Why Mothership Zeta is awesome

[Throatpunch]

During the events of New Vegas its actually 92 years.

In todays lesson kids, we're learning how to be pedantic!

Learning objective: look at this post

 

[CT Phipps]

Someone as intelligent as you must realise that the themes of the DLC directly contradict...

wait a minute. Was that sarcasm? Aww Phippy I'm so proud of you <3

Hehe.

My actual opinion on the subject is Fallout is basically the Wild West and fundamentally a Western, whether or not the Western is located in the West, East, or South. If I were to name the game most similar to Fallout, it would be Wasteland, but if I were to name the SECOND most similar game to Fallout it would be Red Dead Redemption. One of the main themes of RDR is that John Marston is in the final death throws of the Old West.

Eventually, Fallout as a setting is limited in the context of how long it takes to rebuild or IF it will rebuild. One of the greatest civilizations in the history of the world was the High Arabic Culture which was destroyed by the forces of Tamerlane in an effort to be as cool as Gengis Khan. An entire nation eradicated for the glory of a dickbag on par with Caesar.

You can take a fundamentally optimistic or a pessimistic approach on human civilization dependent on whether or not you side with the original games (Fallout 1 and 2) or the Bethesda games which I believe indicate the world is not actually going to rebuild. My pessimistic grimdark sensibilities tend to go with the view the story is better if the world is never going to repair itself becasue, ironically, if it does repair itself then like the Wild West it fundamentally destroys itself. The anarchy, chaos, and murder which is a part of Fallout is something which cannot continue to be Fallout without.

Which is the danger of advancing the timeline like Bethesda has. 200 years means the world is either broken forever, which is an entirely valid take on the world, or that it will rebuild in which case it must be nuked again and again to get rid of all those civilizations. Because the alternative is civilization rebuilds, in which case it's no longer Fallout and you'd have to reboot the game timeline. I generally would prefer NCR to collapse but, no, that's not the theme of the original games.

It's the nature of literary interpretation that where you would like the books to go isn't necessarily where the authors intended or want.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

An entire nation eradicated for the glory of a dickbag on par with Caesar.

Did we play the same game?

He's doing this to create a new world free of corruption and poverty. His methods are brutal but he's a firm believer in the ends justify the means. He's not trying to conquer people for shits and giggles, he's creating a world for everyone, a unity that... oh. oh nose

 

[CT Phipps]

Did we play the same game?

He's doing this to create a new world free of corruption and poverty. His methods are brutal but he's a firm believer in the ends justify the means. He's not trying to conquer people for shits and giggles, he's creating a world for everyone, a unity that... oh. oh nose

I admit, my first Courier sided with Yes Man solely so I could keep the Mojave free of any nation which would civilize it.

My second Courier sided with Mister House because he's the guy who was paying him.

Honestly, though, I actually do tend to think the world shouldn't become a series of new Empires as while Caesar and NCR may be expanionist, I tend to think the majority of societies in the Wasteland would be more of the Greek city-state variety. Much more self-sufficient and insular with a desire to definitely keep their own independence in the face of aggressors.

Caesar believed the only way to unite the region was to destroy all the tribal identities and replace them with a new pseudo-Roman culture. Which is probably true but that presumes that his empire is superior to the tribal lives beforehand.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

@CT Phipps

Anarchy isn't sustainable though :/

House is the best option presented in game. There's no needless brutality and no inner corruption. His sole motive is the advancement of the human race, and he's a ruthless businessman.

but me like the legion because it feeds my misogynistic white privilege

 

[Throatpunch]

but me like the legion because it feeds my misogynistic white privilege

Categorically do not turn this into a political shitpost thread.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

Categorically do not turn this into a political shitpost thread.

OK.

Spoiler

memesmemesmemesmemes

 

[CT Phipps]

@CT Phipps

Anarchy isn't sustainable though :/

Not anarchy but diffusion of power.

Basically, 100 Goodsprings versus 1 New Vegas Empire.

Of course, that CAN backfire.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

Of course, that CAN backfire.

It's gotten to the point where I don't need to argue with you, because you refute your own points.

 

[CT Phipps]

It's gotten to the point where I don't need to argue with you, because you refute your own points.

