Rebuttal of Escapist's "Bethesda Killed Fallout" article

[mannawyadden]

So, this article claims that Bethesda killed Fallout, starting with Fallout 3. It's more accurate to say that Interplay killed Fallout and Bethesda reanimated the corpse that was sold to them, but regardless..

Here's my rebuttal of several points in the article. Please feel free to respond and discuss.

>And yet from the start, there were subtle signs that something was off. Playing Fallout 3, the “Bloody Mess” perk felt a little too exuberant, zooming in on the carnage in “cinematic mode”.

The carnage got zoomed in on even without the perk, because VATS was done in slow motion, and often switched the camera view to the attack target. The original Fallout games also had Blood Mess as a trait, and it was also quite gory. Not sure why the author believes 3D gore is seen as worse than isometric gore.

>The narrative lines drawn between “good” and “bad” felt a smidge too sharply drawn.

Off the top of my head, in the originals, the Enclave, the Super Mutants, the Khans, and Gizmo were also portrayed as unambiguously evil. Fallout 3 did have instances of moral ambiguity, like Tenpenny Tower's ghoul situation, Arefu's cannibal situation, Ashur's rule over the Pitt, Harold's request that you kill him, and how you view the Overseer (Amata's father).

I'll argue that Fallout 3's version of the Enclave is actually more morally ambiguous than their incarnation in Fallout 2; in FO2, the whole organization engages in wholesale slaughter on numerous occasions, but in FO3, it's President Eden's idea to contaminate the water with FEV. Colonel Autumn revolts against him, and the Colonel clearly thinks of himself and his organization as the "good guys".

>I didn’t bemoan the lack of an option to kill children in Bethesda’s Fallout games, but those who did had a point.

The anti-child-killing isn't specific to Bethesda. I think the EU versions of the original games had children removed completely as a means of preventing you from killing them.

>The original Fallout games were dark. ... took apart Manifest Destiny by showing the inevitable end result, leaving you to draw your own conclusions about whether or not we’re the good guys. ... In Bethesda’s Fallout, you can not only pick up where the 21st Century left off, but you can try most of its failed experiments over again ...

Fallout 3 felt like a pretty bleak game too. The Pre-War era and the U.S. Government's intentions are portrayed pretty consistently between the three games, so I don't understand this part.

>Bethesda has drawn the series farther and farther back into the vault, forgetting or ignoring the subtext of the original series; that the vault itself and everything it represents is what doomed mankind.

Fallout 3 has many examples of nefarious Vault Experiments. The one that released the gas that made people hallucinate left a strong impression on me and was fun to explore. The portrayal of the pre-war government was also subtly sinister, scattered across various terminal entries as well as the attitude of Liberty Prime and the NPCs in the Operation Anchorage simulation. Plus...President Eden and the Enclave.

>That the tech existed was a fact of post-apocalyptic life, but the real question was in whose hands it belonged, and what those hands would do with it. And the answers were not simple multiple choice. In Bethesda’s Fallout, the pre-apocalypse corporations failed only for lack of trying hard enough, and your goal, as a survivor, is not to learn from the past and make better choices, but to simply try again.

In Fallout 1, the Brotherhood of Steel collected technology. The Master and his army used it for evil. Not much else in the game revolves around deciding "whose hands technology belonged". In Fallout 3, the whole main quest boils down to a conflict over who will control the technology of Project Purity.

Don't know why the author believes the message of Fallout 3 is to pick up and try again. Nowhere in Fallout 3 did I encounter an endorsement of the Pre-War government or their methods.

>In Fallout, you are forced out of the safety of the Vault because it is dying. In Fallout 3, you leave the vault because … I dunno. Why not?

You leave the Vault in Fallout 3 because your childhood friend frantically wakes you up and tells you that your only living blood relative has just left the Vault, the Overseer has just murdered Jonas (someone close to you and your father), and that the guards are coming for you next.

Fallout 1's setup is "well, our Vault will run out of water in about 5 months, so we've decided to send you out by yourself to find some spare parts to fix it because otherwise, we'll have to go outside too." If you fail, your people just have to leave the safety of the Vault 13 and live like everyone else.

>And you must solve the “water problem” [in Fallout 3] once and for all using war tools created by the pre-Apocalypse civilization.

The GECK is not a war tool. If this line is referring to Liberty Prime and/or Power Armor, I'm pretty sure Power Armor and energy weapons were used by many Fallout 1 players to beat the game. The water chip is pre-war technology, and the GECK in Fallout 2 is as well.

>Fallout 3 suggests: “Hey, what if we could unleash another biological agent to fix the world?” And then it says go do it. And you do. And the problem is solved. The end.

Nothing suggests that Project Purity releases a biological agent, or that it fixes the world. Eden wants to add FEV to the water, and this is clearly portrayed as a Bad Thing. Broken Steel shows the after effects of the main quest - the whole world's water supply isn't clean, just a bit of water coming out of the basin near the Jefferson memorial. Project Purity is just a big water purifier, and the water has to be carefully rationed out via water caravans. The rest of the wasteland is still irradiated and Project Purity is just a proof-of-concept for large scale water purification.

>In the original Fallout, your success at saving your people from a self-imposed dilemma has an unintended side effect of proving humanity’s inherent problem: itself. In Fallout 3 your success proves everybody who came before you just wasn’t trying hard enough.

In Fallout 3, your success proves that war never changes, and that people will always fight over available resources and ideologies. You can argue that it also proves that humanity's inherent problem is itself. The raiders, the Brotherhood, the Outcasts, Talon Company, the Enclave, Tenpenny Tower...they're all human.

...
I haven't played Fallout 4 yet so I can't comment on that part of the article.
...

>In Fallout 76, the ruins of the ancient world are neither ruined, nor ancient.

It's set in 2102, a mere 25 years after the bombs fell. The old world isn't supposed to be ancient. The ruins do have a post-apocalyptic feel and design appropriate for the amount of time that has passed, though.

>You aren’t rebuilding the world in the wake of mankind’s folly so much as returning to your beach house after a hurricane; an inconvenient, if momentary setback.

That's the naive, optimistic attitude that the Responders took toward the post-apocalypse. The Responders are an extinct faction by the time the game starts.

>Fallout, ... had something meaningful to say. In attempting to render the world of Fallout as a playable, purchasable, and collectible thing, Bethesda has merely succeeded in depriving it of its voice.

The author seems to view Fallout 1 as a critique of the human race, an artistic masterpiece with a deep, thought-provoking message. And it is that, if you read into it enough and look past its exterior video game shell. But it's also a video game, just like Fallout 3. So maybe Fallout 3 also has something meaningful to say, if you know where to look.

 

[Norzan]

The Super Mutants weren't evil, they were following the Master. The Master also wasn't evil, he truly believed in what he's trying to accomplish that it was the best for humanity. He didn't do things out of any evil intention, just the pursuit of greater good he believed in.

The Enclave in Fallout 3 is still just as evil as the one in Fallout 2. Nothing of what you said explained why they are morally ambigous. Colonel Autumn has no qualms about killing innocent people to show how much better than Enclave is, so where's the morally ambiguity? Colonel Autumn's plan is the same one from the Enclave in Fallout 2.

This has been discussed to death but the Tenpenny Tower quest is not morally ambiguous and it will never be. The ghouls are clearly the good guys and the people in Tenpenny Tower are evil. The karma system reinforces this by making you get evil karma from killing Roy and the ghouls and good karma from killing Tenpenny. Can people seriously stop thinking this quest has any moral ambiguity?

And the Harold quest, there's no moral ambiguity. It's just Bethesda basically having you choose to let him live as a tree rooted on the floor or kill him. It's them basically saying to the older fans that they can do whatever they want with the franchise and we have to take it.

The author seems to view Fallout 1 as a critique of the human race, an artistic masterpiece with a deep, thought-provoking message. And it is that, if you read into it enough and look past its exterior video game shell. But it's also a video game, just like Fallout 3. So maybe Fallout 3 also has something meaningful to say, if you know where to look.

