Fallout 4's new DLCs a bit lore-unfriendly?

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

I don't know about optimistic. The Followers of the Apocalypse most certainly embody everything good about mankind, but they are relatively weak, and most of those who managed to survive (and even thrive) post-nuclear fallout did it at the price of moral integrity. Vault City is inhabited by a bunch of closed-minded elitist borderline racist snobs, Junktown is a corrupt hole and trying to restore order to it only worsens the situation in the epilogue, the technocratic BoS are a bunch of murderous xenophobic shitheads, and even Shady Sands later turns into a bureaucratic mess bound to repeat the mistakes of old... and that's without talking about the Hubologists and the mutants.

While humanity stayed physically strong in face of the apocalypse, morals generally went to shit everywhere. (Not that the old world was perfect, they were also shitheads, as the Enclave in 2 can show us)

Vault City is in Fallout 2. And helping Killian restore order gives Junktown its' best ending, where it prospers as a fair and safe trading town (though the Fallout Bible says it was meant to be the other way around before Interplay overruled BI). Fallout goes by the premise that war never changes and that humanity stays the same, so all the flaws humanity had prior to the war remains after the war. But for all of them, humanity survives and even thrives. Fallout never takes a moralistic standpoint on humanity, but the game is absolutely riddled with amazement at how quickly humanity can adapt, even to the end of the world and what comes after.

 

[Sonmi]

Vault City is in Fallout 2. And helping Killian restore order gives Junktown its' best ending, where it prospers as a fair and safe trading town (though the Fallout Bible says it was meant to be the other way around before Interplay overruled BI). Fallout goes by the premise that war never changes and that humanity stays the same, so all the flaws humanity had prior to the war remains after the war. But for all of them, humanity survives and even thrives. Fallout never takes a moralistic standpoint on humanity, but the game is absolutely riddled with amazement at how quickly humanity can adapt, even to the end of the world and what comes after.

(Shit, should have remembered that the reason why you go to Vault City is to get a GECK, my bad)

And I don't know man, while humanity definitively survives in the post-nuclear world, is it really a good thing if the morally corrupt are the ones making the most of it? I'm not sure the series refuses to take a moralistic approach either, they clearly mean the Followers of the Apocalypse to be paragons of virtue, and what people should strive to be like.

And yet, the Followers struggle while other morally corrupt factions prosper.

While it shows a gleam of hope for the future, I think the overall picture we're left with is rather glum.

 

[direkiller]

Vault City is in Fallout 2. And helping Killian restore order gives Junktown its' best ending, where it prospers as a fair and safe trading town (though the Fallout Bible says it was meant to be the other way around before Interplay overruled BI). Fallout goes by the premise that war never changes and that humanity stays the same, so all the flaws humanity had prior to the war remains after the war. But for all of them, humanity survives and even thrives. Fallout never takes a moralistic standpoint on humanity, but the game is absolutely riddled with amazement at how quickly humanity can adapt, even to the end of the world and what comes after.

(Shit, should have remembered that the reason why you go to Vault City is to get a GECK, my bad)

And I don't know man, while humanity definitively survives in the post-nuclear world, is it really a good thing if the morally corrupt are the ones making the most of it? I'm not sure the series refuses to take a moralistic approach either, they clearly mean the Followers of the Apocalypse to be paragons of virtue, and what people should strive to be like.

And yet, the Followers struggle while other morally corrupt factions prosper.

While it shows a gleam of hope for the future, I think the overall picture we're left with is rather glum.

Followers seem to prosper long term. As most of there opponents(in ideals if anything) are outright dead with the Children of the Cathedral, in shambles like the Enclave, or in a state of decline like the BOS. Where the FOTA have only gained power over that period.

 

[Callate]

Limited weather modification is already an existing real-world thing. Article Wikipedia. (TLDR: governments of countries like China and Russia have used cloud seeding to minimize the likelihood of rain or overcast skies over events important to morale/PR/propaganda, such as the Olympics and Putin's V-Day parade.) Admittedly such treatments currently require aircraft and the effects are far from instantaneous, but it isn't that much of a stretch to envision cloud dispersion through a mortar in a world that already has hand-held plasma and laser weaponry, immortal mutants, and nuclear-powered cars.

 

[TheMigrantSoldier]

Weather modification exists and so does the Vault City (and GECK). It also isn't hard to imagine industry kicking in 200 years after the bang (from what we've seen in New Vegas).

If you want lore-breaking, see Mothership Zeta.

 

[pookie101]

Weather modification exists and so does the Vault City (and GECK). It also isn't hard to imagine industry kicking in 200 years after the bang (from what we've seen in New Vegas).

If you want lore-breaking, see Mothership Zeta.

just because the other games had story dlc it doesnt mean it was actually any good.. mothership zeta and operation anchorage for example. heck new vegas came with a bunch of non story dlc and i didnt see people complaining about that as much

 

[Gennadios]

I let go of any attachments to lore at Fallout 3. Bethesda just doesn't have the writing chops or attention to detail that Interplay/Black Isle/Obsidian had.

