I find Fallout: New Vegas incredibly dull

The Gentleman:

Samtemdo8:
Eh, being completely sober is much better lifestyle, getting wasted and high sounds like a pain in the ass, I rather keep my senses and sanity thank you. And personally I just find it a waste of money buying Liquor and Narcotics and Cigarettes/Cigars.

Have you ever gotten high? Like, really high? Or plastered? Or gone on a hallucinogenic trip? These are things you can't really understand from an external perspective.[/quote]

You don't even need to get plastered or high as a kite to understand it.

Like, I've never taken drugs, and I've only gotten seriously drunk one time (and even then I dind't experience blackout or puking. Just enough lack of motor coordination that I had to stop and personally assess that "Yeah, I think I had too much").

I still appreciate a good drink now and then. It's super relaxing to feel everything be chill and not really give a damn with a nice buzzy feeling.

If pot didn't carry with it four potential reactions (Super chill, Super energetic, Paranoia, or hallucinations) depending on your personal genetics, I'd likely give edibles a shot.

A friend of mine got into shrooms and swears by them that they're this amazing almost transcendent experience, and I understand why he and his GF like them...But I personally draw a line there for me. While I do enjoy loosening the reins of control once in a while and just de-stressing with some mild substance, I'm paranoid about letting go completely and riding out a drug trip. I like knowing where I am and what I'm doing and retaining control thanks.

At least I know that when I take an evening to enjoy a bottle of delicious malt booze or a rum and coke, I'm conscious and aware enough to know I'm in no state to drive or do any kind of serious mental exercise.

The Gentleman:
(am I really breaking my lurking streak for this? Apparently...)

I feel a lot of people are missing the kind of big fact that there are multiple jurisdictions in the US that have de facto legalized cannabis, one of which I live in. As such, there's some information we do know.

[quote="CaitSeith" post="528.1055718.24254290"]The weed quality will be ruined thanks to capitalism.

Actually, in large part because it's now a heavily regulated industry, a lot of the quality of the products out there have gone up from their black market days. In my jurisdiction (Washington) the use of chemical pesticides and anti-fungal agents is extremely restricted, meaning you're less likely to have batches tainted with chemicals.

TLDR: Even trying just a little bit of booze/light drugs can be great, even if you don't do it often at all.

After getting into D&D recently I've been watching a lot of content related to RPGs, both videogame and tabletop, and the mechanics: how good are they, how well do they translate etc. Naturally Fallout: New Vegas came up. I've played about 60 hours, but the praise for the game always seemed a lot greater than my experience. I started to wonder if there was some hidden genius I'd totally missed because I'd played it as a straightforward action RPG. Maybe there were different builds to discover, new angles to quests I'd never considered and such. So I started a new character.

And less than 3 hours later I'm already bored. I can't for the life of me see where the supposed depth of this game is supposed to lie.

- The combat is as simplistic as you get in a game: shoot at enemies who run towards you in a straight line, then whack with a melee weapon when they get close. Energy weapons don't behave any differently from normal guns, the only difference is damage. There's no resistances or damage types at play, no status effects or sidegrades to consider.

- The stealth is frustratingly simplified to the point of it being barely functional: since the enemies are displayed in a single horizontal line as a single-colored blip, there's no way of telling their elevation or distance. This system worked in Skyrim because 1. the dungeons were straightforward enough to accommodate for this system and 2. it displayed your distance from the enemies, allowing for prioritization. Here stealth relies almost on trial and error: Oh, there was an enemy you couldn't see closer than the one you actually could? Well, shit out of luck, try again. Also, the 3-tiered display of hidden/caution/danger is too vague and rigid to give a proper understanding of how close to detection you actually are. The weapon spread being dictated by the Guns skill makes sniping very unreliable, and getting close enough to an enemy to take them out with a melee weapon requires a far higher Sneak skill than you can get in the beginning.

- The beginning essentially forces you to invest in a very specific set of skills and gear and nothing else. Stealth, Guns, Medicine and Lockpicking being the biggest. Since there's no way of clearing the early dungeons using skills like Speech, Survival or Explosives (due to lack of available resources), and all the directions from the starting town are essentially beefgated behind Deathclaws and Cazadors, the game plays more or less the same way each time.

- Gear collection amounts to just finding ones with different stats. Since, as mentioned before, weapons and gear are so simplified, there's just no debate about whether or not you should use a new weapon you find. The only question is if it has higher damage.

I guess I could ask if there's something I've missed, but as mentioned, I've already played this game for over 60 hours, and never discovered the supposed brilliance this game is supposed to have.

I open this thread and the OP is a post from another thread?

You seem to be interested in very different aspects of it than people like me and the people I know who like it. For me, and quite a few other players I've talked to, the gameplay in most RPG's is just windowdressing. If it's bearable and not too distracting or difficult, that's good enough since it isn't what you are here for. What is interesting is the world: the various different factions and their varying relations to one another and to themselves. When you are at Primm for example, the interesting question, the one I discussed with friends was: what is a good sherif? A robot, a captured former sherif or an NCR squad of troops annexing the whole town. What offers more protection? Is sacrificing Primm's independence worth it? etc. Shooting or sneaking past a rather dull part of gameplay is a means to that end.

One explanation of why somebody might like the game:

bartholen:
- The beginning essentially forces you to invest in a very specific set of skills and gear and nothing else. Stealth, Guns, Medicine and Lockpicking being the biggest. Since there's no way of clearing the early dungeons using skills like Speech, Survival or Explosives (due to lack of available resources), and all the directions from the starting town are essentially beefgated behind Deathclaws and Cazadors, the game plays more or less the same way each time.

- Gear collection amounts to just finding ones with different stats. Since, as mentioned before, weapons and gear are so simplified, there's just no debate about whether or not you should use a new weapon you find. The only question is if it has higher damage.

I've never used lockpicking or medicine at all, I'm not sure about visiting the 'dungeons' (what 'dungeons' do you mean? the vaults?) either and I generally have fairly cheap weapons throughout the game because I don't really care about that stuff. If you feel railroaded in fallout: new vegas, that is at least partially on the way you approach it.

aegix drakan:

The Gentleman:

Samtemdo8:
Eh, being completely sober is much better lifestyle, getting wasted and high sounds like a pain in the ass, I rather keep my senses and sanity thank you. And personally I just find it a waste of money buying Liquor and Narcotics and Cigarettes/Cigars.

Have you ever gotten high? Like, really high? Or plastered? Or gone on a hallucinogenic trip? These are things you can't really understand from an external perspective.

You don't even need to get plastered or high as a kite to understand it.

Like, I've never taken drugs, and I've only gotten seriously drunk one time (and even then I dind't experience blackout or puking. Just enough lack of motor coordination that I had to stop and personally assess that "Yeah, I think I had too much").

I still appreciate a good drink now and then. It's super relaxing to feel everything be chill and not really give a damn with a nice buzzy feeling.

If pot didn't carry with it four potential reactions (Super chill, Super energetic, Paranoia, or hallucinations) depending on your personal genetics, I'd likely give edibles a shot.

A friend of mine got into shrooms and swears by them that they're this amazing almost transcendent experience, and I understand why he and his GF like them...But I personally draw a line there for me. While I do enjoy loosening the reins of control once in a while and just de-stressing with some mild substance, I'm paranoid about letting go completely and riding out a drug trip. I like knowing where I am and what I'm doing and retaining control thanks.

At least I know that when I take an evening to enjoy a bottle of delicious malt booze or a rum and coke, I'm conscious and aware enough to know I'm in no state to drive or do any kind of serious mental exercise.

The Gentleman:
(am I really breaking my lurking streak for this? Apparently...)

I feel a lot of people are missing the kind of big fact that there are multiple jurisdictions in the US that have de facto legalized cannabis, one of which I live in. As such, there's some information we do know.

[quote="CaitSeith" post="528.1055718.24254290"]The weed quality will be ruined thanks to capitalism.

Actually, in large part because it's now a heavily regulated industry, a lot of the quality of the products out there have gone up from their black market days. In my jurisdiction (Washington) the use of chemical pesticides and anti-fungal agents is extremely restricted, meaning you're less likely to have batches tainted with chemicals.

TLDR: Even trying just a little bit of booze/light drugs can be great, even if you don't do it often at all.

Uh...what thread is this...I don't see Fallout: NV anywhere in your post, unless the whole game is a euphemism for drugs and alcohol?

hanselthecaretaker:

Uh...what thread is this...I don't see Fallout: NV anywhere in your post, unless the whole game is a euphemism for drugs and alcohol?

The forum gremlins appear to have appended that post from wherever onto this thread, the OP appears to be the second post.

bartholen:
And less than 3 hours later I'm already bored. I can't for the life of me see where the supposed depth of this game is supposed to lie.

I played F:NV about 200 hours when it came out over four different characters, and picked it up in the recent Steam sale to experience the DLC and just play it again for my own edification. My first character since picking it back up was a high-INT, high-LUK build; I'm playing on Very Hard hardcore mode, no companions (for obvious reasons); thus far I went to the Strip at level 2, got kicked out of all the casinos and got my implants, and went to Big MT at level 6. Considering I'm playing a Guns (specifically, shotguns) build, boy howdy was that a Really Bad Idea.

First, look, you have to remember this game came out in 2010 and was developed by a mid-tier studio. I'll be the first to admit that mechanically, it has not aged well. I mean, the game's big selling point on combat and mechanics was it introduced iron sights to the franchise for God's sake. So, if you're comparing it to later games, or playing it with the perspective of someone who has seen the advancements of game design in the past decade, of course you're going to be disappointed. That said...

