What Happened to the Shi?

[Wings]

The Shi were one of my favorite factions in Fallout 2 and I was disappointed to not see them in Fallout New Vegas. They're not mentioned at all in that game. I've always wondered what happened to them after the events of Fallout 2. The Fallout Bible states that they were nuked by the Enclave, as they blamed them for the destruction of Control Station Enclave, but I'm not sure if the Fallout Bible is canon or how much of it is canon. That also creates a lot of plot holes. If the Enclave nuked the Shi, why didn't they nuke the NCR and the Brotherhood during their war with them?

[ZumZoom]

Probably Chris Avellon was too lazy to come up with better story for them in the bible. Or maybe it would've been illogical to not even mention them in FNV, but they didn't have time/resources to add them to the game, so they came up with that lore explanation.

[Johnny Casey]

They're forgotten, just like the rest of the lore in the original Fallout.

There is no Fallout anymore, it's only Elder Scrolls with guns. (Yes, NV included)

[ZumZoom]

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

Yes, NV included

No.

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by ZumZoom:

No.

A stand-alone expansion pack of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - Wasteland Edition is still an Elder Scrolls. To me, FNV was nothing more than an expansion pack of Fallout 3.

[Wings]

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

Originally posted by ZumZoom:

No.

A stand-alone expansion pack of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - Wasteland Edition is still an Elder Scrolls. To me, FNV was nothing more than an expansion pack of Fallout 3.

Why do you feel that way?

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by President of the USA:

Why do you feel that way?

Same old game with truck load of bugs and overall low effort is why. It didn't feel like anything was new, aside from story or lore, but even those were scraped from Van Buren, so they're not entirely new.

FNV is the game where your main antagonist in the final DLC wears a headgear that looks a face. That alone sums up how much effort was put into this game.

And I know the development time was short, but according to the source I've found, it was a timeline that they have agreed to. AND more than 70% of the game assest were already done by Fallout 3. There's no excuse for such low effort was happened.

[d_son]

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

Originally posted by President of the USA:

Why do you feel that way?

Same old game with truck load of bugs and overall low effort is why. It didn't feel like anything was new, aside from story or lore, but even those were scraped from Van Buren, so they're not entirely new.

FNV is the game where your main antagonist in the final DLC wears a headgear that looks a face. That alone sums up how much effort was put into this game.

And I know the development time was short, but according to the source I've found, it was a timeline that they have agreed to. AND more than 70% of the game assest were already done by Fallout 3. There's no excuse for such low effort was happened.

You hate FNV? Really?

[Wings]

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

Originally posted by President of the USA:

Why do you feel that way?

Same old game with truck load of bugs and overall low effort is why. It didn't feel like anything was new, aside from story or lore, but even those were scraped from Van Buren, so they're not entirely new.

FNV is the game where your main antagonist in the final DLC wears a headgear that looks a face. That alone sums up how much effort was put into this game.

And I know the development time was short, but according to the source I've found, it was a timeline that they have agreed to. AND more than 70% of the game assest were already done by Fallout 3. There's no excuse for such low effort was happened.

Yes, FNV was rushed. But they didn't really have the option to clean up the game before launch. They had, what, eighteen months to get the game out on store shelves? I think it was eighteen months, at least. They couldn't really have gotten a better time frame, as Bethesda wanted to have FNV out before Skyrim. Of course, that doesn't justify why FNV was buggy, but Fallout 2 also reuses a lot of assets from other entries and also is pretty buggy, especially near the end of the game. In fact, I'd say over seventy percent of Fallout 2's assets are from the first Fallout. Also, I don't think it's a bad thing that they reuse ideas from Van Buren in New Vegas. These don't harm FNV's identity, as Van Buren obviously never came out of development. Many of the ideas of New Vegas aren't even from Van Buren. Van Buren wasn't going to take place in Vegas, and the only idea reused from Van Buren was the Legion and Hoover Dam, anyway. But, even if Fallout New Vegas and, by extension, Fallout 2, are buggy messes that blatantly reuse assets, does it really matter? Fallout is best as a story-driven experience, not a gameplay one. That's why Fallout 2 holds up today in the first place. Fallout 2's gameplay is outdated and boring. But that story, writing and characters are so good the game is redeemed in all these aspects. And the same thing could be said about FNV.

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by President of the USA:

But, even if Fallout New Vegas and, by extension, Fallout 2, are buggy messes that blatantly reuse assets, does it really matter? Fallout is best as a story-driven experience, not a gameplay one.

(...)

That's why Fallout 2 holds up today in the first place. Fallout 2's gameplay is outdated and boring. But that story, writing and characters are so good the game is redeemed in all these aspects. And the same thing could be said about FNV.

To me, it does matter. The gameplay should always be the top priority to concern if it's the case of video game. A game is supposed to be a game, not a graphic novel. It should be played well, not written well.

