Fallout Talk - Did Bethesda Ruin The Fallout Aesthetic and Atmopshere
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 лип 2024
- The Fallout series has changed developmental hands multiple times, resulting in a variety of different interpretation of its various elements. Naturally, one of the things subjected to this change is the presentation in regards to its atmosphere and aesthetics. Did Bethesda Ruin this?
0:00 Introduction
1:21 Wastelands and Settlers
12:29 Humor
14:00 Design Decisions
17:23 Conclusion
If you want to join my channel membership:
/ @gamestwiceover
/ discord
gamestwiceover@gmail.com - Ігри
Any suggestions for the Did Bethesda Ruin series?
discord.com/invite/ac3FtEKuGa
gamestwiceover@gmail.com
What about a "Did Bethesda ruin weapons" video? Something that discusses the differences in weapons from various games. Whereas Fallout 1 & 2 focused somewhat evenly on realistic weapons and completely new designs, Bethesda have developed more and more new weapons, especially in 4. Sure, there are some egregious guns that have come out of this (looking at you F4 assault rifle), but has creating alternate weapons for an alternate timeline improved or ruined the series overall?
Could also discuss the various changes to energy weapons like you highlighted with the plasma caster and whether they are similarly good or bad.
@@toxicice5251 I could speak about then from an aesthetic view and in-game functionality. I couldn't talk much about their realism or how well they present themselves to a firearm enthusiast. I'm not entirely sure I'd be able to do a video about firearms justice given my casualness.
personaly I dont think fallout 4 had too few NPC towns, diamond city, bunker hill, goodneighbor, the BOS base at the boston airport, and the institute. But other than that I agree overall.
"Did Bethesda ruin vaults?"
"Did Bethesda ruin settlements?"
"Did Bethesda ruin raiders?"
"Did Bethesda ruin perks/skills/SPECIAL/leveling?"
"Did Bethesda ruin dialogue?"
@@dieselface1 Hmm, I did cover a few of these but not in this series.
For instance, Vaults are covered in the "Thoughts on the Vault Experiments."
Covering similar grounds would need to be looked at from a different angle.
Fallout 3 feels like you are surviving. Fallout NV feels like a functioning society is rebuilding, and fallout 4 feels stagnant.
Fo4 was ugly
@@sgtmuffinbadger6147 4 doesn't feel like Fallout, to me it feels more like Borderlands with a Fallout skin, although Far Harbor felt like Fallout
@@tjhedgescout3052 exactly
It kinda of makes sense to me, the commowealth have constant radioactive storms, a shit ton of gangs, super mutants, people that try to get things in order gets killed by the institute, there are many deathclaws nests and 1/4 of the place is filled by the glowing sea.
@@Matt-td8xw No offense but... You're saying the Institute go out of their way to make sure the commonwealth stays a pigsty with trash laying everywhere? Including Diamond City? I understand radstorms and the institute are dangerous, but is it really that impossible for diamond city and good neighbor to clean up their own streets inside where it's safer? outside the walls i can understand why, but inside?
What really bugs me about 4's settlements is how many of them are a single family with 0 protection who are implied to have lived the for years, if not generations.
Also, I would imagine that after establishing safe havens in Diamond City, Goodneighbor, and Bunker hill, they would have tried to claim and fortify the streets between them, for the sake of trade if nothing else.
I mean if you consider winter of atom Canon it help explains the current state of the commonwealth it even explain that they used to have working trains to transport good and supplies to Dimond city and other nearby places until raiders derailed the train breaking it and blocking and probably damaging the tracks (you know what they say for every time a post apocalypse society makes a step forward there always raiders to try there best to bring you two steps back)
Well, there was the whole Commonwealth Provisinal Government, or whatever it was. They tryed organizing but the Institute actively sabotaged them the whole time.
@@S0ulGh0stfrom what I remember, institute did send their representative, but everyone else couldn't agree and like true Americans, started shooting
Only institute representative survived because he didn't engaged, and if one person survives something like that, it's easy to assume that they're the one to blame
@@piotrwisniewski70 lmao that's definetly not what neither sides say in the game. Father just says they couldn't agree on anything - not even mentioning the shooting part - and Nick clearly says the Institute sent a synth to shoot everybody, a human rep wasn't even there at that moment.