The first critique of your point I noticed, is that you're complaining you must tailor stats, skills, and perks for specialism from the beginning of the game in order to play as a specialist from the beginning (low level characters can't snipe or get sneak melee kills, neither statement is actually true but we'll take the argument at face value). And/or, to have that level of specialism requires sacrifice in generalist skills and perks. To which I must say...no shit? It's an RPG. Character planning, understanding the strengths and deficiencies of each build as they progress as a consequence of the choices you have made during character creation and leveling up, and playing to those strengths while mitigating their weakness is kind of the point of, well, the entire genre.

And, with that said, mechanically the biggest strength of F:NV always has been the diversity of builds through a wide selection of traits and perks. The game easily accommodates min-max builds, theme builds, RP builds, and everything in between. They can be as specific, or as general-purpose, as you'd like, and there really are no traits or perks so powerful they're must-have across any build. But, character building and developing in F:NV requires sacrifice, understanding said sacrifice is a consequence of your choice, anticipating shortcomings, and adapting.

This current playthrough where I went to Big MT at level 6, and this is my first time playing Old World Blues. I had planned a more leisurely development, focusing on general-purpose and secondary skills, getting my ability to access and carry loot up, sustaining myself with advanced crafting recipes, and using sneak as a tactical advantage to overcome my character's deficiency in straight-up combat until I could pick up key combat perks. In other words, I had the worst possible build for that DLC, let alone at that character level, at the hardest difficulty in hardcore mode.

It's nothing I can't handle, but I had to throw my entire build plan out the window. Due to how something specific to that DLC works, I had to completely forget sneaking as any kind of tactical advantage and focus on what I had to do right then and there just to survive lobotomite and roboscorpion encounters. I needed Hand Loader ASAP to punch through enemy armor and health pools, but that meant I didn't have enough ammunition because I had to break down standard rounds. That forced me to pick up Scrounger, which I never planned on getting in the first place, to make sure I had enough components to make the hand-load ammo I needed. Hand-load ammo tends to degrade weapons faster, so my next priority was Jury Rigging to ensure my best weapons and armor stay up to par.

I've already anticipated my next problem is going to be armor durability. Went in with Reinforced Combat Armor, and swapped to Christine's COS Armor when durability on that ran low. I don't have the caps to have Sink repair them, and medium armor is notoriously scarce in OWB, so I'm going to have to downgrade to light armor which means I will need to pick up defensive perks next. That one's going to hurt, since I need damage perks yesterday but can't afford to take them quite yet, and at the point I can the enemies in OWB will have hit their next tier.

But I know what guns start showing up at that point. They're my absolute favorite guns in the game bar none, and I was already planning on this character being a cowboy build. When I get there -- and I will -- I won't be locked in Big MT with a bunch of lobotomites and radscorpions; they'll be locked in there with me.

And, in the course of scrambling to develop my character in such a way I can survive OWB in that difficulty and game mode, I had to sideline basically every other secondary skill for several levels now, chiefly Science, Medicine, Survival, and Speech, which has soft-gated me on progression through the DLC's actual plot and severely restricted my consumable use. That is the least of my worries, since I went into the DLC with plenty to last and am now at a point where I can craft food, water, and stimpacks to spare...but in the hour or two before I got the auto-doc, biological research station, and sink turned back on, I was going through so many consumables I actually managed to run low.

Is this a situation I got myself into thanks to overall ignorance of the DLC's content? Yup. Is this the most fun I've ever had in F:NV? Oh yeah. So, I hope that illustrates exactly how important build planning, resource management, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and adapting accordingly really are (well, can be depending on difficulty and game mode) in FNV's long term.

Minor points:

Perception heavily determines the PC's detection range. ED-E and Boone negate it, but the player can easily figure out where enemies are by learning what their detection range is in accordance with their PER, and looking around to figure out where they're likely to be since the game actually has decent NPC initial positioning and patrolling.

NCRCF is the first real "dungeon" players are likely to encounter, by following breadcrumbs from either Goodsprings or Primm. You can talk and/or sneak your way completely through it even if you kill Joe Cobb. Unless you're talking about the various caves in the area populated by insects, abominations, and/or animals, in which case...no shit? Even then, this only halfway passes muster since the Animal Friend perk makes the inhabitants of several of those caves non-hostile and you can walk right past them.

Speaking of, if you're looking for gear to fundamentally change game play experience, you're completely barking up the wrong tree. Traits and perks are what diversify and change play style in FNV, not gear.

The beginning of the game provides the player with enough consumables (chems and skill magazines) any build can pass the earliest skill-based challenges. You just have to look for them. Even the hardest early-game skill challenge -- repairing ED-E -- is laughably trivial considering the components required to fix it absent requisite Repair and/or Science are in the same room.

Last, I-15 between Goodsprings and Sloan is riddled with cazadores and deathclaws? Well, yeah.

The entire point of that is to push new players through Primm, Mojave Outpost, Nipton, Camp Searchlight, Novac, HELIOS One, 188 Trading Post, the Crimson Caravan Company, and Freeside before entering the Strip in their search for Benny. This puts the player in direct contact with the NCR and Legion, their ancillaries, independent factions, and establishes the backstory and nature of the conflicts between them while highlighting the benefits and drawbacks of each faction. Therefore, by the time the player gets to the Strip, they know what's happened and what's to come, and formed their opinions on who is right or wrong, which faction's vision may be best for the Mojave in the long run...then, in the course of resolving the initial conflict with Benny, does the player learn there's a third way.

Or you can walk straight to the Strip at level 1, which is not just doable but outright easy...once you've learned the map and the major landmarks to avoid. Literally, the key to it is "don't Leeroy the cazadores on I-15". That's only something you're likely to do once you've played the game through a first time, meaning you already know the game's backstory, world, and central conflicts, rendering the narrative purpose for the long way around obsolete.

It's not a "beefgate". It's good game design, and excellent world-building and storytelling.

bartholen:
After getting into D&D recently I've been watching a lot of content related to RPGs, both videogame and tabletop, and the mechanics: how good are they, how well do they translate etc. Naturally Fallout: New Vegas came up. I've played about 60 hours, but the praise for the game always seemed a lot greater than my experience. I started to wonder if there was some hidden genius I'd totally missed because I'd played it as a straightforward action RPG. Maybe there were different builds to discover, new angles to quests I'd never considered and such. So I started a new character.

And less than 3 hours later I'm already bored. I can't for the life of me see where the supposed depth of this game is supposed to lie.

- The combat is as simplistic as you get in a game: shoot at enemies who run towards you in a straight line, then whack with a melee weapon when they get close. Energy weapons don't behave any differently from normal guns, the only difference is damage. There's no resistances or damage types at play, no status effects or sidegrades to consider.

- The stealth is frustratingly simplified to the point of it being barely functional: since the enemies are displayed in a single horizontal line as a single-colored blip, there's no way of telling their elevation or distance. This system worked in Skyrim because 1. the dungeons were straightforward enough to accommodate for this system and 2. it displayed your distance from the enemies, allowing for prioritization. Here stealth relies almost on trial and error: Oh, there was an enemy you couldn't see closer than the one you actually could? Well, shit out of luck, try again. Also, the 3-tiered display of hidden/caution/danger is too vague and rigid to give a proper understanding of how close to detection you actually are. The weapon spread being dictated by the Guns skill makes sniping very unreliable, and getting close enough to an enemy to take them out with a melee weapon requires a far higher Sneak skill than you can get in the beginning.

- The beginning essentially forces you to invest in a very specific set of skills and gear and nothing else. Stealth, Guns, Medicine and Lockpicking being the biggest. Since there's no way of clearing the early dungeons using skills like Speech, Survival or Explosives (due to lack of available resources), and all the directions from the starting town are essentially beefgated behind Deathclaws and Cazadors, the game plays more or less the same way each time.

- Gear collection amounts to just finding ones with different stats. Since, as mentioned before, weapons and gear are so simplified, there's just no debate about whether or not you should use a new weapon you find. The only question is if it has higher damage.

I guess I could ask if there's something I've missed, but as mentioned, I've already played this game for over 60 hours, and never discovered the supposed brilliance this game is supposed to have.

1. Bethesda games alrways had a very simple form of combat, I found Fallout New Vegas' combat a bit more deep due to the fact that you can modify with different types of bullets and do little neat upgrades, sure it's still basic, but it's honestly deeper then most of Bethesda's games.

2. I won't argue with you on the stealth, heck I always hated stealth gameplay in non stealthy rpgs. Though I do think for gameplay variety it kinda works, but it's still shit.

3. I think it works because it forces to use spend points on your stats wisely, sure it may not be the want you want and it may hinder freedom ,but it does provide a much more tactical approach to surviving the wasteland.

4. The gear you find in most Fallout games are merely cosmetic, the only good ones are the power armor and the chinese stealth suit.

The main appeal of New Vegas, at least to me, was much of a choice your decisions actually mattered in the plot and side quests. Plus with how flexible the factions are in the game's main story. Don't like the two main factions vying for control of the Mojave? You want a truly free wasteland? Well lucky for you, you can do just that if you wanted to. Also the game's companions are truly memorable and they have their own missions you can do if you spend alot of time with them. For example, there's a follower who is or was apart of the Brotherhood. If you taken her to one of their bases, she begins to reveal important details about herself and the brotherhood of steel.

The writing is just better then anything Bethesda can write up, it's because Obsidian actually cares about making good stories to tell, and not just be this generic thing you expect from Bethesda games.

Plus the game has alot of side quests that are actually pretty interesting and well written. Sure some are duds but alot truly stick out. Like for example, you're task with tracking down a bunch of criminals who wronged the NCR. You gain quite a bit of perspective about them from the person who gives you the mission.

