The Impossible Will Take A Little While

[DexterMorgan]

Don't worry about it, we nurture freedom of (non warez) speech here. In fact, this may yet develop into an interesting discussion.

I'll leave it to BN to answer your post. I'd just like to say that I find it to be the most surreal example of (reverse?) larping I've ever seen. Please don't take it personally.

 

[JayGrey]

My feelings, crushed by your cold, metallic rhetoric, **Duma**
. . .

Thus, I'll try to wrap my head around this: Everyone in the game needs a paternal figure. The lone/unkown vault dweller/wonderer represents this parental figure; Whether it be helping 'abandoned' children, or assiting the helpless Moira, or finding your own father, or whiping out Megaton (villians need parentail guardians too) . . .

Or, instead of parents, you could say they're looking for a hero/villian to force them to do stu . . . My head hurts.

Query: "fiction theme"?
A theme that is false.
A theme that is not based in reality.
A themeless theme.
A self parody.

"Identification means taking seriously an authority."
Hence identify scrolls in Diablo: To take an object seriously, it must be real. If it is real, it is serious.
I'm not sure that makes sense. I know the National Democratic Party of Canada exists, but when I identify Jack Layton (leader) in Palriament, I take nothing he say's seriously.

"'failure of fiction/failure of paternity' is a metafictional theme"
I understand now. Bethesda's choices were governed by their unease after acquiring the Fallout license. It was like a baby dropped upon their doorstep in the middle of the night. They had no way to connect with it, even though they were children once. Afterall, who remembers being so young? So, they did their best. They did those crazy things they do: As Brother None put it, Cool Shit. Really, guys, Fallout 3 is about Bethesda's insecurity regarding the Fallout franchise brought to light by their feelings of inadequacy expressed through AI, dialouge, and town design.


Please note: It's not my intention to insult you or misrepresent your opinion.

** Sorry Public, a momentary lapse of memory, thinking you were Duma **

 

[duma]

@ DexterMorgan
I see your point.
Guess it will end up being discussion about when it's over- and when it's underinterpretation. But be fair - I understand ironizing when it comes to fanboy-interpretations - but what I'm trying to accomplish here is to point out that - despite mechanics' flaws (like children's inviciblity or leveling or consequences or roleplaying or whatever in terms of mechanics) - F3 may be in a lot of ways justified.
And you know, one - when considering anything deep rather than shallow if it's possible - does it for his own good (if seeing something as deeper and richer is good at last).

 

[duma]

@ JayGrey
Well. When it comes to Moira, you may, if you want, consider her actions around writing her guide a try to become an authority. And - also - she can be hardly taken seriously.
Face it or not, "Cool shit" is very weak interpretation


But seriously. Sorry for my "metallic rhetoric". Knowing that I've never really learned English and know most of it (of what I know) from Fallout games may let you see those language problems from different angle. Try it.

 

[Sander]

Don't double post, we have an edit button for a reason.

I understand now. Bethesda's choices were governed by their unease after acquiring the Fallout license. It was like a baby dropped upon their doorstep in the middle of the night. They had no way to connect with it, even though they were children once. Afterall, who remembers being so young? So, they did their best. They did those crazy things they do: As Brother None put it, Cool Shit. Really, guys, Fallout 3 is about Bethesda's insecurity regarding the Fallout franchise brought to light by their feelings of inadequacy expressed through AI, dialouge, and town design.

Yet somehow, they intentionally spent $1M on the license beforehand to be allowed to develop the game at all.

 

[Brother None]

Don't double post, duma.

I believe that F3's take on paternity is that it's kind of "legal fiction". While maternity is "real" - there are blood ties and all - paternity is just a "matter of discourse". There is no such a real connection between father and child like there is between child and it's mother.

Oh Frith, an anthropologist. Please don't think you can impress my by meaningless terms of discursive formation, please, I have too much academic schooling for that.

Paternity is a matter of discourse? Are you kidding me? There are blood ties between a father and child, dude...you do know how babies are made, right? If you want to try and impress people by talking smart-o speak, a word of advice: realise there are schooled people here, and they can see when you're using the term discourse completely wrong, as you are.

So: throughout entire game player experiences various ways - failed mostly - people are trying to identify themselves with their ideal.

I thought about this for one second and then realised it doesn't work. You're trying to equate what is a standard post-apocalyptic trope and tie it to Fallout 3 as a unique philosophical expression. That doesn't work. In fact, this identification thing has not just been done before, it's been done a lot better, such as in a Canticle for Liebowitz.