Not really. Fallout 1 messages are as clear as day and reinforced by the devs. There are no messages in Fallout 3 unless you try really hard and stretch it to an insane degree. Not to mention Todd and his merry men clearly don't care if the game has any message or else he would be telling it to everyone to make the game seem better than it is.

 

[mannawyadden]

As far as the Enclave/Colonel Autumn goes, I'll repeat the exact same thing you said about the Master: "he truly believed in what he's trying to accomplish that it was the best for humanity. He didn't do things out of any evil intention, just the pursuit of greater good he believed in."

The Tenpenny ghouls aren't supposed to be good guys, they slaughter all of the residents of the tower indiscriminately if you help them move in. The tower residents are bigots and the ghouls are trying to force their way into a community that isn't obligated to open their doors to them and doesn't want them there.

Harold asks the player to help him kill himself. Doing so will prevent the Oasis' life from spreading through the wasteland, but Harold doesn't want to live anymore, so it's a problem. You can persuade him that he should live, but is that the right thing to do? Suicide and assisted suicide are highly debated issues.

 

[R.Graves]

the author believes 3D gore is seen as worse than isometric gore.

because it is. its so cartoony and dumb.

compare fo3's bloody mess to this:

the Enclave, the Super Mutants, the Khans, and Gizmo were also portrayed as unambiguously evil.

the super mutants weren't evil. and the enclave has always been shit villain. also when people complain about black/white morality in fo3 they're complaining about player choice. blow up a whole town or don't. do a genocide or don't.

I think the EU versions of the original games had children removed completely as a means of preventing you from killing them.

wow what an elegant way to censor a game. rather than having all the most annoying characters be kids who you cant kill just don't have kids in a game where you want the player to be able to "go anywhere and do anything"

Fallout 3 felt like a pretty bleak game too

at no point did it ever feel bleak. everyone's really content with their situation. maybe the occasional bum wants some water. there's some slaver who don't do any slaving except for just that one time. outside of that the game mostly feels like purgatory.

I'm pretty sure Power Armor and energy weapons were used by many Fallout 1 players to beat the game.

i never did. always go the infiltration route.

the GECK in Fallout 2 is as well.

in fallout 2 the GECK is basically an encyclopedia with some seeds. not a magic matter rearranger.

or that it fixes the world

and why would it? the purification system is set up at the southern most end of a river that flows south. if it fixes anything the capital wasteland won't feel it. the whole plot of the game is broken just from the way they laid the map out. genius.

In Fallout 3, your success proves that war never changes, and that people will always fight over available resources and ideologies.

except no because no one wants or needs project purity and the two main factions are essentially fighting over who gets to turn it on. the river would be there regardless of who does that.

Fallout 3 also has something meaningful to say

lol ok.

 

[mannawyadden]

The author of the article was acting like the gratuitous gore was something that didn't exist in the originals, but that is a pretty cool gif you posted.

I don't think the GECK was just an encyclopedia with seeds in FO2. I will have to replay the game, but if that were true then how does it explain Vault City, or the fact that Arroyo is relying on the GECK for salvation?

I thought the Super Mutants would systematically wipe out every town on the map one by one, but I see that feature wasn't implemented in the game except for Necropolis? I will have to pay closer attention to the Master's motives during my next FO1 playthrough.

Project Purity was built in the Jefferson Memorial because it was near Rivet City, and I think they were just using the basin as a giant water purifier. The idea that it would purify all the water in the world was an overexaggeration/pipe dream the scientists had.

Also with Project Purity, they were fighting over who would control the purifier, not just who would turn it on. If the Enclave marched in with their Vertibirds and Power Armor and offered clean water to any towns that bent the knee and obeyed their rule, they'd be able to gain power and influence and retake the capital...eventually, maybe even reconquer the country. Lyons' Brotherhood fought to prevent that. They also knew the Enclave would inevitably subjugate or kill them all since they were a rival military force occupying the ruins of the Pentagon.

 

[Risewild]

The carnage got zoomed in on even without the perk, because VATS was done in slow motion, and often switched the camera view to the attack target.

And that is exactly what the author is saying. It made the combat, cinematic. Even when you don't use VATS, when you deal a killing blow, it has a chance of activate the killcam mode. It made violence and killing a glorified cinematic experience.

The original Fallout games also had Blood Mess as a trait, and it was also quite gory. Not sure why the author believes 3D gore is seen as worse than isometric gore.

It's not a 3D gore vs 2D gore. It's how Fallout 3 makes it a cinematic experience. Makes it a spectacle. It is also not optional, since it happens without the perk. It's called Killcam or Kill-cam.
Fallout 1 and 2 wouldn't zoom in and slow time down so you could see the death animations like you were watching a Hollywood action movie.
Not to mention that in Fallout 1 and 2, the Bloody Mess Trait offers no actual in-game advantage, there is no incentive to pick that Trait unless you want to have violent deaths. But in Fallout 3, the Perk offers a good incentive... It adds +5% to any damage you cause to enemies. It's a quite good Perk for most Fallout 3 players, because Fallout 3 relies a lot on combat.

Also the classic Fallout games (including FO:T) have a violence option, where the player could choose how much violent they wanted the death animations and combat animations to be:

​

They even had an option for Language Filter:

The Classic games were only as violent as the player wanted then to be. Fallout 3 shovels it's cinematic violence down your throat, whether you want it or not.

Off the top of my head, in the originals, the Enclave, the Super Mutants, the Khans, and Gizmo were also portrayed as unambiguously evil. Fallout 3 did have instances of moral ambiguity, like Tenpenny Tower's ghoul situation, Arefu's cannibal situation, Ashur's rule over the Pitt, Harold's request that you kill him, and how you view the Overseer (Amata's father).

From that list, only the Enclave was portrayed as evil. And it was already heavily criticized by Fallout fans since FO2 was released.
Gizmo ending shows that Junktown grows and prospers:

Junktown becomes the new boomtown under the careful, and profitable, guidance of Don Gizmo. He profits the most, and continues to increase the size of his casino, and the scope of his power, until he chokes to death while eating some iguana-on-a-stick.

Also worth noticing, Gizmo and Killian endings were supposed to be different, more in line with the rest of the game, but management forced the devs to change it.
Here are the original endings:
Killian:

With Gizmo out of the way, Killian enforces his brand of frontier justice on Junktown. The city remains orderly but small, as travelers steer away from his rigid sensibilities.

[With the background picture being a gallows behind Killian with shadows of dead men hanging from it.]

Gizmo:

Under Gizmo's leadership, Junktown becomes a trading center and resort, where people come from miles around to gamble, spend money and enjoy themselves in relative safety. Gizmo keeps the town prosperous but healthy, as he has no desire to injure his own affluence. The inhabitants of the town become wealthy and famous.”

[With the background picture showing Junktown as a Reno-like casino with electricity and clean streets free of any drug dealers or riff-raff who might endanger Gizmo's operations.]

But even with the management forcing a different ending, the devs still managed to make it sound like Gizmo managed to make a prosperous and growing settlement. Which is not an evil thing.

The Khans believe in the natural law of survival of the strongest. They are not inherently evil.
They can be talked to and reasoned with.
You can also use their beliefs and fight the leader, and if you win, you can save Tandi without any more problems for example. And the leader will let you go without any problem.

Others already mentioned the Super Mutants not being evil, so I will skip this one.

