Retrolook at Fallout

[Frog]

Roshambo, you mentioned human behavior and sociology and complained that things doesn't work like others said, about others living in video games world and so on.
So, I replyed how people might worked out their way in the past and how it might work in the future in some extreme situations. While you were picking examples that only ilustrated how it is in fallouts setting I tried to point how it would look like for real ( and I did it since you mentioned sociology, told about living in video games world and so on )
About wishful thinking and naive arguments. I mihgt put it wrong. So here's what I mean by that. If you try reasoning the design and setting with arguments based on real world then you will break both because it's fantasy, it's based on stereotypes, guessings and colorful, or here shall I say, grim imagination, all to make it more interesting and atractive. On the other hand picking examples in way so they were fitting to desing and setting is naive, as I called whishful, because they are weak examples that at the best rate are guessings about theoretical situations ( to ilustrate it: you mentioned dog eat dog attitude that is fitting the setting and others mentioned cooperation attitude - among some community, grup, tribe, etc - that is at least in my opinion as well as opinion of some of our speakers more propabla and closer to the reality. While me oand others based our statments on knowledge about human preferences, ways of acting, experience and examples from history, you based yours on fallout world. )
While me, and maybe others didn't understan at first you were all the time movin on design/setting area, explaining the mechanics and so on, you didn't understand that others were pointing you that your examples are bad ilustration to mentioned things.
I guess everyone who posted here have are aware how fallouts setting look like and they were not arguing with it, but with your arguments pulled out to defend the setting that was not under attack.

 

[Roshambo]

Stealing items back from the NPC wasn't tedious at all, as the NPCs didn't react negatively if they caught you. In fact, I don't remember them even catching me at all. That's why I said it felt like I was exploiting a bug.

What was tedious was finding enough items of value that you could carry in order to trade for your items back. That was tedious.

Are you saying that you were supposed to steal your items back?

Context, dumbass, context. You had not made your position anywhere clear then and you kept going at it in such a way while people were still in reference to other "inventory exchanges". In the context you presented it, it was following the point of stealing back from your own team members. If you thought they were supposed to be like those in Baldur's Gate, then you're an idiot.

So, you either suck at communication, or you're lying. I would have to say that you're lying, as if you're looking for items of value enough to barter back items you've given them, you're not really going to be withdrawing that much from them unless you're using them as an ammo locker and toss them something pricey for some ammo. Again, see point about packmules. And, at that, why would you then have anything you didn't want the NPCs to use on the NPCs if you had to barter it back? Welcome again to the concept of NPC, and NOT BioWare's definition of NPC.

Stealing was the only logical conclusion to be had from your comments, as you'd have to be a moron to not understand that in Fallout 1, you traded with others who joined you, you did NOT have eminent domain over them.

Frankly, I thought the idea was to keep Fallout distinctive and to what made it with the character/setting/tone it has, rather than making it like everything else. If you also can't get through the game with what you yourself carry, then I would strongly advocate the use of a cheat program and also bemoan the lack of one for real life, as you seriously need it. You don't control the way NPCs act except for a bit of influence But hey, what do I know? I've only been around the Fallout universe for almost 7 years and at NMA for most of those.

I have also been a fan of post-apocalyptic works for quite a long time, and one thing is quite common to wilderness survival. When the level of surrounding civilization declines, the items created by civilization that can be used in such an environment become that much more valuable. Therefore, in a wasteland, people will hoard material belongings all the more, to the point of killing others for what they have. Having such items is then both DANGEROUS and VALUABLE, as others would probably try to kill/rob them more likely now to take that item, therefore anything traded is considered final. In such an environment, where people stab each other in the back outside of certain influenced areas, you should not expect to see anything you give people returned to you. Who are you going to complain to if they walk off with those items?

Voila, CHA should be turned into a required stat because every loot monkey in the world would pump that high in order to have free packmules, something I've also pointed out the flaws in it before, but the munchkins seriously want it. Happy?

Frog:
Sorry, Frog, but no matter how many times you want to repeat your own brand of fiction, it still has no bearing upon what went on.

