R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
you could say the same thing about literally ANY IP tho.
because what fallout is now isn't fallout. why would you not want to return it to its former glory.
Escapist Magazine calls Bethesda killers of Fallout
- Thread starter The_Proletarian
- Start date
Because it was pretty much done by the second one. It was the story of society rebuilding after the apocalypse, that happened, done.
Fallout was an IP that shouldn't have had more than 3 games in the main series. Even if they were all made by the original creators of it.
It's an IP that had one purpose and that was it, it run it well in the first game, the second showed a much more advanced rebuilding, that was pretty much it. If you keep going there is no more rebuilding, there is only expanding of society... Which is not what Fallout was supposed to be about.
Fallout 1, the struggle to survive in the wasteland, Fallout 2 the struggle to expand, Fallout 3 a new large war hits (NCR vs Legion)... If you have factions large enough to wage a large war... It's already a different vision from the original Fallout 1.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
that's merely an extension of the same concept and is every bit as interesting. to see new post apocalyptic cultures clash and trade and conflict. that's great!
So it should be a new IP. Because it's advancing the setting too much.
Let's not forget Tim Cain wanted to take Fallout into space... I think it would have lost a lot of the Fallout feeling if that had happened.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
nothing at all wrong with that. Deeps Space 9 exists to ask the hard questions that TNG couldn't. just because its so drastically different didn't necessitate that it be in a new ip. and btw new vegas isn't near as much of a departure as DS9 was.
well a bad idea is a bad idea but i don't see how making more games that explore the politics of a post nuclear world is a bad idea.
Advancing the setting too much does indeed work on some IPs. But not on Fallout.
The more you advance Fallout setting, the more the Fallout's universe "magic" fades away.
Fallout was as much the setting and the feeling of playing it as it was the writing and RPG systems. It was a full package game. You remove or change some of it's aspects, it loses quality.
That is why many people consider Fallout 2 a bad Fallout game, because some of those things got changed too much.
But that is what I'm saying, you can make more games like that, but it doesn't need to be Fallout.
Fallout setting is very specific. It was never meant to be a IP that would have tons of games in their main series.
Making it go to space for example could result in a great RPG, specially if it was from the team who made Fallout, but I think it would have been better as a different IP, because the setting is too far away from original one.
Jabberwok
Mildly Dipped
DS9
Seems like Outer Worlds is basically just them wanting to make a Fallout game in space. So yeah, not much like Fallout, with or without the name.
Star Trek has the advantage of a setting that incorporates countless different settings in its basic premise. On the other hand, I felt that even moving Fallout to the eastern US was taking things too far from the original aesthetic. Fallout was set in the arid remains of California. Star Trek was just set in space. Maintain a lot of the visual design and themes of the source material, and you can take Star Trek anywhere you want. Set Fallout in postwar Russia and you've got a completely different game that might look more like Stalker or Metro. Set it in Australia, you've made a Mad Max game.
Seems like the things that made Fallout unique are tied closely to the place and story. It had so many influences on it, and has influenced so many other IPs since then, that telling a new story in the same universe may either feel generic, or just be a rehash of what's already been done.
Last edited:
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
or its because lol magic and ghosts and time travel lololololol
nah you're literally arguing that time should not move forward in the fallout timeline which is dumb because we've seen it work wonders in both 2 and NV.
D
Deleted member 98605
Guest
All we saw was California turning into a Bureaucratic sort of Liberal State. As it was IOTL and maybe even Pre-war. We saw a rejection of Pure Human Extremism and Mutant Unity. Out West we saw some FoA Dropout hash and mash together a Roman Carcass to scare that California.
There's a LOT of roads Fallout can still take. A frontier Cowboy-Libertarian Republic out of Texas, a Fascist Industrial State out of the Mountains, the Environmentalists either going all Ecotopia in the NW to counter the NCR's hoo-hum Capitalist economy, et al. You can have a whole game of Anarchists-Communists, Socialists, Maoists and Stalinists and Social Democrats fighting each other in some odd corner of the place, maybe out of a 'Commie Vault' prancing around on a clean slate.
Fallout can rehash 'rebuilding society', especially in the setting of a nuked-out, almost dead world, a dozen times over in half-a dozen or so regions. We sort of even saw this still cry out from under the suffocating wastes of Fallout 4 with the Minutemen replicating the first embers of America, but handled poorly.
The cultures, politics, and identities of the old-war weren't destroyed: if NV is anything to go by, they've become outright beacons of light. The only 'new' things that really have emerged are Unity, which is DOA due to fertility issues, and the Followers of the Apocalypse which is Doctors Without Borders on Steroids. As someone who sometimes finds it hard to see how people can be divided and so convicted about this-and-that form of politic/government, this is alluring to me. Of course, it just has to be done well: in a competition with other factions and supporters. That is what makes Fallout truly Fallout to me.
There's a LOT of roads Fallout can still take. A frontier Cowboy-Libertarian Republic out of Texas, a Fascist Industrial State out of the Mountains, the Environmentalists either going all Ecotopia in the NW to counter the NCR's hoo-hum Capitalist economy, et al. You can have a whole game of Anarchists-Communists, Socialists, Maoists and Stalinists and Social Democrats fighting each other in some odd corner of the place, maybe out of a 'Commie Vault' prancing around on a clean slate.
Fallout can rehash 'rebuilding society', especially in the setting of a nuked-out, almost dead world, a dozen times over in half-a dozen or so regions. We sort of even saw this still cry out from under the suffocating wastes of Fallout 4 with the Minutemen replicating the first embers of America, but handled poorly.
