mentioning it under there. Porn Star, Gravedigger and other similar tags are often talked about as a key aspect of "what makes Fallout" 203.173.17.225 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I realise the age of this post, but which installment was this (i.e. 1 or 2)? I'm thinking of buying them again before settling down proper & am tryin to find patches! _> MonstaPro:Talk 19:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC) =-=edit=-= and yes we are touchy about that sort of thing...not sure why...

Fallout 2. And the European version has taken out all the child sprites. There are adult NPC models tagged as "children" for the sake of the Child Killer tag (the random encounter caravan traders sometimes have "sons" - killing them (usually because you tried to steal goods from the caravan and started a combat) will make you a child killer). - JohnDoe244 (talk) 12:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Worth mentioning that the children are in the game, you just can't see, and obviously click, on them. So you get overhead messages appearing out of seemingly nowhere, and any quests or activities that featured children as players are impossible to complete, e.g. you can't watch the Enclave transaction in the desert, because you can't speak to the Wright kids. See Per Jorner Anarchangel (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of children from the European version created some consternation for some palyers, so Andy Reddson actually created a mod that removed them from the game entirely. He claimed "suffering the child killer perk was worth it- besides I deleted that savegame anyways."

Great Wanamingo Mine

It might be worth mentioning that a mine of the same name exists in the Mojave desert. It was a talc soapstone mine, and was part of a group of three mines collectively known as the Halloran Spring Deposit. Apparantly the mine in the game was NOT named after the creatures that are infesting it, but rather the creatures were named after the mine. It makes sense to me, since there is room in the game's story plot to speculate that the first significant infestation of these creatures was in the Great Wanamingo Mine, and that they were henceforth referred to as Wanamingos.--Badharlick 03:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BIS

Just a reminder: Black Isle no longer exists, yet it's refrenced like it does in the opening paragraph. It's kind of a meaningless statement anyway, since by the time BIS was disbanded, almost no one there had worked on the original title.

Category ?

Ausir, why did you revert my addition? All i did was add the category "Computer role-playing games"... ? Is it not a Computer RPG? ?_? - UnlimitedAccess 04:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea why Ausir did it. But a safe guess is that it is because this category was voted for deletion.--Lord Yaar 10:36, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Yeah but thats becuase their is a category for Console RPG's and Computer RPG's and they plan to merge them... so adding Fallout now can do no harm. - UnlimitedAccess 14:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I removed the category because the article is in the Category:Fallout which is in the category you wanted to add it to. Therefore it would be overcategorization. Ausir 15:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Ahh.. I see. Although I believe the CRPG link at the bottom would be quite useful for the article and having two category isnt really over categorising, but yes I guess we should limit redundancy. Additionally CRPG's wiki-link can be found on the Fallout side table under Genre, so I guess this way where all happy. Oh and Congratulations on being promoted to administrator, but for next time it would be good if you can to at least provide a vague reason for the rv (unless it vandals), I was quite puzzeled. - UnlimitedAccess 16:00, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Further expansion of article, or a link up with the Fallout Bible?

Elements of the Fallout Bible should be integrated with this article, seeing as it answers many questions unanswered by the original series. Redxela Sinnak 06:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

---

• Groups and organizations
  • Brotherhood of Steel
  • Vault-Tec (Vault-Tek)
  • Circle of Thieves
  • Bounty Hunters
  • Slavers

• Cities, City-States, and Nation-states
  • New California Republic
  • Vault City
  • Shady Sands
  • Vault 13, 15, etc.
  • Adytum
  • Necropolis

• Weapons

• Notable individuals within the universe
  • The Master
  • Killian Darkwater
  • Vault 13 Overseer
  • Loxley
  • Rhombus
  • Maxson

---

Link to Fallout Bible

thanks for the link: will make sure it's put into article _> MonstaPro:Talk 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Comparison to Steampunk?

Steampunk is a term given to pieces of fiction set in the past where they have futuristic technology (for example, if they discovered space travel during the Victorian era). What is the term for works like Fallout, which are set in the future but intentionally have throwbacks to the 50s (like the vacuum tubes, and the propaganda-style help section)? Other examples would be Starship Troopers (movie) and Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow. --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 23:19, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

• fallout just fits into the post-apocalyptic genre, only it was made as the people in the 50's tought the post-apocaliptic world would be. Maybe the term you're looking for is retrofuturistic.--Tycho 01:52, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

DieselPunkAlister Namarra 01:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• In the 10 years since this question was asked the term "atompunk" is sometimes used to refer to this particular from of retrofuturism, although the term is not nearly as common as "steampunk."

Fallout Community

The recent edits by User:Scumbag are clear POV pushing, like claiming that turn-based combat and isometric view are obsolete, while there are still many turn-based and isometric games around and in production. I also don't see how Roshambo's posts about Bethesda make him deserve a mention in Wikipedia - not to mention calling him "infamous" is yet another example of POV pushing. I also don't recall anyone seriously trying to force Bethesda into using 2D. As for me being an owner of Duck and Cover, he is simply wrong, although I am a member of the site's stuff. (Besides, Duck and Cover has quite good relations with the Bethesda developers). I'd also like to see some proof of the alleged isolation of Fallout community, and it being to blame for the stuff he claims it is. Ausir 20:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Even on wikipedia Fallout community shows it's worst side. It's good that there are people keeping it all purely factual and on topic. And now my 5 (euro)cents:

LI think that if Bethesda deciedes to do next FO more like morrowind, let them. Just keep what's best in the setting and show it from a different perspective if they want. But please, oh please if anyone from Bethesda is reading this, don't call such game Fallout 3. Call it Fallout something or other. The fans won't be as "angry" that the series is butchered. Let's reserve no.3 and other numbers for Fallout games that look like fallout 1 and 2. If anybody wants to flame me for saying this I must warn you that I have very high fire DR ;) --Lord Yaar 12:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

And anyway, the recent actions of some Fallout fans against Bethesda are just a minor episode, and the attitude of Fallout fans is mostly caused by what Interplay did with the franchise (cancelling Fallout 3 twice to focus on spin-offs like Tactics or FOBOS). Ausir 16:41, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

You can call it "minor episodes" all you want, but its a salient situation that was witnessed by the gaming community in general - happiness from most communies, anger from the serious Fallout community. I(f this is a 'minor episode', this would prove that which you're trying to deny. Scumbag 05:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Troika went bankrupt exactly because it didn't manage to obtain the Fallout license. If they did, they would develop Fallout 3 for Activision (although it was never announced officially). Ausir 21:15, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I was just commenting that it was a silver lining that they didn't get it. No harm done or anything on that. Scumbag 05:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the current version is basically saying that the Fallout fans are stupid and don't know what a Fallout game should be like, while the "general community" does. I find it a bit weird - after all, it's not as if Fallout fans tell Bethesda what a Morrowind game should be like. Ausir 23:58, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That was never my intention: my intention was to show a history of serious Fallout fans acting in such a fashion that the community is almost more well-known than the parent game. As such, I think the edits you and I have done (sans the last 2 IP editors that I reverted because us two had worked hard on getting something even-kelled. Scumbag 05:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

The current version seems to me to be very biased. While the Fallout fanbase's reaction to BethSoft's FO3 was negative in some cases, your opinion on the obsolescence of turn-based combat and isometric viewpoint and on how Bethesda should or should not do Fallout 3 is irrelevant. Furthermore, painting the entire community with the same brush is unfair as opinions are divided (particularly among the NMA/DAC axis). Some people were and are really angry about what happened. Others are optimisitc. Others are simply apathetic since Bethesda isn't (publically) doing much on FO3 right now anyways. In any case, Wikipedia articles shouldn't degenerate into opinion pieces. Stating outright that the Fallout community is a bunch of rabid, complaining loonies is unfair. Spazmo 00:18, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

hey, Ausir here and I have tried (and done decently well, thank you very much) of explaining why they feel this way. I'm not going to not point out when the community *has* done things that makes them look like "rabid, complaning loonies", however. Scumbag 05:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

And I wonder what exactly you mean by Fallout community being isolated from the "general community". Do you mean no cross-overs? I don't see what could it possibly mean except for being a weasel term. Ausir 00:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I mean, essentially, that you'd be hard pressed to find someone other than a serious Fallout fan not being insulted repeatedly in the Fallout community for expressing viewpoints that aren't from "serious" Fallout. Hell, the way this wiki article keeps having any non-serious-Fallout viewpoints removed or butchered is another good example. Come on - Morrowind /Elder Scrolls isn't a true RPG?

