Todd Howard interview at the Guardian

Literacy_Hooligan said:
Ummm... Post - Apocalyptic doesn't mean that the world has to be blasted to smithereens by nukes. Children of Men is a great movie and the apocalypse there is when children stop being born, the world collapses. Still the photography and art is quite nice there.
Click to expand...

Well, quite literally "apocalypse" means the end of the world, and thus "post-apocalyptic" has to take place after a world destroying event. While you are correct that mankind no longer having children could result in an apocalypse of sorts, its an extreme stretch to then call that post-apocalyptic. Furthermore, the end of the human race alone is not the end of the world. I guess that is semantics, however I continue to believe that Children of Men is a dystopian film. Yes the photography and art is quite good, and yes I think that it's a good thing for anyone to be influenced by. However Fallout already has an established mythos that has nothing to do with what Children of Men is about. Which is why I remain confused that it is an influence for Fallout 3.
 
Bodybag said:
I really can't see how this is important. In either case, really. Maybe you can win me over, though - why are the naming conventions such a big deal?
Click to expand...
You can't see why fans of the previous iteration might have expectations from the sequel? Wow, I'd have expected the new "who cares if it's a sequel" bodybag 2 to be able to grasp such a simple concept, which would not have posed a difficulty to the once poignant bogybag 1 :)
 
However Fallout already has an established mythos that has nothing to do with what Children of Men is about. Which is why I remain confused that it is an influence for Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

Maybe you'll encounter some settlement with fertility problems.

Or maybe they've decided to cut out kids entirely and just haven't told us yet. :o

"hey guys, we didnt cut kids because of the eventual shitstorm from the media, its just an homage to children of men lol"

edit
added quote because of stupid fedaykin :evil:
 
bazola said:
Well, quite literally "apocalypse" means the end of the world, and thus "post-apocalyptic" has to take place after a world destroying event. While you are correct that mankind no longer having children could result in an apocalypse of sorts, its an extreme stretch to then call that post-apocalyptic. Furthermore, the end of the human race alone is not the end of the world. I guess that is semantics, however I continue to believe that Children of Men is a dystopian film. Yes the photography and art is quite good, and yes I think that it's a good thing for anyone to be influenced by. However Fallout already has an established mythos that has nothing to do with what Children of Men is about. Which is why I remain confused that it is an influence for Fallout 3.
Click to expand...

But nuclear war is also not the literal end of the world, so by your reasoning Fallout is also not post-apocalyptic.
 
If we're going to throw around definitions here I can with all certainty say that any hope of a sensible argument has been eroded. Put away your dictionaries sniff bags.
 
In Children of men we witness the apocalypse set on by sterility of human kind, in no way are we subjected to a vision of a post-apocalyptic world. In the spirit of the film, a post-apoc scenario would have been one where only the few fertile people outlived and survived the infertile civilisations of the world. To me that would be post-apoc.

They didn’t make children in F3 because they have no balls, not because of a Children of men influence.
 
Children of Men is post-apocalyptic because it fits into a loose genre that ranges from post-nuclear conflicts to people fighting zombies where the world has not been torn to pieces.

The concept of Armageddon and the Apocalypse is that humanity suffers and is destroyed/transcended, the world itself is just an extra.

Children of Men takes place in a world that is suffering from the aftermath of its sterilization.
It's loose because there's no clear beginning or end. Since it is apocalyptic when it is transpiring as well as when it begins, there can't really be a "post" to it since everyone would be dead and with no humanity there is no apocalypse.

So for the sake of not being retarded or overly stingy, it's post apocalyptic because no one is going to go through the effort of trying to figure out exactly how it all fits in the time line of what is apocalyptic, technically, there shouldn't be anything as a post-apocalypse because everyone will either be rotting in Hell or dancing in Heaven or otherwise with their face having hot finger banging sessions with the earth.

Unless you consider the moment after that cleansing to be the post-apocalypse you are speaking of, but then that would make for really boring games and movies, maybe a neat modernist book, but screw those twits.
 
Well, how about that Todd Howard interview, eh?
Often in the game we have setups like a destroyed café that you enter and you can tell the raiders have been there, that it is a camp of some kind, but they are out hunting, and then they return as you are inspecting it. It's a great moment that, like the others, feels alive and scary.
Click to expand...
This here is the biggest thing that worries me, and sounds like Beth's standard "bad guys are BAD!" routine. In Fallout 1, I became friends with the Kahns. I wasn't afraid of them. I could walk almost anywhere and NOT be attacked by raiders because of it. Even bad guys have friends.
 
Brother None said:
It's interesting because I can remember one of NMA's staffers (was it Michael Grizzly?) telling me a while after Bethesda's Fallout 3 was known to be in the works that he'd had a nightmare in which Fallout 3 was a kind of first-person shooter/survival horror, where the main enemy were lizardmen with detachable heads with batwings or something.
Click to expand...

It was TVD.
 
Zaptoman said:
Well, how about that Todd Howard interview, eh?
Often in the game we have setups like a destroyed café that you enter and you can tell the raiders have been there, that it is a camp of some kind, but they are out hunting, and then they return as you are inspecting it. It's a great moment that, like the others, feels alive and scary.
Click to expand...
This here is the biggest thing that worries me, and sounds like Beth's standard "bad guys are BAD!" routine. In Fallout 1, I became friends with the Kahns. I wasn't afraid of them. I could walk almost anywhere and NOT be attacked by raiders because of it. Even bad guys have friends.
Click to expand...



You can really be friends with them?? wow...i never had a chance to interact with them till Garl death hand..talked to me ..(and somehow during our disscussion I said i was his father...yeah..)

so i killed after he attacked me. That was the one thing i still dont understand.. ( how am i his father..)


.....FO3 power armored supermutated Buffout ingesting Mega ultra Dual minigun wielding Mega Brahmin!!!!

Better than alcoholic lizards...hahaha
 
Todd Howard is a bloody moron, he's like "We researched how A-Bombs work, etc etc." could have just looked at the Fallout 1 Survival Guide / Manual.

I'm guessing this game is going to turn into a Post-Apoc Resident Evil from what I've seen and heard. Thing is they still don't understand that Fallout is supposed to be like a mix of hopelessness, fear, gray areas (morality wise), determination, etc.
In Fo1 and Fo2, your hero actually seemed like a hero but now he'll just seem like some chump from Resident Evil.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top