Defining (The) Fallout(s): Part 2

[Briosafreak]

I'm sure that there is enough mileage in this comparison for a fairly major essay.

So go on, you're on to something. You too 4too, now that you've raised the issue I think there's space to go a bit further and write a bit more about it.

 

[Brother None]

Re: ""... The Horror, The Horror ... ""

I'm sure that there is enough milage in this comparison for a fairly major essay.

Yeah, leave it to 4too to think up something like this. That guy is the John Nash of Fallout.

Perhaps the real star of the story is not to be found in the narrative itself, but in setting; Kurtz is part of the darkness, but much more so is the place and moral context that allows such a place to exist. This would be where Fallout finds its deepest parallel.

Would it, thought? It's an interesting parralel, but it is so because Fallout and Heart of Darkness draw from similar story-telling techniques, not because the former is based on the latter.

Because while I agree that the Master is an expression of the whole feeling of Fallout at its core and is similar to Kurtz in that, there is an essential difference; impotence. If Kurtz is just an impotent lunatic in the jungle, The Master is poised to take over the Wasteland...

That might just be the difference between a game and a movie playing in, though.

The Vault Dweller emerges from a completely isolated environment, and as such is largely morally naive with respect to the rest of the world - from that point any moral path, the taking of any side over another, represents corruption of purity. This lies at the heart of the moral ambiguity that makes Fallout so interesting.

I don't think that's the *heart* of the moral ambiguity at all. The *heart* of the moral ambiguity lies in the original endings for Junktown, or in destroying Necropolis to save Vault 13, etc. etc.

I think corruption of purity is the wrong term, because the Vault Dweller is never reflected as being pure. Rather, he is what you make him. As such, he is an "unspoiled" (pure?) tabula rasa, and in as far as corruption of purity means filling in the tabula rasa you're right, but the whole point of the game mechanics of Fallout is this tabula rasa at the center, which may imply innocence or purity, but it is not.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Re: ""... The Horror, The Horror ... ""

I don't think that's the *heart* of the moral ambiguity at all. The *heart* of the moral ambiguity lies in the original endings for Junktown, or in destroying Necropolis to save Vault 13, etc. etc.

I think corruption of purity is the wrong term, because the Vault Dweller is never reflected as being pure. Rather, he is what you make him. As such, he is an "unspoiled" (pure?) tabula rasa, and in as far as corruption of purity means filling in the tabula rasa you're right, but the whole point of the game mechanics of Fallout is this tabula rasa at the center, which may imply innocence or purity, but it is not.

But is there actually any moral ambiguity in Fallout to begin with? The vaultdweller comes from a communal environment in which it can be argued that the "right" thing to do is simply that which betters the community, Vault 13, and in that sense the player is incapable of doing "wrong". Everything else, like destroying or not destroying Necropolis, becomes a question of methodology rather than morality.

Following that line of thought the only evil act would be to reveal the location of the Vault to the Master, but seeing as this results in a "game over" not even this act of evil is possible.

 

[Brother None]

Re: ""... The Horror, The Horror ... ""

But is there actually any moral ambiguity in Fallout to begin with? The vaultdweller comes from a communal environment in which it can be argued that the "right" thing to do is simply that which betters the community, e.g. Vault 13, and in that sense the player is incapable of doing "wrong". Everything else, like destroying or not destroying Necropolis, becomes a question of methodology rather than morality.

Following that line of thought the only evil act would be to reveal the location of the Vault to the Master, but seeing as this results in a "game over" not even this act of evil is possible.

The game is over when you save Vault 13 too. Same difference.

That said, your sense of moral ambiguity is very chauvinistic. I don't really see how it applies in any sensible definition of moral ambiguity, of your definition of morals is "what benefits me" or "what benefits my community". If that's your definition of morality, fine.

But there is a wider world out there. A wider world of which Richard Grey was trying to ensure the survival by adapting the human race in a forced evolutionary kind of way to step up to the pace of the wasteland, as the scrounging and scavenging society could not exist forever. There is no real reason to assume the sterility was inherent to FEV or would've meant the end of the experiment, and in the end your decision to stop him becomes not so much a question of "right vs wrong" but "wrong vs wrong".

Both choices having facets of good and evil, that's morally ambiguous.

But like I said, the Junktown original ending was actually the best bit of moral ambiguity.

 

[Hovercar Madness]

Re: ""... The Horror, The Horror ... ""

The game is over when you save Vault 13 too. Same difference.

Yes, but the game doesn't go any further than that, which makes it a "you finished the game" kind of game over. The evil game overs all take place with more gameplay to be had.

That said, your sense of moral ambiguity is very chauvinistic. I don't really see how it applies in any sensible definition of moral ambiguity, of your definition of morals is "what benefits me" or "what benefits my community". If that's your definition of morality, fine.

No, morality compasses your entire world, but the vaultdweller's world is formed by him living his entire life in the closed system which is the vault: it is his world. You don't take on the Master in order to save the wasteland, but to save the vault.

But there is a wider world out there. A wider world of which Richard Grey was trying to ensure the survival by adapting the human race in a forced evolutionary kind of way to step up to the pace of the wasteland, as the scrounging and scavenging society could not exist forever. There is no real reason to assume the sterility was inherent to FEV or would've meant the end of the experiment, and in the end your decision to stop him becomes not so much a question of "right vs wrong" but "wrong vs wrong".