Regarding "isolation of the community". In my personal opinion all hardcore CRPGrs are isolated from the "general community" in some sense. Let me explain why I think so. Most games released today that carry RPG in their "GENRE" field are not RPG in a sense that someone who played p&p would understand it. It seems that most publishers don't care that throwing a couple of stats and few different stereotypical characters with no possibility of initial customisation (except maybe appearance) doesn't make an role-playing game. Just look at FOBOS. As a result of this "misconception" in publishing circles most of the "general community" has no idea what an RPG is and therefore they are unable to understand many of the FO fans grievances (we are a rather hardcore bunch in RPG terms :)). Also when any attempt to establish a meaningful dialog is made, different definitions of most important terms hamper the exchange of thougts or even make it impossible (save for flaming and name calling). Thus the community seems isolated. The other meaning of isolation may be that FO community wants another good CRPG instead of some more or less crappy diablo clone. That was a long rant ;) --Lord Yaar 15:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't let the iron out of the whole Fallout-community because of this lone use. Thank you...--OleMurder 15:12, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This section desperately needs to weed out some anti-fandom bias. (I gather from the discussion here that any pro-fandom bias is very quick to be spotted and removed.) I'm thinking primarily of the J.E. Sawyer quote, beloved by communities who like to engage in Fallout fandom bashing, presented here with the words "notoriety", "famously" and "ridiculed" for extra weight. It's a purely subjective statement from a guy who worked on a game that was never completed and who had a strong personal stake and involvement in the matter - in fact it's pretty reminiscent of Uwe Boll's comments on lack of fandom appreciation (no other comparison intended). It's perfectly understandable, and I can see quite well why people would find it funny or that it would make other fandom groups feel good about themselves, but it's got nothing to do with NPOV, and it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. There are also hints of the old "the fans killed Interplay" argument, that if only fans had paid for products they didn't really want (Tactics, and to a lesser degree FBoS), the franchise would have fared better, so they should have taken a blow for the rest of the world or something. No need to rehash the entire endless discussion here, but at the very least the Sawyer quote needs to go; it adds no information to what was already said in the preceding lines, it's just a subjective dig at an abstract group of people as regarded by a single person. (Update) Well, that was drastic and functional. I removed the neutrality and quote-needing tags accordingly. /Per

Troika

This article needs much cleanup now. For example, Troika is dead. They are not working on any project anymore. All employees were laid off save the original founders and Steve Moret. See the interview with Leon Boyarsky. Anyway, I think this article should be split into articles for each game and a general article about the series, setting and the community. Ausir 04:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Splitting the article is a good idea. Since you have seniority over me as a wikipedian Mr. Ausir ;) I'll let you do it. I declare my help in creating info about locations in FO1 and FO2 in these separated articles.--Lord Yaar 12:56, 2005 May 18 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need really detailed descriptions of Fallout locations and characters. After all, that's what The Vault is for... Ausir 13:04, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Soundtrack

Fallouts come with excellent dark ambient soundtracks and should be given some attention in the article. However, finding out about game music authors appears to be confusing.

There exists a soundtrack compilation (Mark Morgan - Fallout 1 & 2)floating in the P2P networks, equipped with a text file explaining the mp3's are acquired by ripping them from the game itself. Even the most intensive searches come up with almost nothing about the composer, but here are some clues:

The Duck and Cover - fansite has a short description here http://vault.duckandcover.cx/index.php?title=Mark_Morgan and a link to Mobygames composer profile here: http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,1234/ , but it turns out that in Mobygames' profile they are even unsure about which sex Mr./Ms. Morgan is.

Some searches connect Mark Morgan as being an alter ego to Mark Snow, another game/movie composer famous for his X-files tune. Mark Snow is credited for some games that are also credited the same games Morgan has, but the credits differ too much in comparison to draw any hasty conclusions.

I'll try to make more research on this by contacting the good people of Duck and Cover and Mobygames, but if you have any ideas, please comment.

quess what, i wrote to several people who i thought might be able to help me and they arranged me to write directly to Mr. Morgan. Yay. I will soon be able write about the soundtrack, if im lucky, maybe put up an entire page about him.

RDJ Triva?

"In Fallout 2 Richard D. James of Aphex Twin secretly included one of his tracks from his album Selected Ambient Works Vol. 2. Track 18 "Windowsill" can be heard clearly in some parts of the game. He may have done this under the psuedonym EFX which appears in the game credits. It is unknown why he chose to do this, and what relationship he had with Black Isle".

This seems like rampant speculation. Do we have any evidence that this is not just a case of sampling and/or similar sounding tracks? That Fallout2 soundtrack does not contain anything credited to RDJ, for one. Furthermore, the wording "he included" is awkward, as it implies that RDJ had editorial control of the Fallout2 music, which would be news to me. RDJ has used the pseudonym AFX, but I do not know of any work of his under EFX (though I'm no expert).

I wrote to Mark Morgan an he denies ever even listening to Aphex Twin. How about that, huh?

I own the SAW2 album as well as both Fallout games, and have compared the two songs and found them to be totally identical. There is no question about it, the song was by Richard James, so he would've had to have at least agreed to the song being added to the game in order to avoid copyright infringement. This implies contact with RDJ. Whether that contact was initiated by RDJ or the people in charge of Fallout development, is unclear. Personally I have a few questions; was the song included to Fallout before SAW2 was released, or after? And, was the song included to Fallout 1 and 2, or just Fallout 2? With the answer to these questions, we can come to these conclusions: If SAW2 was not released before Fallout, then there is a possibility that RDJ played Fallout, liked the soundtrack, and wanted to contribute to it in the next release. If SAW2 was released before Fallout, then there is a possibility that one of the developers heard the song, and wanted to add it as a tribute to Aphex (might've been an RDJ fan or something?). If the song was included in Fallout 2 but not Fallout 1, then that makes it even more likely that Aphex is the one responsible for the song being added to the soundtrack. If the song was included in both releases, then that makes it more likely that the developers were responsible for it getting added. These conclusions rely on not only the answer to the question that they stem from, but also the answer to the other question. But I'm pretty sure that from here, we can make a reasonable guess as to whether or not Aphex was responsible for the track getting added to the game. If it's true that Mark Morgan denies involvement, then this was either down to a fan within the dev team, or Aphex liking the game - which one of these two is more likely can be detirmined by finding out whether or not the song was added to the first fallout. --Badharlick 15:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Check this forum thread at NMA for some information. It seems that Tim Cain had picked some music for Mark Morgan to listen to, and SAW2 was probably among it, although Morgan may not have known the artist or album well enough to recognize them later. There are at least two tracks which are strikingly similar (but not identical) to SAW2 tracks in Fo1, and another in Fo2. Also, in Fo2 another piece of music was clearly ripped off from the score to The Stand. In the absence of any other evidence, it seems more likely that Morgan borrowed heavily from the sound of specific SAW2 tracks - consciously or not - and that the EFX credit may have been a tacit acknowledgement - than James actually being in on the whole thing; and the latter should certainly not be stated as a known fact.

Under Trivia:

Also, Kurtwood Smith (most recently of That '70s Show fame) is the voice of General Dekker in FOT, after General Barnaky is killed.

▪In the city Geck(Fallout 2) you can play a card game called "Tragic: the Garnering", this is a parody of the game called Magic: The Gathering

It has been motioned to delete or merge all that is in trivia; I'm goin to make a list of all the voice-over talent & will include Smith's. _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bloody Mess

The Bloody Mess trait may in fact have an effect on gameplay. Upon playing the game with it as one of my selected traits, the leader of the gang in Junktown exploded when I approached him to finish a quest. I have no conception of the mechanics by which it operates; it may take karma, luck and quest status into account, among other things.

(SPOILERS!) At the end of Fallout, when you (the PC) and the Vault leader confront - having the bloody mess trait determines whether you accept your fate or blow him away with your pistol (these actions are visibly and automatically enacted by the game). Redxela Sinnak 06:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you don't need bloody mess. I blew him away with my gatling laser without having bloody mess. Of course the game locks up then. All you really need is a weapon that will kill him with one hit.161.53.168.49 08:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

--It's true that you aim skill and the weapon must be high enough to kill in one hit, but it is also affected by the choices in the game you make whether to fight or negotiate.

You missunderstood me. I actually played as a negotiator. What I did at the end game was frantically tap 'a' when the conversation screen started to close. This got me into combat before the Overseer started to walk away, so I could then shoot him. This is obviously a bug. When the combat ended, the game locked up. Clearly the designers never ment this to be possible, but it is, never the less. 161.53.168.49 08:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Page title?

This page is the destination of all Fallout-related redirects - perhaps the page title should be renamed "Fallout series" or "Fallout universe"? Redxela Sinnak 06:27, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Split up page?

Am I the only one that thinks it'd be a good idea to spin off the Fallout games as seperate articles? As this page grows, it might be good to have them in their own article. --Quasipalm 13:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Why not. Use Seiken Densetsu as a model. --Sn0wflake 16:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought this has started already?! 0_o _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Bugs

Maybe there should be a section on bugs withing the games (computer bugs, not radscorpions and such). There were so many that it became an integral part of the gaming experience.

Place into a criticisms section? _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

How about an open-source community based Fallout?

Why not communally gather our resources at a Wikicities site for designing a third-person isomorphic game based on Fallout? The graphics don't have to be essential; they could even be retro-RPG tile graphics like Wasteland or Angband. oneismany 16:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not rally behind a new game, "Grand Theft Auto: Post-Apocalypse", or somesuch in the spirit of Fallout and Wasteland? I'm sure the developers of GTA are looking for ideas for future games, and may have already thought of this. oneismany 11:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

See the section in the article under mods, as well as the FIFE Project (Flexible Isometric Fallout-like Engine) under external links. 203.173.17.225 04:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hub

The suggestion that The Hub, from the first Fallout, may be named after the Hudson Bay Company, is pretty unlikely. "Hub" is a fairly common term for any area that serves as a central meeting area or junction. It's similarity to Hud-son is merely coincidental. Removed it. Deadsalmon 01:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Silliness

Now this is silly - several edits from 83.248.202.70 regarding Wasteland Merc 2 apparently in some kind of edit war with itself. One edit this user writes great superlatives about the mod, the other he deletes it. Whoever you are please stop, it's annoying. --Lord Yaar 10:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Opening Paragraph not NPOV?

