Bethesda is destroying the gay legacy of Fallout

[ElderMaxson]

Okay. First off, there was an interracial lesbian couple right at the start of the game, I think. Sure, they could be intrepreted as really good friends, but it seems like Bethesda put it in there to show both cultural relevance and the pseudo nature of the Fallout universe, to gain more hype, as usual. I could be wrong, though.

As a result, I simply assume this was an oversight, overlooked as they attempted to work a fancy, switch positions during character creation thing into the game. I suppose roleplaying such a character not being bisexual would mean roleplaying as a repressed gay person, but then again, Bethesda forced you to love your spouse long after the start, all the way until you reach the Institute, right to the ending. So there's that.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Well giving freedom and flexibility to make whatever character they like doesn't necessarily mean "and excel at anything anyway". I mean in Fallout 1 and 2 you could roleplay as a retard if you wanted and the game actually supported that and gave you the proper consequences and reactions for it.

And this is why those were better games.

"I doubt the even the FEV could help you. Why are we talking?" was The Master's line if you tried to talk to him with a low-intelligence character. And so many more examples.

 

[Walpknut]

An Interracial lesbian couple? which one? Can't really remember that.

In any case the problem here is not representaqtion in NPCs but rather the removal of the player to be gay, asexual or whatevere by their complete misunderstanding of the core values of the franchise itself. They put too much emphasis in their own shitty protagonist idea than on letting players define it themselves.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

I don't think a game giving you a background that cuts off potential characters that a player might want to play is necessarily a bad thing. I can't play Mass Effect as a civilian who is a coward, and that's fine.

But when someone declares something about a character that cuts off certain backgrounds, it's worth considering whether it's a positive choice or a negative one, and whether it could have been done differently to be better. In the case of Mass Effect, ensuring that Shepard starts the game as a decorated member of the special services makes sense, since it's essential to the plot and the plot is a major part of the appeal of that game. But in the case of a Bethesda game, the game is structured essentially so that the plot is largely meaningless except as another thing on the checklist of things to do, and you could have motivated the player through means other than "avenge your wife and find your kid." Many people have commented that the motivating premise of New Vegas was significantly more compelling, since it's personal (e.g. https://twitter.com/BIadeWolf/status/668882183847862275 )

In general though it's better to have more representation of different kinds of people in your roleplaying game than less, though, and saying to the people who would never marry a person of the opposite sex that they can't RP as basically themselves is kind of a poor thing to do. I mean, the exact argument Gizmojunk lays out could also be applied to a game declaring that you cannot roleplay as a non-white person or as a woman. Certainly it's okay to have a roleplaying game force you to play as a white dude (the Witcher 3, for example), but when a series has a history of letting you be some way and then they tell you you can't be that way anymore, that's not a positive step.

 

[Walpknut]

Depends on the design Goals, the Witcher is based on a series of Novels so it has a defined main character, same way a JRPG always have defined character and the "RPG" aspects come more from allowing the player to fiddle with their stats rather than offering them multiple action paths. Fallout on the other hand was always about the player having complete agency over every aspect of themselves (Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas even let you choose the specific age of your character, as long as it was 18 or up) and the world reacting to that.

Fallout 4 got this so wrong they even gave you a defined voice and made dialogue choices completely vague to the players themselves.

 

[Big No]

Not my photo, but the only one I could find of them.

They should've made it so you could change your spouses gender and the dialogue would indicate that Shaun was adopted if both genders were the same.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I don't think a game giving you a background that cuts off potential characters that a player might want to play is necessarily a bad thing.

It is certainly a bad thing if that is one of the major reasons people enjoyed your games in the first place. Bethesda does not do the things Witcher 3 and Mass Effect do well at all, and trying to emulate those games is going to backfire dramatically when the end-product looks like a worse-written, worse-voice acted, worse-graphically, bug-ridden Mass Effect. That is certainly a mediocre game right there.

