Let's Talk About The FEV Virus

[TorontoReign]

How is that disingenuous?

The only meaningful change that Fallout 4 adds to the Brotherhood is that they want to kill Ghouls and Supermutants and Synths. Everything else is mix and match from the Brotherhood of previous games.

So it seems to me in some regards Bethesda is damned if they do damned if they don't. If they drastically change the BoS they resemble Fallout 3 and are hated. If they keep them the same they are lazy.

 

[Jogre]

So it seems to me in some regards Bethesda is damned if they do damned if they don't. If they drastically changed the BoS they resemble Fallout 3 and are hated. If they keep them the same they are lazy.

If they drastically change the Brotherhood in a bad way it's bad. If they make them generic good-guy's instead of something interesting and new, that's bad.

If they semi-change the Brotherhood, semi-keep them the same but do neither well it's bad. If they want us to simultaneously believe there the same old Brotherhood but making them have none of the original isolationist don't get involved charm, that's bad.

It's not damned if they do damned it they don't, it's damned if they do it badly. I could see a changed Brotherhood handled well(See Tactics), and I could see a still the same Brotherhood handled well(See New Vegas)

 

[Einhanderc7]

From my perspective if they just opt for a morally grey approach and have them do a mix of good and bad with some interesting motivators and end results everyone would be pleased.

 

[Tagaziel]

Well, except that Fallout 4 shows that it's not only ferals, apparently.
Also, it's not really based on the lore of Fallout 1 and 2, is it? I mean, there were no ferals in those games, at least not in the fast-running-zombies sense. Only asshole ghouls, but still sane.

It's a part of the lore now, one that Obsidian happily accepted.

That also a bit of a stretch in the article, btw. It says that luminosity uncommonly occurs without degeneration to a beast-like state, but that can be seen as a retcon on Bethesda's part, since they, without any necessity to do so, introduced glowing feral ghouls, which is not really supported by the previous lore, where it was obviously common to see sane glowing ghouls.

The Vault is in the business of covering the Fallout series, not Fallout 1/2. The feral glowing ghouls were present in Fo1 (remember the lanterns in Set's town hall?).

It is a retcon, but every game does it. And every game has their share of stupid ideas, particularly Fallout 2 (remember how the forums were still bitching about Kung Fu Frisco years after Fo2 released, until Fallout 3 came along)?

Yeah, Bethesda defines lore now, but that doesn't mean people have to like it or easily accept such retcons. Sure, radiation turns you into ghouls now instantly and makes you more or less immortal, but just because that's canon now doesn't mean I can't think it's fucking bullshit.

Sure. But it's been twenty years since Fallout 1 started the series and all series evolve. At this point, ignoring contributions of no less than three major games, one of which was made by former Fo1/Fo2 developers is denial.

Bullshit? Try downright retarded. Ghouls healing others with radiation is the most egregious fuckery Bethesda did with the lore.

Mainly because it just looks like magic. Literally like they transferred the shit from Oblivion and colored it green.

Pssssst. Don't play Fallout 1, it has floating, biting anuses, psionics, and goo monsters, plus it had cute fuzzy critters planned for inclusion (until the art team said no).

Seriously though, all developers dropped the ball at one point or another. Perhaps the most egregious fuckery by Black Isle was the Enclave and the Vault experiments. Ugh.

The thing is, Tag. You don't think that it's what we all were trying to do as well as we played it and as we've been even replaying and debating these two years?
You believe that I didn't read anything that I got a hand on and explored every dialogue option even quickloading to get them all?
And even if this this story was the case where somehow, all of us except some select few such as you missed it by a mile and missed all the depth and complexity, nevermind the basic coherency and current events, then it'd still be a big bad point to it. Making the audience get at least the base level comprehension without using stimulative drugs is the FIRST thing a competent writer should think of to get done.

So tell me, why is it that I have no problem understanding the story and its themes and you do? There's something here we are missing. Hell, I've been playing Fallout for 20 years and I found it enjoyable from both a story and lore standpoint.

Sigh... man, you really don't need to bring up the other games, I've told you. For instance, now that's biting you. Fallout 1 and later 2 were made 20 years ago and practically in a garage.

They were made by a developer who was the Bethesda of their time, FYI.

