Are you happy for Fallout to remain Post-post apocalyptic?

S

SomeBritishDude

First time out of the vault
As has been mentioned before, most recently in the New Vegas impressions artical Fallout isn't really as much of a post apocalyptic game as it used to be. Hell, really we haven't had a true post apocalyptic game from the Fallout series since the first, at least for me.

The inclusion of elements such as the NCR is bringing the Fallout universe towards a future not so far removed from that Pre-war, at least in america. I wouldn't be surprised if the entirity of america was united under the flag of the NCR within the next 100 years.

I just wondered if people are happy to see this continue? Putting aside gameplay style for a moment, story wise would you like to see the Fallout series move forward in time slowly loosing post-apocalytic elements for retro future sci-fi with a few mutanted creatures running around, or would you rather the Fallout series returned to it's roots whether it be though a prequel, an isolated community where certain factors have stopped them moving forward (aka Fallout 3 but not shit) or even though a second nuclear disaster?
 
The East Coast could have been that return to the 'roots', a game that had taken place around the same time like Fallout 1 did.

But Bethesda closed that possibility.

In general I am not in favor of prequels as they often turn out to be shit or terrible ret cons.
Also, not more isolated communities/regions, its old hat.
 
Well, the nice thing about the Fallout world is that most settlements are still pretty isolated, so it's not hard to make a prequel without retconning.
Of course, Bethesda doesn't do prequels or good non-retconning writing, so that's not gonna happen.
 
I honestly don't mind the series moving forward a bit and people recovering a little, such as farms, trade routes, water purification, and stuff like the NCR wanting to form a nation is fine with me.

Fallout 3 could have told what life was like on the East Coast and set in a similar time frame to FO1. They even had factions like the Talon Mercs. and Riley's Rangers and with a little effort could have turned out well, but sadly they had to add the Brotherhood and Enclave and continue the story from FO2 is a very sloppy way.

It will be interesting to see how far in the future FO4 takes place.
 
^^Compared to the vast majority of post apocalyptic settings it felt a lot more ordered than I would have liked. One of my favourite aspects of post apocalyptic settings is a lack of a unified government. I don't mind the NCR and so on, and NV still carried many of the aspects I love about the genre, but I'm just not especially keen on the game straying any further than this into the realm of a new democratic society and all the mundain real life situations that this brings.

It might be quite nice to get a sneak peak at Fallout in the year 2400 and see what a fully rebuilt Fallout world would look like. As far as the main games are concerned however I want to move away from that back to something more akin to Mad Max ect.
 
The east coast would be much, much more desolate. More mutations, more deaths, more irradiated areas.

The west coast was spared much of the nuking, if I recall correctly. Or at least, it should have been.

At any rate, even if a few civilizations begin to pop up, the game is still post apocalyptic.
 
The only reason I would want the Fallout series to continue at this point is that a developer like Obsidian at least understands some of the gameplay elements that makes Fallout rather unique, meaning how much freedom it gives the player.

If we could get other games with the same design goals then I would gladly have them close down Fallout. Especially since Beth is only going forward chronologically, the series is heading further and further away from some of the core thematics of the setting.

That said, if I have to settle with the way things are now, I'd rather have them take the Obsidian route and try to make the gameworld evolve in a way that makes some sort of sense (rebuilding, new civilizations and so forth) rather than how F3 did it.
 
Starwars said:
The only reason I would want the Fallout series to continue at this point is that a developer like Obsidian at least understands some of the gameplay elements that makes Fallout rather unique, meaning how much freedom it gives the player.
Click to expand...
I'd like to think that Fallout belongs to the modding community. Within a few years (5-10), Fallout 3 and New Vegas will be neglected games, hardly worth playing, while the robust NMA modding community is still making total conversion modifications for the old games. Fallout 1 and 2, and the engine they sit upon (and others, like Lexx's engine) are truly timeless.
 
The world is still post-apocalyptic. I think it's silly to believe we are over the radiation, poverty, tribals, water shortage and monsters just because a dozen settlements are now part of the NCR. The world itself remains a hellhole. And from a player's point of vies, this is a great way to keep seeing new territories... we won't have adventures in the middle of NCR, we'd have adventures on the border wherever that border is. Most of USA and Mexico are still waiting to be tamed and hold many surprises. Plus, let's not forget the NCR can easily crumble and revert to older ways due to some new danger or even inner turmoil.
 
I honestly wish Fallout could die with some dignity remaining.

Bethesda hasn't got a clue and its unlikely Obsidian will be contracted again to make a new FO title, let alone something on the scale of Fallout 1, Fallout 2 or Van Buren.
 
I think we should address the implicit preconceptions you bring to the word "post-apocalyptic."

To me this just means after a/the apocalypse. It doesn't imply any particular look but rather a commentary on decentralized authority and regressive human tenancies (the latter generally manifesting through the technological and socio-political range exhibited from the different communities). In this light, I'm unsure how Fallout 2, 3 and NV wouldn't count as full fledged entries in the post-apocalyptic canon.