So why doesn't it work? Because you can pull it any which way. Church of Atom? Identification! Dave's Republic? Identification! Taken like that, quite a few games out there have deep messages of identification.

Also, I'm pretty sure the whole father-storyline just comes from daddy issues in the Bethesda writer staff. It's more disturbing than deep. That said, I'd be convinced that this is an overarching narrative if there were more than a few sporadic examples of it: there's badly-written Daddy, Peter Pan location (which has more to do with Peter Pan syndrome than Paternal issues, one can easily discover) and Dave's Republic? Ok. So what about the rest of the wasteland? Megaton is just trying to survive. So is Rivet City. So is Bigtown. So is Tenpenny Tower (unless xenophobia counts as an ideal).

You know what's wrong with your analysis? You're picking and choosing a few locations or storylines and overanalyzing them to come up with a deep message. That's inane. Compare this to games that have actual messages. The search for the self is not just a part of Planescape, it is EVERYTHING in the game. Pathologic is nothing but one big intricate web, where no major event or person can conceptually be divorced from the town's secrets.

It's meta-game: one may come to guess that F3 - with all this paternity stuff - points us Beth's take on their license agreements or take on F3's relation to F1 and F2 (-:

Oh come on, now you're just being sad. Yes, there are factors in Fallout 3 that you could consider nods to the way it's been inherited, like the Outcasts vs West Coast BoS, but you're seriously trying to stretch this into a huge analogy of parentage? Are you for real?

(yeah: identification means taking seriously an authority...)

What? No it doesn't. What are you even thinking of? Are you thinking Max Weber's authority as a form of power?

Hell, you might be confused because authority is used by sociologists within the framework of an identifiable, often self-identified, group. Families have a single authority. Nations have an authority to look up to. Parental authority, political authority, etc. etc.
But you just turned it on its head. It's not the authority that defines the group, it's the group that defines the authority. Authority is defined by identification, not vice versa. Christ man, this is Sociology 101, why are you using these terms when you have no idea what they mean?

Well I'm sure that my opinion is not the only there is; but at last it allows me to justify F3 in many ways and not get bitter on what happened with Fallout.

Right. You take a game that is inconsistently thrown together, ignore the parts that don't fit the message you want to see, and pick and choose from this confusing collection of thoughts until you come up with something brilliant.

I'm not sure why you haven't figured this out already, being a discourse kind of guy, but get this: it's not the game you like, it's the image of the game you've projected in your mind that you're fond of. The game with the deep message you're talking about? It's not this game, not in reality.

Face it or not, "Cool shit" is very weak interpretation

How so? You've so far only managed to tie bits together by ignoring the parts that don't fit. Please explain to me how a crashed alien ship, Cthulhu-style horror location, a Peter Pan-syndrome location, a radio tower you can use to have atomic bombs dropped on the landscape, a tower in the middle of nowhere that still looks like a hotel with carpets and a chandelier and everything inside...how does it all tie together? What's the common factor, except that someone thought they were cool?

 

[JayGrey]

A pox upon you Sanders. How dare you point out my ignorance involving the cost of the Fallout license! (Is 1 mil' a large amount for Bethesda, for a license such as Fallout?)

 

[duma]

@ Brother None

Paternity is a matter of discourse? Are you kidding me? There are blood ties between a father and child, dude...

Yes. There are, obviously, according to me; what I was trying to do was to extract F3's take on it; and what I was trying to say, saying that it's - paternity - a "matter of discourse" according to F3 is that it's legalized fiction (when discourse = way of thinking: institutionalized or subconscious or whatever, never-really-mind; this term is wide...). Because - you know that, don't you - there are or were cultures that never ever thought in terms of paternity nor maternity (and about them I may say they used different discourse).
Then you may say - again - that I definied "identification" or "authority" wrong. But those are not really any of 'my' definitions; those are definitions (I came up to) that are ideas of them at Beth.
It's like: you consider your father your father because you want to; because you need an authority. That is the definition you can extract from F3. And in F3 it plays an important role, because the game is all about identification.

Then you may say:

I thought about this for one second and then realised it doesn't work. You're trying to equate what is a standard post-apocalyptic trope and tie it to Fallout 3 as a unique philosophical expression. That doesn't work. In fact, this identification thing has not just been done before, it's been done a lot better, such as in a Canticle for Liebowitz.

