Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Fallout 4' started by RangerBoo, Feb 1, 2020.
I plan on writing an essay on both the positives and negatives of Skyrim which I hope to have out sometime this month. I have to say that despite enjoying the game it has had a negative impact for Bethesda when it comes to writing for their games.
And you're saying the both the Great War and the end of the Tiber line WEREN'T catastrophically destructive disasters? Yeah, neither damaged the infrastructure but neither did Captain Tripps in the Stand.
Apocalypses are political in nature and they happen more or less all the time. WWI was the seminal apocalypse of the Western World, something we may never fully recover from, which is always why I have given the side-eye to the notion of the 50s golden age. America's Best Year, and the West's best Year was probably 1911.
A Post-apocalyptic setting, is always a failed state, or a failing state, as in Oceanana or Panem. And Skyrim is, in the beginning, a failed state not unlike the Australia of the original Mad Max. There are government and electricity, neither is reliable except in urban strongholds.
Then we have been in the post apocalyptic in real life because this has happened many times in history. You are grasping at straws here and trying to reach things that aren't there.
Skyrim isn't post apocalyptic.
Lord of the Rings is much better written than Skyrim. It has actual characters with arcs and a compelling narrative. Frodo is not a chosen one, don't know where you are getting that from. He's not part of prophecy or any other crap. In Skyrim, you are a special snowflake and the game insists you are, and the writing is atrocious. Characters are just exposition dispensers with no arcs of any kind.
You realize another faction was taking control. It isn't just Stormcloaks and Imperials?
A global nuclear war didn't damage what infrastructure? Is this a metaphor or literal? A bunch of nuclear bombs definitely caused damage to buildings and other man-made infrastructure, caused craters, and radiated tons of life on Earth. Martin Septim sacrificed himself to stop Mehrunes Dagon which meant the royal bloodline made of Dragonborns was dead and times were likely to change and they do start to change. Do you see the difference here? A civil war between a weakened central state and a bunch of Nords who want sovereignty over their homeland no matter the cost don't really compare to wiping out a ton of life on Earth and making it harsh to survive on. These are not on the same level.
I am saying that there can be a post-apocalypse with no people; I am saying that warlords and lawlessness do not define a post apocalypse—they are side-effects.
I've played 15 days worth of Fallout 4 on one save file, fight me dudes.
Personally, I like that fallout has a game for everybody.
I'm surprised nobody has pointed out the video is made by Shamus Young who did that Fallout 3 article sometime back.
I do not. I see it as akin to having a Vegemite or surströmming a for everyone.
There is no justification for these to exist—outside of a cash grab; anything less than the original, doesn't deserve the reputation of the name.
Okay, let's be honest.
There are exactly 2 post apocalyptic series worth a shit. Metro, and Fallout. Metro is heavy and philosophical. And Fallout gives you gameplay.
You've got the heavy story from Metro when you want to cry yourself to sleep and you've always got a Fallout game when you want to have fun.
Fallout 1 if you're... Okay I can't see why you'd play Fallout 1 over Fallout 2, Fallout 2 if you want the turn based gameplay and the original one man crusade against the Enclave, Fallout Tactics for multiplayer, Fallout 3 if you have daddy issues and want to play an open world FPS, New Vegas if you want Interplay Lite, 4 if you want to be a death machine, and 76 if you're a masochist without a sadist in your life
For much more consistency in terms of gameplay, writting, tone, exploration and so on.
Implying part of Fallout's charm isn't the characters and story
It felt kinda the same to me. Maybe I made a mistake by playing more modern RPGs and Wasteland before jumping into Fallout 1
Eh... I never cared for Fallout's story as much as Metro's
Find me one that's as good as Fallout or Metro. S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and Wasteland are ded. And I meant post Nuclear, maybe I should clarify
The problem with having a game for everyone is that it makes the entire series inconsistent. Why aren't the sequels improving on the predecessors, like a sequel should?
Wasteland 3 must be imaginary. Could have sworn it was being made. Oh, wait.
Wasteland 3 ceased to exist the moment I finished Wasteland 2 and compared it to Wasteland, Fallout, and Darkest Dungeon of all things (brutal turn based squad combat and a dark storyline filled with casual douchbaggery on absolute awe-inspiring levels)
Still not dead.
So, it doesn't exist because you hated Wasteland 2?