Nonsensical Elements in Fallout 3

D

Dakilleux

First time out of the vault
I'm not trying to push away the theory that most of FO3's inconsistensies are directly related to Bethesda's shortcomings, but it's a known fact that the Fallout universe is retro-futuristic. Most 50's comics (or pretty much any form of media entertainment that talks about science and the future) are absolutely completely fucktarded.

Perhaps, with this in mind, Bethesda attempted to reproduce that amount of retardation in most of their storywriting.
 
So you're going to throw out and deem a whole decades worth of science fiction media as "fucktarded" in order to make Bethesda seem like they're being, in a sense, witty when it comes to the way they went about Fallout 3?

I'm sorry, but you're going to need some evidence to back up your claims.
 
The word "most" is too often overlooked. I guess it gets in the way of snappy remarks. What I meant by that is that most mid-century science fiction had plots that heavily relied on nonsensical scientific "fact" which could actually be debunked by real life science and therefore can't be explained away as "fiction".
 
Well, science fiction is utilized to explore the possibilities of science and their outcomes. Sure, it can be debunked now, and even back then, but it's just speculative writing that evaluates current, and not so current, events in the scientific community.

But, on the topic of Bethesda, I have thought about the prospect that perhaps the terrible writing and nonsense was intentional, but if it was it really doesn't help them. Because, if that was indeed the case, they have failed.
 
verevoof said:
Well, science fiction is utilized to explore the possibilities of science and their outcomes. Sure, it can be debunked now, and even back then, but it's just speculative writing that evaluates current, and not so current, events in the scientific community.

But, on the topic of Bethesda, I have thought about the prospect that perhaps the terrible writing and nonsense was intentional, but if it was it really doesn't help them. Because, if that was indeed the case, they have failed.
Click to expand...

To be quite honest it made sense in my head, and then I remembered Oblivion.
 
Pff, comparing one Bethesda fail to another Bethesda fail to justify the fail is FAIL.

That didn't make much sense <____<

I'll admit that I'm much better versed in 60s-70s sci-fi, but generally the point of the genre is not to be scientifically accurate, but to use the imagination and the semi-realistic possibilities in order to provide framework for a cool adventure or (more often than not) explore a traditional ethical dilemma from a different angle.

The fact that FO3 doesn't do much of the "ethical dilemma" stuff is precisely why the inconsistensies in the world-building stick out. If the writing tied them together, there'd be no problems.

Also, you seem to confuse retrofuturism != writing on the topic at the time. It adds an extra perception lens (i.e. how we see now how they saw then how the future would be as opposed to just past writings about the future). That's why Jules Verne != steampunk.
 
Dakilleux said:
Perhaps, with this in mind, Bethesda attempted to reproduce that amount of retardation in most of their storywriting.
Click to expand...
Even if most of the 50s sci fi would be that way (its not though) it would be pure speculation that Bethesda tried to go for that in their game.
 
Dakilleux said:
The word "most" is too often overlooked. I guess it gets in the way of snappy remarks. What I meant by that is that most mid-century science fiction had plots that heavily relied on nonsensical scientific "fact" which could actually be debunked by real life science and therefore can't be explained away as "fiction".
Click to expand...

No. How much 50s fiction have you read, exactly?

For one thing, Fallout's inspiration comes from the Golden Era of Sci Fi writing. That is Lem, Heinlein, Asimov, and others who took the genre very seriously. Miller's A Canticle for Leibowitz is one of the major inspirations, are we going to dismiss it and similar Golden Era "serious" Sci-Fi as nonsensical?

Secondly, what Fallout took primarily from what you describe as "nonsensical scientific fact" is, in fact, that nonsense science, commonly referred to as "science!, not science". That's why it has giant ants, and radiation turning people into ghouls rather than outright killing them.

That does not explain retarded shit, plotholes, internal logical inconsistencies or doing stuff just because it's "kewl"
 
Can you guys not spell cool, innovation, or anything related to that? Sometimes you gotta suspend disbelief, ignore those plot-holes, and have some fun. That's the only reason I was able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation. Or really, any action movie.
 
OakTable said:
Sometimes you gotta suspend disbelief, ignore those plot-holes, and have some fun.
Click to expand...

Well, sometimes these things cannot be ignored and take away from the whole experience.
 
If you are referring to the ending, then hell yes. It was like they wrote themselves in a corner. But all the other stuff I can ignore.
 
OakTable said:
Can you guys not spell cool, innovation, or anything related to that?
Click to expand...
cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions.

couldn't stop myself.
Sometimes you gotta suspend disbelief, ignore those plot-holes, and have some fun. That's the only reason I was able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation. Or really, any action movie.
Click to expand...

I don't want to offend you, but your way of thinking is stupid.

