Fallout X: Back after those messages

[LibraryOgre]

Part of F4's issue i think is it leaned too heavily on a pre-conceived character. A parent, mother or father. And it kind of subsumed any other character development.

Compare to Fallout 2, which when you were asked if you were a parent played it off with a couple snarky responses. It was something to be aware of but wasn't the only driving force to the Narrative.

To an extent, this really pushes Fallout close to my "Adventure Game" category... not QUITE, but 1, 2, 3, and 4 all had a pretty strongly assumed base character, even if you could make them what you wanted. In my definition, "Adventure Games" are similar to cRPGs in design, but you play a set character. "The Witcher" series, where you're always Geralt of Rivia, qualify as Adventure Games, not RPGs, in my definition. (This is not a judgement value, BTW, just a categorization).

Fallouts don't QUITE do this, but they get close. Fallout 1, you are the Vault Dweller. You can play the game however you want, but your identity is pretty set. Fallout 2, you're the Chosen One. 3, you're the Lone Wanderer. 4, you're the "Sole Survivor". NV gets a pass because, while you wind up with an identity as "The Courier", I don't feel it drives the game, but YMMV. They're flexible enough in concept that you can act any way you choose, but you're still that person.

[MCerberus]

NV gets a pass because, while you wind up with an identity as "The Courier", I don't feel it drives the game, but YMMV. They're flexible enough in concept that you can act any way you choose, but you're still that person.

That's actually kind of interesting since the DLCs' combined storylines end very strongly on the hidden backstory of a more strongly-defined courier, and it's generally well-accepted. I think Lonesome Road gets away with it because they don't fill in any of the "why"s and the beginning of the game is a character reset button anyway.

[LibraryOgre]

That's actually kind of interesting since the DLCs' combined storylines end very strongly on the hidden backstory of a more strongly-defined courier, and it's generally well-accepted. I think Lonesome Road gets away with it because they don't fill in any of the "why"s and the beginning of the game is a character reset button anyway.

I think there's also a non-zero chance that Ulysses is a ****ing nut, and has the wrong person in mind.

[Lord Raziere]

I think there's also a non-zero chance that Ulysses is a ****ing nut, and has the wrong person in mind.

Yeah it would kind of be a bit a black comedy cherry on top to the entire lesson of "sometimes things don't have a meaning to them and bad things just happen" that is the whole rebuttal against him.

[MCerberus]

I think there's also a non-zero chance that Ulysses is a ****ing nut, and has the wrong person in mind.

That would still fit in with the overall theme of legacy between the DLCs. Ulysses in trying to prove his 'one man' theory rolls the dice of history and accidentally creates the force of nature he thought you were. Revenge and hatred leading to violence and destruction. War, never changes

Yeah it would kind of be a bit a black comedy cherry on top to the entire lesson of "sometimes things don't have a meaning to them and bad things just happen" that is the whole rebuttal against him.

funniest joke of the scene is still "Reputation with the Boomer's increased." A subtle reminder of the weirdness of the world you just... plunged into another abyss.

[factotum]

Fallouts don't QUITE do this, but they get close. Fallout 1, you are the Vault Dweller. You can play the game however you want, but your identity is pretty set. Fallout 2, you're the Chosen One. 3, you're the Lone Wanderer. 4, you're the "Sole Survivor". NV gets a pass because, while you wind up with an identity as "The Courier", I don't feel it drives the game, but YMMV. They're flexible enough in concept that you can act any way you choose, but you're still that person.

I don't really see this as defining your character in any way, though, really. Especially not in the first two games, where you're just some random human who lives with a bunch of other random humans--the only thing that really defines you is where you live at the start of the game. That whole guff about the Chosen One in Fallout 2 doesn't really mean anything beyond "You're the player character now".

3 made your father important so the background was more important to the plot, and 4 obviously has the entire main plot revolve around your family, so once again background has to be taken into consideration, so there's a bit more to what you're saying there, I agree.