Are the lines "...not to mention the widely-held opinion among fans that the spin-off titles are of considerably lower quality than Fallout and Fallout 2." biased? It would seem like something difficult to verify. Doctor Atomic 04:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing that line from the opening paragraph. I don't think it belongs there, and there's a big seperate section on fan views vs 'canon' vs developers. Doctor Atomic 06:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's difficult to verify. Just make a post at NMA or DAC about it (which is where all "the fans" are) and you'll get the same response. I'm not sure what your query is regarding its bias as it clearly states "widely-held opinion among fans", not just "widely-held opinion". That said, I think the article can do without it as it's an opinion which doesn't necessarily add anything more that's not already in the section on the Community, as you say. 203.173.17.225 04:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, it IS hard to verify, actually impossible to verify, because niether NMA nor DAC can be reliably used as a "barometer" for the opinions of every Fallout fan. Not every Fallout fan posts there for instance, and there is no way of proving that these two forums collectively form the majority of the fallout fans, nor can it be stated that their opinion is any more relevant than that of the fans who don't even have the internet. Above all, stating simply that "it is a widely held opinion among fans" does not make the statement any more valid than "it is a widely held opinion", because it still does not mention where this information came from and that's the most important thing when making a statement like that, so it could be referring to anyone, not just those who post on NMA and DAC. It is of course impossible to gather this information without a huge survey being launched, and even that would have to be cited if it were the source of that information. In future, please consider these perspectives before arguing your point - we already have too many people making neutrality difficult to maintain by making poorly thought out arguments against neutrality edits. --Badharlick 16:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

for the same reason I have removed:

In 2001, PC Gamer named Fallout and Fallout 2 as the fourth best computer game of all time.

as it's unverifable. I only checked www though... _> MonstaPro:Talk

PC Gamer (US) October 2001 volume 8 number 10 page 70. It's verified.--Miguel Cervantes 19:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Storyline or game summaries?

Now that the article has been broken, should we continue to describe games based on their plot summaries or should we do short things on the games with a link to the main article? Miguel Cervantes 15:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

IMHO a very very brief description of each title seems to work best with each having wiki-link to its own article. What's there currently is very good, but is overall a bit long, for my taste anyway. _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Page Revamp

Thanks to all the updating done on this page, the recent splitting into each game, and the hatred most people seem to have for every Fallout game that isn't 1 or 2, this page has become kind of poor. At least in my opinion. So, I made some alterations to the page right here. I am interested in hearing some feedback on both what people think of the current page and what they think of my revision. The Fallout games are some of the best ever made, and it seems disappointing that the main page is so...awkward. Also, Fallout: BOS is a video game. Fallout 3 might be on consoles. Should this page be moved to Fallout (role-playing series), Fallout (video game series), Fallout (computer and video game series), or something else of a similar tone? Or am I just trying to do too much? Miguel Cervantes 18:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I like your all-inclusive version. Widely loathed as the later games may be, they are still a fact of life and should really be documented alongside the first two classics. Doctor Atomic 00:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no objections have been raised, I will make the changes on Thurday, June 1, 2006. Unless someone wants to object.Miguel Cervantes 01:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasteland

This may be of minor importance, but it seems to be a crucial fact that is glossed over or missed in this article: Fallout was a remake of Wasteland. The plot, characters, quests, locations, items, combat, and gameplay mechanics were all directly from Wasteland, with only the names and minor details changed. Interplay basically sought to regain artistic control of the Wasteland series by re-creating the exact original game (with updated graphics and everything re-named to prevent lawsuits) and then proceeding from there with the sequels and spin-offs that fans had wanted for years. Of course there is no cite for this because any official confirmation would open them to liability.

The article may be technically correct that, in name, there are only minor direct references between the two. But if you play through both games side by side, it is obvious they are the exact same game. Almost every main character, location, or quest in Wasteland has an identical but differently named counterpart in Fallout, and in the same general order. --The Yar 18:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fairly well covered in the opening line "Released in 1997, Fallout is the spiritual successor to the 1988 hit Wasteland." As you say yourself, we can't go into it anymore than that because there are no sources to back it up. Yay unto the Chicken 08:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess my point is that the line "except for minor references... entirely different universes" is original research and very incorrect/misleading. The universes and majoirty of references are all identical, with only the names changed. Again, though, original research. --The Yar 20:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Fallout was definitely not a "remake" of Wasteland or "the exact same game". They have obvious plot similarities and parallels (Junktown/Savage Village, Glow/Sleeper, robots/mutants), but the direct references are few, they certainly don't count as sharing a universe, ingredients are far from "identical" in their presentation and use, and the feel of the games are distinctly different. Spiritual successor, yes, but not a remake. /Per

Talk redirect and other issues

Why does Fallout (computer game)'s talk page redirect to the talk page for the series as a whole? Wouldn't it be better for it to have its own talk page?

Additionally, since this is the talk page for Fallout 1, why do we have information on the intro sequences? It seems like useless fancruft to me. Miguel Cervantes 21:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think your first question is a very good question and I would support removing the redirection to allow discussion on the different games separate from one another.

As to your second question, I assert (with no supporting references or data :) that the introduction to Fallout 1 is very well known and oft-quoted by games, particularly the opening line "War. War ever changes." I would also like to believe that it has significant qualities purely as a small peice of cinema. --ElKevbo 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Cancelled games

Should any mention be made of Fallout Tactics 2 and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel 2: Vagrant Lands? On one hand, both were going to be games, much like Van Buren. On the other hand, Van Buren actually went somewhere. This might be a moot point, however, as I can find no real confirmation of either except on forums. Could anyone provide any confirmation of their existence or input on their inclusion? Miguel Cervantes 00:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You have some sources about FOT2 here ("Quotes" section):

http://falloutvault.com/index.php?title=Fallout_Tactics_2

Some of them are from forums, but also from interviews, and the forum quotes are by Gareth "Section8" Davies, one of the FOT and FOT2 developers. As for FOBOS 2, it was actually announced in 2003, before FOBOS was even published, but cancelled shortly after the publication and flop of the first game (see e.g.: [1] [2]). I've spoken to Bethesda devs and they mentioned that they got FOBOS2:VL design docs from IPLY, but I can't find any "reliable" quote to confirm the title "Vagrant Lands" aside from that. 23:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Obscure Simpsons reference in Fallout 1 intro?

I'm inclined to remove the trivia factoid about the TV set in the intro cinematic of Fallout 1 being a reference to a television set seen briefly in a season 6 episode of The Simpsons, purely because it seems so vastly unlikely to me to be a legit reference and not a pure coincedence. If not removed outright, perhaps at least should be reworded to highlight the amusing coincedence, if it can't be proved as an intended reference?

Can anybody vouch for the authenticity of this statement, or, failing that, does anybody have access to The Simpsons season 6 ep 10, "Grandpa vs. Sexual Inadequacy", to at least verify that it is the same television set? If only the latter, I'll reword it as a coincedence for trivia's sake rather than imply that it "might" be a reference, but if somebody can cite proof that it is in fact an intended reference, I'll leave well enough alone. =) - Vaelor 15:38, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I highly doubt it'd be a reference. I'll remove it for the time being - it's pure coincidence. Mikael GRizzly 15:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my suspicion. Easy enough to add back in if somebody can cite a reference for proof, anyhow. Thanks. - Vaelor 15:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the same brand anyway "radiation king" 115.166.26.15 (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Fallout MMO Info

Why was the information on the Fallout MMO that was recentley announced removed? See 'Fallout' Returns for Real.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1057232/000117091806001092/presentation.htm ...seems pretty serious. --Ifrit 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not because the loyal fanbase won't buy Iply's shit after FOT and FOBOS and Interplay itself has 1.8 milion dollars of debt and no standing staff able to code anything, unless Caen let's his 3 year old nephew do the job. I actually think the nephew would be more competent than the staff that produced the little "gem" called FOBOS. Mikael GRizzly 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I just rewrote the whole paragraph on the MMO. Once again blog community has blown the whole thing out of proportion, the document is only a proposal (business plan or prospectus). If they manage to raise the $75M to do this, good for them and all of us gamers. Given they declared bankrupt awhile back, I am certain they will not meet the January 2007 mark of start production. --Voidvector 21:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Good thing you did it. Though I sincerely hope that Iply won't rape poor Fallout again with it's questionalbe "talent" Mikael GRizzly 22:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't you just re-instate what I had already written, coulda saved you some time... ITZKooPA 15:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There were too flaws in the previous write up. The quote taken mentioned "Cold War". Fallout isn't about Cold War, it's about a fictional conflict between US and China on natural resources. Obviously, the person who filed SEC Form (I believe the presiding CEO of Interplay) does not even care about the Fallout storyline. The previous write-up said "Interplay has formerly begun to work on a Fallout MMO according to a filing made with the SEC". I was not able to infer that from the SEC filing. Also, I replaced a forum/blog post citation with one from a gaming news site. --Voidvector 18:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I guess its just argueing semantics but the idea of trying to get money to produce a game can be seen as work beginning. And the forum/blog that you speak of is official news from a gaming news site. ITZKooPA 14:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Plus, why Interplay (or rather Herve) needs money: involuntary bankruptcy, mysteriously served a week before the Frankenstein of a presentation. Mikael GRizzly 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As I'm aware, the SEC doc dictates that Beth now fully owns the FO-IP, & any work the I-ply does actually setup needs to be as good or I-ply loses it's license to continue (somehow), as granted by Beth. Confusing. It's laid down here anyway. _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

FO1+2 downloaded 1 billion times on bt

“ Fallout 2 is a critically-acclaimed computer role-playing game published by Interplay in 1998. It was downloaded a whopping 1,165,564,987 time(s)! That is correct a game was the most popular torrent for 2006. It was downloaded more than 1 billion times! The bandwidth it consumed was a staggering 1,468,611,883 GB! ”

http://freelimewire.info/2007/what-was-the-top-10-torrents-for-2006/ Would be awesome if this can be verified, but with p2p, I don't know. -- 我♥中國 04:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It would interesting to verify it; but who's goin to open their logs for public verification of illegal DLs? _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Control Vault

Ok as far as I remember the vault that the President in Fallout 2 talks about is not Vault 11(Vault City) its Vault 13 and he also said that it was an unfortunat misstake that the shipments of water chips was missplaced or something similar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.254.91.234 (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Isn't this already dealt with? I thought the descriptions of the Vaults access & relationship to each other was quite succinct 0_o _> MonstaPro:Talk 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

In game evidence suggests that Vault 11 opened early. The President does say that Vault 13 was the control Vault, and there's a lot of evidence that Vault 11 opened too earily (the lack of all clear sensors, downloaded Pipboy data that has Vault City's mutation rate as classified, the lack of children conversation that suggests wide spread sterility). However, the Fallout Bible disagrees and mentions various things that were supposed to make it into the game but didn't. Unfortunate, but it's what we've got. - JohnDoe244 (talk) 12:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

_> In Fallout 3, Vault 76 is mentioned as being a control vault (despite not appearing in the game). Perhaps there are actually several different control vaults?68.110.229.245 (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP

"In April 2007, SEC filings were made showing the purchase of the IP for the Fallout MMO to Fallout 3 developer Bethesda for $5.75 million USD. While Bethesda now owns the rights to the Fallout MMO IP, clauses in the purchase agreement state allow Interplay to license the rights to the development of the MMO, provided that development begins within 24 months of the date of the agreement (April 4, 2007), and that Interplay must secure $30 million within that time frame or forfeit its rights to license. Interplay must furthermore launch the MMOG within 4 years of the beginning of development, and pay Bethesda 12 percent of sales and subscription fees for the use of the IP.[8]"

What's "the IP"?