The cultures, politics, and identities of the old-war weren't destroyed: if NV is anything to go by, they've become outright beacons of light. The only 'new' things that really have emerged are Unity, which is DOA due to fertility issues, and the Followers of the Apocalypse which is Doctors Without Borders on Steroids. As someone who sometimes finds it hard to see how people can be divided and so convicted about this-and-that form of politic/government, this is alluring to me. Of course, it just has to be done well: in a competition with other factions and supporters. That is what makes Fallout truly Fallout to me.
No, it's not because of just that. I don't mind the wacky content in Fallout 2 at all. But it still doesn't feel like a proper Fallout game. Because it's not about rebuilding and survival, but about expanding and political powers. The game focus changed a lot.
Then we have how Vaults became experiments, a big lore addition. That already changed the setting enough. While affecting the first game too.
Fallout 1 is still mainly a Post-Apocalyptic game, Fallout 2 is totally a Post-Post-Apocalyptic game. We went from small settlements that are struggling to large settlements that are not worried about survival, but in increasing their influence and territory.
We went from a main antagonist that wanted to mutate humanity so it can survive in these wastes and stop wars, to... A place where humanity is surviving quite well already and the main antagonist is a cartoony "American Nazi" from the pre-war time that wants to eradicate all mutated humans of the wasteland. And that made the Vaults being experiments for their space travel/colonization...
It became too political and power struggle focused. It added new lore that changed how we perceive the first game, it took some of the mystery from the great war. It changed enough that Fallout 2 (being my favorite game in the series) has a much different feeling when playing it than Fallout.
If you continue moving like that, it will change the feeling with each new game, doesn't matter if they are good or bad games, the feeling will dilute until you have Bethesda level of Fallout. A game with random stuff and that changed enough lore that it's only Fallout in name.
2 and NV are good games, but they don't have the same feeling as Fallout 1. They feel very different from the first one for the reasons I mentioned before.
Struggle and survival changed to grow political and territory influence. It became too big, these factions managed to suck the post-apocalyptic feeling from Fallout.
Yes, they are good games, but wouldn't they be good games even if they were from a different IP? Do these two need to be Fallout to be that good? If you ask me, I would have enjoyed the games the same or even more if they were a different post-post-apocalyptic IP. The only thing tying the games are some factions and characters, the feeling is different. The desolation is gone. The rebuilding is done, we can now have armies of robot soldiers, we can have armies of roman ripoffs going around, we can now have armies based on pre-war America, we can have highly advanced pre-war crazy scientist robots making new technology, we can have almost immortal, crazy, violent pre-war construction workers, we can have an army of ground digging mutants that can invade the mojave if not kept in check, we have pacifist tribes... There are too many people, technology and safety. The setting feels totally different.
D
Deleted member 98605
Guest
I wouldn't mind a slew of Post-apoc series or genres with arks/vaults/tombs/bunkers/shelters spewing forth new hamlets/villages/towns/polities/ideologies fighting for their survival and expansion in a slew of settings, for sure....
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
lol no.
see the whole point of fallout even in the drafting stage was to explore the morals and politics of a post nuclear world. 2 and nv do that. fallout is so much more than "mad max but there's power armor"
you're breaking the whole thing down to one element which is ridiculous.
Not really. The draft state was to have a game with science and magic where you would go back in time to save someone and then return, involving a lot of crazy shit in between.
Also Fallout 1 barely has any politics in it, sounds strange for a game "planned" to be about that not having it in it.
You're confusing Tim Cains quote, he doesn't talk about politics. Here is his original quote:
Explore the world and ethics in a post apocalyptic world. Well guess what... Fallout stopped being Post-Apocalyptic in Fallout 2... Which is what I said. It became too large, it's not post-apocalyptic anymore.
So even Tim Cain vision for Fallout was already off in Fallout 2.
Why? Because he left Interplay during Fallout 2 production, and I wonder if it wasn't because Interplay wanted to change Fallout to something that was different from Tim Cain's vision.
Specially since he only did some pre-production work on Fallout 2 and then said "The hell with this! I quit!".
Also worth noticing, Tim Cain didn't work on Fallout New Vegas, so he couldn't impose his vision on it either.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
post nuclear. not post apocalyptic. two very different things.
Not in this case. Post Nuclear means after a nuclear war. Which in Fallout case is the apocalypse, because that nuclear war devastated the world.
They mean the same thing in Fallout universe, since it only ever had one nuclear war and that was the apocalypse... So post nuclear = post apocalypse in the Fallout universe.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
that makes literally zero sense.
How can it make 0 sense?
Fallout 1 world is a post nuclear world. It's also a post apocalyptic world. Because the nuclear war was also the apocalypse. I fail to see where it doesn't make sense.
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
becuase post apocalyptic has an entirely different connotation and meaning to the specific choice of words of post nuclear.
@Risewild my theory would be that it could be nice to see society rebuild, step by step, as history repeats itself. We already see corruption in the NCR; why wouldn’t you wanna see more like that? Court intrigue and dynasty in the Legion, etc. A lot could be done without scrapping Fallout entirely, imo. Just not with Beth at the helm.
Not really, Post-Apocalyptic can mean exactly the same as Post Nuclear... They share the same definition too:
EDIT to avoid double posts:
Because it's not what Fallout is. Was a mainly post-apocalyptic game. Not game of thrones... That is way past post-apocalyptic. That is too much politics and large scale stuff. Not to mention it is repeating history... We already know how history went, why do we need the games to go and repeat the same stuff?
Fallout was a totally new setting and universe, that is also part of it's "magic", "feeling", "appeal", whatever you want to call it.
Starting to repeat it's history is redundant and superfluous. It was to see how people were surviving and how ethics worked in that harsh environment... Not have a "lol governments and armies will destroy the world again because war"
.
Last edited: