Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The_Real_Chris wrote:
200 year gap from war to now was too long for what they show of the world, unless what we see is the remnants of the civilisation that formed and was destroyed recently.

Well... technically yes that is what happened. The dad destroyed the capital of the NCR and the area has devolved back into lawlessness over the past 10ish years.

Though yeah, fallout, and most post-nuclear-apocalypses in general, exaggerates what the world will look like 200 years after it. The truth is that at a glance you may not even be able to tell a nuclear war happened aside from few buried ruins. The nuclear contamination will be present, but unless you have specialized measuring equipment it will not be obvious. The biggest effect will be higher rates of cancer and a lower life expectancy. The truth is that nuclear bombs don't leave a ton of contamination behind once they've been spent and there isn't actually enough nukes on the planet to cover it entirely in any realistic application.

And human civilization will have pretty much recovered. To what level is questionable. Its highly likely that we simply get knocked back to pre-industrial levels generally, but with some anacronistic technology that never disappears and in enough time we fully recover back to post-industrial since enough will still be laying around to boost us back.

So really, 200 years after the bombs fall you should simply be emerging into a stable society which has long since moved past the apocalypse. The Fallout setting might be more accurate for the first 50ish years.

Bethesda has a real problem with the whole "200+ years after the war" thing with their games on several levels alright. A lot of the stuff you find in their games should be loot or info you'd find not long after the bombs have dropped, instead of.. two centuries down the line.

In Fallout 2, which takes place 164 years after the bombs dropped, we have several cities and societies that have rebuilt their selves to varying degrees of success, Shady Sands went from a small town to a decently sized city, there's also San Francisco and New Reno becoming thriving cities again.

Or hey, Vault City anyone?

All of which were written not by bugthesda but rather a company that could write a story that made sense...

See the issue.

Fallout 3 and 4 have always worked better if you mentally knock about 100-150 years off Bethesda's insane timeline. Even then...every time I see plywood bridges in a raider fort...

I really have to use the Gamma World, "preservative technology also advanced, don't worry about it" caveat, applied to Fallout. Which makes sense in a nonsensical way, as there were a lot of optimistic assumptions in the 60's futurism Fallout uses so heavily.

As far as the series goes, I think it's a very important distinction that we were witness to the very first meeting with other companies where Vault-Tec announced their willingness to kick off the end, but not their intended methods. For all we know, they didn't have any access to nukes at that point to launch first at all - they may have been talking about using their political and economic leverage to give that last, crucial push into someone else doing it. I mean, the entire main plot of Fallout 76 at release was that Vault-Tec wanted the Overseer to seize control of the automated missile silos for Vault-Tec, regardless of any other party laying claim to them - maybe they wanted to finally control nukes post-War, based off their limited ability to influence the when and who of the launch pre-War.

We also don't know how Overseer 33 nuked Shady Sands - did he hire someone to recover a nuke and sneak it in? Did Vault-Tec keep local stockpiles of suitcase nukes only the 'management Vaults' knew about? Did he find a way to ring up whatever Vault 76 is 200 years later and request a missile launch from an Appalachian silo?

I love the Fallout lore and setting as much as anyone else, but a lot of times I think the fandom forget how little we ever know. The setting (aside from its start as a dark-comedy but also bleak background for a one-off PC game) very much incorporates the fall of the modern civilization we take for granted, including the breakdown of reliable information recording and communication. The entire purpose of the Brotherhood is to make sure no one burns and forgets the plans for even the most dangerous technology, because one day mankind might need it again! Reliable narrators and records are sparse in Fallout, and when something is hinted at, it probably shouldn't be taken as a definitive statement of who, what, when, where, and how, and now this piece of the lore puzzle is solved and in place forever.

I've decided to restart Fallout 4 and hah, despite knowing what's coming, I am still annoyed at all those scenes I keep coming across of clothed skeletons locked in scenes that happened when the bombs dropped. Wall-mounted medical kits still stocked with meds, post-war pipe weapons locked away behind 200 year old locks.. Unattended computers left out in the open, exposed to the elements, just waiting for you to hack them and grab whatever lies locked away.

The thing that also bothers me with a lot of these settlements is how dirty they are in terms of debris and clutter. You'd think that they'd clean that out over time, make more space for the inhabitants, make things more liveable.

Fatman nukes are small enough, it wouldn't surprise me if Vault Tec had a stash of those hidden away courtesy of West Tek, or some hidden away national guard supply stash that was conveniently hidden away before the bombs fell.

