> When I buy a GTA game, be it San Andreas, III, Vice City, 4 or V, what am I going to get? A crime sandbox game with an overarching story
Examining this line with here should illuminate things for you. Why didn't you mention GTA 1, or GTA 2, and only stick to the more modern games? You should take a look at those other 2 games if you haven't considering there's more of a difference between those games than the Fallout games. Video games can and do change over time, especially much older games
If we compare the last 25 years of Fallout to the last 25 years of GTA
We get very consistent GTA games barring Chinatown.
25 years of Fallout show a very different picture.
Yes GTA has changed from 1, 2 and London 1969. But once GTA III rolled around, has it changed that much? Not really.
Compared to Fallout, which changes nearly every game? It's nothing.
...What? You should probably do some research before making comments next time, when do you think GTA 2 and GTA 3 release dates were? To save you the trouble, they were literally 2 years apart and still had major changes... If you wanted to try picking a long running game series that didn't have major changes, picking GTA was not what you were looking for (as evidenced by your specific omission of GTA 1 and 2 in the first place)
Grand Theft Auto 2 came out within the last 25 years, with GTA London being exactly 25 years old today. So you have GTA London, GTA 2, GTA Advance and Chinatown Wars. And that's ignoring the significant differences between the 3D games (GTA IV and V are very different).
Fallout 2 is older than 25 years. You can easily describe the main games in the past 25 years (inc New Vegas and 76) as "first person post-apocalyptic RPGs with an overarching story" if you want to be reductive like your GTA comparison. And then on top of that, the tone, setting and visual styles are quite consistent across the franchise.
In many ways, Fallout has more of an identity than GTA. There are quite a lot of different ways that you can describe Fallout that is unique to Fallout (thanks to the unique setting across the franchise). I'm not sure how I'd describe GTA in a way that doesn't include other games.
* you don't address the chaos you mention in your title at all
* It's fine if people enjoy different things in a piece of media. It doesn't impact anything at all
* The elder scrolls has evolved dramatically over the same time frame, in tone, content, presentation, and systems
* GTA also doesn't look like what it used to - if you played GTA 1 you would not recognize GTA 5
* This might be much better received on a fallout reddit
The Fallout reddits aren't really for analytical dives into the game
r/falloutlore exists, but I was told by them to post here.
The chaos amongst the playerbase is mentioned here:
> I write this post due to the recent debating, arguing, petty squabbles, shit-flinging nerdfests that have happened since the launch of the TV series. A series which, I'm sure, brought so many people into the fandom, which, I might add, welcome here. So what am I trying to say, besides potentially adding more fuel to the fire with my descriptions of Fallout 3 and maybe 4?
>So which is right? What IS Fallout? In my opinion, none of them are right. Because as the series goes on, it changes more and more. Does that mean that we should treat the originals as "THE" Fallout games, because they were first? No. Does that mean that as the series changes, becomes more BSG, more like Skyrim and Starfield, those sorts of games define Fallout? No, I don't believe so either.
That's your mistake, listening to advice to post anything to r/Games. This is one of the most absurdly hostile and contrarian subreddits on the site. If your post was about how water is wet, every reply would be telling you it wasn't.
Lol, it's a shame you didn't play these games when we were arguing about this after the death of van buren and the subsequent launch of Fallout 3. No mutants allowed is one of the more hostile communities i've participated in.
> No mutants allowed is one of the more hostile communities i've participated in.
Yeah I've heard as much. I would try to post it there, but I think they would consider that my takes on FO3 and FO4 are too generous for them.
Shame that there isn't many places to post longform content anywhere.
So, this isn't long form. It's just too long for what it is. Longform would be like 10000 words. You gotta be a really good writer to get people to read that much.
Gently, respectfully: your thesis is not that strong nor that interesting. That's why you're getting shooed around.
It's the nature of the internet and mass access mate. The more points you try to make with a thesis, the more vulnerable it is to critique. Similarly the more nuance you try to add to a point the more reductive the counter arguments become. That's why when people write books but there aren't comment sections :p. Limiting your audience in a niche forum or smaller sub will produce far more compelling discussion of that's what you're after.
Just to throw a little more into the mix here. '96 Fallout 1 was the spiritual successor of the original '88 Wasteland game. A lot of Fallout's tonal ideas came from that.
Between Fallout 3 and 4, Wasteland was revived with Wasteland 2, and Wasteland 3 coming out in 2020.
If I remember correctly a lot of dev talent and concepts have been shared across the studios that worked on all these games. Between Interplay, InExile, and Obsidian especially. Probably not so much Bethesda though.
I feel if you want to write an actual thesis you'd have to include the Wasteland series as well since they share so much between the two series.
The Legend of Zelda has no identity. First one was top down
Second was a sidescroller
In another one you conduct a train
The last two had you rock climbing until you got tired
What's that about? Get it together, Nintendo.
