Fallout Apocrypha - By Chris Avellone

[The_Proletarian]

Chris Avellone has started a page on medium.com, called Fallout Apocrypha, where he answers Fallout questions. If you find anything interesting you can post about it in this thread where we collect developer's answers to fan questions about Fallout related things.

Started a #Fallout "Apocrypha" page in the spirit of the old "Fallout Bible" back at Interplay. (It's also an easier place to compile questions from the community, which you're free to ask here or in the Comments section of the page.) Enjoy!
https://chrisavellone.medium.com/fallout-apocrypha-77c75954641a

 

[Alphons]

If you’re looking for what’s canon and what’s not, then the actual game content from the Bethesda/Bethesda-backed titles (F3, NV, F4, 76) are the sources you should refer to (F1, F2, Tactics are not necessarily canon).

This one is surprising, I thought Tim Cain retired.

Obsidian also has Leonard Boyarsky and Tim Cain on board, even though both are on Outer Worlds (2), and Leonard and Tim are the original creators of Fallout.

I BET YOU HATE BETHESDA FOR WHAT THEY DID TO FALLOUT

Nope.

If anything, they kept it alive, and then added a much deeper layer of open-world exploration than anything we’d been able to do at Interplay.

DID YOU PLAY FALLOUT 4

About 3 hours, then quit over a level design/encounter issue and haven’t gone back.

DID YOU PLAY FALLOUT 76

No.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

If anything, they kept it alive, and then added a much deeper layer of open-world exploration than anything we’d been able to do at Interplay.

There is perhaps more to explore but the content is very shallow and forgettable.
Bethesda's writers could not write on the same level as the writers of the first two games did and I find that they lowered the level of intellect but also the humor in the sequels.

 

[ironmask]

I BET YOU HATE BETHESDA FOR WHAT THEY DID TO FALLOUT

Nope.

If anything, they kept it alive, and then added a much deeper layer of open-world exploration than anything we’d been able to do at Interplay.

I have to strongly disagree with this comment. Sure F1 and F2, may have been nothing but a collection of hub-worlds spread over a map, but these places actually had purposes, in lore and story. Places like the cathedral and the Mutant base have a real reason to exist. Unlike F3 which suffers from really bad world building. So many places exist just for the sake of giving the player something to shoot at and loot. Why is some random run down building with no significance in the middle of nowhere, stuff with Super Mutants? Just because that's why. F3 is filled with locations like this. No thought or reason put into it at all.

 

[It Just Works]

Also, the marketing department at Bethesda had a much stronger push than anything Interplay could have made happen, and arguably helped Fallout enter the mainstream more than Interplay ever could have done. There’s a reason you’ll see Fallout shirts at Target, and that alone is a pretty big accomplishment (whether you agree that’s an accomplishment or not).

I don't understand why this is supposed to be a good thing. Something being mainstream is neither good nor bad, and the heavy marketing of the Vault Boy on t-shirts and stuff is hilarious considering it's supposed to parody that exact kind of thing.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I have to strongly...

That is how I feel about many of the locations in FO3 and FO4.
I would rather had it that the focus had been on place that serve lore and quests, not to mention actually be interesting to explore.
Exploring a pre-war beer bottling plant is not interesting if it is just some bandit camp. Exploring a 'nature Vault', designed to protect pre war plant and animal samples that has gone wrong is.
Quality not quantity is the word.

I don't understand why this is supposed to be a good thing. Something being mainstream is neither good nor bad, and the heavy marketing of the Vault Boy on t-shirts and stuff is hilarious considering it's supposed to parody that exact kind of thing.

I guess from a commercial point of view it is more successful and attracts more buyers, but then why even bother with what you did in Fallout New Vegas and a lot of your other games. Why act like a pseudo intellectual when you know that generic mush makes much more money?
Fallout stood out for me because it was not like a lot of games at the time, it could easily have been made a Diablo clone.
KOTOR2 is more memorable to me because of its story and characters and being very different from traditional Star Wars.
It reads to me that MCA wished that the productions he worked had a larger mass market appeal with merchandise possibilities that would continue bringing in the money after gamers have already moved on to the next hyped title of the moment.

 

[Norzan]

I genuinely cringed when Chris was talking about both the positives and negatives of Fallout 3. He just mentions a bunch of minor shit that hardly matter in the end (like Dogmeat being able to fetch stuff). He doesn't talk about world building, writing, quest design and dungeon design. And just passively mentions that Fallout 1/2 had apparently some "useless" skills but forgets that Fallout 3 also had useless skills (it's worthless to invest into Speech for example).

It just reeks him trying to avoid pissing off Bethesda for some reason (a person in the comments said the same exact thing).

And yes, Bethesda "keeping the franchise alive" and bringing it into the mainstream was not a good thing. Fallout should have stayed a nice product and i don't care how elitist or gatekeeping that sounds.

 

[Jabberwok]

I genuinely cringed when Chris was talking about both the positives and negatives of Fallout 3. He just mentions a bunch of minor shit that hardly matter in the end (like Dogmeat being able to fetch stuff). He doesn't talk about world building, writing, quest design and dungeon design. And just passively mentions that Fallout 1/2 had apparently some "useless" skills but also did Fallout 3 (it's worthless to invest into Speech for example).

