Sn1p3r187
Carolinian Shaolin Monk
Here's one. People dressing like they have no fashion sense 200 years after a nuclear war is dumb. Like if industry has been reestablished in a lot of places. Make clothes that scream 2280's and not 2070's
What are some of your unpopular opinions?
- Thread starter Ugly Kid
- Start date
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
I mean the bums are Ye-maxxing.
PaxVenire
Vault Dweller
I get what you mean, especially when it comes to people still wearing dirty Old World suits and fedoras. At the same time, heavy industry has only really "returned" in the core region of California, and that's after the games take place. Fallout 2 is probably the closest we get to seeing a stabilized "modern" post-war city, and they clearly show signs of industrialization with uniforms and high society/government fashion.
Fallout New Vegas might be post-Fallout 2, but it's in an area of the world that isn't really tamed. Aside from the Strip, the NCR presence in the Mojave is basically all military with mercenaries and prospectors rightfully wearing whatever protects them best or what they can find outside of the comfort of the bigger cities. And Mojave natives probably care more about a good pair of jeans over modern fashion.
Tenebris
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Sn1p3r187
Carolinian Shaolin Monk
Yep
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Building on my last post about mental constraints - Specifically in regards to Video Games - One thing I thought about but didn't include because it didn't fit with any particular word:
A lot of RPGs, particularly post New Vegas, seem to be obsessed with this "Pick from one of multiple groups vying for power, and whichever one you pick determines the ending of the game" style of gameplay - And that worked for New Vegas, but if done poorly it often feels misplaced.
Sometimes having one antagonist, and having all players, no matter how divergent the paths they took to get there, face off against the same boss works. Hell sometimes having alternate reasons the player can be trying to achieve the same goal can be more interesting than having total choice to choose who you're fighting for (Do you want to overthrow the villain to save the land, or because you want their power for yourself).
Like in Fallout 2, your initial objective is the G.E.C.K, then your objective is to stop the Enclave - These are clear objectives that give you something to work towards, but in each case them being singular and definitive means that you can have a lot more player freedom around those objectives and where to go, then you would in a "Join one of 4 groups and help them control the world" scenario where content tends to be a lot more regimented around who you join.
A related thing - I'm not actually convinced Open World is the way to go for RPGs, and games that don't have much to show for their Open Worlds would be better off if they did something else. Plus like, when you're playing a Tabletop, typically you don't simulate every single section of a walk, typically it's a matter of - You take a job, you go to where the job is, the DM designs the maps specifically to be fun for what you're currently doing, and then you're done - This works for a reason - Having direct goals, and having areas be designed around what's fun for what you're specifically doing often works better than having an entire world that you wander around in and incidentally end up in areas.
Pillars of Eternity, KOTOR and Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong are all games that I think are stronger by having linear narratives, single antagonists and relatively closed worlds.
Retrofuturism shouldn't mean the culture is the same. Hell, Sci Fi from that era typically shows people in identical jumpsuits rather than anything resembling the clothes of the era (Which I guess the Vaults do)
I kinda like the fashion of the sprites of the first 2 Fallout Games for ordinary people - Poorer people wear rags, more well-off people wear suits or shirts or sometimes dresses - It doesn't feel tied to any particular era, it feels like they're wearing very practical clothes if anything (Big exception is the New Reno families who do not fit this theme) - Plus the spiked metal armour, people decked out in leather, has a Mad Max feel.
I think that's really what the Fallout aesthetic should be for the post-war era - Partially Mad Max, partially practical clothing - With a few more ironed out clothes not tied to any particular era for more well-off people.
A lot of RPGs, particularly post New Vegas, seem to be obsessed with this "Pick from one of multiple groups vying for power, and whichever one you pick determines the ending of the game" style of gameplay - And that worked for New Vegas, but if done poorly it often feels misplaced.
Sometimes having one antagonist, and having all players, no matter how divergent the paths they took to get there, face off against the same boss works. Hell sometimes having alternate reasons the player can be trying to achieve the same goal can be more interesting than having total choice to choose who you're fighting for (Do you want to overthrow the villain to save the land, or because you want their power for yourself).
Like in Fallout 2, your initial objective is the G.E.C.K, then your objective is to stop the Enclave - These are clear objectives that give you something to work towards, but in each case them being singular and definitive means that you can have a lot more player freedom around those objectives and where to go, then you would in a "Join one of 4 groups and help them control the world" scenario where content tends to be a lot more regimented around who you join.
A related thing - I'm not actually convinced Open World is the way to go for RPGs, and games that don't have much to show for their Open Worlds would be better off if they did something else. Plus like, when you're playing a Tabletop, typically you don't simulate every single section of a walk, typically it's a matter of - You take a job, you go to where the job is, the DM designs the maps specifically to be fun for what you're currently doing, and then you're done - This works for a reason - Having direct goals, and having areas be designed around what's fun for what you're specifically doing often works better than having an entire world that you wander around in and incidentally end up in areas.