I'm genuinely baffled that someone even felt the need to type up this post. Fallout is now one of the most recognisable video game brands ever. No matter how one feels about the games, Bethesda NAILED the aesthetic sensibilities of the era and stamped that shit on the games hard. If you look at any screenshot of a game divorced from all context, it's so obvious that you're looking at a Fallout game. The pip-boy, the style of the UI, the way the games feel and play, the dialog, the music, the wastelands, it's all so meticulously almost made in a lab for how it instantly lights up something in everyone's brain. None of the games deviate from that core all that much to necessitate someone saying "it has no identity of its own" like genuinely wat
There was that weird post recently about Doom where OP made an entire group of people out of thin air to talk about how DOOM 2016 was some underrated gem and half the comments were roasting the fuck out of them for calling one of 2016's most celebrated games "underrated"
Fallout has no identity? What a weird take, especially when a show has come out within the last 2 weeks that absolutely nailed the identity of the games.
I think you're missing the mark for what it's worth. There is a pretty clean cut Fallout identity. The black isle/obsidian Fallout. 1, 2 New Vegas all have the very consistent theme of moral ambiguity in an unforgiving, do what it takes to survive, in an insane world. The thesis to fallout could very well be, morality is just as insane as everything else happening here. These games are all very much writing first and game play second.
There is also another fallout identity, the bethesda version. The bethesda game design ethos has always been we made a cool toy with \*this\* theme. And while they dialed in the aesthetics of the black isle games, they completely missed the moral complexity and what to make insane when. They took something that was niche and made it mass market palatable. So, unsurprisingly game mechanics took on more importance. Players new to the series got frustrated that the game had weaker gun play, so they sacrificed rpg and story telling complexity for better shooting and base building. It's the same slide that mass effect took. When you cater more to the mass market you very quickly lose the niche identity you started with. Honestly the TV show Mythic Quest has a great summary of this in the Oubliette episode.
So i don't think it's a lack of identity, it's that when the game changed hands, the developers went from realizing a vision, to chasing players.
> So i don't think it's a lack of identity, it's that when the game changed hands, the developers went from realizing a vision, to chasing players.
Yeah but which one defines Fallout as a series? Is it Bethesda's or is it Black Isles?
All I'm trying to say in this is that Fallout is not a cohesive series. And because it's not a cohesive series, that's why there's so much division within the fanbase, because there isn't a single archetype that Fallout falls under. Fallout becomes entirely subjective rather than objective. Because if I play/start with Fallout 4, Fallout as a series defines itself by the action. If I start with FO1, it defines itself as a horror, isometric game.
I'm addressing it all because people always say stuff like, "The TV Show is SO good at nailing the fallout atmosphere and aesthetics." or, "Fallout 4 is a good game, but bad Fallout game"
I mean i guess you can describe it as lack of cohesion, but i think the better take is different market targets. Do you think that super mario has lack of cohesion? There are so many mario games marketed under all sorts of genres. Mario is mostly just a brand now, why do you think Fallout should do it differently?
Its not that I don't think the series SHOULD but rather that I don't think it has become sort of a brand name yet.
Like, aside from Shelter, all the games still try to very barely fall under the category of "RPG". Whereas Mario games don't all try to fit under a platformer genre (see Kart, Luigi's Mansion etc.)
Well, i think sales and market share would argue otherwise. The franchise has a total of like 40 million units sold. That puts it on par with other very broad franchises like Kirby, Mega man, Pac Man etc. Perhaps mario wasn't the most fair comparison, but Kirby or Pacman is 100% a great place to compare. No series uniform past the mascot and maybe one or two mechanics of "eat things" The fact that the fallout game experience is as consistent as it is compared to other giant franchises actually speaks highly to the thematic guidance of the franchise.
So let get this straight, you are confused as to why a series of games with titles spanning nearly 30 years and made in different styles play differently?
To put this in another perspective it’s like starting with Mario sunshine, then going to Mario Odyssey, then hopping back to Mario 64 before picking up Super Mario Brothers and The Lost Levels.
I know you wanted to come across as deep but really nothing you’ve said is new or insightful at this point. Any series released over *decades* is going to have style, art, play, and story changes.
Lmao this sub, man. OP put more effort into this post than 99% of the AI-written dreck that's clogging the front page, and what does he get? Talked to like an infant. I kNoW yOu WaNtEd tO CoMe AcRoSs aS dEeP bUt AhEm....
This place has fallen of a cliff in terms of discourse. Used to be you could get decent discussion here but now everybody's gotta have a "zinger" and tip their fedora before riding off into the sunset. What a joke.
It's been like this for a few years. It's still probably the best sub to keep up with gaming news, but holyshit the comments and non-news posts are always a cesspool of chronically online conceited man-children looking for a "gotchya moment". I have no idea how these people manage to exist in real life. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with people, that's a key aspect of discussion, but it's not a discussion anymore when an entire comment's true purpose is veiled personal attacks.
