Cthulhu Armageddon

Discussion in 'NMA News and Information' started by SuAside, Oct 26, 2016.

  1. SarcasticGoodGuy

    SarcasticGoodGuy Doesn't fit my narrative? Doesn't exist.

    Aug 31, 2016
    And you're Captain Obvious. ego inflates
    Skyrim: shallow, lacking in depth, lore was outsourced to better writers(tell me if I'm wrong I read it somewhere), forgettable repeatable quests with an over reliance on dungeons, main villain was pathetic, no characters with character, magic oversimplified, etc.

    Fallout 3: bad gameplay, technical issues (both optimisation and bugs), the atrocious plot and characters- this entire section is just :falloutonline:

    Dragon Age Origins: just a bit meh. Never a fan of the DA series, Found them a bit... generic? It's been a while so this is unfair criticism tbh.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  2. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    FYI, I just created a thread about The Wolf Among Us which is a good example of mixing the ultra-dark and wacky in a way I love.
     
  3. JO'Geran

    JO'Geran It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    Are you forgetting that Fallout New Vegas only takes part in one tiny part of the world.

    There are plenty of other untouched areas which could be visited next.

    And besides, your assuming that the Fallout world wouldn't be entertaining if we saw a civilized version of it, an upcoming thread I've got planned will say otherwise.
    Because it's set nearly 100 years after the incident itself.

    The first 2 Fallout Games mentioned the pre-war world When it was relevant

    Bethesda mentions it in pretty much every opportunity they get, like somehow over the last 200 years, people somehow haven't gotten used to living on the ruins of a dead civilization.

    This mourning of the pre-war world really needs to die. Fallout isn't about the pre-war world and what was lost, it was about the new world which comes after.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 7
  4. Vergil

    Vergil ♂DEEP♂DARK♂FANTASIES

    Jul 8, 2014
    The issue with this is that it's just a natural progression of the story. You want things to stagnate but that's just not realistic. It's 40 years after Fallout 2, the NCR has no real reason NOT to expand. The end of Fallout 2 has Arroyo turn into a very modern looking city in the coming years, there multiple factions that have been steadily getting more and more resources and expanding. Fallout 2 was already becoming a post-post-apocalypse game and even 1 starts to show the origin of civilization sprouting. It's 164 years after the bombs dropped by Fallout 2, not every disaster lasts forever.
    I rest my case
    But all of these things are present in New Vegas! The NCR is under threat of collapse with bureaucratic corruption, a failing currency, failed military campaigns and general unhappiness. Caesar is one bad seizure away from having his Empire crumble without his guidance. It's one bullet to the head to totally destroy Mr. House's plans etc. Goodsprings has to deal with Powder Gangers, Novac has Legion raids and ghouls attacking, Nipton already got fucked. The NCR and Legion are both Imperialistically going in and claiming the Mojave as their own like they did before with tribal areas, and Caesar's Legion is literally like Rome.

    If the NCR were to "collapse" back into Fallout 2 they'd be pretty much the same and recover lost ground since they were in a much better situation back then than they are now.
    This is just flat out wrong. In Fallout 1 mere water costs a fortune, most of the map is a desert shithole, everything can murder you almost instantly at the start, and without your help many settlements would have died. They make it clear that a horrific tradgedy happen, they just don't sit there and crank over and beat you over the head with it. Meanwhile in Fallout 3 people seem to be getting by just fine, food and water are at modest prices despite say Megaton not having any real farms to get their food from for whatever reason. It's very clear that the nuclear war was a terrible tragedy that decimated the population and the Earth itself. However time does eventually move on. bethesda makes everything look 20 years after the war in their games.
    What? How on Earth do the old games make it look like a giant nuclear war was a definite good thing? It merely doesn't dwell on it since theres more important things at hand like building the future instead of constantly weeping over the past. bethesda and their erection for the pre-war are not a positive. Like New Vegas says you've got to learn to Let Go of the pre-war if you want to build going forward. If the fallout games were just stuck eternally bellyaching over the war instead of the more interesting world of the post war it'd get real boring real fast 4 games and 200+ years down the line.
    >half of this list
    >the order of this list
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 7
  5. JO'Geran

    JO'Geran It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    Honestly, my main problem with keeping the world of Fallout stagnant forever, is that it would get boring very quickly.