I genuinely enjoyed the gameplay of old classic Fallout and I do believe it still holds up its own even in nowdays. For NV, I didn't enjoy it very much. The gameplay was clunky and boring, and I can't get rid of the feeling that I'm playing TES:Oblivion with guns.

Originally posted by AtomicFire:

You hate FNV? Really?

I don't actually hate it. I just think it's not exactly a good game. That doesn't mean I hate the game, does it? However, I do admit that the vast majority of people constantly saying "FNV above all" making me a little bit irritating.

[Wings]

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

Originally posted by President of the USA:

But, even if Fallout New Vegas and, by extension, Fallout 2, are buggy messes that blatantly reuse assets, does it really matter? Fallout is best as a story-driven experience, not a gameplay one.

(...)

That's why Fallout 2 holds up today in the first place. Fallout 2's gameplay is outdated and boring. But that story, writing and characters are so good the game is redeemed in all these aspects. And the same thing could be said about FNV.

To me, it does matter. The gameplay should always be the top priority to concern if it's the case of video game. A game is supposed to be a game, not a graphic novel. It should be played well, not written well.

I genuinely enjoyed the gameplay of old classic Fallout and I do believe it still holds up its own even in nowdays. For NV, I didn't enjoy it very much. The gameplay was clunky and boring, and I can't get rid of the feeling that I'm playing TES:Oblivion with guns.

Originally posted by AtomicFire:

You hate FNV? Really?

I don't actually hate it. I just think it's not exactly a good game. That doesn't mean I hate the game, does it? However, I do admit that the vast majority of people constantly saying "FNV above all" making me a little bit irritating.

Oh, so we see the Fallout series differently because our fundamental views in game design differ. You're more gameplay oriented, I'm more of a fan of games that mix gameplay and story together, correct? Even so, why do you like the gameplay of Fallout 2? To me, it's very boring, clunky and outdated.

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by President of the USA:

Even so, why do you like the gameplay of Fallout 2? To me, it's very boring, clunky and outdated.

I generally like the settings of isometric perspective with 3D rendered models merged into 2D(Diablo is a good example).

Tearing 3 stacks of enemies apart with a single burst fire is one of the most satisfying things you could in a video game. Or maybe kicking a little kid in his nuts?

[Hat8]

The Shi are offensive by modern Californian standards. The closest you'll get to a reference to them is general Shu.

[Jack Nicholson's Civilisation]

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

Originally posted by President of the USA:

But, even if Fallout New Vegas and, by extension, Fallout 2, are buggy messes that blatantly reuse assets, does it really matter? Fallout is best as a story-driven experience, not a gameplay one.

(...)

That's why Fallout 2 holds up today in the first place. Fallout 2's gameplay is outdated and boring. But that story, writing and characters are so good the game is redeemed in all these aspects. And the same thing could be said about FNV.

To me, it does matter. The gameplay should always be the top priority to concern if it's the case of video game. A game is supposed to be a game, not a graphic novel. It should be played well, not written well.

I genuinely enjoyed the gameplay of old classic Fallout and I do believe it still holds up its own even in nowdays. For NV, I didn't enjoy it very much. The gameplay was clunky and boring, and I can't get rid of the feeling that I'm playing TES:Oblivion with guns.

Originally posted by AtomicFire:

You hate FNV? Really?

I don't actually hate it. I just think it's not exactly a good game. That doesn't mean I hate the game, does it? However, I do admit that the vast majority of people constantly saying "FNV above all" making me a little bit irritating.

While i do disagree with your opinion, i do respect it. That being said, its a pain in the ass to see your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hijack this post, i was legit hoping to get an answer.

[Vex Hilarius]

Originally posted by Dade0:

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

To me, it does matter. The gameplay should always be the top priority to concern if it's the case of video game. A game is supposed to be a game, not a graphic novel. It should be played well, not written well.

I genuinely enjoyed the gameplay of old classic Fallout and I do believe it still holds up its own even in nowdays. For NV, I didn't enjoy it very much. The gameplay was clunky and boring, and I can't get rid of the feeling that I'm playing TES:Oblivion with guns.


I don't actually hate it. I just think it's not exactly a good game. That doesn't mean I hate the game, does it? However, I do admit that the vast majority of people constantly saying "FNV above all" making me a little bit irritating.

While i do disagree with your opinion, i do respect it. That being said, its a pain in the ass to see your ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hijack this post, i was legit hoping to get an answer.

Obsidian wanted to have the Shi blow up San Francisco but Bethesda didn't want that. So the Shi is pretty much still inhabiting San Francisco and that's about it.

If you want an answer to something start a new thread don't resurrect an old one.

[Makeithappen]

Keep this in mind when reading the fallout bible. Most of that stuff written is not considered canon. A lot of it was never introduced into fallout.

Fallout 4 does mention the Shi within the game. Kellogg worked for them for a time when he lived in SF. So the Shi definitely still exists within the fallout universe and possibly still does after Kellogg headed east.