Unplug your head from your ass. Nowhere did I say it was absolutely like real world behavior, so drop that hyperbolic argument now. I was pointing out that since Fallout's world was dark and where life was cheap, because GENERATIONS HAVE BEEN LIVING LIKE THIS, STARTED FROM A NUCLEAR FUCKING WAR. It was based upon the reactions of people to turn the world into a dark, desolate version of civilization ruined and mankind put into jeopardy from not only other humans, but those mutated into something else. Read that clearly? The reasons for the setting details were put down long before you decided to discuss them. The cosy nice-nice world that suburbanite trash thinks is ubiquitus to mankind is RECENT. It is funny that people argue this when it's been in the previous games. Anything else in the setting you'd like to express wishes to skullfuck over besides the social construction of the setting? Then, of course, I could point out that a number of the Fo2 dev team have said that their contributions were quite befitting the setting, but we can't fault them for admitting the mistakes. We just want to see them improve the next time around.

I had also pointed out other examples, of the differences between the the setting of Fallout and that of something where the behavior of people is in part an ironic anathema to the wasteland (Cherry 2000), but you're hung up on a few words like a retarded parrot. Like a retarded parrot, you keep saying them but pay no attention to the context. It would be one thing if we were talking about post-apocalyptic settings in general, but we're talking about one in particular. As for the "video game" comment, that arises from the fact that because the characters join you, they don't have to be just like every other game. In the context I was using, "real world" talks about real design considerations versus munchkinish ones and the important aspects of such. It was a comment that was clearly pointed at how some common aspects became too expected by Bradymunchkin, and they seem to refuse to see why it might be important for NPC design to actually treat them as a different character and within the regards of the setting.

I guess everyone who posted here have are aware how fallouts setting look like and they were not arguing with it, but with your arguments pulled out to defend the setting that was not under attack.

Eat paint chips, much? The setting was quite a valid point. That is, unless you believe that setting and NPC design should have no connection between each other.

So to the both of you, since you seem to have the same problem, pursue this topic at your own risk, because I am no longer amused. I am not going to waste my time any longer, either.

 

[Bradylama]

Great. Now we can have gay sex.

 

[Briosafreak]

Dude poor Frog didn`t deserved all those names, Rosh try the counting to ten technic or something, you`re with too much stress

 

[BlueNinja]

by Roshambo -
I am not going to waste my time any longer, either.

Well, it would be nice if I could believe it. Because that would mean the rest of us can continue the discussion without having monkey shit thrown at us.

Fallout was designed to be (as noted before a number of times) a setting where life was cheap, brutal, and hard to survive in.

No, really? :rolleyes: So was Lucifer's Hammer. I'd say it could have been more brutal, because the majority of the people were going to starve to death, instead of a quick death from nuclear fire. My point was that the lone wanderer is going to have a harder time surviving than a small, cooperative group that has banded together. That doesn't mean that the paranoid guy who carries everything he can loot on his back is a bad idea, merely that IMO they should not be the standard by which everything else is based. Just because the bomb made life harder doesn't mean that all of humanity will instantly turn into paranoid fanatics bent on killing everyone who crosses their path for what they can carry, though it's obviously what you would prefer.

It doesn't take too much of an imagination to see which one would inherently breed a feeling of more distrust, especially when the descendents of enemy troops are on what used to be US soil, among a lot of increased military stationing at important facilities in preparation for the Great War.

What military facilities? They got nuked. So did the personnel who were stationed there. The only foreign troops in both Fallout games were the sub crew that landed in San Francisco, and they appeared a lot more willing to forgive the past to try and survive without pissing off the obviously greater native population. IIRC, there are holodisks in Fallout2 that talk about the war, and how the Chinese launched nukes because the US counter-attack was closing in on Beijing after driving all of the Chinese troops off of US soil.

 

[Roshambo]

Well, it would be nice if I could believe it. Because that would mean the rest of us can continue the discussion without having monkey shit thrown at us.

As opposed to the brain shit you spewed into the topic?

To cut your drivel short, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT LUCIFER'S HAMMER'S SETTING, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR THICK HEAD. Just because the genre is considered to be the same, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with the setting design. Thank you for playing, go play in traffic.

Ah, what the hell. I'll address the lunacy as well before I lock this thread.

No, really? :rolleyes: So was Lucifer's Hammer.

What's more of a catalyst for breeding distrust? Mankind having a disaster from outside, or the disaster being caused by mankind itself for political reasons?

Well, you obviously didn't give that consideration the first time around.

