Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Brycen, May 31, 2017.
True. I guess Fo4 is the only one that completely goes off the path.
Wikipedia: Fallout (series):
Fallout is a series of post-apocalyptic retrofuturistic role-playing video games. It was created by Interplay Entertainment. Although the series is set during the 22nd and 23rd centuries, its atompunk retrofuturistic setting and artwork are influenced by the post-war culture of 1950s America, and its combination of hope for the promises of technology, and lurking fear of nuclear annihilation.
From the original Fallout box cover:
Fallout: New Vegas main background art:
Not a single ruined building or structure in sight.
With Fallout: New Vegas, the writers decided that Las Vegas wasn't even directly hit by the nukes in the first place. It's somewhat ironic then that it ended up being called "New" Vegas. The game does not exactly spell "post nuclear".
The building just to the right of the Lucky 38 looks pretty ruined to me.
Also, you are literally judging a game by it's cover. Don't.
What do you mean? The FO3 intro sets the perfect tone for the game you're about to dive into. Arguably you could say the same for the FO1 intro; it's just a zoom out of a TV in Necropolis.
No, it completely fails at setting the tone for Fallout 3. See, the intro sequence is actually good, which is completely unlike the rest of the game.
Okay no. I like fo3s intro but no. The television conveys much more than the radio. It communicated pre war inflation, horrifyingly rampant and accepted jingoism and portrayed the post nuclear war. Both are good intros but they aren't near the same thing. What anything with a slow pullout is the same as fo1s intro now?
Look bottom line post nuclear western with new budding governments is probably the only place this series has left to go without descending into perceptual absurdity ala fallout 3. And there is an explanation in game as to why new vegas still stands so you can't really complain all that much about it from my view.
It only portrayed America before the Great War. Sure, it offered an insight into the pre-war America, but it isn't any better than FO3's intro.
By doing more to set up the world its already a better intro tbh.
Fallout 1s Intro offered insight in to the history and general dystopian nature of the setting, as well as the retro-50s, before panning out to show this world has been destroyed. If it were your first Fallout game, you would already have a general idea of what kind of setting it was.
Fallout 3s Intro was a poorly done attempt to copy that. It panned out on an old crashed bus, with a radio playing, to reveal a figure in Power Armour. It tells us absolutely nothing of the world, nor who the figure in Power Armour is. It introduces nothing to new players. It's a waste of a minute of game time.
Background art generally tries to show the setting the game is set in.
The reason Fallout 1 has ruined buildings is because a big part of the game is Angel's Boneyard, which is literally described as being filled with the "skeletons of buildings". The frames of buildings from this huge metropolis survived. The background shows the setting.
Fallout New Vegas is focused around Vegas, which was designed to be an oasis in the middle of the desert, where people flock to so they can gamble, hence showing a shining bright skyline is far more setting appropriate for that specific game.
The game is supposed to be a pulp post apocalyptic setting that happens after a nuclear war, yes, but this doesn't mean that every single stretch of land has to be nuked.
The game is about a wasteland that was created by nuclear warfare, however having a relatively clean area of land, which generally resisted nuclear strikes isn't contradictory to that. It is still part of this greater, post-nuclear war setting.
Because the city was abandoned for 100 or so years, while the former residents were off forming nomadic tribes, to which House responded by rebuilding the entire city, and recreating the pre-war gambling paradise.
That's why it's called "New" Vegas, because it's rebuilding an old city and recreating it.
Are you kidding?
It's set in a wasteland, with tribes and new fledgling nations, and giant mutant creatures.
Gee, that doesn't seem post-nuclear at all. It might as well be modern day Nevada amirite?
This letter to Inon Zur, published by Obsidian, explains why the Fallout: New Vegas music sounds like it was composed for a Western:
To sum it up in one phrase: Southwest in the Future
Open, Spacious, Raw, Lonesome, Cowboy, Rattlesnake, Desert, Wind, Heat, Rust, Steel, Dirt, Grit
To start with, your Megaton piece from Fallout 3 is along the lines of what we are going for
We also like the spaciousness of Mark Morgan’s piece, Redding, from Fallout 2
The instrumentation should focus on Western/Folk instruments mixed with more Modern, Industrial, Found-Sounds and Gritty Synthesis
Experiment with smaller String Ensembles like quartets where you hear a lot of the rosin on the strings
We envision there being three types of music in the game. Licensed tracks, Ambient Music, and Scripted Music.
The licensed music will focus on the Rat Pack era in Vegas
The scripted music should be the most similar to your work from Fallout 3 but with more of the southwestern influence
The ambient music should be very spacious and open -- We may experiment with layering percussion over the ambient pieces for battles
Compare the Fallout: New Vegas main theme to the first track from Fallout: Van Buren. The former sounds like a Western, the latter does not.
Here's one interpretation: New Vegas is evolving the concept forward by turning the post-apocalyptic Mojave into a new frontier for the post-apocalyptic nations. The world has recovered to the extent that the same stuff Fallout 1 and 2 went for would not work. Hence the shift from post-apocalypse to post-apocalypse Western.
