Gaming Underground Network

Come for the Mods, Stay for the Community!
 
HomeCalendarFAQMemberlistUsergroupsRegisterLog in
Info Panel

________________
FO MOD MASTER THREAD
TES MOD MASTER THREAD

________________


________________
_
December 2017
MonTueWedThuFriSatSun
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
CalendarCalendar

Share | 
 

 Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3
AuthorMessage
MrEggs0925

avatar

Posts : 123
Join date : 2014-12-14
Location : United Igloo's of Canada

Character sheet
Name: Alex
Faction: Enclave
Level: Archives Manager

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Wed Jun 07, 2017 9:42 pm

@JarJarSlayer Couldn't of said it better myself! An excellent comparison and show of evidence. The point about the ghouls is true but the Enclave also killed ghouls and other mutated creatures. That point about Autumn though, wish I thought of that as it shows the he was truly dedicated to restoring the United States and not just in it to kill everyone. The point about the purifier is what I was trying to say, the BOS have used the purifier to become a necessity in the region and make all the major settlements rely on them for water. 

Good post and excellent points! Definitely a +1 from me.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
JarJarSlayer

avatar

Posts : 15
Join date : 2016-07-22

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Wed Jun 07, 2017 10:31 pm

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
@JarJarSlayer Couldn't of said it better myself! An excellent comparison and show of evidence. The point about the ghouls is true but the Enclave also killed ghouls and other mutated creatures. That point about Autumn though, wish I thought of that as it shows the he was truly dedicated to restoring the United States and not just in it to kill everyone. The point about the purifier is what I was trying to say, the BOS have used the purifier to become a necessity in the region and make all the major settlements rely on them for water. 

Good post and excellent points! Definitely a +1 from me.

Thank you very much! I'm aware about the way Autumn and co treat Ghouls, I just wanted to point out that on net he's not so much worse than the Brotherhood. You're pretty much choosing between two factions whose methods and ideals are barely different when you really think about it. Also, considering that he stays loyal to an AI even after taking control away from Eden it's a good bet that he'd be a little more humane towards Synths than the Brotherhood. I don't support Autumn by any means, I just don't think it's as black and white as some say.

It's interesting that there's actually a cut quest in Fallout 3 where Lyons has you steal a vitally important piece of technology from Rivet City (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Infiltration). It added fuel to my hunch that Bethesda originally intended to make the BOS in Fallout 3 more morally ambiguous but chickened out at the last minute. Between Dr Li warning you not to trust them and all the reports of them attacking Ghouls I spent most of the main quest bracing myself for them to pull a Cerberus and was little disappointed when they didn't. My guess is that the similarities between the BOS and Enclave were originally meant to be more obvious until they decided to simplify the central conflict.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MrEggs0925

avatar

Posts : 123
Join date : 2014-12-14
Location : United Igloo's of Canada

Character sheet
Name: Alex
Faction: Enclave
Level: Archives Manager

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Thu Jun 08, 2017 7:52 am

@JarJarSlayer The whole story is just watered down. Its obvious that the Enclave was meant to be more "3D" then the one sided bad guy faction that we got. Interesting that the BOS would of had you steal technology from a peaceful settlement. Interesting also that the wiki article states that the BOS took a reactor core from Rivet City in order to power the Prydwen and the infiltration quest is also to steal a power source from Rivet City.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
ChuBBies1

avatar

Posts : 140
Join date : 2016-08-25
Age : 19
Location : Beyond the Sea

Character sheet
Name: I'll think of one later
Faction: Uh, myself?
Level: Level? I don't need no stinking level!

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Mon Jun 19, 2017 7:33 pm

I understand that FO3 needed bad guys who could pose a massive threat, hence why Bethesda choose them. My problem with this( along with a lot of other people in this discussion) feel that the Enclave were just not fleshed out enough. They wanted to rebuild America and build a stable gov't which is a noble goal. Killing random scavengers and hobos in the street, not so noble. I just never could grasp why the Enclave were so genocidal. They literally attacked everyone without discrimination. The same goes for Colonel Autumn. Yes he was a douche bag who, at all times, wanted to kill you. The Enclave had the best armor, tactics, weaponry, and men but lacked nuance.

