Wikia

Nukapedia

Do you think the ENCLAVE will make a return in fallout 4?

17,157pages on
this wiki

Forum page

Forums: Index > Fallout world discussion > Do you think the ENCLAVE will make a return in fallout 4?
 
Gametitle-Wiki
Gametitle-Wiki


I think it depends on what you chose to do in New Vegas. You have the option of getting the members of the Enclave back together, but I don't think they would come back as a major rival faction. I also hope they get rid of Caesars Legion, they are annoying to fight. They should make a new and better rival faction in Fallout 4 with a better protagonist instead of a Wasteland Courier who was shot over a poker chip and a Vault Dweller who runs around the Wasteland looking for his father. The Brotherhood of Steel should be more major in Fallout 4 and they could possibly be fighting the NCR again. The game should be set in California where the NCR capital is. No Mr.House type figure either. He was the worst choice to help in New Vegas. He says he was working to make New Vegas a better place, but everyone else was calling him a tyrant.--151.199.61.29 17:09, December 27, 2011 (UTC)Bepease2269

I hope so. I do enjoy kicking their asses across the Wasteland. MoonshadowDark

Hopefully not. It should stay dead. Demand variety and creativity, not mindless repeating of tropes and factions. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 22:37, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
C'mon! You can't tell me it wasn't fun blowing up Raven Rock or raining hellfire down on the Mobile Crawler. MoonshadowDark

A new government should make an entry into the Fallout universe, like a dictatorship, but more ruthless than the enclave, or a corrupt democracy. Maybe change the NCR into something new or an apposing army from the East, who happens to be fending off the Brotherhood at the same time. Then you could choose between the Brotherhood, NCR, Enclave or this new government to change the shape of the Western coast, if not the West then the NCR wouldn't be involved but maybe a Northern Alliance between remnants of Canadian Vaults and the Northern American Vaults. That would be awesome. Then a super-mutant and ghoul alliance comes from nowhere and BAM! You have to decide whether to unite the governments or dissolve some just to try to focus more on who controls America to help recruit troops to fight off the hordes of radiated mutants... ~ The Smoothe One

Ya what the crap. Caesar's legion is the dictatorship ^ duh.

And, of course, the mighty Caesar is not mentioned. Legion REP-RE-SENT! Nitty Tok. 04:51, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
You do have the option of killing him in New Vegas. So Caesar is prolly not considered a canon character. MoonshadowDark
No, he's very much a canon character. Do some research before you post - Marcus was entirely killable in Fo2, yet he returns in New Vegas. Tandi was entirely killable in Fo1, yet she makes a return in Fo2. Just because a character is killable doesn't mean they're not going to reappear. Now stop posting before you hurt yourself. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 12:55, January 3, 2011 (UTC)
Foul! Foul! I call foul! Red card, you are booted off the field! Fouling is not aloud, young man, especially by a referee! Attacking a player is a no go, get off the field! HEY YOU CAN'T GIVE ME A RED CARD I GAVE YOU ONE! oh yeah i'm a player too. Carry on, ref. sorry. 67SunsetStrip 22:44, January 5, 2011 (UTC)


Caesar is canon. Enclave is dead. No more secret governments. --Atomkilla 13:39, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, no way. I was sick of the Enclave after FO2, I find their inwardly-focused jingoism thoroughly irritating. --Johnny Trash (Talk) 13:44, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the Enclave are entirely dead, but I don't think they will be a major faction any time soon, or at all. Bethesda has shown it is trying to branch out into new ideas, so I believe they will be incorporating an entirely new big villain into the next game. 67SunsetStrip 22:46, January 5, 2011 (UTC) It would be cool if they done some sort of ambush to try and get revenge on the lone wanderer just so he can kick their asses a bit more, nothing to serious.Kill-da-mutant 22:51, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

