Senior Producer: "The Legion is our ... evil group"

[CT Phipps]

I dislike it for its inexcusablely lacking main quest. I really have no reason to be invested in the story. No reason at all. And the game doesn't even have the decency to end. I really dislike calling it a mediocre game because I don't think of it as a mediocre game. I think of it as a bad game. Obviously, not everything about the game is bad but good icing doesn't redeem a bad cake. Let's take for example a decent cake with small rocks inside it. I could eat around the rocks but I would question why they are there in the first place.

I understand and disagree to the point of considering it a great game. Oddly enough, I came to view Inquisition from Dragon Age much much worse for many of the same reasons people dislike Skyrim.

They shouldn't. However, I wonder if letting them recruit female spies would still be too much of a change.

I am curious what the role of the Priestesses of Mars would be. I also think it should have been interesting to separate female chattle slavery but those who are merely wives or daughters of the Legion. Not to soften the Legion but simply show more complexity to their handling.

I do think the Legion being the anti-science, rapist, misogynist slavers is pretty much an easy way of saying, "Yes, these assholes are evil. What person wouldn't think they are?"

 

[CaptJ]

I understand and disagree to the point of considering it a great game. Oddly enough, I came to view Inquisition from Dragon Age much much worse for many of the same reasons people dislike Skyrim.

First, I haven't played Dragon Age Inquisition, I already made my point before on how I value playing games throughly over playing a lot of the recent releases. Second, give me one good reason to care about the main quest in Skyrim:

1. There is no urgency but it is not like game made the people in Skyrim seem like they are worth saving. The main quest is vaguely about following your destiny which would be waiting for you indefinitely.
2. There is no big mystery, no grand plan, no secret motive.
3. The civil war and the main quest aren't related in any significant fashion. The civil war only plays a role in the main quest twice and it could easily be replaced or removed from the story.
4. There is no significant choices to make in the main quest. Your choice is to defeat Alduin or wait until you do.
5. The story has no real conclusion and barely has an impact in that world. In fact, I consider the ending to vanilla FO3 to be better by the virtue of actually being an ending.

I do think the Legion being the anti-science, rapist, misogynist slavers is pretty much an easy way of saying, "Yes, these assholes are evil. What person wouldn't think they are?"

The moral ambiguity isn't from the Legion but everyone else. NCR is over stretched corrupt superpower but people really should be grateful because it really did stop the Legion at least for a bit. Mr. House did save New Vegas; but in the face of complete annihilation, he chose to play king maker and suck the NCR dry.

 

[CT Phipps]

There is no urgency but it is not like game made the people in Skyrim seem like they are worth saving. The main quest is vaguely about following your destiny which would be waiting for you indefinitely.

Well I doubt we're going to agree because the shittiest game mechanic you can insert in any game is time limits. They're bullshit and ruin every game they're in--Fallout 1's worst element is that.

There is no big mystery, no grand plan, no secret motive

Depends on which storyline you're taking as the "Main Quest" is one of like 7 paths in the game.

The civil war and the main quest aren't related in any significant fashion. The civil war only plays a role in the main quest twice and it could easily be replaced or removed from the story.

I think that's thematic isn't it? The Civil War is small potatoes and a mistake versus the big picture of Alduin.

There is no significant choices to make in the main quest. Your choice is to defeat Alduin or wait until you do.

The main choice is Stormcloaks or Imperials or neither.

The story has no real conclusion and barely has an impact in that world. In fact, I consider the ending to vanilla FO3 to be better by the virtue of actually being an ending.

Except for changing all of the rulerships of the Jarldoms. What qualifies as "changing?" Of course NV's ending and not allowing you to play afterward is bullshit and the worst part of that game.

The best thing for an open world game is unlimited time to explore and allowing you to continue after.

The moral ambiguity isn't from the Legion but everyone else. NCR is over stretched corrupt superpower but people really should be grateful because it really did stop the Legion at least for a bit. Mr. House did save New Vegas; but in the face of complete annihilation, he chose to play king maker and suck the NCR dry.

Eh, NCR planned to kill Mr. House and Mr. House knew it. It was always an alliance of conveinance.