This isn't Mass effect. This isn't Bioware. This isn't CD Projekt Red. Bethesda is never going to make a character as good as Geralt. They should have stuck with their well-established niche of offering blank slate characters. If they keep going this direction you know what will happen? It will be a worse version of Mass effect/Witcher 3 with poor performance, worse graphics, less dialogue, worse writing, etc. Saying Fallout should go the direction of Mass Effect is basically taking away one of the major advantages Bethesda had - giving us a big open world with lots to explore and a character we could role-play through a variety of dialogue choices and character interactions.

You might as well argue that Elder Scrolls VI should force you to play as Khajit only.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Not my photo, but the only one I could find of them.

They should've made it so you could change your spouses gender and the dialogue would indicate that Shaun was adopted if both genders were the same.

I would like to know if it is explicitly shown anywhere that they are in fact lesbians because to me that picture just looks like two female neighbors next to each other. Putting your arm around someone, especially for girls, does not mean they're lesbians despite the fantasies of desperate people.

 

[Walpknut]

Oh wow, nameless NPCs on the intro. So progressive.

Knowing Bethesda that might have even been a mistake.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Depends on the design Goals, the Witcher is based on a series of Novels so it has a defined main character, same way a JRPG always have defined character and the "RPG" aspects come more from allowing the player to fiddle with their stats rather than offering them multiple action paths. Fallout on the other hand was always about the player having complete agency over every aspect of themselves (Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas even let you choose the specific age of your character, as long as it was 18 or up) and the world reacting to that.

Fallout 4 got this so wrong they even gave you a defined voice and made dialogue choices completely vague to the players themselves.

The idea that Fallout should have a Geralt character represents a complete misunderstanding of one of the major reasons the game is successful in the first place.

The idea that Bethesda will ever be able to write a character anywhere near as deep Geralt is...laughable.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

Okay. First off, there was an interracial lesbian couple right at the start of the game, I think.

Prove it.

It says a lot about people when they see two women next to each other hugging, with an arm around each other, or having some basic physical contact and automatically equating that as lesbians.

A nuclear bomb just went off. The picture posted in this thread probably represents two neighbors reacting to that. I would like evidence otherwise this is just silly.

 

[RangerBoo]

Okay. First off, there was an interracial lesbian couple right at the start of the game, I think.

Prove it.

It says a lot about people when they see two women next to each other hugging, with an arm around each other, or having some basic physical contact and automatically equating that as lesbians.

A nuclear bomb just went off. The picture posted in this thread probably represents two neighbors reacting to that. I would like evidence otherwise this is just silly.

But that is all Tumblr needs.

 

[ElderMaxson]

Okay. First off, there was an interracial lesbian couple right at the start of the game, I think.

Prove it.

It says a lot about people when they see two women next to each other hugging, with an arm around each other, or having some basic physical contact and automatically equating that as lesbians.

A nuclear bomb just went off. The picture posted in this thread probably represents two neighbors reacting to that. I would like evidence otherwise this is just silly.

But that is all Tumblr needs.

I remember further evidence from the dialogue between them during the nuclear alert. BUT like I said, I COULD BE WRONG. Try not to nitpick too much of my every words.

And yes, I did say they could just be friends. Did you actually read my post, or...?

added: And no, I don't think I've ever seen that picture before. It looks like it's from 4chan or something. I simply assumed, though my memory of the shit-awful intro sequence would obviously be a bit slim.

 

[Trannigan]

It fits with the 50s-esque setting IMO. Before the war it was probably a social taboo.

And the game prevents you from being a character with this "social taboo." Thus, it is more limiting than previous games, which was the whole point of this thread which you have conveniently neglected.

It doesn't prevent itbut by all means keep on either being too stupid to get that or just trolling. Either way your wrong.

 

[Dr Fallout]

It fits with the 50s-esque setting IMO. Before the war it was probably a social taboo.