It would be cool if they done some sort of ambush to kill the Lone Wanderer because he's just an annoying, overpowered protagonist with a poorly thought out backstory. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 23:12, January 5, 2011 (UTC)


Most of the players have stupid storys such as the fact someone can get shot in the head twice and happily walk away from it, as well as this they were underground with no oxygen.Kill-da-mutant 23:27, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

People survive getting shot in the head. Even between the eyes with a .44. Furthermore, the Courier was buried in a shallow grave and unearthed by Victor right after Benny and his ensemble left. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:07, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Tagaziel, aren't admins not supposed to attack others? You're like a bad cop. You take down us for tiny little issues, and then the fact that you do these exact same things get overlooked. But hey, I guess the fact that you Interplayers god-given duty to find all the flaws with us Bethesda dudes means that you are a valuable player and soldier. Keep up the good work. Fight that lost war. We won, dude. Game over. You may not like it, but Bethesda's got your game by the balls. You either man up and take it, or you can go down like dog. Either way, it'll end the same. Sombar1 02:53, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

You didn't win. Nobody did. This isn't a war, kid, this is simply a struggle to put a little bit of demand for creativity and innovation into your heads, rather than tolerating the incessant "I w4nt teh moar BOS and ENkluv".Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:07, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
this is a war because you make it a war. You constantly delete comments and users just because they don't accept YOUR opinions, YOUR beliefs, you don't give two shits about creativity because you aren't an artist and you aren't a writer, you are just a simple admin at a simple wiki that is entirely run by Interplayers who band together and keep it pure-blooded. Bethesda saved Fallout, Bethesda made it popular, Bethesda made it highly recognized. What did you do? You criticized us players of the game. You must feel pretty big, man. you deleted some comments. You god. I worship your ideals and beliefs! Oh, and go ahead and ban me again. you banned me for trying to stop a fight, so you know what, fuck you, you oh-so-high-and-mighty, retarded, overpowered piece of shit, I hate you and your abilities as an admin, and if Ausir had an ounce of brain he'd fire your ass. Sombar1 21:50, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, someone with the cajones to stand up and give his opinion. I approveWaffles 02:26, January 7, 2011 (UTC)Waffles Respect for the guy aboveKill-da-mutant 23:50, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

Damn straight. Tagaziel, you are a world class pretentious dink. You deleted my post calling you out on your crap and I declare shenanigans on you. Though knowing your oh-so-high-and-mighty ego, you'll just delete this and any other post that makes you look bad. Mutant, you got my vote.MoonshadowDark
Your post was deleted because it contained nothing but harassment. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:07, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oh,how much I hate you're bitching about Fallout 3. You have to face the facts. In my opinion, Fallout 3 has been the best Fallout so far. Also, before it, only a small group,large, but still small knew about fallout and played it. Before Fallout 3, when you mentioned Fallout, people would wonder what the hell were you talking about and why would you play a game no one knows about. Then Fallout 3 came along, was a big success, introduced millions and millions of people to the series, and won a game of the year award. I dont know why you keep yapping about one of the best games I've ever played. To me, you're like one of those idiots that still like the same old things and can't adjust to new things, and when someone tells you about the new thing, you get all defensive and become irate and start to post you're whinny little comments. Just stop, you're no contributing anything nor helping anyone with your putting down of Fallout 3. Just stop; its getting really old.--{{SUBST:User:AFGHAN PSYCHO/Sig}} 00:35, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Uh, if you haven't noticed, I have nothing but praise for Fallout: New Vegas. Sure, it seems a tad cramped when compared to Fallout 1/2 (thanks to inferior tech) and has some technical issues, but overall it's a great game. If you've also bothered to actually read what I've been posting, I criticize Fallout 3 not because it's something something new, but because it's something new that badly written, poorly designed and very poorly voiced. I wouldn't have a problem with it if its design was good. Hell, I love Morrowind and played it to death and consider it one of the most unique RPGs in history. I also hate Oblivion because it dumbed down Morrowind's mechanics (which in itself were dumbed down Daggerfall mechanics, although it wasn't that obvious), has a poor story, poor characters, atrocious acting and an utterfly horrible design, in addition to completely ignoring estabilished TES lore. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:07, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I just started playing Fallout with Fallout 3 and New Vegas. Does anyone know WHERE THE HELL I get the original Fallouts? Sincerely, the man with the ego the size of Jay Leno's Chin, /\/\r.6r33|\| |-|@T 00:49, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