 

[Risewild]

NCR is against slavery but forces inmates to do heavy labor in a quarry... That is just slavery in disguise.

 

[CaptJ]

The main choice is Stormcloaks or Imperials or neither.

Unsurprisingly, you didn't get the point. There is only one way finish the main quest or are you going to contest that?

Well I doubt we're going to agree because the shittiest game mechanic you can insert in any game is time limits. They're bullshit and ruin every game they're in--Fallout 1's worst element is that.

Urgency doesn't mean a time limit. There are other ways to do it. Also, don't be like that guy.
View attachment 9624

I think that's thematic isn't it? The Civil War is small potatoes and a mistake versus

It is also thematic that the Lone Wanderer kills himself to shut off the purifier like his father.

Except for changing all of the rulerships of the Jarldoms.

I was talking about the main quest but those still feel like minor changes.

The best thing for an open world game is unlimited time to explore and allowing you to continue after.

Why play anything else? Why not just endless make new content for Skyrim?

Eh, NCR planned to kill Mr. House and Mr. House knew it. It was always an alliance of conveinance.

One of the cut content involved destroying the bunker and sparing Mr. House.

NCR is against slavery but forces inmates to do heavy labor in a quarry... That is just slavery in disguise.

Not really. It is like that stupid show about ISIS where ISIS justifies slavery because Britain has zero hour contracts. My real problem is giving them dynamite.

Don't mistaken this as an endorsement of the NCR. Mr. House is the best hope for mankind.

 

[CT Phipps]

NCR is against slavery but forces inmates to do heavy labor in a quarry... That is just slavery in disguise.

Wouldn't that mean all forced labor is slavery versus ownership of a person?

 

[Risewild]

All forced labor is slavery. You're forcing someone to do heavy and physical demanding work against their free will and for no payment. Justifying it as being a punishment doesn't make it less "slavery".
There is a reason why most countries in the world shifted from forced heavy labor to voluntary one, and also why some started paying some money to prisoners who do that labor.

 

[CaptJ]

@Risewild
Going by your logic, the Legion is still way worse but I guess the whole "It is a post-apocalyptic wasteland." excuse only works when the Legion does it.

 

[Risewild]

I don't excuse slavery if it is the Legion that does it. What I (many times) see is people forgiving things the NCR does because it is not the Legion doing it. Using the "but what about the Legion!".

I don't like the Legion, I never join them either in the game. But people don't seem to understand that the Legion is more complex than just "super evil ones" and NCR is more complex than "the good guys".

While the Legion is more evil in a bloodthirsty, barbaric way (specially when it comes from people like us in the real world that never had to bring order to a savage nuclear post apocalyptic wasteland), the NCR is more evil in a bureaucratic, corrupt way. Both just send thousands to die because of hubris about owning the Hoover Dam and the Mojave. They are both conquering that land, they aren't protecting their land, they are expanding by means of military power and not looking at the casualties. At least the Legion is honest about it.

I don't like any faction on New Vegas because while I can sympathize with things in this or that one, they are all one way or another evil, and sometimes there is not a real reason to be that evil. For example, the Legion is this very evil thing, but the Legion controlled lands are not like this, people live safe and productive lives. It is a police state but people have safety. After the Legion conquers NCR it will stop being this barbaric evil faction because there will be no more war. Caesar can construct an iron fist society that is safe and corruption free, that produces strong and dependable humans.
Now let's see the NCR. When NCR defeats the Legion, nothing will change. They will still be a corrupt society, they will still be unsafe unless people live in the big settlements. The citizens have to deal with a corrupt legal system where money speaks louder than laws. Raiders and criminals will still plague the NCR regions.

They are both horrible factions. Mr House is also not that good either. Because the world became a horrible place that no one that lives in the real world can fully grasp.

The game is about picking the lesser evil. And that is highly debatable, as we can see, even after 7 years of the game being released, people still can't reach a consensus. My opinion is that competition brings improvement for the consumers... What does this have to do with the factions in Fallout New Vegas? Well, in my opinion the Mojave should be ruled by a third party, Mr House or Independent. The more large and powerful factions exist in that universe, the more interesting the setting gets (who would love to play a Fallout game where the NCR or Legion controls all the territory?).

