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.

So I was watching a vid on YouTube where they revealed that this was actually a cut mission from the game. Including dialogue from the voice actors. Where you could chose to overthrow Elder Maxim with Paladin Dance. With you becoming Elder of the Brotherhood and setting the house in order.

I am a little confused why they didn’t do this TBH. My impression at my first playthrough, having went through Fallout 3 was, “oh no the Brotherhood has lost its way. I need to set things right”. Yet you’re railroaded into having to tow the party line. Which kind of undermines the whole debate on whether the Brotherhood is better or worse than the Minutemen because I control the Minutemen and set the agenda. If the Minutemen were taken over by a Maxim you would have the exact same issue. Not sure if they really wanted another Enclave faction in the game. Like, they cut other things but that’s like a major plot point which I got the impression they were building towards.

I dunno maybe they thought that was making it too easy and everybody would pick that option. Because, you know, it does solve everything. Why shouldn’t all those settlements you built up be able to ally with the Brotherhood of which you are a member?

Do you think they should have kept this option in and would have been an option you’d have went for or did you think Maxim had a point?

Fallout 4 doesn't let you do anything with the factions once the main story line ends, whether you're nominally 'in charge' or not.

Its just a hub for random radiant quests, and a store.

Its unfortunate that they didn't pursue anything with them, but the factions are pretty much a dead issue for the game.

Unfortunately they went with really random unconnected DLC rather than doing something impressive (Far Harbor was pretty decent, better than the main game in some ways, but the rest were junk).

---
As to the Brotherhood, the player become Elder would be weird. The brotherhood is supposed to be a weirdly insular bunch of xenophobic technophobes. For all that they use tech themselves, their mission statement is no one else should have anything advanced, ever. Allying with local settlements would be deeply unpopular among the ranks and make no sense.



I actually think they missed out more with the Institute post-story. Its basically a 'build synths, ???, profit(?)' scenario, and they don't have any real goals or even motivations. If you end as the chairman (which... honestly, should be the default, since any other option involves trying to murder Shawn, which is kind of crazy), you should be able to focus the Insitute's goals on something worthwhile, but instead its same-old, same old, pop out and do random stuff for no reason.

Voss wrote:
Fallout 4 doesn't let you do anything with the factions once the main story line ends, whether you're nominally 'in charge' or not.

Its just a hub for random radiant quests, and a store.

Its unfortunate that they didn't pursue anything with them, but the factions are pretty much a dead issue for the game.

Unfortunately they went with really random unconnected DLC rather than doing something impressive (Far Harbor was pretty decent, better than the main game in some ways, but the rest were junk).

---
As to the Brotherhood, the player become Elder would be weird. The brotherhood is supposed to be a weirdly insular bunch of xenophobic technophobes. For all that they use tech themselves, their mission statement is no one else should have anything advanced, ever. Allying with local settlements would be deeply unpopular among the ranks and make no sense.



I actually think they missed out more with the Institute post-story. Its basically a 'build synths, ???, profit(?)' scenario, and they don't have any real goals or even motivations. If you end as the chairman (which... honestly, should be the default, since any other option involves trying to murder Shawn, which is kind of crazy), you should be able to focus the Insitute's goals on something worthwhile, but instead its same-old, same old, pop out and do random stuff for no reason.

If it was a generic chapter of the Brotherhood like the ones you meet in New Vegas then I could understand that. TBH I wasn’t a huge fan of the Brotherhood in that game; I very much preferred the NCR.

But they make a point about this being the DC Brotherhood and frankly I vastly preferred Fallout 3 take on the institution. It’s just not interesting having an isolationist group that wants to take technology. It means they have to be very one note and removed from the main story. Whereas having them actively fight the good fight, be at odds with the “old believers” in the Outcast and being front and centre was a really cool part of Fallout 3’s story. The Lyons Brotherhood has significantly varied from the tenants of the Brotherhood. So it really one man in Elder Maxim who has corrupted the institution and so getting rid of him is pretty straight forward solution.

Plus Maxims Brotherhood is not an isolationist Brotherhood interested in technology. They’re depicted as an Imperialist army of occupation that wants to purge the wasteland of impure beings. They have almost no interest in taking the Institutes technology and the isolationist parts out the window once they rock up with a battle blimp. Again, they’re the Enclave. They believe that they are saving the Commonwealth from themselves not feathering their nest with technology.

Because the Brotherhood are asking me to shake down my own farms which I built. It’s ridiculous. I can as a member of the Brotherhood and Minutemen control every settlement in the Wasteland. Build every settlement up to be self sufficient with a food surplus. Yet it’s deemed to be necessary that I rob my own property to feed thirty guys in a blimp? It’s really dumb.

Why would the line BoS members go alone with it:

1) You are a the greatest living member of the Order. Your opinion of things like killings the railroad matters. People would want to follow you.

2) Maxims hatred and obsession has come at enormous cost and is irrational. It’s not very difficult to argue that he has led the Brotherhood down a path of dishonour and madness. Like stealing the reactor out of aircraft carrier city in Fallout 3 so they can get to the Commonwealth a bit faster. It literally ruins everything they tried to achieve in Fallout 3. Whereas you can offer victory with honour so why wouldn’t you do that?

3) You SHOULD be in a position to bring the Commonwealth under the wing of the Broterhood of Steel as you are head of the Minutemen and control all of the settlements. You can quite easily be the most respected and adored character in the Wasteland.

4) The game considers it perfectly reasonable to shoot 99 percent of Mutants, ghouls and synths you encounter. Even the Minutemen pay you to do this. It is not a difficult argument that there should be exceptions for the 1 percent of socialised monsters. Suspicion is not the same thing as purge on site. You don’t convince the entire to love every ghoul, mutant and synth.

So yeah, you deposing Maxim solves everything.

I'm not following you. As a splinter faction of a splinter faction, what you're arguing (that Maxim somehow 'corrupted them') makes even less sense. 'Kill the evil science people' is perfectly in keeping with the BoS narrow sense of ethics, a welcome return to tradition after Lyons opened the gates and did crazy stuff.
---

They aren't 'your settlements,' no matter how much work you put into building them. At most they agree to work with the Minutemen if you help them out.
----

As for the BoS:
1) You're an outsider that Maxim tolerates for the aid that you provide in getting at his enemies. The ranks are an easy sop to the player and maybe the character, but I don't see much reason to take them seriously.

2) Eh? Maxim's leadership leads to the defeat of the Institute (if you go down the BoS route). I'm not sure why any of his army would feel he lead them to 'dishonor and madness.' [If its something from the end credit slides... no, wait FO4 doesn't have those. If you go the BoS route, they just win]

Taking the reactor (is this even mentioned in game?) from Rivet City is rather irrelevant. Its even a positive if it means it isn't leaking rads inside their town-ship.

Victory with honor... I'm a bit lost. If you go down the BoS route, you go along with Maxim's war and fight it the way he orders. If its 'dishonorable,' you've helped with that dishonor (whatever that means in this context).


3) You might be head of the Minutemen, and you can be allied to all the settlements. You can just as easily be feared and hated by a string of mostly empty settlements. If you play Nukaland, they're your victims, because that assumes you want to be a raider. Its a very nebulous game state that isn't set in stone.

4) Yep. Everyone's really happy if you kill everything non-human. So it actually _is_ a really difficult argument to suggest that they would be happy with random exceptions.
I'm not sure why anyone would care if you kill .. Strong and Valentine? I guess? Are there any other non hostile non humans? I guess the mayor of the red light district and the one settlement with the pool of tar berries or whatever. But no one is particularly inclined to care if they live or die. The BoS people are _really_ unhappy if you bring non-human companions up on the ship, but true to Bethesda, choices have no consequences until the script says so; and they're completely uninterested in deal with consequences of having any of the various companions. Despite both the Institute and the Brotherhood having very good reasons to object to you bringing various folks by the stronghold.

So yeah, you deposing Maxim solves everything.

Again, I'm not sure what's solved. If you go down the BoS route they win their war and behave like the BoS is canonically supposed to. That the people who willing followed Maxim would suddenly stop believing in him and now believe that's he's bad isn't really sensible. Especially since you enabled that victory. Any problem they'd have with him applies equally to you.

Voss wrote:
I'm not following you. As a splinter faction of a splinter faction, what you're arguing (that Maxim somehow 'corrupted them') makes even less sense. 'Kill the evil science people' is perfectly in keeping with the BoS narrow sense of ethics, a welcome return to tradition after Lyons opened the gates and did crazy stuff.
---

They aren't 'your settlements,' no matter how much work you put into building them. At most they agree to work with the Minutemen if you help them out.
----

As for the BoS:
1) You're an outsider that Maxim tolerates for the aid that you provide in getting at his enemies. The ranks are an easy sop to the player and maybe the character, but I don't see much reason to take them seriously.

