My review of Fallout: the Series Season One 9/10

[Hassknecht]

Some people love building settlements and make dozens of them but if you DONT love building settlements, it becomes a very questionable gameplay loop.

Absolutely. Thing is, neither F3 nor F4 had the quality of writing to let me not hate the story. At least F4 had a different game aspect on offer. In F3, you're kinda stuck with having to engage with the writing at all times.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

I think my opinion can be summarized on the grand finale of each game.

Base Fallout 3 has one of the shittiest endings of all time but by adding Broken Steel, they managed to redeem the base game. It has some genuinely good plot progression by adding the Adam's Air Force base mission where you go from a kid fleeing their Vault to someone who is a power armored badass wiping out the Enclave in a massive personal assault. The way it should be. You even get to destroy a big GI Joe esque personal carrier that I owned as a toy growing up.

Who Dares Wins? is fun as a quest and conceptually cool, and AAB is a fairly well-designed location but the problem is 1) It's still too action oriented - It does offer some options for Stealth Boy and Science Boy, but it's focused on Combat Boy and I think that's basically unavoidable. 2) (And more importantly) The whole thing is a narrative dead-end. It has no connection to the world or story that precedes it, and it's all extremely retarded. How are there so many Enclave left? There are more Enclave at AAB than we see in any other part of the game. Why didn't they use this orbital giga-fuck cannon earlier? It's just a big dumb action sequence to apologize (in very cowardly manner) for the shitty real final quest of the game, which I think is an abominable thing to do from an artistic perspective. GI Joe is the right comparison, it's a cartoon adventure.

 

[PaxVenire]

I'll always have a place in my heart for Fallout 3. I'm sure most would disagree but I feel like it's the one and only game where Bethesda actually tried, though failed miserably and irreparably. Fallout 4 in comparison is the result of Bethesda not caring to try anymore.

 

[CT Phipps]

Who Dares Wins? is fun as a quest and conceptually cool, and AAB is a fairly well-designed location but the problem is 1) It's still too action oriented - It does offer some options for Stealth Boy and Science Boy, but it's focused on Combat Boy and I think that's basically unavoidable. 2) (And more importantly) The whole thing is a narrative dead-end. It has no connection to the world or story that precedes it, and it's all extremely retarded. How are there so many Enclave left? There are more Enclave at AAB than we see in any other part of the game. Why didn't they use this orbital giga-fuck cannon earlier? It's just a big dumb action sequence to apologize (in very cowardly manner) for the shitty real final quest of the game, which I think is an abominable thing to do from an artistic perspective. GI Joe is the right comparison, it's a cartoon adventure.

Ehhh,

I'd argue that for something that exists purely for the purposes of retconning the shitty ending of the Fallout base game, it has its benefits. Not only does the Enclave take out Liberty Prime at the start but they're actually able to expand the Enclave's role from being just "group that shows up out of nowhere and then Raven's Rock gets blown up" that ruined the base game.

The final mission also incorporates the element of choice as well as you can not only wipe out the Enclave (as a sane person would) but betray the Brotherhood of Steel and wipe them out.

Which was nicely cathartic for those who blew up Megaton, were slavers, and annoyed they had to side with Elder Lyons.

 

[PaxVenire]

The final mission also incorporates the element of choice as well as you can not only wipe out the Enclave (as a sane person would) but betray the Brotherhood of Steel and wipe them out.

Be good guy or bad guy is a truly one of the choices of all time.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Ehhh,

I'd argue that for something that exists purely for the purposes of retconning the shitty ending of the Fallout base game, it has its benefits. Not only does the Enclave take out Liberty Prime at the start but they're actually able to expand the Enclave's role from being just "group that shows up out of nowhere and then Raven's Rock gets blown up" that ruined the base game.

The final mission also incorporates the element of choice as well as you can not only wipe out the Enclave (as a sane person would) but betray the Brotherhood of Steel and wipe them out.