Intellectual property. Ausir 12:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Mods links and NMA

Is there any reason why No Mutants Allowed (nma-fallout.com) is not linked? It is much bigger than Duck and Cover (which is linked). Also, why are there no Fallout mods? At least Fan Made Fallout (www.fanmadefallout.com), Fallout: Between Good & Evil (www.towerofcreation.com), WastelandMerc and Survivor should be linked.

Voice Talent

I'm too lazy to do my own research on this, but I recall the drill sergeant from the Brotherhood of Steel base in Fallout 2 being voiced by R. Lee Ermy, but the voice talent section only credits him as a narrator in Tactics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.179.6 (talk • contribs) 17:46, October 4, 2008

It wasn't R Lee Ermy. It was Peter Jason. See this link. --Voidvector (talk) 13:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Someone should also include that in Fallout Tactics, General Dekker was voiced by Kurtwood Smith (Eric Forman's dad in That 70's Show.) the link is here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0246614/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.136.77 (talk) 04:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The voice actor credited for Elder Lyons in Fallout 3 linked to an Anglo-Norman administrator and justice, not the actor, for whom there is no article. Changed this to a red link in hopes that someone less lazy than I will fix it. Andrew.carnes (talk) 19:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallout 3 Logo.gif

Image:Fallout 3 Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fallout2original.jpg

Image:Fallout2original.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad jumps

I noticed the the table of contents jumps don't work for "Fallout 2". When you click the link for "Fallout 2" under "Main Series" it jumps down to the "Fallout" sub-section under "Voice Actors". I think the reason for this is that there are duplicate sub-section headings for 'Fallout', 'Fallout 2' and 'Fallout 3' (the first appearing under the section 'Main Games' and the second under 'Voice Actors') and MediaWiki simply adds a number to the end of these duplicate subsections to distinguish them. For example, the second sub-section labeled 'Fallout 2' is referenced in an anchor as 'Fallout 2 2', the second 'Fallout 3' sub-section is 'Fallout 3 2'. This means that the second 'Fallout' sub-section is 'Fallout 2' ("Fallout" with the number 2 tacked on,) which means all links that try to reference the original literal sub-section 'Fallout 2' actually get taken to the second sub-section for 'Fallout', which is under the voice actors section. I'm not well versed in MediaWiki enough to know how to fix this, can anybody help? Matt T. (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Pip Boy

why is there no mention of Pip Boy?Navalscene1 (talk) 23:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC) done Anarchangel (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Response:

All pipboys is mentioned in the article. Look again, you will probably find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.126.228 (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Spinoff?

Why have Fallout 3 been listed as a spinoff?--87.54.194.170 (talk) 10:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the opening paragraph should really be amended. The fallout series includes Fallout 3, I would say, by definition. Thus, the fallout series is not ONLY developed by Interplay. Anyone arguing to the contrary, while in his own mind may be convinced, is not representing common sense or majority opinion.

Cauthion: FO3 is not considered "really" part of the Fallout universe by most pre-Bethesda fans (for several reasons), in the same fashion that Starship Troopers isn't considered "really" the story that Robert Heilien told.

Vault 87

Shouldn't Vault 87 be mentioned among the prominent vaults, as it is the possible origin of the FEVirus, as well as the home to the GECK for Fallout 3?

Elaborating; super mutants in the game refer to it as the big metal place where their captives are taken to be turned into more super mutants. If each vault had a specific experiment, and the vault's entire purpose seems to have been experimentation with FEV strains, it can be safely assumed that it was the origin of the virus itself, and the place from which it was spread by the single-minded super mutants across the country (or world).

If this were the case (and even if it weren't), it would make Vault 87 far more notable than some of the other side-quest vaults mentioned. --96.42.42.75 (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Reason/s for redirecting 'brotherhood of steel' to this page

Please? Anarchangel (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the organisation is included in the storyline of all of the games in this series, and I assume noone deems it important enough to write a separate article about it. Redirecting to the game with this subtitle wouldn't be appropriate, IMO, because there are two roughly equally notable games bearing it. --Yerpo (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I agree about not directing 'brotherhood of steel' to either F:BoS or FTBoS articles, however, there is another option: directing it to a disambiguation page. This would open up the possibility of writing a 'Brotherhood of Steel (Fallout organization)' article should it be someday considered notable, and get people who just type in that phrase instant understanding of where to go next, as opposed to landing here which is unlikely to be what they wanted. Anarchangel (talk) 11:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Penny Arcade Vaults

I think the penny arcade comics on the Fallout 3 website should be included in the vaults list. They go through a couple of them, and though they are silly, they do further stress the point of what the vaults really are, an experiment.

Vault 69: 999 Women & 1 Man
Vault 43: 20 Men, 10 Women, & 1 Panther.
Vault 77: One Man, & a Crate of Puppets.

Besides, it's not like the list is very long, it wouldn't mess things up. And showing things like this shows the sense of humor the game has.Cpesacreta (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There are 11 vaults listed, which already seems too many. This article should be an overview of the Fallout series itself rather an examination in-detail of each aspect of it. If I were going to re-edit it right now, I'd turn that entire section into a maybe one paragraph explanation of what a vault is, followed by a paragraph with one sentence each for only the most important vaults in the series, such as vault 101 and vault 13.

Further, I think the penny-arcade vaults are especially unworthy of inclusion here because they exist virtually entirely as part of a throw-away marketing campaign and are non-canonical. Outside of a small, hidden reference to vault 77 in Fallout 3, I doubt any of these vaults will ever be consequential to the story in any way. In fact, I doubt vaults 43 and 69 will ever be mentioned again outside their one panel in the comic.

If others disagree with me here please weigh in, but I just don't think a series overview article should get into this minute of detail. Maybe a separate Vaults of Fallout article would be appropriate? Alternatively, you could make an edit along the lines of "The online comic Penny-Arcade was commissioned to write a comic strip series as part of the marketing for Fallout 3. It centered on the story of vault 77, which contained just one man and a crate of puppets." However, even this would be more appropriate to the Fallout 3 article rather than this series overview article. Matt T. (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I remember that Vault 69 is considered canon- it was mentioned both in the Fallout Bible and in a piece of concept art for Black Isle Studio's Fallout 3 project (Van Buren). Penny Arcade probably decided that it would make a good gag.68.110.229.245 (talk) 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

None the less, I still contend that, because it doesn't actually appear in-game, it's really not worth mentioning in the overview article here. Matt T. (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The comic is official and while Vault 77 doesn't appear in-game, the Vault 77 Jumpsuit does. Ausir (talk) 13:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tactical Roleplaying Games

What more is there to say than what I said already in the summary, Magicmat? Summary: "F1 and F2 feature isometric view and turn based combat,see tactical roleplaying game, I address the fact that fallout is RP. 'nonconstructive'?Take it to Discussion." They're tactical roleplaying games. They're not pristine phials of RPG ambrosia straight from Mount Olympus, they are just darn good rpg games, among the best out there, with the same game mechanics as other games. Look at the role playing games article. See anything about isometric view in there? Turn-based combat? Computer games pretty much only fall into the role-playing game (video games) category because they can't be classified as something else. The more specific categorization should always be used, and tactical rpg fits the first three fallouts perfectly. The main difference between Tactics and the other 2 is a stronger rpg element, and I made that, as well as what type of game they were, crystal clear in my edit. I even softened the blow as much as I could by saying rpg first and then, qualifying TRPG with "technically" (because it is gameplay elements that make them TRPGs). The current edit says nothing about F1 and F2 specifically, it is only half the story.

Now, Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. Although third person shooter is a much more specific designation, and tells the reader immediately that it is a shooter, and 3d, and 3rd person, where action game is pretty vague, ultimately I don't care so much about this designation. Examining Action game and Third person shooter pages, there doesn't seem to be a lot to stop those pages being merged. As the pages stand, Third person shooter is an action game specifically in 3d, specifically in 3rd person view. This may well be because the pages are incomplete (they are currently very short indeed), and a full classification would reveal differences relevant to our discussion.

This is the revert of my changes (and someone else's, I did not make the impressively large and less impressively written Vault 77 edit). Anarchangel (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree on both genre classifications, but instead of trying to argue the minutia of one genre over another I will instead repeat my request for an outside, reputable citation. I can cite three of the largest, most respected videogame sites out there, Gamespot, IGN and Gamespy, who all call it a RPG [3][4][5]. Ditto with Brotherhood of Steel, where there is a little more ambiguity (IGN and Gamespy refer to it as a strategy game, while Gamespot calls it an action role playing game) but none of them ever call it a "3rd person shooter" anywhere at all, let alone in the genre classification [6][7][8]. Matt T. (talk) 00:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The Pip-Boy, Fallout Boy, and Vault Boy

Fallout 1 and 2

Pipboy or PIPboy (the first three letters an acronym for Personal Information Processor) is the brand name of the Vault Tec computer given to the player early in Fallout and Fallout 2. Displayed on the character screen is an illustrated character which may also be referred to as 'Pipboy'. The character's alternative name is 'Fallout Boy'; this use having the advantage of distinguishing the character from the computer. Each of 150 SPECIAL stats, perks, special perks, traits, skills, ailment indicators, Karma, even level and other miscellaneous data display the Fallout Boy in a unique illustration. Fallout Boy's image also illustrates the Vault-Tec Lab Journal player's guide sold with Fallout 2.