2) Eh? Maxim's leadership leads to the defeat of the Institute (if you go down the BoS route). I'm not sure why any of his army would feel he lead them to 'dishonor and madness.' [If its something from the end credit slides... no, wait FO4 doesn't have those. If you go the BoS route, they just win]

Taking the reactor (is this even mentioned in game?) from Rivet City is rather irrelevant. Its even a positive if it means it isn't leaking rads inside their town-ship.

Victory with honor... I'm a bit lost. If you go down the BoS route, you go along with Maxim's war and fight it the way he orders. If its 'dishonorable,' you've helped with that dishonor (whatever that means in this context).


3) You might be head of the Minutemen, and you can be allied to all the settlements. You can just as easily be feared and hated by a string of mostly empty settlements. If you play Nukaland, they're your victims, because that assumes you want to be a raider. Its a very nebulous game state that isn't set in stone.

4) Yep. Everyone's really happy if you kill everything non-human. So it actually _is_ a really difficult argument to suggest that they would be happy with random exceptions.
I'm not sure why anyone would care if you kill .. Strong and Valentine? I guess? Are there any other non hostile non humans? I guess the mayor of the red light district and the one settlement with the pool of tar berries or whatever. But no one is particularly inclined to care if they live or die. The BoS people are _really_ unhappy if you bring non-human companions up on the ship, but true to Bethesda, choices have no consequences until the script says so; and they're completely uninterested in deal with consequences of having any of the various companions. Despite both the Institute and the Brotherhood having very good reasons to object to you bringing various folks by the stronghold.

So yeah, you deposing Maxim solves everything.

Again, I'm not sure what's solved. If you go down the BoS route they win their war and behave like the BoS is canonically supposed to. That the people who willing followed Maxim would suddenly stop believing in him and now believe that's he's bad isn't really sensible. Especially since you enabled that victory. Any problem they'd have with him applies equally to you.

This, Voss basically covers a lot of the major flaws in your understanding of the Fallout universe and FO4 in particular.

I'm not sure what your idea of the Brotherhood is, but Elder Lyons' take of the Brotherhood in FO3 is the exception, not the rule, the Brotherhood have always basically been the Fallout equivalent of the Mechanicus in hoarding technology.

I think them leaving out you overthrowing Elder Maxson was the right call personally. It was already hard to believe that you were the "leader" of the minutemen when it was really Preston ordering you around to help settlements, considering you had no overall say or decision in how the minutemen act in the wasteland like a real leader should. Thus becoming the leader of the BoS on top of that is really pushing it, considering how insular the BoS are and how little time you've spent in the organization compared to so many others would make it incredibly unlikely for you to be in a position to challenge Maxson, who has no reason to accept it when your rank is so low. He's also from the prestigious Maxson bloodline, the founder of the BoS, so he has far more historical legitimacy in his rule than from some rando that joined a few months ago.

I love the Fallout Universe. Fallout New Vegas is my favourite video game of all time... stretching back to Super Mario on the original NES.

I despise FO4. To me, it felt like Minecraft with an FO skin stretched over it. So much “pick up every piece of garbage you can find, so you can craft gear with a one point improvement, while you build villages you give zero gaks about.”

When I found my son, I blew his head off the moment I met him, knowing I could save scum once I escaped the Institution. I cared so little that I didn’t bother. I wanted to help the railroad, but without realizing it I joined the Minutemen endgame and never bothered to save-scum back to redo.

Would I have “saved” the brotherhood from Maxon? Sure. Or I might have tried to blow the blimp up... maybe I did, it was a completely non-memorable experience for me.

I’ve tried rebooting twice, and it just doesn’t draw me in like other FO games. There’s too much sand boxing, without enough of an interesting story to keep me in.

But yeah, there should have been a way to get rid of Maxon without killing him and setting the whole BoS against you.

Voss wrote:
I'm not following you. As a splinter faction of a splinter faction, what you're arguing (that Maxim somehow 'corrupted them') makes even less sense. 'Kill the evil science people' is perfectly in keeping with the BoS narrow sense of ethics, a welcome return to tradition after Lyons opened the gates and did crazy stuff.
---

They aren't 'your settlements,' no matter how much work you put into building them. At most they agree to work with the Minutemen if you help them out.
----

As for the BoS:
1) You're an outsider that Maxim tolerates for the aid that you provide in getting at his enemies. The ranks are an easy sop to the player and maybe the character, but I don't see much reason to take them seriously.

2) Eh? Maxim's leadership leads to the defeat of the Institute (if you go down the BoS route). I'm not sure why any of his army would feel he lead them to 'dishonor and madness.' [If its something from the end credit slides... no, wait FO4 doesn't have those. If you go the BoS route, they just win]

Taking the reactor (is this even mentioned in game?) from Rivet City is rather irrelevant. Its even a positive if it means it isn't leaking rads inside their town-ship.

Victory with honor... I'm a bit lost. If you go down the BoS route, you go along with Maxim's war and fight it the way he orders. If its 'dishonorable,' you've helped with that dishonor (whatever that means in this context).


3) You might be head of the Minutemen, and you can be allied to all the settlements. You can just as easily be feared and hated by a string of mostly empty settlements. If you play Nukaland, they're your victims, because that assumes you want to be a raider. Its a very nebulous game state that isn't set in stone.

4) Yep. Everyone's really happy if you kill everything non-human. So it actually _is_ a really difficult argument to suggest that they would be happy with random exceptions.
I'm not sure why anyone would care if you kill .. Strong and Valentine? I guess? Are there any other non hostile non humans? I guess the mayor of the red light district and the one settlement with the pool of tar berries or whatever. But no one is particularly inclined to care if they live or die. The BoS people are _really_ unhappy if you bring non-human companions up on the ship, but true to Bethesda, choices have no consequences until the script says so; and they're completely uninterested in deal with consequences of having any of the various companions. Despite both the Institute and the Brotherhood having very good reasons to object to you bringing various folks by the stronghold.

So yeah, you deposing Maxim solves everything.

Again, I'm not sure what's solved. If you go down the BoS route they win their war and behave like the BoS is canonically supposed to. That the people who willing followed Maxim would suddenly stop believing in him and now believe that's he's bad isn't really sensible. Especially since you enabled that victory. Any problem they'd have with him applies equally to you.

The “canon” Brotherhood of Steel is a badly written faction that to quote Mr House “are ridiculous”. By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland. But more to the point the canon is that the Lyons Brotherhood had changed their ways and were a faction of reform. That’s the canon. What you’re calling a return to canon is a retcon because apparently people wanted an edgy Enclave 2.0 faction to work for. Plus Maxims brotherhood is not like the New Vegas brotherhood at all. So I don’t know why you’re spinning this enclave lite interpretation of the Brotherhood as the canon.

Because they’re an unnecessary evil. There’s no reason to steal rivet cities reactor to get there faster when there’s no pressing threat to warrant such an extreme act. That’s not a minor incident. Bethesda wrote that to show that the Brotherhood have zero regard for human life, indeed are openly contemptful of it and only leave ruin in their wake. They ain’t about planting trees and building settlements. Meaning, they’d do the same to the Commonwealth. That’s evil. In the game that’s all about hope and building a better tomorrow that was certainly intended to cast the Brotherhood as the faction of nihilism and despair. This really isn’t a morally grey scenario.

It’s far more realistic that in a large organisation you would have different factions including ones advocating a change of path. Why would the Brotherhoods members all be of one mind. Because you know, they were less than a decade ago. Somebody would ask “are we the baddies” if you’re asked to rob farms, which you own... The game is restricting choice by making theBrotherhood a static one dimensional faction whose members suddenly think its okay to shoot a farmer in the head rather than do exactly the same arrangement you do with the Minutemen. Protection for food is not a tough sell. If one man can achieve this and get unlimited food. With that settlement leader actually being a Brotherhood of Steel this should not be a legitimate conflict.

So you’re going to get meta in deconstructing the Minutemen as a faction? It’s a meme that Preston is in charge of the Minutemen and what you’re doing is doomed and we need to accept the necessary evil of the Brotherhood as espoused by its sociopathic leader. You can win as the good guy. This is not presented an abivalent or morally grey situation at any point in the game. You have to actively ignore every bad thing the Brotherhood does and unless you’re RPing an amoral arse it’s makes no sense to follow them. Even if the Comminwealth morphed into some East Coast NCR that is infinitely better than Maxims Brotherhood. Genocidal bigots versus an idealistic faction that becomes bloated starts to stray from the path.

