Bethesda is destroying the gay legacy of Fallout

You see a lot of this with MacCready too. It seems like the mantra is "How do we make it interesting? ADD A FAMILY!"
What's the brotherhood like? It's like a family.
What's the Minute Men do? They protect families.
What's the Railroad do? Give synths the chance to live their lives and do things like start a family.

It seems like Bethesda writers honestly think that family is the purest and most honest of all motivations.

The way that you put it doesn't sound horrid.
Because that can damn well be an interesting theme if done right. But this is Bethesda we're talking about.

New Vegas was about "letting go," so to speak. And it works brilliantly.
Chris Avellone is gold like that.


No, you can ONLY be bisexual or straight. You can't even be asexual or an sterile old man. Hell, according to the intro, if you play as anything other than Caucasian you are just crazy.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Don't you think?
All gay folks need to be gold star or better to be considered gay by your logic.
I think the point is a lot of people, myself included, don't like being saddled with this whole "I'm a married father with a kid" schlock. This is probably because most people playing the game do not identify with the middle-aged, married father demographic. If this game was being played primarily by married fathers/mothers it might have been a good idea.

In Fallout 3 you were just some guy's son and nothing more. That was a lot better and left a lot more room for playing the dialogue in different ways. Of course, there is no dialogue in Fallout 4 so I guess it doesn't matter anymore.

Last of Us works well on the whole daddification of games.
Dishonored, Bioshock 2 and Fallout 4 does it less well. Although Dishonored gets at least an honorable mention for not being completely horrid -- just a bit wooden and stilted in its delivery.
I'm not a father at all, but I'm on board with the premise if it's done well.
 
Last edited:
You see a lot of this with MacCready too. It seems like the mantra is "How do we make it interesting? ADD A FAMILY!"
What's the brotherhood like? It's like a family.
What's the Minute Men do? They protect families.
What's the Railroad do? Give synths the chance to live their lives and do things like start a family.

It seems like Bethesda writers honestly think that family is the purest and most honest of all motivations.

The way that you put it doesn't sound horrid.
Because that can damn well be an interesting theme if done right. But this is Bethesda we're talking about.

New Vegas was about "letting go," so to speak. And it works brilliantly.
Chris Avellone is gold like that.

Yeah Fallout New Vegas is a gem.
 
I'm not a father at all, but I'm on board with the premise if it's done well.
Yes, if it's done well.

"Where is my son??? WHERE IS HE??? SHUAAAAAAAN!" is not done well in my opinion. Not to mention your son is like King of the Synths or some bollocks. I don't know exactly what he is because I'm not that far but yea it's bad.

I'm not going to be surprised if it turns out that I was a synth the whole game.
 
Last edited:
The way that you put it doesn't sound horrid.
Because that can damn well be an interesting theme if done right. But this is Bethesda we're talking about.

New Vegas was about "letting go," so to speak. And it works brilliantly.
Chris Avellone is gold like that.

I didn't really see the theme of "letting go" in New Vegas proper (obviously that was the theme of Dead Money). It was more of a statement on war and government. I think one of the major themes was the idea that you can't fundamentally change a society quickly or (generally) without violence. Of course it was also interesting as a discussion of democracy, totalitarianism, and anarchy.
 
The way that you put it doesn't sound horrid.
Because that can damn well be an interesting theme if done right. But this is Bethesda we're talking about.

New Vegas was about "letting go," so to speak. And it works brilliantly.
Chris Avellone is gold like that.

I didn't really see the theme of "letting go" in New Vegas proper (obviously that was the theme of Dead Money). It was more of a statement on war and government. I think one of the major themes was the idea that you can't fundamentally change a society quickly or (generally) without violence. Of course it was also interesting as a discussion of democracy, totalitarianism, and anarchy.

I still don't see as House being a dictator, from what we know of his reign it's quite 'free'. He doesn't really mess with people unless he has to.
 
I still don't see as House being a dictator, from what we know of his reign it's quite 'free'. He doesn't really mess with people unless he has to.
A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship, ultimately under House the people wouldn't be self-determining, but obviously House has a sort of libertarian idea of the place of government. That's part of what makes NV so interesting.
 
The way that you put it doesn't sound horrid.
Because that can damn well be an interesting theme if done right. But this is Bethesda we're talking about.

New Vegas was about "letting go," so to speak. And it works brilliantly.
Chris Avellone is gold like that.

I didn't really see the theme of "letting go" in New Vegas proper (obviously that was the theme of Dead Money). It was more of a statement on war and government. I think one of the major themes was the idea that you can't fundamentally change a society quickly or (generally) without violence. Of course it was also interesting as a discussion of democracy, totalitarianism, and anarchy.

I still don't see as House being a dictator, from what we know of his reign it's quite 'free'. He doesn't really mess with people unless he has to.
House was the best ("goodest") ending in New Vegas in my opinion.
 
...This is probably because most people playing the game do not identify with the middle-aged, married father demographic...