It's the nature of a good anarchist that he hates other anarchists as much as the Man.

It's why my RL philosophy is very similar to the Assassins but I really find them obnoxiously smug gits who are almost as bad as the Templars.

 

[SarcasticGoodGuy]

It's the nature of a good anarchist that he hates other anarchists as much as the Man.

It's why my RL philosophy is very similar to the Assassins but I really find them obnoxiously smug gits who are almost as bad as the Templars.

Now you're confusing me. The Assassin's Creed part I understand because I'm a 9 year old, but how are you an anarchist? I don't see it.

 

[CT Phipps]

Now you're confusing me. The Assassin's Creed part I understand because I'm a 9 year old, but how are you an anarchist? I don't see it.

My general worldview is not so much forwarding any particular ideology but that every existing ideology should routinely be taken apart, examined, and tossed aside for something better. Violent revolution isn't my bag since I'm a pacifist but I believe humanity should always be questioning itself and trying to strive to be better with a minimum of respect toward tradition as well as general lack of trust toward authority. Anarchist is as good a name for that as anything.

 

[Jogre]

I generally ascribe to the belief that "the point" is very much variable by its presentation

That's true I guess. I guess any perception of a series can differ greatly depending

that the world is a dangerous and shattered place.

Honestly, for your average settler life seems ok.

I mean yeah there's always a risk of ending up a beggar, or a prostitute(Kinda like in a lot of deprived areas), but it didn't seem too dangerous for day-to-day life.

and the only people who seem to have any knowledge of the past world are the ones in The Followers of the Apocalypse.

The thing is, why does it matter if they have knowledge of the past world?

The Hub is a succesful merchant capital, Shady Sands is quite prosperous if isolated, people seem to get by in Junktown.

The main thing I got from fallout was that people seem to be getting on ok.

Amusingly, btw, I got shouted down and told, "No, the First Two games are NOT OPTIMISTIC! How could you say that!?"

I can kinda see why you think that, however I personally don't think the divide between Bethesda and Interplay games is Optimism and Pessimism, so much as it is Realism vs Trying to appeal to mainstream culture.

Interplay games show a world changing, forgetting about the past, and new nations rising. Despite this however, they are probably not-at-all optimistic. Those games often show quite harsh situations, with powerful people who resort to slavery and forced prostitution to be successful businessmen, powerful crime lords practically controlling caravan routes, and incredibly corrupt factions like The Regulators trying to enforce there will over others.

Those games did show a lot of progress, but they were far from optimistic. It was realistic imho

Bethesda games by comparison are trying to write the games in the way the audience expects them to be written. Most people expect a post-apocalyptic world to be bleak, with people struggling to get by, and everything going to shit. This isn't pessimism though, because they still present places like Little Lamplight getting by, despite in reality there's no way kids would be able to defend themselves from those Supermutants, and they still prefer to avoid much darker topics that the originals touched on, knowing that many of there audiences won't understand darker topics.

 

[CT Phipps]

This IS headcanon but I assumed the Super Mutants left the children alone because they grow up and then can be picked off at their new settlement of Big Town so they can be turned into Super Mutants. In effect, Little Lamplight is a farm for the Super Mutants.

It's also an intelligent display of Super Mutant cunning and ruthlessness.

If the Master had done something similar, he could have succeeded with his plan.

Bethesda games by comparison are trying to write the games in the way the audience expects them to be written. Most people expect a post-apocalyptic world to be bleak, with people struggling to get by, and everything going to shit. This isn't pessimism though, because they still present places like Little Lamplight getting by, despite in reality there's no way kids would be able to defend themselves from those Supermutants, and they still prefer to avoid much darker topics that the originals touched on, knowing that many of there audiences won't understand darker topics.

Bethesda created Morrowind, which is a work which deconstructs the idea of Chosen Ones, Prophecies, Godhood, and Destiny with about the same level of intelligence as Frank Herbert's Dune. I also think the idea that Bethesda's 'audience' is somehow innately dumb is rather eye-rolling as it is made without any real data and just born from the idea there's a difference between PC gamers in the nineties and those who use consoles in the 21st century.

