Five Common Misconceptions about Fallout: The Series

[CT Phipps]

Rome was sacked in 410 by a band of Goths, not 376. That sack (and the wars with the Goths from 376 onwards) is indeed conventionally used as a point to mark the beginning of terminal decline (though most historians set the beginning of decline more generally earlier) since it was the first time a foreign army captured the city since the Gauls had in the 4th century BC (an event which arguably set in motion the building of the Roman empire as the Romans sought to expand the frontiers of their republic to ensure nothing like that ever happened again). It would be sacked several times thereafter, finally in 476.

The term "the Fall of Rome" refers most generally as you say to Odoacer deposing the last Western Roman Emperor (not at that time based in Rome I don't think), and the Roman senate (still based in Rome) transferring Imperial authority to the Eastern emperor, who in turn conferred status to Odoacer and the Goths as rulers of Italy.

Random aside but also the "Fall of Rome" was something made up by Enlightenment thinkers like Gibbon. It was political history (arguably all is) designed to demonize Christianity and exalt Roman "values" like stoicism and militarism and indicate that abandoning the latter led to the barbarians take over.

When Rome didn't "fall" so much as move and it only is a Fall if you consider the Eastern Roman Empire not to essentially exist (which Gibbon didn't because it wasn't Western European).

Which is to say that Gibbon was full of bullshit and agenda.

 

[Hawkwing74]

Which is to say that Gibbon was full of bullshit and agenda.

While that may be true, it's indisputably a critical event for Western Europe. The Dark Age was a thing, especially in the West. Consider, for example, Will Durant "The Age of Faith." where he discusses this time at length. The Eastern Empire did quite well preserving culture for centuries, and Islam preserved culture and advanced science for several centuries as well. But Western Europe took a long time to recover from the fall of Rome, by many metrics.

(I'm slowly working through 12 volumes of Will Durant, possibly the best history I've ever read, but it's very long indeed).

 

[CT Phipps]

While that may be true, it's indisputably a critical event for Western Europe. The Dark Age was a thing, especially in the West. Consider, for example, Will Durant "The Age of Faith." where he discusses this time at length. The Eastern Empire did quite well preserving culture for centuries, and Islam preserved culture and advanced science for several centuries as well. But Western Europe took a long time to recover from the fall of Rome, by many metrics.

(I'm slowly working through 12 volumes of Will Durant, possibly the best history I've ever read, but it's very long indeed).

Yes, I suppose "The Rise and Moving of the Roman Empire" doesn't sound the same.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Random aside but also the "Fall of Rome" was something made up by Enlightenment thinkers like Gibbon. It was political history (arguably all is) designed to demonize Christianity and exalt Roman "values" like stoicism and militarism and indicate that abandoning the latter led to the barbarians take over.

When Rome didn't "fall" so much as move and it only is a Fall if you consider the Eastern Roman Empire not to essentially exist (which Gibbon didn't because it wasn't Western European).

Which is to say that Gibbon was full of bullshit and agenda.

Of course it's a historiographical term, but how such retrospective terms are applied is a relevant consideration when what we're seeing is how people over a decade (two?) hence from the destruction of Shady Sands are thinking about it, retrospectively.

Now, perhaps we can see their motive for retrospectively thinking about it (demonizing an atomic holocaust/destruction of their way of life) as more sympathetic than Gibbons' (peddling a silly thesis), but the same factors apply.

Also, as an aside - While surely Gibbon has certainly set the entire tenor of the conversation around the concepts of Rome's decline and fall, I'm not sure that I believe he coined the actual term "the Fall of Rome," but I'll take your word for it.

While that may be true, it's indisputably a critical event for Western Europe. The Dark Age was a thing, especially in the West. Consider, for example, Will Durant "The Age of Faith." where he discusses this time at length. The Eastern Empire did quite well preserving culture for centuries, and Islam preserved culture and advanced science for several centuries as well. But Western Europe took a long time to recover from the fall of Rome, by many metrics.

(I'm slowly working through 12 volumes of Will Durant, possibly the best history I've ever read, but it's very long indeed).

I agree, the Fall of Rome and the Dark Ages are conceptually valid and useful even if their innovation was motivated (providing an historical grounding for the liberal state).

 

[Bradylama]

Whether it was a good idea to nuke Shady Sands or not is also dependent on whether you think getting the audience to care about the events in the show works.