Which was nicely cathartic for those who blew up Megaton, were slavers, and annoyed they had to side with Elder Lyons.

Make no mistake, the ending of the main game is shitty in every regard, both as a quest and as some kind of a narrative capstone, crummy though the narrative pyramid leading up to it already was. It's ill-conceived, retarded, the sort of drivel cooked up by a highschool sophomore.

But that's your story. There is something just so deeply bankrupt about telling a story and, when it's poorly received, saying "Uhhhh no actually that didn't happen," and retracting it. The art was what it was, you should let it stand or fail on its own.

Maybe such a thing could be justified if you actually then dealt with the themes you just laid down, dealt with or subverted them in some interesting way, but nope. It just exists as a "Uhhh sorry nevermind, here's some fun action", a near-total retraction that doesn't come to terms with what it's replacing in any way.

And the Enclave's role is even worse in Broken Steel. They were EXTREMELY poorly done in the base game in almost every regard, but at least one can squint and make out what's basically going on, who's in charge and what their aim is: Crazed AI kernel of the pre-War world just wants to genocide everyone on the one hand, alienated aristorcratic Colonel who has some idea to rebuild America on the other. Not great, but it's something, there's a face to it, and hey we even have some personal motive against Autumn as an antagonist (as contrived as that motive may be). But in Broken Steel, the Enclave is just a faceless organization that is vaguely and maniacally pursuing revenge against the Brotherhood. It's nothing, just a bad guy.

The choice at the end is nice, but it's weighed down by the binary Fallout 3 Karma system where most of your choices are split between either "Do The Obviously And Objectively Correct Thing" and "Do a Hitlerian Galactic Jihad (Or Most Proximate Equivalent) For No Particular Reason". Sure it's nice that Fallout 3 gives us those Hitlerian options, but on its own its nothing. Compare that to the choice at the end of Van Buren - Sure, you could nuke everyone if you're a psychopath or have cooked up some other explanation, or you could try your best to minimize the number of nukes and be forced into a trolley problem where you have to make a decision about the least bad places to destroy.

 

[CT Phipps]

Be good guy or bad guy is a truly one of the choices of all time.

It reminds me of all those people who keep trying to argue the raping, slaving, fascist Caesar's Legion are some sort of gray faction. It's far more viscerally one-dimensionally evil (and believable because people like that exist in RL) than the Enclave ever was but people appreciate it because the option to join them exists.

A basic choice between good and evil is also another way Fallout 3 is better than 4.

4 doesn't allow you to be an actual villain or Wasteland monster.

It's also the basic choice of Fallout 1 and 2.

 

[Norzan]

well as you can not only wipe out the Enclave

Which is not even a thing because the game outright says they weren't destroyed. That's how much Bethesda cares about choices.

 

[CT Phipps]

Make no mistake, the ending of the main game is shitty in every regard, both as a quest and as some kind of a narrative capstone, crummy though the narrative pyramid leading up to it already was. It's ill-conceived, retarded, the sort of drivel cooked up by a highschool sophomore.

But that's your story. There is something just so deeply bankrupt about telling a story and, when it's poorly received, saying "Uhhhh no actually that didn't happen," and retracting it. The art was what it was, you should let it stand or fail on its own.

Really? You think it's better to just leave shit broken because "it's art"? I mean, that's not what I think at all. They decided to stand by the ending of Mass Effect 3 despite the fact it's a shitty ending and artitsically bankrupt and all it did was make a bunch of gamers hate a franchise they'd previously enjoyed. Video games can be fixed so why not reward developers when they do it?

Maybe such a thing could be justified if you actually then dealt with the themes you just laid down, dealt with or subverted them in some interesting way, but nope. It just exists as a "Uhhh sorry nevermind, here's some fun action", a near-total retraction that doesn't come to terms with what it's replacing in any way.

