Fallout Underwhelmed by Fallout :(

[Jick Magger]

Fuck this shit I just wanna play video games

 

[MRY]

This is still the wrong analysis. Fallout milieu isn't 50s pulp, it's post-apocalyptic pulp. The 50s stuff is a wrapper around PA, as opposed to the PA being a point of emphasis among 50s pulp. There aren't space ships or Venusian jungles or broad-sword wielding Aryans or nubile damsels chained as sacrifices to giant monsters or hardboiled detectives or any number of other 50s pulp staples. In fact, the post-apocalyptic genre really wasn't that important in the 1950s, even though the fear of nuclear war was. The 50s flavor comes not because the 50s are the bedrock of PA, but because 50s culture was so intimately influenced by the fear of the bomb and FO's premise rests on nuclear war. In any event, mutants were a major part of 1950s PA: not just in Canticle but also in The Chrysalids. It's true that they're not in Earth Abides or Alas, Babylon, but that's basically 50/50 for the major PA works of the era. And they're a part of 50s pulp in general (e.g., The Mule).

 

[tuluse]

Fuck this shit I just wanna play video games

I prefer arguing their intricacies on internet forums.

 

[Gnidrologist]

He misspelled. It's called ''vidya'' now.

 

[Ninjerk]

 

[Vault Dweller]

More like, the question is how many of that retro 50s stuff should or could be crammed into Fallouts.

Only what fits as defined by the first game. The first game sets the tone and the theme. The second should have followed that tone and theme or be called something else. Nobody complains about giant veggies and killer bunnies in Wasteland 2 because the silly, weird shit continues the tone and theme set by the first game. Same here.

VaultDveller cited Canticle of Leibowitz to justify the existent of mutated orcs and ghouls...

Um, no. I said that BoS was inspired and influenced by that book, which is a fact (one of the developers mentioned it years ago).

I don't think there are many others in that wain so he is arbitrarily applying his own vision of ''retro 50s sci fi'' using only one tiny source in the first place.

There is no *my* vision of the retro future. There is a vision presented in the first game and we all agree that few minor issues aside it's surprisingly coherent for a video game. The second game deviates from it.

Take the talking animals, for example. There is none in the first game (i.e. there is none 80 years after the war, the mutants get dumber, and none of the non-human Master's creation can speak). King Rat doesn't serve any role and doesn't explore any themes. He's several book references rolled into one rat. The talking deathclaws directly contradict FEV's properties established by the first game.

Not to mention you can't read this:

Gruthar is the alpha male and leader. He possesses an uncanny intellect and a deep life philosophy, respecting human life and trying to minimize the impact he and his pack make upon their unknowing neighbors.

...without wondering what the fuck this shit is. Gruthar? They are orcs now? Deep life philosophy? Developed in 7 years? They went from bloodthirsty apex predators to this:

... in 7 years? Decided to respect humans and make amends for their former evil ways? Yeah, makes sense, right? They even got scholars and telepathy, because WHY NOT?!

I have no doubts, that when examined closely, lot of 50s sci-fi pulp, both in literature and cinema would unveil a lot of silly stuff. Even more silly than talking mutated animals.

Let's say one decides to make a game sets in the retro future. How would one go about it? By selecting books/movies/comics that fits the genre (PA, in case of Fallout), the tone, and the themes one wishes to explore. Anything else would not apply because you can't cram every possible PA story or element into one game. Fallout 2 developers tried and that's what we're debating in this thread.

 

[hiver]

Only what fits as defined by the first game. The first game sets the tone and the theme. The second should have followed that tone and theme or be called something else. Nobody complains about giant veggies and killer bunnies in Wasteland 2 because the silly, weird shit continues the tone and theme set by the first game. Same here.

Second game did follow the tone and the theme as best as it could for a game that happens later in time then the first. For most of its content.

There is no *my* vision of the retro future. There is a vision presented in the first game and we all agree that few minor issues aside it's surprisingly coherent for a video game. The second game deviates from it.

By how much of its content?

There is that list of locations that you avoid, trying to just force your opinion by repetition of same stupid shit.

Let's say one decides to make a game sets in the retro future. How would one go about it? By selecting books/movies/comics that fits the genre (PA, in case of Fallout), the tone, and the themes one wishes to explore. Anything else would not apply because you can't cram every possible PA story or element into one game. Fallout 2 developers tried and that's what we're debating in this thread.

You go so low to use reducto ad absurdum?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

For example how Junktown found so many cars to barricade their town but for some reason cars cannot be found anywhere else.

Junktown was probably literally founded on a junkyard.

Or how Fallout 1 towns have more guards than civilians,

It's probably because all guards are represented while most of civilians aren't.
Vaults are supposed to be fucking massive with 100 living quarters. Only a tiny part of them is shown, the same with town maps.
They show some fields and cows and businesses to show how the place works, but not the whole town.

