No one here, sadly to many people DO agree with that change ... 
New here, and may I just ask a stupid question for once?
- Thread starter PipBoyofSteel15
- Start date
- Status
Why? Fo4 is ok for what it is, but an RPG it is not. I find it decent fun in short bursts, but that's about it. Once the first DLC rolls around, I'll keep tabs on that, and given some of the stuff found (underwater pipes/structures and a spear gun), I do believe we'll be going under the sea....yeah.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
No one here, sadly to many people DO agree with that change ...
Actually you're ignoring the Beth trolls, but they're not human beings...
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Don't even start. At no point did I ever say Fallout 4 should be turned into a storm of conflicting and unconnected bull. Saint's Row doesn't even count. It's a sandbox. It never really had much of a continuity in the first place. I didn't like how it ditched Saint's Row 2's semi-serious side, but what can you do? Fallout needs consistent lore and I get it, so stop pushing it in my face.
But there are stories that work by being inconsistent, intentionally. Books from different viewpoints, for example. Or a perspective piece. There are a LOT of things in Bethesda sandboxes that don't belong in a Fallout game, but that doesn't mean everything in them should be thrown to the side. And neither are plenty of features in those games bad. Plenty of the features in Fallout 4 would work well in other games, if done right.
Inconsistency ≠ Crap
Dr Fallout
Centurion
Well that depends on how much you value the lore, and while the game shouldn't be purely judged on the universe consistency, it should have some role.
MercenarySnake
Kept you waiting huh?
I think that's one of the points it should be judged on, if they didn't want heavy criticism then they shouldn't of called it a Fallout game. I mean if you take away what makes the Fallout Universe the..Fallout Universe it just becomes another mindless shooter with fetch and kill quests devoid of consistency and logic(now that it's in Bethesda's hands).
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Actually Inconsistency is pretty much a signifier of crap.
Even the most ridiculous of stories need consistency, Jojo's Bizarre adventure for example thrives on being ridiculous and hammy, but it keeps internal consistency and there is obvious care put into it. Fallout 4 just tried to cram as much shit as possible without putting the effort to make any of them work together, or even by themselves and disregarded everything the other games accomplished just so they could chase more trends.
Dr Fallout
Centurion
That depends on the game, for Fallout it's extremely important but for more sillier and bizarre games not so much.
Big No
Watch as I open and close this door
Funny thing about this, I'd consider that Saints Row is in a worse state than Fallout, on a lore scale though, not a gameplay one. The reason I say this is because the reason Fallout's lore changed so much was because the franchise changed hands enough times to change things up and the hands it's in now isn't really the best hands the franchise could be in. It's inevitable when a franchise changes hands that some things are going to get messed up.
In Saints Row's case however, the franchise never changed hands and the franchise has had it's installments made by pretty much the same people. Despite this, each installment has been radically changing with each new game even though the it's the same hands crafting them that crafted the earlier ones.
That's worse than Fallout's situation to me since the Fallout franchise changed because a change of hands and New Vegas proved that the old hands could still make a sequel to the originals. Saints Row however can NEVER go back to the way it was since it's the original hands themselves who are changing it and new hands could potentially create a more coherent sequel but it would never be truly the same. This reminds me of this guy called Flippy who LOVES the old SR's and it's kinda funny how the stuff he describes makes Saints Row's situation parallel Fallout's.
Ninja
Who?
I kind of like the direction Saints Row went though. It finally has it's own identity past a GTA clone. Admittedly, Saints Row 3 wasn't the best in terms of maturity, but that can be chalked up to growing pains, right? At the same time, it's not like the change was as radical as Fallout. It didn't go from being an isometric turn-based RPG to a sandbox FPS.
You mean Sandbox FPS. Just to make that clear.
Ninja
Who?
I'm confused.
Ilosar
Vault Fossil
Unreliable viewpoints is not the same thing as inconsistency, however.
To take a more popular example, look at A Song of Ice and Fire (the books from which Game of Thrones is based). It uses a PoV system where every narrator is unreliable to a greater or lesser extent, based on their perception of events. But, the ''rules'' of the setting remain consistent, even if some amounts of it remains mysterious such as some aspects the magic. But Fallout also has some mysterious or wacky stuff in its lore, such as how radiation simply doesn't work like in the real world. That is fine, not everything needs to be 100% realistic, it's fiction after all.