You’re vastly downplaying the amount of power you have as General of the Minutemen. You’re basically George Washington. The people have made you the commander of the army, given you control over the economy and access to as much food and labour as you need. That is power. Just because you aren’t a tyrant and can’t just execute those who’ve entrusted you authority doesn’t mean you’re somehow weak. How is this faction being reliant on you as you solve all their problems like Superman possibly intended to cast the player character as being weak? Compared to Mr Blimpman who has to resort to stealing food because he’s too narrow minded to even consider simple solutions?

You guys should play Fallout: Wasteland Warfare miniature game or the RPG, can do whatever you want with the narrative!

My Raiders looking forward to getting hold of Paladin Danse and getting him to fit a bunch of mole rats in a cage for their amusement

 greatbigtree wrote:


When I found my son, I blew his head off the moment I met him, knowing I could save scum once I escaped the Institution. I cared so little that I didn’t bother. I wanted to help the railroad, but without realizing it I joined the Minutemen endgame and never bothered to save-scum back to redo.
.

I have to say, I don't know if it was your intent but this made me laugh so much!!

I’m always glad to provide a laugh.

In every version of Fallout, I wipe out the slavers. Even when going for my bad-guy-est play throughs, I wipe the slavers. In my play through, I felt like the scientists were making slaves of the Synths... so I was like, what the hell. He seems like an donkey-cave, so I’ll just kill him, see what loot I pick up on the way, and scum back to see what missions are available...

And then I didn’t. I was just bored and wanted to finish the game. I’ve played through New Vegas at least 10 times, always excited to try a different character type, or a speed run, or playing with a specific faction in mind... but FO 4 just didn’t do that for me. I’m not big on sandbox games. I want to play a story.

Glad to make you laugh, though!

The “canon” Brotherhood of Steel is a badly written faction that to quote Mr House “are ridiculous”. By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland. But more to the point the canon is that the Lyons Brotherhood had changed their ways and were a faction of reform. That’s the canon. What you’re calling a return to canon is a retcon because apparently people wanted an edgy Enclave 2.0 faction to work for. Plus Maxims brotherhood is not like the New Vegas brotherhood at all. So I don’t know why you’re spinning this enclave lite interpretation of the Brotherhood as the canon.

Because they’re an unnecessary evil. There’s no reason to steal rivet cities reactor to get there faster when there’s no pressing threat to warrant such an extreme act. That’s not a minor incident. Bethesda wrote that to show that the Brotherhood have zero regard for human life, indeed are openly contemptful of it and only leave ruin in their wake. They ain’t about planting trees and building settlements. Meaning, they’d do the same to the Commonwealth. That’s evil. In the game that’s all about hope and building a better tomorrow that was certainly intended to cast the Brotherhood as the faction of nihilism and despair. This really isn’t a morally grey scenario.

I mean.. They didn't care about anyone part of the Brotherhood. In the first game alone they sent you into a radioactive pit expecting you to die like plenty of wastelanders they sent in because you'd never fulfill the mission they gave you and only helped you because you somehow survived said suicide mission. That's the Brotherhood, anyone using tech they don't agree with they'd take and ensure they cannot have whether it would kill them or not.

So you’re going to get meta in deconstructing the Minutemen as a faction?

I'm really not. I've no interest in 'deconstruction,' meta or memes.

The game gives you titles but gives you quests like your a flunky. That's the reality of the situation.
There isn't any depth or realism involved, that simply isn't something BethSoft does.

By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland.

I wouldn't say resetting, no.

But yes, the major theme of the Brotherhood is Isolation over the greater good, which is why they stick with it.

Further, Fallout really doesn't play with the idea of altruism. Its a dark comedy about post apocalypse America. Its specifically NOT about building a better future.

A altruistic Brotherhood that helps a region with their technological prowess is counter to the entire theme of the series and the very point of their inclusion.

If you think any Fallout is about hope and better tomorrow, you've been reading it all wrong. The 'better tomorrow' is past, and they burnt it to ash.
Every step forward out of the pit falls apart, but in a gallows humor sort of way. If you take it seriously, the series doesn't work.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

The “canon” Brotherhood of Steel is a badly written faction that to quote Mr House “are ridiculous”. By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland. But more to the point the canon is that the Lyons Brotherhood had changed their ways and were a faction of reform. That’s the canon. What you’re calling a return to canon is a retcon because apparently people wanted an edgy Enclave 2.0 faction to work for. Plus Maxims brotherhood is not like the New Vegas brotherhood at all. So I don’t know why you’re spinning this enclave lite interpretation of the Brotherhood as the canon.

Because they’re an unnecessary evil. There’s no reason to steal rivet cities reactor to get there faster when there’s no pressing threat to warrant such an extreme act. That’s not a minor incident. Bethesda wrote that to show that the Brotherhood have zero regard for human life, indeed are openly contemptful of it and only leave ruin in their wake. They ain’t about planting trees and building settlements. Meaning, they’d do the same to the Commonwealth. That’s evil. In the game that’s all about hope and building a better tomorrow that was certainly intended to cast the Brotherhood as the faction of nihilism and despair. This really isn’t a morally grey scenario.

I mean.. They didn't care about anyone part of the Brotherhood. In the first game alone they sent you into a radioactive pit expecting you to die like plenty of wastelanders they sent in because you'd never fulfill the mission they gave you and only helped you because you somehow survived said suicide mission. That's the Brotherhood, anyone using tech they don't agree with they'd take and ensure they cannot have whether it would kill them or not.

Because in Fallout 4 it’s not a random clone Brotherhood of Steel chapter. It specifically is the DC Brotherhood from Fallout 3. They had very little to do with whatever nonsense was going on in Fallout 1 and 2. If they had been like the Mojave Chapter then they wouldn’t have intervened to protect settlers in the Capital Wasteland, wouldn’t have tried to confront Super Mutants and wouldn’t have bothered fighting the Enclave over something as trivial as getting clean water for the people of the Capital Wasteland. It’s not a return to “canon” to make the Brotherhood like you find them in Fallout 1. It’s a different time, a different place and different place.

I do not understand the reasoning behind why people think it was a good idea to make them a bunch of fascists. If you wanted the Enclave or generic Brotherhood Chapter Bethesda could easily have done that. In Fallout 4 they are not a nuanced or morally grey faction. They’re jerks for the sake of being jerks. There’s literally no benefit in siding with the Brotherhood.

1) You are effectively telling the player that your Fallout 3 campaign did not matter. The capital wasteland was left to die because this guy rocked up.

2) You are then asked to kill the faction pretty central to Fallout 3. Your options are either accept their bigoted leader or destroy them. It’s presented as a one dimensionally bad guy faction that is needlessly cruel and violent. It’s assertions that it’s the only faction that can save the Wasteland are so disingenuous and actually undermine the faction rather than support it.

3) The Brotherhood questline makes a point of you having to kill Paladin Dance. So you’re asked to murder your mentor because it turns out he was a synth and have your glorious leader give a big speech on why this suddenly makes Dance an abomination that needs to be destroyed. That is not subtle. You are role playing a moral coward and a bigot if you don’t betray the Brotherhood of Steel because of this and many other unsubtle hints that you aren’t meant to like them. Even the Legion was not depicted in such a clear cut manner. You could still see that Kaiser was bringing this civilisation together and restoring some form of order. It was a very thin veneer and I thought the game was too obvious with them stating outright the issues but at least it was something.

4) The Mojave Brotherhood style of faction is not interesting. Collecting technology and sealing yourself off from the world is a boring premise. Which Fallout 4 isn’t even consistent with since they don’t make a big deal about the technology and are far more concerned with purity through violence.

If you wanted a bad guy faction who wear power armour and are about purging abominations you already had the Enclave on the shelf. There’s no reason to take the Fallout 3 Brotherhood and throw them into that role in the story. It was kind of spiteful towards anyone who enjoyed the BoS in Fallout 3 and makes it outright bizarre when they try to make call backs to that game.

It would be far more interesting and realistic if you still had the Lyons Brotherhood and the issue was about mistrust and suspicions between the various good guy factions. The Minutemen/locals don’t trust these Iron backs from the Capital Wasteland and value independence. The Railroad have concerns over synthes that they want addressed. The Brotherhood has to be convinced to compromise over its goals. By all means conflict but not absurd absolutes that make no sense. So like the Yesman ending you should have the option of bringing everyone together or culling those that don’t fit your vision for the future. Not let’s make two clearly unnecessary evil factions and two good guy factions with one being so blatantly the best option that you have to RP a bigot to not side with them.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:

So you’re going to get meta in deconstructing the Minutemen as a faction?