You can but the Falout Trilogy pack at any Walmart. MoonshadowDark
Or use gog.com. Digital downloads FTW. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:07, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you can find where online, but they're only for pc.--{{SUBST:User:AFGHAN PSYCHO/Sig}} 00:51, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, if you think that the Lone Wnaderer was overpowered, so would the First Fallout protagonist. Think. They both left thier chilled back vault lives to face a cruel world. I didnt play Fallout 1, so if I'm mistaken, please correct me /\/\r.6r33|\| |-|@T 00:55, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, left Vault, overpowering, you are correct. The only difference is that the Lone Wanderer is driven to find his father, the only connection he has, and the Vault Dweller is motivated to find a water chip to "save" his people, who evidently are far too stupid to walk on dry land to find fresh water their own goddamn selves. The plots are both weak, in areas, I admit, but when you think of it Bethesda moved in the direction of actuality, such as if you were the character, while Interplay went with reality, with you controlling the character. Who would join the faction responsible for your father's death right after you see them die? Only blood-crazed empathy-less who cannot place themselves in the shoes of the character. And for that matter, can you truly have the Master win? No. Either you will kill him or he kills himself. Two choices. In Fallout 3, you can save the world, a friend can save the world, or you can choose NOT to save the world. See, there's the NOT option. Accidently, or just because you wish to. On top of this, you can obey the Enclave and poison the water, another option. And then, if you have Broken Steel, you can have a dramatic choice in whether to end the Enclave or to end the Brotherhood. So, major choices right there that impact the game in a visible way. So, if you wish to discredit Fallout 3, to anyone, at least get your goddamn facts straight. My god.

You can join Master and sell Vault 13 out to him, if you think the Unity is the best course for the world. DNDTR. Nitty Tok. 02:52, January 6, 2011 (UTC)
  • sigh* Time to post on this matter again.

When it comes to Fallout games, two game protagonists come directly from a Vault: the Vault Dweller (Fallout 1) and the Lone Wanderer (Fallout 3). However, this is where the similarities end. Where the Vault Dweller is a blank slate you are free to fill in with your own backstory (or choose any of the three pre-made character: Max, Natalia or Albert), within certain rather generous limits, namely you grew up in a Vault and were chosen to seek out the water chip, the Lone Wanderer is a pre-made character.

Now, I know that you can pretend he's not, but play-pretend is not roleplaying. In Fallout 3, the developers force you to play as a 19 year old teenager who looks for his dad and can't possibly hate him for leaving him to die in the Vault, as with all his intellect, he could not figure out that the fascist Overseer, whose sanity is quite shaky, would go ballistic and hurt his child in retaliation. The game does not permit you to stray from the role of loving offspring. You are not allowed to define your character as you like, hell, you can't even hate your father or call him out on his bullshit. This brings me to the next point...

In addition to having a pre-set background, you simply cannot define your character through the choices you make in the game. Most sidequests have only one correct way of solving them, but they're not the primary culprit. The biggest issue is the main story, where you are not given any choice at all. Let's go through the paces, shall we?

  • You must find your father.
  • You must be a loving, obedient child and follow in his footsteps and help reactivate Project Purity.
  • You must hate the Enclave after your father decides to be a moron and blow up his life's work
  • You must help the Brotherhood.
  • You must be captured by the Enclave and escape.
  • You must take the modified FEV.
  • You must destroy the Enclave with overwhelming force and make a superficial choice.
  • You must aid the Brotherhood in destroying Adams Air Force Base.

