What Fallout 4 should've included

[CT Phipps]

Bethesda's raiders in Fallout 3 were just awful. Plain crazies without any point. It's nice that they tried in Fallout 4 to give them at least the resemblance of a backstory, but given that it's Bethesda, they failed miserably. Adding conveniently placed terminals to read the stories of oh-so-human raiders after you're forced to kill them, yay. Fuck that.

Actually, that was one of the few moments I felt something. "Ah, crap, I just murdered these people to take their stuff.

And aesthetics? They're the most generic "evil spikey wasteland craziey" imaginable.

Which is awesome.

Just a plain Road Warrior rip-off without the originality. And "culture of banditry"... Yeah, right. There's no culture. They live in ruins decorated with corpses, and that's all the culture shown, at least in Fallout 3. Again, they tried in Fallout 4, but failed miserably because writing is hard.

Yep. I love savage, violent, brutal lawless Apunkcalypse. I always feel like they're trying to softpedal raiders versus making them the embodiments of animalistic humans.

That's not a very good rebuttal, that's basically like saying "I vote Trump because I don't want Clinton to win". It's retarded. The player has good reasons to back the Institute. The SS is the goddamn Director and has the finger on all buttons. He can change the Institute. Well, not that the SS ever thought of that, apparently. The lunacy of a pre-made character in a cRPG.

That's an argument which doesn't have as much weight that sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. I sided with the Institute because, honestly, I thought the Minutemen and Railroad endings were too clean for a game striving for ambiguity. No, the Institute winning sucks and I think that makes the story at least marginally better.

Then again, Stormcloaks vs. Imperials at least is Bethesda thinking about its factions.

I do like how Pesto is apparently psychic and immediately hates me when I give the Nuka World raiders a settlement in the wasteland. Apparently he really cared about the ghouls infesting that abandoned house... And he immediately knows that I did this, despite nothing actually happening yet.

I wrote an essay on a good aligned Raider run which is basically appeasement versus war. Preston being against that makes sense because he's an idealist but I liked the fact I was paying Commonwealthers for land and food rather than stealing it.

Eh, only a few of Fallout 1's super mutants were actually dumb. But since Harry was one of the first mutants you see (and one of the few you actually talk to) he kinda shaped the image. But the Nightkin and all the elite mutants under the Cathedral were at least of normal human intelligence.

I kind of regret the Commonwealth Super Mutants are Institute creations. I think they'd have worked much better and with more Pathos as the Super Mutants of the CW who fled North after the BOS took over.

I found that the best way to sum up Bethesda's raiders is that they are S&M perverts running around a desert and blowing each other up.

Essentially Road Warrior inspired (or accurately, rip offs) lunatics.

Yeah, it's nice to actually have people who are DANGEROUS in the apocalypse.

 

[CerberusGate]

Which is awesome.

I disagree. I prefer my raiders to vary in aesthetic. The S&M pervert look can only go so far before it becomes stale.

That's an argument which doesn't have as much weight that sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. I sided with the Institute because, honestly, I thought the Minutemen and Railroad endings were too clean for a game striving for ambiguity. No, the Institute winning sucks and I think that makes the story at least marginally better.

Isn't that simply you trying to add points to your own playthrough to give it meaning and depth that is already lacking in the base game?

 

[Hassknecht]

I found that the best way to sum up Bethesda's raiders is that they are S&M perverts running around a desert and blowing each other up.

Essentially Road Warrior inspired (or accurately, rip offs) lunatics.

If they were properly Road Warrior inspired it would have been all good. I mean, the raiders in Fallout 1 and 2 were also very much Mad Max inspired. But I guess Emil only heard "Smegma Crazies" and "Gayboy Berserkers", giggled for half an hour and went to town.

 

[CerberusGate]

If they were properly Road Warrior inspired it would have been all good. I mean, the raiders in Fallout 1 and 2 were also very much Mad Max inspired. But I guess Emil only heard "Smegma Crazies" and "Gayboy Berserkers", giggled for half an hour and went to town.

My personal guess is that Emil only ever saw the action scenes of Road Warrior where the raiders of Road Warrior were simply homicidal lunatics and nothing else.

 

[CT Phipps]

Isn't that simply you trying to add points to your own playthrough to give it meaning and depth that is already lacking in the base game?

I think I've mentioned how deeply underwhelmed I was by Fallout 4 in places.

It's why I chose the appeasement route in Nuka World because it at least felt a little different.

 

[CerberusGate]

I think I've mentioned how deeply underwhelmed I was by Fallout 4 in places.

It's why I chose the appeasement route in Nuka World because it at least felt a little different.