I'm really not. I've no interest in 'deconstruction,' meta or memes.

The game gives you titles but gives you quests like your a flunky. That's the reality of the situation.
There isn't any depth or realism involved, that simply isn't something BethSoft does.

By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland.

I wouldn't say resetting, no.

But yes, the major theme of the Brotherhood is Isolation over the greater good, which is why they stick with it.

Further, Fallout really doesn't play with the idea of altruism. Its a dark comedy about post apocalypse America. Its specifically NOT about building a better future.

A altruistic Brotherhood that helps a region with their technological prowess is counter to the entire theme of the series and the very point of their inclusion.

If you think any Fallout is about hope and better tomorrow, you've been reading it all wrong. The 'better tomorrow' is past, and they burnt it to ash.
Every step forward out of the pit falls apart, but in a gallows humor sort of way. If you take it seriously, the series doesn't work.

That’s a limitation of the game engine, not a story point. The intent is to stroke your ego and make you a superman who single handedly saves the Wasteland through hard work. You could say the Dragonborn isn’t important because he’s being given quests. That’s being meta and not taking the story as presented. So yes, you’re being very meta to say that the main character doesn’t hold any real power and dismiss the presentation of the game entirely.

It kind of is resetting it if you have the option to convince the Brotherhood to be good and then have them regress in a subsequent game. That’s rinse and repeat.

Fallout 4 very clearly is about hope and altruism. Many characters talk to you about hope and their optimism about building a better world. You proactively are able to save people all the time. Because, you know, it’s what you physically do when you’re building all those settlements. Even the soundtrack is more upbeat and hopeful. Even Fallout 3 had you save the Capital Wasteland by giving it clean water. It would be nihilistic and stupid to suggest those things wouldn’t matter because some narrator makes some nonsensical proclamation declaring it thus.

It’s also counter to common sense. If characters don’t act like real people then why should I have any investment in anything they do. At that point they’re just cartoon characters to push a ham fisted piece of nihilism. It’s not idealistic to think that people might try to rebuild after the war.

If I wasn’t taking it seriously then I would have zoned out whenever any character opened their mouths in New Vegas. Instead the developers put quite a lot of philosophy and moral quandaries in. If they didn’t want you to engage with the subject matter as a satire and dark comedy then they wouldn’t bother with doing it. I ve not played Fallout 1 and 2. But if it doesn’t rise beyond laughing at the characters flaying against some fatalist proclaiming that everyone’s doomed then I am sure I d ever have the inclination to.

Its pretty poor gallows humour then. That sort of humour works when it contains a kernel of truth. If you’re telling me I shouldn’t take it too seriously, look too closely and have to ignore the concept of altruism entirely then I am not sure what the punchline is. It’s up there with George R R Martin saying love is a great evil because you might screw your sister but duty is always a good thing because nothing bad has ever been done by men professing that as a virtue. By the sounds of it I’ve given the games far more credit than a poor joke deserved.

I don’t think Fallout 3, Fallout 4 and even New Vegas remotely mesh with that view. Take New Vegas. Why hasn’t the NCR already collapsed into nothing long ago? They built a functioning state out of the Wasteland which has been around for decades. That’s impressive. The fact they’re too hard themselves and not perfect doesn’t mean we’re all doomed and war never changes. So if the writers were aiming for some kind of nihilist tale that’s meant to challenge my expectations well they sure had a funny way of doing it.

I am not sure why you think “True Fallout” as you put it bears any resemblance to the more recent titles or why it’s a good idea. What you’re describing sounds like a poor and shallow joke.

The issue is less that Fallout has not themes of altruism, but rather, that these themes were toed to consequence which made the Argumentation grey at the best of times.

the issue with fallout 4 however is, that it attempts to emulate the altruism for exemple of Fallout 1s search for the waterchip, whilest throwing over established lore AND failing to actually provide an interesting story hook in most cases.

Take F.e. new vegas the initial quest.
You got 3 Options broadly speaking:
join the gangers, join the locals and do what0s right or don't give a gak and walk away with the consequences that entails.

meanwhile in Fallout 4 , ignore preston and he will still be shooting at raiders in concord infact his very existence is in regards to f.e. settlements for 80% irrelevant, and the other one is the castle which just doesn't clean up if you don't have him.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


That’s a limitation of the game engine, not a story point. The intent is to stroke your ego and make you a superman who single handedly saves the Wasteland through hard work. You could say the Dragonborn isn’t important because he’s being given quests. That’s being meta and not taking the story as presented. So yes, you’re being very meta to say that the main character doesn’t hold any real power and dismiss the presentation of the game entirely.

It isn't a game engine limitation. Not even vaguely. Its a story that BethSoft didn't tell because they didn't want to tell it- they absolutely could have done more with the factions.
The dragonborn is important to saving the world from Alduin and DLC guy because the dragonborn is the only one who can. The dragonborn doesn't, however, restore the empire or meaningfully fix the skyrim civil war. That's beyond the scope of the story they chose to tell.

It kind of is resetting it if you have the option to convince the Brotherhood to be good and then have them regress in a subsequent game. That’s rinse and repeat.

I don't remember ever convincing the Brotherhood to be 'good.' I remember having to convince/force them to join up in their own self-interest, prior to that point, the Lyons crew was perfectly happy to sit in their fortress and accomplish jack and squat, beyond trying and failing to wipe out super mutants in DC.

Fallout 4 very clearly is about hope and altruism. Many characters talk to you about hope and their optimism about building a better world. You proactively are able to save people all the time. Because, you know, it’s what you physically do when you’re building all those settlements. Even the soundtrack is more upbeat and hopeful. Even Fallout 3 had you save the Capital Wasteland by giving it clean water. It would be nihilistic and stupid to suggest those things wouldn’t matter because some narrator makes some nonsensical proclamation declaring it thus.

Er, no. Its not about 'proclamations' from a narrator. The first random encounter I had in fallout 3 post water cleanup (once you could continue in the game when the DLCs came out) was a guy selling fake 'clean water' (ie, polluted rad water). The game made a point to tell me very little had changed in the way that people behaved. To get to the 'clean water' [which I don't want to go into because I'll nitpick it to death, suffice to say that an open water source in a radioactive wasteland isn't going to stay 'clean' for more than a couple days, and is going to be depleted very quickly], you've got to be very brutal and the next step (Broken Steel) is back to nukes and super weapons.


I'm _completely_ at a loss for FO4 being about hope and altruism. The main character fails at just about every level. You don't get your son back, he dies, and he dies a fairly twisted individual who feels that everyone on the surface should be abandoned to suffer and die. You nuke part of Boston (or become part of the Institute's system) with no chance of bettering anyone's lives, again reiterating the main fallout themes.

Automatron is specifically about good intentions killing large numbers of people
Far Harbor is about a community (actually 3 communities) built on lies and murder
Vault tec is about darkly taking part in the twisted Vault experiments (or ignoring it and playing with the new settlement bits)
Nuka-World is about indulging the player's inner raider. You can subvert it, but mostly by just killing everyone.

Hope and altruism? Not at all.

It’s also counter to common sense. If characters don’t act like real people then why should I have any investment in anything they do. At that point they’re just cartoon characters to push a ham fisted piece of nihilism. It’s not idealistic to think that people might try to rebuild after the war.

They absolutely do try. And they keep making the mistakes of the past.
There isn't any idealism here. Just struggle.

If I wasn’t taking it seriously then I would have zoned out whenever any character opened their mouths in New Vegas. Instead the developers put quite a lot of philosophy and moral quandaries in. If they didn’t want you to engage with the subject matter as a satire and dark comedy then they wouldn’t bother with doing it. I ve not played Fallout 1 and 2. But if it doesn’t rise beyond laughing at the characters flaying against some fatalist proclaiming that everyone’s doomed then I am sure I d ever have the inclination to.

Honestly you should zone out. New Vegas is hollow, with a handful of NPCs (and few worth remembering), where the failing 'democracy' with a kink towards ethnic cleansing (the Khans) is portrayed as morally equal to the pure self-interested billionaire, and the gang of rapist slavers.

I don’t think Fallout 3, Fallout 4 and even New Vegas remotely mesh with that view. Take New Vegas. Why hasn’t the NCR already collapsed into nothing long ago? They built a functioning state out of the Wasteland which has been around for decades. That’s impressive. The fact they’re too hard themselves and not perfect doesn’t mean we’re all doomed and war never changes. So if the writers were aiming for some kind of nihilist tale that’s meant to challenge my expectations well they sure had a funny way of doing it.

The NCR in New Vegas is shown to be failing, collapsing as it expands, unable to keep up food and production, murdering dissident groups and working prisoners to death. The dam is their last hope of sustaining themselves, as they're willing to do a lot of crap to seize it.