The showrunners clearly think that Fallout fans will care about who wiped out the town from 1 and the fall of NCR. Much like the Star Wars sequels and the Fall of the New Republic, quite a lot of fans blame the writers versus the in0universe parties.

It was a bad idea to nuke Shady Sands because new viewers have no idea what the fuck it is and therefore won't care, and fans will feel slapped in the face because they destroyed the entire history of the west coast and rendered southern California terra nullius OFF SCREEN, so they could make a shitty bethsoft inspired story that features nothing relevant from the original games in any way that matters.

Here's a good idea: set the show literally anywhere else in the United States.

 

[Norzan]

Here's a good idea: set the show literally anywhere else in the United States.

That would require the writers having to come up with new things, and you can't do that when you can just recycle as much you can from the games.

The hilarious irony is that Bethesda did made Fallout 3 basically across the country from the West Coast, but instead of coming up with new shit, they just recycled as much as they could.

So even if the TV show writers set the show literally in like fucking Thailand, you bet the Brotherhood of Steel, The Enclave and the many other things from the US would show up there for no reason other than key dangling.

That's how creatively bankrupt the people in charge of the franchise are.

 

[CT Phipps]

The hilarious irony is that Bethesda did made Fallout 3 basically across the country from the West Coast, but instead of coming up with new shit, they just recycled as much as they could.

I don't get this argument. Fallout is the setting.

If you set it in, say, Florida and there's all new factions with no references to anything else....how is it Fallout?

Fallout is the setting and the setting is the characters and factions. It's an argument NOT to do it anywhere other than California or other adjacent states.

 

[Norzan]

If you set it in, say, Florida and there's all new factions with no references to anything else....how is it Fallout?

Because Fallout isn't Brotherhood of Steel, Super Mutants, Ghouls, the Enclave, it's a setting about humanity after an apocalyptic disaster. You can literally come up with nothing but brand new stuff in a different part of the setting and still make it Fallout.

This narrow-mindedness is why this franchise can't go beyond the same bullshit they have been recycling for 15 years now.

It's an argument NOT to do it anywhere other than California or other adjacent states.

Just fucking lol.

 

[CT Phipps]

It was a bad idea to nuke Shady Sands because new viewers have no idea what the fuck it is and therefore won't care, and fans will feel slapped in the face because they destroyed the entire history of the west coast and rendered southern California terra nullius OFF SCREEN, so they could make a shitty bethsoft inspired story that features nothing relevant from the original games in any way that matters.

Here's a good idea: set the show literally anywhere else in the United States.

The entire history of West Coast?

That's a bit ridiculous isn't it?

NCR is not the whole of California, it's just the government of Shady Sands. It's also something that Interplay game up with as a plotline for Van Buren not Bethesda. Which is something I feel that people wouldn't be criticizing (and don't) when they discuss Bethesda vs. Interplay.

Because Fallout isn't Brotherhood of Steel, Super Mutants, Ghouls, the Enclave, it's a setting about humanity after a post-apocalyptic disaster. You can literally come up with brand new stuff in a different part of the setting and still make it Fallout.

This narrow-mindedness is why this franchise can't go beyond the same bullshit they have been recycling for 15 years now.

No, that's post-apocalypse fiction.

Tell me what the difference between it, Wasteland, or other settings that are completely generic post-nuclear settings and you have a point.

But if you do that, why name it Fallout? What is it bringing that is unique.

Just fucking lol.

Yeah, you seem not to be aware it's a whole fucking genre.

There's fantasy other than the Lord of the Rings.

 

[Hassknecht]

I don't get this argument. Fallout is the setting.

If you set it in, say, Florida and there's all new factions with no references to anything else....how is it Fallout?

Fallout is the setting and the setting is the characters and factions. It's an argument NOT to do it anywhere other than California or other adjacent states.

Fallout isn't just BoS, vaults, supermutants and deathclaws. It's a world built on the principle of "the World of Tomorrow but Mad Max happens in it". You can develop a lot of interesting stuff with it. Other characters and other factions. But it requires you to understand the world and how it works, and not just cargo-cult some elements without actual understanding.

 

[Norzan]

But if you do that, why name it Fallout? What is it bringing that is unique.

Brotherhood of Steel, the Enclave, Super Mutants and the other shit they constantly recycle don't make it unique compare to other similar franchise and it's definitely not the reason why i started playing the games.