Regardless, I will still love Colonel Augustus Autumn and the Enclave... even when they shoot me with plasma.

_________________
"Time and tide waits for no man" - Geoffrey Chaucer
Back to top Go down
View user profile
JarJarSlayer

avatar

Posts : 15
Join date : 2016-07-22

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Thu Jun 22, 2017 12:31 am

On paper the Enclave in Fallout 3 were a much more morally grey faction than the Legion (Say what you like about Autmn, he doesn't condone rape, cannibalism, human sacrifice, pedofellia or sacking peaceful settlements to get back at one man for losing a battle) or the Enclave in Fallout 2. There the entire organization was dedicated to wiping out any slightly mutated Wastelander, in contrast to 3 where only Eden advocates such an act while Autumn and the rest of the organization want to use the Purifier as leverage to convince Wastelanders to voluntarily support them. That said this doesn't necessarily mean that they were better written in 3 than 2.

The earlier game went out of its way to humanise them, allowing the player to small talk with ordinary Enclave soldiers (Such as the immortal Sergeant Dornan) and see that for all their heinous intentions there were still very human people inside those suits. This made them more believable and also hammered home the harsh reality that even otherwise normal, relatable people can be swayed to commit inhuman acts under the right circumstances.

While they're technically less extreme in Fallout 3 they're also less humanised. We only ever get to talk to Eden and Autumn, while all the rank and file soldiers are treated as nothing more than faceless interchangeable cannon folder. The game could really have done with a moment where you get to see a more human side to them (For example you might be able to get through Raven Rock peacefully with a Speech Check and mingle with the grunts in the mess hall).

Autumn also suffers from being an underwritten character. There are glimpses of potential here and there but they never come to anything. What's his end goal for the Wasteland? Why prompted him to turn away from the genocidal menality his predecessors possesed towards all outsiders? There was also potential for a parallel with Elder Lyons.

Both men are fixated on taking the purifier in what they believe will bring about the greater good for the people of the Wasteland, both have tried to push their organizations in a more humanitarian direction which has put them at odds with their hard-line supporters and both are dedicated to a rose tinted, nostalgic vision of the past. Autumn's Enclave venerates a vision of pre-war America that ignores the concentration camps, instability and economic woes that blighted it in the run up to the Great War. Lyons's Brotherhood has the romanticizing of Medieval Chivalric ideals baked into its very structure, with titles such as Paladin and Knight reinforcing a glorification of times gone by. When Fallout 4 rolls around they've also dug up the less rosy aspects of Medieval life, creating a practically feudalistic society and reducing Wastelanders to serfs.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
FafnirEtherion

avatar

Posts : 621
Join date : 2015-06-14
Age : 20
Location : France

Character sheet
Name: Julien
Faction: New California Republic
Level: 29

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Thu Jun 22, 2017 8:49 am

I never liked him at all... He had a rad coat, but that's about it !

Even if he wasn't actually a bad person, he'd still be an asshole, and that's unforgivable !
Back to top Go down
View user profile
justinhartley19

avatar

Posts : 57
Join date : 2015-08-16
Age : 24
Location : Los Angeles

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Thu Jun 22, 2017 4:57 pm

So by reading this im learning that Eden was just the face while Autumn was the real mind behind everything, i still feel that at the core he was bad, may not have been as bad as the west cost Enclave but he was i guess you can say the lesser of two evils, either way i feel that he was till a bad person even if you passed certain speech checks his morals were ultimately bad and he told you his true intentions about how he wanted the Enclave to rule over the wasteland and etc.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fuster

avatar

Posts : 61
Join date : 2015-07-23
Location : Shady Sands

Character sheet
Name: Joseph
Faction: -none-
Level: 1

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Fri Jun 23, 2017 1:32 pm

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Sure, you may say "He steals the purifier from you and dad, and takes credit for your dads work!" Yes he does steal the purifier from you and your dad but to the Enclave he is ruining the life's of a couple of people in order to begin his plan of rebuilding America. By securing the Purifier, the Enclave would of gained the public's support by having access to clean water and would of been the dominant force over the Brotherhood of Steel. Colonel Autumn actually says this at the base game ending. "Once this facility is operational, the masses will flock to the Enclave for fresh water, protection, and a plan for the future". A final note for this part would be that by comparing Colonel Autumns methods to those of West Coast Enclave you will actually see that Autumn is actually far more humane then his former West Coast counterpart.