Yes and no. Why no? Because every theme is always a part of a setting. And while identification may indeed be standard trope for post-apo setting, it's F3 take on it - a definition build on analogies between paternity, identification and fiction - that is unique. Miller's definitions are in no way better or worse - his take is completely different, almost impossible to compare (as far as I can see). And also that's why some things may fit into Fallout which may not fit into "Canticle for Liebowitz" - while they're both post-apo, their definitions are just different. Because if you are telling me that every work that uses post-apo setting is considering identification (and paternity) as a fiction - I just can't agree.
And so it's not that "Church of Atom? Identification! Dave's Republic? Identification!". It's not that I pull identification theme any which way; it's like I'm trying to interpret them various institutions and - by analogies between them - trying to form a definition: an unique F3's take - Beth's voice in discussion about identification and authority.

Now, when I explained my method, I believe that you see why failed are those charges of misunderstanding philosophical or any other conceptions - like - for example - this one:

What? No it doesn't. What are you even thinking of? Are you thinking Max Weber's authority as a form of power?

Hell, you might be confused because authority is used by sociologists within the framework of an identifiable, often self-identified, group. Families have a single authority. Nations have an authority to look up to. Parental authority, political authority, etc. etc.
But you just turned it on its head. It's not the authority that defines the group, it's the group that defines the authority. Authority is defined by identification, not vice versa. Christ man, this is Sociology 101, why are you using these terms when you have no idea what they mean?

Yes, ofc I know that philosophy and sociology are powerful interpretation tools and that I should use them when I can. But you also know that a work of art - and game can be very well considered a work of art - very often builds it's own definitions; one may only try to extract them.
In my analysis I only used term "discourse" according to particular take (Foucault). But also, before charging me of overusing it, why don't you ask yourself: can a term so wide really be overused or misunderstood?

Now, when I explained what I meant, I hope it's all right and there will be no more angry-like accusations of me trying to "impress people by talking smart-o speak". Never really intended it. Also, please consider that I'm using foreign language; some of them wrong uses of specific terms may came as a result of it.


Also.

You know what's wrong with your analysis? You're picking and choosing a few locations or storylines and overanalyzing them to come up with a deep message. That's inane. Compare this to games that have actual messages. The search for the self is not just a part of Planescape, it is EVERYTHING in the game.

So you really think I could ever possibly analyze EVERYTHING in F3? I'm picking and choosing a few locations - that's right as hell - because it's the way of interpretation. To chose what's representative for the whole. And - analyzing Torment - I would just do the same. Because it's NOT POSSIBLE to analyze every single line of the game.
And that would be just fine: because analyzing parts I could come to proposals I could "pull any which way".
Tell me if I'm wrong now.

And onto this:

Please explain to me how a crashed alien ship, Cthulhu-style horror location, a Peter Pan-syndrome location, a radio tower you can use to have atomic bombs dropped on the landscape, a tower in the middle of nowhere that still looks like a hotel with carpets and a chandelier and everything inside...how does it all tie together? What's the common factor, except that someone thought they were cool?

Ok. I will do it right now, according to what I've said before.
Alien ship: I don't know yet. It's up to the 5th DLC really, now.
Cthulhu-style horror location: as far as I remember there's nothing in F3 about Cthulhu. Not really. If someone is trying to worship this statue - it may be understand as some kind of search for an authority (which is, in this case, indeed a fiction). That's in fact probably only a place constituting the universe. It has to have locations... well...
Peter-Pan syndrome location: already explained. Hell, if it's peterpanish - even better: a proof what lack of authority (paternal in this case) may cause.
Radio tower you can use to have atomic bombs dropped...: well, I don't know. That's probably also only a factor constituting the universe.
Tenpenny Tower... well: I would just repeat myself now.



And finally:

I'm not sure why you haven't figured this out already, being a discourse kind of guy, but get this: it's not the game you like, it's the image of the game you've projected in your mind that you're fond of. The game with the deep message you're talking about? It's not this game, not in reality.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that interpretation - any interpretation - is not indeed a projected image of what was narrated? Because if it is not, then what, is it (interpretation) this game (narration)?...

By definition I understant a specific take on something. For "discourse" understood as way of thinking (which may or may not be expressed in language) definitions are constitutive, no matter what take.
I don't know, man... :- )
Hope my bad english isn't a problem again.