Yeah, you seem not to be aware it's a whole fucking genre.

The fuck has to do with what i said? I was laughing at your absolutely horrid argument that every media in the franchise shouldn't be set in anything outside of Florida and states around it.

Explore other countries in the world and see how they developed after the apocalypse? Nah, constantly set every media in the same fucking areas so that they can recycle the same factions and mutants. That's fun apparently.

 

[CT Phipps]

Brotherhood of Steel, the Enclave, Super Mutants and the other shit they constantly recycle don't make it unique compare to other similar franchise and it's definitely not the reason why i started playing the games.

I love Post-Apocalypse Fiction and feel you can introduce new elements while also leaving in what people liked from previous ones.

It's not like Fallout 2 and Tactics and Van Buren ditched the original stuff.

 

[Norzan]

It's not like Fallout 2 and Tactics and Van Buren ditched the original stuff.

Because they were set in the West Coast and around it, no fucking shit they are gonna have some elements from Fallout 1. That didn't stopped Fallout 2 from adding new things, same for New Vegas.

Bethesda set Fallout 3 in the other side of the country, but instead of coming up with new stuff (specially because the majority of people didn't had any attachment to the West Coast stuff since most people hadn't played those games, so those things not being in the game wouldn't matter), they just recycle and contrive to have as much as they could from the first two games because Bethesda has been creatively bankrupt since 2006.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

The entire history of West Coast?

That's a bit ridiculous isn't it?

NCR is not the whole of California, it's just the government of Shady Sands.

It's the government of about half of California in Fallout 2, and the overwhelming majority if not the entirety of California by the time of New Vegas, plus probably bits of Nevada other than Vegas, and a bit of Mexico. Practically everything that was ever established about the setting post-War prior to Fallout 3 takes place either in or very, very close to NCR, so I think @Bradylama characterization is appropriate if not strictly correct.

Not sure what you mean by "just the government of Shady Sands."

It's also something that Interplay game up with as a plotline for Van Buren not Bethesda. Which is something I feel that people wouldn't be criticizing (and don't) when they discuss Bethesda vs. Interplay.

It was to be done in an interesting and well-written way in Van Buren. It wasn't in Fo:TV.

Because they were set in the West Coast and around it, no fucking shit they are gonna have some elements from Fallout 1. That didn't stopped Fallout 2 from adding new things, same for New Vegas.

This doesn't hold for Tactics, it's inclusion of old series elements was basically stupid and contrived just the same as Fallout 3, 4 and 76. Maybe not as bad, but still bad.

 

[Bradylama]

That would require the writers having to come up with new things, and you can't do that when you can just recycle as much you can from the games.

Everything in the show IS new though. The Brotherhood of Steel is the only thing from the games that's actually relevant. The NCR isn't treated like it was a real thing that actually happened. None of the factions that operated in Southern California are featured either. Did they all have a big Faction Con in Shady Sands the day it was nuked? It apes the aesthetics from the Bethsoft games and none of the originals even though that architecture is directly relevant to California. This story basically could have been set anywhere in the United States and nothing would change, because it's all new shit. Not even the geography and climate is consistent with the region.

They blew up the west coast so they couldn't do anything with it and barely did anything with Bethesda stuff either.

The entire history of West Coast?

That's a bit ridiculous isn't it?

NCR is not the whole of California, it's just the government of Shady Sands. It's also something that Interplay game up with as a plotline for Van Buren not Bethesda. Which is something I feel that people wouldn't be criticizing (and don't) when they discuss Bethesda vs. Interplay.

It is 100% for real serious and not at all ridiculous. Believe me, I've gone over the show with a fine toothed comb. I've done the leg work. Nothing about Southern California from the original games or New Vegas is relevant at all. Features of the past are pure costume and fanservice that means nothing. If it's considered at all it's a pure afterthought. If they do end up adding stuff from the originals into the show, it'll be as a reaction to fan complaints and criticisms, not because they actually care. The show is like a body snatcher wearing the skin of the original games but you can see all the Bethsoft corners and curves bulging out and stretching the dermis.

 

[CT Phipps]

Because they were set in the West Coast and around it, no fucking shit they are gonna have some elements from Fallout 1. That didn't stopped Fallout 2 from adding new things, same for New Vegas

Serious question, are you reading what I wrote? No shit. That's my fucking point.