I know, I saw some of your posts. That still indicates a failure in game design ... If I have to make up the experience in my head, it means that the game did not provide a good enough experience and if Nuka World had to do the same for you, it just means that Nuka World was not enough of an experience.

 

[CT Phipps]

I know, I saw some of your posts. That still indicates a failure in game design ... If I have to make up the experience in my head, it means that the game did not provide a good enough experience and if Nuka World had to do the same for you, it just means that Nuka World was not enough of an experience.

Nuka World squeaked by, thankfully, by what seems to have been an accident. By including peaceful options and dialogue to play the good guy throughout the Raider playthrough, you actually can play a good guy Overboss which Preston will call you out on. It's like playing the female good-aligned Caesar's Legionaire. It's clearly not the intended choice but it's AVAILABLE as an option.

That isn't even an option for most of the F4 game.

 

[Hassknecht]

Actually, that was one of the few moments I felt something. "Ah, crap, I just murdered these people to take their stuff.

You routinely kill hundreds of people, and they since you don't have any possible interactions with them it's just... Meh. No effect whatsoever, could have just leave it out.

Which is awesome.

No. It's generic and pointless. It doesn't provide protection, and the randomness of it makes the psychological effect moot. Look at Lord Humungus marauders: They are distinct groups (coming from different backgrounds, like military and police) led by a charismatic and frankly scary leader. They're not just crazed psychopaths, because those don't survive. Sure, they rape and pillage when they can, but it's not all they do. They have specific goals and plans, and are somewhat organised. Fallout 4 tells you that the raiders there are that, too, but it doesn't show you. Which in such a visual medium is just plain bad.

Yep. I love savage, violent, brutal lawless Apunkcalypse. I always feel like they're trying to softpedal raiders versus making them the embodiments of animalistic humans.

It's just so inconsistent. On the one hand, they're basically Firefly's reavers, but on the other hand we're supposed to think they're still human after we slaughter them all.

That's an argument which doesn't have as much weight that sometimes you have to choose the lesser evil. I sided with the Institute because, honestly, I thought the Minutemen and Railroad endings were too clean for a game striving for ambiguity. No, the Institute winning sucks and I think that makes the story at least marginally better.

Then again, Stormcloaks vs. Imperials at least is Bethesda thinking about its factions.

But you don't actually choose the lesser evil, which is my entire point. The Institute doesn't have to suck, YOU are the Director! You can turn the boogeyman into, well, not a boogeyman. Well, you can't, because writing is hard, and Emil was probably really tired that day.

I wrote an essay on a good aligned Raider run which is basically appeasement versus war. Preston being against that makes sense because he's an idealist but I liked the fact I was paying Commonwealthers for land and food rather than stealing it.

Fanfiction and headcanon is not an excuse for bad writing.

I kind of regret the Commonwealth Super Mutants are Institute creations. I think they'd have worked much better and with more Pathos as the Super Mutants of the CW who fled North after the BOS took over.

Just another silly change to the lore. Apparently the government gave out FEV like candy.

Yeah, it's nice to actually have people who are DANGEROUS in the apocalypse.

If they were actually dangerous. They're just crazies with terrible equipment and non-existent leadership to direct them. They're a majority of people in the game (although that's likely due to gameplay reasons), and yet they can't get shit done.

I think I've mentioned how deeply underwhelmed I was by Fallout 4 in places.

It's why I chose the appeasement route in Nuka World because it at least felt a little different.

And yet you gave it a 10/10, didn't you?

Nuka World squeaked by, thankfully, by what seems to have been an accident. By including peaceful options and dialogue to play the good guy throughout the Raider playthrough, you actually can play a good guy Overboss which Preston will call you out on. It's like playing the female good-aligned Caesar's Legionaire. It's clearly not the intended choice but it's AVAILABLE as an option.

That isn't even an option for most of the F4 game.

You know, some might say that's because F4 is actually just not a very good game... And certainly not a good RPG at all.

 

[CerberusGate]

It's like playing the female good-aligned Caesar's Legionaire. It's clearly not the intended choice but it's AVAILABLE as an option.

There was an entire ending slide and even some additional dialogue for a female Courier that side with Caesar's Legion...

It is an intended choice because Obsidian actually took player choice into account unlike Fallout 4 where the raider option was literally locked away until Nuka World showed up.

 

[CT Phipps]

Fanfiction and headcanon is not an excuse for bad writing.

It would be fanfiction if not for being a valid path to pursue.

Speaking of Raiders, I thought Bethesda was going to make them into people with a legitimate FEV based condition based on their treatment in Fallout 3. There's just people who randomly develop an urge for cannibalism in the Wasteland which some attempt to treat while others just give into.

I thought we'd discover the Raiders are just a natural consequence of a world which warps people.