Oh, and I'm sorry for double posting.

 

[JayGrey]

Me thinks you're trying to use the word "art" to explain away the discrepancies and errors within Fallout 3.

Very well: Murder is an art.
Murderers should get scholarships (mass murderers taking the highest reward) for their interpretation of life and death.

My baseless accusation complete.

Now on your interpretation, Bethesda's interpretation, and my interpretation: Because they are all interpretations, does that mean none of them are wrong?

If I see a ghoul and I perceive it to be a fuzzy bunny wabit, does my interpretation make me right, when Bethesda wanted it to be a ghoul?

 

[duma]

@ JayGrey
I don't really know. Guess it depends on your take. If you have an interest in considering ghoul a fuzzy bunny wabit rather than a ghoul...

But I see. It's the problem with art, maybe, that it interpretes reality and then it has to be interpreted itself. I guess nothing is sure there, but one has to be cautious and fair with it. One's interpreting - after all - for himself; for his own world-view's sake.

 

[JayGrey]

If I remember correct, the whole idea of art is to express the emotions/desires/thoughts of the creator. It is a translation of some portion of the individual artist's reality -- not the viewer's own. Now, this doesn't mean that a viewer of said art won't interpret the same desires/emotions/thoughts of the artist, but its not as likely as, say, Einstein's theory of Relativity. Thus, I do not apply art to games (entirely). Games are meant to be digested by many, and interpretation has to be . . . at least similar for every consumer. Er, now my English fails me. I mean, people have expectations of how a game will play, of what will be included in it; These expectations are based on the genre, the concept art, the trailer, the history of the producer, design team, the lore of past games in the series, .etc So, it has to conform, to a rather high degree . . .

**
This is where Fallout 3 as art fails for me. It's inconsistent with the past games, the standard of detail they set, and . . . is a horrible shooter with worse mechanics games from the 90s: Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, System Shock 1 and 2, Quake .etc

As an RPG? Well . . . With the utterly useless skillidex and stats, it's more of a crapulant adventure game with graphics dating to, around 2004 . . . It's disappointing.

Damnit, my edit has turned into a rant! **

On a side note: Everything is interpretation, at least to an extent. I mean, I may well not exist. I may be a figment of your imagination, but I'm going to assume I'm real and that if you see a big, ugly, gelatinous, feral ghoul charging at you, you're not going to reach and and pet it saying 'Bunny! Bunny', nor would I . . . Heh. Make any sense?

 

[Brother None]

Yes. There are, obviously, according to me; what I was trying to do was to extract F3's take on it; and what I was trying to say, saying that it's - paternity - a "matter of discourse" according to F3 is that it's legalized fiction (when discourse = way of thinking: institutionalized or subconscious or whatever, never-really-mind; this term is wide...).

The term is wide, but "way of thinking" is simply wrong. Then the term you're looking for is perspective. I think you're thinking of Foucault's discourse, yes? That is reality shaped by the lingual usage, though in Foucault's case he extended it beyond words and unto actions, traditions and the like, taking a broader system of thought view. That's exactly why it's called discourse, it can't be internalized as perspective, because internalized discourse is a meaningless term (unless you have multiple personality disorder).

But those are not really any of 'my' definitions; those are definitions (I came up to) that are ideas of them at Beth.

Oh, right, sorry, I must have missed the "Philosophy of Bethesda" nota. No wait, no I didn't. There is nothing, nothing in this game pointing towards discursive formation of the family or authority as the result of identification. It's you talking, not Bethesda. Don't blame this one on them, they didn't even hint at it. You know why? I'll tell you why...

It's like: you consider your father your father because you want to; because you need an authority.

This is the most nonsensical statement ever. You consider your father your father because he stucks his dick in your mother. He is your father, in the most literal sense of the word. There are no double meanings here, there is no intrigue of is he your father or not, not interesting double meanings like Zeno Clash's Father-Mother figure. He's your dad, period, how in the Good Lord's name do you fuck up interpreting the game telling he's your dad? Ever think the game just means what it says?

Then you may say

No I mayn't, I did.

Because every theme is always a part of a setting.

What does that even mean?

And also that's why some things may fit into Fallout which may not fit into "Canticle for Liebowitz" - while they're both post-apo, their definitions are just different.

Funny. You do realise one of Fallout 1's biggest inspirations was a Canticle for Liebowitz, no?