I am not sure why you think “True Fallout” as you put it bears any resemblance to the more recent titles or why it’s a good idea. What you’re describing sounds like a poor and shallow joke.

Not a phrase I used, but the themes are consistent throughout all the fallout games, from 1 to 4, plus tactics and even NV.

Not Online!!! wrote:the issue with fallout 4 however is, that it attempts to emulate the altruism for exemple of Fallout 1s search for the waterchip

There isn't any altruism to the water chip quest. Its pure self-interest and they're willing to sacrifice citizens one by one (with the VD being the current attempt) to get it. Its 100% survival, with no altruism involved. And even if you are successful, you're still sacrificed by the community.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The issue is less that Fallout has not themes of altruism, but rather, that these themes were toed to consequence which made the Argumentation grey at the best of times.

the issue with fallout 4 however is, that it attempts to emulate the altruism for exemple of Fallout 1s search for the waterchip, whilest throwing over established lore AND failing to actually provide an interesting story hook in most cases.

Take F.e. new vegas the initial quest.
You got 3 Options broadly speaking:
join the gangers, join the locals and do what0s right or don't give a gak and walk away with the consequences that entails.

meanwhile in Fallout 4 , ignore preston and he will still be shooting at raiders in concord infact his very existence is in regards to f.e. settlements for 80% irrelevant, and the other one is the castle which just doesn't clean up if you don't have him.

The earlier poster was dismissing the idea that its ever been in a Fallout game at all. Looks at the Minutemen.

To be honest, I ve played New Vegas several times and I never realised that was actually an initial quest. I’d always bee line straight for the Highway. One time wandered into the prison for XP and loot but it’s not heavily telegraphed. So was quite surprised how much this quest comes up in analysis videos of New Vegas.

That’s because Preston is Yesman. You can kill any other faction leader the moment you meet them. Shoot father and you fail Insititie and Railroad quests. Shoot Dance and Brotherhood never sided with you. Also he’s woven into the tutorial and the base building so it’s very much signposted that you’re meant to side with the Minutemen.

Well the consequences are quite significant. The game just doesn’t do the outro spelling stuff out. But let’s say Minutemen win. You’ve got the beginnings of a new state, you’ve destroyed the Institute and the Brotherhood. That’s as consequential as anything you did in New Vegas.

Voss wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


That’s a limitation of the game engine, not a story point. The intent is to stroke your ego and make you a superman who single handedly saves the Wasteland through hard work. You could say the Dragonborn isn’t important because he’s being given quests. That’s being meta and not taking the story as presented. So yes, you’re being very meta to say that the main character doesn’t hold any real power and dismiss the presentation of the game entirely.

It isn't a game engine limitation. Not even vaguely. Its a story that BethSoft didn't tell because they didn't want to tell it- they absolutely could have done more with the factions.
The dragonborn is important to saving the world from Alduin and DLC guy because the dragonborn is the only one who can. The dragonborn doesn't, however, restore the empire or meaningfully fix the skyrim civil war. That's beyond the scope of the story they chose to tell.

It kind of is resetting it if you have the option to convince the Brotherhood to be good and then have them regress in a subsequent game. That’s rinse and repeat.

I don't remember ever convincing the Brotherhood to be 'good.' I remember having to convince/force them to join up in their own self-interest, prior to that point, the Lyons crew was perfectly happy to sit in their fortress and accomplish jack and squat, beyond trying and failing to wipe out super mutants in DC.

Fallout 4 very clearly is about hope and altruism. Many characters talk to you about hope and their optimism about building a better world. You proactively are able to save people all the time. Because, you know, it’s what you physically do when you’re building all those settlements. Even the soundtrack is more upbeat and hopeful. Even Fallout 3 had you save the Capital Wasteland by giving it clean water. It would be nihilistic and stupid to suggest those things wouldn’t matter because some narrator makes some nonsensical proclamation declaring it thus.

Er, no. Its not about 'proclamations' from a narrator. The first random encounter I had in fallout 3 post water cleanup (once you could continue in the game when the DLCs came out) was a guy selling fake 'clean water' (ie, polluted rad water). The game made a point to tell me very little had changed in the way that people behaved. To get to the 'clean water' [which I don't want to go into because I'll nitpick it to death, suffice to say that an open water source in a radioactive wasteland isn't going to stay 'clean' for more than a couple days, and is going to be depleted very quickly], you've got to be very brutal and the next step (Broken Steel) is back to nukes and super weapons.


I'm _completely_ at a loss for FO4 being about hope and altruism. The main character fails at just about every level. You don't get your son back, he dies, and he dies a fairly twisted individual who feels that everyone on the surface should be abandoned to suffer and die. You nuke part of Boston (or become part of the Institute's system) with no chance of bettering anyone's lives, again reiterating the main fallout themes.

Automatron is specifically about good intentions killing large numbers of people
Far Harbor is about a community (actually 3 communities) built on lies and murder
Vault tec is about darkly taking part in the twisted Vault experiments (or ignoring it and playing with the new settlement bits)
Nuka-World is about indulging the player's inner raider. You can subvert it, but mostly by just killing everyone.

Hope and altruism? Not at all.

It’s also counter to common sense. If characters don’t act like real people then why should I have any investment in anything they do. At that point they’re just cartoon characters to push a ham fisted piece of nihilism. It’s not idealistic to think that people might try to rebuild after the war.

They absolutely do try. And they keep making the mistakes of the past.
There isn't any idealism here. Just struggle.

If I wasn’t taking it seriously then I would have zoned out whenever any character opened their mouths in New Vegas. Instead the developers put quite a lot of philosophy and moral quandaries in. If they didn’t want you to engage with the subject matter as a satire and dark comedy then they wouldn’t bother with doing it. I ve not played Fallout 1 and 2. But if it doesn’t rise beyond laughing at the characters flaying against some fatalist proclaiming that everyone’s doomed then I am sure I d ever have the inclination to.

Honestly you should zone out. New Vegas is hollow, with a handful of NPCs (and few worth remembering), where the failing 'democracy' with a kink towards ethnic cleansing (the Khans) is portrayed as morally equal to the pure self-interested billionaire, and the gang of rapist slavers.

I don’t think Fallout 3, Fallout 4 and even New Vegas remotely mesh with that view. Take New Vegas. Why hasn’t the NCR already collapsed into nothing long ago? They built a functioning state out of the Wasteland which has been around for decades. That’s impressive. The fact they’re too hard themselves and not perfect doesn’t mean we’re all doomed and war never changes. So if the writers were aiming for some kind of nihilist tale that’s meant to challenge my expectations well they sure had a funny way of doing it.

The NCR in New Vegas is shown to be failing, collapsing as it expands, unable to keep up food and production, murdering dissident groups and working prisoners to death. The dam is their last hope of sustaining themselves, as they're willing to do a lot of crap to seize it.

I am not sure why you think “True Fallout” as you put it bears any resemblance to the more recent titles or why it’s a good idea. What you’re describing sounds like a poor and shallow joke.

Not a phrase I used, but the themes are consistent throughout all the fallout games, from 1 to 4, plus tactics and even NV.

Not Online!!! wrote:the issue with fallout 4 however is, that it attempts to emulate the altruism for exemple of Fallout 1s search for the waterchip

There isn't any altruism to the water chip quest. Its pure self-interest and they're willing to sacrifice citizens one by one (with the VD being the current attempt) to get it. Its 100% survival, with no altruism involved. And even if you are successful, you're still sacrificed by the community.

You’re saying you actually believe the Minutemen are Bethesda telling a story about how the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Just because you consider the base building and quests the faction does to be unimportant does not mean that’s the intention of the game developers. You are the only individual able to bring together all of these settlements and defend them. Gather them into a force which frees the wasteland from the Brotherhood and Institute. You don’t think as an American that’s intended to echo the War for Independence? I don’t see any evidence of Fallout 4 casting any question mark over the Minutemen.

Because it’s more dramatic if you as the hero are able to win allies to your side. If the Brotherhood was already committed then there’s no drama and conflict. Like when Theodan initially doesn't want to save Gondor and then later in the film you have the big muster the Rohirrim moment.

Because it’s more dramatic if the hero is confronted with a harsh world and thus provide an ego boost when you save everybody? That quest is there to highlight the dire lack of clean water and you go to solve this problem. The path of the righteous should not be easy. Of course you are confronted with difficult problems. But those are things for you to do and resolve. Not proof that the world is beyond saving and that this is the moral of the story.

