Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by NMLevesque, May 25, 2019.
Came across this. Just thought I'd share it.
That was insightful, and very well done. I didn't agree with all of it, but my disagreements were few, and far between—and were not about opinion of the games themselves. Also I liked the deliberate absence of a Patreon plea, and calls for social media favors at the end; and the genuine 'thanks for watching'.
The video was mentioned on my Youtube recommended page but I only saw some clips of it.
Can someone summarize some of the creator's points for me? I kind of have the feeling that I will strongly disagree with him.
That feature lenght movie. Not sure i'll have the time.
Also, it seems like they omitted Tactics. I hope i am wrong.
I don't remember Tactics being mentioned. FOBOS was mentioned.
NMLevesque, I have seen videos of this type before. They start on how innovating and exciting Fallout 1 and 2 were at the time and how they established new things that are now common in gaming today.
Then when Fallout 3 is brought up they start to talk how the series went a different direction because it was now being produced by Bethesda and how many of the older fans did not like these changes but that it drew in a lot of new fans.
FNV is brought up on how it appealed more to older fans at least lore wise as it was a continuation of Fallout 1 and 2's many storylines. Perhaps talking how it was better received but scored lower than Fallout 3 because Obsidian released a half finished product.
And then near the end the maker of the video brings up Fallout 4 and Fallout 76, how these titles changed the series even more (Fallout 76 being designed for multiplayer) as Bethesda continued experimenting to keep the series relevant, taking inspiration from other (then) current popular titles.
And finally the maker usually reflects on the series and its changes in the last twenty years but that the spirit of the games is alive and well and Bethesda is carrying on the legacy of Black Isle.
Edit: yeah I forgot Fallout Tactics and FOBOS but those are usually footnotes in videos like these.
Usually it comes down that the maker of the video likes Fallout 3 and/or 4 and wants to make clear how the Bethesda games are a logical continuation of the original titles.
I honestly don't need to see another such video, that is why I am asking.
Eerie. I've seen the video in question along with many other Fallout analysis videos on YT and you pretty much described over half of them.
I don't think it's that they copy each other as much as there not being enough space for your average Joe to expand upon with such an obvious story for the franchise. Not everyone is Joseph Anderson.
There's also the desire not to piss off veteran fans of 1/2, mostly millenial fans of 3/NV and the brain dead brats that actually play 4/76. So it all results in a juggling act where nothing substantial is said because the maker wants to steer as much away from actual criticism as possible.
This is why I liked that "In Defense of Fallout 3" video by Many A True Nerd. Not because I agree with everything he says but because he had the balls to blame Bethesda's direction of Fallout on Fallout 2 due to its sheer wackiness and how it's the one thing most people are impacted with after playing it.
It's because a lot of gamers kinda just parrot each other's opinions and don't really have a higher education or just life experience to get a perspective that allows them to have a vocabulary to express their opinion while offering something new to the table.
A lot of people give games journalists shit and they deserve it but the reason imo they get hired over some random youtuber is because at least those people have been trained through a meta narrative than some random gamer on Youtube who talks about why Morrowind is superior to all elder scrolls because of its writing even though 90% of the writing is wikipedia articles.
It's a rare occurrence on YouTube. One of the more irritating pet-peeves of mine are people who use the mantra, "be sure to like, comment, and subscribe". If people enjoy the video and want to comment on it, they'll do it, anyway; and if they don't, they won't. No point in telling to do so when they'll do it on their own accord, and telling them to subscribe just rubs me the wrong way.
This actually makes Bethesda look worse. Instead of going in the direction of the FIRST game (you know, the one that started it all), they decide to continue the wackiness of the second one. Don't blame the second one for the utter nonsense in 3 when there was the first one that they could have followed. Obsidian followed the direction of the first game and it made a much better Fallout game than Bethesda has done so far.
And no matter how stupid Fallout 2 gets, Fallout 3 is so much more stupid. To make matters worse, Fallout 2 treats its serious stuff with respect. Fallout 3 besides being so much more stupid than 2, it doesn't treat its serious stuff with respect. The only person that treats the lack of water with any urgency is the dad's main character, everyone else is going on their lives like nothing is happening. They even have time to roleplay as super heroes and as fucking vampires.
So no, he had no balls whatsoever when he said that. That whole video is just a narrative to defend Fallout 3 at all costs, while trying to justify Bethesda's direction and making other Fallout games worse by comparison (mainly New Vegas). He's a clear Bethesda shill (he defended Fallout 4 lack of consequences by saying that if you go up to BoS base and attack them, they will hate you forever, forgetting that if you wait a few days, they will go back to being neutral and will not attack you) and this all become apparent when even MrMattyPlays said that Fallout 76 was bad, but manyatruenerd was still trying to find things to make the game seem better than it actually is. Of course he couldn't outright fully defend the game like Oxhorn did, so he resorted to the "how do we fix the game" instead.
I believe (a guess on my part) that this may have to do with an uncomplicated elevator pitch. Imagine having to explain the Fallout setting cold to someone totally unfamiliar with it, but eager for the short blurb.