[LibraryOgre]

I don't really see this as defining your character in any way, though, really. Especially not in the first two games, where you're just some random human who lives with a bunch of other random humans--the only thing that really defines you is where you live at the start of the game. That whole guff about the Chosen One in Fallout 2 doesn't really mean anything beyond "You're the player character now".

3 made your father important so the background was more important to the plot, and 4 obviously has the entire main plot revolve around your family, so once again background has to be taken into consideration, so there's a bit more to what you're saying there, I agree.

Both 1 and 2 had your background be the driving force, as well.

In 1, you're sent out to find the Water Chip; that's your motivating force till about midgame.
In 2, you're looking for a GECK. Once you FIND a GECK, your entire village is captured and you have to rescue them.

Compare this to Skyrim, where you wake up in a cart, no backstory, no importance to the plot until you're revealed to be Protagonist Powers.

[factotum]

Both 1 and 2 had your background be the driving force, as well.

In 1, you're sent out to find the Water Chip; that's your motivating force till about midgame.
In 2, you're looking for a GECK. Once you FIND a GECK, your entire village is captured and you have to rescue them.

Compare this to Skyrim, where you wake up in a cart, no backstory, no importance to the plot until you're revealed to be Protagonist Powers.

Neither of those are part of your character background, though, they're just what you're instructed to do at the start of the game and are thus effectively your first main quest. I don't think it's ever made clear why you were chosen for the job in each case, and certainly in the case of the first game you can even choose to side with the Master and thus effectively destroy your home vault. In the case of Skyrim the fact you're Dragonborn is far more significant to the plot of that game than you being from Vault 13 in Fallout is to that one, so how is that not somehow making your background the driving force? Sure, you can completely ignore the Skyrim main plot for absolutely ages, but you can do the same in Fallout 4!

[Spore]

Compare this to Skyrim, where you wake up in a cart, no backstory, no importance to the plot until you're revealed to be Protagonist Powers.

While I enjoy a nice background motivation, I feel 1 and 2 have poor motivation and at least Skyrim doesn't pretend to make the player character care about anything that is happening. Maybe I don't WANT do save my vault? Maybe I want to explore the wasteland and forget the claustrophobic dictatorship under Vaulttec rule?

Aside from being the best 3D Fallout to date (and yes, 1 and 2 have great mechanics and are actual RPGs), Fallout New Vegas has the right of it. Your character is shot and left for dead, and a good chunk of first playthroughs will seek revenge on Benny. But there are options to side with him, to bed him, to side with his enemies but not murdering him. I am not even sure you are FORCED to find the Platinum Chip for the main story (citation needed?).

That kind of intrinsic motivation suits a modern game better than extrinsic: "do as your quest giver tells you or the game ends." which honestly put me off of Fallout 2 when I got it back in 1998 or so. I enjoyed Baldur's Gate at the same time, and they murdered your stepfather, and left you to fend for yourself. You are instructed to meet friends of your father, but if you do as you're told or not is up to you. When said friends join you're guided towards south with a moderate time requirement, which also doesn't game over you, it simply strips you off of your companions who are forced to investigate in the south.

That's why I hate the general "1 and 2 are so much better games than 3 and 4." Because those games have you on a leash.

[Winthur]

That's why I hate the general "1 and 2 are so much better games than 3 and 4." Because those games have you on a leash.

They don't, though. While Fallout 1 does force you to ultimately save your vault, Fallout 1's original time limits are extremely generous and one of them is extendable, and then the latter one was patched out of the game so once you finish the first part of the story, you are free to do anything you want. In Fallout 2, the only thing causing an instant game over is causing Arroyo to become hostile; you are free to wander the wastes forever for the hardcoded limit of 13 years which would take insane amounts of IRL idling the moment you step out of the village and can ignore the GECK plot if you don't want to partake in it. While you can follow the suggested path of "Find Vic in Klamath Den", you are also just as liable to learn early about Redding or New Reno (NPCs do mark those locations on your map very early in the game!) and go there to become a made man or make a fortune gambling.