That's where I think you're wrong and believed their bullshit. What the Enclave intends with the water purifier isn't an equal distribution to the people, but a tool to manipulate them and make them do whatever they want. In fact, Project Purity's goal was form the start to bring purified drinkable water to all of the wastelanders, fo free. Instead of stealing the project, if enclave wants that water dsitributed too, what they should've done is send trrop to protect it from supermutants and raiders.
But I'm not impressed, after all, the Enclave emerged from the remnants of the worst and most corrupt government of the USA, the one that appoved the Vault-tec experiments. Starting from that, you can tell their goals are not much noble.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
The Enclave in the Capital are not bad.They just believe using force is necessary and considering many people are barley surviving and will sometimes do whatever they need to stay alive, I cant blame the Enclave for keeping their guard up.

Man, they shoot anything they bump into on sight. Are they afraid of a wastelander wearing a drifter outfit and a .32 pistol?  Well then, as representatives of the government and goods soldiers they should help people and protect de country this way: if someone approaches them with unknow (maybe harming) intentions, they have enough skills and equipment to spare their lives, and arrest them. Instead, they shoot to kill. Even more, they sometimes capture their victims to experiment with them. And they say they do it for a reason they think greater than any of the people of the wasteland.

You see, Enclave members believe they have to do what they consider the right thing the fast way, first with an authocratic government as supreme rulers, and then, when things settle down, they'll come back to representtive government and  bring the old american way of life. Seeing how things turned up in almost any communist country and other dictatorial regimes and you'll see that's not true. Those who manage to get to the power stay in the power.

"We know what's good for the people, they don't, they'll harm themselves, we're their only hope and protectors, we want the United States to be great again, and if we have to herm their citizens first so be it" This quote sums up what someone like Autumn thinks. That is a dictatorial way of thinking. Maybe you consider dictators aren't that bad.

_________________
AID AT A MINUTE'S NOTICE!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MrEggs0925

avatar

Posts : 123
Join date : 2014-12-14
Location : United Igloo's of Canada

Character sheet
Name: Alex
Faction: Enclave
Level: Archives Manager

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:44 pm

@Fuster What do you think they did when they arrived at Project Purity? The Enclave came to seize control of the project and have the main protagonists father and his band of scientists continue to work on the project under the supervision and guidance of the Enclave. Did they not in place force fields, guards and scientists once you fled? You think the Enclave would of trusted a loosely grouped band of scientists some of which had great dislike towards the main characters father to run such a huge project? Do you think the Enclave would of taken such a chance at the only available option to spearhead their government? Given time the water would of been distributed freely to those who collaborate and work with the Enclave in a number of different roles ranging. 

The vault experiments were originally made to test humans in certain conditions. The Enclave were planning to leave the planet but ultimately failed in their efforts to do so. Besides this argument is centered around Autumn and not the West Coast Enclave. 

Why would someone even approach an Enclave checkpoint in the first place after being told not to by the Colonel himself. To approach a restricted military area is to interfere with military operations. Given this why would someone approach them unless they had intentions to gain something from them. Their could be more of them, one of them could be hiding behind the rocks with a fatman. That "Drifter with a 32" could be a BOS scout with his buddies behind the rocks flanking them. Also let us not forget the commanding officer of the outpost is not in power armor and is in danger of being hit from any type of round. Also while not included in Fallout 3 how hard would it be for a wastelander to have access to Armor piercing rounds that can penetrate power armor, given just how many weapons were out there. Though it is obvious that the Enclave randomly attacking is just what the game developers did to make the Enclave look bad and one sided. Colonel Autumn himself says that Enclave troops are now in your settlements but that does not happen. Instead they establish outposts far away from any form of civilization likely due to the developers attempts to again make them one sided.

