SarcasticGoodGuy
*R O T T E N*
Well he's crazy so it makes sense that he'd be a bit 'weird' to some.
Meanwhile over in DC you have people that legit think they're superheroes. They even train ants/build robots to do their bidding.
'Wackiness'
- Thread starter lolpop109
- Start date
-
- Tags
- easter eggs fallout game
Meanwhile over in DC you have people that legit think they're superheroes. They even train ants/build robots to do their bidding.
Prone Squanderer
A bit of a Sillius Soddus.
No Bark's fine, it's explained why he acts the way he does. Besides, he's actually very perceptive about what goes on around town, it's just most folk can't understand him.
If there was an entire settlement of No Barks however then it would be ridiculous.
Yeah that's just dumb. I mean the Mechanist is bad but at least you can see someone building/repairing robots for their own purposes.
The Antagonizer? Just happened to be a woman who's family just happened to be killed by ants but she just happened to somehow control them and then she just happened to be a fan of a comic which just so happened to have an ant villain and just happened to find the costume for it as well?
Like I said as bad as the Mechanist was I could accept a character who uses robots to try and make things better (or hell worse), but the Antagonizer is definitely the wacky no one here (save one or two) wants to see in a Fallout game IMO.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Wackiness is a bit of general word.
Anyway, i am not sure i am agains't wackiness per se. Some of the best works are full of wackiness, and yet have enough relevant plot, themes and strenght to make it work to get an awesome result. It might become a problem when we have wackiness for the sake of it, and nothing relevant to go along with it. Although, it might work to have some full wackiness on some movies or other works if they are only meant to be fun.
I am not sure about what would be the good level of wackiness for the Fallout series. I didn't mind it on Fallout 2, even if it was sometimes hit or miss. But Fallout 2 have a good setting, relevant plots and characters, and satisfying themes. The wackiness came on top of it, mostly on the delivery and not so much on what the game was actually talking about. If you removed those plots, themes and characters, and only keep the wackiness, it would be an entirelly different game. (no matter the amount of wackiness)
Anyway, i am not sure i am agains't wackiness per se. Some of the best works are full of wackiness, and yet have enough relevant plot, themes and strenght to make it work to get an awesome result. It might become a problem when we have wackiness for the sake of it, and nothing relevant to go along with it. Although, it might work to have some full wackiness on some movies or other works if they are only meant to be fun.
I am not sure about what would be the good level of wackiness for the Fallout series. I didn't mind it on Fallout 2, even if it was sometimes hit or miss. But Fallout 2 have a good setting, relevant plots and characters, and satisfying themes. The wackiness came on top of it, mostly on the delivery and not so much on what the game was actually talking about. If you removed those plots, themes and characters, and only keep the wackiness, it would be an entirelly different game. (no matter the amount of wackiness)
D
Deleted member 93956
Guest
Bethesda: "That sounds great! Write that shit down, Emil!"
Whackyness when it's a secondary thing must be like the caramelized fruit in cakes. It's a bit meh just on its own, and it complements the cake well. But it can also be removed with no major grade losses of the core for the people that don't like it.
Good examples of this were FNV and at a lesser extent Fo2. The first literally has a switch and it can even possibly be removed later on. The second, while not optable, in no moment is told to you with a straight face. And it's not that much in the way nor major plot points. You might never see nothing of that by accident, or see every single one. Adds a bit to the experience of "what the fuck is this world?".
Same goes for Borderlands, IMO. While I dislike BL2's bombradment of pop culture references, at times in the series they have some actually pretty smart and that are the cherry on top of a weird post-apoc plus cyberpunk setting. Next day, you are being played in a P&P campaign of a fantasy version of the main game's plot. Other shocking Interplanetary Ninja Assasin Claptrap. Or being the only attendant to his birthday.
Other games that handle it well are Terraria, where you fight goblins, pirates, aliens, orcs, demons, dragons, Chutulu's... parts, huge animals, snowmen, etcetera with swords that throw nyancat-like projectiles, use a rock metal electric guitar, piss on mobs, or have your army of bees, tiki and drones to do the job. It's incoherent fantasy, and it embodies it.
It's needless to say who and what does it bad. Y'know. Synth gorillas.
Brivoo
Powered by Radiant AI
It's important to draw a distinction between "wackiness" and "jokes". I consider the former to be anything that's out of place for the purposes of amusement, such as easter eggs or dumb jokes.
Any narrative, regardless of genre, needs a bit of humour in it. If it's a comedy, it's the lifeblood of the thing; if it's a tragedy, it provides contrast and momentary relief so that the audience isn't constantly bombarded with gloom.
Even discounting the obviously non-canonical easter eggs mentioned above, I think some "wackiness" belongs in Fallout. It's a game about narratives and it's always interesting to see what influenced the authors and what they like to cite.
That said, there can always be too much wackiness. I wouldn't've minded if the Wild Wasteland trait was incorporated in New Vegas, for example, because most of its effects fit the environment pretty neatly and never felt out of place; hell, a lot of the time I wouldn't even have realised it kicked into action if its soundbite didn't play.