I'd say it could have been more brutal, because the majority of the people were going to starve to death, instead of a quick death from nuclear fire.

That would last for a relatively short period of time. You have to be a little SMAERT about the presence of such large numbers of omnivores in the presence of excess meat and little food otherwise. Starvation and cannibalism are two immediate an obvious solutions. Some would survive otherwise, but the masses would die out relatively quick, probably at the hands of each other.

So, how long did Lucifer's Hammer's wasteland last? 160 years or more? How many generations was the setting along? Yes, another point I had brought up more than once, but you apparently have selective sentience and missed that. Instead of a populace where people are panicking and resolving that the world is going to completely end, those outside Vaults were born into the wasteland and know how everyday life is in the Fallout setting.

My point was that the lone wanderer is going to have a harder time surviving than a small, cooperative group that has banded together.

This wasn't meant to be a munchkinfest like the Baldur's Gate games. The entire point of Fallout's hero IS to be the lone wanderer. Everyone else is subservient to that fact, and I again have to point out common sense in that if life is cheap in a setting, then death is common. Because of that, if a person values their life, why would they tag along with someone who wanders through town? Saving their life is one thing, and buying someone out from debt or slavery is another, but it's really hard to portray the setting of a stranger in a strange land if everyone's your buddy. Someone being a bit friendly to you is one thing, and it isn't too hard to imagine that people originating from other Vaults would be a bit more friendly, but those born to the wasteland are a different breed.

Of course, I could point out that this could easily be seen by playing both Fallout and Fallout 2, but that wouldn't suit the number of straw man arguments I've had to knock down.

That doesn't mean that the paranoid guy who carries everything he can loot on his back is a bad idea, merely that IMO they should not be the standard by which everything else is based. Just because the bomb made life harder doesn't mean that all of humanity will instantly turn into paranoid fanatics bent on killing everyone who crosses their path for what they can carry, though it's obviously what you would prefer.

I think I have pointed out the problem with this, and where the setting is. The bombs didn't drop yesterday, and at the time of the games the setting was quite established. I had pointed out that , there was no "instantly", child, although it is funny that in US history there was a panic before a possible nuclear war, that did result in looting, among other things.

Your foolish hyperbole, in the many instances that you've used such as some kind of "argument", doesn't help your point if you had one.

What military facilities? They got nuked. So did the personnel who were stationed there.

*snickers*

Okay, this thread has been entertaining, but I know I'm wasting my time now. I think it's safe to say that you didn't play Fallout or Fallout 2, at least not with your brain on.

EDIT: Awww, it's cute.

I thought it would be a bit amusing to see what resulted from a Google search. Very interesting...but stupid.

The worst one of the list is when people not only completely refuse to actually listen to any of my points, but disagree with them by spouting profanity and abuse. Which, recently enough, happened when I was in agreement with someone on a point, but phrased it differently. (Anyone who's visited the No Mutants Allowed forums has surely seen the admin, Roshambo ... )

It's funny that you think you had a point to begin with.

And you need to resort to more lies as well?

You know, for someone who has written as much as you have, you seem to not be able to understand important setting concepts. I think it's because you've never met anyone as bluntly honest as me, so you never really paid attention to it. Either that, or you instantly turn to sniveling when someone points out a problem and you'll stick your head into the sand. I'm not going to swallow my own integrity and play nice-nice with sugary lies and coddling because someone's widdle feewings are getting hurt.

Most of your stories, especially the furry stories, seem to be nothing more than character interaction with little setting background, the same vein as The Eye of Argon, though the problem being nothing BUT character interaction and a few setting details thrown in. No real background, no real setting placement aside from what you've borrowed, NOTHING. The best advice from me to you is to learn how to work in a full setting, quick, and preferably something written from scratch so you can pay attention to the detail and not just rip the setting from something else like a no-talent fanfic whore. Otherwise, the story WILL read like ass. Like yours do. People actually read that shit? How long have you been at it without anyone having the balls to give you a straight appraisal of your work? How many times have you ignored the point of having a prelude or introductory paragraph?

Your argument with including Lucifer's Hammer was the first thing that tipped me off to your ignorance as to how to treat a setting. Your writing "style" made it PAINFULLY OBVIOUS, because most of your stories don't bother much with a setting other than material to rip off.