And yes, they are different, that's my point, Liebowitz uses identification as a crutch in the entire story. Fallout 3 ignores it for the most part.

Because if you are telling me that every work that uses post-apo setting is considering identification (and paternity) as a fiction - I just can't agree.

Every? I doubt it, but it's a staple of the setting.

It's not that I pull identification theme any which way; it's like I'm trying to interpret them various institutions and - by analogies between them - trying to form a definition: an unique F3's take - Beth's voice in discussion about identification and authority.

Funny, you actually state what you're doing wrong but you still don't see it. That's right, you're forming a (completely meaningless I might add) definition. Bethesda never did.

Yes, ofc I know that philosophy and sociology are powerful interpretation tools and that I should use them when I can.

What? Why do you keep making meaningless statements.

But you also know that a work of art - and game can be very well considered a work of art - very often builds it's own definitions; one may only try to extract them.

Uh, sure, but that doesn't mean you can misapply existing philosophical, sociological or anthropological terms. Authority is a word, it already has a meaning, I don't think Fallout 3 can redefine it even if it tried to, and it doesn't.

In my analysis I only used term "discourse" according to particular take (Foucault).

Your understanding of Foucault's discourse is wrong. Sorry.

But also, before charging me of overusing it, why don't you ask yourself: can a term so wide really be overused or misunderstood?

Yes. Because it's not wide, certainly not in Foucault's definition, but people like to use it anyway. Because you think "hey, I'll use the word discourse, it sounds smart and nobody understands it anyway, so nobody will catch me at it". Think again. It's a word, it has a definition, you're using it wrong.

Frith, why do people always fail to understand Foucault? Hell, even Wiki has a pretty good summary, via Iara Lessa, defining Foucault's discourse as "systems of thoughts composed of ideas, attitudes, courses of action, beliefs and practices that systematically construct the subjects and the worlds of which they speak". Notice that the definition of Foucault always incorporates the relationship between systems of thoughts defined by actions and actual, spoken discourse.

When say patriarchy is a matter of discourse you are saying that it is defined separately and primarily by a set system of thought. Indeed, good examples are the way certain cultures exclude parenthood, or focus on maternity alone. A wrong example would be saying that your father in Fallout 3 represent a father-idea rather than an actual father, since he is, in actuality, your father. Not that complex, this stuff.

Now, when I explained what I meant, I hope it's all right and there will be no more angry-like accusations of me trying to "impress people by talking smart-o speak". Never really intended it.

Oh please. If you actually had any idea what you're talking about you would have used the correct terms. You use discourse where you mean perception. You use authority in the exact opposite way it's supposed to be used in any human studies. Have you ever done any Humanist studies at all?

So you really think I could ever possibly analyze EVERYTHING in F3? I'm picking and choosing a few locations - that's right as hell - because it's the way of interpretation.

Wrong-o was his name-o. You're picking and choosing what suits your definition, or taking even more amusing interpretation angles below. Do you need to analyze every line? No. Can you just ignore whatever doesn't suit you. Nnnnnoooo?

Cthulhu-style horror location: as far as I remember there's nothing in F3 about Cthulhu.

Dunwich house. Period.

Peter-Pan syndrome location: already explained. Hell, if it's peterpanish - even better: a proof what lack of authority (paternal in this case) may cause.p

Do you even know what Peter Pan Syndrome is?

Also, you just invalidated your entire argument, but at least I get it now: all locations and factions in Fallout 3 fit the message of authority because authority is either there or it isn't.

I'm sorry, kid, but that is easily the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

How in the name of Elias' Ghost can you claim a message is there because the game has a situation that always exists? All games of all history either have authority or lack of it in the game's factions. All human history has authority or lack of it. That's not a philosophical statement, it's an inevitable reality of human nature.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that interpretation - any interpretation - is not indeed a projected image of what was narrated?

Indeed that is what I'm saying. Let's not go post-modernist here, everything is viewed through a lens, that does not mean that if I ascribe a message to a piece of art there is no difference between that message being there (like, say, the American Dream being dead in Requiem for a Dream) or the message being purely in my head, like you ascribing messages to Fallout 3 that clearly have no ties to the game at all.

Hope my bad english isn't a problem again.