Pip-Boy (Fallout 3)

The Pip-Boy (Personal Information Processor-Boy) is a computer given to the player early in Fallout 3 which serves various roles in quest, inventory, and battle management, as well as presenting player statistics.

Vault Boy (Fallout 3)

The Vault Boy character is Vault-Tec's mascot, and is a frequently recurring element in Vault-Tec-related items in the world. This includes the Pip-Boy, where Vault Boy models all of the clothing and weaponry, and illustrates all of the character statistics and selectable attributes.

This information is presented exactly as it was last entered onto the page, and deleted. It is not incorrect, despite your repeated claims that it is. You have problems with style, presentation, wording, fine. Here is the place to do it. Anarchangel (talk) 23:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It is incorrect. The character's name has always been Vault Boy - there is a Pip-Boy character in Fallout 1 and 2 too, but it's a different character, seen on the in-game Pip-Boy (pointy ears, red and yellow jumpsuit, red hair). While the name of the Vault-Tec mascot (round ears, blond hair, blue and yellow Vault jumpsuit) is not present in the actual games, according to Leonard Boyarsky and Tim Cain, he was always referred to as Vault Boy or Fallout Boy, not Pip-Boy. The misconception stems from the fact that the developers of Fallout Tactics (MicroForte) confused the two and called Vault Boy "Pip-Boy" (which even ended up confusing Chris Avellone when he wrote his Fallout Bible). Bethesda simply returned to the name used by the original developers. Ausir (talk) 00:05, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

PROPOSAL- split sub-section "Vaults" to "List of Fallout Vaults"

I proposed this briefly above in the Penny Arcade vaults section, but I propose that we split the list of vaults contained here in the game into its own separate article. It's clear that the section is just becoming information cruft, where people dump on more and more data about every minute detail of the vaults already listed, and constantly try to add more vaults that really aren't notable. This is not at all relevant to a series overview article, and even if we could limit new information being added, the section is already overlong and data-heavy. The new section should have the same relatively strict standards for vaults (nothing non-canonical, though, debatable, maybe allow vaults that are canonical but don't appear in-game) to avoid it from becoming an information cruft article. In its place I propose we write a three-or-so sentence summary of what a vault is, and a very brief mention of two-or-three of the most important vaults (such as the starting vaults of the three main-series games.) The whole thing should be two paragraphs of three sentences each, at the max. And, of course, a link to the new article. What do you guys think? Matt T. (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not going to be any less cruftastic if split to its own article.When dealing with fictional material, it is a common misconception that the solution to in-universe detail getting out of hand is to split inappropriate game/plot material rather than just getting rid of it. The best solution would be to take the first half of your proposal (to remove any information not directly backed up by reliable real-world sources, which fails to demonstrate why it has notability, and rather to present an overview of the difference between the Vaults) and then to simply bin the rest. We've already got a link to The Vault, a wiki which does not have to care about our notability standards, where all that info can live happily. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought of that, but I think the main problem would be in trying to keep it around the same size after we trim it down. Of course, that's a problem with any Wikipedia article, but I think it would be especially big problem here where a list of vaults would just be screaming for editors to add in more of some of the extensive number of vaults out there. Just look at the debate above at the Penny-Arcade vaults: They are clearly not-notable in this article, but yet they are repeatedly edited into it and even debated here on the talk page. If the section were an article itself, they would probably be more admissible.

I'm not opposed to your proposal, but I just think it would ruffle too many feathers and invite regression of this article. The separate article acts as a pressure relief valve in this case. If we were to simply delete all the extra information and forgo the new article, I would want the explicit say-so of an admin and a warning to would-be editors by the same -- to act as a big stick for editors who would try to edit in new vaults then debate why the "Vaults" sub-section is not the place to write five paragraphs on Vault 7,884 or whatever. Matt T. (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is already horribly unsourced, splitting it into further unsourced articles is counter productive. Rehevkor ✉ 17:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I think some of that has to do with it being a videogame, and people just pulling facts straight out of the game and being unaware of how to, or unable to, cite them. Regardless, what would be your proposal re:the vaults sub-section, then? Do you agree with Chris Cunningham that the vaults sub-section should be trimmed down to a above proposed two paragraphs of three sentences, and no new article be created? Do you just want to keep the current sub-section but add citations? Or do you have another idea?

Personally, my main problem with the section isn't citations, but cruft. Even if you were to cite each and every fact in the sub-section, I would still argue for reducing/splitting it. Chris makes the comment that we shouldn't remove facts from the sub-section that have reliable, real-word information to back them up, but (unless I am misunderstanding the comment, which is very possible) nearly all of the canonical vaults already listed pass that test. So it's really not just unsourced vaults I want to split/delete, but rather any vaults that aren't of paramount importance to the series, in order to keep the section concise. Matt T. (talk) 17:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd scrap the whole section as it and convert it to prose, mentioning the vault experiment and the vaults that reliable sources mention. Rather than just a indiscriminate list with trivial plot info. Currently searching for sources. Rehevkor ✉ 18:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was that we should "remove any information not directly backed up by reliable real-world sources". That isn't quite the same as saying that we "shouldn't remove facts from the sub-section that have reliable, real-word information to back them up". It simply says that removing unsourced material is a good start. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Fallout 4 = New Vegas ?

isn't Fallout 4 and New Vegas the same game? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope 124.178.57.191 (talk) 14:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think so, because it's made by the same people. Also, it says that Bethesda wanted to make another Fallout game, and New Vegas is another Fallout game. AlexBriggs13 (talk) 05:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not made by the same people. NV is made by Obsidian entertainment. NV is not Fallout 4. Rehevkor ✉ 14:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Response:

Yes, it is the same. There is no talk of a fallout 4 yet, maybe in a few years after New Vegas. But lets just be happy that we now get a good new Fallout game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.93.126.228 (talk) 19:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say that NV *is* Fallout 4. Some of the characters from Fallout 2 will return in 4 and the BoS role will be diminished as result of Fallout 1&2.

See http://blog.eu.playstation.com/2010/10/14/your-fallout-new-vegas-ps3-questions-answered-hardcore-mode-morality-combat-and-more/
"Will the Brotherhood of Steel be present in Fallout: New Vegas? I know in Fallout 3, the “original” BoS was based near California. (thanks @SCZ_PS3)

The Brotherhood of Steel is in Fallout: New Vegas, but not nearly as much as they were in Fallout 3. The west coast BoS was really hit hard following the events of Fallout 1 & 2, so they’re not nearly as important as the NCR is in the region.
Will there be any Fallout 2 characters make an appearance in Fallout: New Vegas?@Vi9)

Yes! We’ve already confirmed Marcus from Fallout 2 is coming back, and will again be voiced by Michael Dorn. As for anyone else, you’ll just have to wait for the game to see for yourself." 193.253.185.159 (talk) 16:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Fallout 4 is not New Vegas. It has been explicitly stated (by both Beth and Obsidian) that NV is a spin-off and NOT a main title. Fallout 4 is a game which will be developed by Bethesda sometime within the next few years, likely using an Id tech engine. YuriKaslov (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The text in the Fallout 4 section that is uncited comes from a fallout wiki and the TVG article, which was clearly from before Fallout 3 came out. It is obsolete. If there is a new Fallout game, planned to be called Fallout 4, then the text needs to be changed and a citation added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.118.223 (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Synth definition

Quick practical definition of WP:SYNTH. Like say, if there was a cite of a contract in an article, and an editor extrapolated from the fact of the terms of the contract in the cite, that another fact must exist, namely a certain state of ownership between the parties in the contract, and put that in the article. Anarchangel (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to the movie A Boy and His Dog 1975

• Both post-apocalyptic future worlds.
• Both mostly desert with some small sedentary camps.
• In both, much of the food/ammo/other items are from scrounging/salvaging.
• The main character's name is Vic in the movie, the same name as an important character in the Fallout 2.
• Similar props in both the games and the movie, such as the thin, dirty mattresses, dirty furniture, rusty tin cans and empty booze bottles (from Fallout 3).
• There are burried pre-war buildings with all kinds of pre-war stuff in them.
• The main character gets kidnapped and brought to underground, clean, pre-war type place with many healthy individuals, in contrast with the dirty, ill-supplied people outside.
• Both the movie and the first two games have a dark humour.
• There seem to be glowing ghoul-like creatures in the movie called screamers, which, of course, is closely related to the ghouls in the Fallout series.

Anyway, I just thought there were too many coincidenses for the games not to be at least partially inspired by the movie. Perhaps someone can write this into the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khono (talk • contribs) 23:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The film in indeed considered to be an influence for the game (see [9]), but I don't know if there are any sources to verify this. Rehevkor ✉ 00:53, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Similarities to Terminator

On the main page, it cites the terminator series as a source of inspiration:

"The Terminator series of films, from its vision of a post apocalyptic view on humanity, and the use of robots in every day life, hostile robots, and cyborgs"

I vote to remove this, as it is completely vapid speculation, being as there are no salient points of similarity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.26.15 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The Terminator series may have offered some inspiration for the series, but I'd be hard pressed to say it'd be a major inspirational factors. The future presented by Terminator is quite unlike that which developed in the Fallout series, sure its post apocalyptic...but I don't recall lightning storms and as many giant death robots, excluding Tactics. Sure there's the odd reference here and there; the Ai named Skynet found in the Sierra Army Depot for example, but Terminator was mearly used as a way of flavouring the Fallout series with the odd reference to intrigue the player. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wyrmalla (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

CRPG

Since there is an article for 'computer/video game RPGs', I went ahead and changed the first sentence to, "Fallout is a series of computer roleplaying games (CRPGs) published by interplay...."