There's not really any way to fix, "You have a guy immune to fucking radiation you forgot was in your party so you have to die or kill your pretty Sister of Steel friend to save the world." It's such an incredibly stupid ending and existing only to make a BIG HEROIC SACRIFICE there's no way to make the ending make sense the way they want to.

It also fails because the ending ony works if you were good Karma to begin with.

And the Enclave's role is even worse in Broken Steel. They were EXTREMELY poorly done in the base game in almost every regard, but at least one can squint and make out what's basically going on, who's in charge and what their aim is: Crazed AI kernel of the pre-War world just wants to genocide everyone on the one hand, alienated aristorcratic Colonel who has some idea to rebuild America on the other. Not great, but it's something, there's a face to it, and hey we even have some personal motive against Autumn as an antagonist (as contrived as that motive may be). But in Broken Steel, the Enclave is just a faceless organization that is vaguely and maniacally pursuing revenge against the Brotherhood. It's nothing, just a bad guy.

By that point, the Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave are at war and it's a war picture. This is meant to be an additional chapter to pave over all of the cracks of the original game. There's only so much you can do with duct tape and I feel inclined to be generous fixing a shitty ending rather than blaming them for the fact it wasn't even better.

The choice at the end is nice, but it's weighed down by the binary Fallout 3 Karma system where most of your choices are split between either "Do The Obviously And Objectively Correct Thing" and "Do a Hitlerian Galactic Jihad (Or Most Proximate Equivalent) For No Particular Reason". Sure it's nice that Fallout 3 gives us those Hitlerian options, but on its own its nothing. Compare that to the choice at the end of Van Buren - Sure, you could nuke everyone if you're a psychopath or have cooked up some other explanation, or you could try your best to minimize the number of nukes and be forced into a trolley problem where you have to make a decision about the least bad places to destroy.

The Good, Neutral, and Evil Karma options may not be particularly deep but the "Evil Option" is certainly consistent one. You escape into the Wasteland and rapidly become as savage as any Raider or other scumbag. The fact the base game forces you to work with the Brotherhood of Steel is a failure and while siding with the Enclave is STUPID, you theoretically can.

Also, as much as I hate turn based RPGs, I love Wasteland's storytelling and its humorous to note how much people HATED the Van Buren-inspired ending of "choose to save one or the other but you can't save both?" element.

Indeed, the artificial trolley problem is the reason Fallout 3's ending sucks so bad. It's so contrived.

 

[Bradylama]

So, 9/10

It's nice that you choose to like the show and CHOOSE to be happy, however what you choose to believe should not be the basis of your arguments.

 

[CT Phipps]

It's nice that you choose to like the show and CHOOSE to be happy, however what you choose to believe should not be the basis of your arguments.

I admit, I kind of go with the people who think numerical ratings are stupid and meaningless. Especially since they have such varying criteria.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

It reminds me of all those people who keep trying to argue the raping, slaving, fascist Caesar's Legion are some sort of gray faction. It's far more viscerally one-dimensionally evil (and believable because people like that exist in RL) than the Enclave ever was but people appreciate it because the option to join them exists.

A basic choice between good and evil is also another way Fallout 3 is better than 4.

4 doesn't allow you to be an actual villain or Wasteland monster.

It's also the basic choice of Fallout 1 and 2.

Apples to oranges: There's some method to the Legion's madness, and while most characters will side against it, the fact is that there is some logic to it and it's a fairly reasonable (or at least justified) organization to exist in the world, which makes it interesting to side with.

Again - It's nice that Fallout 3 provides us these evil options, but the game never gives us any real grounding to pursue them outside of some individual idiosyncracies of the player character being a cartoonishly bad dude. Nice but not sufficient.

Really? You think it's better to just leave shit broken because "it's art"?

Yes, absolutely. The piece is the piece. The mindset of eternal perfectionism is how you end up with George Lucas's infinite re-specialization of Star Wars. And at least in his case, all of those changes were based on his personal artistic proclivities, a real vision, and not just being cowed by an angry mob like Bethesda was.

