F3 Design: Retrotech vs. Sci-Fi

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
There seems to be two distinctly different camps within the Fallout fanbase: those that prefer the gritty, retro-tech theme that is more dominant in FO1, and those that prefer the sci-fi elements (robots, lasers, etc.) that were increasingly prevalent in FO2. For me, there doesn't seem to be an easy way to reconcile the two styles without alienating one group of fans.

Any suggestions?
 
Fallout 2 wasn't science fiction

it was a cult drug movie/monty python parody that said Fallout on the box and used the fallout engine!

Fallout 1 was a retrotech/fantasy game

and it was THE original FALLOUT I dont think any game that isn't like it should bare the title Fallout
aka the rest of the fallout games
 
[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jul-18-01 AT 01:34AM (GMT)[p]Fair enough. Granted, there were WAY too many frivolous pop culture references in F2. These were undoubtedly the result of designers taking liberties with the license and not fully realizing the extent of the damaging effect those decisions would have on the setting and overall theme of the game. Having identified that issue, I think it's safe to assume that care will be taken to avoid similar mistakes in F3.

Now, back to my original query regarding technology in the Fallout universe. Does anybody else agree that the presence of "high technology" detracts from the overall retro theme of the game? If so, what steps should be taken to allow for both the escallation of combat difficulty and the advancement of the timeline, while preserving the retro-tech feel of the setting?
 
Do we really need to advance the timeline? I mean, to preserve the integrity of the history of Fallout world, we would have to take into account the expansion of New California Republic and its merge with Junktown and other settlements from Fallout 1. Add to that the increased role Brotherhood of Steel played in the post-nuclear world after the destruction of the Vats and the Master (Praise the Master! Praise the Holy Flame!)...

Don't you think we should leave a good ending alone and stop pushing it?

How about a prequel, the time when first Vaults were opened? The "psychotic marauders" (aka Mutated Bikers) roamed the wasteland, posing a serious threat to the survivors.

If the prequel is not something you want, then maybe BIS should take a different view on Fallout universe, while maintaining the atmosphere and retro-tech theme of the game. In other words, I'd be happy with FO3 as long as it's a good game and it feels like FO1, but that's just me.
 
>Now, back to my original query
>regarding technology in the Fallout
>universe. Does anybody else
>agree that the presence of
>"high technology" detracts from the
>overall retro theme of the
>game? If so, what
>steps should be taken to
>allow for both the escallation
>of combat difficulty and the
>advancement of the timeline, while
>preserving the retro-tech feel of
>the setting?

Fallout 1 and 2 both had some pretty high tech stuff. I think the retro-60's look was more prevalent in Fallout 1, which I enjoyed. The addition of Advanced Power Armor and higher tech weapons like the gauss rifle and Vindicator was a little too much in my opinion. I also didn't like the Village-aspect of Fallout 2 very much, I mean why would people go tribal just because of a war?

-Xotor-

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]
 
I agree. I also disliked how quickly the Vault Dweller became a religious figure. Unless the temple and monument already existed, the tribesmen would must have started building them before the Dweller's body was cold, but that wouldn't leave any time for stories of his deeds to become warped to the point of being religious. The whole setting of FO2 just stank, if you ask me.
 
FInally, a serious discussion and not constant blatherings about game-features and plot cliches and 'twists' that nobody in their right mind would use since everyone knows it now, right? :)

For the most part, FO2 kept to the graphical setting of Fo1. It had a lot of the retro-tech still in, with the robots (cigar, robby, neo-boxy) and with most of the weapons. I'll agree with Xotor, a few were over the top in Fo2, but...Fo1 had the right mix.

It had desolation and recovered technology, something that was missing for the most part from Fo2. Instead, we get lame BS like New Reno, where everyone has a working SMG. What Is Wrong With That Picture? And now the guy responsible for Sin City II (might have fit into Wasteland - didn't fit into Fallout) is likely going to design Fallout 3? Please, it's in trouble now. All the lame easter eggs were not funny like those in Fo1. If they use any indication from Fallout Tactics (Dan Levin stuck all sorts of...forgive the pun, useless shit into the game), figure on loads of crotch-jokes that will have Disney talking to their lawyers, the gratuitous use of the word "fuck", and descript usage of bodily-functions that can only have the sole marketing target of pre-pubescant children.

Sorry folks, I used to be an optimist when Fallout was first released, but now with all the blunders - Fallout has gone from being War of the Worlds and is quickly on it's way to becoming Plan 9 From My Lower Intestine.
 