Bethesda now is a publisher of several successful studios, and developer backed by an over billion dollar media company, along their "own" profits, and it's 2017. They've also had almost 7 years since Fallout 3, and even if we assumed that they started development later at, let's guess, over 18 months before release. It also must have an employed plantel about as big as the inhabitants in the town I live.
They also created the 7th best selling game of all time. They are an AAA level production, for sure. And on the high end.

How can you possibly compare the two? How can you say "well, it was the same thing in a 20 year old isometric game made by 20 people or so".

Because the story and lore are not determined by the quality of graphics or sound.

Abstraction was a resource to make honor to the ambitiousness of the setting, maintain coherence as much as possible and, of course, keep the budget in check. I don't think Bethesda NEEDS this now.

They have, or had, all the resources to make quite literally the best game ever, after yeats of their own experience as a long term developer and the going of the series and the whole industry going at the side of it. Even if the game turns out to be at least remarkable, that's just not good enough.

FPP can be a detraction, yes. But game designers have spent ever since gaming was created working around and about it.

You can't deny that Bethesda gets a pass for things that even indies don't now. I haven't even brought up technical shortcomings and the like, or the infamous engine.

You know, I get the impression you expressed the Second Coming of Fallout with that attitude. But no game can stand up to that kind of standards. None.

And who gets to decide the difference? Who gets to be the sole decider in whether something is bashing or discussion?

People who have been here for 14 years. I'll only answer to specific parts because I'm done with you.

From experience, anyone who whines about this place being toxic either A. Hasn't bothered to properly participate or B. Mistreated people here and acted like the victims.

From my experience, people who say the above tend to be the most toxic parts of the site.

We've made the mistake of promoting one user like that to the position of a moderator. It didn't end well.

We may have been toxic once, but we treat people with respect here nowadays, and you can't prove otherwise, at all.

You've been here since 2015. You haven't the foggiest.

Oh wait, you can't, because this place isn't toxic.

Like with an abusive parent, those who deny they are toxic are some of the most toxic people in existence.

Fallout 4s Brotherhood's whole change can be summed up as "Genocide, lol".

I admitted I hate the game.

I didn't admit it was an irrational hatred. I have very rational reasons to hate this game.

See, this is why I'm done with you. You have no rational reasons (well, perhaps in your own head), beyond the hate (which is in itself an irrational feeling, particularly to harbor towards a game).

I considered giving you a special title, but frankly any second spent on thinking about you is wasted.

 

[Jogre]

Sure. But it's been twenty years since Fallout 1 started the series and all series evolve. At this point, ignoring contributions of no less than three major games, one of which was made by former Fo1/Fo2 developers is denial.

I accept the changes Fallout New Vegas made because they fit in very well with the universe.

Also "Contributions", whether 3 and 4 actually contributed anything worthwhile to this universe is debatable. That isn't denial, it's simply pointing out that I don't think they contributed anything worthwhile, and in the grand scheme headcanon of the universe, they aren't there.

Also also, way to dig up an old discussion and respond to age old points.

People who have been here for 14 years. I'll only answer to specific parts because I'm done with you.

"I've been here longer, therefore I get to decide everything"

You are a really unreasonable figure whose too narcissistic to think maybe your view on what is and isn't good discussion isn't overriding.

You see, the other, actual compotent admins like Hassknecht and SuAside realise they aren't omniscient, always right beings, and let discussion take place so long as it isn't cross-site trolling, spamming, shitposting or other things which make the forum look bad.

You've been here since 2015. You haven't the foggiest.

I may not have known what it was like back then, but I can assure you 100% it isn't at all toxic now, except for maybe one or two users.

Like with an abusive parent, those who deny they are toxic are some of the most toxic people in existence.

So instead of proving how we're toxic you'll just go for a "You are toxic but can't see it"

Great, because who needs to prove we're a toxic community. You, the all-knowing all-wise Tagaziel think we're toxic, therefore don't need to show it at all.

Hey everybody, I've been defending this forum from criticisms of it being toxic for ages, but Tagaziel, with no proof that it's toxic or that we are mistreating users, wants us to take his word for it that it's toxic. Everybody shut down the forums because Tagaziel thinks he knows best.

If we're such a toxic community, maybe you could find a recent example of us mistreating a user. Go on, just one example, that should be easy if we really are toxic.

You can't do it because your only reason for thinking we're toxic is insulting your special needs game Failout 4. You have no actual reasons for thinking we're toxic other than your own bias against us.