There's not really any way to fix, "You have a guy immune to fucking radiation you forgot was in your party so you have to die or kill your pretty Sister of Steel friend to save the world." It's such an incredibly stupid ending and existing only to make a BIG HEROIC SACRIFICE there's no way to make the ending make sense the way they want to.

It also fails because the ending ony works if you were good Karma to begin with.

Yeah, it's terrible. Bethesda made something terrible, and they should live with it.

By that point, the Brotherhood of Steel and Enclave are at war and it's a war picture. This is meant to be an additional chapter to pave over all of the cracks of the original game. There's only so much you can do with duct tape and I feel inclined to be generous fixing a shitty ending rather than blaming them for the fact it wasn't even better.

It only paves over the cracks of the final quest being bad and narratively retarded. Doesn't fix the manifold other issues with the narrative or worldbuilding, it's just an additional story to revise those two points.

The Good, Neutral, and Evil Karma options may not be particularly deep but the "Evil Option" is certainly consistent one. You escape into the Wasteland and rapidly become as savage as any Raider or other scumbag. The fact the base game forces you to work with the Brotherhood of Steel is a failure and while siding with the Enclave is STUPID, you theoretically can.

You can't work with the Enclave, for the sake of simplicity the game made it so you can just work with the computer (who may or may not already be blowed up) and do his evil bidding. And given the computer is a deranged retard, the game doesn't really give you good enough reasoning to do so.

Again, that's fine, you should be allowed to be a bastard for the sake of it, but it alone does not interesting RPG-choice-and-consequence or worldbuilding or writing make.

 

[CT Phipps]

Yes, absolutely. The piece is the piece. The mindset of eternal perfectionism is how you end up with George Lucas's infinite re-specialization of Star Wars. And at least in his case, all of those changes were based on his personal artistic proclivities, a real vision, and not just being cowed by an angry mob like Bethesda was.

Yeah, as an author I find that ridiculous and very much approve of updated re-releases.

Blade Runner: The Director's Cut is manifestly superior in all ways.

They made something terrible because of its awful ending and they fixed it. So now it's not terrible and really fun and satisfying

Customer satisfaction for those 12,000,000 players.

 

[Norzan]

Apples to oranges: There's some method to the Legion's madness, and while most characters will side against it, the fact is that there is some logic to it and it's a fairly reasonable (or at least justified) organization to exist in the world, which makes it interesting to side with.

The thing with the Legion is that people use modern lenses to criticize its actions. Of course if the Legion existed today they would be no better than literal terrorists, but they exist in a setting where a lot of its population are literal murderers and rapists, a setting that lacks a law system of any kind. So what the Legion is basically doing is forcing themselves to be that law system, to put an end to the constant warring and that means having to do some fucked up shit to enforce it.

 

[CT Phipps]

The thing with the Legion is that people use modern lenses to criticize its actions. Of course if the Legion existed today they would be no better than literal terrorists, but they exist in a setting where a lot of its population are literal murderers and rapists, a setting that lacks a law system of any kind. So what the Legion is basically doing is forcing themselves to be that law system, to put an end to the constant warring and that means having to do some fucked up shit to enforce it.

They're very much a very realistic warlord group like the Taliban or ISIS or Lord's Liberation Army. It also nicely contrasts to NCR and it doesn't bother to have someone say, "If NCR can be a modern democracy, why do we need the Legion." It lets the game speak for itself by making it clear that Caesar's way isn't the only way.

Fucking House and Indie even exists if you're a selfish bastard who only wants money and power.

No to side with the Legion you have to BELIEVE in their ideology.

 

[Bradylama]

Apples to oranges: There's some method to the Legion's madness, and while most characters will side against it, the fact is that there is some logic to it and it's a fairly reasonable (or at least justified) organization to exist in the world, which makes it interesting to side with.