I'm sure I completely understand when people say something like this. Because surely you play other games with completely pre-made/predefined characters and are able to get into that role or it doesn't affect your ability to play the game if there are differences between you and the character? Or when you play games in a fantasy setting or stuff like that, does that hinder you from getting into the role or the game? Or the same principle for when somebody is reading books and stuff like that.

I can understand specific instances of not being able to identify with and getting into the roles of certain characters... but to have it as a blanket statement that people can't get identify with a character because of x reason just seems off base to me. Unless of course the character is written in such a way where they are only that one specific thing and can't be or are not anything else. But even then it's still possible to some degree.
 
I still don't see as House being a dictator, from what we know of his reign it's quite 'free'. He doesn't really mess with people unless he has to.
A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship, ultimately under House the people wouldn't be self-determining, but obviously House has a sort of libertarian idea of the place of government. That's part of what makes NV so interesting.

If only Obsidian had more time. The Legion would have been fully fleshed out.
 
Unless of course the character is written in such a way where they are only that one specific thing and can't be or are not anything else.
You just answered your own question.
But like I said even then it would still be possible, to varying degrees, and probably depending on the individual. (And of course that could be a huge stumbling block.)

But a lot of times I see somebody make that kind of statement regarding a game, or story, or something along those lines, they'll just say that blanket statement surface level thing and never really delve into the details.
 
Last edited:
I still don't see as House being a dictator, from what we know of his reign it's quite 'free'. He doesn't really mess with people unless he has to.
A benevolent dictatorship is still a dictatorship, ultimately under House the people wouldn't be self-determining, but obviously House has a sort of libertarian idea of the place of government. That's part of what makes NV so interesting.
They were all dictatorships. Caesar made arguments for the NCR being a hereditary dictatorship. Caesar was a dictator. House was a dictator. When the world has been completely destroyed, you might even want a dictatorship at that point.

House was the most intelligent and visionary out of all choices. He focused on the big picture and what really mattered, and had the intellect to make it happen. Plus, he let me stay in the Lucky 38 suite as long as I wanted after the game was over.
 
They were all dictatorships. Caesar made arguments for the NCR being a hereditary dictatorship. Caesar was a dictator. House was a dictator. When the world has been completely destroyed, you might even want a dictatorship at that point.

House was the most intelligent and visionary out of all choices. He focused on the big picture and what really mattered, and had the intellect to make it happen. Plus, he let me stay in the Lucky 38 suite as long as I wanted after the game was over.
Yes he made that argument, but I don't entirely buy it. I mean (as far as we know) every NCR president has been legitimately popularly elected, so obviously the people still have some power in their government. Also we know that the NCR has some kind of senate, even if we don't know the inner workings, so clearly the president doesn't have complete power. I can see why people like House, but personally I think his rule presents as many problems as NCR rule.
 
The way that you put it doesn't sound horrid.
Because that can damn well be an interesting theme if done right. But this is Bethesda we're talking about.

New Vegas was about "letting go," so to speak. And it works brilliantly.
Chris Avellone is gold like that.

I didn't really see the theme of "letting go" in New Vegas proper (obviously that was the theme of Dead Money). It was more of a statement on war and government. I think one of the major themes was the idea that you can't fundamentally change a society quickly or (generally) without violence. Of course it was also interesting as a discussion of democracy, totalitarianism, and anarchy.

Ah. A lot of New Vegas is about how institutions have ideologies informed by the Old World or tradition.
The Brotherhood of Steel, at its best, represents the regulation of the worst abuses of high technology. But they get narrowly fixated on a few small energy arms. Veronica is your mouthpiece here and advocates making new recruits and expanding the Brotherhood's mission to more high-minded humanitarianism. Plus, you win rep with the Brotherhood if you choose not to nuke anything in Lonesome Road.
The Followers reveres knowledge, medicine and books. Their mission is noble and not malicious, but they're ineffectual in the shadow of greater powers. Caesar was birthed from their ranks.
Caesar models itself off of Roman autocracy.
House idolizes Vegas and will do anything to bring back the worse excesses of capitalism and his version of Vegas at any cost, whether the wasteland needs it or not.
The NCR represents governmental bloat and overreach. And even though it wants to be an Old World democratic republic, it behaves more like a neocolonialist empire. It's citizen soldiers are honest and good salt of the earth, even if their government is not.
The minds of the Big Empty pursue scientific knowledge to the point of quackery and devoid of any real purpose, which died with the nuclear wars of the old world. Doctor Klein even works that as a theme into the name of his colleagues. They're an Ouroboros, incestuously eating away at themselves. Their genius wasted and squandered and needing to be contained.
Dead Money is about a lot of people with grudges well past their date of expiry.
Ulysses is all about all of that shit.
Marcus pretty much gives you a rundown about why Caesar and everybody else is fucked up and how it really wasn't different from his own failed revolution with the Master. He's all world weary and wise.
The Enclave Remnant side quests are all about these grizzled vets whose glory days are long gone, even if their cause was questionable in the end, it meant something to them.
The Khans are all bitter about their loss against the NCR and the Vault Dweller. Your quests with them can convince them to move on to become greater than just a bunch of raiders scratching out a living in the dirt. If you don't they just fight a losing war until the NCR scatters them to the wind.