Also it has a killer soundtrack, and the humor is pretty good. Also it has no subways all over the place hindering exploration.

Although I should preface by saying I find most of the Fallout to be vaguely interesting concept, that falls either into horribly generic trope writing or very hit and miss efforts at humour.

A lot of the OP critique comes down on Bethesda's head though. They're the ones with their mediocre to janky mechanics and half-broken engine. That Obsidian got any improvement at all out of it was a small miracle.

Narrative structure is kind of on them too. Granted, I wasn't at whatever creative meetings they had, but big sandbox stuff is Bethesda's bread and butter, and having a defined path while ultimately not *forcing* the player to take that path is par for their course. The only thing you can try and do to add some sort of smoothing narrative to that is by plonking some obstacle in the way.I'd chalk it up to a conflict of priorities, Bethesda wants to sell worlds without much concern for stories, and Obsidian does in-depth narratives.

The settings always been kind of ludicrous with itself. Besides Vault dwellers themselves who have the benefit of knowledge of the before-nuke world, we find literal hordes of archvies and information from the pre-apocalypse. So all the nonsense "Planet of Hats" esque stuff that goes on doesn't make a lick of sense, and only gets worse the farther out they get from the apocalypse as more Vault Dwellers merge into the population and more pre-war stuff is unearthed.

Seth Carter:
The settings always been kind of ludicrous with itself. Besides Vault dwellers themselves who have the benefit of knowledge of the before-nuke world, we find literal hordes of archvies and information from the pre-apocalypse. So all the nonsense "Planet of Hats" esque stuff that goes on doesn't make a lick of sense, and only gets worse the farther out they get from the apocalypse as more Vault Dwellers merge into the population and more pre-war stuff is unearthed.

Honestly, that's something New Vegas tackles directly with no regrets or evasion. It just happens to occur within the confines of the Legion, and for the fact that's the most objectionable, and consequently least-favored, faction among players it goes generally unexplored.

The entire point is, the world was devastated by nuclear holocaust. The Old World and its myriad of competing ideas, beliefs, values, norms, technological wonders, and systems of government failed so horrifically those who survived and came after are mutated, ill, mentally and physically broken, people fighting, often literally tooth and nail, for mere survival in an unforgiving radioactive wasteland that's living mockery of their own pathetic existence. There can be no going back, least of all for the fear humanity will simply repeat its mistakes, but the only way forward is by repeating those mistakes and hoping the light at the end of the tunnel isn't another atomic bomb.

All pre-War archives offer, is the record of humanity's failures that led to the Great War. They don't offer a genuine path forward, just a list of paths to avoid. That's why the NCR, as of New Vegas, is a failing republic; that's why the BoS believes humanity cannot be trusted with high technology; that's why the Institute believes humanity is an evolutionary dead-end; that's even why the Enclave wants (wanted) the hell off this shitty rock, but needs the resources of the world outside and the obeisance of its remaining people, to do it. But most importantly, it's why the Followers want to try something no one in the Old World tried -- not really, anyhow, not in a major or lasting sense for its own sake -- just help people improve themselves and their societies, and find a better way through coexistence and cooperation.

And that's why Caesar left the Followers. He saw and believed people will always have competing interests and beliefs which will draw them inevitably into conflict. Caesar didn't believe there was such a thing as "a way forward" as the Followers believe, because humanity's shortcomings will always assert themselves over the long term. And, for that, the Followers are doomed to failure. Caesar believed the only way forward was through tyranny -- to build a monolithic empire that subsumed all competing interest and identity before itself.

We can sit here and poke holes in Caesar's ideology and values, and the Legion's policies and sustainability, all day. I'll be the first to do it. But, whether or not the Legion was a good idea is irrelevant to my point. Pre-War society already was a "world of hats"; that was the root cause of the Great War, and that it didn't make a lick of sense was the entire point.

War never changes.

Eacaraxe:
*snip*

"Planet of Hats" refers to a trope common in 50/60s sci-fi to have planets of Pirates/Cowboys/Greeks/etc.

The Legion might certainly fit that on a purely aesthetic level, but its stuff like the Kings or the wannabe Gangsters and Daimond City's baseball guys (where its even lampshaded in 4).

Obviously there's a lots of valid reasons for people to reject the NCR (for the Enclave for the evil version) "rebuilding America" when America was part of the apocalypse in the Fallout universe.

The total ignorance of pre-War life demonstrated by most of the populace, which comes to an extreme with the weird gimmick groups, is what makes no sense. It wasn't like humanity flipped back to the dark ages. People are literate, large amounts of them are technologically adept. Actual pre-war survivors are still around as ghouls, and the non-Vault dwellers have a lineage to survivors of their own (which you at best handwave away with the idea of radiation making them mentally deteriorate). Then actual Vault Dwellers are either pre-war via cryogenics or have had (barring some cases) education that stems from that period, they were never in what there was of a dark age.

Its a commmon thread in post-apocalypse settings (The Last of Us comes to mind, where functioning electrical grids exist alongside a world where you have to scavenge random things to make a crappy knife), but Fallout takes it to extremes by having inhabitants that seem not like humans emerging from an apocalyptic event, but like some weird aliens or clones that stumbled onto the planet after all the humans got wiped out and tried to start simulating them with a total lack of context.

We're living in interesting times. I wonder how that post ever managed to get included as the OP.

OT: I didn't actually find NV to be all that much better that FO3. I liked them both about equally, though I'm not sure I've ever actually finished the main story of NV. If I have, I don't remember it.

Seth Carter:
Snippet.

If you're talking about the smaller factions, I see more where you're coming from but still respectfully disagree. To me, those groups and their "themes" represent coping mechanisms and the need to develop a sense of identity and belonging in the wasteland, along with some form of sensibility or ethics. What you have to remember, is that while most factions PC's interact with on a diplomatic level tend towards more knowledgeable, at least practically, most aren't and the panoply of human (or mutant, or ghoul) experience in the wastes can be found. And, while it's hard to recognize in the games, formal education is an extreme rarity.

Even the Brotherhood, the second-most technologically-advanced faction across the entire franchise, lacks genuine interest in scholarly or non-militaristic pursuits, and has regressed to a neo-feudal structure dominated by master-apprentice relationships. There are two places in the franchise this is expressed perfectly: in Veronica's side quest in FNV, if you retrieve the Vault 22 agricultural data for the Brotherhood, they just don't care and fail to see the importance of more resilient, higher-yield crops; and in FO4, during the side quest where you're sent to gather food tribute for the Brotherhood, it's made clear even scribes consider agricultural knowledge unimportant and the job of growing food beneath them.

One thing Caesar, Graham, and even Ulysses all point out, is many of the tribes the Followers and Legion came across, had practically regressed to a hunter-gatherer state, and had to be re-taught from the ground up how to read, write, use even the simplest technologies, and function in a civilized society. Stacked up against the NCR, the various Strip factions (including the Kings), the Brotherhood, even factions from other games like the Institute, the Legion is actually the most intellectual faction in the big picture, save the Followers.

The Great Khans' knowledge was all oral tradition, even though their primary skill was chem-making and their culture was cobbled together from some conglomeration of Mongols and biker clubs. The Kings were yet another illiterate tribe which developed into essentially an Elvis cargo cult.

The problem isn't a "total ignorance" of pre-War life as you put it. The problem is incomplete understanding of pre-War life, which leads to eccentricities and idiosyncrasies. That's not just perfectly reasonable, it's downright logical, especially when one considers that however well-traveled and knowledgeable PC's and their companion(s) may (or not) be, they're just one person in the wastes whose impact may be substantial, but they're not omnipotent or omnipresent. Look at the canonical events between Fallout 1 and 2; for the Vault Dweller's potential extensive knowledge of science and medicine, and practical knowledge of the wastes after the events of the first game, that of the Vault 13 exiles that followed him into the wastes, and the practical knowledge of the wastelanders that joined him, the very best they could do was a tribal subsistence farming society...and even that was a feat.

Honestly, what you're criticizing (social groups being built on incomplete understanding of past societies, or downright misinformation) is something that even happens in the real world today. Cargo cults exist. Laugh, but UFO and ancient astronaut cults were a thing in the mid-20th Century. Look at the various New Age movements -- neo-paganism, kabbalah, various psychedelic cults, tantra, misapplied or misunderstood buddhism and/or hinduism -- which try to re-create religions and practices long lost to history, or are based on appropriations, bastardizations, misunderstandings, and/or misapplications of native American, African, or Asian metaphysics and practices.

I'm not saying all New Age movements, practices, or syncretism are "wrong", obviously, but that in many cases they bear little if any semblance to the historical practices and beliefs upon which they're built.

While NV had better quest structure and story than 3, focusing on troupes was a big mistake. At least the Great Khans from Fallout 1 had more persoanlity than just trying to be Mongol. For example, Caeser clearly has his own ideals but that is not dependant on just being in the Legion. (Even though he was the leader.) Everything is tied to the theme of that tribe, thus IMO making Megaton a more interesting place for characters. Because most NV characters have to follow a formula. If there were a few that grew up with their own ideology rather than something being tied to the past, it would have been better. Or maybe even just groups that grew up in response to other groups (communism, nationalism) would have been good for a change of pace. Stormclocks being an example, even the Thalamor.

And the way slwvery worked was far more like the American south, rather than Roman. And slavery is used far too often to denoted 'bad'. Find a more interesting way to display evil please developers.

The narrative structure of NV deletes a lot of exploration opportunities. Obsidian prefer to explore characters and challenges more (which is a very worthy goal.) Forcing you down one of two tracks was a direct result of Obsidian wanting to tell a story in a partciular order. That means you aren't allowed to go your own way.