You're saying to ignore major aspects of the game, and force yourself to enjoy what it has left? Doesn't matter if these aspects are little, but at least they are there?
With that way of thinking, you can enjoy the biggest piece of shits our civilisation ever made!
Then, the so called "masterpieces" and also "classics" would never exist, or ever worse, everything would be called like that!

Oh wait...that's what happening right now :P

Shitty Transformers
Oh wait! It gots explozions and stuff!!
MASTERPIECE!!

But all the other stuff I can ignore.
Click to expand...

Okay, it's your opinnion and choice.
Respect others' opinnions.
 
OakTable said:
Can you guys not spell cool, innovation, or anything related to that? Sometimes you gotta suspend disbelief, ignore those plot-holes, and have some fun. That's the only reason I was able to enjoy Terminator: Salvation. Or really, any action movie.
Click to expand...
No one can really demand justification for why or how you enjoy certain things. If you and others are fine with either Fallout 3 or Terminator:Salvation thats no issue at all. But there is no reason to explain now that others should ignore the parts or flaws of something to suddenly beeing able to enjoy it. This isnt going to work as with this fallacy I suddenly can explain everything and give all a reason to work. Bugs? Ignore them, dont even think about about it, pretend them not to be there. Bad story? Again ignore it and pretend you play a good one. And suddenly every game or if you want even movie starts to be a highly enjoyable theme. But I doubt everyone can feel satisfaction with that. Many have a certain expectation which they want to see in a sequel
and I dont think that this is in any way wrong.

Bethesda was rather pleasing fans of Oblivion and gave them a spiritual successor with the name of Fallout. And now those who already didnt liked Oblivion very much (for what ever reason) suddenly should ignore that aspect, move on and start to enjoy that game? Not working for me. I am at least not complaing about that Fallout 3 is not that coherent with the past games what I really complain about is that Bethesda did not even really tried to go for a Fallout design. In the end they feelt proud about "Oblivion with guns".
 
I heavily enjoyed Fallout III and anyone who expects it to be scientifically accuret and Externally Consistent is missing the entier point of the game. It's unrealistic yes but is the real world allt hat fun? having a smaller carry weight and having to lug ammo instead of just have it may be realistic but they are not fun. They are frustrating. Realism should not take priority over fun. but back to my point. Point out any blatent errors in Interanal consistancy then we'll talk about it being a bad game. apart from game mechanics and designe how does it contredict the previous games without any sort of decent Handwave? Does it violate any aspects of it's genre? is the game inconsistent with itself in any way?
 
Public said:
OakTable said:
Can you guys not spell cool, innovation, or anything related to that?
Click to expand...
cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions, cool, innovation, immersion, awesomness, explosions.

couldn't stop myself.
Click to expand...

Actually, OakTable is right-- you misspelled "awesomeness" six times. :wink:
 
tnu said:
I heavily enjoyed Fallout III and anyone who expects it to be scientifically accuret and Externally Consistent is missing the entier point of the game. It's unrealistic yes but is the real world allt hat fun? having a smaller carry weight and having to lug ammo instead of just have it may be realistic but they are not fun. They are frustrating. Realism should not take priority over fun. but back to my point. Point out any blatent errors in Interanal consistancy then we'll talk about it being a bad game. apart from game mechanics and designe how does it contredict the previous games without any sort of decent Handwave? Does it violate any aspects of it's genre? is the game inconsistent with itself in any way?
Click to expand...

Realism is gradual, you dont simply have it or not. Fiction stuff has also to follow its internal logic and rules and themes. Lord the rings or the old SW movies are good and obvious examples of doing this in the right way (Liking them or not has nothing to do with it)
If you want to know why F3 failed in this with a few rare exeptions here and there feel free to browse these fora. It has been discussed to death.
 
Lynette said:
Realism is gradual, you dont simply have it or not. Fiction stuff has also to follow its internal logic and rules and themes. Lord the rings or the old SW movies are good and obvious examples of doing this in the right way (Liking them or not has nothing to do with it)
If you want to know why F3 failed in this with a few rare exeptions here and there feel free to browse these fora. It has been discussed to death.
Click to expand...

Its spelt forums. Shame on you Lynette, I would've thought your grammar was at least above par.

Jokes aside, 50's science fiction will always be better than Fallout 3's writing. Why, because it makes sense. Nightfall by Isaac Asimov is about what happens when a civillisation surrounded by six suns is given 1 night, which causes civillisation to collapse. 1 night destroys it, not some cliched evil organisation with a supervirus and a orbital base, but something as simple as that. And seeing what humanity has become, something like that could bring us to our knees. The 2012 theory has no proof it will happen, yet there seems to be a big fuss about it.
 
Depends. Forum is actually a Latin word. 2nd declension neutral, I think. Which would make the nominative plural "fora," so Lynette is right.
 
White Knight said:
damn. Now I feel stupid.
Click to expand...

Dont need to, you Asimov example was very good.

Now go and destroy this Gecko powerplant and I will forget about your grammar lapsus and you will get your citizen papers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top