There is a tabletop RPG, but to my knowledge is not directly published by Interplay or Bethesda, and isn't relevant enough to be mentioned except as a spinoff anyway.

This is my first Wikipedia edit ever, how'd I do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.49.40 (talk) 21:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Fallout Online List as Spin off?

What is classifying Fallout Online as a spin off? if van buren is on the main list why not Fallout online which is made by the original publishers? So i see no reason why it should be listed as a spin off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazynomad (talk • contribs) 17:17, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Mmm I guess because the main licence is held by Bethesda. When Van Buren was worked on Interplay held the licence. Muskeato 15:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

RE: Fallout Equestria

The reason behind placing the information regarding the fanfictions in the article is not to advertise the stories. That being said, the reason they are on the self-published section of the longest novels page is because of their length, also not to advertise it. The reason for placing the information regarding them here would be to show how motivated some of the fanbase is to creating stories of epic length based majorly on Fallout. Proper references could be found in their respective Equestria Daily posts.

Ketchup504 (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I've never assumed it's an attempt at advertisement. The reference on the longest novels page is actually the text of the 'novel' itself, which really isn't a proper reference in the Wiki guidelines. It's nice to see that some slightly bizarre section of the fanbase likes to write cross overs of Fallout and MLP, but is it notable? I could write a novel based upon Fallout, put it into a blog and then reference that blog here, but it wouldn't be notable, and so wouldn't be appropriate for an encyclopaedic article. Feel free to seek some input from other editors, I'm hardly 'experienced', but I doubt their view will significantly differ from mine.

I would like to say that I appreciate that you brought the discussion here. Some people would just start an edit war over it. Muskeato 04:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses, you are clearly more experienced than I. I felt that they were symbolic, because of the content and sheer length (and it is not filler, by the way), showing dedication. And both far exceed the length of most novels. But if you feel it is not notable in that they are the second and third longest fanfictions ever written, are partly Fallout, but don't belong on the page, then I will respectfully drop the point.

Ketchup504 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

That's it exactly. They might be nice to have on for a symbolic reason, but if there aren't reliable references (The criteria of which can be fairly stringent) then they really struggle with notability, which is a key criteria for being on a page. Again, some people would stuck their feet into the ground and not budge, so thanks for being mature on the issue. Muskeato 14:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's just a brony fanfic. If it was notable, it would be widely discussed in the media and/or receiving awards, or recognition from Bethesda / whoever owns MLP. --Niemti (talk) 09:11, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

How about a List of Fallout characters?

--Niemti (talk) 01:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Well there are thousands of characters in the Fallout series, the list would be long. Maybe Vault Boy can have his own page. He's an iconic game character with good reception.

The Fallout Wikia does it for all of the games. MrScorch6200 (talk | ctrb) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dogmeat needs a copyedit with someone with good English command

Apparently "the prose is a mess and direly needs a copyedit". (It's a very short article.) --Niemti (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Influences

Why is there no refrence to infuluences of Fallout on other games, etc? Any other project would have such a section, much as Wasteland has it's own influences setion (called "Legacy" there).

External links

I would like to change the external links sections to include both major Fallout wikis. Would it be appropriate to list them both on the same line, something like "The Vault and Nukapedia, Fallout wikis? I don't want to make the external links sections any longer than it already is, but both are major wikis covering the entire game series. 108.74.21.38 (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Merger of Fallout 4 per AfD

I have merged in relevant content from Fallout 4 per the consensus in the recent deletion discussion. I have used the sources provided in the now-redirected article as they were. I would like to point out here that the citation to Kotaku.com being given as confirmation that the game is in development is extremely weak as the text here points out that the leaked documents don't mention Fallout 4 by name anywhere. If I were to come along as a neutral editor and see that I would remove it as speculation right away. However it's worth also noting that I'm not familiar with this game series at all, I'm just following up on the AfD. And now I'll see myself out. Ivanvector (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

éminence grise

The Enclave in the Fallout series is referenced to be formed from members of the pre-War United States government and military industrial complex. They were never a political party nor open group and their secretive nature and known works all point to them being the éminence grise of the US government.--Ant2242 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Formed from members of the pre-War U.S government =/= formed by the 'eminence grise'. That spooky language is never mentioned, not even remotely in any of the games. Keep it objective, not subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.27.228.85 (talk) 06:59, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor edit war

In the edit [10] a user is questioning weather or not past developers returned to work on New Vegas - I wasn't aware that this was under question but I have added a source [11]. Also changed was the text "Instead, it is more tied to the first two Fallout titles, featuring characters from those games," to "As Fallout 3 was more similar to Fallout 1, New Vegas was more similar to Fallout 2". Now, the latter is just a statement of option without a source, which none has been provided. The original text at least had an element of fact and I don't see the problem with it, but I have removed it until the IP can clarify his problem with it without resorting to WP:POV violations. Яehevkor ✉ 16:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Your source mentions one person, Chris something, not the developers.

Here are the credits, do read them, if you find any name overlaps in the developers tell me:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout/credits

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout-new-vegas/credits

Erm. Did you read the source? "Obsidian has a number of people who worked on Fallout in the past<>We developed an iteration of Fallout (notably Fallout 2) at Black Isle." I'm not sure how many where involved with Fallout 1 off the top of my head, but I know there are some. Яehevkor ✉ 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The company executives are the same, the developers are not. Did you read the credits? As for: "to "As Fallout 3 was more similar to Fallout 1, New Vegas was more similar to Fallout 2". Now, the latter is just a statement of option without a source, which none has been provided. The original text at least had an element of fact and I don't see the problem with it" It's funny that you dismiss a differing opinion because it's unsourced, yet claim your own opinion as fact without a source either "I don't see the problem with it because it's my opinion therefore it's true". These types of comments are more than welcome on fanboy sites like the NMA, but please leave wikipedia alone.--77.42.149.192 (talk) 16:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And here are the Fallout 2 credits:

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/fallout-2/credits

Do you see any developer name overlaps? No I don't either.--77.42.149.192 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

You have no basis to attack me like that thank you, please assume good faith, that kinda thing is disruptive to collaborative editing. I have read the credits but it's impossible to compare 2 lists with hundreds of entries just by looking - Mobygames is crowd sourced and not reliable anyway - I have been searching for information elsewhere. Do you have a source for "As Fallout 3 was more similar to Fallout 1, New Vegas was more similar to Fallout 2" then? This source [12] supports aspects from 1 and 2 carrying over more per the original text. Яehevkor ✉ 16:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Well if it's too much trouble for you to read a source before posting it as a source for adding content, well just use wikipedia itself: Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas. Names are on the right below the picture. As for your opinion that New Vegas is closer to Fallout 1 than Fallout 3 is, I can post differing sources, including Bethesda themselves. Again, it's a fanboy comment, from people who don't care about the game itself but more about who developed it (which they don't know either)--77.42.149.192 (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused by this [13], are you doubting that Fallout 2 developers worked on New Vegas now? I assure you they had, I had provided a source as such. Chris Avellone, Scott Everts (designer who also worked on Fallout 1). Яehevkor ✉ 16:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And this [14]. It doesn't matter that it doesn't list names. If you prefer here are some Mobygames pages [15] [16] [17] [18]. Developers are shared, there are reliable sources to support it, what's the problem? Яehevkor ✉ 17:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

So you didn't read the wikipedia pages, so it seems I have to post the names here, they are pasted from Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas:

Fallout 2 Director(s): Feargus Urquhart; Fallout New Vegas Director(s): Josh Sawyer. No name overlap.

Fallout 2 Designer(s): Feargus Urquhart, Matthew J. Norton, Chris Avellone; Fallout New Vegas Designer(s): Josh Sawyer, John Gonzalez, Charles Staples. Chris Avellone was New Vegas writer but not Fallout 2 writer, so designers are different.

Fallout 2 Programmer(s): Jesse Reynolds, Chris Jones, Robert Hertenstein; Fallout New Vegas Programmer(s) Frank Kowalkowski. No name overlap.

Fallout 2 Artist(s): Gary Platner, Jason D. Anderson, Leonard Boyarsky ; Fallout New Vegas Artist(s): Joseph A. Sanabria, Brian Menze, Mark Bremerkamp. No name overlap.

Fallout 2 Writer(s): Tim Cain, R. Scott Campbell, Jason Taylor; Fallout New Vegas Writer(s): John Gonzalez, Chris Avellone, Eric Fenstermaker. No name overlap.

Composers: etc...

