Bottle Caps and Economics (split from: Forbidden Planet)

[Sander]

The semantics of the situation seems to have shrouded my intent here. Irony, especially of the grimly flavored variety, appeals to me greatly: probably having something to do with me being a cynic. So when I say "humour" I mean I appreciate the absurb and "tragic" reality of the fallout universe. The occasional pop-culture reference and funny quips was no small part of the enjoyment of the game for me though. Its patently absurd to think that people living in a true wasteland would give a crap about soda or bottlecaps or anything of the sort.

Not really. The bottlecaps are only used as a central currency because the Hub merchants endorse them, making them easily interchangeable for goods anywhere. After some 80 years of embedding the use of these bottlecapsas currency (since little else would have been available), it could easily be accepted as currency.

See, it's not about the value of the material, but about what it can get you.

It's for these reasons that we have to throw out the idea of fallout or its ilk being anywhere close to true simulations of wasteland living: heroic or otherwise. Half-starved crazies aren't tackling you for your food at every opportunity. Half-mutated irradiated lunies aren't rading villages for breeding stock.

Half-starved crazies wouldn't exactly last long in the harsh wasteland, and half-starved crazies aren't prone to attacking a lot of people random. Societies that consist of half-starved people would attack people, but hey, those are called Raiders.

I also seem to recall Super-mutants rading for breeding stock, since that was, hey *the main story of the game*.

A society of ghouls (which are half-irradiated mutants) did exist, but lacking the capability to procreate and being unaffected by age, they wouldn't have much use for a bunch of kidnapped women.

Fallout is far from gritty. The tone is dark, but the reality of the situation is flatly passed over. When you get shot your character doesn't scream "Oh shit that hurts." Or "Oh God! Why is my blood all over the ground?!"

In fact the way I see it its the humour that keeps players from becoming bogged down what would be the reality of life in the fallout world. The occasional reference to a television show, game, or what-not would get a chuckle out of me before I went back to trying to "Save the World."

The occasional reference is a vast difference from Fallout 2's ubiquitous and silly references.
That said, distracting the player from the world they are supposed to be immersing themselves in is a stupid thing to do and it was never the point of Fallout. The fact that it is unrealistic in your eyes comes from the 50s Sci-Fi, the stuff it was based on. If you were to put Fallout in the context of 50s pulp, it would seem a lot more realistic.

To better illustrate what I'm saying:

All games essentially boil down to two premises: Save the world OR Try to take over the world (the "world" in either case varies in size). Fallout is a classical variety "save the world" game, and "saving the world" has its own form of appeal. What makes a game good, better, or great is what it does to supplement its appeal beyond simply "saving the world." And Fallout does this, at least for me, through subtle cultural homages and the occasional bit of humour.

Now this is rather ridiculous for a number of reasons.
A game should never rely on something as silly as pop-culture references to make it great, because one cannot achieve greatness through that. INstead, a game achieves greatness through its main design. In Fallout's case this was never the story (which is what your straw man argument is about), but the gameplay and the world itself. The game allowed for more choices and more importantly consequences than any other game before it, it had decent combat, good dialogue and a well-crafted world with great characters. These are only some of the things that made it a great game, the easter-eggs didn't in any way make it a great game. If they did for you, I really have to wonder why you were playing Fallout and not some games with more pop-culture references and less gameplay.

 

[GhostWhoTalks]

I'm sorry but a little knowledge of historical economics and sociology goes a long way. There is no conceivable reason why bottlecaps would EVER end up being the basis for trade in a world devastated to the point of economic collapse. None.

The economic of reality of "its not about the value of the material, but about what it can get you" is a part of a higher order economy as it is built upon institutions. In a world with no guarantees (remember for quite some time the American dollar was backed by the gold standard) there is absolutely no possible way something without intrinsic value would ever get used for currency.



If you want to coach it in those terms, then practically no one should survive very long at all. In an environment so virulently hostile that stealing for necessities (like food and water) fails you, then the vast majority of the human population would be dead, almost certainly well below the point of a self-sustaining population. Just how many survival geniuses do you suppose are running around the world of fallout?


I don't ever remember seeing any such raids. I don't ever remember it being a main plot element in either game. As far as I can tell the plot of the first one was about a "mad" man who sought to reshape humanity "for the better," and the consequences that ensued. And the Super-mutants weren't exactly something I would consider to be a day to day reality in the Fallout world. They were far from wide-spread enough to cause universal damage. In a world gone that far PA, then rape, theft, homicide, and vandalism would become elements of day to day life.



Agreed that Fallout 2 goes too far with its references, but that is because it started basing cultures on those references: building the game from the references rather than building the game around the references. And no it wouldn't seem more realistic if it were coached in those terms; it already is and it still doesn't seem realisitc. It's thematically appropriate, but its far from realistic. There is a big difference between realism and internal consistency, and unlike my peers I do actually mean "realism" when I say realism; not internal consistency. A man who gets shot does not say something like "Oooh man that's a lot of blood I'm going to have to replace it with yours" or whatever it is that raiders say when they get shot in the head for 50 damage and don't die.