Democracy is to slow to keep up with the events in Fallout. This would be a government run temporarily by the Military until a new president could of been selected. The complete rejuvenation of the United States (Including former Canada) would take years. Probably longer the the rest of Colonel Autumn's lifespan. If someones was to take complete power for them self then history could and probably would repeat itself. Something like the assassination of Caesar would occur if someone tried to take complete control for them self and other opposed it. In times like Fallout a dictatorship may not be that bad until democracy could be restored if it is ever restored. Look at House in FNV, he wished to take complete control for himself in New Vegas and from what we saw it could turn out pretty good if the main player character made the right choices.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Fuster

avatar

Posts : 61
Join date : 2015-07-23
Location : Shady Sands

Character sheet
Name: Joseph
Faction: -none-
Level: 1

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Sun Jun 25, 2017 1:52 am

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
@Fuster What do you think they did when they arrived at Project Purity? The Enclave came to seize control of the project and have the main protagonists father and his band of scientists continue to work on the project under the supervision and guidance of the Enclave.

The protagonists refused to work for the Enclave because they knew their true intentions, they knew Autumn would use it as a source of power and control over the DC area. If that weren't the case, Autumn would've negotiated more, and wouldn't have threatened them directly.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Did they not in place force fields, guards and scientists once you fled? You think the Enclave would of trusted a loosely grouped band of scientists some of which had great dislike towards the main characters father to run such a huge project?

I don't think they would've liked the idea, but just because by letting them keep on with the project they would've lost a crucial source of power. At some point, if James and his team had accepted Enclave's terms and a t the end had worked together, they would've been very limited. They'd have put limitations in distribution, like "no water for ghouls", "put this agent in the water to see how things turn out" or "stop suplying that settlement because they don't pay taxes". Besides, as James said, it's a private project and they had no right to step in there and claim the place. I know it's the Jefferson Memorial, but again, I don't think Enclave members are legitimated to claim that place. After all, It's a post apocalyptic world, there's no law to legitimate them, except the gun gun one. If they want to change that, opression is not the way. You can always talk things, "a la Habermass".


@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Do you think the Enclave would of taken such a chance at the only available option to spearhead their government? Given time the water would of been distributed freely to those who collaborate and work with the Enclave in a number of different roles ranging.

That's the problem, "those who colaborate and work with them". I you don't do so, you don't get water. Just with that, James's vision is already better. The foundamental problem with this is that they believe themselves to be the current government, but htey're not, therre's no law as I said before, they have the same right as any other faction. What distinguishes them is their power and more advanced technology apart from being descendants from the remnants of the US government ( That hasn't been renewed in 200 years. That institution must be rotten to the core)

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
The vault experiments were originally made to test humans in certain conditions. The Enclave were planning to leave the planet but ultimately failed in their efforts to do so. Besides this argument is centered around Autumn and not the West Coast Enclave.
You're right I may have digressed a bit there.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Why would someone even approach an Enclave checkpoint in the first place after being told not to by the Colonel himself.
Well, it's an RPG and the main character could've been curious. That effort in exploring the camp could've been compensated with some interesting backstory. Also, hunger and thirst may push some people to ask soldier for a gallon of water, makes sense for me. And, if the soldiers feel someone's interfering with their operation, the least they deserve is a fair warning.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
To approach a restricted military area is to interfere with military operations. Given this why would someone approach them unless they had intentions to gain something from them.

I know, but again, they could do a bunch of things apart from shooting people on sight. Hell, almost every faction has patrols, and they don't shoot you on sight. Also, they're not legit, the only argument they have is gun gun law, as I said earlier. Besides from a realistic point, they doesn't supose any challenge, let's face it, even with some armor piercing rounds. And I've seen Enclave soldiers kill brahmin taders that weren't even going to a restricted camp. And as I said, hunger or thirst may push wastelanders to the edge of asking enclave soldiers for a gallon of water. If they were real american soldiers, they wouldn't hesitate to lend a hand, and Autumn shouldn't be against that.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Their could be more of them, one of them could be hiding behind the rocks with a fatman. That "Drifter with a 32" could be a BOS scout with his buddies behind the rocks flanking them. Also let us not forget the commanding officer of the outpost is not in power armor

Because he doesn't want, I think, that's a tactical weakness the Enclave should've covered (or a gameplay feature to create enemy variety)

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
and is in danger of being hit from any type of round. Also while not included in Fallout 3 how hard would it be for a wastelander to have access to Armor piercing rounds that can penetrate power armor, given just how many weapons were out there. Though it is obvious that the Enclave randomly attacking is just what the game developers did to make the Enclave look bad and one sided.