Seems innocuous, right? If this was in a standalone linear shooter, then sure, it's actually a halfway decent story. However, Fallout was always known for its freedom and actual roleplaying qualities. Here is where stuff gets dicey.

The lack of choice in the story is not excusable in a Fallout RPG. Yes, you can argue that you can choose who inputs the Project Purity code, whether or not to put in the modified FEV or who to blow up with the satellite, but ask yourself, why would your character do that? After all, the entire plot is based on the assumption that you're playing a 19 year old who loves his father and hates the Enclave after his father kills himself, refusing to give the Purifier to the only people ith the means to distribute the water. Why give the choice if you're not going to give a rationale for it? Or even give an explanation as to why the player would give it?

Why can't you choose to support the Enclave? After all, they have the weapons and equipment to bring order and civilization to the wasteland. Why are you forced to fight them? In this place various posters pipe up But they hate mutants! Read the terminals! Talk to Eden!", instead of stopping for a minute, thinking and realizing that I'm criticizing the design choices made by Bethesda. If you were given the opportunity to join the Enclave, then they wouldn't have designed the game with the intent on making the Enclave as villanous as possible.

Hell, even when Col. Autumn explains his plan to you, your can't join him. If you give him the code, he shoots you, because the developers want to make you hate him real hard. It's also completely out-of-character for him to shoot people for cooperating. Why aren't you given the choice to join him? Hell, even if you defeat the Enclave at the Purifier, why can't you have a change of heart and support the Enclave and join them against the Brotherhood?

No, nuking the Pentagon at the end of BS does not make you an Enclave supporter.

Now let's compare that to Fallout 1:

  • You must find the water chip.
  • You must confront the mutant leader.
  • You must destroy the Vats if you do not join the Unity.

Note that I wrote "confront", not destroy. The reason is simple: unlike Fallout 3, you can talk to the Master, hear him out and then decide whether or not his plan is rational and join his forces, becoming a super mutant.

Furthermore, the number of essential steps is minimal. Fallout 1 does not have a linear story, unlike its spin-off. Here, you create your own story and shape the wastelands as you see fit. You make actual choices as to how to handle the problems of the cities or you can ignore them wholesale. And ultimately, you can join the supposed enemy. It isn't a choice given out of the blue, you are given ample explanation by the Master and Unity-aligned characters as to why you should join the Unity.

Simply put, Fallout 1 truly allowed you to shape your character as you wanted him to be, starting with the rather broad template of a Vault Dweller. In Fallout 3, you are forced to play as a 19 year old Vault Dweller who loves his dad and absolutely hates the Enclave and gladly supports the Brotherhood in everything they do because the developers said so.

No, two completely random options to poison the Potomac and nuke the Pentagon do not make your character any more deep than randomly killing people in real life makes you a philosopher. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 14:07, January 6, 2011 (UTC)


Well, I think if you didn't destroy the enclave in Fallout 3 then some dialouge in New Vegas wouldn't make sense. Such as in New Vegas they say the Enclave is destroyed in the east. Right? Am I wrong?


I agree 99%. That does not make Fallout 3 a bad game; it just means that Fallout 3 is a terrible role-playing game. After playing New Vegas, I HATE the BoS, so in my next playthrough of Fallout 3, I wanted to blow them to hell, but the Enclave STILL hates me?! Sometimes, a few MUSTS should be in a game, or there would be no story whatsoever. You say you should make your own story, but you should make your own back story. You dont get that it takes time and money to make very long games like Fallout. It NEEDS a story to be a good game, or it would be an OK game that would take years and years to make if it was a total freedom game. /\/\r.6r33|\| |-|@T 21:40, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I loved the exploration aspect in Fo3 and the feel of post-nuclear DC. It's just that it wasn't a very good role playing game, as you said. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 22:18, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

