Forum:Advanced power armor Mk II

This forum page has been archived. Please do not make any further edits unless they are for maintenance purposes.

Forums: Index > Wiki discussion > Advanced power armor Mk II

Good evening everyone =)

Following a lengthy discussion with Tagaziel and Ausir, I open this topic is finally being set on one thing, if the Advanced power armor Mk 2 of Fallout 2 and the Advanced power armor Mk 2 of Fallout 3 are the same armor. Thank you for participating to improve the Wiki !

My opinion

I'm against and I will give my arguments:

• The Mk II of Fallout 2 look like The basic Advanced Power Armor Mk I in Fallout 2, this is not the case in Fallout 3. If The Mk II of Fallout 2 don't look like the Mk I, why not have made a different icon in Fallout 2 ? This is so easy to do (I'm a modder in a Fallout 2 mod).
• The appearance of the Mk I and the Mk II of Fallout 3 are very extremely different, not the same helmet, not the same pauldron, no fan in the back. It would look different, it could at least change a minimum the appearance in-game.
• The Mk II of Fallout 3 that never appears in Fallout 2, even as a talking head.
• They use the same name namely " Advanced Power Armor Mk II " but it's never stated that this is exactly the same armor that was created in 2220 at in Fallout 3, never. Fallout Tactics was also a armor named " Advanced power armor " but it was not the same as Fallout 2
• Fallout 3 is known to have inconsistencies with old Fallout (combat armor for example or Enclave), it will not be the first nor the last.
• It's not said in Fallout: New Vegas if the Remnants power armor, which has the same appearance of Fallout 2, is the Advanced Power Armor Mk 1 or Mk 2, it could also be the Mk 2.
• The Mk 2 of Fallout 3 is below the T-51b while the Mk 1 of Fallout 2 is higher than the T-51b, like in Fallout: New Vegas, no matter if it was DT or DR, because they have the same principle, the protection of the wearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itachou (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~!

Counterarguments:

• It is not clear whether the armor is meant to be a retcon with the intent that it's the FO2 APA Mk 2, and that the FO2 APA Mk 2 looked identical to the Mk 1 simply because of limited assets, or whether it's supposed to be a redesign. The former is more likely, unfortunately, because it's clearly stated in-game to be a Mk 2, and not e.g. Mk 3 or something like that.
• As for the item stats, the differences in gameplay mechanics between FO1 and 2 and FO3 and FNV are too big to base any conclusions about the background on that. The T-51b in FO3 was overpowered because it was a unique item there for some reason.
• "Leather armor" is a pretty generic designation. The "advanced power armor" in FOT is obviously an advanced model of the MW BoS PA, while "Advanced power armor Mk 2" suggests a specific model, and is used by the very same faction. Ausir^(talk) 22:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. I've reorganized the page into a more logical format, but of course someone had to take issue with it. Tell me everyone, are we a Wiki that deals in facts or fan fiction? Fact is this database entry explicitly states that the armour appearing in Fallout 3 is a mark II, as does Casdin when you turn it in at Fort Independece. These two instances are facts, while Itachou's argument is full of might's and may's. Now, contras:

The Mk II of Fallout 2 look like The basic Advanced Power Armor Mk I in Fallout 2, this is not the case in Fallout 3.

As does the Combat Armour and the Brotherhood Armour and, even more explicitly, Leather Jacket and Combat Leather Jacket. The reason behind it is simple: saving cash and assets. There was no need to create a separate set of animations for just one item.

If The Mk II of Fallout 2 don't look like the Mk I, why not have made a different icon in Fallout 2 ? This is so easy to do (I'm a modder in a Fallout 2 mod).

Because at the time no one knew that the next Fallout would be Fallout 3 by Beth? Your argument would hold water if the games were done by the same developer.

The appearance of the Mk I and the Mk II of Fallout 3 are very extremely different, not the same helmet, not the same pauldron, no fan in the back. It would look different, it could at least change a minimum the appearance in-game.

So? That's why it's called *Mark II*.

The Mk II of Fallout 3 that never appears in Fallout 2, even as a talking head.

Christ. You should make a living as lining for nuclear reactors. Let me repeat myself: Because at the time no one knew that the next Fallout would be Fallout 3 by Beth? Your argument would hold water if the games were done by the same developer.