Then, the discussion would be over: it's a game and if the developers made them like that there's nothing to say about it: they're like that, BAD. It's not like they have a real world counterpart or something, they exist just in-game. If their only version of them is bad, they're bad. If they were written as bad characters, they're bad.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Colonel Autumn himself says that Enclave troops are now in your settlements but that does not happen. Instead they establish outposts far away from any form of civilization likely due to the developers attempts to again make them one sided.

Again, don't forget they wrote the story in one way, the only way it is. If they're depicted as bad, it's not because Bethesda didn't represent them good, it's because it's their story and they wrote it like they wanted, whether we like it or not.

@MrEggs0925 wrote:
Democracy is to slow to keep up with the events in Fallout. This would be a government run temporarily by the Military until a new president could of been selected. ( I'm sorry, I don't buy that. You take the exaple you want in the real world. Almost every time a dictatorship has been stablished, it has remained a very long time, even in Cuba or in the old Soviet Union where they were supposed to be a means to an end: a country with no power and class differences. It all turned to be a power exchange between one kind of autarchy to another)

The complete rejuvenation of the United States (Including former Canada) would take years. Probably longer the the rest of Colonel Autumn's lifespan. If someones was to take complete power for them self then history could and probably would repeat itself. Something like the assassination of Caesar would occur if someone tried to take complete control for them self and other opposed it. In times like Fallout a dictatorship may not be that bad until democracy could be restored if it is ever restored. Look at House in FNV, he wished to take complete control for himself in New Vegas and from what we saw it could turn out pretty good if the main player character made the right choices.

I completely disagree with that. There's no context where i'd think a dictatorship would be a good solution, there are other ways (I think ends don't justify means, you see). For example, in the Capital Wasteland, the Enclave could have done like the Minutemen did in the Commonwealth ( you know, until they messed it up or after you as a character reunite them). In fact their better formation as soldiers and their acces to a good formation and culture would've been crucial to guarantee a success were the Minutemen failed (some of them blinded by their lust for power)

I'm not asking for a democracy either, but they could star by setting up schools, sending patrols to protect supply caravans or cities, finding people eager to work in scientific projects (just, not as guinea pigs) and sending their own scientists to collaborate with already existing projects. If in some case, the people of DC refuse to get that help, instead of forcing the situation, the most intelligent solution would've been letting them go, leave them alone, even if that means losing a great scientific project. Unless they mean a threat. (I don't think P.Purity is the case. Well, actually yes, it threatens their control over the population)

I can understand a man trying to make great changes, eager to see his work's, results but that lack of patience may force him to make the wrong steps. In the end, what matters is the cumulation of little secure and stablished changes. By doing what I've told you, they would've gained people's trust and they could have their moral and even military support to face problems, such as fanatic factions( like some of the brotherhood folk as depicted in FO4), raiders, ect

By doing what they did, they just created a reject feeling among every people that has crossed their path (well, except Nathan ) For me, the Enclave makes the same mistakes the Institute does. It's like they have great potential, but evilness makes them commit very silly mistakes that turn out to be counterproductive (what a surprise)

_________________
AID AT A MINUTE'S NOTICE!
Back to top Go down
View user profile
MrEggs0925

avatar

Posts : 123
Join date : 2014-12-14
Location : United Igloo's of Canada

Character sheet
Name: Alex
Faction: Enclave
Level: Archives Manager

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Sun Jun 25, 2017 8:37 am

@Fuster
 
@Fuster wrote:
The protagonists refused to work for the Enclave because they knew their true intentions, they knew Autumn would use it as a source of power and control over the DC area. If that weren't the case, Autumn would've negotiated more, and wouldn't have threatened them direct

How else would the Enclave get the support of the public without giving the public what they want? The Enclave may be well stocked but not enough to provide for thousands of people continuously, hence the need for such a facility. To start a government that has effect you need to have power and control otherwise what do you do when someone disagrees with your government or ideals? I have to agree with you on the fact that Autumn is complete trash at negotiations. Probably should of had someone more friendly and tolerant do the talking as just because someone has tactical nohow doesn't mean their the best talker. 