Your main character saves the wasteland. The cost was losing his son. That’s a personal sacrifice, not failure. In fact it’s you putting the greater good above any personal reasons. It’s intended to be bittersweet that he lost his son to the institute before his quest even began. Plus, you kind of get a robot kid anyway.

It is throwing the baby out with the bath water to infer that the mechanist means you shouldn’t try to make the wasteland a better place. It’s a warning against the dangers of becoming blinded to the truth and straying from the path. Self criticism and advocating for wisdom is not the same thing as advocating nihilism.

In Far Harbour you are presented with complex problems and asked to solve them. Drama. Conflict. Stuff to do.

Nuka World was a power fantasy that was a response to criticism of Fallout 4 forcing you to play a good guy. If you’re role playing the villain then you implicitly are accepting that it’s not the right thing to do and ignoring alternatives.

That’s a very sanitised view of Mr House. The game gives him a fair hearing and he’s certainly shown in a more favourable light than the Legion.

The NCR isn’t perfect. Real life almost never is. Still your view of the NCR is heavily skewed because you’re exposed to far more NCR characters. Because they’re getting stuff done and are actually out there. It has resource problems because of its success in bringing people into the fold and a growing civilisation. These are growing pains. The fact it’s characters have self criticism, conflict and inward reflection is healthy behaviour. Simply blindly believing your way is right like House and Legion is hubris. You’re confusing weakness with humility and ego with strength.

I think we’re at an impasse. I simply don’t see the one dimensional fatalism as you describe it.

Regarding the ongoing FO universe, if the last game fixed the world, there wouldn’t be another game to play, as the conflicts would be resolved.

That’s why stories set in Heaven are boring... but stories set in Hell are exciting. I mean, set the Doom game in (traditional) Heaven. What would he do? Hop from cloud to cloud, searching for Cosmic Harp parts? “Oh look, a caring soul trying to give me a hug”. *Revs Chainsaw* “Lets see if you explode into health and ammo!”

So the same deal applies to FO. You can’t permanently fix the Wasteland, or you break the setting. You need “bad guys” to make situations that the good guys fix. All stories come from the same well, and all that.

Voss, just wanna say, exalted all your stuff on this.

Fallout's not an optimistic, hopeful world. It's horrific, and any "good" and "hope" are to be fleeting and minimal.

I don't think that's the point at all. I see people overcoming adversity. Often making meaningful, positive changes.

The setting / Hero Archetype don't necessarily allow for a happy ending for the protagonist... see every Mad Max movie... but that doesn't mean the Wasteland isn't changed for the better by the hero's actions.

FO New Vegas's storyline with the Nightkin, for example. An ex-Enclave scientist working to cure the Nightkin's Schizophrenia. Yeah, a member of *that* Enclave, helping *those* Super Mutants with *severe* Mental Health Issues. I can't remember "Granny's" name, but she chooses to make a sacrifice, for the good of her people in helping to find a cure.

That's Fallout to me. Heroes making sacrifices for the good of the whole, even if they themselves do not benefit from it. Keep in mind, from one story to the next you need troubles to overcome. If cleaning the water in the Capital Wasteland (FO3) solved the problems of the wastes, what kind of DLC would you have? By virtue of having the game setting, you need conflict to overcome. That's not Grimdark, that's just the cost of having an interesting setting to put your game in.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


The “canon” Brotherhood of Steel is a badly written faction that to quote Mr House “are ridiculous”. By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland. But more to the point the canon is that the Lyons Brotherhood had changed their ways and were a faction of reform. That’s the canon. What you’re calling a return to canon is a retcon because apparently people wanted an edgy Enclave 2.0 faction to work for. Plus Maxims brotherhood is not like the New Vegas brotherhood at all. So I don’t know why you’re spinning this enclave lite interpretation of the Brotherhood as the canon.

Eh, I'd regard Fallout 4s version of the Brotherhood of Steel as a foreseeable evolution of the Brotherhood from Fallout 3.

The BoS in Fallout 3 changed their goals due to the charismatic leadership of their Elder. Lyons took the BoS and removed their isolationist tendency, which worked for the better of the people of the wasteland when he was in charge. But there was no guarantee that his successor would have the same view of how to best "help" the wasteland. And this came to be with Maxson. He combined the interventionist tendencies of Lyons with the harsh Brotherhood-first views of the western BoS chapters. This effectively made them a much more dangerous threat than any previous incarnation of the BoS as they were no longer bound by sitting in their bunkers and snatching technology, they were a full on war machine with the firepower and mobility to reach out and strike at targets.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:


The “canon” Brotherhood of Steel is a badly written faction that to quote Mr House “are ridiculous”. By canon what you mean is resetting the Brotherhood every game so they can rehash the same plot line of isolationism vs helping the wasteland. But more to the point the canon is that the Lyons Brotherhood had changed their ways and were a faction of reform. That’s the canon. What you’re calling a return to canon is a retcon because apparently people wanted an edgy Enclave 2.0 faction to work for. Plus Maxims brotherhood is not like the New Vegas brotherhood at all. So I don’t know why you’re spinning this enclave lite interpretation of the Brotherhood as the canon.

Eh, I'd regard Fallout 4s version of the Brotherhood of Steel as a foreseeable evolution of the Brotherhood from Fallout 3.

The BoS in Fallout 3 changed their goals due to the charismatic leadership of their Elder. Lyons took the BoS and removed their isolationist tendency, which worked for the better of the people of the wasteland when he was in charge. But there was no guarantee that his successor would have the same view of how to best "help" the wasteland. And this came to be with Maxson. He combined the interventionist tendencies of Lyons with the harsh Brotherhood-first views of the western BoS chapters. This effectively made them a much more dangerous threat than any previous incarnation of the BoS as they were no longer bound by sitting in their bunkers and snatching technology, they were a full on war machine with the firepower and mobility to reach out and strike at targets.

They’re the Enclave lite not because they have a Brotherhood first attitude or just about amassing power or representing a militarised society as a solution for the Wastelands problems. They’re like the Enclave because they suddenly have developed this idea of purging the wasteland of “abominations”. Vast tracts of dialogue and quests are framed around this issue. There’s no logical link with the Brotherhood from Fallout 3 or New Vegas. That’s purely something associated with the Enclave. The Brotherhood had no more or less issues with ghouls, synths and Mutants than your average wastelands. In fact there’s very little discussion of the issue with Maxson being authoritarian. Far more emphasis is put on the racism and bigotry of the faction. Its really not a natural evolution of where we left the Brotherhood at the end of Fallout 3.

Why wouldn’t there be an equal counter movement within the Brotherhood against Maxson? He very much sells himself as having changed direction with Lyons Brotherhood and it’s not realistic that every member would be of one mind from such a recent change.

The brotherhood in 3 was about that, too. Prior to the arrival of the Enclave they were engaged in a protracted war against the super mutants and the ghouls of Underworld also mention brotherhood soldiers shooting at them.

As for pushback against Maxson? He inherited the role from a succession of failed leaders after Lyons death. He fixed the schism with the outcasts, united with other chapters and made the BoS a regional powerhouse on the east coast. And he is the descendant of the founder of the Brotherhood of Steel.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:

You’re saying you actually believe the Minutemen are Bethesda telling a story about how the road to hell is paved with good intentions? Just because you consider the base building and quests the faction does to be unimportant does not mean that’s the intention of the game developers. You are the only individual able to bring together all of these settlements and defend them. Gather them into a force which frees the wasteland from the Brotherhood and Institute. You don’t think as an American that’s intended to echo the War for Independence? I don’t see any evidence of Fallout 4 casting any question mark over the Minutemen.

I see lots of question marks. They gave up and went home. Faced with a string of defeats the Minutemen collectively said 'screw it' and left. Preston is presented as the 'last' Minuteman (which turns out to be... not particularly true, but whatever). He relies on you to get everything up and running again. At which point you're a Cult of Personality figure, and if you wander off or get killed, they'll almost certainly fall apart again.

Its not the basebuilding and radiant questing that raises my eyebrows. Its that the developers intentionally don't go anywhere with the story. The Minutemen are not the foundation of a new nation. There is zero to indicate that, beyond that its something they utterly failed at before. They're a militia that (belatedly) responds to threats- that's all they are.

I do see an echo of the War for Independence. Its a sardonic one, though, as the audio playback in the Museum of Freedom illustrates. Fallout's America is not a good and noble place. Its a nasty den of corruption and oppression hidden (slightly) by buzzwords and propaganda.

The game sets up the Minutemen as the 'neutrals.' They don't have any stake in the main quest and don't care about it unless you force it. They don't care about the Brotherhood or the Railroad unless you personally drag them into a bloody war of extermination. They don't even care about the Institute if you pass a simple dialogue check.