Also, I have never talked about the quest in Primm for sherif. You know that decision won't really matter becuase you have no reason to go back there. It's not even an interesting question it raises. It's like the decision you make in Arfue. At least the Brotherhood was about questioning their effectiveness in the world. I thought Fallout 3 Bortherhood was better becuase there was a clear rift and both sides had good points. Fallout 4 strongman takeover was interesting too. Almost putting both sides as the combined winner by wanting to positively effect the world but through forces.

The other interesting part of an RPG is what you define as an RPG. Do you want your choices restricted so 'they matter' like limited skill progression in NV or do you want to had the 'freedom' of being whoever you want like Skyrim (maxing every skill.) Becuase these require very different things. The latter means you can become trapped very easily becuase you haven't been given the tools needed to play the game. The latter means you do pick a role, you can change on the fly and thus there is no emphasis on role playing a character

Seth Carter:
Its a commmon thread in post-apocalypse settings (The Last of Us comes to mind, where functioning electrical grids exist alongside a world where you have to scavenge random things to make a crappy knife), but Fallout takes it to extremes by having inhabitants that seem not like humans emerging from an apocalyptic event, but like some weird aliens or clones that stumbled onto the planet after all the humans got wiped out and tried to start simulating them with a total lack of context.

Which I think was part of the point in Fallout 1/2. Keep in mind that the first two games (and NV to some extent) were heavily inspired by 80's and early 90's pulp comics. The idea of 50's Science! as the basis for what constitutes actual science and the laws of physics in the Fallout-universe is one of the obvious results of this. The tropey Location of Hats that every place you visit is another. Fallout made sure that pretty much every location you visited was a particular trope (Junktown was your Mad Max-place, Shady Sands were the rebuilders, Adytum was the 'making a better future among the ruins' etc.) because that's how the comics that inspired the game would have dealt with the people inhabiting the post-apocalypse.

There's a discussion to be had about whether Bethesda understood or cared about this pulp comic heritage, but it always helps to keep in mind that Fallout is not meant to be a realistic or plausible post-apocalypse simulator. It is meant to be an over-the-top pulp story set in a heavily stylized version of the post-apocalypse.

Gethsemani:

Seth Carter:
Its a commmon thread in post-apocalypse settings (The Last of Us comes to mind, where functioning electrical grids exist alongside a world where you have to scavenge random things to make a crappy knife), but Fallout takes it to extremes by having inhabitants that seem not like humans emerging from an apocalyptic event, but like some weird aliens or clones that stumbled onto the planet after all the humans got wiped out and tried to start simulating them with a total lack of context.

Which I think was part of the point in Fallout 1/2. Keep in mind that the first two games (and NV to some extent) were heavily inspired by 80's and early 90's pulp comics. The idea of 50's Science! as the basis for what constitutes actual science and the laws of physics in the Fallout-universe is one of the obvious results of this. The tropey Location of Hats that every place you visit is another. Fallout made sure that pretty much every location you visited was a particular trope (Junktown was your Mad Max-place, Shady Sands were the rebuilders, Adytum was the 'making a better future among the ruins' etc.) because that's how the comics that inspired the game would have dealt with the people inhabiting the post-apocalypse.

There's a discussion to be had about whether Bethesda understood or cared about this pulp comic heritage, but it always helps to keep in mind that Fallout is not meant to be a realistic or plausible post-apocalypse simulator. It is meant to be an over-the-top pulp story set in a heavily stylized version of the post-apocalypse.

I assume that when Obsidan were making the comments that Fallout 3 was like the 50s and NV (and 1 and 2) were the feel of the 50s this is what they meant. I've never understood that comment until now. Also, I think that the original Fallouts were based on a troupe but not a slave to them. I.e. The characters could have their own persoanlity not tied to the theme of the town.

Personally i liked the gameplay, but couldn't for the life of me get invested in the story. Fallout 3 had a narrative which worked hard to get the player invested in their character. NW seemingly couldn't care less. The player character's identity is set up as a mystery early on, only to be completely dismissed an hour later. We are just a random courier with no history or motivation. The game really boils down to winning someone else's war for them, and since the player character is such a blank slate, setting them up as leader of New Vegas just isn't appealing. It also has a lot of scenarios where it's way too easy to get the most ideal scenario whereas quests in Fallout 3 would force you to sacrifice something for something else, rarely giving you the chance to get everything

CyanCat47:
Personally i liked the gameplay, but couldn't for the life of me get invested in the story. Fallout 3 had a narrative which worked hard to get the player invested in their character. NW seemingly couldn't care less. The player character's identity is set up as a mystery early on, only to be completely dismissed an hour later. We are just a random courier with no history or motivation. The game really boils down to winning someone else's war for them, and since the player character is such a blank slate, setting them up as leader of New Vegas just isn't appealing. It also has a lot of scenarios where it's way too easy to get the most ideal scenario whereas quests in Fallout 3 would force you to sacrifice something for something else, rarely giving you the chance to get everything

I kind of disagree, because I think Fallout 3 was never even really about your character. It's about your characters' dad, and then it's about Madison Lee, and then it's about the Brotherhood of Steel. You're following your dad, who is doing the interesting stuff. Then you're following Dr. Lee while she takes you to the Brotherhood of Steel, who do the interesting stuff, then you're doing what the Brotherhood of Steel tell you to do until, at the end, you follow a robot for a bit while brotherhood NPCs kill enemies for you. Your only meaningful choice, in the end, is to fix project purity or to fix project purity but be a massive dick and genocide everyone for no reason because a computer told you to.. oh, and you can also kill yourself pointlessly and for no reason because destiny, an ending so bad they literally had to fix it because it didn't even make sense in Bethesda logic.

And sure, there are some situations in Fallout 3 where the quest reward varies depending which ending you choose so in that sense you're sacrificing something to get something else, but what's really lacking is situations in which the outcome is complex in any way or makes you think about what you're doing. Do you disarm the bomb in megaton, or do you blow the whole town up for no reason? I mean, the quest rewards are different, but this isn't really an interesting choice and it doesn't encourage you to think about who your character is because that doesn't matter. Often you're just doing whatever will get you the precise loot you want.

Meanwhile, in New Vegas, you're often faced with situations in which there is no genuinely ideal choice, because whatever you choose someone will get hurt. If you side with the NCR, you will crush the independence and liberty of New Vegas and murder house, who at the end of the day was one of the greatest minds the world has ever produced and possibly the best hope for rebuilding it. If you side with house or yes man, you will have to kill NCR troopers who are just doing their jobs and ultimately trying to do what they think is best for their country, and if you side with house you will have to wipe out the brotherhood of steel, who are not nice people but are still ultimately just trying to protect their way of life and their traditions. Everyone thinks their way is best, but everyone is flawed and human and ultimately doesn't have the final answer. Caesar, the guy who literally claims to be a God, is a complete idiot who quotes philosophy he doesn't understand to justify an ideology which doesn't work, but while some characters in the game will point this out, the game itself never tells you outright, it lets you decide for yourself.

And in that sense, while it is very different from the first two Fallout games, it swings much closer to what made those games good and interesting. Even the master, one of the most loathesome and inhuman villains in video game history, still had a point. Even today, there are people who played Fallout 2 and will swear the Enclave were the good guys (and I think those people are silly, but it's a conclusion you could come to legitimately). In fallout 3, super mutants have nothing to do with the master or the unity, they have no governing ideology or reason to be hostile, they're just big angry guys who scream about murder a lot. The enclave are just random grunts in power armour who fly in from nowhere, are pretty easy to mow down and are considered expendable even by their own leaders despite being some of the last purestrain humans left on the planet and part of an organization that believes in preserving purestrain humanity. These things are here for no reason, they're just fan service references to stories which were better told in Fallout 1 and 2, and indeed in New Vegas.

And I don't think it's just me who thinks this. I think Todd Howard knows, because Bethesda tried so hard in Fallout 4 to create a world and factions with complex relationships and that felt like they had a real history, and I think they succeeded better than a lot of people gave them credit for at the time. I like Fallout 4. It has good gameplay, and even some interesting and fun themes. But it still ultimately suffers from Bethesda writing where every quest or part of the story feels like it was written in a separate room. Bethesda just fundamentally aren't good at telling a cohesive story. They're good at gameplay loops and encouraging players to dick around and have fun, and that was part of the first two fallout games too, but so was the storytelling and the sense of being part of an interconnected and dynamic world, however paper thin and illusory. That's why I was obsessed with those games growing up, they're some of the most influential games in my life and played a huge role in introducing me to roleplaying as a concept. I feel like New Vegas took me back to a world I knew and showed me how it had changed and evolved in the time I'd been away. Fallout 3 felt like a theme park based on that world where I got to go on fun rides while Liam Neeson sorted out all the important stuff for me.

So, i have:

112 hours on FO3
283 hours on FONV
915 hours on FO4

Mechanically, FONV was much better than FO3. Every gun felt useful in some context, they handled differently, and there was a bit of tinkering you could do (with different types of bullets). I would even say from a guns perspective its better than FO4. FO4 has a lot of gun modding...but to be honest only a few guns are even useful. Shotguns are useless, automatic ones even more so. The heavy weapon weigh too much (especially ammo). 90+% of the guns i use are combat rifle and 10 mm pistol. The endgame gives you access to better guns, but even then a minor upgrade.