Vegas is the new Wild West with people dying to claim the region for themselves.
Lol at @Brycen's tryhard attempt of copying wiki pages and shit
Nobody's arguing that New Vegas isn't a western.
It's just that Western and Fallout aren't incompatible.
In fact, Fallout suits a western theme, as both are about relatively lawless wastes, ripe with banditry, being colonised. The Wild West is a very reasonable thing for a post-apocalyptic setting to use as a point of contrast.
Also, every Fallout game so far has been about drifting from town to town on a quest, while interacting with the locals and finding out about the troubles they have with raiders, or a local crime lord. This idea of drifting and having a unique adventure each place you go sounds exactly like a pulp western.
Should the western theme in Fallout series have its own thread ?
Apparently Brycen's never seen The Road Warrior.
You've made your last delivery kid. Sorry you got twisted up in this scene.
From where you're kneeling it must seem like an 18-carat run of bad luck.
Truth is...the game was rigged from the start.
LOL! Even Wikipedia: Fallout (series) mentions nothing about the franchise being a Western. So much for the "themes".
For a while, the page even listed Fallout: New Vegas as a spin-off, until someone edited it in May (2017), which may get edited back. That's because the main Fallout games are released with a number.
You are confusing elements with a theme.
It's too blurry; it just looks like it has some of its light off. Besides, the game's narrative confirms that the "New" Vegas was rebuilt and is not in ruins. I guess if you are really desperate, you could pretend there is a "ruined" building in there but it is nothing like the first game's box cover and main menu art where it's clearly visible.
Why would it be the only place to go? They've already changed the location, why is there a need to jump so far forward in time? Besides, it isn't about the "explanation", it's about the writers' choice.
Doesn't sound like the definition of the "post nuclear" or post-apocalyptic genre.
The whole game is named after and revolves around the city that was not directly hit by nukes. That's not what defines the "post nuclear" or post-apocalyptic genre.
That's why I said "somewhat" ironic, considering the supposed "post nuclear" setting. There were no nukes involved with Las Vegas. It should have been clear.
No, I'm not kidding. The game is called Fallout: New Vegas. The city of Las Vegas was not directly hit by nukes. Therefore, the game does not quite qualify for being "post nuclear".
It wouldn't be accurate to call a throwback to the Wild West as "evolving", considering what people of Nevada have already been chronologically exposed to; it's closer to a regression. Besides, however you interpret it, it ends up looking and sounding like a Western, which is a different genre from "post nuclear" or post-apocalyptic. Furthermore, the ambient music from Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout: Van Buren is more modern than that which represents the Wild West.
Finally, they've already changed the location; there is no need to jump so far forward in time as an excuse for a setting that doesn't quite pull off "post nuclear".
Fallout is supposed to be a reference to a nuclear fallout and accompanying fallout shelters. The original game set the tone as "post nuclear". Western is a different genre altogether. It's really that simple.
The images speak for themselves.
More people speak out: Post-apocalyptic "feel"
Does it look like F: NV has lost that post apocalyptic feel?
[. . .]
I just watched the interview from G4tv.com, and saw them go into a swanky hotel covered in lights... with people inside who look like their from 1940s-50s vegas - YES thats the mentaltity but shouldn't they look a bit bedgraggled?
The sky is blue - yea I know a lot of people actually got the fellout mod, but way more didn't. Having a polluted sky just makes the game feel bombed out.
The whole thing just seems way too organized to me, there's army sized factions in control of vast areas. . . .
They may have gone a bit too far with the whole "cowboy" thing. Almost every shot I see someone has a cowboy hat on.
[. . .]
If you ask me the game looks like it's set in a parallel world in the 1950s but with an 1870s "Wild West" twist and all the animals are different. It doesn't look like there's been a horrible nuclear war and everyone is eeking out their survival.
From another discussion:
The cowboy elements mentioned make me angry, I . . . hate westerns, and everyones recent fixation with Red Dead has further put me off, if its too cowboy-y I may just return it.
And another discussion:
my one concern is i hope it's not too cowboyish
To me, this just doesn't *feel* right:
It feels more like a western, with dotted [dilapidated] farms/huts [scattered] about rather than bombed ruins inhabited by desperate scavengers. . . .
What New Vegas lacks:
It doesn't feel very post-apocalyptic.
Vegas wasn't hit directly, and it's been 200 years since the War, so people have moved on and established new societies. . . .
Fallout new Vegas is still the closest we've gotten to a proper fallout game since the original. For what it is, it's near flawless. And no @Brycen there was no need to go so far into the future. In fact they didnt want to. But bethesda demanded it be set after 3 for some reason. So changed had to be made from their original plans.
and as new vegas proved, it doesn't have to. Its a post post apocyptic western and that works wonderfully for fallout. Much more than whatever fallout 3 or 4 tried to do.
A western frontier is the only place a series like this has left to go set so far after the apocalypse what you're asking for would ruin what makes new vegas interesting. You're asking for the world to stay broken and for the universe to have no future. That's horribly nonsensical in universe and limiting creativity.