What makes the Legion work is that it's based on actually existing historical societies (mostly Rome) and has a structure and political economy which is directly relevant to the material condition of the world. The Legion follows a brutal and Spartan logic to build civilization out of a brutal and sparse environment. It has its own logic that appeals to people with a certain political leaning, namely those who don't care about women or slavery and want a return to more "traditional" lifestyles where they get to own human beings as a paterfamilias.

New Vegas was able to capture and comment on what was at the time still a nascent and developing "neoreactionary" movement online that would go on to spur a more vulgar and reactionary environment in Liberal politics during the 2010s. I'm replaying New Vegas right now and it's astounding how politically sophisticated it is for a video game, still. It's still relevant 14 years later.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Yeah, as an author I find that ridiculous and very much approve of updated re-releases.

Blade Runner: The Director's Cut is manifestly superior in all ways.

Directors cuts or re-releases are a little different from just changing and overriding the thing itself. Partly because (at least theoretically) directors' cuts come from a place of genuine artistic expression, not bucking to popular pressure - quite the opposite, in fact, given that directors' cuts are generally made to re-insert stuff that the studios demanded be removed out of concern for marketability to the broader public. Broken Steel is more like a studio forcing a director to re-cut his movie in the middle of its theatrical run due to bad reviews.

As an aside, I also flat out disagree with you that The Director's Cut is better, Decker's voice overs while deeply flawed are overall good, and the inserted Unicorn dream sequence is stupid. Could go either way on the ending, though.

What makes the Legion work is that it's based on actually existing historical societies (mostly Rome) and has a structure and political economy which is directly relevant to the material condition of the world. The Legion follows a brutal and Spartan logic to build civilization out of a brutal and sparse environment. It has its own logic that appeals to people with a certain political leaning, namely those who don't care about women or slavery and want a return to more "traditional" lifestyles where they get to own human beings as a paterfamilias.

I agree with the overall point, the Legion works because it's well-conceived and fairly realistic with a grounded political economy, though I would quibble that it's material grounding/political economy has very little to do with Rome, aside from also being a slave society. It's Roman aspects are basically superstructural, or even superficial.

 

[Norzan]

I'm replaying New Vegas right now and it's astounding how politically sophisticated it is for a video game, still. It's still relevant 14 years later.

It's funny but also sad that a game from 14 years ago can have a lot more nuance in its approach to so many sensitive topics that are still relevant today than many pieces of media being released nowadays. A lot of the time games and movies these days are so heavy handed with their approach to topics that you know in like a couple of years is gonna feel already dated.

 

[Bradylama]

It's funny but also sad that a game from 14 years ago can have a lot more nuance in its approach to so many sensitive topics that are still relevant today than many pieces of media being released nowadays. A lot of the time games and movies these days are so heavy handed with their approach to topics that you know in like a couple of years is gonna feel already dated.

Fallout TV practically blames the end of the world on politics itself, as if the problem is an issue of perspective and collective action in general rather than the interests that compel people towards following the death drive of fascism.

I agree with the overall point, the Legion works because it's well-conceived and fairly realistic with a grounded political economy, though I would quibble that it's material grounding/political economy has very little to do with Rome, aside from also being a slave society. It's Roman aspects are basically superstructural, or even superficial.

That's why I said "based on." Caesar practically says himself that all the Rome stuff was just shorthand for his intentions. A simple and straightforward image of power that even illiterate tribals could believe in.

 

[CT Phipps]

I agree with the overall point, the Legion works because it's well-conceived and fairly realistic with a grounded political economy, though I would quibble that it's material grounding/political economy has very little to do with Rome, aside from also being a slave society. It's Roman aspects are basically superstructural, or even superficial.

Yes, Caesar's Legion is uneducated, superstitious, and entirely martial with no real nuance. Arcade Gannon even comments on the fact that everything wrong with it can be summarized with, "Where are the aqueducts?"