And the game prevents you from being a character with this "social taboo." Thus, it is more limiting than previous games, which was the whole point of this thread which you have conveniently neglected.

It doesn't prevent itbut by all means keep on either being too stupid to get that or just trolling. Either way your wrong.

Hmm, funny I suppose EVIDENCE and PROOF or even BEING SMART isn't in your vocabulary. A pity that.

 

[helios1]

Depends on the design Goals, the Witcher is based on a series of Novels so it has a defined main character, same way a JRPG always have defined character and the "RPG" aspects come more from allowing the player to fiddle with their stats rather than offering them multiple action paths. Fallout on the other hand was always about the player having complete agency over every aspect of themselves (Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas even let you choose the specific age of your character, as long as it was 18 or up) and the world reacting to that.

Fallout 4 got this so wrong they even gave you a defined voice and made dialogue choices completely vague to the players themselves.

I thought New Vegas' age slider in the character creation was hilarious cause all it did was make you more yellow and more bloated looking.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

It fits with the 50s-esque setting IMO. Before the war it was probably a social taboo.

And the game prevents you from being a character with this "social taboo." Thus, it is more limiting than previous games, which was the whole point of this thread which you have conveniently neglected.

It doesn't prevent itbut by all means keep on either being too stupid to get that or just trolling. Either way your wrong.

The game prevents you from playing it as a strictly homosexual human being. This is not a huge "bug bear" for me, but I can see why it is for some and it is still an issue for me because it is an example of how Fallout 4 is more limited in terms of role-playing.

I don't have enough crayons to explain this any simpler. Good day.

 

[Dr Fallout]

It fits with the 50s-esque setting IMO. Before the war it was probably a social taboo.

And the game prevents you from being a character with this "social taboo." Thus, it is more limiting than previous games, which was the whole point of this thread which you have conveniently neglected.

It doesn't prevent itbut by all means keep on either being too stupid to get that or just trolling. Either way your wrong.

The game prevents you from playing it as a strictly homosexual human being. This is not a huge "bug bear" for me, but I can see why it is for some and it is still an issue for me because it is an example of how Fallout 4 is more limited in terms of role-playing.

I don't have enough crayons to explain this any simpler. Good day.

It means the McDoodle line cannot happen. Because no McDoodle would marry a women, pay a prostitute yes, marry a women no.

But that's just me.

 

[DVL]

There's a pretty big difference between someone's job or something that they did for a while and something that's a core part of someone's identity (their sexual orientation.)

As far as thesis statements go, this one brought me up short by going, "Wah?"
Why is your sexual orientation more core to your identity than your job? I've heard a lot of people say that really don't want to be defined by sex either. Or for that matter, marriage either.

At the very least, if Bethesda had wanted to allow the possibility that the pre-war couple was engaged in a sham marriage in order to hide up their less socially acceptable predilections, they should have at least contextualized that in the actual game.

As much as I loathe Bethesda, I don't think is something I care to take them to task for.
Not every game has to be subversive or insightful commentary
I really am fine with the idea that you're just a stand-in for a generically Leave It To Beaver family since that does fit the pulpy tone of Fallout.

 

[Dr Fallout]

There's a pretty big difference between someone's job or something that they did for a while and something that's a core part of someone's identity (their sexual orientation.)

As far as thesis statements go, this one brought me up short by going, "Wah?"
Why is your sexual orientation more core than your job? I've heard a lot of people say that really don't want to be defined by sex either.

At the very least, if Bethesda had wanted to allow the possibility that the pre-war couple was engaged in a sham marriage in order to hide up their less socially acceptable predilections, they should have at least contextualized that in the actual game.

As much as I loathe Bethesda, I don't think is something I care to take them to task for.
Not every game has to be subversive or insightful commentary
I really am fine with the idea that you're just a stand-in for a generically Leave It To Beaver family since that does fit the pulpy tone of Fallout.

Yep this pulp tone comes up again. Look at Fallout 1. Where is the atomic family of the fifties?