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.
So it's the setting's fault?
"I'm seriously wondering how you missed that and frankly, it's kind of discouraging for the rest of the discussion."
I went from talking about the Khans, to talking about the fiends. I think you mixed up the two a bit. I will add that I used the fiends because they're a side faction, and not a particularly deep one. Whereas the Institute is supposed to be a main faction. Yet the Fiends are more coherently and clearly written than the Institute.
"What is not a parallel?"
One is fleshed out. The other isn't.
"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 much of a point. It's a throw away line that explains why there's barely anything interesting or engaging going on in Boston.
Where do they link the Minutemen history to the Institute? As I recall, they only indicated that the Minutemen fell apart due to a combination of sucking, losing the Castle, and being betrayed at Quincy.
"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."
I just explained the concept and philosophy of the Fiends in detail. You just gave me a list of mundane details. They have guards. Okay. Is this a police state? Are they strictly observe and report? Are they corrupt? Why should I care? It's the difference between saying 'this is red', and saying they wear red to symbolize Mars the God of War whose human incarnation leads them. It's one thing to say they're junkies. It's another to show how they represent addiction. This sort of reminds me of what Emil Pagliarulo thinks constitutes a theme, e.g Androids.
"I was referring to the destabilization of the surface."
Yes, the hand wave they use to justify a setting that has been *as* frozen in time as the SS was by the cryopod, I'm familiar with it. Now that's symbolism. Too bad they didn't do anything interesting with it. Again, shallow. Again, I actually know this game very well.
"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."
How is that bad writing by my standard?
"Hell, none of the factions in Fallout 4 do the same thing. They don't "just give up". They fight to the bitter end."
Not to create the CPG they didn't.
"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?"
Insisting that I'm being inconsistent is getting old really quickly. Especially considering you just responded to two paragraphs of analysis with one sentence telling me that I'm ignoring your words. I examined Fo4's factions as I did NV. I wanted to like it. I gave it 500 hours of my life. Just because I don't see something deep in it, as you do, does not mean I'm just not trying hard enough--or being biased. I went into it with as positive an attitude as it gets. I was patient. I tried to lean on mods, hard. The problem isn't that I'm not giving it the benefit of the doubt, because I did. It's just that Fo4 can't answer basic questions about its factions, beyond the minutiae that adds as much depth to it a drop of water. The what is nowhere near as important as the why.
"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?"
The only thing I want is a faction that's fleshed out enough to actually be coherent. Cherry picking is selectively choosing which details to focus on, while ignoring others. I've thoroughly discussed every single point you brought up. The focus is up to you, as I've really only been replying. I didn't start out with a thesis of my own, I addressed your argument in response.
As for sharing knowledge, that was a reference to how science works: peer review. They should care about surviving and rebuilding civilization. It just doesn't make them a coherent faction, let alone one that should take up a main faction slot. The gorillas represent engineering, not science. Their goal is to invent something, and they have already decided what it is. That's not an experiment, there's no hypothesis, it isn't in service of trying to answer any question. Knowledge for knowledges sake doesn't mean just do it to do it. It means valuing knowledge, rather than seeing it as a means to an end. Which on the other hand, is exactly what you said they were about. Arbitrarily making synthetic gorillas just because they can is nothing. It's a goof. They just decided to do it for no particular 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."
You give a lot of non answers in the form of telling me that I'm not being reasonable. I just got through explaining their answers, and why they make sense. Please actually read what I write.
"No, myopia.
They are concerned purely with themselves, ignoring the concerns of the surface that once spurned them. It's hot hyperopic."
That's a valid interpretation*. When you said the ends justify the means, I interpreted the ends to be something far off, and the means to be what is right in front of your face. From the context of 'us vs them', or their 'circle' and everyone outside of it, I can see how you would assign far off to 'them', and nearby to 'us'. Both seem like good ways of looking at it to me, now that you've clarified.
*Not the first point I've conceded here, and I'm willing to do that because I am being sincerely honest.