The one thing you mentioned that I might have to dissagree with is Col. Autumn's motivation for shooting the character. James, in overloading project purity, would more than likely leave a bad taste in Autumn's mouth, and unlike Anna Holt you do not, even if you would like to, work with the Enclave. That, in addition to the killing of every Enclave member you find, would more than likely have you branded a terrorist. When considering he is just shooting the man responsible for the murder of his men, it doesn't come off as quite so extreme, and you are, after all, only cooporating once you're captured and held prisoner. Now the inability to work for the Enclave does fall onto Bethesda's lap, but as far as realism in a character, not shooting the LW would seem more out of character for the Colonel.

Other than that one detail, I completely agree. I still very much like Fallout 3, but when there are flaws, and there were, pointing them out does no harm. XxSick DemonxX 06:53, October 2, 2011 (UTC)


Okay, good, there, Tagaziel. A valid and unoffensive way of saying your point. Was that so hard? I completely agree. The rpg elements of the main story was very limited, and I agree that Bethesda should have done a far better job. That is one of the key reasons that New Vegas is superior to Fallout 3. Now, with that being said, I loved the aspects of Fallout 3 where the side quests and missions seem to have several ways to finish them. So, I agree with you, Tagaziel. Fallout 3 should have been different in that matter of the main story. BUT, I do excuse Bethesda for this being their first take on Fallout. It was just as with Oblivion, you don't really have a choice as to who you side with, and thus the major problem with the story. However, if you were placed in the same situations as the characters, wouldn't you act in the way they allowed you to? Probably. But, they shouldn't have gone about this in this way, instead of forcing us to make those choices they should have simply emphasized those choices, made them recommended but not necessary. However, I believe that Bethesda will learn from their mistakes and make the main story more based upon choices and actions. Sombar1 02:12, January 7, 2011 (UTC)\

This isn't excusable. Bethesda has been making open world RPGs for the past what? 16 years? It could be excused uf they were a newly estabilished game development outfit, but as it stands, they've been at it for the past one-and-a-half decades.Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 10:04, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
This IS excusable, because this is their FIRST fallout game, and if you cannot deal with the fact that it may not meet up to YOUR standards and YOUR desires than you may as well drop fallout all together because its Bethesda's, bitch, and there isn't anything you can do about that. Sombar1 22:03, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
So you're a firm believer in the notion that someone will absolutely recognize the flaws in their own work with no feedback? Because when you say "there isn't anything you can do about that," in this instance, that is what you are implying.--OvaltinePatrol 22:25, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm a firm believer that Bethesda KNOWS that people see the problems, and that they have SEEN the feedback, and they will RESPOND in accordance to said feedback. Are you a firm believer that posting only direct hate of Bethesda and Fallout 3 at some random forum will be seen by Bethesda and make them think "Hmm, these couple of people at this one forum don't like this one thing, we should change the game!" Uh, if you think so, then you are very deluded. Sombar1 06:19, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
I don't think they've demonstrated that considering the collective of Fallout 3 and its DLCs are poor rehashings of plot points and concepts from Fallout 1, Fallout 2, Fallout: Tactics, and Van Buren. According to you we should excuse them for Fallout 3, what about the DLCs? Furthermore I've heard that they did in fact make use of the Vault as a reference guide, if they know the wikia exists and visit it, then it's inside the realm of possibility that they would see the forums.--OvaltinePatrol 17:15, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
No, what I was saying is that lashing out at Bethesda continuously and unjustifiably is entirely pointless, if you have a valid point to make make it, but don't just say how awful it is for the exact same reasons, because everyone has heard the arguments and we know them and Bethesda knows them. I don't believe that Fallout 3 was a total disaster nor do I believe that all of the Fallout 3 DLCs were a waste (the Pitt, Point Lookout, and Broken Steel were great, brilliant, and really good in order, while Mothership Zeta and Operatioin: Anchorage were crap, I admit) and I'm saying that Bethesda has HEARD the arguments, not that they just came up with them on their own, and why would a major company consult a forum like this about a random topic and take it to heart? I mean, they've already heard the arguments before if they have consulted these sites as you said. Sombar1 22:58, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I hope the Enclave will appear in fallout 4, but this time we'll be able to join them. This would make us feel like we were part of an official government army, not some rebel faction (Please don't hate on me for calling them that!)like the brotherhood of steel. gears of duty