There was an entire ending slide and even some additional dialogue for a female Courier that side with Caesar's Legion...It is an intended choice because Obsidian actually took player choice into account unlike Fallout 4 where the raider option was literally locked away until Nuka World showed up.

Which I agree with 100% so I suppose yeah, the Good Aligned Raider is an option in Nuka World and thus it is better than most of F4.

And yet you gave it a 10/10, didn't you?

I stated in my review my qualifications of 10 out of 10 is measured in terms of entertainment value. I gave both Fallout 4 and Dragon Age: Inquisition 10 out of 10 because they both gave me well over 40 hours of consistent entertainment which is my usual 10 out of 10 rating. However, I stated that the game was inferior to Fallout 3 and New Vegas because both were some of my all time favorite games.

In effect, those two broke the scale and thus F4 had a lot of good will to burn.

Which it did.

 

[Prone Squanderer]

I found that the best way to sum up Bethesda's raiders is that they are S&M perverts running around a desert and blowing each other up.

When I think of raiders, I think mostly of groups of people who kill and steal to survive, not because they're just all absolute psychos.

Think of the Hunters from The Last of Us. Yes they can sound crazy at times but given their circumstances it's understandable. They don't kill for pleasure, they kill to survive the harsh world they live in.

 

[CerberusGate]

When I think of raiders, I think mostly of groups of people who kill and steal to survive, not because they're just all absolute psychos.

Think of the Hunters from The Last of Us. Yes they can sound crazy at times but given their circumstances it's understandable. They don't kill for pleasure, they kill to survive the harsh world they live in.

That's what I think about raiders too: People desperate enough to resort to terrible actions to survive in the world they live in.

It's why Witcher 3 frequently has a lot of letters to home in bandit camps, as a rather direct (and in your face) reminder to the player that the bandits you have killed were simply desperate men resorting to abhorrent means to provide for their loved ones and to survive.

 

[Hassknecht]

It would be fanfiction if not for being a valid path to pursue.

But you have to fill in the gaps yourself, and all the ethical treatment. Your player character can't actually act out on that, at least not in terms of dialogue. You're either a nice raider or you kill them all for the fun of it. There's no conflict outside your head.

I stated in my review my qualifications of 10 out of 10 is measured in terms of entertainment value. I gave both Fallout 4 and Dragon Age: Inquisition 10 out of 10 because they both gave me well over 40 hours of consistent entertainment which is my usual 10 out of 10 rating. However, I stated that the game was inferior to Fallout 3 and New Vegas because both were some of my all time favorite games.

In effect, those two broke the scale and thus F4 had a lot of good will to burn.

Which it did.

You really should learn how grading scales work. If Fallout 3 and New Vegas were 10/10 ubergames and Fallout 4 was worse, then Fallout 4 can't be 10/10 also. Shit doesn't work like that. Fallout 3 and NV set the bar, they're your gauge for what a 10/10 is. Fallout 4 doesn't reach that. If it entertained you but had some glaring flaws, it's not a 10 of fucking 10.

 

[CT Phipps]

When I think of raiders, I think mostly of groups of people who kill and steal to survive, not because they're just all absolute psychos.

Think of the Hunters from The Last of Us. Yes they can sound crazy at times but given their circumstances it's understandable. They don't kill for pleasure, they kill to survive the harsh world they live in.

Obviously, they didn't go with this direction but I liked the implications of Fallout 3 that FEV, radiation, desperation or perhaps something else was creating "feral humans." The vampires of Arefu talked about people spontaneously developing a taste for human flesh and a need to kill which they were struggling with. Then there's the cannibals you find at Anadale. Humanity degenerating into something not motivated by civilization or culture or even need but raw savage animalism. Creatures better suited for the Wasteland than humans who cooperate.
Animalistic conscienceless psychopaths.

That this is the future of humanity.

That's what I think about raiders too: People desperate enough to resort to terrible actions to survive in the world they live in.

It's why Witcher 3 frequently has a lot of letters to home in bandit camps, as a rather direct (and in your face) reminder to the player that the bandits you have killed were simply desperate men resorting to abhorrent means to provide for their loved ones and to survive.

I like the idea you can cast your humanity completely off in the Wasteland and become something more than human.

But that's not the direction they went.

You really should learn how grading scales work. If Fallout 3 and New Vegas were 10/10 ubergames and Fallout 4 was worse, then Fallout 4 can't be 10/10 also. Shit doesn't work like that. Fallout 3 and NV set the bar, they're your gauge for what a 10/10 is. Fallout 4 doesn't reach that. If it entertained you but had some glaring flaws, it's not a 10 of fucking 10.

Allow me to explain.

5 is an average so-so game.

6 is fun.

7-8 is a really enjoyable game which I recommend.