That is where my praise of NV mostly ends however. The setting is terrible (FO3 and 4 were miles better), the story and characters are meh (better than FO3 though). I know people rant and rave about the characters, but they are pretty bland. The only characters i like was Graham (burned man) and Ulysses. The DLCs are a bit of a mixed bag. I thought it was pretty neat that you start from nothing in Sierra, but spending 30 minutes slowly crawing to the nearest town with all of your loot after the DLC ends is a bit of a bummer. Old World Blues beginning conversations were quite entertaining, but that is the only possitive thing i can say about it. The rest of that DLC was a boring slog. Honest hearts had an interesting setting, but the story and quests were boring. Guns were neat though. Lonesome road, however, was solid all around.

That said, NV is the only fallout game where i didnt really care about what happened to anyone. I did not feel any sort of attachment to any of them. Still cant decide which radio station i liked the best, NV or FO4. Both were better than Three Dog.

Overall, i like FO4 a lot better than NV. The setting, story, characters i found to be much better. Shooting enemies feels a lot better in FO4 (they have actual behaviors), but ill give NV a pass on that one.

Also, i really really enjoy building settlements.

Like, this is the most fun ive had in games in 30 years. The amount of meticulous planning and problem solving to build huge grand projects is staggering, and easily the hardest thing ive ever had to do in a game. If you are someone who hated settlements, i can 100% understand where you are coming. I can even understand why you might hate FO4 because of it (a lot of DLC focused on this)

evilthecat:
And sure, there are some situations in Fallout 3 where the quest reward varies depending which ending you choose so in that sense you're sacrificing something to get something else, but what's really lacking is situations in which the outcome is complex in any way or makes you think about what you're doing. Do you disarm the bomb in megaton, or do you blow the whole town up for no reason? I mean, the quest rewards are different, but this isn't really an interesting choice and it doesn't encourage you to think about who your character is because that doesn't matter. Often you're just doing whatever will get you the precise loot you want.

Meanwhile, in New Vegas, you're often faced with situations in which there is no genuinely ideal choice, because whatever you choose someone will get hurt. If you side with the NCR, you will crush the independence and liberty of New Vegas and murder house, who at the end of the day was one of the greatest minds the world has ever produced and possibly the best hope for rebuilding it. If you side with house or yes man, you will have to kill NCR troopers who are just doing their jobs and ultimately trying to do what they think is best for their country, and if you side with house you will have to wipe out the brotherhood of steel, who are not nice people but are still ultimately just trying to protect their way of life and their traditions. Everyone thinks their way is best, but everyone is flawed and human and ultimately doesn't have the final answer. Caesar, the guy who literally claims to be a God, is a complete idiot who quotes philosophy he doesn't understand to justify an ideology which doesn't work, but while some characters in the game will point this out, the game itself never tells you outright, it lets you decide for yourself.

So lets take that Megaton situation. Me personally, I see it as trying to amp up the evilness of Tenpenny for a particular purpose. That quest specifically informs the other Tenpenny Tower quest with the ghouls. You, seeing the over the top villany, will probably initially choose to side with the Ghouls. They are being oppressed, Tenpenny is an asshat, the residents are being racist. Then the Ghouls destroy everyone. You've realised that you have been suckered in. You let your distaste for one villan blind you to another villan. I dont think Fallout 3 beats NV in this regard. But people's desire to prove NV betterness leads to overreaches like "there is only black and white in F3"

And many of these "moral choices" are stupid on there face. It gives false choices or leaves quests half finished just to make you feel bad. Take the sharecopper/ vault quest. In this, you have to make a choice. Kill people or damage crops. Of course, I'm going to save people. That's literally not a choice. Becuase any human being would go to the sharecroppers and help them relocate to a better spot. You could add moral quandries like lying to the farmers about what happened. Maybe the farmers would try to retaliate against those saved. Or you. Does any of this happen? NOPE. Gotta have that ending to a quest that tries to make you feel bad.

If you are going to write these morally grey quests, you have to write well. You have to think things through. The cadets training at Camp Golf was way better written but the General, a whole bunch of stupid. This may not effect you, but it certainly pulled me out of the experience.

By the way. House is independant but does not allow independence or liberty. In fact, he's the same as the Legion. If you're in, you have to be a slave to 50s troupes. While he doesnt kill people who diagree, he banishes them. It doesnt matter if House or Legion take over. You are a slave. In fact, if I actually got a choice in the game, I'd take over becuase they are all terrible. I have the army, I should be able to do that - but Obsidan was to tied to telling the story they wanted.

And I don't think it's just me who thinks this. I think Todd Howard knows, because Bethesda tried so hard in Fallout 4 to create a world and factions with complex relationships and that felt like they had a real history, and I think they succeeded better than a lot of people gave them credit for at the time. I like Fallout 4. It has good gameplay, and even some interesting and fun themes. But it still ultimately suffers from Bethesda writing where every quest or part of the story feels like it was written in a separate room. Bethesda just fundamentally aren't good at telling a cohesive story. They're good at gameplay loops and encouraging players to dick around and have fun, and that was part of the first two fallout games too, but so was the storytelling and the sense of being part of an interconnected and dynamic world, however paper thin and illusory. That's why I was obsessed with those games growing up, they're some of the most influential games in my life and played a huge role in introducing me to roleplaying as a concept. I feel like New Vegas took me back to a world I knew and showed me how it had changed and evolved in the time I'd been away. Fallout 3 felt like a theme park based on that world where I got to go on fun rides while Liam Neeson sorted out all the important stuff for me.

I'd agree. NV is more connected as a story. Fallout 3 had vareity becuase it isnt encumbered with telling a story. Fallout 4 was trying to do both and semi succeeded. Bethsheda definitely needs help with quest structures but I'd take the map layout of F3 and 4 anyday. Tying your map to the story too much degrades that part of the experience. NV has no interesting landmarks that stick out and make me want to visit and even when I stumble on one, its pointless going in until I find the right quest in a settlement somewhere. So overall, I think there needs to be areas that are connected but some that just tell their own thing, so I can just explore.

trunkage:

By the way. House is independant but does not allow independence or liberty. In fact, he's the same as the Legion. If you're in, you have to be a slave to 50s troupes. While he doesnt kill people who diagree, he banishes them. It doesnt matter if House or Legion take over. You are a slave. In fact, if I actually got a choice in the game, I'd take over becuase they are all terrible. I have the army, I should be able to do that - but Obsidan was to tied to telling the story they wanted.

You can take over. Though its basically a non-story, since the game ends before you can do anything with your newfound rulership, and you're playing a nebulous blank slate who's primarily defined by who's errand runner they've been up to that point rather then as an independent entity with individual goals and ideals.

Its actually pretty similar to SKyrim and Fallout 4's approaches. You can achieve all the power and influence, even hypothetically gaining total leadership of a faction, but never exercise that influence in any meaningful way because its the end of the quest/storyline and there's nothing further to do.

trunkage:
You've realised that you have been suckered in. You let your distaste for one villan blind you to another villan. I dont think Fallout 3 beats NV in this regard. But people's desire to prove NV betterness leads to overreaches like "there is only black and white in F3"

So, I don't think the problem is that everything in F3 is black and white. I mean, a lot of things are, but that's kind of the problem with a binary moral choice system. A lot of choices in Fallout 1 and 2 were black and white, corresponding to good and bad karma respectively. The two main problems I have with fallout 3 are:

1) It reduced characters, themes and motivations to the absolute barest bones possible. The brotherhood of steel helped you out in Fallout 1 so they're just generic good guy space marines now. Super mutants were the enemy in Fallout, and also some of them were kind of stupid, so now they're just big angry shreks who want to murder everything because they're inherently evil and like killing stuff. Ghouls look a bit like zombies, and some ghouls in Fallout had lost their minds and would attack you, so now almost all ghouls are mindless zombies who want to eat you.

In Fallout 1 and 2, most characters, groups and organisations had reasons for what they were doing, and sometimes they were dumb reasons or shortsighted reasons or selfish reasons, but they existed and you could understand them. Super mutants didn't need to be psychotic, generic orcs because Fallout 1 provided reasons why thinking (albeit sometimes dumb and violent) beings might still want to oppose the main character. The brotherhood didn't need to be the ultimate good guys because, again, the game provided reasons why a flawed organisation would finally get off its ass and do something when faced with a world-ending threat.

Meanwhile, in Fallout 3 the random nice guy cop who went to your birthday party is a psycho murderer who will chase you through the entire vault and beat you to death without remorse based on nothing but completely misguided orders from the overseer, because that's character motivation!

2) It had the general problem which all Bethesda games have to some degree of having been written by people who seemingly never spoke to each other during development. I mean, it produced one of the most obvious and egregious examples of this ever which even people who liked the game noticed, because somehow noone in the development process realised that having a climax revolving around the decision of whether or not to enter an irradiated room is kind of silly when two quests earlier in the main story you introduced a character whose entire role is to enter an irradiated room because they're immune to radiation.

One of the big joys of classic roleplaying games is being immersed in what feels like a living world where actions have consequences. This is created through interconnection. In Planescape torment, for example, talking to random NPCs but with a different member in your party or having done a particular quest or course of action can yield whole new dialogue trees and really complex interactions which you could easily miss. The Fallout games were never quite there, but there was still an incredible ammount of cross-interaction between different characters, plots and story elements. Fallout 3 has none of that. Everything is entirely self-contained.

Even by having a faction specific reputation system, New Vegas is leaps and bounds ahead of Fallout 3 in terms of creating the sense of a persistent universe.

trunkage:
By the way. House is independant but does not allow independence or liberty. In fact, he's the same as the Legion.

Well, yeah in that both house and ceasar are dictators, but so is the player if they side with Yes Man. There are still immense differences between the two and they represent very, very different philosophical positions.

trunkage:
Bethsheda definitely needs help with quest structures but I'd take the map layout of F3 and 4 anyday.

