Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Never played them. Hadn’t even heard of the series before Fallout 3 and only played that because of Oblivion. But, if they were like the Mojave Chapter in New Vegas. Where my only two reasons for not killing them is hope they’ll see the light like Lyons Pride and not wanting to make the California girl with stars in her eyes and a power fist on her hand unhappy. Not because of anything the Brotherhood actually say or do and a lot of it is talking down to you so it doesn’t help. The entire arc is an essay by Obsidian on why they’re dumb, weak and doomed to fail. I am not sure why people would want that. You’re critiquing an idea you’ve come up with about wanting to hoard technology; there’s no real world analogue to that like the Enclave. You can’t satirise something you made up.

Like if the Mojave Chapter had been my introduction to the Brotherhood my reaction would have been:

“Alright I’ll leave. Why are you taking my stuff? You will live to regret this!” - Level 1 Lone Wanderer

Followed by disbelief at how crazy this raider faction is hiding in their bunker. Just like the Big MT where I am laughing but I am not really doing much thinking. I could maybe get an ego boost from being like “ah ha you’re dumb dumb I am going to save everybody!” But that’s not really making them interesting as a faction. In New Vegas they really only work because of Veronica’s companion plot line where she is questioning the faction.

I was surprised when Mr House reacts to you questioning blowing up the Brotherhood by going on a rant about Knights of Yore. But, they’re nothing like that. They don’t even claim to be that. It’s like he’s referring to Lyons Pride rather than this odd group of tech crows in a Bunker.

Compared to them having a great set piece introduction where they’re battling super Mutants protecting Three Dog and the good fight. Then Elder Lyons taking you in and teaching you the secrets of power armour. Then finally helping you defeat the evil Enclave and stop them exterminating everyone in the Wasteland with a giant robot. It just works.

What exactly is it about the Fallout 1 and 2 Brotherhood that was so appealing or compelling?

Don't forget that nostalgia comes into play for many. Plus some features we consider standard today were pioneered in some of those early games. So they set a trend that might have become a fad or a style or trope; but they started it. Even if they are rough around the edges compared to modern titles.

Also some games age better than others. I've personally never got into Fallout 1 nor 2 purely because they are a touch too retro for me and my intro to that style of game was Baldur's Gate 2 - many designs that are much earlier just feel too "clunky" to me to immerse myself into.


So in contrast to many classic fans I'm more of a fan of Fallout Tactics, which story wise is considered weaker, but has interface and gameplay wise aged better than the other two classic games - at least in my opinion.

Nothing. The brotherhood isn't meant to be appealing, they're an ally of convenience against extraordinary enemies, a source of information mandatory to continue the main quest, and the only way to gain access to power armor. (Unlike later fallouts, 1 and 2 didn't let you use it without training).

They're the post-apoc 'tech faction' with religious overtones, a counterbalance to the bloodthirsty raiders and odd pockets of 'primitive tribes' that the Black Isle folks introduced.

Assuming they're like the BoS in 3 or NV is a mistake, there isn't any real continuity of characterization between 1/2, 3, NV and 4.

 Overread wrote:
Don't forget that nostalgia comes into play for many. Plus some features we consider standard today were pioneered in some of those early games. So they set a trend that might have become a fad or a style or trope; but they started it. Even if they are rough around the edges compared to modern titles.

Also some games age better than others. I've personally never got into Fallout 1 nor 2 purely because they are a touch too retro for me and my intro to that style of game was Baldur's Gate 2 - many designs that are much earlier just feel too "clunky" to me to immerse myself into.


So in contrast to many classic fans I'm more of a fan of Fallout Tactics, which story wise is considered weaker, but has interface and gameplay wise aged better than the other two classic games - at least in my opinion.

I know like all those rose tinted glasses. Like I loved Oblivion but it is such a meme now. It’s just impossible to describe how impressed I was thinking how it was possible to make an actual in game world like that. Was just a mind blowing thing. Halo CE is another one. It’s got some iffy dialogue and character stuff. Very thin on the ground. Basically pulp fiction. But at the time it was this grand sci fi epic with all these expansive maps and vehicles.

Was a little more curious about the Brotherhood of Steel. Was it just that it was an original concept to have them be a tech cult? I mean I was watching a review for the Steel Dawn update and he was making the complaint that. Was kind of odd since I wasn’t sure what he was referring to. They present a character doing an Elder Lyons but this isn’t really a morally equivalent choice since the traditionalist Brotherhood Guy is depicted as a jerk and he wanted that to be more balanced. That the traditionalist Brotherhood position was being demonised (honestly seemed exactly like Mojave chapter stuff IMO). But then I’ve seen others say the Brotherhood is meant to be a grey faction, whatever that exactly means and so there’s shouldn’t be the slightest insinuation they’re a good guy faction.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Nothing. The brotherhood isn't meant to be appealing, they're an ally of convenience against extraordinary enemies, a source of information mandatory to continue the main quest, and the only way to gain access to power armor. (Unlike later fallouts, 1 and 2 didn't let you use it without training).