I think it is, because your interpretation is just flat-out stupid. I'm not saying that to insult you, I'm saying that in the hopes that you realise how meaningless what you're saying is.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Yes, you're right, roleplaying is not really present in F3, but I bet they had planned overall themes (while we can never know for sure). Themes have really nothing to do with roleplaying - not really - fpshooters also cover themes. And if there are no themes - general themes - in F3, how one could ever say, let's say, that "Mothership Zeta" won't fit "even into F3"? You know what I mean - let's not make our criticizm a matter of intuition, it would be childish.

Yes, they had a "overall theme" even. And as many times the one they tell about in the public and both Emil adn Todd talked about. The Theme of Fallout 3 was sacrifice. Now it is thx to the Broken Still DLC even "removed" from their own game thanks to the fact that the player just ... well I dont watn to spoil it for you. But you definetly dont die. Sometimes the easiest explanation is the true one. And in this case it really is what Todd and Emil mean. Just that for the game ith as no meaning cause with every new DLC they somewhat remove anything of the game that could be remotely seen as a "choice" and "consequence". Particularly from the aspect of role playing. The theme of sacrifice alone was also much better done in many other stories from games to movies and books. And also with many times enough even moral dilemas.

The issue is that Bethesda never really thinks anything they do trough. They do not have a concept phase or any real long period to think about designs but more just go in a "brainstorming" where they throw anything in ad hoc during development. Hence why you see such anti climatic events like your Ghoul or Supermutant companion not go in the purifier for you. Todd even said this by him self several times that they try usualy to get as fast as possible from the "concept phase" in to programming and try to keep both production steps as close together as possible meaning that any kind of "crazy" idea that might hit Todd, Emil or one of their subordinates has to be incorporated in to the game, no matter the cost. Its a peculiar way to make story driven "RP games" but certainly not a good way as seen with Fallout 3 where this kind of "work design" hurts seriously the inteligence and meaning of the dialogues in the game

"You ahve to end this stuff"
"why?"
"where will it end?"
"youre right, I will comit suicide when you leave"

 

[duma]

@ Brother None
I guess I have to agree with what you said (most of it).
I could argue if I'm really - to use your words - "forming a definition" (while "Bethesda never did"), but it would be pointless since it's a matter of - yes - perspective. A matter of take. Just prove me I'm wrong here - and I give up.
But if there is - as you say - no hint at all that Beth considers paternity a fiction of sort then it's obvious my interpretation was wrong. But let me say: I've seen this whole "search for father" as such a hint. Why? Simple. If it's not taken as such - all this F3's story motivation must be taken as an excuse for, I don't know, making nonsensical fps, maybe. Yes: he's sticking dick in hero's mother. Then what? He LEAVES. Maternity is much more real than paternity because - I guess - mother would never LEAVE a child. And paternity is thus a fiction. (This is why she dies imo: because Beth could not explain in any way why she left her child in some vault and went back onto some scientific stuff... It was a way to solve one of the plot's biggest problems probably). Got me now?
And all those dad's lies in F3: can not they be considered a hint of sort? If not, maybe the game really "just tells you he's your father"...

I indeed misunderstood Foucault term 'discourse' then. But I also think that all those personal accusations - like accusing me of trying to "impress people by talking smart-o speak" or not knowing what is "Peter Pan Syndrome" - are unfair. Who do you think I am anyway, some idiot who will waste his time showing off here? Please. Just trying to express an interpretation. Trying also to confront it. Do me a favor and keep what you think of me - those unfair accusations - for yourself. I have no interest in it and you have no real reason in accusing.

@ Crni Vuk
I know I know, it's a shame, Broken Steel. This sacrifice theme was all right. But, as far as I know, Broken Steel fucked up a lot of things.

@ JayGrey
Can't say you're wrong I think.

Well maybe it's pointless anyway, trying to justify F3, but it's worth the time, for sure, to try and do so; one may eventually learn something new.

 

[Brother None]

I could argue if I'm really - to use your words - "forming a definition" (while "Bethesda never did"), but it would be pointless since it's a matter of - yes - perspective. A matter of take. Just prove me I'm wrong here - and I give up.

The saddest thing is your ideas aren't even that uninteresting. I find them a bit hard to wrestle down, which is probably the language barrier, but they seem to be more interesting than the game: in other words, you're wasting your brain on this game, dude, don't.