Also about Tenpenny Tower. There is no moral ambiguity for the Lone Wanderer at all. Only for the player if the player already knows before hand what the consequences of their choices will have. So only if the player uses Metagaming.
The ghouls are shown by everything in the game as being the good guys and Tenpenny as the bad guys. There is nothing in the game that shows the ghouls as being evil before they get into Tenpenny tower, but there are things in the game already showing how evil Tenpenny is (wants to explode Megaton just because of the view).
For example, the ghouls karma is set as good karma before they move to Tenpenny tower and Roy's karma only changes once he kills the residents. Which pretty much tells us that the devs wanted Roy to be a good character before he actually becomes evil. You can't reason with Gustavo about giving the Ghouls a chance when you talk to him, but talking to Roy, he will give you a chance of setting it peacefully. Three Dog, the goody two-shoes that fights the "good fight" tells the LW that the ghouls are good and Tenpenny is bad. The first time you reach the Tower, you witness a scene where Roy says he has the caps to pay for accommodation, but what he gets in return is discrimination. Which already paints the residents as being bigots and bad.
Everything in the game is telling the character, that Ghouls = good and Tenpenny = bad. You only think it is moral ambiguity because you as the player knows what happens. But if you were the character in that world, you would think they are good.
That is why pretty much every player of Fallout 3 that played for the first time a good character, they took the side of the ghouls and helped them move peacefully. But now when they play a good character, they usually kill the ghouls. Because they use Metagaming to prevent a bad action from happening. Which is not how you should play a RPG. I still help the ghouls, even if I (the player) know it will be bad in the end. Because my character does not know that and it should play from his point of view.

Arefu's has no real bad endings except one, to be honest. You can have your character go in and kill the Family, before giving the letter to Ian, that is the only bad resolution (because Ian will be hostile to the player and so will have to be killed).
If you kill the Family after giving Ian the letter. He will not be hostile and will later move back to Arefu. Not really a bad resolution because for all your character knows, they are evil cannibals.
You can talk to them and realize they are not so bad and let Ian stay with them. It's a good resolution because he will be with people like himself, and they will teach him how to deal with his cravings.
You can talk to the Family and convince Ian to return to Arefu. It's a good resolution because Ian is with his old friends and will be able to deal with the cravings (we know this because we can talk to him about it).
And we can even broke a pact between Arefu and the Family, where Arefu provides blood and the Family offers protection. Also a good resolution.

Ashur's rule over the Pitt? Ashur is the good guy and Wernher is the bad guy. We know this just by talking to both characters. It's obvious if we listen to them, there are even holotapes made by Ashur for his daughter that makes it even more obvious which path to choose to be good or bad.

Harold's have only one bad resolution, it's the one where you burn him to death.
All the other ones are good resolutions and no matter what you choose, he and the Oasis residents will be happy about it.
When I play a good character, I have no moral qualms about accepting Harold's request. He is slowly being ripped apart, organ by organ and suffering. He tells our character this. I would put him out of his suffering without a second thought. Not to mention, it's not like killing him will stop the trees from growing. There are many flora around that do not need Harold to live (the entirety of Oasis for example). They only needed his seeds and pollen to be born, now nature can take it's intended course and keep using the flora that appeared from him to continue growing.
If a good player is not comfortable with killing Harold, then the game makes it so Harold will be happy about the result anyway, so the character will still have done the good thing.

Overseer... Overseer = bad. Amata = good. Explode Vault = very bad.
Where is any moral ambiguity in that?

Still, these examples have a very different "good" and "bad" narrative compared with the classic games, and that is exactly what the article is mentioning. You seem to have misunderstood this part of it.

I'll argue that Fallout 3's version of the Enclave is actually more morally ambiguous than their incarnation in Fallout 2; in FO2, the whole organization engages in wholesale slaughter on numerous occasions, but in FO3, it's President Eden's idea to contaminate the water with FEV. Colonel Autumn revolts against him, and the Colonel clearly thinks of himself and his organization as the "good guys".

This actually made me laugh.
The Enclave in Fallout 2 is as much evil as in Fallout 3. Autumn thinks they are the "good guys", so does Eden, so does Richardson and so does Horrigan. Bad guys rarely think of themselves as being bad.

Autumn kills in cold blood innocent people just to make James activate the purifier. When just injury or any other non-lethal show of force would do.
Then we have the terminal message showing how the Enclave advertises free pure water and then kills whoever comes to get their water. Autumn shows the authority of canceling direct orders from Eden, if he wasn't evil why would his troops be doing this?

Mission Directive: Establish and enforce Enclave presence among general populace, disposal of genetic non-compliance offenders.

I. Establish constituency enforcement points at coordinates 39.148 x -77.070. Monitor civilian movement in area, and debrief superior regarding any events of notable significance or regularity

II. Distribute purified water rations to civilians willing to sub,it to genetic compliance screening. Participation is compulsory for all civilians, and use of force is authorized in enforcement.

III. Genetic non-compliance offenders should be detained at checkpoint.

IV. To conserve consumption of Enclave resources, detainees should be disposed of by flame only when withholding facility becomes overcrowded, or detainees become unmanageable, whichever comes first.

How Autumn kills the Lone Wanderer even if the LW doesn't resist Autumn and gives him the code without resistance, how Autumn doesn't talk with the LW and explains his views, enlisting the LW to help the Enclave, since Autumn goal is the same as the LW goal.
How in a cell next to the LW's one, there is a real wastelander Enclave supporter (Nathan Vargas) that was tortured so much he now knows the Enclave are not the saviors he once thought they were and supported...
How you can't convince Autumn to give up on his plans and instead use the Enclave to help the BoS with the water purifier. That would be the best hope for a safe and prosperous wasteland. Since both BoS and Autumn (apparently) want the best for the wasteland.
And so on...

The anti-child-killing isn't specific to Bethesda. I think the EU versions of the original games had children removed completely as a means of preventing you from killing them.

You could still kill them, they were still there, they just had invisible bodies.
Still, like Graves said. "Removing" them is a much better solution than making them invincible.
Fallout 3 would have been better if no kids were present to be honest. For once, the whole Little Lamplight wouldn't exist.
It could even be included in the game's story. Water is finally a problem because water is making adults sterile for the last 18 years or so. So no children have been born since then. Which makes the wasteland future be in peril if they don't start getting pure water soon (people would start to get too old to be able to repopulate the wasteland). Enters James and his miraculous cure for the water.

Fallout 3 felt like a pretty bleak game too. The Pre-War era and the U.S. Government's intentions are portrayed pretty consistently between the three games, so I don't understand this part.

Fallout 3 has a few bleak parts, surrounded by an action theme park. Classic Fallout games have a few theme park parts (mostly easter eggs) surrounded by a bleak universe.

Fallout 3 has many examples of nefarious Vault Experiments. The one that released the gas that made people hallucinate left a strong impression on me and was fun to explore. The portrayal of the pre-war government was also subtly sinister, scattered across various terminal entries as well as the attitude of Liberty Prime and the NPCs in the Operation Anchorage simulation. Plus...President Eden and the Enclave.

It seems that the problem with you and this article is that you don't understand it. I just noticed that your replies to points raised in the article are talking about very different things compared to the article.
This point is not about sinister experiments, Giant Killer robots that say silly stuff, or terminals... If you don't understand that, you really got the wrong messages from the article (just like the 3D vs 2D gore point you raised, or how you think Gizmo and the Khans have the same "good" and "bad" narrative as stuff in Fallout 3, etc).

In Fallout 1, the Brotherhood of Steel collected technology. The Master and his army used it for evil. Not much else in the game revolves around deciding "whose hands technology belonged". In Fallout 3, the whole main quest boils down to a conflict over who will control the technology of Project Purity.

Don't know why the author believes the message of Fallout 3 is to pick up and try again. Nowhere in Fallout 3 did I encounter an endorsement of the Pre-War government or their methods.

You seem to have misunderstood the article again. the Brotherhood of Steel collected pre-war technology but doesn't use it to fix the wasteland problems. They collected the technology because it was dangerous to let people use it.
It's the exact opposite of Fallout 3, where the pre-war tech will fix everything that is wrong.
The Master also didn't use pre-war technology for evil, it used it to fix the wasteland and humanity... But guess what? That technology would only make things worst and would have doomed humanity...
...Which is once again the exact opposite of the Fallout 3 pre-war tech will fix it.
I'm sorry to say but (I mean no malice or disrespect) you really missed the point there, missed it by a long shot... I don't even know if it's worth continuing my wall of text unless you read the article properly. Because you're really countering stuff by actually giving examples of what the article is saying perfectly. You're confirming the article instead of rebut it.

