If you didn't mean third degree burns, then I apologize. I assumed that when you wrote "give you the third degree", you meant achieving a total and sick burn. Misinterpreted your intention.
Sorry. It also affected the tone of my response. But on a general level, you're asking questions that are answered in the game, sometimes ones that come off as being deliberately obtuse in order to annoy me. Questions that you would not be asking about FNV, for instance, despite it using similar narrative tools and implying, showing, rather than outright telling.
Ah I see where the misunderstanding came from. Makes sense I guess. To give someone the third degree as I've heard it used, means to direct the negativity you have towards what is being discussed, towards the person you are speaking with--unintentionally. I guess I just assumed it was a common phrase since I've heard it so often. Might be part of the local flavor here, not sure.
In any event I'm afraid I don't agree that these answers are all in game. Some are, but the answers given don't rise to the level of NV. Not every question I ask can be answered about NV factions, but they tend to answer enough of them to provide a coherent idea. Even smaller factions like the fiends have something interesting going on.
To wit, they're stooges being used by the Legion to wage a proxy war behind enemy lines. The Khans, who are supposed to do much the same, are supplying them in order to survive. So in a way they're stooges of the Khans as well. As they raid in order to pay for the drugs the Khans make.
The berserker trope fits quite nicely, but they have a paranoid angle to them as well. Could constitute a deconstruction of it, but maybe it's just a contradiction. Either way they aren't philosophical types, and it's clear that they driven by sadism and addiction. Most of their significance comes from what they represent to other factions, but their motivations, and justifications are clear. All they want is to feel good, so their only goal is to get high and harass the NCR. That they expressly lack a long term goal isn't bad, because that's the point. They have no future. Kind of emblematic of addiction I suppose. Chems can lend you strength, but everything they give you--they can take away.
"I understand how you consider it as lacking something. My impression was the opposite: We often ask ourselves about how other regions didn't create something like the NCR, and the game explains how it failed: Due to the interference of the Institute. Everyone assumes it was a deliberate ploy to wipe out the CPG (much like the Steel Plague could have devastated the nascent NCR, if Rhombus choked on an iguana one night) and for me that was enough substance to feed my suspensions of disbelief.
Basically, you travel across the Commonwealth, you see Diamond City and settlements (ruined or intact), Bunker Hill, Quincy, and it's not difficult to imagine that something might have been born out of it, much like the NCR was born out of an alliance of like-minded towns. But it was killed long ago, by the Institute"
"Because the NCR had identical origins: Settlements banding together and founding something greater. The Commonwealth Provisional Government could have been the first step on the way to establishing a state, like NCR did. But it was smothered in its crib.
That's the parallel.
Furtermore, as stated above, the game presents it in broad strokes. Just like many things FNV does. The CPG is presented in broad strokes because it's history - and an example of a failed attempt at founding a state in the Commonwealth."
I don't think that's an equal comparison. Saying the CPG could have become something like the NCR, doesn't mean that it can rest on those laurels. The Khans from Fo could have become the Legion. That wouldn't make them more fleshed out in Fo. It's one thing to draw from the history of a game, say as was done with the NCR, but another to expect people to draw meaning from parallels not put into the game. Nor is what you can imagine a matter of their writing. I mean, what about it do you feel deserves that kind of reflection?
It's not the same as say, wondering what would happen if the Fiends were suddenly cut off from their suppliers. Walk into Vault 3 (right?) and you'll hear them complain about going through withdrawal, and how they need more drugs. The game provides a consequence to getting addicted, albeit one easily remedied. Fo4 gives us almost no idea what settlements that still exist are about. The most fleshed out settlement is Covenant. There's less going on there than with the Fiends. The CPG only comes up when Shaun dismisses your attempt to think outside their box. It's not proposed as something to wonder about. It's not something you are presented with as a possibility that relates to the present at all. He matter of factly states that it was futile. It's basically just a 'what if everything the game is about just didn't happen?' Which is to say, 'what if this was a different game'. The Fiends running out of drugs is something you can make happen. It's something to actively consider, that you're presented with as a possibility. There's a difference.
"That said, consider the implications of their policies or using the surface as a Petri dish."
Random synth attacks, people getting replaced, settlements being controlled by them but not really, escaped slaves being reclaimed sometimes. So basically everything just goes on as it was, indefinitely, with no significant changes to the state of affairs. Not sure I follow your point here.
"If you use reductionist logic, every faction can be boiled down to avoid dying. The NCR is expanding to avoid dying. The Legion is expanding to avoid dying."
