I never understood why people don't think that two different areas of the U.S. could be in different states of recovery. It even makes sense that the east coast would be hit harder than the west coast because the east coast was the center of government and where most of our population centers are. I also don't think it's a stretch to imagine that the crazy advanced nuclear technology of the setting could be used to make dirty nukes - nukes specifically designed to salt the earth for centuries in order to slow down a country's ability to get back on its feet.
Plus, the towns in Fallout 4 look like they were lifted straight out of a GIS of Brazilian favelas or Mumbai slums - two places that exist right now countries that aren't even at war let alone been nuked or have to deal with irradiated weather, monsters and crazy robots.
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Oof, okay so I didn't know all that, thanks for the clarification.
Still, I'm not sure Fallout 3 and 4 have to be linked to some over-arching... I dunno, plot? They can be isolated from the first two games, and should, especially since rapid transit is not an option in this setting. (No quick travel jokes) I agree with what said - regions of the USA would be rebuilding at their own pace, with their own shortcomings or virtues. I guarantee a Fallout set in Alaska (or Canada) would be crazy different.
Also good call by @hippofant on the region Fallout 1 and 2 take place in. California is a pretty varied state but the east (and particularly the southeast) side of it is a desert / badlands to begin with.
Oof, okay so I didn't know all that, thanks for the clarification.
Still, I'm not sure Fallout 3 and 4 have to be linked to some over-arching... I dunno, plot? They can be isolated from the first two games, and should, especially since rapid transit is not an option in this setting. (No quick travel jokes) I agree with what said - regions of the USA would be rebuilding at their own pace, with their own shortcomings or virtues. I guarantee a Fallout set in Alaska (or Canada) would be crazy different.
Also good call by hippofant on the region Fallout 1 and 2 take place in. California is a pretty varied state but the east (and particularly the southeast) side of it is a desert / badlands to begin with.
I'm not a huge stickler on the rebuilding thing. I mean, even beyond out-of-game explanations, there are plenty of in-game explanations for why the FO4 region is a shithole, what with the Institute going around murdering every one. But that didn't make the game any better for me; it just made things even shitter, as I went around being told repeatedly about how this used to be a burgeoning settlement, and then raiders/Institute/synths/whoever murdered the shit out of everybody here over and over and over and over again. (And this is also juxtaposed with how easy it is for YOU to set up new settlements.)
I mean, the truth of the matter is that I don't think Bethesda put that much thought into continuity. I mean, yeah, practically speaking, Boston falls somewhere in between Los Angeles (Necropolis in FO1) and San Francisco in FO2, which is fair enough. But there are plenty of other incongruities and cases in which it doesn't seem like they really cared that much about trying to fit this game in. Which doesn't kill the game for me, but it made the game awful dull and depressing for every place you explore to be a shitty place, even if it's explained in-game.
It also sucked out a lot of the old Fallout charm, which came in the form of the settlements, and various funny NPCs and interactions you could have in town. When I reminisce about Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, I think of Gecko and Vault City and Broken Hills and Shady Sands, not the millionth time I shot up a super mutant, you know?
Fallout 3 "got away" with the endless shooting gallery a lot more than Fallout 4, imo, because the DC area landmarks were much more recognizable to me, so shooting my way through the Smithsonian was a lot more entertaining than shooting my way through some anonymous Boston office building. But even then, Fallout 3 had more settlements than Fallout 4 did and they felt more alive... or I think it did anyways.
There's always going to be some segment of a fan community that dislikes whatever changes are made in followups to a series. The main thing that I don't like is when those dislikes are boiled down into a "it's not a(n) series X game". It is a series X game. It has the word right in the title, before the number indicating its sequential order. It's just a game you don't like, which is an entirely fair opinion to have.
If someone goes too far down that direction though it just ends up being that the first one is perfect and brilliant and any slight deviation from that formula is a travesty that should never have existed. That's a road that shares its destination with Monster Hunter fans, or NMA. It seems like a miserable way to experience a hobby that's supposed to be fun.
you are lowkey lumping anyone who doesnt share your opinion in with the fanatics at NMA.
It is a legitimate argument to make, that a game diverges so far from what made the series special, that it can be a decent game, but a fuckterrible (insert series here).
The same argument can be made for any entertainment medium.
I am not. I am saying that saying "it's not a fallout game" is a bad argument, because it factually is one. Just say you don't like it instead.