You leave the Vault in Fallout 3 because your childhood friend frantically wakes you up and tells you that your only living blood relative has just left the Vault, the Overseer has just murdered Jonas (someone close to you and your father), and that the guards are coming for you next.

Which is all kinds of wrong. First.. .Why is Amata my friend? I was rude and mean to her in all my options before that part. I helped the Tunnel Snakes bully her before the G.O.A.T. and everything... Why is she my friend?
Why do I have to leave the vault? Can't I just talk it over with the Overseer? He wants to question me after all, but why do the guards attack and will kill me even if I don't attack once? Doesn't the Overseer want to interrogate me? Can he talk to dead people?
Why can't I talk to the Overseer and convince him I had no idea why dad left? And then he sends me out to find James and find out his reasons or bring him back?
Why do I have to be forced to leave the vault for something I had no cause of?

Fallout 1 you are (randomly, by pulling straws) forced to leave the vault for survival of your home and people. Fallout 3 you're forced to leave because guards will kill you for something you didn't do or caused in any way, while the Overseer actually wants you alive for interrogation.
Which is what the article is pointing out, in Fallout 1, there is a real reason you're forced to leave. In Fallout 3 the reason is... Because if you don't, the guards will kill you, I guess.

The GECK is not a war tool. If this line is referring to Liberty Prime and/or Power Armor, I'm pretty sure Power Armor and energy weapons were used by many Fallout 1 players to beat the game. The water chip is pre-war technology, and the GECK in Fallout 2 is as well.

Yes, it is about using Liberty Prime. Without Liberty Prime you can't do anything. And also to show what the article says, pre-war scientists designed and constructed Liberty Prime, and yet they couldn't make it work, but now lesser scientists all of sudden manage to fix the problem. Making the pre-war weapon of war be able to fix the problem.
You want to know how Fallout or Fallout 2 would (probably) have dealt with the force field? You would be able to find a pass or something in some Enclave officer during the battle, which would allow you to bypass the force field, you would be able to use science or repair skills to disable it (you can use those two skills to disable force fields in the classic games), you could disguise yourself as an Enclave soldier (like in Fallout 2 as a way of entering Navarro), etc...

In Fallout 3, your success proves that war never changes, and that people will always fight over available resources and ideologies. You can argue that it also proves that humanity's inherent problem is itself. The raiders, the Brotherhood, the Outcasts, Talon Company, the Enclave, Tenpenny Tower...they're all human.

This point has nothing to do with what the article said. In Fallout 3 it is still like the article says so... Pre-war problems existed because they didn't try enough, since you can fix all the apocalyptic wasteland problems using pre-war tech.

In no way does your success prove that war never changes. Once you have the purifier going and the enclave is beaten (your success), there is no war anymore. Water is delivered for free to all settlements, there is no fight for it anymore. Wasteland settlements are peaceful and have free pure water.
Also notice how in all your examples, none of them fight for resources, except the BoS vs Enclave. BoS apparently fights with the Outcasts because of ideology. But they also don't fight, they usually just ignore each other in game (like Super Mutants and Ghouls).

It's set in 2102, a mere 25 years after the bombs fell. The old world isn't supposed to be ancient. The ruins do have a post-apocalyptic feel and design appropriate for the amount of time that has passed, though.

So... Nuclear bombs falling around would not create ruins? In Fallout, a direct hit from one of such bombs created an enormous crater that can be seen from space (where the Glow is located), but in Fallout 76, all the houses and factories, all the trees and flora are intact. It's not even close to be a wasteland.
Not to mention when the players launch nukes, the area does not get ruined or anything... It just gets a tint filter, radiation area and spawn rare resources and tough enemies.

That's the naive, optimistic attitude that the Responders took toward the post-apocalypse. The Responders are an extinct faction by the time the game starts.

What? The Responders were out there, putting themselves in harms way to rescue people in need, teaching survival skills to people, trying to develop a vaccine for the Scorched... All while trying to keep their best from joining the BoS...
What part of that sounds like they took the apocalypse as a minor inconvenience?
Also... All factions in Fallout 76 are extinct, so I don't get your point.

Doesn't really rebut what the article says and it's totally wrong about the Responders.

The author seems to view Fallout 1 as a critique of the human race, an artistic masterpiece with a deep, thought-provoking message. And it is that, if you read into it enough and look past its exterior video game shell. But it's also a video game, just like Fallout 3. So maybe Fallout 3 also has something meaningful to say, if you know where to look.

Of course Fallout 1 had a message. It's a quite obvious one. And like Norzan said, it was reinforced by the devs.
When Fallout 3 devs come by and tells us what their message is, I will believe Fallout 3 also has a message...
After all Fallout 3 is a montage of significant (and insignificant) things from all the previous Fallout games, including Fallout Tactics, Van Buren and Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel. If you can pull an obvious message from a mishmash of different source material, I'm all for hearing it.

 

[Gizmojunk]

The author of the article was acting like the gratuitous gore was something that didn't exist in the originals, but that is a pretty cool gif you posted.

Spoiler

 

[Norzan]

As far as the Enclave/Colonel Autumn goes, I'll repeat the exact same thing you said about the Master: "he truly believed in what he's trying to accomplish that it was the best for humanity. He didn't do things out of any evil intention, just the pursuit of greater good he believed in."

Except the Enclave doesn't want the betterment of humanity, they just want the USA to be the dominant nation. The Master wants the betterment of humanity by turning people into Super Mutants. Think about it, Super Mutants are pretty much the perfect beings for a nuclear wasteland. They are immune to radiation, they are strong, pretty smart (with the exception of Harry and a few others) and this means they can survive much better in a nuclear wasteland.

See the difference here? The Enclave just wants the 'Murica to return, while the Master wants humanity to survive. The Enclave mercilessly kills people that they believe don't fit in their utopia, while the Master only resorts to violence if they resist. The Master doesn't kill out of a sense of superiority or that you don't fit into its plan, only does if you resist and clearly don't want to join, but he accepts everyone that wants to join.

 

[mannawyadden]

See the difference here? The Enclave just wants the 'Murica to return, while the Master wants humanity to survive.

I could say that the Master just wants to make humanity either dead or transformed into Super Mutants, while the Enclave wants humanity to survive. It's dependent on what perspective you take. The fact that the Enclave can be sympathized with just like the Master's army proves they're not completely evil.

Dick Richardson: "If your kind is allowed to flourish it'll mean the end of the human race as we know it. We can't allow radioactive freaks to squeeze humans into extinction."

Colonel Autumn: "The American people are worth fighting for. The future must be secured. I won't let you stand in the way of that."

"Once you're dead, we'll finish off this pathetic Brotherhood and become the true saviors of the Wasteland."

"Once this facility is operational, the masses will flock to the Enclave for fresh water, protection, and a plan for the future."

It seems that the problem with you and this article is that you don't understand it. ... I'm sorry to say but (I mean no malice or disrespect) you really missed the point there, missed it by a long shot... I don't even know if it's worth continuing my wall of text unless you read the article properly.

I read the article several times trying to figure it out, so if I misunderstood so much of it and missed so many of its points, the blame for that lies on the article's author. I'm sure people who already hated Bethesda's games are able to fill in the gaps and make sense of the article, but for me, the article was extremely vague and lacks cohesion.

I do appreciate the long response you wrote and you bringing your perspective to the table. I don't see the value on arguing over personal perspective, but I'll respond to a few points.