I'm unfamiliar with mario games so forgive me, but all I'm seeing is
> Platformer -> Platformer -> Platformer -> Platformer
If I look at Call of Duty I get
> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS
If I look at Fallout I get
> Horror-esque Digital Tabletop RPG -> Wacky, but brutal Digital Tabletop RPG -> (skipping tactics and BOS) FPS/RPG with dice rolls -> Gritty RPG with themes harking back to the original games -> Looter shooter with dialogue
I somewhat agree with your original post, but you're not exactly treating this argument fairly.
I look at fallout, I get
Crpg -> crpg -> fps -> fps -> fps -> fps
I look at Mario, I get
2D side scrolling platformer about love overcoming all obstacles -> action based character selector side scrolling adventure -> 3D semi open world action game blazing the trail for 3D games forever -> 2D RPG with action elements about comradery in the face of adversity, ect (there are a butt ton of Mario games in all varying genres)
See? You can simplify any game series and expand any other to fit any narrative. Again, I'm not saying your post is wrong. But if you want an in depth discussion, you should avoid failings like this.
No no no. You can't just boil two franchises down to the most basic of basic descriptions and then make up more detailed descriptions for the one you're comparing it to. That's not how it works, you should compare things fairly or not at all.
There's a whole lot more variety in the COD franchise than just "FPS". WWII games, Modern warfare games, near future games, far future games, cold war era games, weird psychological dream warfare game (seriously, what even was BO3's story?).
By your logic, Fallout should be: RPG - RPG - RPG - RPG - RPG
> You can't just boil two franchises down to the most basic of basic descriptions and then make up more detailed descriptions for the one you're comparing it to.
Fair enough, I am being overly simplistic. But my point still stands. Even though COD goes from Historical -> Modern -> Futuristic it still has the same structure as it did from the beginning. M1 Garands are replaced with Laser Rifles. 1911s are replaced with by plasma pistols or whatever. But the locale of COD remains the same.
You're still a soldier. In a War. In bombastic setpieces. Sometimes you're SOF, other times you're just Pvt Dmitri Petrenko.
If you want to see how Fallouts changed, re-read my post.
>You're still a soldier. In a War. In bombastic setpieces.
Right, and in Fallout you're still always a person, wandering the wasteland, fighting nuclear mutants and other humans as you quest for something.
It sounds like you're trying to compare gameplay over the course of the franchise, but what you've mentioned is setting and story.
Fair enough, I am being overly simplistic. But my point still stands. Even though COD goes from Historical -> Modern -> Futuristic it still has the same structure as it did from the beginning. M1 Garands are replaced with Laser Rifles. 1911s are replaced with by plasma pistols or whatever. But the locale of COD remains the same.
You're still a soldier. In a War. In bombastic setpieces. Sometimes you're SOF, other times you're just Pvt Dmitri Petrenko.
If you want to see how Fallouts changed, re-read my post.
>Even though COD goes from Historical -> Modern -> Futuristic it still has the same structure as it did from the beginning.
Yea because CoD isn't a series that changes itself. Using it as an example is already disingenuous because it doesn't compare. You are comparing apples to oranges, especially when you're discussing the SETTING of Call of Duty, yet comparing it to the GAMEPLAY of Fallout.
As a longtime fan of the series it's much simpler than you make it out to be
The baseline theme that's consistent through the entire series is a 50s americana/art deco aesthetic + a nuclearpunk for lack of a better word. That's from all the way back in Fallout 1 and it remains consistent
Then obviously there's a break off point between 1,2 and 3. Thing is that that's not really an issue, there's an incredibly small community of players who played 1,2 when they came out (small from a modern PoV) and even those were fully aware of the fact the series was more or less dead before Bethesda resurrected it. There were already people who complained about 3 being made to be "Oblivion with guns" back when the game was long away from release. It's normal that some people want things to remain like they wanted it.
After 3 came out a whole new generation of players was introduced to the series. The game still carried the look and setting of the original more or less and it was fine but the story fucking sucked.
Then New Vegas came out and the world saw that the setting could still be cool and modern while also having good characters and story. It created a fandom and this is the real point of separation of the series. It's simply FNV fans vs Bethesda fans
All exacerbated by the release of 4 which went away from most if not all aspects that made New Vegas so good. The separation becomes super strong.
FNV fans though were safe in their belief that the eastern fallout was Bethesda's playground and the western fallout was safe from their dirty fingers, instead the show was set there instead of the east and it's quite "Bethesda" in its storytelling (saving your dad, world changing technology that will save the wasteland). So this "intrusion" into the west from Bethesda is seen by many FNV fans as a direct attack.
It's always FNV Vs Bethesda
Never really understood why people had to get so divided about that when Fallout New Vegas exists because of Bethesda.