 

[TorontoReign]

You mentioned my favorite cut content (raccoons) so you get one of the few likes you might get in this thread.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

So tell me, why is it that I have no problem understanding the story and its themes and you do? There's something here we are missing. Hell, I've been playing Fallout for 20 years and I found it enjoyable from both a story and lore standpoint.

I don't know. Probably a chemical leak has caused people with a specific taste in games to be unable to appreciate it. Or maybe it's taking a backseat while gameplay goes first without much touch. To put it softly.

You know, I get the impression you expressed the Second Coming of Fallout with that attitude. But no game can stand up to that kind of standards. None.

Not the Second Coming. But sure as hell I expected at least NV+Skyrim, and I was coming with low expectations. Didn't get even that, chrissake. A fanmade free TC of Skyrim is the only thing since Fo4 and ultimately the release of Nuka World, that actually made me expect something from Bethesda again. If people can do such amazing things at no salary in the same engine, hopefully Bethesda can do something at least of that level for TESVI. Or not. My pennies on not.

They were made by a developer who was the Bethesda of their time, FYI.

I'm sure. Next on bullshit news, we've just colonized the sun.

Because the story and lore are not determined by the quality of graphics or sound.

So there can't be stronger engines thata llow for no load screens yet? More unique NPCs and unique quests? Even more factions and a longer campaign? A map that is at least a teeny bit bigger than Skyrim's? No? There haven't passed 20 years worth of gaming to build on? Guess not, apparently.

Yeah, FUCK ME for expecting anything somewhat remarkable that we haven't seen yet on the last 5 years of AAA development. Say what you will about Andromeda, but at least they aren't making it in a 10+ year old engine. I still wonder if it's more expensive to keep it from falling apart or just making a new one.

 

[Tagaziel]

You mentioned my favorite cut content (raccoons) so you get one of the few likes you might get in this thread.

Hey, if they were present, I'd be celebrating my 20th anniversary as a furry. Instead it's just 15 something.

From my perspective if they just opt for a morally grey approach and have them do a mix of good and bad with some interesting motivators and end results everyone would be pleased.

That's kind of what they're doing in Fo4. But as TR said, they are in a Catch-22 situation with this sliver of the fanbase.

I don't know. Probably a chemical leak has caused people with a specific taste in games to be unable to appreciate it. Or maybe it's taking a backseat while gameplay goes first without much touch. To put it softly.

The funny thing is, I thought like you ten years ago. Check my posting history and the long rants I posted about Fallout 3. Compare.

Not the Second Coming. But sure as hell I expected at least NV+Skyrim, and I was coming with low expectations. Didn't get even that, chrissake. A fanmade free TC of Skyrim is the only thing since Fo4 and ultimately the release of Nuka World, that actually made me expect something from Bethesda again. If people can do such amazing things at no salary in the same engine, hopefully Bethesda can do something at least of that level for TESVI. Or not. My pennies on not.

I didn't come in with any expectations. I just wanted a Fallout game. And for me, I got what I wanted, more, actually. It has provided plenty food for thought and deciding between the Brotherhood and the Institute required me to define what it meant to be human. Kind of terrifying.

So there can't be stronger engines thata llow for no load screens yet? More unique NPCs and unique quests? Even more factions and a longer campaign? A map that is at least a teeny bit bigger than Skyrim's? No? There haven't passed 20 years worth of gaming to build on? Guess not, apparently.

I found the NPCs to be unique, particularly the companions. Jesus, Danse is one of the most expertly designed characters and story arcs I've seen in a while.

Yeah, FUCK ME for expecting anything somewhat remarkable that we haven't seen yet on the last 5 years of AAA development. Say what you will about Andromeda, but at least they aren't making it in a 10+ year old engine. I still wonder if it's more expensive to keep it from falling apart or just making a new one.

Take a chill pill. Seriously.

 

[Einhanderc7]

To be honest I'm actually pleased with how they handled the disposition of the BOS in Fallout 4, however I don't agree with there presence there. Which is my only real gripe about them.

 

[Deleted member 93956]

The funny thing is, I thought like you ten years ago. Check my posting history and the long rants I posted about Fallout 3. Compare.

What does that even mean?

I found the NPCs to be unique, particularly the companions. Jesus, Danse is one of the most expertly designed characters and story arcs I've seen in a while.