How Autumn kills the Lone Wanderer even if the LW doesn't resist Autumn and gives him the code without resistance

It was poor game design to have Autumn kill the LW if you hand the code over. They should've just had a brief voiceover and ended the game, like they do if you willingly join the Master's army in Fallout 1, but Bethesda took away the choice to be able to join the Enclave and live.

How you can't convince Autumn to give up on his plans and instead use the Enclave to help the BoS with the water purifier. That would be the best hope for a safe and prosperous wasteland. Since both BoS and Autumn (apparently) want the best for the wasteland.

You actually can convince Autumn to give up on his plans and walk away during the final confrontation. Expecting him to broker a treaty between the Enclave and the BoS is a bit much to ask of one man, especially with so much bad blood and ideological differences between the two factions. The Enclave and BoS both want what's "best", but their idea of "best" is drastically different.

Why is Amata my friend?

Bad phrasing on my part. She isn't necessarily your friend, and depending on your dialogue choices, she can get pretty hostile with you. She wakes you up no matter what because she respected your father and doesn't want to see you to get killed.

Why do I have to leave the vault? Can't I just talk it over with the Overseer?

No, because the Overseer has basically become unhinged and gone into a frenzy in response to James leaving. You can try to talk to him, and there are several ways that conversation can go down, but even if you try to surrender he still has the guards attack you. The Overseer has already murdered Jonas and even subjects his own daughter to torture and interrogation. Your assumption is that the Overseer is in a state where he can be reasoned with, but the game indicates that he isn't.

Fallout 3, where the pre-war tech will fix everything that is wrong.

I just didn't get that message from the game. Are there any examples of pre-war tech fixing everything that is wrong, aside from using Liberty Prime to bust through the Enclave's laser barriers? And yeah, you're right, there should've been other ways to get through the barriers aside from having a huge epic giant robot battle scene.

Once you have the purifier going and the enclave is beaten (your success), there is no war anymore. Water is delivered for free to all settlements, there is no fight for it anymore. Wasteland settlements are peaceful and have free pure water.

Broken Steel shows that there is still conflict over water even after the enclave is beaten. There are sidequests revolving around these water-related conflicts.

All factions in Fallout 76 are extinct, so I don't get your point.

Doesn't really rebut what the article says and it's totally wrong about the Responders.

I haven't played enough of Fallout 76 to make educated statements on it, I'm still only at the beginning of the game. My point was that the article was saying that the nuclear apocalypse was just a minor inconvenience, so if all the factions in 76 are extinct, doesn't that indicate that the world is actually extremely dangerous and you can't just pick up and rebuild so easily?

If you can pull an obvious message from a mishmash of different source material, I'm all for hearing it.

Ok, I'll give it a shot. Here's a quote taken from the game's intro:

"Since the dawn of humankind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything, from God, to justice, to simple psychotic rage. In the year 2077, after millennia of armed conflict, the destructive nature of man could sustain itself no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of nuclear fire and radiation. But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was simply a prologue to another bloody chapter in human history. For man had succeeded in destroying the world, but war...war never changes."

Everything in the game can relate back to the above concept. Humans have been spilling blood ever since technology was discovered, and even a nuclear apocalypse isn't enough to change human nature.

 

[SquidWard]

so if all the factions in 76 are extinct, doesn't that indicate that the world is actually extremely dangerous and you can't just pick up and rebuild so easily?

You need to keep in mind that only West Virginia was affected by the plague that exists in 76. Or it seems to be that way at least.

 

[R.Graves]

I don't think the GECK was just an encyclopedia with seeds in FO2

so its a box of dried foods and encyclopedias...

If the Enclave marched in with their Vertibirds and Power Armor and offered clean water to any towns that bent the knee and obeyed their rule, they'd be able to gain power and influence and retake the capital...eventually, maybe even reconquer the country.

fallout 3 makes it painfully clear that no one needs purified water. evreyone's getting on fine. megaton's purifier is on the verge of collapse and NOT A SINGLE npc in megaton is even vaguely concerned about it. except the one old mechanic whose job it is to fix it. no one even cares enough to appoint him an apprentice so they have some assurance for when he dies or just for helping out.
there are npc who are more concerned with finding soda than they are water.
the only npcs who have a water problem are the bums.

this is like if in skyrim we never saw any dragons but the MQ kept insisting they were there and occasionally an npc would show up and ask for a health potion because a dragon attacked.

 

[mannawyadden]

RE: GECK, a "Base Replicator Unit" powered by cold fusion that "replicates" food and basic building items by just adding water sounds different than a box of dried food...

It's true, the people don't NEED purified water in Fallout 3, it's a luxury. Project Purity wasn't essential to saving all life in the wasteland, it was just supposed to be a quality of life improvement type of thing...to help people live longer and healthier. The water beggars were a very poorly implemented feature but I think they were there to indicate that certain people got sick from drinking too much dirty water. If you refuse to give them water they die shortly after the conversation.

“I've been drinking this irradiated shit and... I can't do it. I just throw it up now. I need purified water... please..." - Water Beggar

 

[KingArthur]

@Norzan basically said what I wanted to about the Master and Unity; Richard Moreau and Colonel Autumn are WORLDS apart, in terms of both characterization and goals. The Enclave is genocidal, and wants to preserve what it sees as pure humanity; i.e. them.

The Master sees humans as having the potential to be something more. Something better. Through FEV and the Unity, the Master hopes to help humans ascend. To become better versions of themselves, and finally put an end to war and strife.

In a crazy, fucked up way, the Master’s goals are admirable. He’s not advocating extermination; he’s advocating change. Colonel Autumn and John Henry Eden just wanna eliminate everyone who isn’t Enclave. Great. Cool.

 

[Risewild]

I could say that the Master just wants to make humanity either dead or transformed into Super Mutants, while the Enclave wants humanity to survive. It's dependent on what perspective you take. The fact that the Enclave can be sympathized with just like the Master's army proves they're not completely evil.

You can't, because when you talk to the actual characters, you will know the Master does not want to kill humanity and don't just want them to be Super Mutants. And the Master can be reasoned with once you prove to him that his plan is wrong.
The Enclave will never change their views of mass genocide, can't be reasoned with, think they are superior to other humans, just because other humans live in a radiated wasteland. They fear those different from them and their solution is to exterminate them. This is all kinds of evil right there, because they believe humanity should be "pure", and "impure" humanity is bad. They are not doing it because they want to save humanity, they want to do it because they want to save themselves. They don't want to risk getting "impure" or see their "purity" gone.
They also want to bring the old USA, one of the big players that destroyed the world, they are not learning from the past mistakes.

Dick Richardson: "If your kind is allowed to flourish it'll mean the end of the human race as we know it. We can't allow radioactive freaks to squeeze humans into extinction."

This Quote from Richardson exemplifies all that is evil in the Enclave, they turn humanity into "us" vs "them". When they are all humans. Just because some live in irradiated places and got some radiation doesn't change that fact. Humans have surviving in the wasteland for over a century and didn't change in any way. Just have some more radiation than "pure" humans.

Colonel Autumn: "The American people are worth fighting for. The future must be secured. I won't let you stand in the way of that."

"Once you're dead, we'll finish off this pathetic Brotherhood and become the true saviors of the Wasteland."

"Once this facility is operational, the masses will flock to the Enclave for fresh water, protection, and a plan for the future."

This here is another example of stupid writing. If Colonel Autumn wants whats best for humanity, he should work with the BoS to achieve it, pool resources and personnel. No, what he wants is to be seen as a hero, a savior, he's really selfish. His troops are out in the wastes torturing and killing the american people and he doesn't bat an eye. The BoS and James are at the verge of help the wasteland and he goes and stops that, he doesn't have the best interest of the american people in mind. He just wants to selfishly use what is supposed to be the "wasteland salvation", so people will idolize him and make him the big boss.
Another stupid thing about this is that the Enclave was the shadow government of the USA and the BoS was made by remnants of the USA army, they could work together like in pre-war USA, specially since Lyons BoS is very different from the "real" BoS, and Lyons just wants to save the wasteland too, just like Autumn is supposed to.