 BrookM wrote:
I've decided to restart Fallout 4 and hah, despite knowing what's coming, I am still annoyed at all those scenes I keep coming across of clothed skeletons locked in scenes that happened when the bombs dropped. Wall-mounted medical kits still stocked with meds, post-war pipe weapons locked away behind 200 year old locks.. Unattended computers left out in the open, exposed to the elements, just waiting for you to hack them and grab whatever lies locked away.

The thing that also bothers me with a lot of these settlements is how dirty they are in terms of debris and clutter. You'd think that they'd clean that out over time, make more space for the inhabitants, make things more liveable.

Fatman nukes are small enough, it wouldn't surprise me if Vault Tec had a stash of those hidden away courtesy of West Tek, or some hidden away national guard supply stash that was conveniently hidden away before the bombs fell.

Lol, have you seen the state of some cities TODAY, the idea of rubbish and debris being left lying around is super realistic. As for tec still working after 200 years, the fallout universe doesn't use the same sort of tec as we do, its less advanced and more robust so I can believe it still works.

Post war stuff being locked in pre-war safes on the other hand is annoying.

I mean it's also a game and having there be absolutely nothing around because it's been a while would be boring as hell.

Also, it's not like there's a massive population in the Commonwealth looting everything in sight.
The region also never had a chance to secure itself properly thanks to the Institute killing every attempt to form governments and infiltrating every group they could find.

Fallout 4 is the only game in the franchise I’ve played, and I agree there’s a lot of “wait, how?” it’s still a lot of fun.

On my current save file, I’ve a fully automatic combat shotgun with max upgrades and the explosive trait.

It’s a Bolter. I have an in-universe Bolter, and woe betide anyone that decides I need my teeth kicked in.

The thing with Fallout 4 is that for the remarks and gripes I have against it, it's a fun game, it does some things really well and introduces somethings I really enjoy, I certainly don't regret sinking 220 hours into it to date. But, it's not a great Fallout game or a game that really nails the feel of the setting.

The three games that in my opinion do get it right; Fallout, Fallout 2 and New Vegas, who are all connected to one another by region, certain factions and themes (that Bethesda keeps shoe-horning into their own games rather flimsily), are for me those three games that make up the Fallout trilogy.

But, the real downside is, they're not the most accessible of games this day and age, sure they run just fine on Steam and GOG, but they're not the easiest to pick up and play.

I really wanted to get into NV cos like Apoc Cowboy is a cool vibe but damn it has 0 chill.
One minute I'm killing geckos the next I've reloded my save 8 times because I can't get past 3 dudes.

Yeah, NV is built on that gakky F3 engine and early game can be tough. Who am I kidding? The game scales with you (in a not-broken or OP way mind) and keeps things tough throughout.

NV was back from the time games did not mess around. There are areas you should NOT go till you hit certain levels unlike Fallout 4/Skyrim where most everything is leveled with your character.

Nah F4 definitely has places that will flip your bricks if you aren't careful.
Hell even just going to Lexington below a certain level is damn dangerous. Loads of Ferals and a Raider in power armour with a Fatman.
First ever time playing I got swarmed and the second time I walked round a corner and got atomised.

Yes and no. Certain places are very hard, but it usually isn't because the enemies are above your level since the game levels enemies with you. Its more a structural thing where the bare minimum abilities/# of enemies have there are going to one shot you. The Ghouls and raiders in Lexington aren't above your level though, there is just more of them then you might typically be able to handle.

Its different from NV where enemies in certain areas will be fixed to a level way way higher than you at the start. Like, the Deathclaw you fight in the beginning of Fallout 4 is certainly strong, but he is leveled to your character and a reasonable opponent. As opposed to the Deathclaws in New Vegas you will run into if you try and take the quick route to the Strip. They are absolutely unfair to fight at the beginning.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Yes and no. Certain places are very hard, but it usually isn't because the enemies are above your level since the game levels enemies with you. Its more a structural thing where the bare minimum abilities/# of enemies have there are going to one shot you. The Ghouls and raiders in Lexington aren't above your level though, there is just more of them then you might typically be able to handle.

Its different from NV where enemies in certain areas will be fixed to a level way way higher than you at the start. Like, the Deathclaw you fight in the beginning of Fallout 4 is certainly strong, but he is leveled to your character and a reasonable opponent. As opposed to the Deathclaws in New Vegas you will run into if you try and take the quick route to the Strip. They are absolutely unfair to fight at the beginning.

Especially if you go to the Quarry where the Blind Deathclaws are, those things will make you crap your pants with how fast they detect you and run at you at Mach 3 to tear your ass apart in seconds. Even with the OP combo of Boone equipped with an anti-material rifle and ED-E as the early warning detection system, they are no joke. The first time you run into Cazadores will also completely mess with you until you realize you have to pack anti-venom in your gear at all times.