I personally think the BoS and Enclave should join forces. The Enclave just wants to restore america, and the BoS just want to restore prewar technology, Yes the Enclave drifted away from their main goal, but I feel they could both unite instead of each side hurting the other. I also hope they put Enclave advance power armor 2 and Tesla armor. They were the best looking armor sets in the series on par or better looking than the Mid-West BoS.--{{SUBST:User:AFGHAN PSYCHO/Sig}} 23:08, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

lol at the two posters between here and Ovaltine.
The Enclave wants to exterminate everyone that isn't Enclave. Can't believe the both of you haven't realized that over two full games and an add-on. Nitty Tok. 23:27, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
The BoS have been direct enemies since the beginning of the second game. An alliance between the two is outrageously improbable. Sombar1 06:19, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

I hope only as Remnents or a game where you are in the Enclave. Other then that, they need to go away. Its overdone and kinda blah now. However, would love some more Enclave tech, like weapon varaitions or devices to make some purified food or to better life for all. Sgt. Chronus 05:11, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

The Enclave I've heard were all across the globe when the bombs fell. There could be factions of them in post-war Britain. Hell lets go crazy and say they made a government for the ravaged war-torn country and now its called Nova (New)America. I think some were even in China when it all went to hell. It is hard to say what there conditon is or if they even exist but all I know is the Enclave has been defeated by America. How Ironic that the remments of our government gets defeated by the remments and decendents of it's once held country. Bethseda is going to give the Fallout franchise a new facelift. Its going to have their ideas, not Black Isle's, well maybe some but its going to be all entirly new. We need other big factions to appear, not just the NCR, Brotherhood of Steel, and Enclave. For example, the Commonwealth was a Bethseda idea and dont get fussy and shocked if Fallout 4 takes place there, but another place I think it will be is Chicago.

The Enclave is a purely American faction and it's only in America. Personal_Sig_Image.gif Tagaziel (call!) 23:37, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

OK people, here are a bunch of reasonable and fair idea's for furthur Enclave presence in future Fallout games.

1) Enclave renegades. Somewhere in area we havent seen yet but not to far from California, a small detachment of Enclave personal rebelled against the Enclaves insane plan to rid the world of everyone who isnt them. They survive and eventually thrive after the destruction of the oil rig and Navarro

2) Enclave military vaults that went of and did their own thing when Navarro and the Rig went dark.

3) Furthur remenants.


86.164.85.100 23:58, January 18, 2011 (UTC) Sec 19

I would really like it if the Enclave made at least a half full return in a future installments with actual beneficial practical goals. To be honest, I also want them because of the very good gear they have to offer. I was disappointed when I found that the exact Tesla armor that was in Fallout 3 didn't return in New Vegas.--{{SUBST:User:AFGHAN PSYCHO/Sig}} 00:05, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

I would love the enclave to return they are brilliant especially in force, the mobile crawler was awesome...however i want to see more of the older faction like The Shi..--Mr Z 02:34(GMT) 02/10/11

While I do enjoy the Enclave, I do want some originality. So like with anything else I believe that they could be brought back and even play a major role, but it can't be in the same "Let's just salt the earth" format, and ultimately it will all come down to how the developers create the story. And at this point even questioning the Enclave's appearance is impossible to do, considering we no nothing about F4 itself, so there isn't any evidence at all, just speculation in its rawest form. XxSick DemonxX 07:04, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