But if there is - as you say - no hint at all that Beth considers paternity a fiction of sort then it's obvious my interpretation was wrong. But let me say: I've seen this whole "search for father" as such a hint. Why? Simple. If it's not taken as such - all this F3's story motivation must be taken as an excuse for, I don't know, making nonsensical fps, maybe. Yes: he's sticking dick in hero's mother. Then what? He LEAVES. Maternity is much more real than paternity because - I guess - mother would never LEAVE a child. And paternity is thus a fiction. (This is why she dies imo: because Beth could not explain in any way why she left her child in some vault and went back onto some scientific stuff... It was a way to solve one of the plot's biggest problems probably). Got me now?

Actually, I think Bethesda just never plausibly explains it. Daddy Neeson obviously cares for his child, and in that sense, paternity as a myth (I've been trying to figure out what you mean by fiction; do you mean myth?) is not what's going on: remember, Daddy Neeson did in fact abandon Project Purity to be able to raise his child before the game. It's only when you're grown up that he leaves you again. Rather than paternity being a myth, that would sooner indicate Bethesda thinks the limits of paternity end at maturity.

Hell, the only thing Daddy Neeson did wrong was not leave a note explaining why he'd gone. And Bethesda never plausibly explains why he doesn't, or talks to you beforehand, he just "hopes" you'll stay in the vault. That's not deep, it's stupid.

But I also think that all those personal accusations - like accusing me of trying to "impress people by talking smart-o speak" or not knowing what is "Peter Pan Syndrome" - are unfair.

Bah, fine, I might've been a bit heavy-handed. Apologies.

Yes, they had a "overall theme" even. And as many times the one they tell about in the public and both Emil adn Todd talked about. The Theme of Fallout 3 was sacrifice.

Don't miss this one, duma. This is actually the "official" "theme of the game", and it's put on pretty thick at the end. I'd say that if we want to identify any undercurrents in Fallout 3, sacrifice is it, though it's mostly ignored, and severed out by BS.

 

[duma]

@ Brother None
Not a myth - not really. When I said that paternity is a fiction in F3's I meant that (by the words of G. B. Shaw) all the work of disciplining and educating himself (Lone Wanderer), which should have been done for him (by his father) he had to do for himself. Look at F3's beginning when you're "creating your character" by your decisions. Dad has no real influence on you. So it's like: "(...) the revolt of the son is never the cliche-rebellion against a tyrannical parent, but the more complex revolt against the refusal or inability of an ineffectual father to provide any lead at all." (Well: isn't it true? You can turn his scientific project against everything he worked to achieve). Still the player considers his father to be his father and is looking for him later. The mother is mother because she gives you birth. That's fine. But if the father is father ONLY because he sticks his dick in her, something's wrong with paternity.

It's not like he, 'Daddy Neeson', didn't love his child. It's like he failed. (Now you may see what I meant with all this 'authority' talk). And this 'search for father' may be very well understood as child's struggle to hold on to 'paternity' - father's authority which is a fiction as far as I can see it in F3: a projection of child's own needs - like it was something real. If you consider this central for F3, you may realise that existential themes are very close to it. Like in Sartre's: "Being nobody's son, I was my own cause and was filled with both pride and wretchedness... I always preferred to accuse myself rather than the universe, not only out of simple good-heartedness, but in order to derive only from myself." Later in the game, after father's death, when player has to finish his father's work, he - how to say that? - becomes a child of his own actions. (well, it's fucked up because there isn't really any serious example of those actions CONSEQUENCES in the game, but, you know, it may be understood this way, I think).

Sorry if I overquoted. Just wanted to put it all clear this time and Shaw and Sartre proved useful ( -:

And well no offence is taken, don't be so harsh is all I ask for.
And I missed it not, this sacrifice theme, only it's fucked up anyway. It's not a sacrifice - it's that Daddy Neeson is immature and don't know what to do with himself, leaving the project, leaving the child, and so on... It's also his big failure portraited in the game. He's no father. But he is considered one. That's also what I'd call sort of 'fiction'.

 

[eLZhi]

The Ink Spots and Louis Armstrong are not big band. Big band had 10+ musicians, while The Ink Spots had a handful of members at any given moment and Louis Armstrong just a few backing him up.

The existentialism comment is just pathetic. I can't even laugh at that.

 

[Eyenixon]

By pairing cheery big band hits of the 40s and 50s with post-apocalyptic despair, Fallout 3 does more to advance the case for existentialism than five decades of French philosophy. It projects the player into a world where hope is impossible: the human race has reached the end of its technological arc, and the die-off has begun. But instead of descending into savagery, the game reminds you of the sentimental world from which this one emerged. Their sentiment and your despair have equal weight. Some people – raiders, slavers and the tyrants of the Enclave – will take that as an excuse for brutality. Others realize that it means you’re free to do good.