Do you tell them that it's an alternate Earth's future that developed along the hopes and expectations of a naive 1950's pop culture. It was their 'World of Tomorrow' where science kept pace with future weapons and bio/nano technology, but from a 50's design aesthetic; built with style, and built to last——and all blown to hell in two brief hours. A world where their cultural beliefs and misunderstandings fueled their fear & expectations of nuclear war to the point where even the laws of physics were bent to it, and that men could [literally] turn into 50's style B-movie monsters from exposure to radiation and atomic waste? A heavy-Metal~esque darkside setting about the ravages of atomic war, and the tendencies of man to wage war and destroy the world...(and did). About the slow recovery of humanity in the aftermath of the worst nuclear disaster to ever occur in the history of mankind—and the different paths that could take, including the Unity.
...Or do you tell them that it's the future, but it's like the 1950's never ended. It's all 50's chrome and pop-songs, and greaser gangs with elvis hair cuts—but with lasers and mutants and robby the robots.
The first one sounds so much more interesting.
But i get your point. Still makes Bethesda worse than before because even if they wanted for the game to be more zany, they could have met halfway between 1 and 2. Instead it shot over 2 and way beyond that.
Also the second form is not a condensed version of the first; and is not at all accurate. Bethesda pushes a skewed and grossly simplified [fiat] interpretation of what a casual glance might imply of the Fallout setting.... and that's all they needed.
I doubt it ever even occurred to them to make a real Fallout sequel. By the looks of it (and what came after), all they [ever] wanted was an alternate IP skin for their TES template. This lets them sell the game twice; and sell it to who they would consider the 'right' people—series fans be damned.
I think that a major problem wiht bethesda's fallouts games are that they are set distant of the Great WarI think that a major problem wiht bethesda's fallouts games are that they are set distant of the Great War.
If they kept their games near of the Great War, they would do a better job. It seems to me that bethesda can not write a post-apocalyptic society.
No 76 jokes pls
Disclaimer because this be No Mutants Allowed; I'm not defending F3, there are just some things you said that I want to address.
Can you blame them? Fallout 2 is widely more beloved and even though I prefer F1 more, I can objectively say F2 is better. It was an obvious decision to base F3 on the more successful entry.
This doesn't make any sense. How does Bethesda choosing to build F3 on top of F2 instead of F1 absolve F2 of the frankly retarded nonsense it displays at times?
One of the directions made clear for F1 was that if a reference was not understood by the player, they should not even recognize it as such. Obviously this was forgotten for F2.
No, I do blame F2 for the current direction of the series, not Bethesda. Just because I like F2 doesn't mean I'm going to pretend it did no wrong.
No it doesn't. Most references in F2 are downright moronic. Like Reno whores calling devs "sexual gods" and Stuart Little breaking the fourth wall to take a jab at players that min-max their characters even if that's not what you did at character creation.
I said I didn't agree with everything he said, but he's right about F2 setting the tone for the rest of the series.
Just because it's F2 and I like it doesn't mean I will sing its praises while ignoring its flaws.
No, I will sing its praises in spite of them.
If you look... One sees that all of the Fallout games (after the first) are each seemingly made as if based on a degraded & incomplete copy of the [uncomprehended] game that preceded them. They all miss the point in some major, and egregious way. Fallout 2 is bigger, and includes UI & mechanical fixes that should have been in Fallout from the beginning, but the designers were often clueless about the setting... Seemingly believing that anything goes in this wacky land... Including references from "Logan's Run", and a snickering bespectacled scorpion who cheats at chess, and carries a lock pick. Fallout 2 is not better; it is tolerable—in exchange for a larger map, and 'quality of life' fixes.
FO3 is a baad FPS/RPG-lite that seems based on FOBOS, not FO2—it could pass for FOBOS 2.
FO4 is less of an RPG than FO3. FO5 will be less than FO4.
So where does F:NV fit into this seeing as you did not mention it. Did it dodge this "curse of incompetence" you seem to be describing? Because that game was made by people that worked on F2. I can only remember Chris Avellone but I'm sure there were others.
NV was not by Bethesda; though was done on their leash. Obsidian was refused permission for certain area concepts; and who knows what else.
NV doesn't have Bethesda's agenda. Bethesda is not incompetent—they are ruthless.
Tim Cain described of Fallout, that it was difficult to get the setting across to new team members. The principle developers left Interplay just as Fallout 2 development was ramping up; (IRRC the team had just implemented the car). Fallout 2 was designed by devs each working in their own vacuum—as it were. The disparate maps all being cobbled together near the end of development—with the hope that the puzzle pieces would all fit.
This is partly why the levels are isolated from each other, and of inconsistent quality—and believability. [Melkor the spell casting magician, The ghost, The talking Fly-trap plants; The shaman telepathy; King Aurthur and his Brotherhood knights...; The Bridgekeeper.]
I think that NV was a win/win for Bethesda whether it failed or not—either profitable, or vindication for them. I doubt they expected to be outmatched with their own tools, and contribute to an unpleasant yard-stick they'd henceforth be compared to—that's not to say that Obsidian could match their experience using the engine [quirks & best practice].
I would consider NV to be a genuine attempt at a better Fallout game done within their proscribed limitations and the amount of time they had, but equally... based on a misunderstanding of the previous game—fortunately so, and to our benefit.
I think that NV was a decent half-step away from FO3 back towards Fallout. I also think that Bethesda learned from NV—strictly in terms of what's commercial; not in terms of how to make a better Fallout game.
There is a Logans run reference in Fallout 2?
There is one in NV.
Fun fact: never saw the movie. The book is...........average, at best.