There's a lot of existential meditations about whether you're just thoughtlessly imitating the culture around you or actually doing something. Being an individual and all that. It's the recognition of your circumstances and choosing to let it go or modify it that determines whether you are greater or lesser than you are.
 
Last edited:
No, you can ONLY be bisexual or straight. You can't even be asexual or an sterile old man. Hell, according to the intro, if you play as anything other than Caucasian you are just crazy.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Don't you think?
All gay folks need to be gold star or better to be considered gay by your logic.

I have no idea what the logic of your statement even is.... I am talking about allowing the player in a Fallout game to choose their own characteristics, what the fuck is this about Gold stars or statement about "all gay folks"?
 
No, you can ONLY be bisexual or straight. You can't even be asexual or an sterile old man. Hell, according to the intro, if you play as anything other than Caucasian you are just crazy.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy. Don't you think?
All gay folks need to be gold star or better to be considered gay by your logic.

I have no idea what the logic of your statement even is.... I am talking about allowing the player in a Fallout game to choose their own characteristics, what the fuck is this about Gold stars or statement about "all gay folks"?
A gold star is a gay person who's never slept with the opposite sex (as lots of gay people have due to denial, pressure etc). So I think the point was that 'Its not true that only GoldStars are really gay', making the point again that you can still play a gay in denial or a sham marriage. But thats irelevant anyway- they'd still be putting my character in a position where'd she'd have to decide if she wants to have a sham marrigae.. and then making that decision for her.
 
Right now the game makes all the decisions for you. And there is no way around that. And I see that a bit of a problem. The issue isn't even so much if the character is in a marriage, single, with an adopted child. I think the problem is that you have asbolutely no way to actually express your thoughts in the game in any other way than what Bethesda has planed for you. It's role playing on rails, if you can even call it that. Something that was already true for F3 and pretty much any Elder Scrolls game I have played so far. Even Morrowind.

Imagine if the game actually gave you a dialog where you could actually tell informations to the NPCs around you, and they would react accordingly, some hating you for it, others maybe supporting you. If you could tell someone that you hated your marriage because of homosexual feelings and that you never managed to actually make your wife happy or something like that. Simply giving the player options. How you start the game can be fixed, that's alright. But you have to give people a possibilty to shape the world and narrative in their own way trough the dialog.
 
Right now the game makes all the decisions for you. And there is no way around that. And I see that a bit of a problem. The issue isn't even so much if the character is in a marriage, single, with an adopted child. I think the problem is that you have asbolutely no way to actually express your thoughts in the game in any other way than what Bethesda has planed for you. It's role playing on rails, if you can even call it that. Something that was already true for F3 and pretty much any Elder Scrolls game I have played so far. Even Morrowind.

Imagine if the game actually gave you a dialog where you could actually tell informations to the NPCs around you, and they would react accordingly, some hating you for it, others maybe supporting you. If you could tell someone that you hated your marriage because of homosexual feelings and that you never managed to actually make your wife happy or something like that. Simply giving the player options. How you start the game can be fixed, that's alright. But you have to give people a possibilty to shape the world and narrative in their own way trough the dialog.

It's the difference between letting the player create his or her own story and having the player sit there and be told a story. One is for RPG players, the other is for people who want to watch a movie.

I recall Mr. Howard explaining that Bethesda did not get to tell the story that "they wanted to tell" and adding the voiced protagonist was in part to accomplish this. It kind of shows a misunderstanding of why a lot of RPG fans liked Fallout in the first place. They don't want to be told the entire story, they want to have an effect on the game world and how the story unfolds.
 
Depends, I have no problem with a history or clear begining for the character, in fact some of the best RPGs out there follow that path, like Baldurs Gate, Planescape Torment and many more.

The reall issue is that Bethesda doesn't know the difference between the nuances of role playing in a tight narrative and copying Mass Effect. Like I said, the issue isn't that your charater starts with a marriage. The issue is that you have absolutely no choice but to follow this line till the end of the game. Bethesda could have allowed for a lot more freedom, sure and I think it could have been very great. And I think there should be more games exploring that. But they don't have to. That's the point. If they chose to have a guy or female in a marriage with a child, so be it. That's their decision. They simply don't know how to create a true role playing game, that's the problem.

I think, the actually better statement would have been to give the player this marriage with a child but actually the option to express his struggle because of homosexuality, trough the dialog and NPC interaction. And maybe even a chance to find someone of the same sex in the wasteland with a fulfilling relationship.

Not only would this be in my opinion a more bold move, but it would also highlight current social issues in a MUCH better and less hamfisted way.

A homosexual and/or bisexual character could have simply approach the player, and trough dialog asking him about his past life, and what it was to live in the 2070s before the Great war. The option here could either be to express your negative feelings because of the preasure in mariage due to the players sexuality, or simply, that you had a very happy marriage as a heterosexual male/female.

It's really about the nuances, the options, I am inclined to say realism - as far as this situation goes, but it would seem plausible and you could STILL keep this tight nuclear family-scenario, if you really want this father/mother - son realtionship. And which seems to be so important for Bethesda.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top