Pillars of Eternity, KOTOR and Shadowrun Returns/Dragonfall/Hong Kong are all games that I think are stronger by having linear narratives, single antagonists and relatively closed worlds.
I'll do you one better: How about people start dressing like they're in the 2070s and not the 1950s. The 3D games having everyone wear old timey suits is stupid. I've seen a few people saying "I think New Vegas goes too hard on the Western Theme" but y'know what, having everyone be cowboys honestly feels like a better take on the setting than having everyone dress like they never left the 50s.
Retrofuturism shouldn't mean the culture is the same. Hell, Sci Fi from that era typically shows people in identical jumpsuits rather than anything resembling the clothes of the era (Which I guess the Vaults do)
I kinda like the fashion of the sprites of the first 2 Fallout Games for ordinary people - Poorer people wear rags, more well-off people wear suits or shirts or sometimes dresses - It doesn't feel tied to any particular era, it feels like they're wearing very practical clothes if anything (Big exception is the New Reno families who do not fit this theme) - Plus the spiked metal armour, people decked out in leather, has a Mad Max feel.
I think that's really what the Fallout aesthetic should be for the post-war era - Partially Mad Max, partially practical clothing - With a few more ironed out clothes not tied to any particular era for more well-off people.
Tenebris
It Wandered In From the Wastes
fallout 1 sucked because you couldn't fuck tandi
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
Yeah I believe that in order to have a good story you need to have some form of anchor that restricts roleplayability to fit within that parameter. If you try to have a truly open roleplay narrative then there's no strong incentive for you to care about anything and if you shoehorn in options for the sake of options then it is immersion breaking as someone in your position would not do the things you do.
In Fallout 1 the anchor is that you care about your Vault. That's set in stone. So your goal out in the wasteland is to save it, all roads lead to the water chip and later on The Master. But... Who ARE you really? What kind of person are you? What are you willing to do in order to achieve your goals? That's all up to you.
That's what I mean about an anchor. If you as a developer want the player to be able to pick between 4 different groups then all of those groups have to be viable from a narrative standpoint to side with. If there is no anchor to guide you then each faction through their interaction with you have to provide a viable reason for why you see them as the best option.
Hell, I would argue this about quest design and narrative design in general. Do not design quests assuming that the player character would just want to do them for the sake of doing them. That's the player. The player wants to explore the content of the game so they will do the quest that is put in front of them, but how satisfying that quest feels and how rewarding the roleplaying experience is is determined by how suitable of a quest it is for the player character to do. That's why I hate it in stories where you are going to save the world where you just fuck off to wrangle pigs for some farmer. The hell does this have to do with saving the world? Worst is when that quest is available in Act 3 when the eye of death is floating in the sky above you.
The character the player plays has a starting point and all narrative must flow from that starting point. It is an anchor that keeps the writing from going off of the leash floating away to god knows where.
In Fallout 1 the anchor is that you care about your Vault. That's set in stone. So your goal out in the wasteland is to save it, all roads lead to the water chip and later on The Master. But... Who ARE you really? What kind of person are you? What are you willing to do in order to achieve your goals? That's all up to you.
That's what I mean about an anchor. If you as a developer want the player to be able to pick between 4 different groups then all of those groups have to be viable from a narrative standpoint to side with. If there is no anchor to guide you then each faction through their interaction with you have to provide a viable reason for why you see them as the best option.
Hell, I would argue this about quest design and narrative design in general. Do not design quests assuming that the player character would just want to do them for the sake of doing them. That's the player. The player wants to explore the content of the game so they will do the quest that is put in front of them, but how satisfying that quest feels and how rewarding the roleplaying experience is is determined by how suitable of a quest it is for the player character to do. That's why I hate it in stories where you are going to save the world where you just fuck off to wrangle pigs for some farmer. The hell does this have to do with saving the world? Worst is when that quest is available in Act 3 when the eye of death is floating in the sky above you.
The character the player plays has a starting point and all narrative must flow from that starting point. It is an anchor that keeps the writing from going off of the leash floating away to god knows where.
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
[EDIT]
Ahem, while Tandi is legal in Sweden I am going to retract my statement because while legal that is too young for me. :v
I can fuck granny Tandi however.
[EDIT2]
Hang on, that bit of lore of her birth date is from the Fallout Bible.
And considering I don't think that's canon... I guess I can make her age whatever I want it to be.
She's 40 years old in Fallout 1. She's a prime MILF, great skin for her age.
Ahem, while Tandi is legal in Sweden I am going to retract my statement because while legal that is too young for me. :v
I can fuck granny Tandi however.
[EDIT2]
Hang on, that bit of lore of her birth date is from the Fallout Bible.
And considering I don't think that's canon... I guess I can make her age whatever I want it to be.