 

[CaptJ]

@Risewild
I hear a lot of excuses for Caesar's Legion (not from you but edgelords mostly); while I don't think that NCR is good, I do think that it is definitely the lesser evil. I do recognize the flaws of Mr. House (He really didn't have to do that to the Kings; and despite him being absolutely correct about the BoS, they didn't deserve to all die.) but I believe that overall he is the best choice.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

@Risewild
I hear a lot of excuses for Caesar's Legion (not from you but edgelords mostly); while I don't think that NCR is good, I do think that it is definitely the lesser evil. I do recognize the flaws of Mr. House (He really didn't have to do that to the Kings; and despite him being absolutely correct about the BoS, they didn't deserve to all die.) but I believe that overall he is the best choice.

Actually if you don't patch up things between the Kings and the NCR, House leaves them be. The BOS is a tricky one, since while I would have liked to spare them, House isn't wrong about the threat they could pose.

EDIT: You have to encourage fighting between them actually, otherwise they still die.

During the Second Battle of Hoover Dam, some Kings took it upon themselves to launch several attacks on NCR citizens and soldiers around Freeside. Mr. House looked on these actions favorably, seeing them as proof of The Kings' loyalty to New Vegas, and decided to leave them alone.

Failure to do anything:

Flush with his victory, Mr. House sent Securitrons into Freeside, thinking to increase his control over the area. When fighting broke out, The Kings fought valiantly, but were no match for the armored killing machines, and were wiped out to the last man.

 

[CT Phipps]

All forced labor is slavery. You're forcing someone to do heavy and physical demanding work against their free will and for no payment. Justifying it as being a punishment doesn't make it less "slavery".
There is a reason why most countries in the world shifted from forced heavy labor to voluntary one, and also why some started paying some money to prisoners who do that labor.

Yeah, I'm inclined to see that as stretching the definition of slavery to be honest. Especially as it's in a game where we see the consequences of slavery is systematized rape. The issue for me isn't so much the forced labor element but the ownership element and dehumanization which comes with it.

The Powder Gangers are criminals but they can serve out their time and leave if they aren't lifers (which is another matter by itself) while the women captured by Caesar are permanent property that can do nothing about their situation until they die horribly and can be traded around.

Actually if you don't patch up things between the Kings and the NCR, House leaves them be. The BOS is a tricky one, since while I would have liked to spare them, House isn't wrong about the threat they could pose.

My view on Mister House and the Brotherhood of Steel is I don't actually think they could ever realistically make a treaty. I think this is one of the cases where it being dummied out was a good thing because the BOS has an obligation to confiscate "Dangerous" technology and Mister House is the definition of dangerous technology with his army of killbots.

Given they're a bunch of fanatics that are dying out because of their stubborn adherence to the code--it would just mean they'd only make a treaty until they felt strong enough to attack him again. I actually feel like the Kings business was out of character for Mister House and a treaty would have been appropriate there.

Re: Morality of NCR

I'm inclined to think the parallels between NCR as a military adventurer/United States Empire and the Legion are actually quite deliberate. They're both seeking to expand via conquest, though NCR does incorporate its citizens there and practices democracy as well as franchise for women. So there's definitely an objective element there. I also point out they aren't slavers by my definition of the word.

I do think, however, Independent Vegas needs to be mentioned as an actual option. While a lot of people use Independent Vegas to mean, "Whatever you think it means." I think in-universe it seems to be that the Courier only maintains direct power over Hoover Dam and the Strip with all other signs being a return to Pre-Invasion status quo with independent settlements as well as a retreat of NCR's forces. Canonically, it seems the Courier is either unwilling or unable to hold the entirety of the Mojave.

I think that offers a legitimate moral alternative politically.

 

[Cobra Commander]

and allowing you to continue after

No.

 

[Jogre]

Except for changing all of the rulerships of the Jarldoms. What qualifies as "changing?" Of course NV's ending and not allowing you to play afterward is bullshit and the worst part of that game.