    Like, there are only so many possibilities you can actually show with an anarchic post-apocalypse, whereas if you advance the timeline, and let the world slowly rebuild, it could become incredibly interesting to see the games slowly changing, and with each new installment having a different type of world.

    If like you commonly suggest, the world doesn't get civilized, bottlecaps continue to be used as currency, Supermutants continue to be dumb things you shoot at, and you get the same dog over and over, then soon enough you'll get a series of identical games with nothing but minor differences.

    Already with 3 and 4 you see practically identical settings with the only real difference being the villains.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 6
  6. Vergil

    Vergil ♂DEEP♂DARK♂FANTASIES

    Jul 8, 2014
    I dunno. In both games the villains are idiotic techno bad guys with extremely vague goals.
     
  7. joevonzombie

    joevonzombie Buried alive in Golgotha

    Sep 28, 2015
    It also doesn't help Fallout 4 that Wasteland 2 did the whole synth thing a year prior and handled it better.
     
  8. Prone Squanderer

    Prone Squanderer A bit of a Sillius Soddus.

    Jan 3, 2016


    Mass unemployment, loss of civil rights, food shortages, plague, wars across the globe, inflation, racism, truly great things to lose.

    Ok I'm being facetious, but you could argue that the War had positives to it despite the mass destruction and death. It's arguably better that the Pre-War world is gone.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  9. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    California is a pretty big part of the United States. Yes, we could theoretically do all of the states but it's an iconic part of the setting and returning there seems like something which might be a big deal. Besides, New Vegas also developed other parts of the country like Arizona.

    Very true but proximity to larger states changes things as well.

    A civilized world would be interesting but I don't think it would be Fallout-y.

    Well, the nuclear war is a constant daily reminder of why their lives suck as the vast majority of their technology and goods are scavenged from said civilization.

    Why can't it be both?

    Yeah, it's an area I think Bethesda keeps running into as they keep advancing the timeline and it's straining suspension of disbelief. There's no reason they couldn't have set Fallout 3 at the same time as the original games. Yeah, the Enclave but it probably would have made MORE sense that this was a faction which had broken away from the Poseidon Oil Rig Enclave before or never made it.

    There's also a vast unexplained gulf of time in each game which should be full of history. Like, say, the Capital Wasteland had 100 years of rebuilding and then the Super Mutants appeared and destroyed most of the settlements so the survivors were reduced to Raiding.

    Something.

    Well, in such a collapse, I'd want the surviving states to be abjectly against building a new NCR and directly hostile to one another. Vault City would, for example, want to remain independent and actively work to sabotage any new government which would emerge or there be groups who want to keep a small independent set of states.

    Obviously, this would be influenable by any hypothetical PCs.

    The two surviving settlements (three if you count Big Town) who are surrounded by Raiders and Super Mutants?

    It's important not just to distill the Pre-War world into the "bad era." Basically, it shouldn't be just one small tiny period of suffering but all the rest of history and ideals and more which was lost. I think the nuclear setting is more powerful if you're confronted by reminders of the horror which had happened.

    It's one of the biggest disappointments of Fallout 4 that the Sole Survivor NEVER gets to weep for all his or her dead friends and lost world.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2016
  10. Vergil

    Vergil ♂DEEP♂DARK♂FANTASIES

    Jul 8, 2014
    It's not "straining suspension of disbelief", it's already been obliterated! Fallout 3 is 200 years after the war and looks only 20 years after. That's as bad as it gets.
    Which still wouldn't be a time that matched the way Fallout 3's world looks.
    .... that doesn't make any sense at all. How or why the fuck would a bunch of Enclave members just pack up and leave the Oil Rig and go all the way to the other side of the United States and set up shack there? Why would the Enclave forces on the Rig let them? They just fucked off into nowhere while the Enclave was still planning stuff out and what not?
    And it is, at least on the West Coast where actually writers were responsible for that area. Even in bethesda games they at least explain a bit of what happened between their games.
    That's so stupid. It's already been made clear that your "lol just burn it all down perpetual stagnation and le anarchy is da perfect fallout way!" is wrong. How about instead of coming up with contrived reasons for why the world looks that way.... they make the world look appropriate for the time?
    Yea, we get it. You want Fallout to abandon one of it's major themes and be the same thing every single game with 0 growth. No civilization progressing past the shitty town or two stage before being smacked down again. It's very epic.