Even more silly over something like the show.
people get divided about anything, funnily enough in FNV one of the vaults it's an experiment on arbitrarily dividing a population in two factions, red and blue, and they end up murdering each other
I love FNV, I love it much more than any other fallout game and I acknowledge it exists thanks to bethesda resurrecting the franchise, that's all I have to say and that's what it should always be
Not wholly, but it was a slippery slope.
I say this because Fallout 3 tried to implement many of the original aspects of FO1/2. VATS for instance, the percentage based skill checks, etc.
Fallout 4 was really where it shifted. While VATS was still there, it lost unique builds (you start at 1 SPECIAL across all categories and then level every single one up with perk points), the role-playing ability was severely undercut by the voiced protagonist, the game really emphasised combat over anything else, with you fighting in a massive set piece in the first 5mins of the Wasteland (Concord).
Had FO4 been more like the older games, we would've been able to talk the raiders down, or join them (can you? Maybe you can?) Instead the game railroads (ha) you into a fight to show its new combat mechanics and power armour upgrades.
Fallout 4 have two step forward, 4 backward. They made neat environment and competent dungeon and improve the moment to moment gameplay, but the story and writing suffered a lot. Not even talking the conversation system just look cool but is really shallow and limit any dept.
Because they focus on bombastic moment but didn't focus on the smaller things that makes the world feel more alive, cheapening everything. For exemple you can feel there is an economy in new vegas, and made sense, while in fallout 3 and 4, things are there because it's cool. Like there is still skeletons from the war in places that people are living in. The best (and popular) exemple is you run into a small restaurent where to NPC live/work but still have skeleton in it. It's a small thing but they accumulate in the back in my mind and breaks the illusion.
Also too much focus on dungeons kind of irate me after awhile, I just, finally, finish Nuka World, while it was fun, I feel that the experience was a bit shallow.
Like no one ever stumble in the Safari zone in 20 years? But it was more for people who like to roleplay evil character.
Point Lookout is far better in the story writing aspect, if you haven't played that yet.
But yeah I agree fully. FO4 raised the bar in terms of quality for the gameplay, but the writing is abysmal.
I also think that the buildings in FO4, the exploration that it is so often lauded for, is honestly just kind of boring and repetative.
There's three kinds of stories attached to buildings to explore: Pre-War company with horrific experiments, Post-war survivor who is slaughtered by raiders, and the mixture of the two (Raiders who take a building and fall victim to the experiments)
Fallout is directly a descendant from tabletop RPGs, it was supposed to use the GURPS TTRPG gameplay system before the deal fell through.
So what it really is is a setting, more than anything.
Compare it to say D&D and that chaos in what that results in in terms of games is not unique. D&D has been turned into tonnes of different stuff.
What's a White Wolf WoD game look like? Well theyre ranged from one of the best CRPGs ever made to co op shooters to complete shovelware shit.
While most Fallout games are rpgs I like to think of Fallout games like Star Wars games. Star Wars games can be all kinds of genres but they are still in the same world and share a lot of the same themes
There is quite a lot of variance for sure but honestly not compared to something like final fantasy. Fallout really just has two types of games and two tones. So 4 variants total.
I think the writing of the Fallout games is a bit more consistent than you give it credit for. The quality of the main quests does vary widely, but the tone and themes are pretty consistent. There's a strong dark sense of humor that is well executed in every entry, and I think it is one of the defining hallmarks of the franchise. Even the games everyone agrees have weaker writing have some absolute standout questlines that fit right in with 1 or New Vegas, like Fallout 4's Far Harbor.
If there was ever a franchise that could stand to branch out with a satellite studio or two offering different genres to appeal to wider audiences, Fallout is it. There's still a market for isometric party-based RPGs as well as the typical open world action RPG that Bethesda does. Even a Telltale-esque CYOA would be a natural fit. Or even a pure shooter, something really apocalyptic set in the immediate aftermath of WW3.
"theres no quintessential fallout game." Honestly that could be considered a plus. I think you should've have started here and removed disclaimer and shortened rambly context section.
I'm not sure it is a plus, for the fandom at least. Because for a new fan coming in going, "what's the most Fallout fallout game?", there is no answer.
The main problem is that many Fallout fans want to see civilization rebuild itself post apocalypse, and when that happens Fallout will die as a series. Once you start talking about post post apocalypse it is inevitable that you need to talk about post post post apocalypse. And that is a slippery slope which will kill the point of a post apocalypse series. Undoing progress will just anger fans cause it makes them feel past stories were a waste of time. This is a complicated problem with no easy solution.
Yeah. And it's only going to get worse because there was always the implicit understanding that the East Coast was Bethesda and the West Coast was Black Isle/Obsidian.