To be fair, Fallout 4 does have an amazing map, probably due to just having a better engine. The city itself is particularly impressive, and I love how you can navigate it like a real place by following landmarks. F3 had two problems, in that all the buildings essentially looked the same, and it relied on nonsensical subway connections to create the illusion of interconnectivity which didn't exist.

New Vegas' map is very empty, but it does at least have landmarks. I also actually like the map layout, and it feels like a weird homage to F1 and F2 where you could get to seriously endgame areas quite easily and grab all the awesome loot, but as a new player you wouldn't know which direction to go. Fallout 3, of course, didn't have endgame areas due to excessive scaling. So sure, you could go in any direction, it just didn't matter.

I don't find arguing which game's storytelling is overall superior based on the morality presented in any individual game, or what lore is agreeable, really productive. It's preferable to dive deep on each game in its own context.

The whole point of Hard Luck Blues is the player/Courier doesn't have all the information all the time, there are going to be unintended consequences of choices, and choices are rarely between good or evil, they're between "easy ways" and "hard ways". Rerouting reactor control to the Vault dwellers is actually the worst possible resolution, because if you can make your way through the (more) radioactive and flooded sections of the Vault you can make contact with the Dwellers, explain the situation to them, and evacuate them to the NCR, allowing reactor shut-down without harm. Even with reactor control, the dwellers' situation is untenable and the sooner they evacuate the better chances they have at survival.

That's where the central ethical conflict lies in FNV. Everyone, at least the major factions, wants to take the easy way and that leads to conflict, refusal to compromise, and long-term harm.

FO3 had tons of problems, sure, but the Brotherhood, feral ghouls, and even Vault 101 weren't among them:

Vault 101 was basically an Overseer cult, but even then Gomez is actually non-hostile unless harmed first. Even if the player kills the other guards, as long as they didn't harm Gomez he still helps them escape the Vault. It's just not something you're likely to encounter because you are (or someone else is) likely to have harmed Gomez in the fight.

The 3D games have all made it clear becoming a ghoul isn't true immortality, going feral is inevitable over a long enough time span, and ghouls across the Fallout world are just coming to grips with their new reality. It's not been conclusively stated, but my takeaway was the first generation of ghouls created by the War are just hitting the end of their "life spans". The entire point of Raul's companion story is he's already slipping, and it's up to him to decide what to do with the time he has left.

Likewise, the Brotherhood exterminatus'ing the Pitt triggered an ethical crisis among the eastern Brotherhood. Lyons' leadership diverged too far from the Brotherhood's original mission, which triggered a backlash that began with the Outcasts and culminated in the Brotherhood as presented in FO4.

As I went on in Fallout NV, I kept up thinking: what am I fighting for? Why should I care about a dumb war between factions I have no investment with? Really, I didn't found a compelling initial incentive to explore that world. Revenge? "Oh, no! Some unknown person tried to kill me for some reason. Just like every freaking hostile in the wasteland!"

Eacaraxe:
Vault 101 was basically an Overseer cult, but even then Gomez is actually non-hostile unless harmed first. Even if the player kills the other guards, as long as they didn't harm Gomez he still helps them escape the Vault. It's just not something you're likely to encounter because you are (or someone else is) likely to have harmed Gomez in the fight.

I meant Kendall, not Gomez. Although I guess Kendall doesn't actually attend the party, now I remember, he's present. I mean, we can talk about wanting to go on a date with his daughter. Said daughter takes the GOAT exam with you. Then the game puts you in a position where you basically have to murder her father because if you don't he will follow you through the entire vault on broken legs trying to beat you to death and there are zero consequences for killing him. The game makes a huge deal over whether or not you kill the overseer, or how Amata feels about it because she's your friend and has more dialogue, and the overseer is responsible for everything that's gone wrong. He's an explicitly bad person, not just a cop doing his job. But your first act as an adult in the game is to literally pop the head off Christine's dad like a melon and noone bats an eyelid.

This is not a problem on its own. Most players probably never made the connection between Officer Kendall, the Christine Kendall you can refer to in the birthday party sequence and the Christine you meet in the GOAT. Kendall is just presented as some random mook who wants to kill you, except he has a name for some reason. However, it's indicative of an entire game in which virtually noone has reasons for what they do, and none of the choices or consequences you are presented with make sense.

Fallout 1 and 2 had a lot of enemies who will kill you on sight, but it also had situations in which enemies would try and secure your surrender before attacking. How hard would it have been to have a dialogue option where Kendall offers you a chance to surrender and takes you to the overseer, where you are ultimately forced to fight for your life, and maybe the fight is harder to justify skipping all the fights in Vault 101. But oh no, that means the player might not encounter the deep moral choice of whether or not to save Butch's mum from radroaches or let an innocent woman die because her son is a bully (and not even a hardcore Steven King bully, just a bit of a troubled kid).

Eacaraxe:
The 3D games have all made it clear becoming a ghoul isn't true immortality, going feral is inevitable over a long enough time span, and ghouls across the Fallout world are just coming to grips with their new reality.

Yeah, and that's not a bad thing. I don't mind stuff being retconned or expanded on, that's a big part of what I think new vegas did right. But, as you say, it wasn't until New Vegas when any of this was explained or even hinted at. Fallout 3 didn't really try to explain it at all, it just used feral ghouls as random generic enemies because it needed something the player could shoot. The problem isn't that things changed, the problem, again, is that all complexity is stripped out of things until they are just the most generic archetypes which are ultimately only there for fan service.

Like, look at Far Harbour in Fallout 4. It's an incredibly creatively designed area full of mostly original creature and enemy designs which are really cool. 3 of the 4 playable factions in Fallout 4 are completely original and I actually really like them. Bethesda could have created their own things to replace ghouls, super mutants and the brotherhood of steel. They didn't, because they wanted that sweet fan service, but they weren't willing to create actual stories and motivations for any of the things they wanted to copy and paste, so they just wrote situations where they didn't have to. Feral ghouls are not inherently a problem on their own, they're a problem with the wider approach to throwing in old stuff purely as references boiled down to their most simple elements.

Again, Fallout 1 and 2 could find reasons for ghouls to be bad without needing to be feral, because people cut off from human society could easily go bad. Feral ghouls aren't a bad idea, but they're used here as a crutch to avoid writing.

Eacaraxe:
Likewise, the Brotherhood exterminatus'ing the Pitt triggered an ethical crisis among the eastern Brotherhood. Lyons' leadership diverged too far from the Brotherhood's original mission, which triggered a backlash that began with the Outcasts and culminated in the Brotherhood as presented in FO4.

And again, that is a functional in-universe explanation. It's not very good, and I'll get to why, but even if it was good there is still the issue that a) it's not clearly explained in game at all, and b) the brotherhood don't actually exist. There is no reason why they should be on the east coast because in universe they originated in California, but they are a recognizable element of the original Fallout series who can be milked for fan service. That is ultimately why they are there. They're the good guys because people remember them as the good guys, so that's all they are now. The most basic, simple, archetypal representation of what they represented.

Secondly, the scourge doesn't make sense as the turning point for the brotherhood, because it's not the kind of thing the brotherhood of fallout 1 and 2 would actually do. They don't particularly care about raiders, and while they don't like obvious mutants they aren't 40k space marines looking to purge the unclean. Their goal is ultimately preservation, both of the brotherhood itself and of the technology they hoard. Bethesda made the brotherhood black and white (literally) when originally they were very firmly grey. Their acknowledgement to the fact that the brotherhood were morally complex in previous games is literally just having them commit genocide for no reason but then turn into good guys because they felt bad, because that's moral complexity.

Fallout Tactics did the same story better, and that's such a bad game it's not even considered canon.

evilthecat:

Secondly, the scourge doesn't make sense as the turning point for the brotherhood, because it's not the kind of thing the brotherhood of fallout 1 and 2 would actually do. They don't particularly care about raiders, and while they don't like obvious mutants they aren't 40k space marines looking to purge the unclean. Their goal is ultimately preservation, both of the brotherhood itself and of the technology they hoard. Bethesda made the brotherhood black and white (literally) when originally they were very firmly grey. Their acknowledgement to the fact that the brotherhood were morally complex in previous games is literally just having them commit genocide for no reason but then turn into good guys because they felt bad, because that's moral complexity.

The worst part about this in Fallout 3 for me is that you have the Outcasts (I think that was their name), the people that disagreed with Lyons and split off in order to remain true to the original BoS goal and methods. Which means that Bethesda at some level was aware of what they were doing with the BoS, realized it clashed with previous canon and still went ahead with their changes, without providing adequate explanation.

To make matters worse, it seems at least some of the writers at Bethesda felt the BoS in Fo3 was a bad idea, since they walk it all the way back in Fo4 and make the Brotherhood you see in the Commonwealth much more closely aligned with the original BoS. I don't mind characters or organizations changing in my stories, but this heavy-handed, ambivalent approach just makes both Fo3 and Fo4 look bad.

evilthecat:
FO3 intro sequence stuff.

You clearly missed the part where I pointed out Vault 101 is a cult. No crap, the Vault security officers roll hard on you and only Gomez questions his orders enough to be friendly to you. That's the entire point of all the "obey the Overseer" propaganda you encounter in the entire intro sequence; for having specifically mentioned the GOAT, you're missing the environmental storytelling in which the GOAT is the most obvious part that directly informs you, the player, why and how later events play out as they do.

Environmental storytelling is pretty much the defining characteristic of the 3D Fallout games.

Now, that disposed, really you're going to characterize killing Kendall as murder? Really?