They're the post-apoc 'tech faction' with religious overtones, a counterbalance to the bloodthirsty raiders and odd pockets of 'primitive tribes' that the Black Isle folks introduced.

Assuming they're like the BoS in 3 or NV is a mistake, there isn't any real continuity of characterization between 1/2, 3, NV and 4.

Why do people want the faction to be like it was in Fallout 1 and 2 if you don’t like them?

How is the Mojave Chapter different exactly to the West Coast Brotherhood? Didn’t Obisidian have original leads make the game? I assumed this was a representation of the traditional Brotherhood?

Oh I know they’re not like FO3 Brotherhood. That’s explicitly stated in game.

People generally want some measure of consistency when it comes to faction identity, so I assume that's why people wanted to see them continue their original incarnation that was set up in the first two FO games. It makes sense as well for them given that they are largely a rigid hiearchical paramilitary organization that has relatively strict recruitment methods, meaning that rapid change would be very unlikely. BOS in FO3 is an outlier and largely occurred due to them being cut off from the majority of the Brotherhood and you can see the dissent from the BO Outcasts. It's also likely a choice made by Bethesda to give players a more everyman/good guy choice until they were reverted back with FO New Vegas and later FO4.

Also, just because I don't like a faction doesn't mean I want them to change them for my sake. Personally, I'm fine with them being the way they are since it matches the setting and ultimately having an unlikeable faction is fine since outside of FO3, they're basically optional to work with and frankly matches with the idea of it being a post-apocalyptic mess since there are very few altruistic organizations or people that survive in such an environment.

It's also a bit of a weird question coming from someone on a largely warhammer based forum. 40k is basically filled with horrible factions that you would never wish to exist IRL. Just because I'm not a fan of Dark Eldar due to their sadism doesn't mean I want them to become noblebright space elves that heal people instead of being torturing and maurading monsters. Likewise with Fallout, it's not marketed as a chance to rebuild the world in a better image, it's about people trying to survive in the rubble and shadow of a much greater past, with history repeating itself. That's why the NCR is shown to be corrupt like the old US administration as they emulate the old ways, while Caesar's Legion simply attempts to ape the Roman Empire.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
Why do people want the faction to be like it was in Fallout 1 and 2 if you don’t like them?

They're a computer game faction. I'm not hanging out with them or trying to get them in bed. I want them to be interesting, not likeable. That they're flawed and have their own interests and motivations that sometimes overlap with the player's but sometimes run contrary makes for vastly more varied and complex gameplay.
If they're just agreeable folks who go along with me, provide whatever I want and fork over the info and gear no questions asked, that's really bloody dull.

Plus if they're knowledgeable and wise techno-soldier-saints that can save the region from <threat of the game>, they can just get on with doing that. The player protagonist is just unnecessary at that point.

How is the Mojave Chapter different exactly to the West Coast Brotherhood?

The Mojave chapter is basically a defeated remnant. They've given up, and whatever goals and ideals they had are basically gone. They're basically in there for name recognition and not much else (beyond re-iterating the Fallout theme of failure and nihilism). The original Brotherhood opens up and allies with the NCR before things go to hell (due to flaws with both), they were actually capable of achieving something, expanding their knowledge and maybe even actually helping. So of course their flaws destroy them.

Played FO and FO2 when they were released. FO1 because it was the only interesting game I could get back then and FO2 because I loved the first one to bits. I also played and liked Fallout Tactics back in 2001 where you play another subfaction of the Brotherhood.

What did people like about the Fallout 1 and 2 Brotherhood of Steel?

They were kind of the last knights, (slightly) shiny armor, energy weapons, keepers of long gone knowledge, sometimes questionable methods and nice back story. Quite interesting to me.

As Voss explained the later Mojave chapter is a failed branch of the brotherhood. Less shiny, broken, declining. I think this fits the setting very well.

I liked Fallout 1, 2 and tactics because they were similar to "UFO: Enemy Unknown" (known as XCOM in the USA IIRC?).

Never did get into the Fallout lore, so cannot comment on that. Not really interested in it tbh

If you cannot see what the big deal about those games was, I don't know what to tell you.. Did you play them when they were originally released? I doubt they look and feel the same now as they originally did.