Original Fallouts play heavily with a mere illusion of urgency. And in the Baldur's Gate example you are referring to, you are generally led by a breadcrumb trail of investigating all sorts of areas that are only ever open when the relevant story beats are revealed to you. In Fallout 2, you are allowed to go anywhere you want from the start, leading to the infamous Navarro early game skip. Fallout 2 doesn't tell you the only way to San Francisco is a bridge that will only open up when you fix all of the problems in the area. In Fallout 2, you can stumble upon the Raiders camp by accident, while in Baldur's Gate, a bandits camp needs to first be teased by the events of the Nashkel mines even though you know from gossip in the prologue already that bandit attacks are plaguing the area.

[Triaxx]

Something people also forget about Fallout 1/2 which i know because I just did: Both games offered 3 preset characters, or let you build your own. Most people probably immediately went straight to a custom character. But it gave you the option.

As for having a set start well, yeah. Skyrim's first action on giving you control? Give you a quest. Same with Oblivion and Morrowind. Same with Fallout 3 and New Vegas and yes 4.

I think playing into being ex-military would have worked better. You exit the Vault get home and Codsworth tells you the world is rough and says you should grab your old kit in the previously hidden safe in the master bedroom while he lays out your uniform. Now you've got a 10mm and a military uniform and only then does he suggest searching Concord.

[Cikomyr2]

Again, the problem is the disconnect between the game Bethesda want to create and the story they are forcing themselves to write.

Fallout 4 was a cool game about a sole survivor from the pre-War who remember how things were and use that knowledge to affirm his vision on the Commonwealth, rallying the surface settlers and becoming a beacon everyone looks up to because of his virtue or decisions.

Fallout 4 had a weak story about a parent seeking their child.

[Mechalich]

Again, the problem is the disconnect between the game Bethesda want to create and the story they are forcing themselves to write.

Fallout 4 was a cool game about a sole survivor from the pre-War who remember how things were and use that knowledge to affirm his vision on the Commonwealth, rallying the surface settlers and becoming a beacon everyone looks up to because of his virtue or decisions.

Fallout 4 had a weak story about a parent seeking their child.

Some of this is marketing. While I think most of us would agree that the meat of Bethesda open world games is wandering around and side-questing like a demon for dozens or even hundreds of hours, often through multiple playthroughs and utilizing a large number of mods, there's also people who only play the games a modest amount and due to time constraints want a story they can complete in <20 hours of play. This is a notable issue in F76, wherein, because of the HP/Damage growth disconnect actually being powerful enough to take on the late game areas to actual conduct the main quest requires a great deal of play time (especially if you don't know efficient ways to level up).

There's a central tension between those two things that the games have had difficulty integrating. Skyrim, for example, had to drastically cut back the Civil War plotline, which was originally intended to be much more central to the story, because they couldn't make it work, which makes the whole political upheaval aspect of the game come off as really watered down. I would definitely say this is an issue in F4, where the main plot feels almost completely divorced from the background of what's happening in the Commonwealth. I think a big part of it is how the institute is supposed to play as a hidden enemy built around infiltration, which makes it extremely difficult to figure out how, exactly, they are impacting the Commonwealth. All the others do better. 'Secure Clean Water' is an obvious large scale goal for F3 that clearly matters to everyone. Likewise the NCR vs. Legion conflict powering F:NV is clearly relevant to everyone in the Mojave. Even in F76, stopping the Scorched plague is clearly essential to saving Appalachia (to the point that the present, updated, version of the world with living NPCs assumes someone else already did that).

[Triaxx]

Actually that comment made me realize something. The annihilation of the institute should only have been the halfway point in the story. In the same way killing Benny clears the way for the rest of the story to take place, erasing all trace of the institute clears the way for the Commonwealth to break out of the infinite loop they've been trapped in. Burn out the infection for healthy tissue to grow back.

[factotum]

All the others do better. 'Secure Clean Water' is an obvious large scale goal for F3 that clearly matters to everyone.