It just reeks him trying to avoid pissing off Bethesda for some reason (a person in the comments said the same exact thing).

And yes, Bethesda "keeping the franchise alive" and bringing it into the mainstream was not a good thing. Fallout should have stayed a nice product and i don't care how elitist or gatekeeping that sounds.

I mean, it seems telling to me that he barely touched F4. Feels like players shouldn't bother asking him for subjective opinions on Bethesda. And the comment on what is considered canon is really driving home for me what a worthless concept canon is in a world where IPs are always for sale.

 

[TorontoReign]

I genuinely cringed when Chris was talking about both the positives and negatives of Fallout 3. He just mentions a bunch of minor shit that hardly matter in the end (like Dogmeat being able to fetch stuff). He doesn't talk about world building, writing, quest design and dungeon design. And just passively mentions that Fallout 1/2 had apparently some "useless" skills but also did Fallout 3 (it's worthless to invest into Speech for example).

It just reeks him trying to avoid pissing off Bethesda for some reason (a person in the comments said the same exact thing).

And yes, Bethesda "keeping the franchise alive" and bringing it into the mainstream was not a good thing. Fallout should have stayed a nice product and i don't care how elitist or gatekeeping that sounds.

That kinda depends on who you are. I do enjoy seeing more Fallout content being created like Bethesda has done with the tabletop wargames, shirts, collectibles (even though I don't collect them), and the new TV show that everyone will act like they hate but will watch anyway.

 

[Norzan]

And the comment on what is considered canon is really driving home for me what a worthless concept canon is in a world where IPs are always for sale.

Yeah. At the same time i rolled my eyes when he claimed that Fallout 1 and 2 can not be canon because Bethesda can say so (but they don't or else Fallout 3 wouldn't recycle and reference so much from those games).

and the new TV show that everyone will act like they hate but will watch anyway.

I won't watch it because i have better things to do with my life (like working out) than watching crappy bullshit (specially if they are based on Bethesda's garbage).

 

[xxdemonxspawnnxx]

What a let down...I should have never come across fallout...

 

[Mr Fish]

I BET YOU HATE BETHESDA FOR WHAT THEY DID TO FALLOUT

Nope.

If anything, they kept it alive, and then added a much deeper layer of open-world exploration than anything we’d been able to do at Interplay.

This is pretty much a death of the author statement.
Oh they helped make Fallout popular and reach the mainstream and become a very well-selling product so that excuses every way that they butchered the series to make it such a popular sellable product.

 

[TorontoReign]

I'm just tired of hearing this sentiment in general. It's a shitty fucking video game based on Mad Max. It's not the greatest thing in the world. YOU GUYS ARE. I wouldn't even be here if you guys were not here.

The TV show will bring Fallout into the limelight and make everyone here complain more so it will give them something to do besides whine about Fallout 4 and 76.

 

[Alphons]

Look on the bright side- if Beth made good Fallouts the community wouldn't be so set on making their own.

Currently there're twice as many isometric Fallouts than there were when Bethesda bought the franchise.
And they're still coming out!

 

[TorontoReign]

Ask Chris if they have consulted with him about the TV show.
While @Norzan is busy working out I will be watching shitty b movies since my back is fucked. That is why Fallout the TV show is pretty much the best news I have heard with the series in years. But nah go watch shitty Youtube Nuka Break and fawn all over that crap. *spits*

 

[Risewild]

You guys need to remember that Avellone is not a Fallout creator. He only entered Fallout during Fallout 2 (he's credited as a Level Designer, not even a writer). So his view on the origin of the series and how Bethesda treats lore and canonicity is not representative of what the Fallout creators might think.

I'm thankful and give him credit for (and usually quite like) the Fallout Bible and the work he had on all the games he worked on (Fallout and non-Fallout games). But while I trust Avellone's opinion of Fallout way way way more than Todd, Emil, Petey (Pete Hines) or anyone else over at Bethesda, it's still not as high as Tim Cain or Christopher Taylor, or even Mark O'Green, Leonard Boyarsky, Jason Anderson or Gary Platner opinions.

Also, we need to remember that Chris didn't even work much on Fallout 2, because he was removed from it to work on Planescape Torment instead. So his major work on the Fallout universe was on Van Buren and Fallout New Vegas. Not really a creator of the universe or original lore.

 

[TorontoReign]

I don't trust any of those guys you just named off.

 

[Norzan]

Look on the bright side- if Beth made good Fallouts the community wouldn't be so set on making their own.

Currently there're twice as many isometric Fallouts than there were when Bethesda bought the franchise.
And they're still coming out!

We could have had both because i doubt people wouldn't be making their own Fallout games if the franchise was still producing anything worthwhile.

Fallout New Vegas

And that was DLC and it was somewhat inconsistent in terms of quality.

 

[Risewild]

I don't trust any of those guys you just named off.

But you don't trust anyone.

And that was DLC and it was somewhat inconsistent in terms of quality.

He was Senior Designer of FNV and Project Director and Creative Lead Designer of the DLCs. So he had plenty of influence in base FNV. He also wrote the graphic novel "All Roads", which shows a bit of background on New Vegas main story.

 

[Norzan]

So he had plenty of influence in base FNV.

Lol i have read and heard the exact opposite, how he didn't influenced the main game much at all and was mostly involved with the DLC.