Feral ghouls.

Actually, there was quite a bit of dialogue about it in Underworld, and a little bit from the Warrington ghouls.

Brotherhood.

You're thinking of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, not Fallout Tactics. The former game is considered universally non-canon, but Bethesda's trying to be cheeky little shits about the canonicity of the latter, picking and choosing only what they like but ignoring the rest. They lifted the BoS's odyssey from west to east straight from the game -- they just seem to not like being called out on it. FO4 actually reinforces FOT's dubious canonicity in Kells' dialogue.

And, your memory of the Scourge is divorced from what was actually said of it in-game. Ashur and Kodiak lay it out. Lyons' detachment got there, and was so disgusted by the brutality, chaos, suffering, and utter inhumanity of what was going on they decided to just burn it all and save who could be saved. That was the turning point, not any sense of collective guilt over having done it. Was the Scourge an act of excessive zeal, and was it foolish for the Brotherhood to just leave afterwards? sure.

Now, the funny thing is, my first Fallout game was 2, and just like today I used to lurk in early forums, email discussion lists, and bulletin boards. The biggest grouch people had of the Brotherhood then was they weren't using their power and technology to help the people of the wastes, and treated the emergence of Maxson and BoS outposts within the NCR as a sign they were taking (baby) steps in the "right" direction. In other words, older Fallout fans actually got what they wanted out of Lyons' faction, but when presented it went 'okay, that's a step too far!'.

Don't get me started on how ridiculous people sound when they claim the BoS in FO4 is in any way "closer" to the BoS in 1 and 2. Yes, the aggressively-expansionist, borderline imperialist, power whose modus operandi is the acquisition of exclusively military technology to exploit against others, who not only intervene in external politics and society but actually work to subvert or overcome the status quo going so far as to extort farmers, is totally more in line with the "original" Brotherhood than Lyons' minimally-interventionist order.

Eacaraxe:
You clearly missed the part where I pointed out Vault 101 is a cult.

And when is this indicated?

Like, if Vault 101 is a cult, then your character was raised in a cult. Amata was raised in a cult. Butch was raised in a cult. Even if we accept that Kendall has been promised 72 sweetrolls in paradise and is thus totally fanatically devoted to martyring himself trying to kill you, it makes no sense that every other character in the Vault except the security team is still perfectly capable of reason.

Vault 101 is an authoritarian society. All the vaults are authoritarian societies, because resources are scarce and ultimately because they are social experiments set up by an authoritarian government. But there is no evidence that Vault 101 was set up to be a cult.

Eacaraxe:
That's the entire point of all the "obey the Overseer" propaganda you encounter in the entire intro sequence; for having specifically mentioned the GOAT, you're missing the environmental storytelling in which the GOAT is the most obvious part that directly informs you, the player, why and how later events play out as they do.

Every Vault has that propaganda though. Like, every single one, and some of them were pretty nice. Again, the vaults are a social experiment set up by an authoritarian society which made extensive use of propaganda in all areas of public life.

I mean, if you want to talk about environmental storytelling, let's talk about one of the most obvious things in he GOAT sequence..

Again, let's imagine this is a cult. Here you have a group of kids who wear different clothes, maintain an internal identity separate to the other vault dwellers and have a self-consciously rebellious and anti-authoriarian attitude. None of these things are compatible with Vault 101 being a cult. Cults do not produce rebellious kids, they fix rebellious kids. They fix them so badly that kids who are raised in cults often never rehabilitate into normal society. But in Vault 101, tunnel snakes rule.

Eacaraxe:
You're thinking of Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel, not Fallout Tactics.

Nah, Fallout Tactics is non-canon. The Midwestern brotherhood and their expedition to Chicago is mentioned in other games, but the events of Fallout Tactics involve some massive retcon of some very important details to the backstory the Fallout setting, and as such it's always been treated as non-canon.

But the Midwestern Brotherhood wasn't the problem. In fact, they make vastly, vastly more sense than the east coast brotherhood because they have actual reasons to do stuff. Their airship crashed near Chicago, and they could not survive with their remaining resources and manpower, so they formed alliances with local settlements and tribes who send them recruits and resources in exchange for protection. Voila, you have a brotherhood of steel who are less isolationist and more helpful, but who are still the same organisation and still have the same objectives. It's believable change, because it's driven by material circumstance.. not spontaneous conversion.

Eacaraxe:
Lyons' detachment got there, and was so disgusted by the brutality, chaos, suffering, and utter inhumanity of what was going on they decided to just burn it all and save who could be saved.

Why?

In every previous incarnation, the brotherhood never cared about what was going on in the rest of the world. This was the fundamental problem with their organisation and their way of life. They were detached from the world in their bunker, and they preferred it that way. In Fallout 1, they are paralysed over how to respond to the super mutant threat because it violated their isolationist ideals. The vault dweller has to convince the brotherhood elders to even help, because they won't do anything on their own. In Fallout 2, the brotherhood is in decline, their presence in Northern California is reduced to a couple of agents. The influence of the brotherhood has never expanded, and they aren't interested in using their remaining power to do anything. Even when one of their agents is murdered by the Enclave, they do nothing. Canonically, after the game ended they didn't even have the power to attack the Enclave remnants in Navarro on their own, and relied on an alliance with NCR.

And sure, it's not a problem if the brotherhood find a new lease of life after the defeat of the enclave. Like, the problems they face in Fallout 2 would be a really good motivation for them to change their ways, like the midwestern brotherhood did in Fallout Tactics and like Veronica wants the Mojave brotherhood to do in New Vegas. But it isn't like the brotherhood was completely unaware that the world outside their bunker was horrible and cruel, that's kind of why they stayed in the bunker in the first place. To have an organisation with literally centuries of culture and tradition based around rationalizing their isolationism suddenly flip on dime because of a sense of moral duty to people who the brotherhood has always believed are primitives who are doomed anyway just isn't good motivation, it's a cheap justification to boil the brotherhood down to the rawest possible elements of just being the "good guys".

Eacaraxe:
Don't get me started on how ridiculous people sound when they claim the BoS in FO4 is in any way "closer" to the BoS in 1 and 2. Yes, the aggressively-expansionist, borderline imperialist, power whose modus operandi is the acquisition of exclusively military technology to exploit against others, who not only intervene in external politics and society but actually work to subvert or overcome the status quo going so far as to extort farmers, is totally more in line with the "original" Brotherhood than Lyons' minimally-interventionist order.

That's true. The FO4 brotherhood are very different from the Brotherhood in Fallout 1 and 2. But, and I think this is what people mean, they have believable motivations. They come across as an organisation trying to do what they think is right, but who ultimately know they can't help everyone and have to put their own needs first.

Also, imperialists? Like, their entire reason for being there is to destroy the institute, which they see as an existential threat to humanity as a whole through the abuse of technology and in particularly, the creation of humanlike synths. The acquisition of technology is military focused because the brotherhood expedition to the commonwealth is military in nature. Extorting farmers is an actual military practice that pre-modern armies relied on to be able to march and fight.

Gethsemani:

evilthecat:

Secondly, the scourge doesn't make sense as the turning point for the brotherhood, because it's not the kind of thing the brotherhood of fallout 1 and 2 would actually do. They don't particularly care about raiders, and while they don't like obvious mutants they aren't 40k space marines looking to purge the unclean. Their goal is ultimately preservation, both of the brotherhood itself and of the technology they hoard. Bethesda made the brotherhood black and white (literally) when originally they were very firmly grey. Their acknowledgement to the fact that the brotherhood were morally complex in previous games is literally just having them commit genocide for no reason but then turn into good guys because they felt bad, because that's moral complexity.

The worst part about this in Fallout 3 for me is that you have the Outcasts (I think that was their name), the people that disagreed with Lyons and split off in order to remain true to the original BoS goal and methods. Which means that Bethesda at some level was aware of what they were doing with the BoS, realized it clashed with previous canon and still went ahead with their changes, without providing adequate explanation.

To make matters worse, it seems at least some of the writers at Bethesda felt the BoS in Fo3 was a bad idea, since they walk it all the way back in Fo4 and make the Brotherhood you see in the Commonwealth much more closely aligned with the original BoS. I don't mind characters or organizations changing in my stories, but this heavy-handed, ambivalent approach just makes both Fo3 and Fo4 look bad.

So I interpret F4 BoS as the synthesis of "we are better than the rest of humanity" Outcast doctrine and "Let's help people" of normal F3 BoS into a "we will force humanity into a better future". They still retained the ideals of the Outcasts of deny technology to the average person but now weren't against "helping" the average person if they were in control. They got rid of the isolationists ideals of the Outcasts and they got rid of the egalitarian normal BoS and decided they knew what was best for society.

But then I wasn't offended that F3 BoS was different than 1 and 2. Staying the same over long periods of time or distance makes little sense to me, even for isolationists. Plus F2, in my mind, broke the cannon far more than F3. So much so that when I replayed the first two a couple of years ago, I quickly played and loved F1 again but quickly turned 2 off. And to this the silliness of having a group in Fallut means everyone follows the leader with no self determination makes no sense to me. Eg. In Beyond the Beef, you choose if they are cannibals or not and for some reason the WHOLE group follows suit. Somehow being tricked into eating human makes you want to be a cannibal? Blackmail etc, is irrelevant becuase we are talking about continuing cannibalism. It's not a hard choice. But, since it's Obsidian and groups define who you are, NPCs can't think for themselves. F3 BoS and Outcast clearly are thinking for themselves and even the Outcasts are split into those wanting to attack BoS and others wanting to go their own way.