F4 probably has the weakest writing of any BethSoft game to date, but it kind of works as a self-parody now. The new DLCs work if you see F4 as an inadequate and kind of shitty sandbox building game, and that's good enough for me until a legit animated sex mod comes out.

 

[Kyrian007]

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens. That explains every single "lore unfriendly" problem I've ever heard spoken about the Fallout franchise ever. I see every complaint of this type as "here's another overly-critical fanboy whining about something unimportant as opposed to just enjoying Fallout."

Or any other piece of fictional media where folks whine about "plot holes" or "internal consistency."

 

[Dalisclock]

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens.

Or any other piece of fictional media where folks whine about "plot holes" or "internal consistency."

And this attitude is where terrible writing comes from.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

Is this someone local or did you browse NMA at some point? Truth be told, Fallout does run to a certain consistancy, but then this also includes a certain lampshade-hanging on its own product by making references to its own shortcomings and inserting them into its tongue-and-cheek humor. For instance, the Cafe of Broken Dreams in Fallout 2 has no actual connection to the world in reality, but more to its self-referential humor, and yet because that humor is part of the universe, you just sort of go with it. The truth is that there is a lore, but it's a fourth-wall-breaker and we love it just the same. Some complainers ARE whiners, most definitely. But a lore? Yeah, it's there. About as much as Doctor Who has a lore.

 

[DoPo]

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens.

Then what is the reason for plot? You claim it's irrelevant, so why have it in the first place? Clearly there is some link missing here in the chain

We have plot -> it does not make sense -> doesn't matter, we have plot

This looks like a circular logic there.

 

[Sonmi]

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens. That explains every single "lore unfriendly" problem I've ever heard spoken about the Fallout franchise ever. I see every complaint of this type as "here's another overly-critical fanboy whining about something unimportant as opposed to just enjoying Fallout."

Or any other piece of fictional media where folks whine about "plot holes" or "internal consistency."

Therefore, writers should never be held to any standards of consistency?

Hell no, that's a terrible, terrible attitude, man.

 

[ZeD [taken 0]]

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens. That explains every single "lore unfriendly" problem I've ever heard spoken about the Fallout franchise ever. I see every complaint of this type as "here's another overly-critical fanboy whining about something unimportant as opposed to just enjoying Fallout."

Or any other piece of fictional media where folks whine about "plot holes" or "internal consistency."

The writers also chose to establish the rules of that particular universe.
If they suddenly decide to break those rules for no reason, it's bad writing.

"here's another overly-critical fanboy whining about something unimportant as opposed to just enjoying Fallout"

But that "fanboy" clearly doesn't have the same definition of what Fallout is as you.

I'm happy for you that you're so unaffected by things like this, but you're likely in the minority.

 

[Kyrian007]

snip

Therefore, writers should never be held to any standards of consistency?

Hell no, that's a terrible, terrible attitude, man.

This isn't just a response to you by the way, but pretty much everyone who responded to me.

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens.

Or any other piece of fictional media where folks whine about "plot holes" or "internal consistency."

And this attitude is where terrible writing comes from.

like this

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens.

Then what is the reason for plot? You claim it's irrelevant, so why have it in the first place? Clearly there is some link missing here in the chain

We have plot -> it does not make sense -> doesn't matter, we have plot

This looks like a circular logic there.

or this one.

The only thing anyone really demands of an item of entertainment media is consistency of QUALITY. Sure there are really good examples of a story that goes off of established rails and crashes and burns. But in just about every instance anyone has ever quoted me of that, that story was lacking in many other ways than just "derrr PLOT HOLE" or "internal consistency." Meanwhile, there are many examples of MUCH LOVED items of entertainment media in which "plot holes" and "internal consistency errors" are numerous. But because of the QUALITY they are nearly completely forgiven.

It just has always seemed to me that nitpicking so-called "plot holes," crying about (and not understanding what really constitutes as) continuity errors, and saying that FICTION (again things that are MAKE BELIEVE) for some stupid reason needs to be "internally consistent" is just pointless. There are dozens, maybe hundreds of factors that are more important in determining if a work of fiction is any good. A good story CAN explain away any "plot hole." But if it's a good story, maybe it won't... that doesn't make it any less a GOOD story. It can be done on purpose... (just one example) it's called a dangling thread. The inconsistency sticks out in the viewer, reader, player's (whatever) mind. Its designed to draw attention. Maybe toward something important in the story. Maybe away from something that will surprise us later. The point is, when stuff like that works... nobody cares that it was "internally inconsistent." Even people who usually whine about "plot holes" and "internal consistency" WILL ignore and/or rationalize examples of such in media that they like.

Such "problems" with a story (game, book or movie) is just someone reaching for something to hate. They can't find rational examples of actual problems... so they just nitpick the unimportant to justify their hate.

 

[DoPo]

-snip-

You are wrong.

There isn't much else to say here.

 

[Kyrian007]

-snip-

You are wrong.

There isn't much else to say here.