The Master wanted to end all human conflicts through Unity. He willingly sacrificed his own, and if convinced of his folly--would sacrifice himself. Meaning that his convictions remain the same. His own survival doesn't matter. He never says, 'oh I guess that means everyone isn't doomed.' He just gives up. Doesn't try to destroy as much of his army as possible, he just decides it's over. Which is to say that even survival may not be a given.
Any faction that hasn't given up does want to survive. That it underlies every living being's actions is just a consequence of what it means to be alive. However, no other factions than those of Fo4 are so completely (yet quietly) focused on mere survival. The NCR is expanding for a variety of reasons, as they aren't a particularly homogenous entity. Some want peace, though this is always used for propaganda. Others want vengeance, but this too is often a justification that is deliberately manufactured. Some are just greedy, but there are those who are sincere in their moral convictions. They mirror America at different stages of its history in this way, and that's a very intentional parallel they put effort into creating.
The Legion is expanding because they can. Their leader is a megalomaniac, driven by his own admission by fairly estoeric reasons that he clearly expounds upon in philosophical terms. His philosophy is one of a strength that excises all weakness. The strong prevail because they can. No other justification is needed, because strength is his virtue. He clearly has a plan for his Legion, but there's also the question of whether he's just gone cancer-crazy. The motivations of everyone underneath him is a bit different. They do it because they have to. He has broken them. They go on because it's the only thing they know, or because the alternative is corporal or capital punishment.
These are just the surface observations. I could go on.
"Basically, they're going to avoid dying, further their scientific understanding and knowledge, preserve humanity and restore it beneath the ground, building a grand civilization while the dead surface lingers on."
That's a fairly vague long term plan. All that really amounts to is don't die while getting better stuff. You said survival qualified as preserving humanity apparently, so okay. That's 'don't die' as well. Knowledge is simply what they use to get something. As they don't seem particularly interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake like the Followers. They aren't just scientists for the sake of science, since they have don't give two shits about sharing knowledge for external scrutiny. So it's not a matter of enlightment, it's just their means to an end.
Which is tech, that they mostly use to make their lives more pleasant. 'Civilization' = one bunker community that I have to assume is scaled down on a 1:1000 basis otherwise they're going to get severely inbred. And one focused on luxury, not some philosophical ideal, not their moral duty (one dude said 'we can't give up', another person said 'sure we can', it doesn't exactly define their moral inclinations as a group), they're not even written to demonstrate the price of greed. All they are is morally indifferent. That's the default state of a faction before it gets written, as it represents no details being filled in. Whatever they decide they have to do to get what they want, they're fine with almost exclusively. When we're not, it's for vague reasons, like 'we can't give up on them' for some reason; or as with that whole FEV thing, only serves to demonstrate the central issue: that what they're doing makes no sense. Virgil was studying it for no apparent reason.
"Their flaw is their moral myopia and the fundamental flaw of their society is the way it treats wastelanders with disdain."
*Hyperopia
"That question is beyond the scope of the game. If you asked that anyone, they'd say "Yes, obv", before looking at you like you were basically insane. Every human wants to survive in this world, after all. We can ponder whether humanity is worth saving, but that's a non-existent question in the setting."
Not true. Supermutants don't consider themselves human, and as a faction generally views humanity as not possible to save. Humans or normals aren't necessarily viewed as special, or deserving of life by them. Or by ghouls even (Roy). Others are merely pessimistic about whether or not its possible to save humanity, generally in the context of lacking hope. Some probably wouldn't care about the notion, like the Fiends even though they want to survive. The question would probably go right over their heads.
However my point was to clarify the question of 'why is humanity worth saving'. As examples, the Legion views strength as virtue, and believes the strong should survive. The NCR seems to take a moral humanistic stance, i.e one of human rights and equality. House expressed the idea that it wasn't possible to save everyone, and moreover that he wouldn't even want to. He's kind of an odd duck, but that indifference is still an interesting partial answer. The Institute, I don't know why they even care beyond wanting to survive. What are their virtues? It's not knowledge, or they'd be more like the Followers.
"Of course, the question
what kind of humanity is worth saving is a different matter entirely - and one Fallout 4 is askin."
Asking a question, and answering it in the context of a given faction is a different matter. The Institute only tells you that normals in oh so many words are all they accept as human. Why this is the case, why it matters to be human, is barely indicated beyond a half-assed analogy to toasters IIRC. Which only serves to dehumanize or reduce synths to something that clearly isn't sentient, despite the comparison being utterly ridiculous. I mean they didn't even delve into the idea of biological or genetic purity beyond needed an untainted sample. Which itself indicates they're actually fine with some drift from 'normals' via mutation, since it indicates that they are themselves all as such. So again, a contradiction to what could have been an interesting part of their writing.