On the other hand, I'm very conflicted about Fallout 2's various "wacky moments"; they're often shoved down your throat, removing the only satisfaction references and more esoteric jokes usually give players (i.e. finding them) and leaving only cringeworthiness.
Any narrative, regardless of genre, needs a bit of humour in it. If it's a comedy, it's the lifeblood of the thing; if it's a tragedy, it provides contrast and momentary relief so that the audience isn't constantly bombarded with gloom.
Even discounting the obviously non-canonical easter eggs mentioned above, I think some "wackiness" belongs in Fallout. It's a game about narratives and it's always interesting to see what influenced the authors and what they like to cite.
That said, there can always be too much wackiness. I wouldn't've minded if the Wild Wasteland trait was incorporated in New Vegas, for example, because most of its effects fit the environment pretty neatly and never felt out of place; hell, a lot of the time I wouldn't even have realised it kicked into action if its soundbite didn't play.
On the other hand, I'm very conflicted about Fallout 2's various "wacky moments"; they're often shoved down your throat, removing the only satisfaction references and more esoteric jokes usually give players (i.e. finding them) and leaving only cringeworthiness.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I'd say there's no upper limit on wackiness. Part of what made the games so great is how crazy the characters are. The game would be nowhere near as entertaining if everyone was purely serious, and there motives sensical. It bothering to portray the literally insane guy in the streets of The Hub and the Nuka Cola addict just as much as it portrays key figures in the wasteland gives it a certain level of authenticity and humour to it.
That being said, the wackiness should either be kept setting-appropriate, or be so minor that it doesn't interfere with the game-play.
For example, Dave from Vault 13 is a very wacky character, but a character running in to huge amounts of unlikely events, that lead to a miserable life, isn't necessarily contradictory to anything that the setting establishes.
Whereas other events like The Tardis, or Fourth Wall breaking lines("I thought this was the European version of the game"), are so minor,that they can safely be ignored, but at the same time they are nice little winks to the player.
An entire quest dedicated to a Pinky and the Brain reference, that is basically the backstory to an entire section of the town, is just stupid, and takes away from what could be genuine writing.
That being said, the wackiness should either be kept setting-appropriate, or be so minor that it doesn't interfere with the game-play.
For example, Dave from Vault 13 is a very wacky character, but a character running in to huge amounts of unlikely events, that lead to a miserable life, isn't necessarily contradictory to anything that the setting establishes.
Whereas other events like The Tardis, or Fourth Wall breaking lines("I thought this was the European version of the game"), are so minor,that they can safely be ignored, but at the same time they are nice little winks to the player.
An entire quest dedicated to a Pinky and the Brain reference, that is basically the backstory to an entire section of the town, is just stupid, and takes away from what could be genuine writing.
Gizmojunk
Antediluvian as Feck
I do not like that they forced the player to waste a trait in order to get the Fallout world ostensibly as it should be. The player shouldn't even have that choice.
*That said, nobody has done a good job of it since the first two games.
(And even Fallout 2 had egregious mistakes that shipped in the game; like the bespectacled chess playing scorpion, Brain [ie. Pinky & the Brain], and Anna, the ghost.)
I'd say that none of these seemed inappropriate in and of themselves, but that ALL of them were inappropriately placed in the vicinity of towns; (instead of sites [really] deep in the great wasteland).
It's actually a Logan's Run reference, that just includes Brain for some reason.
Last edited:
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
I am okay with the ghost (depends on people beliefs) and talking deathclaws, but they went a bit overboard with talking things.
You have talking deathclaws, talking brahmins, a talking robodog, a talking radscorpion, a talking plant, two talking greater molerats, a talking statue (SE), a talking toaster (RP) etc...
You have talking deathclaws, talking brahmins, a talking robodog, a talking radscorpion, a talking plant, two talking greater molerats, a talking statue (SE), a talking toaster (RP) etc...
R.Graves
Confirmed Retard
Honestly animals evolving to be capable of speech is more believable than ghosts to me. There are plenty of animals that can mimic speech and I've never seen a ghost. Depending on peoples beliefs? Im afraid I have to disagree with you there. People believe a lot of dumb shit. Doesn't mean we should put it in a game that previously had no supernatural elements.
naossano
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
There is a damn lot of people who don't consider it dumb shit and think that they had communicated with ghost. I have no idea if ghosts exist or not, so i won't comment if they are right or not. But the point it, if you believe in ghosts, that part remains serious. If you don't, well, that doesn't remove the other demographic. Plus, they gave the explanation of the tribal being more used to communicate with spirits. It makes more sense to me than having two complete morons having intelligent conversation with each other.
About talking thing, my comment was that they went overboard with it. There isn't a thing that isn't able to talk. It wouldn't have hurt if they had reduced the number of things that could talk.
About talking thing, my comment was that they went overboard with it. There isn't a thing that isn't able to talk. It wouldn't have hurt if they had reduced the number of things that could talk.