Although they don't really do a great job of making it *feel* like it matters in-game. Sure, you occasionally get a beggar outside a town asking for water, but there's no other signs of water issues anywhere--heck, in Megaton they not only care so little about water that they're happy to leave their water system full of leaks until a stranger comes along to fix it, but the robot that comes with the house you can get there is capable of making you pure, drinkable water whenever you ask him to. There's a definite disconnect there between what the *story* is saying is the case and what the evidence of what's happening in the game is telling you.

Also, why does your father disable the water purifier to prevent the Enclave getting it? What's the worst they can do with it--turn it off? In which case, disabling it has just done their job for them, well done Pops.

[Rynjin]

Also, why does your father disable the water purifier to prevent the Enclave getting it? What's the worst they can do with it--turn it off?

Uhhhhhh...

[Grim Portent]

I think the main reason dad disables it is more the fear that the Enclave will control access to the water in order to use it as a way to force settlements to submit to their rule, which is Autumn's plan, as opposed to knowledge of Eden's FEV plan.

The Enclave are very much not the kind of people who should have the ability to control something like the water purifier, even if they use it properly, because they'll have an ulterior motive for doing so with potentially disastrous long term consequences.

[Rynjin]

Right; I doubt Liam Dadson ever conceived of the Modified FEV. But that's kind of the point: there's No TELLING what the Enclave will do if they gain control of it.

There are many dumb things about FO3's plot, including in that very scene (good job, dad, you killed yourself and like two whole soldiers, that'll stop 'em...) but there is absolutely a lot of reason to try and ensure the Enclave stays far away from the Purifier.

[Cikomyr2]

Actually that comment made me realize something. The annihilation of the institute should only have been the halfway point in the story. In the same way killing Benny clears the way for the rest of the story to take place, erasing all trace of the institute clears the way for the Commonwealth to break out of the infinite loop they've been trapped in. Burn out the infection for healthy tissue to grow back.

The gameplay should have reflected the story.

The Commonwealth as a whole fears the Institute. But.. then again, the Commonwealth as a whole does not fear the Institute equaly. I feel the game world should have made a point that the cloeer you get to Boston, the more fearful of the Institute - and any organized form or government - everyone is.

How would that be reflected in gameplay? Well, how about central Boston settlements (Diamond city, Goodneighbor, Bunker Hill, add a few more minor settlements) outright refuse to join or ally with the Minutemen or any form of regional authority because they are fearful of the Institute. They are afraid of being the flower that stands out and get chopped.

The farther from the centre of the map you go, the more the Institute becomes more of a generic boogeyman and less an active threat in the mind of people.

And then BAM change in the Status Quo. The Brotherhood appears in the Sky, bunch of fascist xenophobes, who swear they will take the fight against the Institute. Some of the Boston Central settlements do join up with the Brotherhood. Hell, you could have a whole plot about Goodneighbor considering exiling their entite Ghoul population just to have the Brotherhood's support.

Make it about the fear the Institute created in the Commonwealth,and how that fear either keeps everyone isolated or just more willing to embrace a Tyrant.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That's why I hate the general "1 and 2 are so much better games than 3 and 4." Because those games have you on a leash.

That's not why people prefer 1 and 2 over 3 and 4. That has literally nothing to do with it. Most of the '1 and 2 are better than 3 and 4' boil down to 'you got your 3d FPS in my RPG!' complaints.

Also, are you attempting to imply that FO4 doesn't have you on a tight leash? Because, uhh, gonna have to disagree strongly. You're on the heaviest of heavy-handed plot railroads in FO4 of any Bethesda game short of DOOM.

[Winthur]

Most of the '1 and 2 are better than 3 and 4' boil down to 'you got your 3d FPS in my RPG!' complaints.

Which doesn't explain why Fallout New Vegas is generally celebrated by the part of the fanbase that preferred 1 and 2, barring some extreme outliers, and why FNV fans often complain about 3 and 4 in spite of being so similar in the gameplay.