Fallout 4 is a game which is much above many of the other 8 games because warmed over Fallout 3 leftovers is still better than 99% of the games out there.

Fallout 3 and New Vegas are 11/10

 

[CerberusGate]

The vampires of Arefu talked about people spontaneously developing a taste for human flesh and a need to kill which they were struggling with. Then there's the cannibals you find at Anadale. Humanity degenerating into something not motivated by civilization or culture or even need but raw savage animalism. Creatures better suited for the Wasteland than humans who cooperate.
Animalistic conscienceless psychopaths.

That this is the future of humanity.

That's a lot of headcanon you are trying to spout as fact.

The vampires of Arefu are not actual vampires, they simply follow the practices of vampires and use vampire practices to change their hunger due to their initial desire for flesh from tasting it out of presumed desperation or something (cannibalism becoming a psychological condition was never a real thing in Fallout until 3 shoved it in). As for Andale, they became cannibals out of tradition and presumably desperation due to food running out (because that 200 year gap in time).

I like the idea you can cast your humanity completely off in the Wasteland and become something more than human.

But that's not the direction they went.

But raiders are humans. Humans with needs like any other. The only difference is the approach they take to fulfil those needs. In today's world, those sorts of people would be considered criminals. It's not some evolution, it's simple craving and the methods used to fulfil it.

 

[CT Phipps]

That's a lot of headcanon you are trying to spout as fact.

The vampires of Arefu are not actual vampires, they simply follow the practices of vampires and use vampire practices to change their hunger due to their initial desire for flesh from tasting it out of presumed desperation or something (cannibalism becoming a psychological condition was never a real thing in Fallout until 3 shoved it in). As for Andale, they became cannibals out of tradition and presumably desperation due to food running out (because that 200 year gap in time).

To clarify, Arefu is where it as a psychological condition is brought up and only in Fallout 3 not the original games since cannibalism never seemed to be a thing outside of a certain stand. It also seems to have been quietly dropped as there's no implications of any of this in Fallout 4.

But raiders are humans. Humans with needs like any other. The only difference is the approach they take to fulfil those needs. In today's world, those sorts of people would be considered criminals. It's not some evolution, it's simple craving and the methods used to fulfil it.

Yeah, the Raiders of Fallout 4 are the same as the Raiders of New Vegas. Which isn't a bad thing. I just think they lost some of their menace.

Then again, it may simply have been the desperation of the Capital Wasteland which made their raiders so savage.

 

[CerberusGate]

It also seems to have been quietly dropped as there's no implications of any of this in Fallout 4.

Like I said, you were spouting headcanon as though it was fact.

Raiders of Fallout 4 are the same as the Raiders of New Vegas

Shallow and superficial vs Complex and deeper... No, I do not see how the two are similar in the slightest. One is hostile simply because while the other has proper reasons and background to them.

 

[CT Phipps]

Like I said, you were spouting headcanon as though it was fact.

Sorry if that's what you picked up. I was stating what I thought might have been what they were going for but clearly weren't. It seems I read a lot into the Arefu quest which wasn't there but I figured this out by Fallout 4.

Shallow and superficial vs Complex and deeper... No, I do not see how the two are similar in the slightest. One is hostile simply because while the other has proper reasons and background to them.

The Raiders of Nuka World have reasons why they do these things.

The Operators, for example, do it because of caps.

Gage because he feels like he's victimized if he's not the victimizer.

The Disciples and Pack have ideologies.

They're not DEEP reasons but "money" is a decent enough motivation versus "random attacks in the Wasteland."

 

[Hassknecht]

Sadly, the raiders in Fallout 4 (until Nuka World) are NOT like those in New Vegas. You don't have any meaningful interactions with them. Terminal entries are not the same as actual people talking about them, and actual interactions with them.
Can't compare Cook-Cook and whatever the guy with the mascot costume was called.

 

[CerberusGate]

The Raiders of Nuka World have reasons why they do these things.

The Operators, for example, do it because of caps.

Gage because he feels like he's victimized if he's not the victimizer.

The Disciples and Pack have ideologies.

They're not DEEP reasons but "money" is a decent enough motivation versus "random attacks in the Wasteland."

Ah... you meant Nuka World... If you were talking about the actual base game raiders, my point stands.

Since I do not know much about Nuka World, I can take your word about Gage at least since I have seen info about Gage's background.

The rest are mostly shallow and gimmicky though from what I can tell.

I was stating what I thought might have been what they were going for but clearly weren't. It seems I read a lot into the Arefu quest which wasn't there but I figured this out by Fallout 4.

Your points on raiders so far seem to suggest you took your headcanon as fact to justify why raiders are the way they are in the Fallout games in some of your posts.