The whole point of a role playing game is choice. If there does not exist choices, then there does not exist a role to play. So in order to be a role playing game at all a game must have choices. What pushes a role playing game into greatness is how the story affects the person playing it. When you say it had good dialogue and well-crafted characters; what exactly do you mean? What is the appeal to you as a person? For me it was the absurdity of their existence. I'm not talking about "easter egg" encounters. Those are gross violations of immersion, and I want nothing to do with them.

I'm not sure how you got from my "subtle cultural homages" to me "wanting pop-culture references over gameplay," but I will say that I would very easily be willing to sacrifice a little controls or a little interactivity if the story would be made more fun for me to play through. The way I see it the ultimate goal of a game is to entertain, and while interactivity, immersion, controls, graphics, etc all play a part in determining how fun a game is they are not the end of a game. Fallout's plot was awesome because it was campy in a way but sinister in another. It was throught-provoking (something I rate highly for games I play) but also playful. This is what makes Fallout great.

A game must go beyond the template form of its plot and the rudimentary basics of its controls. How much more it manages to basically pile on is what determines whether a game will be good, better, or great. And Fallout was great.

 

[requiem_for_a_starfury]

I'm sorry but a little knowledge of historical economics and sociology goes a long way. There is no conceivable reason why bottlecaps would EVER end up being the basis for trade in a world devastated to the point of economic collapse. None.

There is, inability to forge. Though most likely the designers chose bottle caps since they are associated with liquid containers and therefore something perhaps the water merchants would find valuable.

The economic of reality of "its not about the value of the material, but about what it can get you" is a part of a higher order economy as it is built upon institutions. In a world with no guarantees (remember for quite some time the American dollar was backed by the gold standard) there is absolutely no possible way something without intrinsic value would ever get used for currency.

But there were guarantees, the water merchants guaranteed the bottle caps and in Fallout water was as valuable as gold.

 

[Sander]

I'm sorry but a little knowledge of historical economics and sociology goes a long way. There is no conceivable reason why bottlecaps would EVER end up being the basis for trade in a world devastated to the point of economic collapse. None.

The economic of reality of "its not about the value of the material, but about what it can get you" is a part of a higher order economy as it is built upon institutions. In a world with no guarantees (remember for quite some time the American dollar was backed by the gold standard) there is absolutely no possible way something without intrinsic value would ever get used for currency.

Perhaps you missed the part where I showed some knowledge about economic systems and mentioned the fact that the Hub merchants endorsed it, giving the bottlecaps guaranteed value (or at least guaranteed enough to use it as a trading basis).
Try to show some reading skills before throwing veiled insults next time.

If you want to coach it in those terms, then practically no one should survive very long at all. In an environment so virulently hostile that stealing for necessities (like food and water) fails you, then the vast majority of the human population would be dead, almost certainly well below the point of a self-sustaining population. Just how many survival geniuses do you suppose are running around the world of fallout?

Gee, another straw man. Note that we were talking about half-starved crazies, men who, presumably, are not exactly accepted within their society otherwise they wouldn't be half-starving (or crazy).
If, on the other hand, the whole community is half-starving it will either stabilise itself through deaths to a point where it can sustain itself, or start preying on other communities to survive. Hence my comment about raiders.

I don't ever remember seeing any such raids.

The implementation of one group of raiders and mention of another (who were supposed to be implemented as well) does not register as groups of people who raid?
Funny.
Unless you're talking about the Super Mutants, but hey, your completely disconnected style of replying makes it impossible to tell.

I don't ever remember it being a main plot element in either game.

...
Super Mutants. Their entire purpose was to raid new humans to breed more of them. Fuck.

As far as I can tell the plot of the first one was about a "mad" man who sought to reshape humanity "for the better," and the consequences that ensued. And the Super-mutants weren't exactly something I would consider to be a day to day reality in the Fallout world. They were far from wide-spread enough to cause universal damage. In a world gone that far PA, then rape, theft, homicide, and vandalism would become elements of day to day life.

Wee, another straw man. If it's not ubiquitous it doesn't qualify. I don't seem to recall you talking about raids for women having to be ubiquitous, nor do I very well see how it's relevant. Very radiated people who were unable to procreate only existed in two forms, Super Mutants and Ghouls and I explained both of them to you. Wherefrom comes your (unrealistic) wish for a lot of them, and why do you want them to start raiding for procreation? I'lll also add that this has nothing to do with realism, which is what you were arguing it would be bringing.

Agreed that Fallout 2 goes too far with its references, but that is because it started basing cultures on those references: building the game from the references rather than building the game around the references.

If you're building a game around references you're essentially building it from them as well. What's more, Fallout was never built around references, references were added into Fallout. The same goes for Fallout 2, but on a much grander scale.

And no it wouldn't seem more realistic if it were coached in those terms; it already is and it still doesn't seem realisitc. It's thematically appropriate, but its far from realistic.

The point is that it isn't thematically appropriate. How can ubiquitous references to post-50s pop-culture be thematically appropriate in a 50s-based world?

There is a big difference between realism and internal consistency, and unlike my peers I do actually mean "realism" when I say realism; not internal consistency. A man who gets shot does not say something like "Oooh man that's a lot of blood I'm going to have to replace it with yours" or whatever it is that raiders say when they get shot in the head for 50 damage and don't die.

And *that* has nothing do with references.
This is one of the cases where Fallout's grim humour is part of the design, though, taken from Wasteland.

The whole point of a role playing game is choice. If there does not exist choices, then there does not exist a role to play. So in order to be a role playing game at all a game must have choices. What pushes a role playing game into greatness is how the story affects the person playing it. When you say it had good dialogue and well-crafted characters; what exactly do you mean? What is the appeal to you as a person? For me it was the absurdity of their existence. I'm not talking about "easter egg" encounters. Those are gross violations of immersion, and I want nothing to do with them.

Which was my point. Gee.
The references themselves had nothing to do with its plot or its choices, though, nor did they have much to do with the quality of the characters. Aside from Loxley, most characters were fleshed out somewhat realistically within their setting and quite human, and because you as a player were given the option to properly interact with them (with the correct consequences), the characters seemed a lot more human.

I'm not sure how you got from my "subtle cultural homages" to me "wanting pop-culture references over gameplay," but I will say that I would very easily be willing to sacrifice a little controls or a little interactivity if the story would be made more fun for me to play through. The way I see it the ultimate goal of a game is to entertain, and while interactivity, immersion, controls, graphics, etc all play a part in determining how fun a game is they are not the end of a game. Fallout's plot was awesome because it was campy in a way but sinister in another. It was throught-provoking (something I rate highly for games I play) but also playful. This is what makes Fallout great.

A game must go beyond the template form of its plot and the rudimentary basics of its controls. How much more it manages to basically pile on is what determines whether a game will be good, better, or great. And Fallout was great.

Heh, to you plot is king. The problem is that Fallout is a game, and not a movie or a book. It's a very different medium and hence there has to be much more to the game than just plot to justify its existence inside the medium at all. Hence the need for good interactivity (ie. gameplay). This doesn't mean a plot must be inferior, but suggesting that plot is king is ridiculous because of the medium.
Aside from that, I don't really see how losing some gameplay and interactivity will improve the plot. If done right, plot need not suffer at all.

 

[RPGenius]

I don't ever remember seeing any such raids. I don't ever remember it being a main plot element in either game.

Yeah, Supermutants never did have much impact on the Fallout Universe, did they?

 

[Lumpy]

On the subject of encounters, did Fallout 2 even have proper encounters, like the ones in Fallout 1?
In F1, you could find Patrick, who would mark some locations on your map, a truck full of bottle caps, a Solar Blaster, etc. In Fallout 2, you could find explosive brahmin, a restaurant with some old characters inside, the exploding bridge guy, the knights of king arthur, and other crap like that.

 

[SuAside]

there are heaps of special encounters in FO2 lumpy, but if you play it on a modern PC, you have to mod the game so it generates more encounters (due to a processor speed thing, you get less encounters on the worldmap than you should)

 

[Tagaziel]

Is it me, or does GhostWhoCraps' "ecomonics" are illogical?

If the world was based on rules estabilished by him, then we wouldn't have progressed beyond caves and sharpened sticks, much less develop a currency system.

Humans, after such devastation strive for stability, forming communities to protect themselves, find food, shelter and ability to defend themselves. When these basic needs are met (Shady Sands, Hub, Junktown, Adytum) the community may start to grow and develop, producing goods for trade and use, the first provided they are able to make contact with neighbouring communities.

Settlements with access to resources will grow stronger eventually and start to dominate, much like the Hub does. At some point in history, barter stops being a viable method for trade, as quantities of traded stock grow, trade routes extend and demand for some types of goods fall. Also, it makes exchanges simpler. Thus, the Water Merchants of Hub, who control the only known major supply of clean water for California, introduced the bottle caps currency, as bottlecaps come from liquids containers, and thus are easily associated with water and by extension the Water Merchants.

Lekcja skończona, jakieś pytania?

 

[Silencer]

I'm sorry but a little knowledge of historical economics and sociology goes a long way. There is no conceivable reason why bottlecaps would EVER end up being the basis for trade in a world devastated to the point of economic collapse. None.

Bottle caps are light, small, distributable, and they can't be reproduced. Really, if you've a merchant community as huge as the Hub enter an agreement over such matter, when everybody knows a merchant of the Hub will accept their "currency" , they will play along. It's much more convenient than inventing the printing press all over again.

In history, many items have been used as quasi-currency and sold over their intrisinc value - provided they have been backed by some soociety.

On your currency, does it read "legal tender"? You know what that means? That everybody in this country agreed to accept it in trade transactions. In Fallout, the principle is the same. "National territory" vs. "Hub's area of economic influence" is just a question of scale.

The economic of reality of "its not about the value of the material, but about what it can get you" is a part of a higher order economy as it is built upon institutions.

Such as the Hub.


Plus, it was a nice touch, the bottle caps. What else did you expect? Name an alternative, please, or remain a GhostWhoIsSilent.

PS. The Forbidden Planet reference was nice.