E: I value language very highly and so am usually quite deliberate about the words and wording I use, to convey exactly what I want to say. English is a garbage language for this, but I try my best. It's hard to turn off that expectation when i'm reading things from other people.
All I mean is that "It is not a Fallout game" != "I think it's too different from Fallout 2, which I really loved."
A game can carry a name and be a soulless husk that has nothing to do with the franchise or what it represents.
If Activision released a Call of Duty dating simulator, it might be the greatest dating simulator in the world..but it will always be a shit Call of Duty game, because Call of Duty isnt about dating people ,its about action and shooting things, because that is the foundation that the brand has built for itself..and while it might in time evolve into different and interesting things, the spirit of the game is still about shooting things.
Brands/Names/Etc have meaning beyond a title to throw on the box, and they carry with them expectations of certain things. It doesnt have to be a copy and paste of every previous game in the series, they are allowed to evolve and change, and try new and alien things..but it has to stay true to the spirit of of the concepts behind the name, otherwise no amount of fingers pointing to the label will make anyone accept it as it being part of that franchise.
It is an entirely valid argument to make, it is not "Oh i dont like it there for it sucks"
Posts
Plus, the towns in Fallout 4 look like they were lifted straight out of a GIS of Brazilian favelas or Mumbai slums - two places that exist right now countries that aren't even at war let alone been nuked or have to deal with irradiated weather, monsters and crazy robots.
Still, I'm not sure Fallout 3 and 4 have to be linked to some over-arching... I dunno, plot? They can be isolated from the first two games, and should, especially since rapid transit is not an option in this setting. (No quick travel jokes) I agree with what said - regions of the USA would be rebuilding at their own pace, with their own shortcomings or virtues. I guarantee a Fallout set in Alaska (or Canada) would be crazy different.
Also good call by @hippofant on the region Fallout 1 and 2 take place in. California is a pretty varied state but the east (and particularly the southeast) side of it is a desert / badlands to begin with.
I'm not a huge stickler on the rebuilding thing. I mean, even beyond out-of-game explanations, there are plenty of in-game explanations for why the FO4 region is a shithole, what with the Institute going around murdering every one. But that didn't make the game any better for me; it just made things even shitter, as I went around being told repeatedly about how this used to be a burgeoning settlement, and then raiders/Institute/synths/whoever murdered the shit out of everybody here over and over and over and over again. (And this is also juxtaposed with how easy it is for YOU to set up new settlements.)
I mean, the truth of the matter is that I don't think Bethesda put that much thought into continuity. I mean, yeah, practically speaking, Boston falls somewhere in between Los Angeles (Necropolis in FO1) and San Francisco in FO2, which is fair enough. But there are plenty of other incongruities and cases in which it doesn't seem like they really cared that much about trying to fit this game in. Which doesn't kill the game for me, but it made the game awful dull and depressing for every place you explore to be a shitty place, even if it's explained in-game.
It also sucked out a lot of the old Fallout charm, which came in the form of the settlements, and various funny NPCs and interactions you could have in town. When I reminisce about Fallout 1 and Fallout 2, I think of Gecko and Vault City and Broken Hills and Shady Sands, not the millionth time I shot up a super mutant, you know?
Fallout 3 "got away" with the endless shooting gallery a lot more than Fallout 4, imo, because the DC area landmarks were much more recognizable to me, so shooting my way through the Smithsonian was a lot more entertaining than shooting my way through some anonymous Boston office building. But even then, Fallout 3 had more settlements than Fallout 4 did and they felt more alive... or I think it did anyways.
A game can carry a name and be a soulless husk that has nothing to do with the franchise or what it represents.
If Activision released a Call of Duty dating simulator, it might be the greatest dating simulator in the world..but it will always be a shit Call of Duty game, because Call of Duty isnt about dating people ,its about action and shooting things, because that is the foundation that the brand has built for itself..and while it might in time evolve into different and interesting things, the spirit of the game is still about shooting things.
Brands/Names/Etc have meaning beyond a title to throw on the box, and they carry with them expectations of certain things. It doesnt have to be a copy and paste of every previous game in the series, they are allowed to evolve and change, and try new and alien things..but it has to stay true to the spirit of of the concepts behind the name, otherwise no amount of fingers pointing to the label will make anyone accept it as it being part of that franchise.
It is an entirely valid argument to make, it is not "Oh i dont like it there for it sucks"
Let's Play Final Fantasy 'II' (Ch10 - 5/17/10)