It's possible that Shady Sands would be as large as The Hub when presented 1:1 while The Hub would be larger than the whole game with 1000s of NPCs.

or how you even have currency in such a setting, etc.

Hub is a large town and it backs the caps.

 

[hiver]

This is still the wrong analysis. Fallout milieu isn't 50s pulp, it's post-apocalyptic pulp. The 50s stuff is a wrapper around PA, as opposed to the PA being a point of emphasis among 50s pulp. In fact, the post-apocalyptic genre really wasn't that important in the 1950s, even though the fear of nuclear war was. The 50s flavor comes not because the 50s are the bedrock of PA, but because 50s culture was so intimately influenced by the fear of the bomb and FO's premise rests on nuclear war. In any event, mutants were a major part of 1950s PA: not just in Canticle but also in The Chrysalids. It's true that they're not in Earth Abides or Alas, Babylon, but that's basically 50/50 for the major PA works of the era. And they're a part of 50s pulp in general (e.g., The Mule).

Bullshit.

The elements do not depend on actual 50s of our time line but on what three guys in 90s decided that their alternate history 50s blended with sci fi pulp of that era (and our own sci fi pulp) would be. Presented in the PA setting or PA presented with such elements. The same.

There aren't space ships or Venusian jungles or broad-sword wielding Aryans or nubile damsels chained as sacrifices to giant monsters or hardboiled detectives or any number of other 50s pulp staples.

Laughable reducto ad absurdium.

 

[MRY]

hiver I am going to assume, for the last time, that you are a person trying to have a good-faith discussion, not a person trying to get attention by misbehaving.

You go so low to use reducto ad absurdum? . . . Laughable reducto ad absurdium.

A reductio ad absurdum is not a logical fallacy; it is a logical tool used for seeing whether a proposition contains a limiting principle that keeps its scope within reason. So when you tell someone "nice reductio ad absurdum," you're not saying, "Nice job falling into a commonplace error," you're saying, "Nice job showing that my proposition is untenable."

The question is what limits, if any, define "consistent" vs. "inconsistent" content and tone in a sequel to Fallout 1. My view, which I think is also the view of Vault Dweller, would be something like this:

(1) Is the proposed element a trope of the post-apocalyptic genre? If so, it can be included unless it is inconsistent with the specific content of FO1 or is irreconcilable with the 1950s retro-futuristic style. (For this reason, I think it's acceptable to have tribals in FO2, as they're a PA trope.)
(2) If not, it should not be included unless it is compelled by the specific content of FO1. For example, as far as I know, power armor has never been an element of any other post-apocalyptic story, but it was an iconic element of FO1 and thus must be included in any sequel.

Your proposal seemed to be that if something appeared in 1950s pulp of any sort, it was an acceptable element in FO. I pointed out a number of staples of 1950s pulp, and you implicitly agreed that they would be absurd in FO. That's what a reductio absurdum does: it demolishes a proposition by showing it goes too far.

You also seem to have taken the position "[t]he elements do not depend on actual 50s of our time line but on what three guys in 90s decided that their alternate history 50s blended with sci fi pulp of that era (and our own sci fi pulp) would be." But if you mean that whatever is in FO1 defines the scope of the setting, then none of the things we've been complaining should have been in the game: the "three guys" did not include super-smart animals or talking death claws or astral projection or kung fu warriors or Scientologists with spaceships or prohibition-era gangsters in FO1.

If what you mean is, "Whatever the owner of an IP puts into the IP at any time defines the IP's themes, and therefore there can be no such thing as thematic inconsistency within an IP," then what you're really saying is "I don't care about coherence," which is fine, but someone who doesn't care about coherence is the last person I'd consider a good source as to whether one game's content fits well with another's.

Anyway, it takes too much time to carry on this conversation, so I will retreat again.

 

[Jaesun]

If the Kodex Kwest Kompass

tag isn't a clue, there isn't much more we can help you with....

 

[DarkUnderlord]

For example you can ask Diana to repair your equipment without even finding out that she is the camp armorer first. Really amateurish stuff.

So far everything I have played does not even compare to the first couple of rooms in PST's mortuary.

Well..

I'm playing Fallout for the first time.

Oh I see...

I played Pong for the first time the other day. It's real amateurish stuff. It isn't compatible with my Xbox controller. Hell, there's not even a way to change key bindings! No tournament mode, no way to upgrade your paddles, no story, no nothing. All you've got are two paddles and a ball. The entire thing is so B-Grade.

So far my first few games aren't even comparable to my first few games of Asteroids. That at least has multiple objects on screen!