They use the same name namely " Advanced Power Armor Mk II " but it's never stated that this is exactly the same armor that was created in 2220 at in Fallout 3, never. Fallout Tactics was also a armor named " Advanced power armor " but it was not the same as Fallout 2.

Uh, actually, it is? See this database entry for reference.

Fallout 3 is known to have inconsistencies with old Fallout (combat armor for example or Enclave), it will not be the first nor the last.

Not a valid argument.

It's not said in Fallout: New Vegas if the Remnants power armor, which has the same appearance of Fallout 2, is the Advanced Power Armor Mk 1 or Mk 2, it could also be the Mk 2.

"It could" is not a valid argument.

The Mk 2 of Fallout 3 is below the T-51b while the Mk 1 of Fallout 2 is higher than the T-51b, like in Fallout: New Vegas, no matter if it was DT or DR, because they have the same principle, the protection of the wearer.

So? Gameplay concessions aren't meant to be taken at face value. Numerous times Brotherhood NPCs refer to the armour as far superior to their own, while the aforementioned terminal explicitly states that it's the Mark II.

Also, what's with this poll? There's no clear question which we are supposed to answer, so what the hell is this poll polling? Do we like Daisies? _Tagaziel ^(call!) 22:40, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

"I'm not sure which icon I'm meant to put for my statement, so feel free to remove this sentence to put the correct icon." But from what I've read FO2 Mk 2 armour is stronger than T-51b, wheras FO3's Mk 2 is weaker, this makes me think the two suits are differnt. Speculation: possibly Mk 2's on differnt power armour projects?

Again, GAMEPLAY. There is no evidence to support the theory of two concurrent Mk. II armour developments. Any speculation is just that - speculation. This Wiki deals in facts. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 23:12, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they are the same. I'd rather believe that Enclave power armor (Fallout 3) has common origin with Power armor (Fallout Tactics) and Advanced power armor (Fallout Tactics). It looks even more convincing since now we know that Enclave has a base near Chicago. On their way from California to Washington DC Enclave surely found the Midwestern variation of Power Armor. And military developments often advance in several different ways so different variations of PA are possible. Surely that's only my humble opinion. veryblackraven^Talk 01:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I accept this argument to be valid; however, in my eyes, there is only one reason the APA Mark I from Fallout 2 is the same as APA Mark II from the same game. Why, as devs, force the art department to make a whole new critter (we're talking roughly 170 animations) to add minor details to an armor suit, when it is much easier to edit the Damage Threshold and armor class? ;)

Now, considering the time difference from Fallout 2 (2241) and Fallout 3 (2277), there is definitely a gap in the time line there during which the Enclave could have altered or re-designed the armor completely. This is, of course, disregarding the fact that they were "on the run", for the most part fleeing to the Eastern U.S. to regroup, and rebuild. But again, there is no hard evidence supporting, or for that matter, even touching base on the armor during this time period. I say they are the same armor, regardless of game engine. :) - Ghouly89 ^(Talk) 06:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be good to ask Bethesda about the subj? :) veryblackraven^Talk 07:33, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should be talking of facts and not their causes. Even if it was easier and cheaper for devs to make APA Mark I and Mark II in Fallout 2 look absolutely identical, it's still part of the history. In that case, we have two different modifications of the armor, even if they are called the same name. Pavel Kuptsov 08:24, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

First of all I'd like to say it's strange to vote about something like this. And second, IMO the APA in Fallout 3 is the Mk II version, as several characters in-game (Casdin and Squire Maxson, to name two) clearly state it is the Mk II. And, I believe, Fallout 3 is fully considered canon, so what these characters say is "law". The visual differences are explainable in many ways; different devs, ten years between FO2 and FO3, other production method for the FO3-version (in-game), ...

It's not a reason, developers was different for the T-51b and yet that is exactly the same in both games. I agree with Pavel Kuptsov, APA Mk I and Mk II in Fallout 2 look absolutely identical, it's still part of the history. Itachou ^[~talk~] 17:36, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the poster above you. Facts are facts and they should not be voted on, especially not in this case, where the situation is very clear cut. This isn't Vault 11. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 19:54, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