Because it’s more dramatic if the hero is confronted with a harsh world and thus provide an ego boost when you save everybody? That quest is there to highlight the dire lack of clean water and you go to solve this problem. The path of the righteous should not be easy. Of course you are confronted with difficult problems. But those are things for you to do and resolve. Not proof that the world is beyond saving and that this is the moral of the story.

Yep. You've got problems to solve. But its the path of the survivor, not the path of the righteous. Its mud and blood, doing what's necessary and doing what works.

Your main character saves the wasteland. The cost was losing his son. That’s a personal sacrifice, not failure. In fact it’s you putting the greater good above any personal reasons. It’s intended to be bittersweet that he lost his son to the institute before his quest even began. Plus, you kind of get a robot kid anyway.

First, eww. 'Hey, your kid is dead, here's a robot copy, its all fine' is pretty squicky sentiment.
Further, the character's son was a loss, not a sacrifice. Personal sacrifice implies a choice- everything that matters in this regard was all done while the PC slept, and that you woke up at all was Shawn's closure for himself.

Second, there is no 'saving the wasteland' here. That's never a stake, and that's nothing the game has you do. You have a very personal journey and purpose, and you will (if you just don't say screw this noise and stop pursuing the main plot) get dragged into somebody else's very nasty war, where you re-enact the apocalypse on a local scale. That's the theme. That's the message. You actually help set back redevelopment of the Wasteland and destroy a lot of helpful science and technology and an unknown number of human lives in the process.

The Institute's goals are to abandon the surface entirely. The Wasteland doesn't need saving from them. Their actual plan is to get enough power and then seal themselves off and interact with nobody topside ever again.

It is throwing the baby out with the bath water to infer that the mechanist means you shouldn’t try to make the wasteland a better place. It’s a warning against the dangers of becoming blinded to the truth and straying from the path. Self criticism and advocating for wisdom is not the same thing as advocating nihilism.

Again, there is no 'path' here. The mechanist is an echo of the player's bodycount. The mechanist's reaction to you is supposed to make you reflect on the swathe _you_ are cutting through the world.
And yes, Fallout does advocate nihilism. But... not the edgy teenager kind. The kind that says this is all you've got so you absolutely must make the best of it, because the universe is not going to care about you, you must.

In Far Harbour you are presented with complex problems and asked to solve them. Drama. Conflict. Stuff to do.

Yep. Make compromises, get your hands dirty, and be selective with the truth or cause a lot of misery and death.

Nuka World was a power fantasy that was a response to criticism of Fallout 4 forcing you to play a good guy. If you’re role playing the villain then you implicitly are accepting that it’s not the right thing to do and ignoring alternatives.

NW was in development long before any criticism. Its a pure playground.

That’s a very sanitised view of Mr House. The game gives him a fair hearing and he’s certainly shown in a more favourable light than the Legion.

That isn't sanitized at all. House is villain, pure and simple. A dead thing still somehow obsessed with his own personal power and wealth when none of that even matters any more.

The NCR isn’t perfect. Real life almost never is. Still your view of the NCR is heavily skewed because you’re exposed to far more NCR characters. Because they’re getting stuff done and are actually out there. It has resource problems because of its success in bringing people into the fold and a growing civilisation. These are growing pains. The fact it’s characters have self criticism, conflict and inward reflection is healthy behaviour. Simply blindly believing your way is right like House and Legion is hubris. You’re confusing weakness with humility and ego with strength.

I'm honestly confused by this bit. Most of the NCR has no inward reflection or self awareness. They DO think they're right- there's no humility or strength there. Just tattered pride and strength long bled out.
It has resource problems because of its failures in dealing with other groups inside its expanded borders, not because of success.
'Not perfect' is missing the mark entirely.

@Voss

Go watch some of Oxhorns lore videos breaking the factions down. He might reply to your comments on the matter. Particularly the NCR and Minutemen. I am paraphrasing here, perhaps something’s being lost in translation. You’re better off going to the source. I’ve got an army of Sisters of Battle to paint and I don’t need more distractions.

It’s very far away from this topic to discuss nihilism in stories and whether that constitutes good writing. I think we have very different tastes and opinions on this. Nothing is achieved by going over this.

Back to the actual topic. It would be an amazing story to have you depose Maxson. This gives the character more agency and choice. Removing this option limits player choice. Allows you to reflect and act on your conflict over Paladin Dance; making the moral conflict mean something. You have a climactic showdown with an individual presented as a villain from the moment you meet him. You get the ego boost of becoming Elder of the Brotherhood. I am only seeing a win here. Cutting that content reduced all that for no tangible benefit or improvement to the story. In fact given how much they beat you over the head with how evil Maxson is and the tension with the Brotherhood it’s likely that this was meant to be a central part of the story and cutting it leaves the story unfinished and unsatisfying.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
@Voss

Go watch some of Oxhorns lore videos breaking the factions down. He might reply to your comments on the matter. Particularly the NCR and Minutemen. I am paraphrasing here, perhaps something’s being lost in translation. You’re better off going to the source. I’ve got an army of Sisters of Battle to paint and I don’t need more distractions.

It’s very far away from this topic to discuss nihilism in stories and whether that constitutes good writing. I think we have very different tastes and opinions on this. Nothing is achieved by going over this.

Back to the actual topic. It would be an amazing story to have you depose Maxson. This gives the character more agency and choice. Removing this option limits player choice. Allows you to reflect and act on your conflict over Paladin Dance; making the moral conflict mean something. You have a climactic showdown with an individual presented as a villain from the moment you meet him. You get the ego boost of becoming Elder of the Brotherhood. I am only seeing a win here. Cutting that content reduced all that for no tangible benefit or improvement to the story. In fact given how much they beat you over the head with how evil Maxson is and the tension with the Brotherhood it’s likely that this was meant to be a central part of the story and cutting it leaves the story unfinished and unsatisfying.

I dunno, seems kinda lazy of you to have Voss look for vague Youtube videos that argue your point on your behalf without any links at all and saying "you don't need anymore distractions" when you're the one who even made this thread to begin with. The least you could do is rebuttle his points when you're on a forum instead of just handwaving it away as if you're in the right. It's not even off topic since the discussion of nihilism (which isn't really one of his main focuses tbh) is directly tied to how the Fallout setting and the depiction of the BoS is presented in the game.

With regards to the in-game option of challenging Maxson being cut, I feel like that it's really superfluous and doesn't really change anything in the storyline, and if anything looks like fan-fictiony self-insert power fantasy (then again you are looking for the ego boost based on what you're saying, in that case I'd suggest playing a different type of RPG). It doesn't really give you agency and choice IMO because that's at the very end of the game and it doesn't alter what the brotherhood does or acts in any of the other storylines outside of not offing Danse. I've said this earlier, but it makes even less sense within the context of BoS lore that you would even be able to challenge Maxson when he not only has more legitimacy based on his bloodline, but just also seniority and rank. It's like if a modern day sergeant challenges a 5 star general to a duel to take command of the US military. He'd be laughed out before he gets court martialed and dishonorably discharged for insubordination. The BoS are following Maxson's lead to a T, so even in the off-chance Maxson holds the idiot ball, loses AND follows through with the results of the duel, I can't see the BoS not splitting or outright refusing to follow you, an outsider who only came in like a few months ago, compared to a guy who's been raised by the Brotherhood and led them into a renewed fighting force.

If you're just looking for people to agree with you saying you want a power fantasy of taking over the BoS because you think their lore background sucks, when why even make this thread at all?

I think being able to fundamentally alter the course of major factions is central to “good” Fallout games. It doesn’t need to be a case of taking over. Much like New Vegas, you could oust the current leader in favour of a leader better aligned to your own sentiments.

I don’t remember much of the Brotherhood from FO 4, but having a subordinate have misgivings about Maxon, and providing a way to move them to a position of power wouldn’t be a stretch of any sort for a FO game. It’s been done before.

 greatbigtree wrote:
I think being able to fundamentally alter the course of major factions is central to “good” Fallout games. It doesn’t need to be a case of taking over. Much like New Vegas, you could oust the current leader in favour of a leader better aligned to your own sentiments.

I don’t remember much of the Brotherhood from FO 4, but having a subordinate have misgivings about Maxon, and providing a way to move them to a position of power wouldn’t be a stretch of any sort for a FO game. It’s been done before.

