Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Fallout Discussion' started by Brycen, May 31, 2017.
Aren't they called "mindless" instead of feral? IIRC that is.
Same thing, really.
When I said feral, I meant feral as in resembling a wild animal. I didn't mean, feral as in, running at you like Olympic runners Bethesda style. Personally I don't mind Bethesda's feral ghouls though. They are a lot more deadly.
If you want a deadly quick moving creature in your game, create one. Don't butcher the uniqueness that was the ghoul by turning it from a rotting thinking person into people with a skin condition who may or may not go all 28 days later.
Bethesda didn't butcher ghouls by making the feral ones run fast. They still had a lot of ghouls that were rotting thinking people in their games too. Now if they made all ghouls in their games into feral ghouls who can run like Forrest Gump, I'd agree with you.
Yeah they did. See things that are rotting can't run. Lenny, gecko's town physician basically says ghouls can't run without doing serious damage to themselves. Making them able to run and fall the way they do in fallout 4 basically makes being a ghoul the equivalent of having a skin condition with no other side affects. They are even arguably superhuman to an extent which is just so wrong for what the ghouls were intended to be.
I know running ghouls doesn't make any sense but it's fun for me. It gives you those 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks Later moments, when you are like "OH SHIT" and quickly pull out a weapon because three or four ghouls are charging towards you. The feral ghouls in Necropolis, only attacked you if you got close to them and they were so slow and weak, it was child's play to kill them all.
And that's fine fun is fun but that doesn't change the fact that ghouls of all creatures should not be the 28 days mutant in any fallout game. You create a new mutant to fill that role.
Yeah, they should have created a new mutant to fill in that role. I guess Bethesda was just too cheap too do that.
They're not quite the same thing. /nitpick
Well at least it was just a one off. It's not like they re-used Super Mutants, the Enclave, made a "new" Deathclaw creature but changed "Death" to something else, Brotherhood of Steel, Hubologists or anything else, so we'll let them off.
Ghoul didn't need to be more deadly. They weren't bestiary, but people with an affliction. A faction that you had to interact with. Going that path, they should have made the dwarves more deadly.
Post-apocalyptic, as in post nuclear, genre is typically defined by ruined, half-ruined and abandoned buildings or structures mixed with new, restored, often partially, rougher-looking constructions (perhaps with some exceptions), moody skies, radiation areas and gas masks, among the most common themes.
Go to the images section of a search engine and search for "post-apocalyptic". Notice how even with all the different examples there's a common theme. While at it, search sites like YouTube for "post-apocalyptic music" to listen to a common theme.
Fallout: New Vegas feels mostly like a Western mixed with the 50's mobster theme, where Las Vegas was not even directly hit by nukes—there goes the post nuclear part. The game severely lacks in post-apocalyptic feel. It is even deceptive, considering the context.
Fallout 4 feels largely like colonial America and severely lacks in a post nuclear atmosphere, despite some ruins being present. It feels already too rebuilt.
With Fallout 2, the writers decided to make the Chosen One the grandchild of the Vault Dweller from the original Fallout, thereby necessitating the jump forward in time. However, Fallout: New Vegas and Fallout 4 have no direct connections to either the Vault Dweller or the Chosen One. They both take place in new locations and yet, the writers felt the need to jump far enough forward in time as an excuse for a significant lack of a post nuclear theme.
Fallout 3 had the issue of the setting not matching how many years it's been since the nukes have dropped, among other things.
Fallout 2 has also been described not to feel like the world has been through a nuclear war. It has a similar issue of New Reno, the way it's been written, feeling as out of place as New Vegas, among other things.
Even the original Fallout was far-fetched with factions like Khans. Fallout: New Vegas became even more ridiculous with Caesar's Legion. That's because they lean too much toward a fantasy-like theme.
While it is understandable that people of the wasteland would want to rebuild, if you jump too far forward in time, especially when already changing the location, to where the overall setting looks too rebuilt, then you are no longer quite in the post nuclear genre. The series are called Fallout, after all.
So far, the Fallout franchise has, essentially, driven itself into a dead end from potential post nuclear sequels because it is stuck in a pattern of jumping forward in time while already changing a geographical location.
I don't think we played the same Fallout 4.
It's time for a public announcement:
"Don't feed it."
That is all.
I can't help it, it's like when you see a sign saying "Do not push this button", you just have to do it.
First time I've seen someone who appears to hate Fallout (and misunderstands the point of the post-apocalypse genre) on a Fallout fansite.
EDIT: Good thing for the ignore button.
Notice the typically.
Fallout doesn't have to resemble every other post-apoc in the genre. In fact, even from the original Fallout game it was more like exploring the cities and communities rebuilding in a wasteland, than it was about surviving in a destroyed world.
Just because Fallout games tend to be different from every other post-apocalyptic games, doesn't make them bad. It makes them original. Lots of the difference between Fallout and other post-apocs is what people here love about them.
Where's the fun in that?
Saves time for other things.