To be entirely fair, that's one of the things they learned from New Vegas and did it quite well without ripping themselves off. Hats off to the spanish VA for Curie, too. Cutest delivery and without the cartoon french accent. But by that I rather meant... Having more than two effective towns filled with named NPCs? I sure can name almost any inhabitant of the Mojave at a vague description, but here I have issues going much beyond Snazzy Jacket Maxson and the old guy with the baseball store.

the Institute required me to define what it meant to be human. Kind of terrifying.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/282140/SOMA/

You can start there, nevermind the huge amount of Sci-Fi dedicated to the subject. It being actually intended and not EXISTENTIALISM AMIRITE and leaving you to wonder for a bit.

Take a chill pill. Seriously.

I asked the doctor, but bleach isn't working. Maybe some intense trauma? Be right back.

 

[Tagaziel]

What does that even mean?

Things change. Attitudes change. I wouldn't have liked Fallout 4 ten years ago. Now?

I like it.

To be entirely fair, that's one of the things they learned from New Vegas and did it quite well without ripping themselves off. Hats off to the spanish VA for Curie, too. Cutest delivery and without the cartoon french accent. But by that I rather meant... Having more than two effective towns filled with named NPCs? I sure can name almost any inhabitant of the Mojave at a vague description, but here I have issues going much beyond Snazzy Jacket Maxson and the old guy with the baseball store.

I'm not good with names, but I can name you a good chunk of characters in Fo4. Most of the Brotherhood, definitely, because damn if they aren't awesome.

http://store.steampowered.com/app/282140/SOMA/

You can start there, nevermind the huge amount of Sci-Fi dedicated to the subject. It being actually intended and not EXISTENTIALISM AMIRITE and leaving you to wonder for a bit.

What makes you think it's not intended in Fo4?

I asked the doctor, but bleach isn't working. Maybe some intense trauma? Be right back.

Beer. Lots and lots of beer.

 

[Einhanderc7]

I'm fairly certain if Fallout 4 wasn't a Fallout game (Or Marketed as one or canon) that more people would enjoy it, specifically from this fan base. I think that is reasonable considering how different Fallout 4 is mechanically from the rest.

 

[0wing]

I think that is reasonable considering how different Fallout 4 is mechanically from the rest.

Pete Hines knows his business (I guess the only one in the whole Bethesda Game Studios in his position as a PR apart from artists who does. In his other roles, such as community manager, he of course suck) and would never let that happen, because...

I'm fairly certain if Fallout 4 wasn't a Fallout game (Or Marketed as one or canon) that more people would enjoy it, specifically from this fan base.

I'm not so sure. People tend to be more forgiving for a faulty Fallout game since this series has it's history with glitches, system incompabilites (F3 needs the whole SETUP GUIDE for modern OS', Basic Fallout 2 looks and plays like ass, et cetera) and old as mammonth's shit engines. Different name, new IP? Expect someone like IGN or Polytaku getting butthurted over horse-beaten glitches and save files corruption(had ones myself in F3 and F4, yes) and giving an unfair score. See Prey 2017 for an example, specifically google for a 4/10 IGN review because someone got a glitch Arkane Studios already patched at release in a day one patch.

I'm not even touching the gameplay, story, presentation right now...

 

[CerberusGate]

I mean even if the thread was the usual Fallout 4 "bashing", it's still discussing Fallout 4 on a subforum for Fallout 4.

What's wrong with bashing Fallout 4? Discussion forums generally should allow discussion, so long as it's not cross-site trolling or stuff like that.

That's why I questioned Tagaziel's decision. The bashing was rather minor from what I've read and Tagaziel declaring the whole thing as unproductive speculation before reply banning the whole thread because he makes the sweeping declaration that Bethesda declares canon (plus the reality check remark) strikes me as peculiar and somewhat unreasonable on his part.

Then again, this could be an attempt to return to the old days when the forum was heavily moderated so there's that.

 

[Risewild]

Feral ghouls don't need it, since they're clinically dead and sustained only by radiation (the sources are below, but MARGOT makes it patently clear that ferals are well done and gone).

https://fallout.gamepedia.com/Ghoul#Complications

This is supported by the classification introduced in Fallout 3, building on the lore from Fallout and Fallout 2. The unfortunate conclusion is that all ghouls will eventually die, with only a handful of exceptional individuals surviving with their minds intact. The diminishing numbers of sane or living ghouls from game to game supports that notion.