This is also isn't even going into the DLC of Dead Money where it basically forces you to start from scratch (at least gear wise) or some of the Marked Men/Deathclaws even on the higher levels in the Lonesome Road.

And New Vegas doesn't lock out the DLCs either. Fallout 4 keeps you from doing the various DLCs till you hit a level milestone. New Vegas just says "Are you sure you want to go do Lonesome Road? Ok..."

 Grey Templar wrote:
And New Vegas doesn't lock out the DLCs either. Fallout 4 keeps you from doing the various DLCs till you hit a level milestone. New Vegas just says "Are you sure you want to go do Lonesome Road? Ok..."

Yeah, it definitely didn't handhold you and it fully matched the harshness of what the Mojave was supposed to be as the new frontier for so many factions. The fact that this game is 2 generations old but still has this level of reverence amongst the community and in terms of mods really shows how much it holds up in terms of story and game mechanics, even if the combat is clunky.

There's a reason why the community keeps asking for a remaster of New Vegas. I mean, I would love to see New Vegas redone with the Fallout 4 engine, keep everything else as is (or let Obsidian realize the full game as intended), but update the engine and for the love of feth, leave out the settlement building mechanics and radiant quests.

But give us the power armour, if there is one thing Fallout 4 did mostly right, it's the power armour mechanic. It's not as great as it was in Fallout, where it truly turned you into a tank when you earned the right to wear it, but it's a massive upgrade over the suits you wear in F3 and New Vegas.

Eh, power armor in Fallout 1 is only great until the Super Mutant with his 3.7% critical hit chance gets lucky, bypasses your armor completely and splatters you in a single shot. That game had really sucky combat mechanics.

Fallout 4's fusion core as a balancing mechanic to an otherwise almost impenetrable tank is a far better approach as it doesn't take away player agency. Even if for immersion fusion core lifetime is ridiculously low. Fallout 76's extended lifetime feels much better in that regard.

 Grey Templar wrote:
And New Vegas doesn't lock out the DLCs either. Fallout 4 keeps you from doing the various DLCs till you hit a level milestone. New Vegas just says "Are you sure you want to go do Lonesome Road? Ok..."

I can't reliably comment on Far Harbor since my idea of fun isn't to hang out on an island infested with Lurks, although I was under the impression that if you choose to trek to the other side of the Commonwealth, you are free to go there early on. What I can say for sure is that Nuka-World's version of asking you if you really want to go there is to put an Assaultron outside the entrance, which you can absolutely take out with a hunting rifle and good positioning even at level 2 or 3. After that you can play Nuka-World just fine since it's leveled to match you.

The thing with Fallout 4 is that for the remarks and gripes I have against it, it's a fun game, it does some things really well and introduces somethings I really enjoy, I certainly don't regret sinking 220 hours into it to date. But, it's not a great Fallout game or a game that really nails the feel of the setting.

Fallout 4 was a very average game. The gameplay is gak (melee is a straight up downgrade compared to Skyrim and the gunplay is incredibly bad), the quests are mostly gak (some of them don't even make sense like Mccready "loyalty" quest) and the whole settlement thing is a waste of time (on top of being badly put together).

Oh, and the main quest is also garbage. Far Harbor was good though.

 BrookM wrote:
There's a reason why the community keeps asking for a remaster of New Vegas. I mean, I would love to see New Vegas redone with the Fallout 4 engine, keep everything else as is (or let Obsidian realize the full game as intended), but update the engine and for the love of feth, leave out the settlement building mechanics and radiant quests.

But give us the power armour, if there is one thing Fallout 4 did mostly right, it's the power armour mechanic. It's not as great as it was in Fallout, where it truly turned you into a tank when you earned the right to wear it, but it's a massive upgrade over the suits you wear in F3 and New Vegas.

Imo, it's pretty clear that Bethesda (as a whole) doesn't like NV so I wouldn't count on it. Bethesda doesn't like the world moving on from the Great War and rebuilding, Bethesda doesn't like the Enclave being gone since Fallout 2 (hence why it's the main villain in F3 and somehow it still exists in the show), etc.

To Bethesda, Fallout is all about retro-future, post-apocalypse that is still somehow fresh even after 200+ years, deathclaws, power armour and nuka-cola.

Also, most of the folks that worked on NV back then have now left Obsidian.