No, Autumn is just a power hungry dictator, that is using the "save the american people" motto to achieve his goals, either he realizes this or not. The entire game and all the interactions with him shows this quite clearly.
It really contrasts when he says that "the masses will turn to the Enclave for water, protection and a plan for the future." and then if you "poke" him enough he will say this:

I am in charge here! I am the Enclave!

He doesn't say he is the president, or the government, he says he is the Enclave! Totally power hungry dictator to me. Which means the masses would turn to HIM for water, protection and a plan for the future. He would then rule them all and be seen as a savior and the next messiah. Dellusions of Grandeur, God Complex, you name it.

I read the article several times trying to figure it out, so if I misunderstood so much of it and missed so many of its points, the blame for that lies on the article's author. I'm sure people who already hated Bethesda's games are able to fill in the gaps and make sense of the article, but for me, the article was extremely vague and lacks cohesion.

Here you are saying people who already hated Bethesda's games. I already told you I liked Fallout 3 and many other Bethesda's games too. The Elder Scrolls are my favorite fantasy computer RPG series!
English is also my second language, and yet I understood the author and the article without any difficulty. And yes, there are stuff in that article I also don't agree with. But the vast majority hit the nail.
I'm more critical of games I like than games I don't like. Usually I just make jokes about games I don't like, but I will criticize games I like a lot. Because I will be able to see the flaws and mistakes, and since I like the game, those things will be obvious and I will want to improve them somehow (that's why I became a modder of Bethesda games for years now).

You actually can convince Autumn to give up on his plans and walk away during the final confrontation. Expecting him to broker a treaty between the Enclave and the BoS is a bit much to ask of one man, especially with so much bad blood and ideological differences between the two factions. The Enclave and BoS both want what's "best", but their idea of "best" is drastically different.

Yes, you can convince him to give up. Which is stupid, since he wants to help the wasteland. Why not convince him to use the Enclave to help the wasteland? When you convince him to give up, he's saying that he gives up on being the saviour of the wastes, because he's beaten... But if his goal was to help the wasteland, it would make much more sense to convince him to use the Enclave to help those who are already doing it...
It is also not a bit too much to expect from one man. He is the leader of the Enclave now, since the troops follow him and he revolted against president Eden. He even says he is the Enclave! He has power to disobey and cancel any presidential orders, the Enclave troops follow him as seen in the whole "escape Raven Rock" segment of the game.

Bad phrasing on my part. She isn't necessarily your friend, and depending on your dialogue choices, she can get pretty hostile with you. She wakes you up no matter what because she respected your father and doesn't want to see you to get killed.

I'm sorry, but that is not the reason she wakes our character up. She says this when being interrogated:

(S)He's my friend. I was worried about him. What does he have to do with any of this anyway?

When you're leaving the Vault she has several variations (depending on the dialogue option picked) of this:

Go on. Before anyone comes. Find your dad. I'll... I'll miss you. You've been a good friend.

Goodbye. Find your dad. I'll... I'll miss you. You've been a good friend.

Go on. Before anyone comes. Find your dad. I'll... I'll miss you. You've been a good friend. Good luck out there.

You're right. Go on. Before anyone comes. Find your dad. I'll... I'll miss you. You've been a good friend. Good luck out there.

I guess it's time for you to go deal with your father issues, while I deal with mine. Good luck. I will miss you, you know. {trying to be cold and uncaring, but not quite pulling it off.}

She did it because you're her friend.

No, because the Overseer has basically become unhinged and gone into a frenzy in response to James leaving. You can try to talk to him, and there are several ways that conversation can go down, but even if you try to surrender he still has the guards attack you. The Overseer has already murdered Jonas and even subjects his own daughter to torture and interrogation. Your assumption is that the Overseer is in a state where he can be reasoned with, but the game indicates that he isn't.

Jonas was killed by Officer Mack, because he got too rough, not by the overseer or by orders of the overseer. The overseer even explain how it was an accident and was regrettable.
Also the Overseer doesn't talk like a frenzy person, he always has a calm and logical tone of voice and dialogue, with the exception if you threaten Amata. He will then talk in an angry tone of voice and dialogue.
He also, calmly, tells you this:

Come now, turn yourself in and we can resolve this whole thing peacefully. Just because your father betrayed us doesn't mean you have to.

And then if you agree, he will have you killed. So he is not in a frenzy state, he can rationalize quite well, and even offer a rational option. But then all of a sudden he kills you. Without even getting any information out of you about your father. It's really a stupid way of pushing you to leave the Vault.
Like I said, the overseer could have asked you to leave the vault to find out or bring back your dad. Or he could just banish you from the vault because he didn't trust you anymore. No need to make the overseer being a calm, collected and rational person, and all of a sudden he orders you to be killed while you're peacefully talking to him and agree to surrender.

I just didn't get that message from the game. Are there any examples of pre-war tech fixing everything that is wrong, aside from using Liberty Prime to bust through the Enclave's laser barriers? And yeah, you're right, there should've been other ways to get through the barriers aside from having a huge epic giant robot battle scene.

Well, right out of vault, you get to Megaton and you can get one of the longest quest and with more choices in the entire game. Moira's Wasteland Survival Guide. Which most quests are about pre-war stuff. Acquire pre-war mines, install and activate a pre-war robot factory terminal, scavenge pre-war super markets for food and medicine, access a pre-war library and get their full catalogue of books. The rewards even include a pre-war food sanitizer that make foods more effective and a Pre-war hat that increases your sneak ability.
Tenpenny tower is a pre-war hotel that was mostly intact. With it's own pre-war water purifier.
Rivet City is a pre-war carrier that became a settlement when scientists occupied it because it had a fully equipped pre-war scientific laboratory and a pre-war nuclear reactor.
Megaton uses a pre-war water plant to survive.
Three Dog uses a pre-war radio station and requires a pre-war satellite dish to fix his transmission's signal.
Agatha needs a pre-war violin to fix her problem.
The Mechanist and Antagonizer are using pre-war comic book characters for their own twisted interests.
Scribe Yearling wants pre-war books and will reward you for them.
Ultra Jet requires pre-war sugar bombs as an ingredient, so if you deliver those, you will get rewarded.
Sierra wants a pre-war special nuka cola and will reward the player for getting it. It will also use pre-war ingredients to make a special consumable for the player.
Goalie Redoux will pay good caps for the formula of a pre-war soda.
The player "home" has a pre-war robot buttler that provides 5 free purified water every week, will also offer barber services, the player can acquire a pre-war infirmary that heals the player and cures broken limbs automatically, can acquire a pre-war laboratory that brews random chems and automatically remove addictions.
The BoS needs a pre-war tesla coil to make a weapon to destroy Vertibirds (a pre-war vehicle).
Liberty Prime allows the BoS to win against the Enclave.
The Enclave uses a pre-war orbital missile platform to defeat Liberty Prime (why they don't blast the Citadel is beyond me).
The Enclave uses a giant pre-war mobile carrier as a base.
The salvation of the whole wasteland is because of a pre-war magic device and a pre-war water filtration basin system put together.
Mister Crowley objective is a pre-war powerful Armor.
If the player becomes a slaver, it uses a unique pre-war weapon to acquire the slaves (only way).
I can keep going, but this is getting really long, so I will just move on to DLCs.

Even the DLCs are about pre-war stuff:
Point Lookout main quest is a feud between a pre-war ghoul and a pre-war crazy scientist's brain in a jar that only survived because of pre-war technology.
The Pitt main quest is about who will get a cure for a disease, which will allow for healthy workers for whoever controls a pre-war factory, that contains a functional ammo press. Which apparently will allow the Pitt to prosper and become a fully industrial settlement in the future.
Mothership Zeta is about how several pre-war characters will all get together and fight the evil aliens. Only able to do that by using a pre-war spacesuit. Sprinkled with plenty of pre-war audio records and even pre-war equipment (samurai sword and armor, cowboy gun and clothes, USA soldier armors and equipment like a unique USA Army General's Overcoat, etc).
Operation Anchorage is all about using a pre-war war training simulation machine to be able to experience what the old war could have been and the rewards are all pre-war equipment, weapons and armors.