@ XxSick DemonxX, I completely agree with you. We don't even know where the next Fallout game will even take place (or when for that matter), so we can't make assumptions that factions like the Enclave, Brotherhood of Steel or even the NCR will make an appearance. --Fezgod 14:57, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Gosh I hope not. I could tolerate a crazy old man tinkering with a broken gauss pistol, talking about the good old days when "Big Frank," punched out Deathclaws; but I really would prefer entirely new menaces.--OvaltinePatrol 02:29, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

Maybe a remnant faction, or a guerrilla movement. ЙураYuriKaslov - Sig image 02:30, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, no, no more enclave! Also no more Vaults either, is time to move on, they were designed to protect the survivors from nuclear holocaust for a timeframe, not indefinitely. If Bethesda don't wanna do this and re-can the ideas of previous games, OK do it, but do it according the timeline. It makes no sense 300 years after the war the world still destroyed without advancing in some areas. Or if they wanna mantain the destroyed world show us a new area with another timeline, like Alaska 40 years after the war. Brfritos 05:30, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Not to piss on anyone's bluegrass here, but there was an option to not help your father or the Brotherhood of Steel. It was this amazing thing called not doing the main quest. And there was a perfectly good, canonical reason why you could not join the Enclave: they are proponents of eugenics and view anyone who was not born into the Enclave as less than human, much like the Midwestern BoS. As for role-playing, yeah, it was limited... But at least it made you care, unlike FO:NV. To me, Fallout 3 was more like the originals in terms of atmosphere and writing (besides the whole more-NPCs-than-voices thing), while New Vegas was too impersonal and didn't encourage roleplaying enough. Yeah, the perks and traits and ambiguity made it easier; but I never felt like I was making a meaningful choice, especially when it came to the main factions. I also would like to state that I don't particularly care if the Enclave comes back, but they definitely should be mentioned at the very least. However, I will throw a fit if Fawkes and Three Dog aren't somewhere in there.

So "genious", like Klein like to say, explain to me how I end the game? In FNV at least I have a choice. Imagine this, I don't like my father and think he's a selfish bastard who bring me nothing but problems, so I want to kill him. Can I do it? No. Can I leave him at the simulation? No. Do I have ANY other choice other than release him? No. Great solution you gave me, hun? And I agree, the atmosphere in FO3 is great, but I think we should move on from the "devastated, flooded with radiation and no-man's land Wasteland". It's time to move on. Brfritos 07:11, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I liked the desolate, nuclear wasteland. That is what Fallout is. However, I do think that they need to improve on the story line. Both the story lines of FO:3 and F0:NV where terrible. More so, the landscape of FO:NV was terrible, unlike the landscape and setting of FO:3.


The Enclave is dead, but its soldiers aren't, I want to know what they did afterwards, scatter or join something else...--98.243.106.164 21:58, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

..well.. didn't we see that with the Remnant characters in F:NV?--MikeJTanner 23:54, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

If the Enclave, Brotherhood or Lone Wanderer are in the next game i'll burn my disc..... KiwiBird 23:58, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

i like twists in stories, i want like every major faction in fallout enclave, NCR, ceasars legion, brotherhood of steel you name it are returning at a larger peak of they're power and wastelanders are caught in the middle of it and a smaller faction trying to find out how some of the destroyed factions are returning even more powerful then before. and like all of the factions are fighting to control some sort of plot device, and you can help one of the factions in finding it.


 i love f3 nv but to have a few more options in my role playing choice would not have been hard to do for example in 3 eden said you could replace the colonel at my side why couldnt you its a shame because eden isnt autumn and eden did not kill your dad and with the promise of caps and toys an evil character maybe would have taken the job depending on how you play her me i would because i think the enclave is way cooler than the bos--Misswasteland2274 15:59, February 26, 2012 (UTC)

Other Wikia wikis

Random Wiki