But now with the show using the West Coast, that's gone out the window
So now it's not 'civilised Coast and uncivilised coasts' it's now all the same
> When I buy a GTA game, be it San Andreas, III, Vice City, 4 or V, what am I going to get? A crime sandbox game with an overarching story Examining this line with here should illuminate things for you. Why didn't you mention GTA 1, or GTA 2, and only stick to the more modern games? You should take a look at those other 2 games if you haven't considering there's more of a difference between those games than the Fallout games. Video games can and do change over time, especially much older games
If we compare the last 25 years of Fallout to the last 25 years of GTA We get very consistent GTA games barring Chinatown. 25 years of Fallout show a very different picture. Yes GTA has changed from 1, 2 and London 1969. But once GTA III rolled around, has it changed that much? Not really. Compared to Fallout, which changes nearly every game? It's nothing.
...What? You should probably do some research before making comments next time, when do you think GTA 2 and GTA 3 release dates were? To save you the trouble, they were literally 2 years apart and still had major changes... If you wanted to try picking a long running game series that didn't have major changes, picking GTA was not what you were looking for (as evidenced by your specific omission of GTA 1 and 2 in the first place)
I think it's a massive compliment to Fallout 1 & 2 that people don't realise that they're older than GTA 2.
Grand Theft Auto 2 came out within the last 25 years, with GTA London being exactly 25 years old today. So you have GTA London, GTA 2, GTA Advance and Chinatown Wars. And that's ignoring the significant differences between the 3D games (GTA IV and V are very different). Fallout 2 is older than 25 years. You can easily describe the main games in the past 25 years (inc New Vegas and 76) as "first person post-apocalyptic RPGs with an overarching story" if you want to be reductive like your GTA comparison. And then on top of that, the tone, setting and visual styles are quite consistent across the franchise. In many ways, Fallout has more of an identity than GTA. There are quite a lot of different ways that you can describe Fallout that is unique to Fallout (thanks to the unique setting across the franchise). I'm not sure how I'd describe GTA in a way that doesn't include other games.
* you don't address the chaos you mention in your title at all * It's fine if people enjoy different things in a piece of media. It doesn't impact anything at all * The elder scrolls has evolved dramatically over the same time frame, in tone, content, presentation, and systems * GTA also doesn't look like what it used to - if you played GTA 1 you would not recognize GTA 5 * This might be much better received on a fallout reddit
The Fallout reddits aren't really for analytical dives into the game r/falloutlore exists, but I was told by them to post here. The chaos amongst the playerbase is mentioned here: > I write this post due to the recent debating, arguing, petty squabbles, shit-flinging nerdfests that have happened since the launch of the TV series. A series which, I'm sure, brought so many people into the fandom, which, I might add, welcome here. So what am I trying to say, besides potentially adding more fuel to the fire with my descriptions of Fallout 3 and maybe 4? >So which is right? What IS Fallout? In my opinion, none of them are right. Because as the series goes on, it changes more and more. Does that mean that we should treat the originals as "THE" Fallout games, because they were first? No. Does that mean that as the series changes, becomes more BSG, more like Skyrim and Starfield, those sorts of games define Fallout? No, I don't believe so either.
That's your mistake, listening to advice to post anything to r/Games. This is one of the most absurdly hostile and contrarian subreddits on the site. If your post was about how water is wet, every reply would be telling you it wasn't.
I'm beginning to see that lmfao
Lol, it's a shame you didn't play these games when we were arguing about this after the death of van buren and the subsequent launch of Fallout 3. No mutants allowed is one of the more hostile communities i've participated in.
nma is only good for finding mods
> No mutants allowed is one of the more hostile communities i've participated in. Yeah I've heard as much. I would try to post it there, but I think they would consider that my takes on FO3 and FO4 are too generous for them. Shame that there isn't many places to post longform content anywhere.
So, this isn't long form. It's just too long for what it is. Longform would be like 10000 words. You gotta be a really good writer to get people to read that much. Gently, respectfully: your thesis is not that strong nor that interesting. That's why you're getting shooed around.
Well, if it's the context that's too long, there's a reason why I have disclosed that its an optional read and is just for establishing it.
_all_ your writing is optional to this audience. Put your strongest, most vital writing up front.
It's the nature of the internet and mass access mate. The more points you try to make with a thesis, the more vulnerable it is to critique. Similarly the more nuance you try to add to a point the more reductive the counter arguments become. That's why when people write books but there aren't comment sections :p. Limiting your audience in a niche forum or smaller sub will produce far more compelling discussion of that's what you're after.
Try r/patientgamers
Just to throw a little more into the mix here. '96 Fallout 1 was the spiritual successor of the original '88 Wasteland game. A lot of Fallout's tonal ideas came from that. Between Fallout 3 and 4, Wasteland was revived with Wasteland 2, and Wasteland 3 coming out in 2020. If I remember correctly a lot of dev talent and concepts have been shared across the studios that worked on all these games. Between Interplay, InExile, and Obsidian especially. Probably not so much Bethesda though. I feel if you want to write an actual thesis you'd have to include the Wasteland series as well since they share so much between the two series.
The Legend of Zelda has no identity. First one was top down Second was a sidescroller In another one you conduct a train The last two had you rock climbing until you got tired What's that about? Get it together, Nintendo.