@Fuster wrote:
if James and his team had accepted Enclave's terms and a t the end had worked together, they would've been very limited. They'd have put limitations in distribution, like "no water for ghouls", "put this agent in the water to see how things turn out" or "stop suplying that settlement because they don't pay taxes"

Maybe the Enclave in control of the project would of been better. Looks at it now, only a part of the original staff remains while the rest have either left or are dead. The BOS has complete control of the project and chooses who gets the water ans how it gets there. Not to mention the staff is incompetent having only one person in control of the entirety of the operation who is corrupt and always falling a sleep on the job. None of this would of happened (Minus some staff leaving) had the Enclave gained control of the project. Also let us not forget The Underworld was not selected for water due to them being ghouls. The water only got there in the form of irradiated crap due to corruption. 


@Fuster wrote:
James's vision is already better. The foundamental problem with this is that they believe themselves to be the current government, but htey're not, therre's no law as I said before, they have the same right as any other faction. What distinguishes them is their power and more advanced technology apart from being descendants from the remnants of the US government

Yes James version is the best one with water for all. But James version was cut off. We got to see the BOS version and how the water is controlled to allied settlements and not to ghouls and most likely Super Mutants if there was any. Lets just say Uncle Joe (Peaceful Super Mutants in FO3) came for a glass of water, he would be shot on sight by the BOS. So really is what the BOS doing any different then what the Enclave would of done? The outcomes would be extremely different but for the most part the immediate effects would not. East Coast Enclave rotten? maybe not, the West Coast Enclave, yeah. The East Coast Enclave was largely a bunch of soldiers and high ranking officers escaping to Navarro when the oil rig on the West Coast was destroyed. At Navarro the Enclave received a message from Raven Rock Bunker and as seen in the bunker a force of soldiers and scientists were sent to the bunker not executives or business men. Those who stayed at Navarro were killed off during the NCR/BOS - Enclave War.  


@Fuster wrote:
You're right I may have digressed a bit there.

Don't we all digress at some point? I know I have. 


@Fuster wrote:
Well, it's an RPG and the main character could've been curious. That effort in exploring the camp could've been compensated with some interesting backstory. Also, hunger and thirst may push some people to ask soldier for a gallon of water, makes sense for me. And, if the soldiers feel someone's interfering with their operation, the least they deserve is a fair warning.

Yes it is a RPG but from a lore point of view the lone Wanderer realistically would thought twice before storming a camp of power armored troops who are using advanced weaponry and special tactics. Again as I stated earlier the Enclave is made to look bad but really behind the scenes originally were not meant to look as "bad". besides looking again at my post I stated that Colonel Autumn said that Enclave troops were in peoples settlements and towns but in game we never see this.


@Fuster wrote:
Besides from a realistic point, they doesn't supose any challenge, let's face it, even with some armor piercing rounds. , hunger or thirst may push wastelanders to the edge of asking enclave soldiers for a gallon of water

Yes maybe if they were packing some AP no, But if they had a a Fat Man? Or if it was a large enough force who knows what could happen. Yes I could see wastelanders being pushed to the edge and asking for water and realistically would the Enclave just start shooting? No. But look at it this way, the Enclave cant just give out food when they need to feed themselves. They give out a little then more comes and word spreads, soon they would need to feed hundreds or even thousands while needing to feed themselves all a the same time. If the Enclave say no to giving out food things go bad and fights can start. Still realistically they would never just shoot a group of random traders. 


@Fuster wrote:
Because he doesn't want, I think, that's a tactical weakness the Enclave should've covered (or a gameplay feature to create enemy variety)

Yeah I agree they should of included way more variety in troops instead of the same four things we got (Trooper, Tesla Troop., Hellfire, Officer). Maybe a scout and combat armored troops would of been more "immersive" as maintaining hundreds of suits of power armor is pretty hard. Even some different skins for the power armors would of been great and done the job perfectly.