I have read all the sources and I don't see anything saying that ghouls or feral ghouls are clinically dead. The only thing I see there is a computer saying that it's sensors might be malfunctioning because the "humans" have no body heat and emit lethal doses of radiation. So it admits it's sensors might be malfunctioning, and there are many living animals that do not emit heat and they are not dead (for example reptiles), also to point out that most feral ghouls in the presidential metro tunnel are not glowing ones, so most of them wouldn't be emitting lethal doses of radiation, since only Glowing ones emit high enough radiation for the Geiger Counter to detect (there is nothing in the sources saying that any ghouls emit radiation. Besides glowing ones that we see ingame doing it. Since the Pipboy Geiger Counter doesn't detect any radiation coming from any other type of ghoul I take that as them not emitting lethal doses of radiation) I doubt M.A.R.G.O.T. sensors are functioning well to begin with.
Also there is nothing in the sources that say feral or otherwise ghouls don't need food and are only sustained by radiation. Radiation increases their healing, but it doesn't say that it sustains them.

Also if they don't need to eat, why do they get increased appetite when they turn feral? Appetite is feeling the need to eat.

EDIT: I came back now that I have a bit more time to elaborate on this.

The Terminal in Underworld's Chop Shop that shows research about Ghouls and Ghoulification seems to suggest that ghouls and feral ghouls are definitely not dead. All the research is referred to "Necrotic". Necrosis is the death or destruction by internal or external causes (like fire, venom, radiation, extreme cold, etc) of live tissue. If Ghouls were clinically dead a doctor/researcher would refer to it as being Apoptotic and not Necrotic (since they would be dead, Necrosis can't happen). If one consider that they got the Necrosis damage while they were clinically alive, that damage would have been replaced by the Apoptosis one once they became dead.

Also Apoptosis can't be repaired/regenerated in any way, and Ghouls have regenerating abilities, they heal like humans and heal faster in radiation. If they were dead they wouldn't heal naturally or in radiation. Otherwise Ghouls couldn't be killed ever, they would always regenerate over time and each individual part (if they would be cut into pieces) would still be "clinically dead" but still regenerate, because there is no difference between dead meat even if it is or not attached to a dead body.

 

[Tagaziel]

I have read all the sources and I don't see anything saying that ghouls or feral ghouls are clinically dead. The only thing I see there is a computer saying that it's sensors might be malfunctioning because the "humans" have no body heat and emit lethal doses of radiation. So it admits it's sensors might be malfunctioning, and there are many living animals that do not emit heat and they are not dead (for example reptiles), also to point out that most feral ghouls in the presidential metro tunnel are not glowing ones, so most of them wouldn't be emitting lethal doses of radiation, since only Glowing ones emit high enough radiation for the Geiger Counter to detect (there is nothing in the sources saying that any ghouls emit radiation. Besides glowing ones that we see ingame doing it. Since the Pipboy Geiger Counter doesn't detect any radiation coming from any other type of ghoul I take that as them not emitting lethal doses of radiation) I doubt M.A.R.G.O.T. sensors are functioning well to begin with.
Also there is nothing in the sources that say feral or otherwise ghouls don't need food and are only sustained by radiation. Radiation increases their healing, but it doesn't say that it sustains them.

That's a very good point. Feel free to change it in a way that's consistent with other sources.

I prefer to take the path of least assumption when reviewing sources. MARGoT suggests the sensors might be malfunctioning - and that's possible - but it also interprets feral ghouls as human. Of course, here we enter the problem of defining just what is death: I've specifically included a statement that it's clinical death, as feral ghouls do not possess higher brain functions. The human they were is irreversibly dead. I'll have to review sources from Nuka-World and Fo4, but what you are saying is quite logical.

(again, feel free to rewrite what you think doesn't fit, minding the sources; The Ref God is not please when we type without citing sources)

Also if they don't need to eat, why do they get increased appetite when they turn feral? Appetite is feeling the need to eat.

Appetite isn't synonymous with the actual physiological need for an energy intake. From observation, the ghouls might reflexively munch on dead bodies, but they can survive for extended periods of time in sealed areas without access to nutrients of any kind.

EDIT: I came back now that I have a bit more time to elaborate on this.