I must be doing it wrong. I enjoy retrofuturism and 200 year old post apocalypse. And I really enjoyed playing Fallout 4. The settlement building did seem a little superfluous, but if Fallout 5 is basically Fallout 4+ then I’m in.

Fallout 4's main problem was that the main quest was terribly unengaging, and it wanted the premise to mix the revenge plot of FO:NV and FO3's of finding your missing family but they did it in a way where it quickly runs out of steam and has a very disappointing pay-out narratively once you find out the "twist". FO3 had this problem too, where all your actions up until that point (evil or good karma) get one line from your dad saying "You've been a good/bad boy/girl" and then immediately moves on to the plot with the Enclave. I get that in most Fallout games you're kind of intended to get caught up in side-quests anyways but at least New Vegas did a good job of seeding the crumbs of how you getting involved in the power struggle over New Vegas happened with the chip and how you actually have options to mess with Benny when you find him (I still find it hilarious you can Black Widow the guy). This is among other problems like constant radiant quests from Preston, and the factions themselves having several layers of issues on how you get involved with them (the most glaring of which are the Minutemen ordering you, the nominal General, to do everything for them).

Also, I would say that it has among the weaker roster of companions, with only Nick Valentine and Paladin Danse as notable when it comes to their quest lines. I definitely felt like they weren't as nuanced as the New Vegas crew, since they fell prey to the "playersexual" trend that took most open world RPG's by storm at the time, so they all became very samey once you buttered them up.

I think one of the biggest things they missed out on FO4 was the ending cutscenes once you beat the game, which really pulled everything together where it showed the path of healing or devastation you left in your wake depending on the choices you make, including both the small communities, the companions and the larger factions. You can't beat Ron Pearlman narrating at the end!

It might be that (as I did) you buy the whole game as one, with Far Harbour and Nuka World, there's so much to do the main plot gets lost in the mix. I just want to stomp around the world and be nice to most people and kill all the bad guys.

MarkNorfolk wrote:
I must be doing it wrong. I enjoy retrofuturism and 200 year old post apocalypse. And I really enjoyed playing Fallout 4. The settlement building did seem a little superfluous, but if Fallout 5 is basically Fallout 4+ then I’m in.

You aren't doing anything wrong.

There's nothing wrong with retrofuturism or post apocalypse. The problem is how Bethesda thinks post-apocalypse is synonymous with the absence of civilization. Fallout 2 was a post apocalypse game, but because it was set 164 years after the Great War, civilizations was slowly being rebuilt. Many areas were still lawless and violent and some towns were mostly inhabited pre-war ruins. But there was also entire new towns being built and looking quite civilized (like the Shady Sands / Vault City / Broken Hills). It also allowed the writers to show the player that civilization =/= good. Vault City had a quasi fascist regime, Broken Hills was struggling with rampant racism and ethnic/race violence and the NCR was already starting to act like an imperialistic and expansionist faction (and there were already hints that the cattle barons were becoming increasingly powerful).

Fallout 4 tries to justify this absence of civilization by saying it's all the fault of the Institute. But it is never explained why the Institute kept the Commonwealth in this state. The game tells you "It just happened because of mistrust" and that's it. It's bad writing and it's lazy.

However, the gameplay is bad. Like, really bad. The game was released in 2015, not early 2000s. And the combats are not enjoyable at all. Dumb ennemies, pathfinding problems, lack of weapons (and many guns feel the same because of recycled animations, non existent recoil across the board and poor sound design). Melee suffers from the same problem but worse (using a road sign as a shield is classic post apocalypse and I can't even do that).

You just enjoyed an average game. It's fine. It happens to all of us.

EDIT :

It might be that (as I did) you buy the whole game as one, with Far Harbour and Nuka World, there's so much to do the main plot gets lost in the mix. I just want to stomp around the world and be nice to most people and kill all the bad guys.

I really don't understand that.

Without good writing, memorable places to visit and interesting NPCs, what does Fallout 4 accomplish ? The combats are not good by 2015 standards. The gunplay is not good by 2015 standard. Melee isn't good either and is a downgrade when compared to the company previous game (Skyrim). The exploration is also not good because you quickly realize that you find, 99% of the time, randomized leveled loot and that's it. I guess the level design of downtown Boston is quite good. But back in 2015 my framerate was suffering a lot in downtown, to the point I couldn't enjoy the game at all.

People shat on Fallout 76 because without NPCs and towns, the game was exposed for what it truly was : a collection of bad systems. Fallout 4 stories are so uninspired and uninteresting that I realized that years ago.