Granted, classic Fallout fanbase is extremely fossilized and often doesn't understand its own favourite games, but most of the complaints about 3 and 4 really resolve around the idea that the storytelling and worldbuilding was always best off in the hands of someone with Black Isle Studios pedigree rather than mere kneejerk reaction to the FPS mechanics. Old RPG fans would generally play moldy garbage if they were convinced it had good writing, which is why Arcanum is a cult classic.

[LibraryOgre]

Actually that comment made me realize something. The annihilation of the institute should only have been the halfway point in the story. In the same way killing Benny clears the way for the rest of the story to take place, erasing all trace of the institute clears the way for the Commonwealth to break out of the infinite loop they've been trapped in. Burn out the infection for healthy tissue to grow back.

My ideal would have been:

1) Wake up
2) Meet Minutemen
3) Meet Brotherhood
4) Meet Institute
5) Meet Railroad

All in pretty quick order.

Get sent to Concord. First place Preston sends you is being used as a base by the Brotherhood, who send you on a mission (hey, let's go with the one you already do). During that mission, you get taken and brought before Shaun.

This somewhat quickly resolves the "Where is my baby" plot, which otherwise stretches a long time, despite being presented as urgent, and moves on to "What path will you take with the Commonwealth?" part. You CAN dawdle, of course, but if you're playing the game for the story, you're not meandering from Concord to Diamond City to the subway to Fort Hagen to... and on and on.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Which doesn't explain why Fallout New Vegas is generally celebrated by the part of the fanbase that preferred 1 and 2, barring some extreme outliers, and why FNV fans often complain about 3 and 4 in spite of being so similar in the gameplay.

F:NV is the outlier because it was actually decently written and has an actually open world without plot railroad. This also appealed to 1 and 2 fans because they got a plot without a railroad even though they still grumbled about the shift away from isometric, but were less disgruntled about it because they actually got a writing team who could find its backside with both hands and a map.

They aren't really celebrated by 1 and 2 fans, they're just less salty about it than 3 and 4.

Granted, classic Fallout fanbase is extremely fossilized and often doesn't understand its own favourite games, but most of the complaints about 3 and 4 really resolve around the idea that the storytelling and worldbuilding was always best off in the hands of someone with Black Isle Studios pedigree rather than mere kneejerk reaction to the FPS mechanics. Old RPG fans would generally play moldy garbage if they were convinced it had good writing, which is why Arcanum is a cult classic.

Different people want different things from video games. People who want a first-person shooter that also has looting and a vestigial level-up mechanic will greatly enjoy FO4. Something like DOOM meets Rage 2. You've got a couple of paths you can take your character down, but leveling is pretty watered down, but the core game mechanic is 'go here, kill stuff, loot, repeat', which is right up the shooter fanbase, hence why FO4 gained a lot of popularity from that group. They made the shooting feel good enough for the FPS kids to have a good enough time.

Those who actually care about story, plot, and lore however... were less impressed. Those who were expecting an RPG and got a shooter were... even less impressed.

I suppose 'moldy garbage' is in the eyes of the beholder. Random slaughter of pixels only goes so far for me, and my FPS days are long behind me, my last one being UT2k4. I'll take slightly less 'realistic' combat in exchange for a game that actually does what it says it does. If it says 'sandbox' I don't expect railroad plot. It says RPG, I expect certain mechanics intrinsic to the genre. If I don't get what is advertised, I'm going to be disappointed. And if I don't care for what I got instead of what I was promised, I'm going to be salty.

I'm not upset at FO4 for being what it is. I'm upset with Bethesda for marketing it as something it wasn't.

[Grim Portent]

My ideal would have been:

1) Wake up
2) Meet Minutemen
3) Meet Brotherhood
4) Meet Institute
5) Meet Railroad

All in pretty quick order.

Get sent to Concord. First place Preston sends you is being used as a base by the Brotherhood, who send you on a mission (hey, let's go with the one you already do). During that mission, you get taken and brought before Shaun.