A note on how Bethesda's obsession with the pre-war is also a big step away from the classic games. The classic games give almost no importance to the pre-war. Pre-war is history and doesn't matter in the new wasteland. But Bethesda is really obsessed with the pre-war world, which detracts from what Fallout was.
Here is a quote from Fallout 2 intro that shows how pre-war is pretty much irrelevant:

The end of the world occurred pretty much as we had predicted. Too many humans, not enough space or resources to go around. The details are trivial and pointless, the reasons, as always, purely human ones.

Broken Steel shows that there is still conflict over water even after the enclave is beaten. There are sidequests revolving around these water-related conflicts.

Conflict =/= war. The classic games make that distinction. Conflict exists in every other animals, but war only exists in the human race.
A war is not about 5 people shooting each other to steal stuff. It's about powerful societies/civilizations used for the greedy/selfish motives of the people at the top.
Again, the classic Fallout games make that distinction, but Fallout 3 seems to think war is any conflict, judging by it's intro and how it details things differently. Which is once again, what the article is describing (Bethesda games deviate in a totally different direction of the classics, making what was Fallout lost in the newer games).

I haven't played enough of Fallout 76 to make educated statements on it, I'm still only at the beginning of the game. My point was that the article was saying that the nuclear apocalypse was just a minor inconvenience, so if all the factions in 76 are extinct, doesn't that indicate that the world is actually extremely dangerous and you can't just pick up and rebuild so easily?

Not really. Because your character can get out of the vault and start rebuilding right away using the pre-war C.A.M.P. technology. It's the main objective of Vault 76 after all, opening it's doors to start rebuilding.
Also the minor inconvenience is about how the world is not ruined, how the buildings and plants are mostly intact. That is the minor inconvenience. Nukes are treated as nothing but fun, you nuke an area and the area doesn't get ruined or anything, all buildings still stand.
It treats a global nuclear apocalypse as something that is not devastating, as something that creates a nice world to explore. Let's also mention that the devastation to humanity in Fallout 76 doesn't come from the nuclear apocalypse, but from the Scorched. Which totally destroys the classic games message of "Nukes are evil and can destroy civilization. It's something to respect and fear, something that should never be used lightly." and tells us "nukes are great, you can get rare loot by nuking places, lol.".
That really goes against of what Fallout used to mean.

Ok, I'll give it a shot. Here's a quote taken from the game's intro:

"Since the dawn of humankind, when our ancestors first discovered the killing power of rock and bone, blood has been spilled in the name of everything, from God, to justice, to simple psychotic rage. In the year 2077, after millennia of armed conflict, the destructive nature of man could sustain itself no longer. The world was plunged into an abyss of nuclear fire and radiation. But it was not, as some had predicted, the end of the world. Instead, the apocalypse was simply a prologue to another bloody chapter in human history. For man had succeeded in destroying the world, but war...war never changes."

Everything in the game can relate back to the above concept. Humans have been spilling blood ever since technology was discovered, and even a nuclear apocalypse isn't enough to change human nature.

And that is a departure of the previous games. Fallout 3 depicts war as any conflict, when in classic games war is differentiated from conflict.
Notice how in Fallout 1 the intro mentions some of the great wars and bloodshed of human history:

The Romans waged war to gather slaves and wealth. Spain built an empire from its lust for gold and territory. Hitler shaped a battered Germany into an economic superpower.

Compare that with Fallout 3 message of "humans with rocks and bones spilled blood, and blood has been spilled for lots of reasons like justice and psychotic rage" .
Talk about misunderstanding the classic games and it's message.
It turns war as anything violent humans do... Which I point out again, bloodshed for many reasons happen in nature every day, and it's not only a human characteristic... It's reducing how only humans are capable of war, how it is something horrible created by the most intelligent species on our planet... How humanity can be worse than other animals.
But in Fallout 3, any killing or bloodshed is war.

You say anything in the game can relate to that intro, which already shows how Fallout 3 only message is "kill and kill", and it doesn't even paint it as a bad thing in the game. Thanks to the cinematic killcams, and to how you have to kill to do most quests and beat the game. How even your companions can spew "fun" phrases while in battle (Like Sgt RL3 for example).
I guess Fallout 3 message is war is when humans cause bloodshed to kill, but it's also fun .

 

[Gizmojunk]

in fallout 2 the GECK is basically an encyclopedia with some seeds. not a magic matter rearranger.

View attachment 11527

so its a box of dried foods and encyclopedias...

That was never how I read it... But I took the 'Just add Water' to mean ~POOF!~ ; it's an automated suitcase terraforming bomb—or in the very least it's an air, soil, and water purifying device.

Seeds alone, wouldn't grow. Myron stated that they cannot grow many (or most?) of the old plants [assuming no access to a GECK]. Seeds would take months to years to recreate the landscape. This set in the 2077 world of tomorrow, with dieselpunk 2077 technology; seeds they had in 1957... terraforming with ~SCIENCE!~ was of the future.

Does this look like an electronic book, and some seeds?

That contraption appears to have a fan, an air filter, and a bellows. (Indeed) it does seem to have space for five holotapes; of which this one has two. Presumably it runs on a nuclear power source (possibly that can in the center)... given that it's expected to work 35-150 years later.

IMO we know they had Pipboys, and those could have served as an encyclopedia packed with a case of seeds, but I don't think the GECK is so mundane of a Maguffin. I also doubt that they gave even a cursory effort to depict a functional machine beyond the base abstract. The GECK was an absolute after thought in the Fallout manual. The advert was invented as a hook for Fallout 2, and placed on what had been a blank page until they learned that a sequel was planned.

Granted... none of us can truly know, unless the original devs weigh in...but they kind of do. MCA has in the FO:Bible that in 2091 Vault 8 opens, and they use their GECK to create fertile ground for what becomes Vault City. Later it mentions that the inhabitants of Vault 8 had an "environmental welcome mat" stretched out for them (with the GECK) when they emerged from Vault 8, and that it meant that they suffered little hardship in comparison to the other struggling communities. This doesn't sound like a bag of seeds, and a book to me.

Lo and behold... (just noticed this) MCA has an in depth section on the GECK in the FO:Bible.

Spoiler: The pseudo-definitive word about the GECK; from on high.