It's not even a particularly interesting question as stated. The synths are literally synthetic humans made with our dna. They're clearly sentient. However, as the BoS says they're dangerous, the Institute says they're not people, the Railroad says they are people, and you can just pick whatever answer you want with barely any reason behind it, renders it quite meaningless. It doesn't taunt us with answers, provide contradictions or complications. It gives us no serious implications for our answers. It doesn't reference anything IRL, or much of anything by way of other works of fiction. It does literally nothing to advance the question. It just flatly asks it, gives us three answers and says 'pick one, we don't care.'
"Again, reductionist logic can make everything seem shallow."
'shallow =/= nonexistent' =/= reductionist logic making everything seem shallow. That was a valid distinction, and a meaningful one. Sometimes they give us nothing, sometimes they give us very little. You keep oversimplifying what I'm saying by calling it reductionism, but that doesn't actually explain what's wrong with my analysis.
The odd thing is, that's not even really what reductionism means. It's "A philosophical position which holds that a complex system is nothing but the sum of its parts, and that an account of it can be reduced to accounts of individual constituents. In a reductionist framework, the phenomena that can be explained completely in terms of relations between other more fundamental phenomena, are called "epiphenomena". It's actually kind of integral to science, and definitely a useful way of understanding things. It doesn't make things seem shallow. It actually just views things as made of parts, which can be understood individually--and then altogether to understand the whole.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/reductionism
"Survival is not a shallow reason. Neither is seeing to deepen your understanding of the world around you or building a better civilization (philosopher kings!)."
It can be a shallow reason. Every brahmin (like everything else) in Fo wants to survive, but they never even classify as characters in a writing context. Except maybe, I want to say, Bessy (and them suicidal folks)? I forget. I recruited her once and then didn't notice when she died immediately. I feel kind of bad about that actually. The Institute doesn't add any depth to this motivation. They just want to live, because they want to live. It doesn't mean anything to dress that up, unless you're adding something of actual meaning. Not that you need to draw meaning from your reason to survive, but if that's going to be the point of a faction then it better be pointful.
"The moral principles guiding each faction can be inferred from your interactions with them. I've outlined them repeatedly. Not everything needs to be stated outright."
Showing, not telling."
Moral hyperopia, preserving humanity insofar as it simply means 'me and mine live', and their idea of redefining mankind (which is utterly undefined beyond 'anything different than us, as we are right now') aren't moral principles. As explained by virtue of contradictions, they don't qualify as seeking enlightenment, not even through a flawed expression. 'The ends justify the means' is more of a rationalization, but I'd grant that much. Except their ends are as described, quite shallow. Which is my point.
"I can't be bothered because your question about what the Director does is answered, in detail, by Shaun. You came across as deliberately obtuse, asking me to repeat what Shaun says in the game. The same goes for the rest of your questions, which, to me, exhibit a basic failure to read and understand English text."
Ironically I don't think you're understanding the kind of detail that I'm looking for. They lack or otherwise have shallow motivations, justifications, and long term goals. What being the Director entails as you've described it is just minutiae. It's not the kind of detail I'm trying to discuss.
I said "you become manager of...something, and will be in charge of people who will do...something. So? How does that address the lack of a philosophy and other details?" I'm not unclear on the management structure, I just don't see how that matters. Learning about how all the BoS orders are organized in Fo3 tells us almost nothing about their philosophy, but at least there some details are extricable from it. It's also coherent, because it fits their nature. At the very least they referenced a sense of moral goodness about their missions, i.e 'it's the right thing to do.' Or copped out by saying it's their duty (which soldiers tend to do, and is an interesting phenomenon, when people become cogs...anywho), but that's also a valid reasoning that fits. They also indicate necessity: if we don't then the entire area will be wiped out. They're actively preventing an outcome beyond their own survival.
The Institute has their goals for no particular reason, and their goals amount mostly to survive in seclusion with progressively better stuff, indefinitely. It's not leading to anything. It's not stopping anything. It has no purpose. They draw no particular meaning from them, beyond vague generalizations that could refer to anything. 'We have to do this, we're the only ones who can, you've seen how bad other stuff is (fallacy).'
"So you should have a pretty good idea about the story and its characters, after listening to them speak and reading the terminal entries - unless it's 500 hours of settlement building, which is good and great, but kind of precludes learning much about the story or the lore."
I didn't spend much of any time on settlement building. Honestly it annoys me. I gave it one good go and decided that its only purpose was water purifiers for caps, since the game's economy seemed to revolve around crap like that. On my first run I deliberately kept saves to try out every quest option/line/outcome. I'm a completionist in all my runs. I'm well familiar. I also don't make insinuations about whether or not other people have experienced something enough to know about it. I'm not going to. I only brought up playtime because someone said it mattered. I don't think it does.