    Megaton, Arefu(not counting the one person who went crazy), Rivet City,Little Lamplight and many other small towns are never seen being directly attacked or under such a threat that it makes basic survival questionable for them.
    Big Town is the only one and that's because it's filled with a bunch of retarded borderline children.
    It's not important to do that at all. Why the fuck would people 2 centuries later with an entirely new playing field with new big countries like the NCR and Legion forming still take time to weep for the dead they never knew or had any real attachment to. Pre War shit is NOT IMPORTANT in Fallout. It was just a tool to get to that post apocalypse setting. Stop focusing on it.
    Oh I'm sure with bethesda's writing that'd be just such a powerful scene.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  11. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    Fallout under Bethesda has been loudly and nastily criticized for drifting away from its roots and we've seen plenty of franchises suffer for that. I agree with Chris Avellone the setting is getting too civilized and I think it should be set in places where it gets to shine being the post-apocalypse nuclear wasteland simulator it should be. It's not a problem if you don't keep advancing the timeline but as it is, it runs the risk of becoming something it shouldn't be.

    Like Saints Row became a game of alien invasion and taking over hell.

    Ehhh, if that's what works for you, go ahead.

    For me, the games focus should be on good story, good exploration, and good gameplay in post-apocalypse lawless environments. Bottlecaps and Dogmeat are natural parts of that.

    The Super Mutants are classic antagonists but were poorly handled in 4 even if I felt they workd well as engines of terror in Fallout 3.

    ....How?

    The Capital Wasteland is a barren horrific land full of ruins, underground tunnels, and a few shantytowns. The Commonwealth is a pastoral bunch of farmlands and a giant swamp with one big radiation zone. Really, Boston is just poorly designed with no thought to story or sidequest design.

    I don't disagree here.

    The Enclave may have sent its soldiers to recover a bunch of vital military equipment or other materials (since they live on an Oil Rig and might need it) or join up with a pure group of humans they made contact with for more breeding material. They might have also discovered Raven's Rock and decided to set up a base there to restore vital military systems. They gave an explanation in the games which works because of vertibirds but it still felt unncessary.

    I admit I tend to like tragedies and the march of history not going in a straight like. Arthur Maxson is a great character because he takes the Paladin-esque Lyons legacy and shits on it in a way which is very true to history as well as believable. You can have Golden Ages and great heroes only for things to fall down. Then it will come around again.

    Everything getting better consistently breaks my suspension of disbelief. It's why I liked the BoS vs. NCR war.

    I actually was disappointed they didn't have a Commonwealth of Independent Settlements which collapsed in Fallout 4--but that was clearly too interesting for Bethesda.

    I think a big part of the post-apocalypse is backwards thinking and poignancy from what was lost.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2016
  12. valcik

    valcik Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Dec 20, 2008
    This period may have lasted for thousands years, considering the amount of damage and scale of regression caused to the world by whole arsenal of global thermonuclear war fueled by 21st century weaponry.

    I think F2 pushed it the wrong way, what I was expecting after first Fallout was something much closer to A Canticle for Leibowitz or Mad Max scenario - the world destroyed to the point that almost all of its surface was rendered uninhabitable, with huge deserts and former big cities contaminated by plutonium isotopes with a half-life lasting for tens of thousands years, with almost all fauna and flora species completely wiped out. What we've got instead is NCR where brahmins are breed from thin air by those ranchers and cowboys because America fuck yeah, and New Reno with its Tommy gun toting bouncers. Meh, Fallout 2 could have ended much better than this..
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 1
  13. JO'Geran

    JO'Geran It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    Well Fallout 1 from the very beggining was showing some signs of rebuilding. There were already farms and ranches, and the cities seemed stable enough on there own to become major forces for good in the wasteland.