/thread


This is what happens when you play games released in 1997 and expect them to compare to every game you've played that was released afterwards, as opposed to playing it in 1997 and comparing it to every game that was released before then.

 

[hiver]

If the Kodex Kwest Kompass

tag isn't a clue, there isn't much more we can help you with....

That tag was put there by faggot imbeciles like you who aren't capable of producing anything more then mindbogglingly stupid one liners like devolved dumbfucks that you all are. The intellectual turds not worth spitting on.

Fecal worms feeding on shit that you forcefully imagine if you cant create. Worse then the lowest diseased junkies in the gutters.

If anything, those tags serve to disgrace you and show what irrelevant shits you all are. Only a mind-boggling moron wouldnt be able to understand that, but your desire to cause some butthurt you can lick distorts even what little of a brain you have.



now...

Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"; pl.: reductiones ad absurdum), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,

- therefore, MRV,... you used it to pretend that denying your statement would result in absurdity.

The question is what limits, if any, define "consistent" vs. "inconsistent" content and tone in a sequel to Fallout 1.

and by whose holy authority do you proclaim this shit?

The question is how much of barely or slightly inconsistent content makes the whole game inconsistent with basics established by Fallout 1. I say this by authority of logic, common sense and reason.

Your proposal seemed to be that if something appeared in 1950s pulp of any sort, it was an acceptable element in FO.

that was not my proposal and i have directly explained to you what my fucking proposal is several times by now.

I pointed out a number of staples of 1950s pulp, and you implicitly agreed that they would be absurd in FO. That's what a reductio absurdum does: it demolishes a proposition by showing it goes too far.

And it was a false wrongly used reductio ad absurdium - because i never claimed anything that would necessitate that you stupid deaf blind idiot!

Which i am repeating and fucking repeating for several pages already!

You also seem to have taken the position "[t]he elements do not depend on actual 50s of our time line but on what three guys in 90s decided that their alternate history 50s blended with sci fi pulp of that era (and our own sci fi pulp) would be." But if you mean that whatever is in FO1 defines the scope of the setting, -

I take the position that the themes are not decided by our 50s but by three original developers.

Nowhere do i say or fucking mean that defines the scope of the game in any such idiotic closed limited scope that you want it to be, moron.

the "three guys" did not include super-smart animals or talking death claws or astral projection or kung fu warriors or Scientologists with spaceships or prohibition-era gangsters in FO1.

whats this, argument from stupidity? or just latching onto another goal post caused by idiot logic displayed above?

You havent been arguing about what Holy Trinity wanted, you were bullshiting about 50s - and sci fi pulp of our timeline and other such idiotic "important thematic concepts" you invented, (talking mutateted animals, chinese that know kung fu, religious cults and spaceships and even people dressing up like some past era ARE PA STAPLES or completely understandble - such as chinese knowing kung fu, especially knowing that CHINA WAS ALWAYS A PART OF THE CORE LORE OF FALLOUT) while running away from addressing the real important question:

HOW MANY OF THE FALLOUT2 LOCATIONS ARE INCONSISTENT WITH CORE FEATURES OF FALLOUT?
HOW MUCH OF THE WHOLE GAME CONTENT CAN BE PROCLAIMED INCONSISTENT?

If what you mean is, "Whatever the owner of an IP puts into the IP at any time defines the IP's themes, and therefore there can be no such thing as thematic inconsistency within an IP," then what you're really saying is "I don't care about coherence," which is fine, but someone who doesn't care about coherence is the last person I'd consider a good source as to whether one game's content fits well with another's.

I hope that the revelations above paint a good picture of what a stupid shit you are so i dont have to repeat them a few more times.

From this point onward ill start shoving idiotic absurd strawmans like this up your proverbial asshole, understand?

Anyway, it takes too much time to carry on this conversation, so I will retreat again.

Dont return with this same shit again.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

Sorry, this was mandatory...

Let's start with Shady Sands. You have the entire eastern map where there is no one unique to even talk to except a farmer who has two forced lines. Not only that, there is nothing to find, nothing to do, not a single quest.

Oh ye of lacking SCIENCE. That's the good thing about Fallout. Play it again, next time, put some points into Science and talk to the farmer. You missed some early XP here.

In the western map, you have a woman who explains how to play the game, and you get free XP for talking to her.

WHAT? EASY XP IN A STARTING AREA? I'M SO OUTRAGED.

Then there is Seth whose only purpose is to point out the only two quests in the area, Ian who you can recruit, and then Aradesh and Tandi, who again point out the same quests. There is a doctor who doesn't do anything except heal your character and manufacture antidote.

It's a Wasteland. And you're at a farm. What were you after? A town full of people who'd been waiting for you to show up so you could solve all their problems?