I really liked Fallout 3 until the end. I really did not enjoy 4 and couldn't tell you why exactly. I quit playing it rather quickly. Granted, 3 is the exception, as I can't say I've really clicked with any of Bethesda's other games either.

"Fawkes, you're a super mutant, go into this irradiated room and flip that switch for me."

"No, I will not rob you of YOUR DESTINY."

Good karma companion my ass.. 😐

As for Fallout 4, you're supposed to be finding your child, I was ready to go full Mel Gibson from Ransom on the wasteland, screaming GIVE ME BACK MY SON at every raider until I got what I wanted, but instead how about some radiant quests kiddo? Hey, build stuff! Run settlements! I am surprised that they didn't shove the Enclave into the game until now hehe, because for Bethesda Fallout is..

1. Super Mutants (because now there's a vault making them! Or the Institute did it!)
2. Brotherhood of Steel (because nobody else has power armour)
3. Vault dweller protagonist
4. The Enclave

Now, New Vegas has all of these (except for #3), but seeing as they all got their origins from that part of the wasteland, it makes sense that you deal with remnants of the BoS and the Master's army. And Vegas didn't just have the excellent ending slides, but also multiple endings for most, if not all major factions involved, your companions and places you visited. Some of the DLC endings are also most excellent and really showcase that despite your best efforts, you can't win them all. Except for Dead Money, I hate that one.

 BrookM wrote:
"Fawkes, you're a super mutant, go into this irradiated room and flip that switch for me."

"No, I will not rob you of YOUR DESTINY."

Good karma companion my ass.. 😐

As for Fallout 4, you're supposed to be finding your child, I was ready to go full Mel Gibson from Ransom on the wasteland, screaming GIVE ME BACK MY SON at every raider until I got what I wanted, but instead how about some radiant quests kiddo? Hey, build stuff! Run settlements! I am surprised that they didn't shove the Enclave into the game until now hehe, because for Bethesda Fallout is..

1. Super Mutants (because now there's a vault making them! Or the Institute did it!)
2. Brotherhood of Steel (because nobody else has power armour)
3. Vault dweller protagonist
4. The Enclave

Now, New Vegas has all of these (except for #3), but seeing as they all got their origins from that part of the wasteland, it makes sense that you deal with remnants of the BoS and the Master's army. And Vegas didn't just have the excellent ending slides, but also multiple endings for most, if not all major factions involved, your companions and places you visited. Some of the DLC endings are also most excellent and really showcase that despite your best efforts, you can't win them all. Except for Dead Money, I hate that one.

Ugh, FO3's ending is super immersion breaking where you had two radiation immune companion with both Fawkes and Charon really bothered me, especially the latter who is effectively borderline a slave when you have his contract, so it's super contrived for them to not go in instead of you.

100% though regarding Bethesda's approach to the FO IP though, it's basically just a vehicle for them to keep spamming these 4 things over and over, rather than expanding on how each region should be different in some way since, ya know, it's not like the Brotherhood is an omnipresent faction in the entirety of the United States nor the Enclave. I hate that they retconned in Super Mutants in FO76 when they were meant to be introduced much later.

Dead Money for me is in a weird spot for me, because I can see why people weren't crazy about it, especially compared to other DLC like the Big MT and the Lonesome Road, but I did like the closure I got with Christine and Father Elijah for Veronica and the ending tape from Sinclair's lover when you leave is very haunting, so it's still an overall positive experience though there were definitely frustrating moments with the damn collar blowing off when you didn't intend walking into a certain area. It also helps that I glitched out in the room and was able to make off with 1000 gold bars that I'll never be able to sell all of

 BrookM wrote:
"Fawkes, you're a super mutant, go into this irradiated room and flip that switch for me."

"No, I will not rob you of YOUR DESTINY."

Fun story. I was playing this on Christmas Eve and RIGHT as I hit this line of dialog I got called to dinner, had to pause it there and fume for the entire holiday before getting back to it. I still can't believe that line is coded in there and that when they "fixed" it in Broken Steel they kept the "coward" dialog from the bad karma ending. The 00's were just obsessed with martyrdom stories that audiences were not nearly as enthralled with.

 BrookM wrote:
"Fawkes, you're a super mutant, go into this irradiated room and flip that switch for me."

"No, I will not rob you of YOUR DESTINY."

Good karma companion my ass.. 😐

That'll learn ya to drag along freaks. And zombies. And robots. And people. And the stupid dog. Especially the stupid dog!

I don't think they ever got companion AI right.

Okay, New Vegas' companions annoyed me the least, especially when Boone starts blasting away at everything located at least a zip code away, or Cass drops some of her wisdom on us.. can't complain.