What is not fine is when established elements of the setting are changed or jettisoned by the writers. When T-60 suddenly becomes the pre-war pinnacle of Power Armor despite never being mentionned before. When Vertibirds become commonplace in Pre-War Boston despite being in prototype stages, as stated by FO3. How feral Ghouls can apparently survive for 200 years without food and water. When Power Armor now needs short-lasting Fusion Cores rather than internal batteries lasting a hundred years. How Jet was apparently present pre-war. So on and so forth.
It would be the equivalent of Martin starting book 6 of his series by telling us that Oldtown is in Dorne, when it is actually in the Reach. Is it super-important to the story? No, but changes like that damage the credibility of the setting because it makes one feel like the writers are just pulling stuff out of their posteriors, or changing elements as they go along heedlessly. Good writers don't do that, or at least minimize it as best they can. Bethesda aren't good writers.
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Did you edit it from Sandbox RPG or something?
Oh, so it's not about the artist anymore, it's about the people who look at the art? I'm not using Fallout as an example, but should people shout at an author for being inconsistent with a sequel to their original novel if being inconsistent is what the author wanted?
What if someone cares about their work but intentionally sets out to be inconsistent from the beginning? Is that a practice that should be looked down upon?
Why do people keep getting the impression I'm defending Fallout? Stop bringing it up. It's bad writing, I know. That's not my point.
But the attitude I hate the most is the hate by original fans of Star Wars directed towards the prequels. Are creators not allow to change their visions now? Fiction being flexible is not always a good thing, but there are points in which they work. Sometimes retcons and continuity errors should just be ignored if the result is something much more fantastic.
I get that inconsistency and conflicting viewpoints aren't the same thing. But calling inconsistency a clear sign of bad writing is unfair to the vision of a creator.
You're allowed to not look into a piece of fiction if you don't like the inconsistency in it, but it's many forms of disrespectful to criticise it if all the creators of said fiction intentionally did it, under no pressure or influence, as a will of their own.
Ninja
Who?
No. I'm still confused.
But that's the thing. Something much more fantastic was not created, for both Fallout and Star Wars. In both cases, the issue isn't solely a change in vision. It's taking the characters/universe that the original fans fell in love with and dunking them into metaphorical vats of FEV, until the end result is an abomination that some may consider superior, but horrifies those who loved the original(s). A single retcon may seem okay, but once they pile up is when you start to smell the bullshit.
PossibleCabbage
Vault 22 Survivor
I think it sort of depends on how small the neighborhoods in which a thing is consistent are. Like take Batman for example. Bill Finger's Batman, Grant Morrison's Batman, Frank Miller's Batman, and Denny O'Neal's Batman are all pretty different (particularly for stories about the same guy) but these are still some of the best Batman writers despite this. This is probably because they're separated by years and entire story arcs, not just panels, pages, and issues. So if you're working with a property that doesn't belong to you personally, you don't necessarily need to be consistent with everything that came before, but you should probably stay consistent within the immediate vicinity of your stories.
I think Bethesda's problems with Fallout are less to do with their ability to cling to any sort of canon, and more that their priorities or vision for the series are simply incompatible with my own.
It's ok, my bad. Let us pretend I never posted anything!
TomJ
Still Mildly Glowing
Bethesda knows how to market, they could make any garbage and sell millions on day 1. They could also make a good RPG if they wanted to. Hell, even Skyrim is a better game than 4, Oblivion is a good game compared to Fallout 4. They can make decent RPGs, but choose to make crap that can be mass marketed. They'd be better off making an different series for gimmicks and making decent TES and Fallout games.
I think Bethesda is an echo chamber at this point. They may see the bad reviews, but it doesn't phase them. Even if the people making the swill are aware that the games suck, C level management wants money. I'm surprised it took them this long to make Fallout 4. Any game developer worth their salt would have made this caliber of game in less than 3 years.
Fallout 4 was the redemption game for me and it was flat. I won't be buying a future game until its in Steam's bargain bin.
Bethesda would be better off making a Saints Row clone rather than making worse TES or Fallout games.
Considering what we are talking about in the first place, a form of entertainment, a product, I would say, yeah. In general terms of course. It's not necessarily always about the artist who's behind the work. It can be quite complicated sometimes, so I hope you don't think what I am saying here is some kind of law.
I mean really it's not like you should hold a gun to someone and dictate them what they can and can't do with the work they own. But I see this he's an "artist" thrown around a lot. Even though I think that this is not always the whole story, nor should it be always used like a shield of some sort. Really, what we talk about here, is not art in the traditional sense of what Van Gogh or Picasso did in their free time. If Picasso decided from one day to the next to only draw pigs in all different styles and forms? Going from impressionism to cubism? And changing again to futurism? That's his thing. No one has the right to complain about that. Or to tell him which style to follow.