The battle between right and wrong comes not from God or from society, but from the war in every human’s private soul. And that war never changes.

I didn't know this was Fallout: A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. What is this incomprehensible nonsense? Analyzing subject matter for deeper meaning only applies if that deeper meaning exists.

This is like that guy who wrote the Killer7 plot analysis that drew connections from every insignificant detail of the game to nearly everything under the sun, except that guy got totally pissed when Hand In Killer7 was released and negated all his theories and he actually attacked the book like a pissy retard because it made him look stupid.

Whatever.

 

[Crni Vuk]

@ Brother None
Not a myth - not really. When I said that paternity is a fiction in F3's I meant that (by the words of G. B. Shaw) all the work of disciplining and educating himself (Lone Wanderer), which should have been done for him (by his father) he had to do for himself. Look at F3's beginning when you're "creating your character" by your decisions. Dad has no real influence on you. So it's like: "(...) the revolt of the son is never the cliche-rebellion against a tyrannical parent, but the more complex revolt against the refusal or inability of an ineffectual father to provide any lead at all." (Well: isn't it true? You can turn his scientific project against everything he worked to achieve). Still the player considers his father to be his father and is looking for him later. The mother is mother because she gives you birth. That's fine. But if the father is father ONLY because he sticks his dick in her, something's wrong with paternity.

I have no clue what youre talking about ... but well at least this I understand

"Look at F3's beginning when you're "creating your character" by your decisions."

That "creating your character" thing is basicaly a left over from Oblivion. Same to the GOAT test which is more or less just a modifiaction from the "answer some question - we tell you your character" thing present since Morrowind. The whole Vault 101 serves in some way as a "Tutorial" just like the more then boring severs in Oblivion. I doubt there is any deep meaning behind all of it. Its more a coincidence really. Why you try to find some obscure meaning behind many of the things in Fallout 3 when Bethesda is diong exactly this kind of gameplay and style since Morrowind (and other parts even earlier) is something I dont understand. There really if you believe it or not isnt that much of a very deep metaphysical meaning behind it but more some approach from Bethesda to get anythin in the game that how they think might craete a "thats freaking cool!" effect and attract rather action oriented sand box players just like already with Oblivion. YOu should try to play that game if you have not already and then again try to explain anything with a deep meaning behind the things Bethesda is doing like they would want people "really" to think about their game and not just shoot some super Orcs, grab some garden gnones and stuff them right next to their collected forks and super awesome weapons.

How much of a "deep" philosophical meaning can you expect behind things with comments like :

"Fantasy, for us, is a knight on horseback running around and killing things"
- Todd Howard

"Well, most good RPGs have action. "
- Pete Hines

Now how deep can that be really ? And the exactly same counts for Fallout 3 when Todd, Emil or Pete make any serious comments about the game and the franchise, where Emil knows about the "flaws" in the dialogues with your companions in the end game, but feels "completely ok with it". Or by Todds "violance is F****** funny" comment and that Fallout was of course a lot (mainly) about that. Not to forget the trivialization of nuclear weapons and references in the game. Again moer a "letz give those kidz something cool to play" thing then a deep methaphysical meaning.

 

[Eyenixon]

Same to the GOAT test which is more or less just a modifiaction from the "answer some question - we tell you your character" thing present since Morrowind.

Since Arena, since Ultima IV, since 1985.
The whole "answer questions and we'll tell you who you are" thing is an RPG staple.
The most interesting yet disappointing example for me was in Ultima: Worlds of Adventure 2: Martian Dreams where Freud himself put you under psychological analysis to determine your character's specialization. It was just too short though, there were only around five or so questions and it was a pretty funny idea.

And character creation is simply that, character creation. Bethesda's only intent was to provide something other than a boring screen of stats, too bad their two hour tutorial is even more mind crushingly boring and dull than Fallout 1 and 2's jump into the statistics.
Developers develop first, philosophize fiftieth, gaming isn't an art form yet, and it won't be until people realize that a cinematic experience doesn't make this form of media unique, nor does flowery writing or emotional connections with the game world, so you aren't going to find the depth of Joyce or Faulkner here, all you're going to get is a collection of circumstantial conclusions that are all fairy tales.

Don't over-analyze games, they're not yet deserving of such honors.