That said, I think Fallout should die. It was fun while it lasted but NV will probably be my last waltz through the Wasteland. Even with a new engine I'm not sure Fallout has enough (interesting) lore to sustain itself past the three decent titles in its series (1, 2 and NV). I was originally attracted to the wasteland with Fallout 2 and enjoyed the tactical depth of the combat (now gone), RPG depth (now neutered, though I haven't cracked into my copy of NV to see its real depth) and the entertaining prospect of playing a game which straddled the technological divide between fantasy and sci-fi (i.e. tribals to Enclave)

Hell, if NV had been released in lieu of FO3 I wouldn't have needed to buy the next entry in the series (regardless of whomever created it). NV was purchased as a means of finally getting the experience I expect when I cracked into Bethesda's attempt at recreating the formula (and, though being fun for what it was, it got old and wasn't Fallout).
 
That Fallout should "die," I think, is the wrong term. Every setting and story has an end. They just shouldn't go beyond it.

That's actually my favorite thing about a lot of anime series: They have an story arc, and then the series ends. The series can be wildly popular, but it doesn't start up again unless there's fresh ideas coming. Endless serials where nothing really changes are rarer.

I never really liked that people accepted the stated reasoning behind purchasing IPs (which is to say, when the company says they'll be true to the series but really just want to milk its populariity) - After all, if you really liked the originals so much, they're still there, and nothing further will be as good as them anyway.
 
Thing is, I still would like to see Fallout games that take us further to the East Coast (not the abortion that Bethesda made) but there are some problems with it.

1. I honestly think they can not make leaps like fifty or sixty years anymore. (at least in one game)
To me it sort of looses its believability of the world still looks like the War happened a decade or two ago when almost three or four hundred years have passed.
But I am really sure that Bethesda will stick to these idiotic leaps.

I think there should be a sort of 'deadline', a moment after which no more Fallout games can take place as parts of the world have already rebuilt to the point that anarchy and chaos has been reduced or eliminated.

2. There need to be bigger regions again, not just one city and the direct region around it with some smaller settlements and other places.
If Bethesda honestly thinks they can go on with that formula, doing for example New York, Detroit, Chicago while jumping loads of decades between the places they are creative stupid.

Fallout was more about the development of a big region, not a single location.


But I honestly feel that Bethesda does not have the creativity or simply the spirit to make good Fallout games.
The fans they have generated everything as long as 'PA and Funny', but the creative force behind Fallout has been killed by it.
 
The growth of civilization will not be consistent.

There will always be Rome, and there will always be beyond the Rhine. The rebirth of civilization in Fallout will take hundreds of years more, perhaps it'll never happen. Certainly it will never come back as it way.
 
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
The growth of civilization will not be consistent.

There will always be Rome, and there will always be beyond the Rhine. The rebirth of civilization in Fallout will take hundreds of years more, perhaps it'll never happen. Certainly it will never come back as it way.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that because you want to apologize Bethesda's treatment of Fallout?

NCR seemed to do pretty well and I am sure there are other governments within the former United States.

It will take time of course, but you can't go back to basics with every new Fallout game.
 
The Dutch Ghost said:
Are you saying that because you want to apologize Bethesda's treatment of Fallout?
Click to expand...
I find this incredibly insulting.

No, I didn't want to apologize for Bethesda's treatment of Fallout. Fallout 3 typically does not come to mind when I think of the universe.

The NCR is an exception, not a rule. Most of the mid-west is tribal, loosely coordinated by Caesar's Legion, which, if it does not succeed in invading and seizing the NCR would crumble after his death.

This happens to be in the former most civilized part of the world. Imagine how places like South America and Africa are doing?
 
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
This happens to be in the former most civilized part of the world. Imagine how places like South America and Africa are doing?
Click to expand...

Probably a lot better, by virtue of being nuked less than the major powers.

Also, while we're all feeling insulted, I take umbrage at your wanton statement that we're more "civilized" than anybody else. After all, this game is about NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION - a point made especially galling by the anti-START Treaty NYTimes Op-Ed piece yesterday.
 
Me and Thomas de Aynesworth already made up.

No, I misunderstood the earlier post that ever Fallout game should be as Fallout 3, with no progress or rebuilding.
A post apocalyptic playground in which players pretend they are raiders, soldiers, etc, while collecting all kinds of crap.
 
Nalano said:
Thomas de Aynesworth said:
This happens to be in the former most civilized part of the world. Imagine how places like South America and Africa are doing?
Click to expand...

Probably a lot better, by virtue of being nuked less than the major powers.

Also, while we're all feeling insulted, I take umbrage at your wanton statement that we're more "civilized" than anybody else. After all, this game is about NUCLEAR ANNIHILATION - a point made especially galling by the anti-START Treaty NYTimes Op-Ed piece yesterday.
Click to expand...
You put too much faith in your fellow man.

A systems collapse would force most of South America to break down into tribalism and barbarism in a few decades, especially after transportation breaks down.

Africa wouldn't change all that much from its current incarnation, I don't think.

China is probably completely uninhabitable. Maybe not places like Tibet or Sinkiang, which could have become separate entities. More likely, dozens of little countries, kingdoms, warlordoms etc.

I also do not live in the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top