Well reasoned.

Which one were you? Let me look.

Never really saw the issue with lore in Fallout. It is a work of fiction. In fiction things happen because the creators of that fiction SAY it happens.

Then what is the reason for plot? You claim it's irrelevant, so why have it in the first place? Clearly there is some link missing here in the chain

We have plot -> it does not make sense -> doesn't matter, we have plot

This looks like a circular logic there.

Oh ok the strawman guy. Right. Well, nowhere did I say that plot didn't matter. Looks like your whole argument was based upon a false premise. "Plot holes" don't exist in fiction. Nowhere did I say plot wasn't relevant.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

I don't think you actually read anything we said, so to your broad strokes reply I shrug indifferently, as you're not really countering me.

 

[Gethsemani_v1legacy]

The only thing anyone really demands of an item of entertainment media is consistency of QUALITY. Sure there are really good examples of a story that goes off of established rails and crashes and burns. But in just about every instance anyone has ever quoted me of that, that story was lacking in many other ways than just "derrr PLOT HOLE" or "internal consistency." Meanwhile, there are many examples of MUCH LOVED items of entertainment media in which "plot holes" and "internal consistency errors" are numerous. But because of the QUALITY they are nearly completely forgiven.

Sure, good writing, excellent acting and emotional hooks can make the audience forgive the occasional slip up in internal consistency or sudden ass-pull on behalf of the writers (the eagles at the end of Return of the King, anyone?), but internal consistency is very much a hallmark of quality.

You can't get good quality if the internal consistency isn't there, simply because people will notice that the "laws" of the fiction seems to change all the time. A good writer can handwave it (No one seems to mind that Fallout 2 decided that the Vaults were actually social experiments), but when too much keeps changing it severely detracts from the quality for many people. This is especially egregious if the work in question is trying hard with world building.

Just imagine Lord of the Rings if the writers couldn't decide if Frodo was actually having trouble staving off the Ring's influence, for example. Every other scene has him talking about what a burden it is only for the next scene have him shrug it off with a spiffy one-liner ("Not as heavy as your MOM, Sam"). Some might accept it, but a lot of people would probably get confused.
Or imagine Star Wars if the Force Awakens had suddenly decided that the Force wasn't real and that the Jedi were all mentally ill for believing they had magic powers. How many fans would have received that change well?
Or how about if George RR Martin decides to "reveal" that Jamie Lannister is actually NOT a true Lannister, but rather Aegon's step-brother and have a dragon show up to be Jamie's best-friend? Meanwhile, the Night's Watch has a change of heart, gives up their vigil and goes to Braavos to have a drunken slay out?

Such "problems" with a story (game, book or movie) is just someone reaching for something to hate. They can't find rational examples of actual problems... so they just nitpick the unimportant to justify their hate.

Maybe. Or maybe people have legitimate issues with changes to the established lore of the fiction they like. Especially if it is fiction that either prides itself on its' internal consistency and logic or fiction that roots itself in reality. I don't think anyone cares about the internal consistency of Sharknado, since it is explicitly meant to be over the top and zany, but a lot of people care about the internal consistency of Game of Thrones. If Arya suddenly sprouts wings and flies, while Tyrion is treated as a super-handsome sex magnet, people are bound to be upset because it clearly violates everything that has been established earlier.

Hence, when Bethesda decides to "keep" elements of Fallout that were explicitly tied to specific places (deserts, super mutants, radscorpions, deathclaws) while moving the location to the other side of the continent, some people are bound to be upset because Bethesda doesn't care for the lore.

 

[Kyrian007]

Snip

I don't think you actually read anything we said, so to your broad strokes reply I shrug indifferently, as you're not really countering me.

I didn't try to counter you Jack, I don't really think you said anything I seriously disagreed with. I guess I should have said earlier "most" of the responses to me. Your first post in this thread was one of the more well reasoned ones. And as for your response to me, I think you have a valid point and the self-referential humor (whether to Fallout its inspirations or just the genre or gaming in general) is a reason I like Fallout. Yeah, maybe "lore" is a little strong when talking about the storyline of something as crazy as Fallout. And I understand why people take it seriously... like me they LOVE Fallout.

What I disagree with is the haters. "FO 4 and 3 sux... NV is the REAL FO3" and such. And the justifications people make to try and rationalize that hate, its just bizarre to me. "There shouldn't BE super mutants on the east coast" "Why is DC in ruin still?" And 3 (and 4) fanboys have their sticking points as to why they are "superior" to NV. And so on, and 1 and 2... and its all over the most trivial of things that don't matter.

And I have larger issues with the ideas of "plot holes" and "internal consistency" that expand beyond just Fallout. Fallout was just a decent example at that point. I guess what I'm saying is if a game is as good as Fallout (pick one) I'm not going to think any less of it because of "x" storypoint in game "a" doesn't line up exactly with "y" storypoint in game "b." I'll give the creators the benefit of the doubt (whether it's Bethesda, Interplay, or Obsidian or whoever) as long as the work is quality.