I also think people who talk about Fallout 3 and its dumbing down ignore the more intelligent themes which F3 had like the nature of patriotism, idealism, and the United States curious relationship between its stated principles (freedom, equality, and the pursuit of happiness) versus the reality (slavery, warmongering, and greed). The working toward those principles is the root of patriotism and I think F3 did a good job of showing the duality.

This isn't headcanon but a major part of Fallout 3's subtext. Slavery is front and center in the Capital Wasteland because slavery is the national shame of the United States. It's why Paradise Falls and their quests are such a big part of the narrative despite having nothing to do with James quest. It's why the Enclave is the enemy as they are the embodiment of the worst elements of the United States. It's also why, to a lesser extent, the BOS are the heroes as they are US Remnant which also draws from ancient cultures' mythologies the way Washington D.C. did with its architecture.

It's why I like the villain in John Henry Eden because he is the embodiment of the unrealistic and delusional promises of the US of A while carrying out its worst atrocities in those views. It's why I also like the Lone Wanderer because he can theoretically become the perfect counterpoint for that situation as the Slaver Hunting Zombie Lincoln who brings the various settlements together.

I also admit that I like Fallout 4's treatment of the BOS because it also kind of shits on the idealism of Fallout 3 even though I spent over 200 hours atttempting to single-handedly restore Washington D.C. from a hellhole no one was capable of living in to a place which had genuine hope for the future. I liked that Arthur Maxson took the dream of Elder Lyons, Sarah Lyons, and the Lone Wanderer before turning it into something ugly.

Because I'm a wonderfully pessimistic asshole like that.

 

[Jogre]

Bethesda created Morrowind, which is a work which deconstructs the idea of Chosen Ones, Prophecies, Godhood, and Destiny with about the same level of intelligence as Frank Herbert's Dune

Morrowind was a brilliant game, and I loved how it encouraged a level of skepticism about The Tribunal, and whether your "Miracles" were truly divine despite having mundane explanations, however shortly after it most of the writing team dissapeared.

I think it's Emil tbh. He's just kept along because he knows TES lore, but he doesn't really get world-building, so just tries to copy what others in the genre do, rarely if ever making anything unique about his settings.

I also think the idea that Bethesda's 'audience' is somehow innately dumb is rather eye-rolling as it is made without any real data and just born from the idea there's a difference between PC gamers in the nineties and those who use consoles in the 21st century.

I joke about Bethesda fans as much as the next guy, but I don't think that the audience are innately dumb, and I'm sure there are many intelligent Bethesda supporters out there, it's just a few extremes giving the rest a bad name.

However, the audience gaming targets nowadays is very different to that of the 90s, so naturally there will be a difference between gamers then and gamers now.

In the 90s games were incredibly complex, with lots of mechanics. Plus with less life-like graphics, and harder difficulties, naturally it required a lot of dedication to get in to gaming in the first place. This means that the people who played games often considered it one of there main hobbies.

In the early 21st century however, lots of games are a lot more streamlined. They became more balanced, graphics changed, many games became more simple, so naturally gaming attracted more people.

Since gaming is now an incredibly popular industry, with most people gaming nowadays, this means that the audiences that are attracted to gaming tend to be more casual gamers. They tend not to be too interested in the universe, or the mechanics, so much as just wanting to get entertainment out of it. You can't really blame them for this as it is a medium of entertainment after all, but as a result it means that a lot of gamers are more focused on next-gen graphics or shooting, then they are interested in the games themselves.

I also think people who talk about Fallout 3 and its dumbing down ignore the more intelligent themes which F3 had like the nature of patriotism, idealism, and the United States curious relationship between its stated principles (freedom, equality, and the pursuit of happiness) versus the reality (slavery, warmongering, and greed).

I think your reading too much in to messages tbh.

Emil Pagliarulo isn't really one to think things through. If you try to look for messages in his work, you'll find he often contradicts points he's trying to make, and doesn't really put that much thought in to what the consequences of what he's writing are.

Fallout games rarely try to express any forms of philosophical themes(Apart from Chris Avellone DLC), they simply try and build a universe. The patriotism/idealism of FO3 is probably just included because it co-insides with the attitudes of Cold War America.

such a big part of the narrative despite having nothing to do with James quest.