>It had a
>lot of the retro-tech still
>in, with the robots (cigar,
>robby, neo-boxy) and with most
>of the weapons.

Which makes me wonder - what if the graphics were the biggest reason why Fallout 2 was accepted as a sequel? Not for the atmosphere, not for the items' design, but for the sole fact that it used the walls and tiles from the original game?..
 
BINGO!!

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jul-19-01 AT 09:52PM (GMT)[p]Someone got it. That was the ONLY redeeming factor for some people, is that it looked the same despite feeling quite a bit different. Fo2 at times felt too hokey, and needed a good bit of trying to ignore Fo1 as well. Some parts were good, but others were rather out of place.

Imagine if they kept to the dark, desolate feel instead of going for too many easter eggs and other crap that led to the game being buggy.

But since it looked the same, it felt familiar to most. Plus, it also helped with a lot more people being new to the series much like FOT.
 
RE: BINGO!!

[font size=1" color="#FF0000]LAST EDITED ON Jul-20-01 AT 10:01PM (GMT)[p]Well, I'm not so sure that the weapons went "overboard" in the games. Remember, this is a retro-50's game. However, the setting took place after a nuclear war in 2011 (or somewhere around that time), and in the 1950's, the American's ideas of what the year 2000 would be like was much more technologically advanced that what we truly are. Personally, I think the p90c's and the H&K CAWS were *too* realistic. I doubt that they'd have ever thought up weapons like that during the 1950's. Remember that Fallout was based off the *imaginations* of the WWII Baby Boomers. As such, everything is going to have a futuristic feel to it. Anything that reminds me of Vietnam or the Post Cold War Era is not retro-50's. As a result, I think we needed to have the laser pistols and plasma rifles. I think we should have had jet packs as well (basically a fuel-driven piece of equipment which allowed for extra movement). Think of the old Buck Rogers comic books to get an idea of what ideas (but not the same ones though) Fallout was considered from.
 
RE: BINGO!!

Keep in mind that Fallout is a blending of 90s reality and 50s science fiction. Combat shotgun is not retro-tech, neither is SMG. So it's a pretty thin line.

Of course, FO1 had Desert Eagle and Mouser, but Mouser was more of an artifact, and I'm not very happy with the overly realistic way (as compared to pseudo-AK assault rifle and pseudo-Winchester shotgun) Desert Eagle was portrayed in the game. I also don't think that archaic weapons such as FN-FAL, Tommy Gun and M3A1 (that was the assault rifle from Dr.Strangelove's airbase assault scene, if anyone remembers that) were so good that they could survive more than 2 centuries without changing. I don't have a problem with them as long as it's something generic or non-characteristic of its origins like maybe FN assault rifle with drum or banana clip, but sadly that's not how it was done in FO2.

Let it be a lesson to every creative designer that giving in to requests from people who care about individual features more than about how these features would blend in makes a negative impact on the design of the game.
 
RE: BINGO!!

I don't think having a generic laser pistol is overboard, but the overwhelming availability of these weapons was a bit ludicrous.
 
RE: BINGO!!

I agree with FO being more dark and sinister and FO2 to hightech but what strikes me as odd is that in FO the old formerly abadoned Military Base (now inhabited by stupid mutants) is so clean!. I think that a few laser pistols could fit into the game. But they would be rare and very powerful. I do think that the Vault Dweller could have been a pseudo-religious figure. But not in that short time. And I don't understand why the hell the people who came from a very technological place like the vault became after just a few decades. Should they have a lot of techology from the vault, the BoS (the Vault Dweller was a member, remember?) and the Hub. And I wonder were the hell all the cool stuff like the PA, the LE BB Gun and the Alien Blaster I had when I finished Fo went. (IF those bastards sold my Blaster I'm gonna be really mad). A cool thing would be that the shrine of the Vault Dweller had the PO standing on his grave (the shrine could just be a cave in a mountain, not some Indiana Jones thing) all rusted and useless along with all his other stuff like his weapons. (You shouldn't be able to use any of them though).

[div align=center]

http://www.poseidonet.f2s.com/files/nostupid.gif
[/div]

http://fallout.gamestats.com/forum/User_files/3a73d53c60e9b786.jpg

"The frogurt is also cursed."

"Call me a vagabond, and I'll smile. Call me a thief, and I'll laugh. Call me a liar, and I feed you your liver."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top