What does all of this mean to the vaultdweller? For the player it's dreadfully interesting, for the vaultdweller his adventures are a mere diversion from settling back to life in the vault and eventually dying there. He acts merely to perpetuate the status quo.

FEV, even in its unsterile form, would entail adaptation to a world that is not the vaultdwellers and as such any moral ambiguity that could have existed in the decision to stop the Master disappears.

 

[Bernard Bumner]

Re: ""... The Horror, The Horror ... ""

Would it, thought? It's an interesting parralel, but it is so because Fallout and Heart of Darkness draw from similar story-telling techniques, not because the former is based on the latter.

Yes. I'm certainly not claiming that Fallout is based on Heart of Darkness. (This further underlines the strength of Fallout as mythology, story-telling in its own right.)

Because while I agree that the Master is an expression of the whole feeling of Fallout at its core and is similar to Kurtz in that, there is an essential difference; impotence. If Kurtz is just an impotent lunatic in the jungle, The Master is poised to take over the Wasteland...

That might just be the difference between a game and a movie playing in, though.

Yes, it is possibly slightly facile to draw direct narrative parallels between the two, given that these can vary depending on how one plays the game. However, and at the risk of bending my argument to breaking point, some parallels with the malarial Kurtz do stand up.

The Master as a physical entity is also somewhat impotent, and is certainly corrupted to the point that Richard Grey barely exists. Equally, Kurtz barely resembles the man who sent out to do his employer's bidding. The power of Kurtz - as with The Master - has grown via his acolytes, whilst he himself is diminished.

The Master could still be described as feeble; his plan is ultimtely futile, even if enacted, since his dominion is limited by the lifespan of his mutants.

I don't think that's the *heart* of the moral ambiguity at all. The *heart* of the moral ambiguity lies in the original endings for Junktown, or in destroying Necropolis to save Vault 13, etc. etc.

I think corruption of purity is the wrong term, because the Vault Dweller is never reflected as being pure. Rather, he is what you make him. As such, he is an "unspoiled" (pure?) tabula rasa, and in as far as corruption of purity means filling in the tabula rasa you're right, but the whole point of the game mechanics of Fallout is this tabula rasa at the center, which may imply innocence or purity, but it is not.

I'm inclined to agree with your distinction here - tabula rasa is a more apt concept.

However, I still see the nature of the Vault Dweller as being crucial to the moral development of the game. Had the Vault Dweller been imbued with a recognizable moral framework, it would have made any choice of actions much simpler. As it is, the player is free to exert his will without feeling that it runs contrary to established character.

A good contrast (aside from almost any other run of the mill RPG) would be KOTOR2. The story - partially as a consequence of its source material - is very much framed in terms of Good and Bad. The only way to play a Darkside character is to be deliberately terrible, and in such a way that it runs contrary to everything one knows about the character they're meant to be playing. Good and bad are implemented as a binary property of the universe; something to be chosen with 20:20 foresight. Ironically - given the importance placed on it in the Star Wars canon - it is much easier for one's character to become gradually corrupted in Fallout, and to set terrible events in motion via a desire to do good.

 

[Per]

So yeah, I highly commend you to write the article that defines Fallout.. for us. Please.

I will if you pay me... with your IMMORTAL SOUL.

I don't get how the fact that in Fallout the most interesting story element is the "end-boss" makes that applicable to cRPG's in general.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that the question of whether or not a game is about a particular element depends on the quality and not the design of that element? So that if in Fallout, according to someone's opinion, a certain aspect of the backstory is the best element, then that's what Fallout is about, but if in another game the same aspect, again according to opinion, is handled somewhat less well, then the two games are conceptually different because of it?

But what I still don't get is how the fact that you can disassociate the story from its most interesting features what makes Fallout so special?

Because in other games you can't?

 

[welsh]

I don't really agree with some of the stuff, but I'm willing to put up anything anyone writes.

King, you may wish to reconsider that. I mean, that's why you have forums - for people to post their ideas and thoughts and then get the crap beat out of them when it turns out they're just another dumbass.

I am all for a more active, thoughtful community. Even an article which everyone responds to with, "what complete shit" might be useful for cultivating thoughtful conversation. But then again, that's why we have forums. Furthemore, how many times can you post a news thread and get a general reacion of "total shit" before it gets redundant, tiresome and people begin to ignore your news.

Don't get me wrong. I think mismatch makes a few points. I see where he's going with the Spaghetti Western and a few other issus, but overall it seems somewhat shallow. I understand the guys got a thesis to write, but this isn't rocket science he's writing either. A little more thought and effort could have gone into this.

 

[King of Creation]

I agree for the long run Welsh, but for the time being, I really don't have anything better to post. I'm sick of posting about every time there's an interview where Pete Hines or Todd Howard say the same thing about Fallout 3 (or don't say anything), and frankly there's nothing better to post about. People are willing to write editorials, articles, and whatever, and as long as people are willing to write, I'm willing to give them a chance.

 

[welsh]

I see you point King. It's good to get the community more involved in any event. It also allows the community to discuss matters. I suspect that Mismatch could have done more with his essay if he had spent more time with it, but that's always the problem- time.