    Fallout 2 just continued that 80 years down the line, where obviously things would have got better.
    Fallout 3 has a couple tiny settlements, with two big towns, one a scrappy, chaotic, frontier type town, one a more succesful town built on a pre-war ruin. The entire map is filled with generic raiders with too little backstory, and there are dumb supermutants who are hostile for no reason everywhere.

    Fallout 4 has a couple of tiny settlements, with two big towns, one a scrappy, chaotic, frontier type town, one a more successful town built on a pre-war ruin. The entire map is filled with generic raiders, who although they have some backstory, still come from generic gangs with very little explanation, and there are dumb super-mutants who are hostile for no reason everywhere.

    And the Commonwealth is just as much of a barren ruin with no signs of rebuilding as the Capital Wasteland is.
    Why, 200 years after the war, is all there technology and goods scavenged from said civilization?, That's completely and utterly retarded.

    In 1, 2 and New Vegas there are factions which create there own weapons, new technology, farm for there own food. Very little actually comes from the pre-war world in those games.

    How are Bottlecaps and Dogmeat a natural part of that?

    Bottlecaps take away from the good story aspect, because there is absolutely no explanation as to why they are still around, and Dogmeat adds to literally none of that, and is nothing more than a trope.
    Sure, because the Enclave suddenly has an infinite amount of expendable troopers who they can send to the other side of the world.

    If that was the explanation, I doubt they would be able to afford to send even a hundred troops, in which case they'd never be able to be the big, powerful protagonists you see them as.
    The big part of Most post apocalypses. The thing about Fallout is that it never tried to keep those tropes going, it tried to focus on the post-war world, which given how far down the timeline it is, is realistic.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  14. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    Aside from pointing out the Commonwealth IS rebuilt in that it's mostly settled farmland with Raider problems, I suppose it's just an issue of our differing preferences.

    :thumbs up:
     
  15. JO'Geran

    JO'Geran It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    No it isn't.

    The entire place is a shithole with raiders everywhere.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 3
  16. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    Because organized crime doesn't happen in civilized places.

    :)

    But yes, the Commonwealth is a pastoral series of farming communities which have a trader system between them and a central merchant hub as well as a large city. Just because it's not united doesn't mean it's not settled.
     
  17. JO'Geran

    JO'Geran It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    The Commonwealth isn't a civilized place.

    There is literally no central government, everything is still literally an anarchy.
     
    • [Like] [Like] x 4
  18. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    Why is a centralized government a good thing? My favorite ending for the Mojave is preventing House, NCR, and Caesar from conquering the region and allowing it to thrive as an independent region.

    I'm not saying that the Commonwealth isn't in dire need of a defensive organization but the Minutemen, once rebuilt, don't have to take over to make it a nice place to live. Part of what I liked about the Minutemen is they didn't attempt to impose rulership, just defense and security.

    Centralized authority is not a sign of a superior society.
     
  19. JO'Geran

    JO'Geran It's all JO'Ger now

    Oct 25, 2015
    No, but the idea that a stretch of inhabited land can somehow remain an anarchy for 210 years is completely ridiculous.
     
  20. CT Phipps

    CT Phipps Half-way Through My Half-life

    Sep 17, 2016
    Given Diamond City has education, elections, and a centralized economy I'm not sure how that qualifies as an anarchy. It's just not a united region but multiple small communities. Honestly, part of my problem with the Commonwealth was it was too civilized. There's no real stakes as far as I can see for the Sole Survivor to get involved with anything large scale.

    In the Capital Wasteland, I really felt humanity was going to die out in that region and the end of everything was about to happen.

    In New Vegas, it's the possible end of NCR and civilization.

    In the Commonwealth? Who gives a shit if the Brotherhood of Steel and Institute shoot each other up?