And good you've found only one person who worked on Fallout 1, and 3 others who worked on Fallout 2. But as you can see New Vegas is made almost entirely by different people. And as you say, Mobygames is crowd sourced and not reliable anyway.--77.42.149.192 (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

At no point has anyone claimed that all Fallout 1 and 2 developers had a major hand in NV (just "many", I'm willing to discuss the exact wording when it comes to it), so I'm not sure why you are bringing this up? The text in question on this article originally stated "Obsidian Entertainment with many former Black Isle employees who created Fallout and Fallout 2." Are you still disputing this? I have provided sources and several names, attempted to compromise (by removing Fallout 1) but I can't seem to get through - it is becoming increasingly difficult to assume good faith here. Яehevkor ✉ 18:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The statement "Obsidian Entertainment with many former Black Isle employees who created Fallout and Fallout 2." gives readers the misconception that it was made by the same developers, when, except for one guy Chris Avellone from Fallout 2, it's completely wrong. Also it's funny you put together "Black Isle employees who created Fallout and Fallout 2" when the people who created Fallout and Fallout 2 are different as well.--77.42.149.192 (talk) 18:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It only says "many", not all. Only some people involved in the past games where involved, and Chris Avellone is not the only one, at no point has the text claimed otherwise, it is impossible to account for people's misconceptions when the text simply does say that. How about something along the lines of "Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment which employs many former Fallout developers, some of which were involved in New Vegas." - I don't know how it can be clearer than that. Яehevkor ✉ 18:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this: "Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment.". Cause aside from Chris Avellone who worked on Fallout 2 nobody from the original games worked on New Vegas. Did you read the part where it said No name overlap?--77.42.149.192 (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Scott Evertsn, Chris Avellone, Brian Menze, Aaron Brown. They worked on at least Fallout 2. Inon Zur worked on Tactics. There are probably more. Яehevkor ✉ 19:02, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

And if you had any doubts, it could in theory be sourced to the credits of each game, but here's some others Inon Zur Scott Everts Chris Avellone Brian Menze. There are also some who worked on Van Buren (Fallout 3) at Black Isle (i.e. Joshua Sawyer), although it was cancelled many aspects from this were used in NV. Either way, I have spent enough time on this tonight, if there are no credible objections I will post the corrected text tomorrow. Яehevkor ✉ 19:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No there aren't more. And aside from Chris Avellone from Fallout 2 they played minimal roles in New Vegas development as you can see in the listed credits. And all there is from Fallout 1 is Scott Everts who only did some maps & props. That should put to rest the bandwagon argument that New Vegas "feels more like Fallout 1 cause it's made by the same people". And what does Van Buren, a game none ever played, have to do with the first two Fallouts?--77.42.149.192 (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It's no one's place here to state how major minor a role is, development is development - a team effort. VB could be relevant because ---> "although it was cancelled many aspects from this were used in NV" <--- Яehevkor ✉ 11:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

MobyGames is not reliable (see discussion at WP:VG/RS) and cannot be used as a source in the article. I'd like to help here but I don't see what the dispute is about. Perhaps one of you can show me the edit in question and what reliable sources are being used to shape it? If no sources can be shown, the info should be removed. czar ♔ 22:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC) I'll add that if the discussion is about whether we can write "X and Y games shared developers", we would need to cite a source saying just that. The above conversation looks like OR. An alternative would be saying, "Joe X worked on Fallout 1[ref] and Fallout 2[ref]", but that's not the same as making a statement about its developers. We can only write what the RS explicitly say. czar ♔ 22:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I was not adding, I am only removing erroneous information. And yes, MobyGames is not reliable. (Sorry my IP keeps jumping, router keeps resetting)--94.187.67.1 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The original issue was weather or not original developers worked at Obsidian, per the original text [19], but seems to have gone on to weather or not developers carried over at all. There are sources for both. The IP is disputing that NO developers who worked on 1 and 2 worked on NV. I was proposing adding with this source "Obsidian has a number of people who worked on Fallout in the past<>We developed an iteration of Fallout (notably Fallout 2) at Black Isle." My last comments and sources were to show that several did indeed work on both, minimal or not. There are other sources on Obsidian's history with the franchise, such as [20] [21] [22] [23]. It's a notable piece of information. Feargus Urquhart, who runs Obsidian, was the director of 1 and 2. Яehevkor ✉ 11:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

That's what they would tell fallout fanboys to make them happy; it's called brand loyalty, knee-jerk fidelity to a group of people, in fanboys' minds a game turns from a piece of garbage into a masterpiece, or from a masterpiece into a piece of garbage, depending only on the names of the developers and not the game itself. Whatever the point of that statement you pasted, the fact remains that, aside from Scott Everts who only did some programming for the maps, not a single person who worked on Fallout 1 ever worked on New Vegas. And as mentioned before, they have company executives like Feargus Urquhart, but he is not a developer.--94.187.67.1 (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What I mean is that someone should propose (on this talk page) a single edit with the exact phrasing to be used, its proposed location within the article, and the reference to source it. If there is consensus for that edit, it goes in the article. Arguing about whether there is continuity between teams doesn't seem fruitful because it doesn't lead to specific phrasing, so I recommend proposing one edit at a time for talk page consensus. (edit conflict) And hey, 94.187, let's keep this about the edits in question—would you mind striking the first sentence you just posted? czar ♔ 13:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I was just giving an explanation why a company would make a statement like "Obsidian has a number of people who worked on Fallout in the past".--94.187.67.1 (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I can appreciate that intent, and I don't want to get off track, but I thought that first sentence was somewhat abrasive and unconducive to the resolution we're all looking for. I still think striking it would be a good idea, followed by a specific proposed edit by anyone interested. czar ♔ 14:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Please stop this fanboy nonsense. I had already proposed the following text, "Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment which employs many former Fallout developers, some of which were involved in New Vegas." (was originally to be placed in the lead as the original disputed text was there but it can be placed in the NV section, should be re-placed in the NV article lead, which is also disputed) which apparently isn't good enough, although it is entirely true and backed up by sources. 94.187.67.1, could you, based on the sources above, propose an alternative text that you would be happy with? I have already established that there is indeed some continuity between the individuals involved (Feargus Urquhart while not a developer, was involved, which sources have picked up on, as it credited in NV), even if it's just handful it should still be relevant considering the sources.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100440-Obsidian-Boss-Promises-Old-School-Vibe-in-Fallout-New-Vegas Emphasises Urquahart's involvement, and "it's people from the Black Isle team working on it".

http://www.gamesradar.com/fallout-new-vegas-mega-primer-a-brief-history-of-fallout-in-two-universes/?page=3 References to staff working on Van Buren.

http://www.gameinformer.com/themes/blogs/generic/post.aspx?WeblogApp=xbox360&y=2010&m=10&d=18&WeblogPostName=war-war-never-changes-and-neither-does-fallout&GroupKeys=games/fallout_new_vegas/ "Although Obsidian Entertainment employs a number of Black Isle Studios refugees" downplays the connection, but still establishes it.

http://www.shacknews.com/article/62682/first-fallout-new-vegas-screenshots "founded by veterans of now-defunct Fallout and Fallout 2 maker Black Isle" Яehevkor ✉ 17:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

What I'm looking for is (1) the exact text to be added, (2) where exactly you want it added, and (3) the exact footnote that will follow the text. Make it easy for me. What sources say (a) "Obsidian ... employs many former Fallout developers" and (b) "some of which were involved in New Vegas"? Propose the text here with its refs, formatted as it would be in the article, let us say yea/nay or why and let's move on. czar ♔ 18:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have to be quick as I'm about to head off for a few days, I suppose it could be placed after the first sentence in the New vegas section of this article (currently "Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment and released on October 19, 2010.", and somewhere in the lead of the NV article (. Excuse the unformatted refs.

"Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment which employs many former Fallout developers, some of which were involved in New Vegas. It was released on October 19, 2010."

References

Яehevkor ✉ 21:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

For the New Vegas article, in the disputed section [24]

"Obsidian Entertainment was founded by and employs many past Fallout developers, some of which worked on New Vegas."

References

Яehevkor ✉ 22:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This would be my advice: keep the current sentence ("Fallout: New Vegas was developed by Obsidian Entertainment and released on October 19, 2010.") but add a new one afterwards: "The development team included developers who previously worked on Fallout and Fallout 2." and source it with the USA Today first and the Joystiq second, which support the statement. Escapist is not a WP:VG/RS and the author doesn't appear to have editorial oversight. The Bethsoft page is redundant to the others. Any objections? czar ♔ 22:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Fine by me. Яehevkor ✉ 10:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Lawsuit confusion

In the wikipedia page detailing the legal battle between Bethesda and Interplay, it is mentioned Bethesda and Interplay had two contracts; the second contract replacing and nulling the first contract. From what I can glean about the first one (so don't crucify me if I'm mistaken), simply put it allows Interplay to continue selling the Fallout games they developed, and also allow them to develop and sell the MMO. The second contract is the complete sale of Fallout to Bethesda, which is assumed Interplay can no longer develop Fallout games or gain revenue from the series, but did maintain the rights to make the MMO through a back license.

Near the end of the first paragraph, it describes Bethesda losing it's first injunction partially because Interplay claims they had the second contract (the complete sale of Fallout to Bethesda) voided, making the first one once again the valid agreement. The wikipedia article doesn't directly say this, but it is assumed that what Interplay claims here is true because Bethesda lost the injuction. The article says, " Interplay argued to have the second contract that sold Fallout voided which would result in the first contract that licensed Fallout to come back into effect."

Alright so, the last paragraph says Bethesda requested a trial by jury, but this was denied because "the APA contract (aka the second contract that sold Fallout to Bethesda) stated that all legal matters would be resolved via a trial by court and not a trial by jury."

Wait what? I thought the second contract was voided, and was partially why Bethesda lost the first injunction? How can the VOIDED contract now bind Bethesda to a trial by court? Can someone explain this to me? Truly it doesn't matter, because Bethesda and Interplay settled, and now Bethesda actually owns the full franchise but the described circumstance still confuses me. Can anyone enlighten me? Ray Gorbeck (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Developed by ... who?

The article currently states both Fallout 1 and 2 were developed by Black Isle Studios. Tim Cain mentions in a talk that Fallout 1 was actually *not* developed by Black Isle Studios (partially due to the lack of a dedicated team until late into the project). Should it be left as it is because BIS "de facto" developed Fallout 1, or should it be adjusted to only credit BIS for Fallout 2? 78.35.123.164 (talk) 22:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Missiles

"although it is said in Fallout 2 that nobody knew who sent the first missile."