Reading that statement seems to me like you've just highlighted one of Fallout 3s major flaws without realising it.

Hasn't it occurred to you that your making a big deal out of a questline being a big part of the narrative without relating to James.

That's one of the most commonly criticized flaws of Fallout 3, that almost all narrative points tie in to James, and how he's the one who suggest you fix the water purifier, the reason your with the BOS and not the Enclave, he's what made you leave the vault. The entire plot has James calling the shots, James deciding what to do next. It presents it like its your adventure, but really it's written in such a way that it's his. It's essentially like building this entire game, but not letting you play it, instead demanding you watch James play it.

I also admit that I like Fallout 4's treatment of the BOS because it also kind of shits on the idealism of Fallout 3 even though I spent over 200 hours atttempting to single-handedly restore Washington D.C. from a hellhole no one was capable of living in to a place which had genuine hope for the future. I liked that Arthur Maxson took the dream of Elder Lyons, Sarah Lyons, and the Lone Wanderer before turning it into something ugly.

Fallout 4s treatment of the BOS was closer to there roots, and what the BOS would be.

It still handles them utterly incorrectly, but it's closer than FO3s presentation.

 

[Dr Fallout]

"No, the First Two games are NOT OPTIMISTIC! How could you say that!?"

It's more of the second game, which has more default bad endings then default good endings. Hell, it has more bad endings then good endings.

 

[CerberusGate]

Boy, have I missed a lot from sleeping...

Again, Chris Avellone believes the world is getting too civilized and too tame so it should be nuked back to the Stone Age, I agree.

Well, you keep using your own interpretations (or is it 'literary analysis') as fact since it fits your preferences while frequently disregarding others with differing interpretations on the material and tacking on 'messages' so that your interpretations . So don't blame me for getting the impression of you mistaking and using head-canon as fact. Though this does make me wonder how much of a broad strokes interpreter you are then...

As for Chris Avellone's opinion on NCR being more civilised (nice job with the Gamebanshee article btw, it looks like a good read), the game does give you the opportunity to disagree with Avellone like with Kreia in KOTOR 2 (though why would you since she makes a lot of good arguments against the Star Wars universe as a whole.).

In fact, there are a number of ways to refute Ulysses's claims that the nations are too bloated (or even pointing out that Ulysses is not fit to judge the Wasteland). Remember that Ulysses's (or rather Avellone's) opinions are just that: opinions. It is never said whether his own thoughts on the setting are the right ones (so far you're the first person I've actually seen agreeing completely with Ulysses) and the player is allowed to reject them, hence the options to send the nukes to a specific locale or sacrificing ED-E.

Fallout after all is about exploring more of the world and more of the ethics of a post-nuclear world. So it's natural to explore the idea of post-apocalyptic civilisations that have sustained itself despite the odds or rather that's what I prefer the series actually explores.

My pessimistic grimdark sensibilities

Ah... that explains it. You need some form of validation of personal opinions.

Snide remark aside, I'd rather if newer Fallout games kept developing ideas from the older games like New Vegas did and actually depict the natural progression of the setting. It does make for a decent portrayal of how NCR has developed with the NCR emerging from the community of Shady Sands before it suffers initial birthing pains that could be resolved. New Vegas then took the next step and showed what happens when the NCR has remained in power for too long.

 

[CT Phipps]

Ah... that explains it. You need some form of validation of personal opinions.

Nope. I just think you're wrong about what is good in Fallout.

Which is the nature of opinions.

 

[CerberusGate]

Nope. I just think you're wrong about what is good in Fallout.

Which is the nature of opinions.

Well then, in my opinion, you're wrong about what's good in Fallout, missed the point of Fallout at some points due to needing to re-interpret the ideas to suit your needs, and clearly need to stop over-interpreting a shallow material like Mothership Zeta.

But hey, that's just my opinion.

Now, back on-topic; Aside from a robot apocalypse (like in RPM), what other post-apocalyptic scenario can people here foresee being done in Power Rangers if they had the budget and competent writers?

 

[Crni Vuk]

Oh boy. Please someone tell me that this topic was meant to be sarcastic.