Ah yes, Skyrim changing rulership of all the Jarldoms, by having a different figure mentioned to be in control, as well as the guards in major cities changing colours. Such legit changes.


Also: Look at this list:
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout:_New_Vegas_endings

If you wanted after game, gameplay, you'd need to create 4 if not even 5 seperate instances of New Vegas, at least 3 seperate instances of the Brotherhood of Steel(Taking over main roads, Patrolling with NCR, bunker taken over), 3 instances of the Old Mormon Fort(Legion, NCR, Abandonned), ect.

If the game allowed you to play after the end, they'd either have to find a way to incorporate all of the changes that happened in those endings in to the game(Which would take months if not years), or they'd have the ending slideshow, then have minimal of it shown in game(Which would be shit)

Which did you expect New Vegas to do? to have every single ending both as a slideshow slide AND shown in game(Which'd take forever to create), or to go the Fallout 2 route and have an after-game playthrough which rarely if ever actually recognises what you are literally told happens(Which ruins the point of having after-game gameplay).

The best thing for an open world game is unlimited time to explore and allowing you to continue after.

New Vegas is primarily an RPG, and ought to be judged in those terms.

You don't berate Fallout 1 for not letting you play after the end, because it's obvious that the open world aspects are limited in such a way that you wouldn't expect play after game.

New Vegas never tries to be the best open world game ever, that's just a consequence of it working within Bethesda's limits.

 

[CaptJ]

Why I take so much issue with the Legion being considered not evil is issue of moral relativism. I called it cancer because it advocates holding people on different moral standards. Of course situation is important issue on morality but it seems to devolve into who you can call a hypocrite. Everyone hates hypocrites but it is more irritating to watch someone who doesn't believe in anything chastise everyone for not being perfect. I really didn't want to bring up what real life example that bothers me so much because of the knee-jerk reaction to it. However, I don't think anyone would get why I have such a problem otherwise. For example, one of three organizers of the Women's March in USA was advocating for Sharia law.

 

[Apollyon]

A problem arises when people first argue moral relativism, and subsequently try to argue for the moral highground. That obviously makes no sense.

 

[mithrap]

Moral relativism may be dangerous when judging real, current world issues but when it comes to issues in fictional worlds (or different times), with totally different contexts and moral grounds, moral relativism is essential to understand the situation and the point of view of the protagonists. Hell, I don't expect a lecture on how accepting different religions is nice if I read Chrétien de Troye's poems about Charlemagne. I expect it to be "Charlemagne fuck yeah" because that's a different moral context we are talking about.

Sure, in our world, trading freedom for comfort would be wrong. Objectively. In the context of a world where ISIS or Mad Max kind of war-tribes infect the everyday life of people in America, the trade wouldn't be dealt with the same moral compass. Same reason why the NCR, despite standing for the old world values, is not welcomed with open arms. Because we are talking about a world where old world values are associated with horror and destruction, not nostalgia.

 

[Apollyon]

Sure, in our world, trading freedom for comfort would be wrong. Objectively.

You're going to have to explain that. Don't people, by choosing to live in a society, trade freedom for comfort?

 

[Black Angel]

Don't people, by choosing to live in a society, trade freedom for comfort?

Not exactly, because we also have to consider what kind of freedom is traded for comfort in either context (of fictional worlds and real-life world). I don't know how it is where you live, but from my experience many kinds of freedom are often associated with comfort. No freedom = no comfort.

 

[mithrap]

You're going to have to explain that. Don't people, by choosing to live in a society, trade freedom for comfort?

Freedom of disposing of yourself, in other words : your children belong to you and your body belongs to you. Most societies offer that guarantee, to some extent. That's the kind of freedom that the profligates have (except tribals in a way, but that's another subject) and that's the kind that they'd exchange for security under the legion's rule.
You are not permitted to hurt your own body under Caesar's rule, for example. Your body belongs to the legion, you are expected to keep it clean because you don't own it. By extension, for example, suicide is probably illegal in the legion's turf. You'd be stealing and destroying one of Caesar's property.