Everything in the show IS new though. The Brotherhood of Steel is the only thing from the games that's actually relevant. The NCR isn't treated like it was a real thing that actually happened. None of the factions that operated in Southern California are featured either. Did they all have a big Faction Con in Shady Sands the day it was nuked? It apes the aesthetics from the Bethsoft games and none of the originals even though that architecture is directly relevant to California. This story basically could have been set anywhere in the United States and nothing would change, because it's all new shit. Not even the geography and climate is consistent with the region.

Withdrawing my argument, I am genuinely curious about your opinion. What do you mean "it isn't a real thing that happened?" What makes you think otherwise? I want to know. I admit to bias because I've always worked against NCR in my canon playthroughs and have always been glad of seeing them fall.

The show obviously views it as a tragedy but I'm curious how you seem to think it's not even relevant when it seems to me to be a major theme of the show. "The failed attempt at rebuilding the world."

Which...is not how I would characterize NCR. But it's what they seem to be going for that it was some beautiful Arryo-esque paradise we see a flashback of.

 

[Norzan]

Serious question, are you reading what I wrote? No shit. That's my fucking point.

Fallout is the setting and the setting is the characters and factions. It's an argument NOT to do it anywhere other than California or other adjacent states.

Your fucking point is that the franchise should apparently only be set in California and surrounding states because otherwise is not Fallout, which is a load of bullshit.

The hilarious irony is that Bethesda did made Fallout 3 basically across the country from the West Coast, but instead of coming up with new shit, they just recycled as much as they could.

I don't get this argument. Fallout is the setting.

The comment you quoted first was me criticizing Bethesda for recycling West Coast stuff in Fallout 3, even though Fallout 3 is set in the other side of country, and you responded to it with this.

Fallout's setting is NOT only California and surrounding states, it's the entire planet Earth.

 

[CT Phipps]

Your fucking point is that the franchise should apparently only be set in California and surrounding states because otherwise is not Fallout, which is a load of bullshit.

My argument is that Fallout should include the elements and factions of the game because that's why it's Fallout. You can justify it in-universe why the BOS and other groups are in places. It's just weird the BOS *AND* Enclave *AND* Super Mutants are in the East Coast.

At least the Vaults are justified as they're all over the country.

The comment you quoted first was me criticizing Bethesda for recycling West Coast stuff in Fallout 3, even though Fallout 3 is set in the other side of country, and you responded to it with this.

Fallout's setting is NOT only California and surrounding states, it's the entire planet Earth.

Yep and it needs elements of the setting to justify it being Fallout versus calling it ATOMICA.

 

[Bradylama]

Withdrawing my argument, I am genuinely curious about your opinion. What do you mean "it isn't a real thing that happened?" What makes you think otherwise? I want to know. I admit to bias because I've always worked against NCR in my canon playthroughs and have always been glad of seeing them fall.

The show obviously views it as a tragedy but I'm curious how you seem to think it's not even relevant when it seems to me to be a major theme of the show. "The failed attempt at rebuilding the world."

Which...is not how I would characterize NCR. But it's what they seem to be going for that it was some beautiful Arryo-esque paradise we see a flashback of.

It's not a real thing that happened because nobody actually cares about it. The Vault 4 refugees talk a lot about Shady Sands but none of them mention the NCR. Not even the chalkboard in the classroom mentions the NCR it's strictly presented as the history of Shady Sands. The impression the show gives new viewers is that "Shady Sands" was like a city-state, not the capital of a liberal democratic nation-state.

Nothing that happens in the show follows logically from the destruction of NCR and the return of terra nullius, either. It's a pure non-sequitor. A stateless society is the ideal condition for the Followers to operate in, for instance. They formed in the Boneyard, even, yet they're nowhere to be seen in a show about the Boneyard. The Followers have a sophisticated praxis of mutual aid and technical education that makes life in a post-nuclear world tolerable. They ought to be thriving in the NCR's absence, but the presence of something like the Followers would also directly contradict the showrunner's anti-political stance on factions ultimately doing nothing but recreating war because they can't get along. If the Followers were still around we wouldn't be seeing a fucked to death Bethsoft shithole world.

 

[Bawls Lover]

It's also something that Interplay game up with as a plotline for Van Buren not Bethesda

Also, Van Buren was going to destroy NCR.

Van Buren wasn't going to definitively destroy the NCR offscreen. the player was supposed to be given that option at the end of the game after dealing with Presper