Edit: actually I just looked back and you expressly defined it as short vs long term. So, while that could be a valid interpretation of myopia, you kinda flip flopped on what you meant by it.
"It's too bad the entire series is about humanity rebuilding in the face of its affinity for conflict.
Forest, trees, something something."
An odd thing to say, considering that was an example used to demonstrate that not every faction simply answers yes to the question of 'can/should humanity be saved.' Irony can be a baffling thing.
"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."
I just explained how that is invalidated by contradiction. Also, it would be 'the Institute basically has House logic' since he came first. Except they don't. They believe in 'preserving mankind'. They're actively engaged in doing that according to you. Edit: He's also building 'his world' above ground, as part of society.
"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."
For someone that wants me to read deeper, you have a bad habit of oversimplifying things. War is always a Fallout theme. Does that serve no narrative purpose? What about everything else that was 'already done'? They did Androids and the question of humanity in 3. It was more interesting then. Should I say ot serves no narrative purpose now? Nothing is original, but at the very least an unoriginal but well fleshed out faction is better than an unoriginal faction that's shallow. I brought it up not so much as a suggestion, but because it's yet another example of something they could have gone with but contradicted. Just as some of your suggestions are also contradicted.
Gish Gallop? The first sentence is the thesis. "It's not even a particularly interesting question as stated." Literally every other sentence in that paragraph is a supporting statement. Except the last one which is a restatement. "It just flatly asks it, gives us three answers and says 'pick one, we don't care.' "
"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"."
Your posts are increasingly light on actual arguments.
"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."
It's not arbitrary. I explained why in detail. Part of it was just using your own answers. You said preserving humanity meant surviving. I didn't. But I accepted that for the sake of argument, and used it. I actually listen.
"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)."
Where is this analysis? You give quotes that contain virtually nothing, then obsess over minutiae as though it answered an important question. I gave you exactly what you complained I was requesting from you: a long winded thesis, and then you tell me that I'm not reading what you write.
"Also, look up the casual meaning of reductionist. A quick google should inform you."
I already provided a definition of reductionism. I linked to it, and quoted it. I explained how it connected to what I was doing, and where it didn't. This kind of response typifies your argument at this point.
"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."
You state things like that matter of factly, as though it actually answered the question. I provided at least two solid paragraphs to explain even the Fiends; a relatively minor faction, and this is what you provide for the Institute. How do you not get the difference? What does heirs of humanity mean beyond 'this is a pretty way to say that we're human, and only we can survive'? They take in new members based on academic merit. So what? Do they believe that only book smart people deserve to live? Do they have some kind of classist ideology? What is their motivation beyond we want to live and have better stuff?!? You keep circling around the point, giving extraneous details. Motivation, justification, and long term goals; the why not the what, a philosophy; how many other ways do I need to explain what should be provided by Fo4 and isn't?
So you are comparing the Institute to the NCR, and expect us to believe that they are on the same level of writing? It's one thing to say the writing isn't bad, but that's a very poor comparison. Which I've already elucidated on, and you conveniently never addressed beyond saying I was fawning over them. Odd that you didn't say I fawned over the Legion or the Fiends, since I gave at least as much time and effort to explaining them. Which is to say I've given a coherent description of three factions. Still waiting for you to do the same with the Institute.
"I struggle to undertsand your point or how the Institute fails to qualify as "seeking enlightenment"."
They demonstrably ignore what they know, conduct experiments for no reason whatsoever, and then don't even learn from them: FEV, synths. They have no clear philosophy of knowledge. Is it sacred? Is it power held for greed (Gun Runners)? Is it dangerous (BoS)? Does it belong to everyone (FotA)? Or do they just want it? They want knowledge, okay, but *why* is the question they need to answer and with something more than bafflegab, and fancy but hollow words. A faction cannot be written on *what* alone.
"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.
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."
Ah, you gave up on trying. Disappointing.