@Fuster wrote:
Then, the discussion would be over: it's a game and if the developers made them like that there's nothing to say about it: they're like that, BAD. It's not like they have a real world counterpart or something, they exist just in-game. If their only version of them is bad, they're bad. If they were written as bad characters, they're bad.
AND
Again, don't forget they wrote the story in one way, the only way it is. If they're depicted as bad, it's not because Bethesda didn't represent them good, it's because it's their story and they wrote it like they wanted, whether we like it or not.

Yes, it could be over but with the lore of a subject the true intentions of something can sometimes be debated. Look at the BOS in FO4, Seen as the good guys fighting for humanity stopping the bad guys, but at the same time killing ghouls and hording tech for themselves. If you thinks synths are good the BOS are bad but if you think synths are bad then the BOS is good. Somewhat the same case with the Enclave, sure they are meant to be seen as bad but really are they? I Will let you make your own conclusions from this section of the response.


@Fuster wrote:
I completely disagree with that. There's no context where i'd think a dictatorship would be a good solution, there are other ways (I think ends don't justify means, you see). For example, in the Capital Wasteland, the Enclave could have done like the Minutemen did in the Commonwealth ( you know, until they messed it up or after you as a character reunite them). In fact their better formation as soldiers and their acces to a good formation and culture would've been crucial to guarantee a success were the Minutemen failed (some of them blinded by their lust for power)

I'm not asking for a democracy either, but they could star by setting up schools, sending patrols to protect supply caravans or cities, finding people eager to work in scientific projects (just, not as guinea pigs) and sending their own scientists to collaborate with already existing projects. If in some case, the people of DC refuse to get that help, instead of forcing the situation, the most intelligent solution would've been letting them go, leave them alone, even if that means losing a great scientific project. Unless they mean a threat. (I don't think P.Purity is the case. Well, actually yes, it threatens their control over the population)

I can understand a man trying to make great changes, eager to see his work's, results but that lack of patience may force him to make the wrong steps. In the end, what matters is the cumulation of little secure and stablished changes. By doing what I've told you, they would've gained people's trust and they could have their moral and even military support to face problems, such as fanatic factions( like some of the brotherhood folk as depicted in FO4), raiders, ect

I have to admit the last section was somewhat rushed due to time constraints. Looking at what you posted yes, I have to agree that a democratic way probably could be better and that is probably what they were going for. Military Dictatorship for a while until a new President could be elected and the Presidents staff could be selected and there you go a government. 

Yeah the Minutemen are like a extremely watered down and loosely organized Enclave. With the Enclaves knowledge and power actual progress could be made instead of #SettlementsUnite2289 and then what? The Enclave are the only ones with the want to do so such a thing and as you said make schools, hospitals, etc.. and make society again. Sort of what I was saying, minus the dictatorship. Regarding roles in the Enclave. I did not mean as test subject but as scientists, doctors, soldiers, etc. Basically incorporating them into the society not as test subjects.  

Regarding "I can understand a man trying to make great changes" did you mean Autumn or House? Either way your second point it seems unlikely for the Enclave to become fanatics in the hand of new leadership. But by taking the purifier they would of gained the public's support and have a military force. You cant just start making a society when your numbers are somewhat small and would need something to bring in the masses and free water is that. 

Basically The Enclave are not necessarily "bad" but do make some very weird mistakes that make no sense to what they are trying to do. You don't try to provide free water and kill everyone at the same time. Bethesda did not go all out with something it looks like they were originally trying to make big and way different then what we got. 

Anyways like before the ending was a bit rushed due to time constraints but I tried to cover almost everything you mentioned. 

Thanks for providing great points and great posts!

Definitely a +1 rep from me.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
SweetWaterUKCG

avatar

Posts : 22
Join date : 2017-07-02
Age : 22
Location : East Coast

Character sheet
Name: Max
Faction: Brotherhood of Steel
Level: Paladin

PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:38 pm

you actually make a good point but I still don't trust them they have too much tech
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?   

Back to top Go down
 

Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3

 Similar topics

-
» Is Colonel Autumn really "bad"?
» Autumn's Characters
» Marauders Mayhem - Autumn Rage
» COLONEL BYE TOURNAMENT AND RESULTS??????
» Autumn's Adventure (an MLP Wolf3d Mod)

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Gaming Underground Network :: Fallout :: Discussion-