Support NeoGAF

[The Victorian]

I think the 1950's cultural aesthetic is an important aspect of the Fallout setting. The Fifties are widely regarded as a more innocent and idealistic period, but it was also the era of the Red Scare and McCarthyism. Many believed that nuclear war was inevitable, and the United States government was busy vaporising large chunks of the Marshall Islands with ever more powerful nuclear tests.

The use of the 1950's aesthetic in Fallout serves to contrast the idealism and optimism of the Fifties with the brutal reality of a post-nuclear setting. You see this in the introductory video for the first game - a 1950s-style television broadcast, followed by the camera panning out to reveal a bombed-out cityscape.

Bethesda, as with everything else in the Fallout franchise, only understood this on the most superficial level...the level of "LOL greasers and power armor SO WACKY!!!"

 

[Doctoglethorpe]

I hope they continue working on it, I'd like to see a Bethesda / East Cost --> Obsidian / West Coast --> Repeat pattern.

 

[Sou Da]

Yeah, I've been playing Fallout 1 lately and other than finding the odd Nuka Cola or noticing the 50s sci fi style computers in vaults, you could honestly play the game for hours and never realize that it's supposed to evoke 50s futurism and Americana. It's rather subdued.

(That, and raiders being just raiders and gangsters who told you to buzz off if you bothered them, not drugged out murder zombies)

The first time a Raider actually spoke to me was quote a shock in F4.

 

[EveChristine]

You should check out The Age of Decadence.

I'll do that!!!

 

[R0ckman]

Put this in the Fallout 4 OT but I think it works here too:

I was confused by the complaints about the RPG elements and didn't understand at first but now I get it. I guess I didn't get it because I always play characters that I can relate to. If my character is "evil" he has to have a reason or some kind of element that I can agree with. I won't play a character who talks his way out of every battle, if I think someone or a group needs to die, I'm going to bring on the battle to sentence them to death. I like the flexibility to do whatever I want in one play through if possible. If I don't think they need to die I'll talk my way out of it. I can't go through the game as an unlucky bum or complete weakling because I can't imagine myself or anyone being that 2D, people are a lot more dynamic.

Maybe I'm not great at role playing, I typically will put myself in the role. What would I do if I was an assassin, more specifically, what would I do if my son was stolen and my wife killed in front of me etc. I don't think a lot of people play games where the point is to make the character not at all like themselves. Bethesda is developing the games in the way most people will enjoy them. My wife loves reading, but also content with the limited choices and content with the different expereinces we are having with the game. Same destination, different vehicles.

I don't really need a bunch of lines of dialogue choices, I'm perfectly fine with the stream lining. Not sure I need 5 different ways to say "No" or "Yes". I'd probably play D&D or write a story if I want to create a character that hardly has a reflection on myself.

Really Bethesda can do as they want with the IP, they bought it, what they are doing is working for the majority. Besides issues with the engine being outdated, the graphic design and enviornment is great and the writing is entertaining enough.

 

[Finalow]

edit/

Removing Deathclaws and Radscorpions =/= changing the cause of the apocalypse. Bethesda did a really great job creating things like Mirelurks, Stingwings, Bloaflies, etc. My argument is that they should strive to come up with an entirely new and diverse set of creatures with every game, like they do in the Elder Scrolls franchise. The same with factions; the Institute and the Railroad have far more depth than the BoS in FO4, who seem to be there mostly as an excuse to have cool guys in power armor hanging around.

There's a reason why I didn't include New Vegas when talking about rehashed concepts, Obsidian did manage to add in a decent number of new ideas. It still wasn't totally fresh, but they did enough to differentiate themselves from series staples.

bloatflies have been around since Fallout 3, lol. they added some monsters, sure, and they kept some classic ones, like pretty much any other game in the series and that's what they should do. I don't want to discuss about Fallout 4 here or whatever ''depth'' you saw in the Institute and the Railroad but BoS has some interesting quests, which are also tied to Fallout 3

Spoiler

- liberty prime -

and a new ''base'', which felt more original and appealing than most of the locations in the game.

there are 4 main games (unless you count Fallout1/2 as 2 separated ones, they always felt like one single game to me), but you literally wrote "same content rehashed since 20 years ago", so please, don't make up excuses like you didn't want to include FalloutNV.
and if NV wasn't around, sure, I'd agree to some extent that this series needs (needed?) more new and fresh content.

It's a roleplaying setting. A lot of us comment on the game from that perspective. Think Forgotten Realms or Shadowrun. You can absolutely apply the general rules of the Fallout universe to other places than the U.S. hell, we already got two on the east coast which is already moving far away from the original location (though they did turn them into ridiculous wastelands on a whole different level just to retain the California desert imagery to some extent).

Besides, your perspective that Fallout is just recognizable factions and other obvious tropes is how we ended up with dumb shit like the Brotherhood of Steel being national. They shouldn't have been in that game in the first place. Leave that shit to film franchises, let RPGs keep being RPGs.

uh, I never wrote that a Fallout taking place outside of US couldn't exist at all. my point was that the series has some core elements, whether it's monsters, factions, weapons or whatever else. and as already proved, you can mix up the formula to create something that feels unique and people will still be able to recognize that game as a Fallout game because of those core elements.
not even sure what point you're trying to make with that second part of your post. your perspective of my perspective is wrong, because I didn't imply that "Fallout is just recognizable factions and other obvious tropes (?)", and I don't see what the fuck is wrong with using some factions/organizations like BoS or the Enclave in more than one game (or giving them at least some presence) if they've become a central part of the series. I'm not stating that Fallout without BoS or super mutants isn't Fallout, and trying to be innovative while adding freshness to the formula is always good (and games like F3 and especially F4 probably needed more of that), but going too far and removing a lot of those core elements would be pretty much like making a different game.