However, if you a work on a franchise like Star Trek, Star Wars, Dune, a Comic franchise etc. In general something that is not only very broad, but also aiming to be a form of entertaiment, than you have more limitations to consider than just a painting that people can look at or not. You create a certain expectations, and what ever if artists like that or not, in the end, it is a product. A product that has to be bought by someone, and that has to please the fans of said franchises.
One of the things that illustrators and designers learn very early in their career and studying, is that they do NOT(!) create art, not in the first place, they create products, they solve problems - for a client. They are providing a service. You will hardly win a lot of clients if you explain them shitty UI changes as artistic freedom.
Sadly I have seen to many graphic designers acting like idiots exactly because of that, creating designs that have nothing to do with what the designer and the client actually agreed on in the first place. The end product can not suddenly be a huge change from the first draft. Like removing ALL the images with the idea to get your message across by only using clever typography. As great as that idea might be, you have to stay with the vision that you agreed with your client.
Anyway. I have to strongly agree with Walp, that consistency, is a very important if not one of the most important part of established franchises - and it is also important in a lot of design concepts as well! But I have the feeling you might be, slightly missunderstanding, his intentions.
If the story or setting was writen from the begining to work like that, and if the writing is good and the narrative supporting it? It would be probably still consistent with the tone or the overall plan of what the creator had in mind. And thus, it can work for the overall endresult. It is however a very delicate path and one that should be avoided, if you can't pull it off. It is a very extreme move, at least as far as established stories goes.
What Walp means (I guess?) is something comparable with turning the last half of a pure Ben Stiller-like-slap-stick Comedy into a very serious SAW-horror-gore-movie.
Of course they are. But often enough you end up with crap like the SW prequels. Simply because the whole structure of SW was never ever meant to play out like they did with the prequels. I understand that this is not always very fair to Lukas. But well. Fuck him. He's rich. He capitalized on Star Wars long before that was even really a thing. And it is painfully obvious that many decisions have been made for merchandizing, rather than some artistic reasons. But that's to be expected, and not even the worst part.
Like I said earlier, making such changes, is not forbiden, but it is extremly difficult to make it right. The instances where they failed are much larger than the few examples where it worked.
You should not let the fans dictate everything or your creative process, but you should also not ignore them either.
Last edited:
ZigzagPX4
The Swiftness of the Ranger
Whelp. Now that I read your in take on it, your point kind of makes sense. If we're going with the fact that video games are not only art but a product... yeah, I see the point. Maybe I'm just letting my own pro-creativity mind and game development aspirations blur the point I was trying to make. I do consider Fallout 4 levels of inconsistency unacceptable, but there are many instances where little retcons here and there are acceptable. At least, that's my solid opinion. That's all. I guess I sort of misunderstood Walpknut on all known frequencies. As long as the tone and narrative stays stable and doesn't do a face-heel turn...
And alright - Star Wars, with George Lucas, might've not been the best example. There are many more influences than his own design decisions when he decided to change tone with the prequels.
Also, the earlier point with Saint's Row is done, I know, but my couple of views. I enjoyed both Saints Row: The Third and IV quite a lot, Saint's Row 2 was really the best balanced in the series. I miss having ones like them, and hoped Volition would turn back to trying their hand at their classic Saint's Row formula someday, even if it gets decried as a GTA rip-off. But hey, at least their turnaround with the theme didn't fail. Saints Rows after the second one held up very well even if the original fans of the first two didn't appreciate the change. I guess that's kinda like the situation here - Fallout 3 and 4 were good games, but they don't beat the original two, plus aren't even in the same league of overall tone.
Back to the point - I'm not saying every sequel to everything should completely disregard or contradict its own established backstories. I wrongly got the impression that more than half of the people here would crucify an author for changing the history of an in-story organisation in the second one by just a slight bit. A sort of overreaction, but well, you know, NMA.
So, okay. I wouldn't exactly consider inconsistency a counter for whether a series is crap or not, but I guess I can see why it would be a big factor.
(EDIT: And, huh, look at that. This didn't descend into a heated, stormy argument. I guess that proves to the OP you are allowed to ask dumb questions and say things without actually being shot down into the abyss. We did it, NMA!)
Last edited:
- Status