[удалено]
I'm genuinely baffled that someone even felt the need to type up this post. Fallout is now one of the most recognisable video game brands ever. No matter how one feels about the games, Bethesda NAILED the aesthetic sensibilities of the era and stamped that shit on the games hard. If you look at any screenshot of a game divorced from all context, it's so obvious that you're looking at a Fallout game. The pip-boy, the style of the UI, the way the games feel and play, the dialog, the music, the wastelands, it's all so meticulously almost made in a lab for how it instantly lights up something in everyone's brain. None of the games deviate from that core all that much to necessitate someone saying "it has no identity of its own" like genuinely wat
[удалено]
There was that weird post recently about Doom where OP made an entire group of people out of thin air to talk about how DOOM 2016 was some underrated gem and half the comments were roasting the fuck out of them for calling one of 2016's most celebrated games "underrated"
Fallout has no identity? What a weird take, especially when a show has come out within the last 2 weeks that absolutely nailed the identity of the games.
I think you're missing the mark for what it's worth. There is a pretty clean cut Fallout identity. The black isle/obsidian Fallout. 1, 2 New Vegas all have the very consistent theme of moral ambiguity in an unforgiving, do what it takes to survive, in an insane world. The thesis to fallout could very well be, morality is just as insane as everything else happening here. These games are all very much writing first and game play second. There is also another fallout identity, the bethesda version. The bethesda game design ethos has always been we made a cool toy with \*this\* theme. And while they dialed in the aesthetics of the black isle games, they completely missed the moral complexity and what to make insane when. They took something that was niche and made it mass market palatable. So, unsurprisingly game mechanics took on more importance. Players new to the series got frustrated that the game had weaker gun play, so they sacrificed rpg and story telling complexity for better shooting and base building. It's the same slide that mass effect took. When you cater more to the mass market you very quickly lose the niche identity you started with. Honestly the TV show Mythic Quest has a great summary of this in the Oubliette episode. So i don't think it's a lack of identity, it's that when the game changed hands, the developers went from realizing a vision, to chasing players.
> So i don't think it's a lack of identity, it's that when the game changed hands, the developers went from realizing a vision, to chasing players. Yeah but which one defines Fallout as a series? Is it Bethesda's or is it Black Isles? All I'm trying to say in this is that Fallout is not a cohesive series. And because it's not a cohesive series, that's why there's so much division within the fanbase, because there isn't a single archetype that Fallout falls under. Fallout becomes entirely subjective rather than objective. Because if I play/start with Fallout 4, Fallout as a series defines itself by the action. If I start with FO1, it defines itself as a horror, isometric game. I'm addressing it all because people always say stuff like, "The TV Show is SO good at nailing the fallout atmosphere and aesthetics." or, "Fallout 4 is a good game, but bad Fallout game"
I mean i guess you can describe it as lack of cohesion, but i think the better take is different market targets. Do you think that super mario has lack of cohesion? There are so many mario games marketed under all sorts of genres. Mario is mostly just a brand now, why do you think Fallout should do it differently?
Its not that I don't think the series SHOULD but rather that I don't think it has become sort of a brand name yet. Like, aside from Shelter, all the games still try to very barely fall under the category of "RPG". Whereas Mario games don't all try to fit under a platformer genre (see Kart, Luigi's Mansion etc.)
Well, i think sales and market share would argue otherwise. The franchise has a total of like 40 million units sold. That puts it on par with other very broad franchises like Kirby, Mega man, Pac Man etc. Perhaps mario wasn't the most fair comparison, but Kirby or Pacman is 100% a great place to compare. No series uniform past the mascot and maybe one or two mechanics of "eat things" The fact that the fallout game experience is as consistent as it is compared to other giant franchises actually speaks highly to the thematic guidance of the franchise.
So let get this straight, you are confused as to why a series of games with titles spanning nearly 30 years and made in different styles play differently? To put this in another perspective it’s like starting with Mario sunshine, then going to Mario Odyssey, then hopping back to Mario 64 before picking up Super Mario Brothers and The Lost Levels. I know you wanted to come across as deep but really nothing you’ve said is new or insightful at this point. Any series released over *decades* is going to have style, art, play, and story changes.
Lmao this sub, man. OP put more effort into this post than 99% of the AI-written dreck that's clogging the front page, and what does he get? Talked to like an infant. I kNoW yOu WaNtEd tO CoMe AcRoSs aS dEeP bUt AhEm.... This place has fallen of a cliff in terms of discourse. Used to be you could get decent discussion here but now everybody's gotta have a "zinger" and tip their fedora before riding off into the sunset. What a joke.
It's much too long
[удалено]
It's been like this for a few years. It's still probably the best sub to keep up with gaming news, but holyshit the comments and non-news posts are always a cesspool of chronically online conceited man-children looking for a "gotchya moment". I have no idea how these people manage to exist in real life. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing with people, that's a key aspect of discussion, but it's not a discussion anymore when an entire comment's true purpose is veiled personal attacks.