This somewhat quickly resolves the "Where is my baby" plot, which otherwise stretches a long time, despite being presented as urgent, and moves on to "What path will you take with the Commonwealth?" part. You CAN dawdle, of course, but if you're playing the game for the story, you're not meandering from Concord to Diamond City to the subway to Fort Hagen to... and on and on.

Hmm, I think I'd have Father be one of the first people who talks to you in the post-apocalypse, telling you things over the radio in your pip-boy, and generally directly observing your actions, without necessarily letting on who he is or passing judgement on your choices, letting you meet the other factions and voicing neutral opinions on them.

Then at a certain point, possibly based on meeting a target number of events for him to observe (so the game can do a morality track behind the scenes,) he makes an offer to get you into the Institute so you can find Shaun, who is of course, still him. He's a bit younger, he doesn't have cancer, but he wanted guidance of a kind only you can provide. The Institute is nearly finished with their new reactor and will soon have the essentially unlimited resources it needs to reshape the wasteland to their whims, but they have a limited perspective. Father wants your pre-war perspective to inform his decisions, motivated both by sentiment and by you being the only nearby pre-war person he's aware of.

With the Institute moving to rebuild the Wasteland, ignore it, exterminate it and so on based on your arguments and your actions (hypocrisy making it harder to convince people,) with an altered post game being the equivalent of the previous' installments slideshow ending. Settlements with new sleek and clean buildings made in the Institute style, Synths helping people, advanced medical facilities, a few of the games ruins being reclaimed as field outposts and cleaned up

Options for siding with various other factions and Institute actors' perspectives being part of things of course, and the option to reconcile factions through argument and regime change.

[Spore]

That's not why people prefer 1 and 2 over 3 and 4. That has literally nothing to do with it. Most of the '1 and 2 are better than 3 and 4' boil down to 'you got your 3d FPS in my RPG!' complaints.

It is still part of Fallout 1 and 2, and i do not like it. I don't give a toss about "people" when I am checking if I like a game for MYSELF in my PRIVATE time. This was my personal critique.

That is also why I compared it to Baldur's Gate and not say Borderlands.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

It is still part of Fallout 1 and 2, and i do not like it. I don't give a toss about "people" when I am checking if I like a game for MYSELF in my PRIVATE time. This was my personal critique.

That is also why I compared it to Baldur's Gate and not say Borderlands.

Okay, but that doesn't address the fact that FO4 is far more constrained in plot railroad than ANY of the examples you listed. By that metric alone, it sounds like you would absolutely hate FO4, since its primary feature is the plot railroad.

[LibraryOgre]

Hmm, I think I'd have Father be one of the first people who talks to you in the post-apocalypse, telling you things over the radio in your pip-boy, and generally directly observing your actions, without necessarily letting on who he is or passing judgement on your choices, letting you meet the other factions and voicing neutral opinions on them.

Oh, that Father is talking to you through your Pip Boy is fantastic. Like, you come out of stasis and he starts calling you to it. "Hi. I know you're confused, and mourning your wife/husband. But some things have changed, and I think I better show you, not tell you."

[Vinyadan]

I would have made the Minutemen have their base in a missile silo hosting a minuteman, so that once the baddies launch a ballistic missile at the settlement, the Minutemen all heroically die in a fire as the minuteman flies off to intercept the missile.

[Cikomyr2]

I would have made the Minutemen have their base in a missile silo hosting a minuteman, so that once the baddies launch a ballistic missile at the settlement, the Minutemen all heroically die in a fire as the minuteman flies off to intercept the missile.

Except minuteman missiles were ICBM themselves, not antimissile countermeasures. You are thinking of PATRIOTs i think.

[LibraryOgre]

I would have made the Minutemen have their base in a missile silo hosting a minuteman, so that once the baddies launch a ballistic missile at the settlement, the Minutemen all heroically die in a fire as the minuteman flies off to intercept the missile.

Except minuteman missiles were ICBM themselves, not antimissile countermeasures. You are thinking of PATRIOTs i think.

I think he just wants the Minutemen to die in a fire.