LIFE WITH THE GECK
What’s in a Garden of Eden Creation Kit? Well, here are my thoughts. Feel free to feed the flames.
The following is inspired by a thread on the BIS forum started by Crazy Tuvok/Christopher Gannon. He
asked some questions about the GECK, and here are my answers:
I'll start by saying that the GECK is a plot device. A McGuffin. It had the ability to save Arroyo when in
the hands of the Chosen One or a learned member of the wastes.
As a crude plot device, it may also be used as seen fit to create plots and plant new and exciting adventure
seeds as needed. As a result, all of the material in this section is subject to change based on the whims of
whoever wants to play with the GECK. If you want it to be a magic box of 1950s science, that's cool - we
might do it, too. However, my current take on it is, it's not some miracle device, it's a little more down to
earth - more like a deconstruction kit, if you will.
The GECK isn't really a replicator. It contains a fertilizer system, with a variety of food seeds, soil
supplements, and chemicals that could fertilize arid wasteland (and possibly selected sections of the moon’s
surface pre-conditioned to accept the GECK) into supporting farming. The GECK is intended to be
"disassembled" over the course of its use to help build communities (for example, the cold fusion power
source is intended to be used for main city power production), and so on. Anything else people needed,
they could simply consult the How To Books/Library of Congress/Encyclopedias in the GECK holodisk
library for more knowledge. The pen flashlight was just a bonus.
The GECK also contained some basic force field schematics as well as info on how to make adobe-type
buildings from the landscape (or contain chemicals that can create "sand-crete" walls).
As for clothing, the GECK contained codes that allowed the Vault to create more varieties of jumpsuits
(and weatherproof gear) from their dispensers, which they could do anyway before the GECK. It's possible
the GECK contained other codes that could unlock more functionality within the Vault computers that
weren't initially available because they would jeopardize the survival of the Vault if they were used or
scavenged (or else they would interfere with the Grand Experiment).
Also, the GECKs also tell the Vault inhabitants how to disassemble sections of their Vault (or take
extraneous systems from the Vault) to create new homes and defensive structures on the surface.
The "just add water" comment/joke for the GECK in the description in Fallout 2 refers to the fact that part
of the GECK's operations require that the Vault Dwellers use water from their water purification system in
the Vault to help with the agriculture, irrigation, and possibly the cold fusion as well. It wasn't meant
literally. If you want it to be, that’s cool, too. Go for it.
To close, the "basic replicator" mentioned in the Fallout 1 manual is nothing more than a selection of seeds
and fertilizers. The fact that it can "build basic items" is intended to mean that you can use it to help break
down sections of the Vault into items usable in a community, as well as provide new codes for the
machines in the Vault to create new items from the dispensers and computers.

 

[mannawyadden]

@Risewild I really thought the Master planned to eradicate anyone that wouldn't take a dip in the vats. I will have to replay Fallout 1.

As for the rest of the post, thanks for taking the time to write out all of that for me. You make some good points. The examples you listed of Fallout 3 glorifying Pre-War technology are especially clear and helpful to me. Gives me a lot to think about the next time I replay the game.

@Gizmojunk thanks for clarifying the GECK as well

 

[Risewild]

Lo and behold... (just noticed this) MCA has an in depth section on the GECK in the FO:Bible.

Yes he does, and he also says specifically what the GECK contains:

The GECK isn't really a replicator. It contains a fertilizer system, with a variety of food seeds, soil supplements, and chemicals that could fertilize arid wasteland (and possibly selected sections of the moon's surface pre-conditioned to accept the GECK) into supporting farming. The GECK is intended to be "disassembled" over the course of its use to help build communities (for example, the cold fusion power source is intended to be used for main city power production), and so on. Anything else people needed, they could simply consult the How-To Books/Library of Congress/Encyclopedias in the GECK holodisk library for more knowledge. The pen flashlight was just a bonus.

The GECK also contained some basic force field schematics as well as info on how to make adobe-type buildings from the landscape (or contain chemicals that can create "sand-crete" walls).

As for clothing, the GECK contained codes that allowed the Vault to create more varieties of jumpsuits (and weatherproof gear) from their dispensers, which they could do anyway before the GECK. It's possible the GECK contained other codes that could unlock more functionality within the Vault computers that weren't initially available because they would jeopardize the survival of the Vault if they were used or scavenged (or else they would interfere with the Grand Experiment).

Also, the GECKs tell the Vault inhabitants how to disassemble sections of their Vault (or take extraneous systems from the Vault) to create new homes and defensive structures on the surface.

This is also interesting:

The GECK builders had no idea what the post-nuclear world would be like, and they had no real way to anticipate it, despite their "thorough tests" (it's doubtful they gave it much thought, to be honest, considering how badly organized the Safehouse project alone was, not to mention the experimental nature of the Vaults); still, it seems as if the seeds present in the GECK were viable for Vault 8.

The GECK's designers assumed that the Vault dwellers would know how to read and operate the various advanced technologies present in the Vault; they did not plan for the reduced knowledge of pre-War technologies common among wasteland tribals, or other similar contingencies. They also did not plan on the FEV getting released into the wider world, or the fact that the Vault dwellers might be attacked by giant mutated scorpions, cockroaches or rats, either.

The GECK's seeds and soil supplements date themselves rather quickly, but "...the government subcommittees sponsoring the research and the GECK contractors (Future-Tec) weren't really concerned about that. They were 'relatively certain' the seeds would be viable in a post-nuclear environment. They had done 'thorough tests,' and 'all conclusions point to this as being the best option.' The GECKs are a miracle... a miracle that they work.

The tribals were invoking the GECK as a panacea for all their problems. They saw it as a miracle device, and while the item is useful, it's not the miracle maker they considered it to be.

And even from that GECK picture, I can see vials of chemicals, I can a a cilindrical box that can contain seeds or soil samples, I can see a screen to play holodisks, I can see an holodisk storage section with 2 holodisks in it and 4 empty spots for other disks.
I don't see anything that shows it's not a portable reactor with chemicals to purify soil, seeds, holodisks and all the other stuff.
It's explicitly said it's a fertilizer system and contains a survival encyclopedia.
I think where the confusion between Bethesda and classic games is that Avellone says " The GECK is intended to be "disassembled" over the course of its use", and somehow Emil read it as "The GECK disassembles matter" . I really have no idea.

But yeah, the GECK was not a magical thing, that can save the wasteland. Like in Fallout 3.

I really thought the Master planned to eradicate anyone that wouldn't take a dip in the vats. I will have to replay Fallout 1.

Not really, he would allow peaceful humans that didn't want to be dipped to live in peace.
He would just sterile them. Because if they would be allowed to breed humans, those humans would once again commit the errors of the past and create wars. Also the Master's plan was so humanity would evolve into a race without differences, because differences will lead to war sooner or later, and having Super Mutant humanity and regular humanity would lead to the regular humanity to wage war against the Super Mutant humanity.

 

[mannawyadden]

But yeah, the GECK was not a magical thing, that can save the wasteland. Like in Fallout 3.

Fallout 1 manual: "Kit includes a Basic Replicator Unit. Just add water"

Fallout Bible 6: "The GECK isn't really a replicator, it just contained seeds"

Fallout 2: "A GECK is the resource for rebuilding civilization after the bomb. Just add water and stir."

Fallout Bible 6: "The tribals were invoking the GECK as a panacea for all their problems ... it's not the miracle maker they considered it to be."

Fallout 3: "The G.E.C.K. will collapse all matter within its given radius and recombine it "

Wikia says "The Fallout Bible by Chris Avellone is not canon, but serves as a useful commentary on the first two games."

There seems to be a big debate on what the actual content of the GECK is. It is also possible that the GECK in Fallout 3 is a different version than the one in previous games.

Not really, he would allow peaceful humans that didn't want to be dipped to live in peace.
He would just sterile them.

Sterilizing them = making the human race go extinct = eradicate humanity

 

[Gizmojunk]

Wikia says "The Fallout Bible by Chris Avellone is not canon, but serves as a useful commentary on the first two games."

As far as I care... neither is anything from Bethesda.

*The "Just Add Water" bit is an obvious jest on their part—even if technically accurate where the seeds are concerned.

Sterilizing them = making the human race go extinct = eradicate humanity

It's not the same as murdering them in cold blood; it is letting the outliers live their course, and focusing on/keeping the rest who elect to transition into the planned mutant society. He is very remorseful when he realizes that his planned society is a pipe-dream for which he [believing necessarily] hurt a lot of people in the attempt to bring it to about.

He is not a shining hero; but he is not a twisted psychotic either.

 

[R.Graves]

They fear those different from them and their solution is to exterminate them.

Wikia says "The Fallout Bible by Chris Avellone is not canon, but serves as a useful commentary on the first two games."

its too useful to not consider canon. what i'm supposed to take west coast super mutants, nu-enclave, insta-ghouls, pre war vertiberds, aliens, edlritch monsters, and literal dragons as canon but when a dev who care about the lore gives a clear outline for how it works "lol not canon"?

fallout 3 directly steal ideas from the fallout bible. which is even more sad because that means they read a 200 page document explaining canon and still fucked up every tiny piece of canon within just two games.