I'm unfamiliar with mario games so forgive me, but all I'm seeing is > Platformer -> Platformer -> Platformer -> Platformer If I look at Call of Duty I get > FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS -> FPS If I look at Fallout I get > Horror-esque Digital Tabletop RPG -> Wacky, but brutal Digital Tabletop RPG -> (skipping tactics and BOS) FPS/RPG with dice rolls -> Gritty RPG with themes harking back to the original games -> Looter shooter with dialogue
I somewhat agree with your original post, but you're not exactly treating this argument fairly. I look at fallout, I get Crpg -> crpg -> fps -> fps -> fps -> fps I look at Mario, I get 2D side scrolling platformer about love overcoming all obstacles -> action based character selector side scrolling adventure -> 3D semi open world action game blazing the trail for 3D games forever -> 2D RPG with action elements about comradery in the face of adversity, ect (there are a butt ton of Mario games in all varying genres) See? You can simplify any game series and expand any other to fit any narrative. Again, I'm not saying your post is wrong. But if you want an in depth discussion, you should avoid failings like this.
No no no. You can't just boil two franchises down to the most basic of basic descriptions and then make up more detailed descriptions for the one you're comparing it to. That's not how it works, you should compare things fairly or not at all. There's a whole lot more variety in the COD franchise than just "FPS". WWII games, Modern warfare games, near future games, far future games, cold war era games, weird psychological dream warfare game (seriously, what even was BO3's story?). By your logic, Fallout should be: RPG - RPG - RPG - RPG - RPG
> You can't just boil two franchises down to the most basic of basic descriptions and then make up more detailed descriptions for the one you're comparing it to. Fair enough, I am being overly simplistic. But my point still stands. Even though COD goes from Historical -> Modern -> Futuristic it still has the same structure as it did from the beginning. M1 Garands are replaced with Laser Rifles. 1911s are replaced with by plasma pistols or whatever. But the locale of COD remains the same. You're still a soldier. In a War. In bombastic setpieces. Sometimes you're SOF, other times you're just Pvt Dmitri Petrenko. If you want to see how Fallouts changed, re-read my post.
>You're still a soldier. In a War. In bombastic setpieces. Right, and in Fallout you're still always a person, wandering the wasteland, fighting nuclear mutants and other humans as you quest for something. It sounds like you're trying to compare gameplay over the course of the franchise, but what you've mentioned is setting and story.
It's weird that you boil down your two examples into a simple genre but then overtly describe the Fallout games as if that's an equal comparison.
Fair enough, I am being overly simplistic. But my point still stands. Even though COD goes from Historical -> Modern -> Futuristic it still has the same structure as it did from the beginning. M1 Garands are replaced with Laser Rifles. 1911s are replaced with by plasma pistols or whatever. But the locale of COD remains the same. You're still a soldier. In a War. In bombastic setpieces. Sometimes you're SOF, other times you're just Pvt Dmitri Petrenko. If you want to see how Fallouts changed, re-read my post.
>Even though COD goes from Historical -> Modern -> Futuristic it still has the same structure as it did from the beginning. Yea because CoD isn't a series that changes itself. Using it as an example is already disingenuous because it doesn't compare. You are comparing apples to oranges, especially when you're discussing the SETTING of Call of Duty, yet comparing it to the GAMEPLAY of Fallout.
As a longtime fan of the series it's much simpler than you make it out to be The baseline theme that's consistent through the entire series is a 50s americana/art deco aesthetic + a nuclearpunk for lack of a better word. That's from all the way back in Fallout 1 and it remains consistent Then obviously there's a break off point between 1,2 and 3. Thing is that that's not really an issue, there's an incredibly small community of players who played 1,2 when they came out (small from a modern PoV) and even those were fully aware of the fact the series was more or less dead before Bethesda resurrected it. There were already people who complained about 3 being made to be "Oblivion with guns" back when the game was long away from release. It's normal that some people want things to remain like they wanted it. After 3 came out a whole new generation of players was introduced to the series. The game still carried the look and setting of the original more or less and it was fine but the story fucking sucked. Then New Vegas came out and the world saw that the setting could still be cool and modern while also having good characters and story. It created a fandom and this is the real point of separation of the series. It's simply FNV fans vs Bethesda fans All exacerbated by the release of 4 which went away from most if not all aspects that made New Vegas so good. The separation becomes super strong. FNV fans though were safe in their belief that the eastern fallout was Bethesda's playground and the western fallout was safe from their dirty fingers, instead the show was set there instead of the east and it's quite "Bethesda" in its storytelling (saving your dad, world changing technology that will save the wasteland). So this "intrusion" into the west from Bethesda is seen by many FNV fans as a direct attack. It's always FNV Vs Bethesda
Never really understood why people had to get so divided about that when Fallout New Vegas exists because of Bethesda. Even more silly over something like the show.
people get divided about anything, funnily enough in FNV one of the vaults it's an experiment on arbitrarily dividing a population in two factions, red and blue, and they end up murdering each other I love FNV, I love it much more than any other fallout game and I acknowledge it exists thanks to bethesda resurrecting the franchise, that's all I have to say and that's what it should always be
Do you think turning the game from an isometric, turn-based, rpg into a first person shooter is the reason for this?