I'd be fine if you helped in a coup with the BoS, because you could already do that in New Vegas by ousting Elder McNamara with Head Paladin Hardin. The key difference was that there was a very real crisis with existing power issues in the Mohave Chapter since McNamara only recently came to power after Elijah ditched the BoS Mohave Chapter to go to the Sierra Madre. Furthermore, the BoS Paladin faction under Hardin chafed under the isolationist stance he took after suffering such a humiliating defeat at Helios One. McNamara not only didn't have the charisma and full support that Maxson had, but they were also in a very dangerous situation of being on the losing side of the war against the NCR, meaning there was enough internal conflict for Hardin to pull off his coup, unlike the BoS under Maxson where they have the leverage and firepower to wage a war on equal terms in the Commonwealth. Also note that only a high ranking and long-term member of the BoS was able to pull off the coup, so the OP wanting the main character to pull it off himself is really unrealistic.

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
@Voss

Go watch some of Oxhorns lore videos breaking the factions down. He might reply to your comments on the matter. Particularly the NCR and Minutemen. I am paraphrasing here, perhaps something’s being lost in translation. You’re better off going to the source. I’ve got an army of Sisters of Battle to paint and I don’t need more distractions.

...ok? No idea who Oxhorn is, but some guy's youtube videos aren't 'the source' to me. I'd rather deal with what's in the game.

It’s very far away from this topic to discuss nihilism in stories and whether that constitutes good writing. I think we have very different tastes and opinions on this. Nothing is achieved by going over this.

Nihilism is pretty central to the Fallout story, so I definitely disagree there. And on principle the idea that nothing is achieved by discussion is pretty weird.

As for good writing, not sure who advocated that, but it definitely wasn't me. I think FO4 has tighter and more coherent story than most BethSoft games (which tend toward terrible, with paper-thin characters), but it is still pretty light, and is much more of an action/exploration game than an RPG, and the story set up reflects that. It achieves this in part by discarding 'Epic Adventure!!! Save the World!!!' from its vocabulary and focuses on the personal story, and at least trying to get you invested in the characters.

Back to the actual topic. It would be an amazing story to have you depose Maxson. This gives the character more agency and choice. Removing this option limits player choice. Allows you to reflect and act on your conflict over Paladin Dance; making the moral conflict mean something. You have a climactic showdown with an individual presented as a villain from the moment you meet him. You get the ego boost of becoming Elder of the Brotherhood. I am only seeing a win here. Cutting that content reduced all that for no tangible benefit or improvement to the story. In fact given how much they beat you over the head with how evil Maxson is and the tension with the Brotherhood it’s likely that this was meant to be a central part of the story and cutting it leaves the story unfinished and unsatisfying.

I also disagree with this. Your character's story is very definitely finished in FO4. You have one major motivation and no other ties, and it gets completely resolved (though perhaps in an unpleasant or unsatisfying way, especially with how many unexplored areas are left on the map). The direction they should have gone is more subplots with the companions, but they pretty much neglect everyone but Valentine.

That you can't just knock over the king and pop on his crown adds a lot to FO4. Its a lot tighter and deeper in this regard than Skyrim, which lets you put on every single available leader hat at no cost and with no meaning.
I also think that reducing him to just 'an evil villain' (and I'm not even sure why you're insisting he is one) does more to knock the story than anything BethSoft did. His motivations are coherent and consistent, and in keeping with his history and congruent with the majority of his people, and the war he prosecutes is entirely justified by Brotherhood principles- the Institute is very clearly using (and abusing) very advanced tech.

I can sort of see objecting to his treatment of Danse, despite the fact that he's absolutely correct, but that still isn't a reason for the PC to get to be the Big Cheese of the Brotherhood.

If it were important to the personal story of the character and the themes FO4 puts out, I could see a reason for it (if done well), but doing for its own sake seems way out of alignment with the game and its direction.
The Brotherhood is very much an outside force to Commonwealth, and the conflict you get caught up in barely even touches the real settlements of Boston. Bunker Hill only gets caught in the crossfire of someone else's war, and Diamond City is never even vaguely threatened over the course of the game. The BoS has no real interest in historical markers and baseball stadiums or minor farms. With not!MIT in a fresh nuclear crater, they'll likely strip a few other sites and move on. Depending on how much any given character interacts with them, you might not even wave goodbye. [I know I hated Danse and his attitude on my first playthrough and actively avoided the BoS, and came back to them in later runs only out of a sense of completion. From a roleplaying perspective, my first character considered him a hypocritical idiot, who had no idea at all about the old world he was so eager to condemn. All she wanted was to find her kid, not coddle a pack of gun-toting lunatics]

Voss wrote:

 Totalwar1402 wrote:
@Voss

Go watch some of Oxhorns lore videos breaking the factions down. He might reply to your comments on the matter. Particularly the NCR and Minutemen. I am paraphrasing here, perhaps something’s being lost in translation. You’re better off going to the source. I’ve got an army of Sisters of Battle to paint and I don’t need more distractions.

...ok? No idea who Oxhorn is, but some guy's youtube videos aren't 'the source' to me. I'd rather deal with what's in the game.

It’s very far away from this topic to discuss nihilism in stories and whether that constitutes good writing. I think we have very different tastes and opinions on this. Nothing is achieved by going over this.

Nihilism is pretty central to the Fallout story, so I definitely disagree there. And on principle the idea that nothing is achieved by discussion is pretty weird.

As for good writing, not sure who advocated that, but it definitely wasn't me. I think FO4 has tighter and more coherent story than most BethSoft games (which tend toward terrible, with paper-thin characters), but it is still pretty light, and is much more of an action/exploration game than an RPG, and the story set up reflects that. It achieves this in part by discarding 'Epic Adventure!!! Save the World!!!' from its vocabulary and focuses on the personal story, and at least trying to get you invested in the characters.

Back to the actual topic. It would be an amazing story to have you depose Maxson. This gives the character more agency and choice. Removing this option limits player choice. Allows you to reflect and act on your conflict over Paladin Dance; making the moral conflict mean something. You have a climactic showdown with an individual presented as a villain from the moment you meet him. You get the ego boost of becoming Elder of the Brotherhood. I am only seeing a win here. Cutting that content reduced all that for no tangible benefit or improvement to the story. In fact given how much they beat you over the head with how evil Maxson is and the tension with the Brotherhood it’s likely that this was meant to be a central part of the story and cutting it leaves the story unfinished and unsatisfying.

I also disagree with this. Your character's story is very definitely finished in FO4. You have one major motivation and no other ties, and it gets completely resolved (though perhaps in an unpleasant or unsatisfying way, especially with how many unexplored areas are left on the map). The direction they should have gone is more subplots with the companions, but they pretty much neglect everyone but Valentine.

That you can't just knock over the king and pop on his crown adds a lot to FO4. Its a lot tighter and deeper in this regard than Skyrim, which lets you put on every single available leader hat at no cost and with no meaning.
I also think that reducing him to just 'an evil villain' (and I'm not even sure why you're insisting he is one) does more to knock the story than anything BethSoft did. His motivations are coherent and consistent, and in keeping with his history and congruent with the majority of his people, and the war he prosecutes is entirely justified by Brotherhood principles- the Institute is very clearly using (and abusing) very advanced tech.

I can sort of see objecting to his treatment of Danse, despite the fact that he's absolutely correct, but that still isn't a reason for the PC to get to be the Big Cheese of the Brotherhood.

If it were important to the personal story of the character and the themes FO4 puts out, I could see a reason for it (if done well), but doing for its own sake seems way out of alignment with the game and its direction.
The Brotherhood is very much an outside force to Commonwealth, and the conflict you get caught up in barely even touches the real settlements of Boston. Bunker Hill only gets caught in the crossfire of someone else's war, and Diamond City is never even vaguely threatened over the course of the game. The BoS has no real interest in historical markers and baseball stadiums or minor farms. With not!MIT in a fresh nuclear crater, they'll likely strip a few other sites and move on. Depending on how much any given character interacts with them, you might not even wave goodbye. [I know I hated Danse and his attitude on my first playthrough and actively avoided the BoS, and came back to them in later runs only out of a sense of completion. From a roleplaying perspective, my first character considered him a hypocritical idiot, who had no idea at all about the old world he was so eager to condemn. All she wanted was to find her kid, not coddle a pack of gun-toting lunatics]

Considering he has 1.41 million subscribers yes I’d consider his opinion worth a watch. But he’s far from the only person who spells out the Brotherhood being evil and the Minutemen being the good guy faction.

Given that you’ve already veered into “Maxson did nothing wrong” territory I am done with talking to you.

Ummmmmm, okay. You could at least concede the point then, just because a channel has a high subscriber count doesn't mean anything since a fair bit of those could be bots, or they could just be doing a lot of clickbait or have a very braindead demographic. That's like saying Logan Paul's opinion matters because he has followers.

Appeal to authority (especially via some random youruber) is not the basis to ignore all the points someone has made simply because you disagree with them.