Me personally, I think the Outcasts were created as a "we recognise the old games but we want to try to do BoS better". Maybe that's offensive to some people but I personally don't want a remake of F1 and 2. I'm looking for a different story. If you don't like that new story, all power to you. If you want the old story and characters repeated, I'm out. But then I think people getting triggered by MCU movies becuase characters aren't exactly the same as the comics is over the top too and that exactly like this. Letting old stories burden new ones too much is a negative in my books. Bethsheda didn't let BoS stay as they for their second game. It morphed into a new interpretation.

evilthecat:
Like, if Vault 101 is a cult, then your character was raised in a cult. Amata was raised in a cult. Butch was raised in a cult. Even if we accept that Kendall has been promised 72 sweetrolls in paradise and is thus totally fanatically devoted to martyring himself trying to kill you, it makes no sense that every other character in the Vault except the security team is still perfectly capable of reason.

Except for the fact everyone but the security team was freaked out over the radroach infestation at the time, sure.

Again, let's imagine this is a cult. Here you have a group of kids who wear different clothes, maintain an internal identity separate to the other vault dwellers and have a self-consciously rebellious and anti-authoriarian attitude. None of these things are compatible with Vault 101 being a cult. Cults do not produce rebellious kids, they fix rebellious kids. They fix them so badly that kids who are raised in cults often never rehabilitate into normal society. But in Vault 101, tunnel snakes rule.

Yeah, about that...the Overseer's terminal entries highlight that he approved of the Tunnel Snakes and was using them to harass other dwellers, fostering dependency on the security team and compliance to their power. In an enclosed system where one doesn't have an enemy to identify, create one. The entire argument falls apart once one realizes they were a part of the Overseer's regime.

But the Midwestern Brotherhood wasn't the problem. In fact, they make vastly, vastly more sense than the east coast brotherhood because they have actual reasons to do stuff. Their airship crashed near Chicago, and they could not survive with their remaining resources and manpower, so they formed alliances with local settlements and tribes who send them recruits and resources in exchange for protection. Voila, you have a brotherhood of steel who are less isolationist and more helpful, but who are still the same organisation and still have the same objectives. It's believable change, because it's driven by material circumstance.. not spontaneous conversion.

The Midwestern Brotherhood was also comprised of BoS members who questioned the Elders' isolationist regime in the wake of the Master's death and the discovery of the Enclave, and were sent on the mission to quell further dissent in the ranks. They were already inclined to break away from the Brotherhood's initial mission, and given what was said of Lyons' leadership and ethics prior to the Scourge there's little reason to believe it wasn't the case with him. It's clear other Brothers in the west shared Lyons' ethics, since it was stated and shown back west others looked to him as an exemplar of the group's future.

Especially since by the time Lyons was sent on his expedition, Jeremy Maxson was already High Elder, the war with the NCR was underway, and he was looking for reasons to get rid of dissenting Brothers. And don't even try to give me that "but that's from Van Buren and non-canon" shit, there's direct reference to Maxson, the war, and his ideology in both FO3 and FNV.

Conditions for Lyons' expedition would have been worse than those of the expedition that led to the Midwestern Brotherhood's creation, since it's never stated he had an airship nor that his expedition was particularly large. The need to make compromises in the Brotherhood's mission for success would have then been greater than that of the Midwestern Brotherhood.

Why?

This entire argument fails to accommodate one big thing: as isolationist as they were, even though the Brotherhood prior to the events of Fallout 2 may have known about the suffering outside intellectually, they'd never experienced it firsthand. And accommodating the events of FO2 and even FNV, those who did were simply one or two people attempting to speak truth to power in the face of generations' worth of tradition and cold detachment.

Lyons' group did. And, based on Ashur's and Kodiak's accounts, it was on a scale of both size and depravity to beggar belief. It wasn't a "dime flip", it was a moment of catalysis. It should say something, that across the entire franchise, the most axiomatically isolationist Brotherhood members were the ones who never left their bunkers. And of those who did, more often than not they came back with a belief the Brotherhood should get off its ass and do something.

Also, imperialists?

Yeah, imperialists. Destroying the Institute with the Minutemen while still allied with the BoS reinforces, through overhead and direct dialogue, the BoS has little respect for the Minutemen, and the demonstration of the Minutemen's power already has the Brotherhood viewing them as a potential enemy. That, combined with all the side quests and dialogue, makes it clear the Brotherhood is far more interested in the Commonwealth than simply the immediate mission of destroying the Institute. So much so it makes one question if the Institute's presence is simply an excuse to invade and occupy the Commonwealth. They certainly don't seem to be any hurry to leave once the Institute is destroyed, which directly refutes the very notion their mission to the Commonwealth was so narrowly-constructed.

And...extorting farmers was an actual historical military practice? Ya don't say. God forbid we ask why, or why scorched-earth tactics' primary uses were to stymie invaders, or to stop desertion and defection on the part of an invading force.

Eacaraxe:
snip

Okay, so we can go back and forth on the story elements of Vault 101 and whether it makes sense for the vault security team to be berserk fanatics who will go to any lengths to murder one person because their dad left the vault, but even if you can personally believe that, even if it doesn't stretch your credibility, even if you believe that every member of the security team is desperate for martyrdom because they've been religiously indoctrinated by the GOAT exam, let's look at it as a game for a second.

The game gives you a choice whether to kill or spare the overseer. Killing the overseer is an evil act. The game even gives you bad karma for it, and Amata will confront you and make you feel bad.

The game gives you no real choice whether to kill or spare officer Kendall. Killing him is not a choice, unless you like being pursued through the vault by Vault-tec's answer to the terminator, who doesn't feel pity or remorse and will never stop until you are dead.

Even if we take your interpretation at face value. The overseer is personally responsible for the deaths not only of those who were clearly killed by the Vault security (like Jonas) but also all of the Vault security officers you killed on the way out. He's a cult leader, after all, his mujahideen are fanatically loyal and willing to kill and die at his every command because they've been brainwashed and indoctrinated. If he gets a weapon (by taking yours or having one pickpocketed onto him) he will attack you with it immediately, but remember kids, it's still moral choice time so if you kill him you're a bad person.

You're not supposed to think about killing Kendall, but you're supposed to think about killing the overseer because this is the specific time where you think, this is the roleplaying moment, this is the bit where you define who your character is, and it all takes place in a separate universe to the one in which you shot officer Kendall's head into bloody chunks and made his daughter an orphan, because that didn't matter.

And yes, it's a pretty small event in a big game, except it is your first real introduction to the way this game is written, and every part of the game is written specifically in this way, to reduce the impact of choice and to relegate all characters, groups and organisations to the absolute bare bones of their narrative role (generally as bullet receptacles) until it's suddenly time for a #importantmoraldecision.

Eacaraxe:
Conditions for Lyons' expedition would have been worse than those of the expedition that led to the Midwestern Brotherhood's creation, since it's never stated he had an airship nor that his expedition was particularly large. The need to make compromises in the Brotherhood's mission for success would have then been greater than that of the Midwestern Brotherhood.

So why waste manpower and resources killing an entire city just because the people living there are bad?

Again, I am not adverse to changing the brotherhood, or having a chapter of the brotherhood who are less xenophobic or more about using their technological mastery to help or protect people, or who otherwise fix their internal problems and come away stronger for it. That's not where my problem is. My problem is with not doing the work to justify that, and not explaining how it happened. Bethesda should be paying you, because you're doing their job for them and filling in their terrible writing decisions with information that should have been presented to the person playing the game. Just handwaving it away with "oh, but Lyons is nice and so the brotherhood are nice now" isn't enough, it's the seed of an idea but it doesn't explain how that organisation changed, how it's culture (established over two games) changed beyond just the person in charge being hit by a light from the heavens.

And again, if it were just the brotherhood, then fine, we could brush that off, but it isn't.. it's everyone and everything. What about the Enclave. They're mindless grunts in power armour who show up at random to do random things, and sacrifice their own people in open warfare against the brotherhood despite the entire ideology being about saving pure humanity. You barely saw the enclave in Fallout 2, when they showed up or someone dropped a clue about their existence it was a carefully considered exercise in building the mystery and the sense that something big was happening behind all these little events you were getting involved in in the wasteland. You only actually fought them when you went to Navarro at what was probably the end of the game, and even then the ones you fought had immediately apparent motivation to fight you because they were protecting their base on the mainland. In Fallout 2, the enclave were human beings (and one super mutant), they were bad human beings who wanted to do naughty things and needed to be stopped, but the were set up to give the illusion of an enemy force which actually had a plan and were carrying it out intelligently and thus really were the threat they were hyped up to be. Fallout 3 doesn't care about this kind of storytelling, Fallout 3 only remembers that the Enclave were bad guys who wore cool power armour and had vertibirds.

Eacaraxe:
Yeah, imperialists. Destroying the Institute with the Minutemen while still allied with the BoS reinforces, through overhead and direct dialogue, the BoS has little respect for the Minutemen, and the demonstration of the Minutemen's power already has the Brotherhood viewing them as a potential enemy.

Yeah, that's true.

Okay, I'll give you that one. The brotherhood in F4 are kind of dicks, but they do have comprehensible motivations. I mean, let's be honest, the minutemen are a threat to the brotherhood.

It's pretty much the same as every Fallout game for me. I just can't get into this series no matter how hard I try. But I can sink thousands of hours into every TES game.

Honestly, I feel similar about it. It didn't give me a good reason to do the stuff it wants you to do. I couldn't get into the story at all. I don't know. I'll own up to the rose tinted spectacles that I have on whenever I look at Fallout 3.

It has taken me 3 times of selling and re-buying Fallout 4 to get into it. I'm actually loving it.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here