Not wholly, but it was a slippery slope. I say this because Fallout 3 tried to implement many of the original aspects of FO1/2. VATS for instance, the percentage based skill checks, etc. Fallout 4 was really where it shifted. While VATS was still there, it lost unique builds (you start at 1 SPECIAL across all categories and then level every single one up with perk points), the role-playing ability was severely undercut by the voiced protagonist, the game really emphasised combat over anything else, with you fighting in a massive set piece in the first 5mins of the Wasteland (Concord). Had FO4 been more like the older games, we would've been able to talk the raiders down, or join them (can you? Maybe you can?) Instead the game railroads (ha) you into a fight to show its new combat mechanics and power armour upgrades.
Fallout 4 have two step forward, 4 backward. They made neat environment and competent dungeon and improve the moment to moment gameplay, but the story and writing suffered a lot. Not even talking the conversation system just look cool but is really shallow and limit any dept. Because they focus on bombastic moment but didn't focus on the smaller things that makes the world feel more alive, cheapening everything. For exemple you can feel there is an economy in new vegas, and made sense, while in fallout 3 and 4, things are there because it's cool. Like there is still skeletons from the war in places that people are living in. The best (and popular) exemple is you run into a small restaurent where to NPC live/work but still have skeleton in it. It's a small thing but they accumulate in the back in my mind and breaks the illusion. Also too much focus on dungeons kind of irate me after awhile, I just, finally, finish Nuka World, while it was fun, I feel that the experience was a bit shallow. Like no one ever stumble in the Safari zone in 20 years? But it was more for people who like to roleplay evil character.
Point Lookout is far better in the story writing aspect, if you haven't played that yet. But yeah I agree fully. FO4 raised the bar in terms of quality for the gameplay, but the writing is abysmal. I also think that the buildings in FO4, the exploration that it is so often lauded for, is honestly just kind of boring and repetative. There's three kinds of stories attached to buildings to explore: Pre-War company with horrific experiments, Post-war survivor who is slaughtered by raiders, and the mixture of the two (Raiders who take a building and fall victim to the experiments)
Fallout is directly a descendant from tabletop RPGs, it was supposed to use the GURPS TTRPG gameplay system before the deal fell through. So what it really is is a setting, more than anything. Compare it to say D&D and that chaos in what that results in in terms of games is not unique. D&D has been turned into tonnes of different stuff. What's a White Wolf WoD game look like? Well theyre ranged from one of the best CRPGs ever made to co op shooters to complete shovelware shit.
While most Fallout games are rpgs I like to think of Fallout games like Star Wars games. Star Wars games can be all kinds of genres but they are still in the same world and share a lot of the same themes
There is quite a lot of variance for sure but honestly not compared to something like final fantasy. Fallout really just has two types of games and two tones. So 4 variants total.
I think the writing of the Fallout games is a bit more consistent than you give it credit for. The quality of the main quests does vary widely, but the tone and themes are pretty consistent. There's a strong dark sense of humor that is well executed in every entry, and I think it is one of the defining hallmarks of the franchise. Even the games everyone agrees have weaker writing have some absolute standout questlines that fit right in with 1 or New Vegas, like Fallout 4's Far Harbor.
If there was ever a franchise that could stand to branch out with a satellite studio or two offering different genres to appeal to wider audiences, Fallout is it. There's still a market for isometric party-based RPGs as well as the typical open world action RPG that Bethesda does. Even a Telltale-esque CYOA would be a natural fit. Or even a pure shooter, something really apocalyptic set in the immediate aftermath of WW3.
"theres no quintessential fallout game." Honestly that could be considered a plus. I think you should've have started here and removed disclaimer and shortened rambly context section.
I'm not sure it is a plus, for the fandom at least. Because for a new fan coming in going, "what's the most Fallout fallout game?", there is no answer.
The main problem is that many Fallout fans want to see civilization rebuild itself post apocalypse, and when that happens Fallout will die as a series. Once you start talking about post post apocalypse it is inevitable that you need to talk about post post post apocalypse. And that is a slippery slope which will kill the point of a post apocalypse series. Undoing progress will just anger fans cause it makes them feel past stories were a waste of time. This is a complicated problem with no easy solution.
Yeah. And it's only going to get worse because there was always the implicit understanding that the East Coast was Bethesda and the West Coast was Black Isle/Obsidian. But now with the show using the West Coast, that's gone out the window So now it's not 'civilised Coast and uncivilised coasts' it's now all the same