The Avenger minigun in FNV also looks different from the one in FO1 and 2, and even more different in FOT, but it's still supposed to be the same weapon lore-wise. Ausir^(talk) 20:13, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

well i was just reading up on the whole conversation leading to this moment and it was an obvious impasse, one person refused to budge because of what he felt and another person refused to budge as-well, at least this is preferable to both users waring on the page editing it back and forth, considering there admins they are in a way role models for random users on here, though i don't exactly like mikaelgrizzly, i am at least glad people were willing to just put things aside and go with a vote, although as mikaelgrizzly has told me himself fallout 3 is in many ways un-canon, like the whole jet/psycho whatever thing, its in the game, that doesn't make it the same thing it was in older game (i admit if it was such a well kept secret odds are against it having spread to DC, despite many ways it may have gotten out)though i consider an item different if it isn't identical to its predecessor. Toolazytomakeaaccount 20:10, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's not something that should be put for a vote, so I removed the actual vote. However, feel free to continue the discussion. Ausir^(talk) 20:12, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

ah, well anyway i said all i really had to say, how about someone who actually knows what there doing (not me) just gather all the evidence behind there reasoning for both sides and just go with which one has more evidence to the contrary? Toolazytomakeaaccount 20:14, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

While I dislike this retcon personally, the fact is that it is referred to as the APA Mk 2 in-game, and it's also stated that "Enclave forces that have occupied Project Purity are nearly identical to those encountered on the West Coast in the year 2241." in the very same terminal entry where it's stated that they're using APA2. Same with the Avenger minigun, which looks very different in FO1/2, FOT and FNV, but is still the same weapon lore-wise. Ausir^(talk) 20:22, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

No, it's not exactly the same weapon (like " That gun " compared to the .223 pistol) and for the phrase " are nearly identical ", nearly isn't " is ", and a name means nothing in-game, the T-51b is just named power armor in Fallout 1, the Midwestern Brotherhood Advanced Power Armor is just named Advanced power armor in Fallout Tactics.

Then must be based on fact, the APA Mk II in Fallout 2 is identical to the Mk I, and that's it, the debate should be over at that point, Fallout 2 is not supposed to be more Canon than Fallout 3 ?

How else explain the fact that the APA Mk II is superior to the T-51b in Fallout 2, but the APA Mk II is below to the T-51b in Fallout 3, but the APA is superior to the T-51b in Fallout: New Vegas, give it something incomprehensible.

What it's like to separate them ? We can create a large section on power armor page, "Advanced Power Armor Mk II", and sub-section as the "2241 version" and "2277 version", this is the best possible solution. Itachou ^[~talk~] 21:02, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I have now put them both in one section at advanced power armor, with a sentence "While it was used rarely before the destruction of the Enclave oil rig, after some visual redesigns and the relocation of the main forces to the East Coast, it became standard Enclave equipment." How does that sound?

As for stats, they are meaningless to this discussion, as they differ vastly between games, and the T-51b in FO3 was a quest reward unique item whose stats didn't make much sense at all (for example, it gave no strength bonus either). And the CZ-57 Avenger (a quite specific model name) is clearly meant to be the same weapon in all games, despite all the glaring differences. Ausir^(talk) 21:11, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't suit me, it's given more importance to Fallout 3 than Fallout 2 and it should not take place. Itachou ^[~talk~] 21:26, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

How does it give FO3 more importance? Ausir^(talk) 21:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the image already, no date to differentiate, how as a Fallout fan we can mention the armor ? The APA MKII of Fallout 2 ? The APA MKII of Fallout 3 ? And in the universe, the Canon, how to differentiate then they are the same name ? I find that my solution meets the two opinions. Otherwise talk around you, almost everyone is willing to differentiate the two, try No Mutants Allowed or else you'll see. Itachou ^[~talk~] 22:06, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I modified the advanced power armor page to show you what I think this would be the best solution. Tell me what you think, that respects both opinions not ? Itachou ^[~talk~] 22:28, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

So far I've only seen you bringing this non-issue up. _Tagaziel ^(call!) 22:40, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

I reverted it back, and added dates within the entry. I don't think separate sections there are needed. Ausir^(talk) 22:42, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah great, and those who will see this name will believe that it's the ugly armor of Fallout 3 and that of Fallout 2 has never existed, so how are supposed to call the APA MK II of Fallout 2 ? I think separate sections there are needed. Why would it be to you and Tagaziel to choose for others ? The majority should not prevail ? Ask the people most serious of No Mutants Allowed you'll see, and before you remove the vote, the against win. Itachou ^[~talk~] 23:06, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