She's 40 years old in Fallout 1. She's a prime MILF, great skin for her age.
Last edited:
ZooBis
First time out of the vault
I played New Vegas way more than 1 and 2 combined, but I ended up liking the classic more because of how dense and purposeful the design, progression, and story were. It felt like a good balance between linear objective and freedom of choice.
I feel like the Fashion in 3D Fallout could also be applied to music since the only type of music I hear within the game world, like New Vegas, is oldies instead of other types like rock and roll, along with electronics or synths, which I think would be equally fitting for retrofuturism.
Tenebris
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Tenebris
It Wandered In From the Wastes
skill issue, i am 17 years old
anyway, from what are you saying, the 16 thing didn't came from the game itself but from the bibel to explain how she is alive in 2?
Last edited:
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
Ew. Why?
I guess. https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Tandi
On the right column you have "Born" and next to the date "[Non-game 1]" which links to a part of the Fallout Bible.
It's just another example of the Bible trying to cover every square inch of lore that it can.
Which is why the more time passes the more it annoys me.
I can't be arsed to read through it and sift through what is canon and isn't.
So it's easier to just discredit all of it.
Tenebris
It Wandered In From the Wastes
PaxVenire
Vault Dweller
I agree, but we can't blame the 3D games for this as this billboard comes from Fallout 1.
To give credit to the 3D games, we've seen what 2070s retrofuture fashion might look like when it comes to certain uniforms in game. Civilian clothing however seems to be stylistically stuck in the 1950s.
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
I don't mind the concept of a Bible that is meant to clean up the lore and cement some things to help put in some tentpoles into the world as to how it works and how it ought to be. But it needs to be official and afterwards it needs to be followed. Since I don't consider anything beyond Tactics to be canon (FNV is canon on good days) and the Bible came out after Fallout 2 I don't really see much of a point to it. It's a fanfic who's intended purpose got thrown out the window when Bethesda took control.
I don't mind a Bible of sorts. But this one? Pointless. I'm not going to go over all of Fallout 1 and 2, then read through the bible, then read through VB's design documents then filter any TC mod that is made for Fallout 2 to verify its canoninity(?). It was a cute attempt for a brighter future that never happened.
I don't mind a Bible of sorts. But this one? Pointless. I'm not going to go over all of Fallout 1 and 2, then read through the bible, then read through VB's design documents then filter any TC mod that is made for Fallout 2 to verify its canoninity(?). It was a cute attempt for a brighter future that never happened.
Jogre
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
A good anchor is always "You're going to die if you don't do this" because you don't really need to tie it to any particular character motivation - Whatever your character's goals are, they need to keep living to achieve them.
Works extra well in Planescape Torment, since really The Nameless One is the only person who can really meaningfully die despite his body living on forever. Planescape Torment is good in general with the [Truth] [Lie] stuff where you're basically forced to think about why you're doing the things you're doing, and can't meaningfully bluff.
Other types of good anchors are ones that are amphibious - I.E they work just as well with two contradictory motivations. I'm replaying KOTOR at the moment, and I can't help but notice how the plot is written in such a way that the overall narrative works and has different implications depending on whether you're playing a Dark Side or Light Side playthrough.
Sn1p3r187
Carolinian Shaolin Monk
Ammunition types are kinda inconsistent all throughout the series. I get it if 10mm, 9mm, .357, .45 cal, 5.56 were mostly common pre war. But like what about like other ammunition that mightve been pretty common on U.S. markets pre war? Like 7.62x39mm? Or 7.62x54R? Or hell even .303 British? Lotta Military Surplus stores and offhand retailers sell foreign ammunition. Enough that in places like Nevada youd find old mil surplus stores (long since raided) filled with old Soviet bloc Kalashnikovs and ammo. Or pre and post WWII enfields and their ammo. And the manufacturing specs to make said and ammo and weapons. Idk i like a little diversity
Mr Fish
Slippy sloppy, The
Does more ammo types translate into better overall gameplay when you have to keep track of twice or trice the ammunition types and what weapons they cater to?
Personally, I don't think so. I don't like ammo types being overly limited either but when we have dozens of ammo types then as someone who isn't a gun nut it isn't exactly easy to keep track of what is what and what the difference between all of it is.
If there are too many weapons then that obfuscates the niche of weapons. What makes X different from Y and Z? In what situation would I use X over Z? I don't like having 40 SMG's that do the same thing.
Less isn't more, but less can be better than more.
Personally, I don't think so. I don't like ammo types being overly limited either but when we have dozens of ammo types then as someone who isn't a gun nut it isn't exactly easy to keep track of what is what and what the difference between all of it is.
If there are too many weapons then that obfuscates the niche of weapons. What makes X different from Y and Z? In what situation would I use X over Z? I don't like having 40 SMG's that do the same thing.
Less isn't more, but less can be better than more.