I don't remember this...I do remember the President strongly implying that China fired first.. anyone know where the above is actually said if anywhere? Jarwulf 22:00, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if it was said explicitly in Fallout 2, but it was in the Fallout Bible by Chris Avellone: October 23: Great War: Bombs are launched; who struck first is unknown... and it is not even known if the bombs came from China or America. Air raid sirens sound, but very few people go into vaults, thinking it is a false alarm. The Vaults are sealed. See the Fallout timeline. Ausir 17:12, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Well the Enclave ARE the bad, bad guys in FO2... do you trust them? ;) -Hmib 01:21, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Here is the quote from the President's ridiculously long and inappropriate exposition in FO2's endgame. Paraphrased since I don't remember exactly what was said but it did go something like this...

President: We were winning too. But then those damn reds launched, everything they had. We barely got our birds up in time.

Of course there are many who feel that FO2, while a good game was no worthy successor to FO1 so it may not count anyway. Jarwulf 09:32, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The latter part of your post is irrelevant. Fallout 2 is cannon. 64.236.245.243 20:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

If you read from the fallout wiki (someone provide a link for me) it says that the Chinese fired first. --Benners88 (talk) 16:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A plot edit

I edited the story, I added Anchorage to the invasion of Alaska by the Chinese(because that's the only place they invaded, I also added the information that Mr. Robert House shot down some of the 77 bombs aimed at Las Vegas (which is cannon) Benners88 (talk) 00:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I undid this edit, because there were a few grammar issues with it, as well as unnecessary detail. The information you added pertains more specifically to New Vegas, and isn't really important to the overall setting of the series. -- ferret (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Number of Vaults

Article lists 112 vaults were commissioned, new additions to the series mean there are atleast 122 vaults — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.82.154 (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Music of Fallout 3, New Vegas and 4

The article is in a rather poor state, and in its current state, the article is unnecessary. AdrianGamer (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support -- ferret (talk) 14:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• There's nothing worthwhile to merge here. Just AfD it. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Or just boldly redirect -- ferret (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Done AdrianGamer (talk) 10:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fallout (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090122144642/http://www.gamespot.com:80/news/6086046.html to http://www.gamespot.com/news/6086046.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626031730/http://au.gamespot.com:80/xbox360/rpg/falloutnewvegas/video/6261040/fallout-new-vegas-interview-josh-sawyer to http://au.gamespot.com/xbox360/rpg/falloutnewvegas/video/6261040/fallout-new-vegas-interview-josh-sawyer
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324002505/http://planetfallout.gamespy.com/articles/news/650/Brotherhood-of-Steel-2-design-documents to http://planetfallout.gamespy.com/articles/news/650/Brotherhood-of-Steel-2-design-documents
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6207361.html?tag=result;title;0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:48, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Spin off

I've reverted the IP who moved New Vegas from a main game to a spin off game. Without sources demonstrating this, this is just speculation. Since I haven't seen it described that way, NV uses the same engine, the same basic weapons plus some new features, same universe but different location and later time (evidenced by the Wasteland Survival Guide being available in the game), it seems obvious that the consensus version is correct, that this is a new game built on 3, almost a version 3.5. I see no evidence or sources calling it a spin off. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

My fuzzy memory recalls it was rumoured(?) as a spin-off, probably because it used the same engine as Fallout 3? New Vegas does not focus "in more detail on one aspect of that original work [Fallout 3]" (spin-off article). It's in a different location and time, new characters and story. There's no continuation or relation from Fallout 3. In addition, the developer stated New Vegas is a stand-alone game. I think it is correct, in this context, to leave New Vegas in the main game section.  Honette 08:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fallout (series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150919183426/http://www.nma-fallout.com/content.php?page=news-archive-08-2000 to http://www.nma-fallout.com/content.php?page=news-archive-08-2000

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2018

The article is written in an "in universe" perspective, I would like to provide real world context to the fictional story Oatmenao (talk) 14:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. NiciVampireHeart 14:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

Change Pip-Boy bobblehead to Vault Boy bobblehead in the Upcoming Games > Fallout 76 (TBA) session.

The article itself differs this, Pip-boy is the computer, the character is the Vault Boy. Capywiki (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Fallout: New Vegas should be considered a spin-off game

The game is not a numbered Fallout game (1, 2, 3 or 4), it is not a direct sequel to Fallout 3 (which is even noted in the article), it has no real impact on the Fallout franchise as a whole when it comes to storytelling in the main series. I don't see why its considered a spin-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawnax (talk • contribs) 20:46, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Crawnax: I assume you mean “I don’t see why it isn’t considered a spin-off.”

I don’t consider Fallout: New Vegas a spin-off. It’s another game set in the Fallout universe. It is not a sequel or a prequel, but it is not a spin-off either.

Wikipedia does not do a good job of explaining exactly what a video game spin-off is, but I consider a video game spin-off to be a game that is based on an existing series but has a different story and, usually, a different genre. Also, spin-offs are usually developed and published by a different studio to the developer and publisher of the original games. It takes an existing series and some of its characters and concepts but makes it its own. Fallout: New Vegas is very similar to Fallout 3. It’s the same genre and is set in the same universe. It also has a similar plot and world and is published by the same company. It doesn’t have to be called Fallout 4: New Vegas to be in the main series.

Compare it to GTA III (“GTA 3”), GTA: Vice City, GTA: San Andreas, and GTA IV (“GTA 6”). Even though GTA IV isn’t called GTA VI (“GTA 6”), Vice City and San Andreas are still part of the main series and not spin-offs. Interqwark ^{talk contribs} 21:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

After "a Vault where its inhabitants were segregated" please add { { clarify. } } There are lots of different kinds of segregation (sex, age, race, etc.) and the correct one needs to be specified.

}} 208.95.51.53 (talk) 13:31, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Tactics is Canon and New Vegas is NOT a Spin-Off

For one, Tactics is not non-canon. Emil Pagliarulo confirmed that the main story of Tactics is canon, and the events of the game are mentioned in Fallout 3 and 4. Also, New Vegas is not under any circumstances a spin off. It is a main series game and direct sequel to Fallout 2. This is like saying The Empire Strikes Back is a spin-off because it isn't called Star Wars 2. It's absurd and insulting. Just because it isn't numbered does NOT under any circumstances mean that it is a spin-off, that is total assumption and speculation with no fact or reasoning to back it up and it is an insult to this site. The events of the game are also fully canon, a trait not shared by any of the other spin-offs except for possibly Tactics. Unlike Tactics, BOS, Shelter, and 76, New Vegas has not been referred to as a spin-off by any official sources. it also shares the exact same game style as Fallout 3, albeit with some updates and improvements. Also published by the same company and shares the same genre. NCR Courier (talk) 00:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

We have dozens of reliable secondary sources that call Fallout New Vegas a spin off, so that's all there is to it. We report what the secondary reliables report. As for whether or not Tactics is canon, I have no direct opinion, but you'd need to provide sourcing to prove the point. -- ferret (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Fbos char creation.jpeg

File:Fbos char creation.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a non-free use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

-- Marchjuly (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"New California Republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect New California Republic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Fallout4MisterHandy.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2020

Change "pip boy 3 billion" to "pimp boy 3 billion" (the correct name for the item) Human6928 (talk) 18:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Human6928:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. GoingBatty (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@GoingBatty: I decided to search around and I'm fairly certain this is true based on the usual fan sites, forums, etc, but unfortunately I came up dry on any reliables. -- ferret (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: Would a link to the Fallout wiki page on the item be sufficient as a source? If so then here is that page. The wiki itself is actively moderated, and the page on the item dates back to October 2010. (Which is shortly after the games release.) If this is not proof enough, then I am sure I can manage to find an in=game screenshot of the item. Also, as a side note, the term "Pip Boy" is stylized as "Pip-Boy" in all instances. It is never written as two words in any of the games or official media. GHosTxShadoux (talk) 09:16, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@GHosTxShadoux: No, Wikias, etc, are user generated. @GoingBatty: Can we call this one primary sourced to the game? Or maybe if someone could find a scan of the Prima guide and it mentions it, that would work (though we consider that a primary source too) -- ferret (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ferret: In the article, reference 37 mentions "Pip-Boy". Since I'm unfamiliar with the game, I'm not going to change the article to "pimp boy" without some reliable source. I don't mind if others make whatever change is appropriate. GoingBatty (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the name, considering it to be primary sourced to the game. The entire paragraph is unsourced, but as long as it remains we should be accurate. Whether the paragraph should be removed, trimmed, whatever, is a separate discussion IMO. -- ferret (talk) 15:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Adding which genre of retrofuturism each thing uses

I.E in the section with video games, adding “, atompunk” next to Fallout. ~~ Bristledidiot (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2020

Typo in the line about ATOM RPG - change 'parcially' to partially Richard at 20i (talk) 12:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

 Done Rummskartoffel (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Brotherhood of Steel logo.svg (discussion)
• New California Republic Seal.svg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"War never changes" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect War never changes and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 22#War never changes until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. FunnyMath (talk) 20:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

New Vegas as a spin off?

Why is fallout new Vegas marked as a spin off? It is a cannon (or at least semi cannon) game with gameplay being the same as f3 with only some changes 185.186.152.130 (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree, but dont know exactly how to change the chart. can somebody? Notreal1066 (talk) 22:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

No, because it's a spin off. This is backed by reliable secondary sourcing, per WP:V. Being a spin-off, or not, has nothing to do with being canon, or not. -- ferret (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not a spin off, as regardless of if it is numbered it is still a main game, and I see no source stating otherwise. A spin off is something that is wildly different from the main series, at least by most definitions. (Kelis98 (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC))

Literally dozens of sources have been present on this topic, so it's kind of a non-starter to go "i see no source stating otherwise" -- ferret (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes but there are also dozens of sources starting the opposite as well, it is also debatable whether one persons opinion/wording in an article counts as a source in this case (Kelis98 (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC))

I've never seen one reliable source presented that says "New Vegas is a main line game in the Fallout series". Feel free to use WP:VG/S's reliable source search to find and present some though. I've only seen two cases: No mention of it at all, or "the Fallout spinout". -- ferret (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)