The Terminal in Underworld's Chop Shop that shows research about Ghouls and Ghoulification seems to suggest that ghouls and feral ghouls are definitely not dead. All the research is referred to "Necrotic". Necrosis is the death or destruction by internal or external causes (like fire, venom, radiation, extreme cold, etc) of live tissue. If Ghouls were clinically dead a doctor/researcher would refer to it as being Apoptotic and not Necrotic (since they would be dead, Necrosis can't happen). If one consider that they got the Necrosis damage while they were clinically alive, that damage would have been replaced by the Apoptosis one once they became dead.

Also Apoptosis can't be repaired/regenerated in any way, and Ghouls have regenerating abilities, they heal like humans and heal faster in radiation. If they were dead they wouldn't heal naturally or in radiation. Otherwise Ghouls couldn't be killed ever, they would always regenerate over time and each individual part (if they would be cut into pieces) would still be "clinically dead" but still regenerate, because there is no difference between dead meat even if it is or not attached to a dead body.

With the caveat that ghouls are generally impossible with regular science (not Science!), that's a very good point. Of course, the problem is that ghouls were generally very hard to kill and all ghouls in Fo1 were shambling, rotting corpses with exposed innards. Since Matt Peabody mentions that their genes can play a factor (one of the only references to that end), it could be that the radiation mutates people with a matching gene or set thereof into a human subtype, rather than destroying their bodies.

The regenerative factor is well established, however, since if ghouls rotted without it, you'd get Walking Dead pretty damn fast and yet they can shamble on for centuries (though in ever diminishing quantities).

Did you ever come across any more specific sources about ghouls and their state? There's the VB design documentation, but I don't want to rely on non-canon material.

 

[Risewild]

Did you ever come across any more specific sources about ghouls and their state? There's the VB design documentation, but I don't want to rely on non-canon material.

Not really, that is why I had to read all the sources of that article. I was always interested in things like ghouls, Super Mutants and mutated critters in the fallout universe, so it was a nice reading.

Maybe Fallout 4 adds some more information. I haven't played much of it because I don't have a good machine to run it smoothly and I get bored playing it (I have the same problem with FPS games and even Skyrim, unfortunately).

I said it before, but I will say it again. I wish Bethesda would release something like a Fallout Bible of their own, clarifying what they consider cannon from all the games and what retcons they made and all of that.
I am not a lore freak, but I do think it would make it much more clear about some things.

 

[TorontoReign]

They would just contradict it like all the other devs do. Stuff like that is usually disregarded or forgotten about and more for collectors and fanboys like us to obsess over.

 

[NMLevesque]

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.

 

[Tagaziel]

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.

Glad we're on the same page.

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.

See, here's where I differ: I apply the same standards to Fo4 factions and they provide enough for me to answer any question I might have. The problem here is that you seem to ignore the different situations between the Mojave and the Commonwealth. One's a frontier territory sandwiched between two competing nation states. The other a wasteland that's been deliberately kept in a state of chaos and strife by the Institute.

The Khans are a special case, as I disagree that they're driven by sadism and addiction. The Khans are a raider tribe that relied on a simple law: The law of the strong. If you were strong, you could become someone and rise to a position of power. The Khans were strong for a while, until the NCR appeared and they picked a fight with them, which ended poorly: Their own most vulnerable were slaughtered and the NCR then forced them to resettle into a desolate canyon without anything in the way of support.

Khans don't "just want to feel good." They are a people wronged by the NCR, who saw innocent people they simply tried to get to safety gunned down by NCR sharpshooters (Boone's story touches on this). Regardless of your opinion of the Khans, shooting unarmed civilians in war is about as evil as you can get without organized genocide. Their primary motivation is vengeance, with Papa Khan explicitly stating to you that his justification for aligning the Khans with the Legion is vengeance, followed by a chance at restoring their standing (Caesar explicitly uses this against them).

I'm seriously wondering how you missed that and frankly, it's kind of discouraging for the rest of the discussion.

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?

What is not a parallel? Both are nation states that emerged from an alliance of settlements. I'm not talking about "rest on the NCR's laurels" (whatever the expression actually means), but the impact this makes on the story. The failure of the CPG leads to a systemic failure of governance and organization in the Commonwealth. With no political structure backing them, the Minutemen fail as an organization, eventually leading to a situation where Quincy falls to the Gunners, betrayed by a Minuteman who saw the Gunners as an extreme, yet plausible option for stabilizng the quagmire of violence and strife.