Next, you've grown up in a vault all your life but this has ZERO effect on your character. Nothing seems to be a surprise for you, it doesn't even come up in dialogue.

What did you want? The chance to say "WOW FARMS" and have long pointless discussions about your back story with everyone you meet?

Then there are all the shitty dungeons filled with absurdly easy trash combat... Vault 15, radscorpion caves, the vault 13 exit....

WHAT? EASY COMBAT IN THE STARTING AREA OF AN RPG? I'M SO OUTRAGED.

Dude, you've been playing for what, 12 minutes? And you're seriously complaining about easy combat in the starting area?

OK, so at Junktown now. So the first area has a guard that introduces you to the town, and.... nothing else. Except a doctor who you can find out is turning humans into food. But you can't confront him about it. Neither can you talk to the mayor about it. Started with the 2nd area, and thought thwarting the assassination attempt was cool, but totally unrewarding nevertheless as combat in this game is so pathetically easy even though I have yet to put a single point into small guns after tagging it... I can't believe that the Codex has been bitching about Dragonfall being too easy?

Marcelles: "I'm just a hotel manager bub, don't ask too much of me."
Vault Dweller: "No thanks."

How the hell does this dialogue make sense in any way? The entire thing is so B-Grade... I thought this was supposed to be the 2nd best RPG of all time, maybe I'm just suffering from extremely inflated expectations, I always thought that I would be blown away by the setting and atmosphere and dialogue and roleplaying if I played Fallout. If I had known that it would be like Fallout 2, but with far less than a quarter of the content density and really erratic and often flat out terrible writing and a mostly bland gameworld I would perhaps not be so disappointed.

Bartender in Daggerfall, (1996)

Dialogue options:
- ROOM
- TALK
- FOOD & DRINKS
- GOODBYE

OH IT DOESN'T FLOW WHERE'S MY CHANCE TO TELL HIM MY LIFE STORY GOODBYE? THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE I DIDN'T EVEN SAY HELLO.

 

[MRY]

If the Kodex Kwest Kompass

tag isn't a clue, there isn't much more we can help you with....

I try to err on the side of hearing people out.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Only what fits as defined by the first game.

Basically, that fits all your responses after. F2 sucks because it isn't a carbon copy of F1.
Good to have this off our collective chests.

F2 is a much better game and it's ''deviation'' from the first one doesn't influence the gameplay in any bad manner.

 

[Gnidrologist]

Btw, DU, you are not funny. Drop it.

 

[Nas92]

So, is this a Fallout 1 vs Fallout 2 thread? Personally, I like Fallout 1 better, but only because Fallout 2 isn't all that serious, or rather, Fallout 2 does a poor job of balancing serious and goofy. Bear in mind, this is strictly from a storyfag point of view. If I had to look at technical stuff I would have to say Fallout 2 is better, and Fallout 2 also has more content, though it's content I don't necessarily like, but I don't dispute that it's well done. I wish Fallout 1 had been longer and with more complex quests.

 

[Zombra]

F2 is a much better game and it's ''deviation'' from the first one doesn't influence the gameplay in any bad manner.

So now you're talking about gameplay instead of setting? Is that really what this whole conversation has been about?

 

[Gnidrologist]

I feel that this is a playing ground of storyfags. I personally love both Fallouts and they're on my top of ''teh bestest ar-pee-geez'', it's just that i can't stand pretentious idiot analysts is why i'm posting here.
Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.

 

[Gnidrologist]

So now you're talking about gameplay instead of setting? Is that really what this whole conversation has been about?

That was ONE sentence in the entire post dedicated to setting issues. Why doncha shut up.

Btw, you brought it up :smug;
So, what is more important? Consistency to an arbitrary setting or being a good game gameplay wise?

 

[shihonage]

Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.

"The art of cooking food eventually brought McDonalds to us and therefore all cooks should die in great pain."

 

[Crevice tab]

I feel that this is a playing ground of storyfags. I personally love both Fallouts and they're on my top of ''teh bestest ar-pee-geez'', it's just that i can't stand pretentious idiot analysts is why i'm posting here.
Storyfagism is what brought bioware to us so i will never reconcile with it. You motherfuckers should die in great pain.

SJW crap and EA's love of jewgold but utter lack of talent is what brought Bioware to us.

 

[Nas92]

"The art of cooking food eventually brought McDonalds to us and therefore all cooks should die in great pain."

I assume by storyfagism he means only obsessing about story, not writing in general.

SJW crap and EA's love of jewgold but utter lack of talent is what brought Bioware to us.

Basically. Also nepotism, from what I've heard. Is it true that Hamburger Helper was a dev's wife?

 

[Gnidrologist]

"The art of cooking food eventually brought McDonalds to us and therefore all cooks should die in great pain."

Are you deliberately stupid or you genuinely so?