It's not really something that should be up to a vote. It's up to the facts, and the facts are that Bethesda retconned the APA Mk 2's appearance. As for No Mutants Allowed, Tagaziel is actually one of the admins there. :) The overview page section for the Mk 2 now mentions a visual redesign of the armor, I don't think anything else is needed there. Ausir^(talk) 23:09, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

How about just calling the FO3 armor something like "East Coast advanced power armor" with an added "unknown designation" or something, and the Fallout 2/New Vegas version Advanced Power Armor/APA MKII? Or better yet, just add that Beth was lazy and just totally ripped off the Fallout Tactics power armor. How do we even know that Casdin and the other folks are referring to the very exact same APA from Fallout 2? Maybe it's the Mark two variant of the East Coast advanced power armor. Maybe the West Coast Enclave send some schematics of APA to the East Coast Enclave, but the Capital Wasteland's boys in black couldn't reproduce the MKII just as it was in the West, so they improvised a bit and got what we have in the game. Of course, fan speculation shouldn't be really noted, but still, just my two euro cents. - CRIMINAL SCUM 23:27, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

The designation is known. It's APA Mk II. And they had never encountered the Enclave on the East Coast before, while they had on the West Coast, and they identified their armor as the APA Mk II in the same note in which they stated that the Enclave forces are nearly identical to the ones encountered on 2242. And the East Coast Enclave is not a separate faction - the remnants of the Enclave's West Coast forces relocated to the East Coast after the destruction of the Oil Rig. Ausir^(talk) 23:31, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that APA Mk II have the same model of the Mk I BEFORE Bethesda do something else, it's a fact not ? So why the Mk II model is represented by the image of Fallout 3 released after Fallout 2 ? I agree with CRIMINAL SCUM, separate sections there are needed.

Hmm, confusing. Well, the issue at hand never was very clear in the first place. Thanks. - CRIMINAL SCUM 23:38, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Anything done by Bethesda is inconsistency on inconsistency, just one thing but the Brotherhood of Steel is deemed never to go to war against the Enclave.

I know he's an admin, he called Tagaziel over there but he is not alone, ask another admin you'll see. And you have not answered my question, how should call the APA Mk II of Fallout 2 in the Fallout universe ? Seriously I don't even know why I try to debate with people who simply listen to anyone, as I already said most people were against here in this debate and ask your question on seriously Fallout website like No Mutants Allowed, Duck and Cover (where you were admin) or FalloutNow! and you'll see. What it's like to make two separate section really bothers you ? Why ? It would be nice for a man who follows Fallout since 1996, it's not like I ask you to do two section for the Psycho because they don't have the same effect, here it's the appearance is not the same thing. Itachou ^[~talk~] 23:36, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you did use the gameplay stats being different as one of your arguments, actually. And as for the appearance, the visual redesign is mentioned in the article. No need for separate sections, just like there's only one section for the FO1, FOT and FNV versions of the Avenger on the Minigun page. Ausir^(talk) 23:48, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Yes but images of two version are present in the Minigun page in the same section, which is not the case of APA Mk II. I just want the image of that in Fallout 2 is present and before that Fallout 3, show that there was something before Fallout 3 and a image says more than text. And again, so how are supposed to call the APA MK II of Fallout 2 ? And I also remember, the Tesla armor of Fallout: New Vegas how shall we call ? This is not confirmed that is the Mk I in Fallout: New Vegas. I know I'm boring on this subject but this is my favorite armor in Fallout and I will don't give the case to be left to decay by Fallout 3. It's late home I'm tired, at tomorrow. Itachou ^[~talk~] 00:14, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

The APA Mk II section already says that the early version was similar in appearance to the Mk I, which already has an image in the article. No need to include the image of the Mk I twice. Ausir^(talk) 00:29, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

I just change a little the page without changing much, and the text below the image was already write by Ausir who had not set the thumb. I confirm that APA of Fallout: New Vegas is the Mk II, why ? Because the Tesla Armor Mk I of Fallout: New Vegas is lower than the APA, if the APA was a Mk I, the Tesla Armor of Fallout: New Vegas should be better because if the principle of the armor Tesla it's to improve the base armor like it was seen in Fallout 3 where it's higher than the basic model. Here, the Tesla Armor is inferior to the APA, this means is that the Tesla Armor of Fallout: New Vegas is a Mk I and APA of Fallout: New Vegas is a Mk II. Every party should find their account (although I'm disappointed with the final decision). Itachou ^[~talk~] 13:10, November 4, 2010 (UTC)