That's the point.

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.

At this point you're again being obtuse. Fallout 4 gives enough information about every extant settlement. Diamond City is the heart of the Commonwealth, with its own standing military force, commerce, free education for children, produces water, food, electricity, and other goods it trades for with the outside. Bunker Hill is a related trade hub that serves trade routes beyond the Commonwealth and is rich enough to pay off surrounding raiders (profiting from trade caravans) and forms the basic axis. Goodneighbor is a largely leaderless, lawless community that self-organizes and serves as a port of call for people who are not welcome in Diamond City.

I mean, I'm not sure how I'm supposed to take the comparison with the Fiends. "Less going ont here than with the Fiends"? The Fiends are literally just disorganized junkies with salvaged guns that raid the NCR and trade with the Khans for drugs. They are meaningless insofar the story is concerned, beyond just a threat on the NCR's flank to occupy.

It's not related to the CPG at all either, since the CPG explicitly serves to explain why the Institute doesn't bother with the surface and its failure explains the state of the Commonwealth, much like the strategic failure of Oliver's strategy explains the state of the Mojave.

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.

I was referring to the destabilization of the surface.

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.

By your own standards that's bad writing. There were tons of methods the Master could've used to salvage his plans and remain consistent with his vision.

Hell, none of the factions in Fallout 4 do the same thing. They don't "just give up". They fight to the bitter end.

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.

You're deliberately ignoring everything I write and explain.

How about you apply the same courtesy you give to Obsidian to Bethesda and actually explore the factions in the same exact way?

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.

I'm not sure I follow. You dismiss them because they don't fit your idea of what a faction should be, which is basically cherry picking.

Why should they share knowledge for external scrutiny? Why shouldn't they care about surviving themselves and rebuilding civilization? Why aren't they interested in knowledge for knowledge's sake, when one of the project most frequently mocked on these boards is knowledge for its own sake, the gorillas?

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.

At this point I question your good faith in this discussion. I can ask the very same questions of the NCR or the Legion and it would make the same amount of sense: Zero.

*Hyperopia

No, myopia.

They are concerned purely with themselves, ignoring the concerns of the surface that once spurned them. It's hot hyperopic.

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.

It's too bad the entire series is about humanity rebuilding in the face of its affinity for conflict.

Forest, trees, something something.

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.

Their virtue is knowledge and the ability to achieve what no other faction in the wasteland has achieved or is likely to achieve soon. It's interesting that you seem to give House a pass, despite the fact his logic is pretty much Institute logic.

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.'

Uh, "genetic purity" is a trite Nazi trope that's been already brought up in Fallout 2 and serves no narrative purpose.

As for the second paragraph, it's basically a gish gallop resulting from what I wrote above: You consistently ignore points to the contrary and refuse to extend the same courtesy to Fo4 as you do to FNV. Either show at least some effort, or don't post just for the sake of posting.

'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

I'm not oversimplifying anything.

Your posts are simply just an extended version of "Please tell me what the game's about, because I can't be bothered to even try and research the topic".

The fact that you arbitrarily reduce the Institute to just one motivation (survival), and then go on to fawn over FNV how it's so incredibly deep, despite having the exact same information to go on shows you're either trolling or unwilling to engage in any sort of discussion.

To play your game: You fail to actually explain why I'm wrong in my analysis. You fail to explain why the Institute is just about survival (the best you do is "they don't feel like Followers", to which I can say you don't feel like a human and make about the same amount of sense, i.e. none).

Also, look up the casual meaning of reductionist. A quick google should inform you.

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.

Again, they want to live because they consider themselves to be the heirs of humanity and the real chance it has at prosperity. And unlike the Enclave or Western Brotherhood, they are open to new people joining their ranks based on their aptitude.

You'd know that if you extended it the same courtesy you do to the NCR.

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 struggle to undertsand your point or how the Institute fails to qualify as "seeking enlightenment".

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).'

You do realize that tells me nothing about what kind of detail you're looking for, right? Beyond, "It's shallow because there's no immediate threat to humanity/the region/the future."

And, again, every faction can be reduced to the last paragraph. Especially the NCR you're gushing over.

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.

If you indeed played it extensively, then you should have answers to all of the above questions and more. Just like you did with Fallout: New Vegas, which includes a comparable amount of detail.