Diamond city racist to ghouls bunker hill is plagued by raiders
The more I play fallout 3 the more I feel like it's really supposed to take place early in the timeline and they changed it later. I don't remember everything that made me think that way. But the old lady in megaton has some lines that almost seem to hint or imply she was around when the bombs fell or shortly after. Other people talk about prewar as if they truly were there and remember things. That one crazy lady at arefu isn't that old, and yet she's trapped in a delusion of prewar which she shouldn't really have any knowledge of. Granted I know some things have survived the great war. Not all information is lost. But that's mostly important stuff. Things like sports have been forgotten. Like how the ice gang thought hockey was a gladiator sport. Or how Moe in fallout 4 thinks baseball was a bloodbath. Knowledge isn't easily found and the knowledge that is found isn't about the great war since not much would've been thoroughly record. And the knowledge found of prewar times isn't really that easy to obtain or even understand for wastelanders. Fallout 3 was definitely supposed to be closer in the timeline to the bombs falling.
@Day Zero Prepping From some other comments I've see they changed the time to game took place after they made the map.
Can someone gave me a real video confirming this
@@RicardoHernandez-do6ns ua-cam.com/video/ILCDet2sDOI/v-deo.html
There's a channel from a person called RadKing who did extensive research on this particular topic in a 40 minutes long video, which supports exactly what you said.
@Day Zero Prepping well fallout 4 at least has a reason. Radking explains why as well. The institute messed every societal progress attempt up, in particular the CPG, because they thought they could counter the effects of their interference, by interfering further. Boston has no organized government, but it wasn't for a lack of trying. If the current director of the Institute hadn't been so stuck up and deadlocked the leadership for so long out of fear of standing up against the SRB's overzealousness, then things would have played out very differently.
MOST of the Commonwealth problems up to when you leave V111 can squarely be pinned to Father. As an eminent scientist, it is amazing to witness that he actually committed the biggest sin a career scientist can do, being, to keep going one conviction or assumption, based off the precept that you have enough information about your research, to assume you do not need to get more information. That's ignorance. Plain and simple. He assumed he needed to keep interfering with the Commonwealth, because he thought he was certain he did not need to look further.
In short, this is Hanlon's Razor, in spades. Human catastrophes and atrocities typically are usually due to stupidity or ignorance, never initially malice.
I hope they'll bring back good scripts!
I got the artbook for Fallout 3 and Bethesda does acknowledge that after 200 years, it wouldn't be irradiated to shit, but they also wanted to keep to what was seen as the Fallout aesthetic.
Beyond fucking stupid of them to set it 200 years after the bombs
@@NoraInu__ they could have explained it by saying those Nukes were not normal nukes
@@hattoripool1533 how does that make sense though? Regardless of the size of any nuclear incident, the fallout would be gone after 200 years unless they keep bombing it
@@NoraInu__ If it were real there wouldn't be mutants... That's not how radiation works...
@@The_Warden when did I bring up anything about mutants?
I think the problem is that bethesda took all the 50s inspiration and non of the mad max stuff so the blocky colorful plastic look went to overdrive specially in fallout 4 in 3 it was a bit better because the general color grading and the fact that every building was in pieces stopped it from looking as bad as it would have without those things and they did try to kinda fix this issue in 76 but I still preferred the original or 3s aesthetic , same thing about the atmosphere love 3 but felt like 4 and 76 were too colorful and clean.
In my opinion, Fallout 3 was the peak **artistic** direction of the series. It had the Mad Max influence from the first games along with the tatters and rags people were wearing/living in, but had a good blend of the remnants of the idealized, classic 50's Americana, without overdoing it too much in either direction or getting too ridiculously zany. It was the perfect blend of bleak, campy, apocalyptic, hopeful, violent, and quaint, all at the same time without any one characteristic overshadowing the others' too much.
Yeap. I actually mod my FO4 to have more of that FO3. I've been tweaking the weather system for a while, starting with Polluted Climate as a base (foggy, atmospheric, often dichromatic or even monochromatic color gradients.) ENB comes in clutch to help accentuate that and make it a tad grittier. Finish it off with some ReShade path-traced global illumination and you kinda just have FO3 with more dynamic lighting and better polygon counts, and sick godrays/volumetric (assuming you crank the engine godrays and use the little performance tricks.)
Another thing that really helps, is NOT using the FO4 engine color correction. It's way to contrasty, the gamma crushes a lot and makes things look more vivid, less natural. ENB lets you replace it with a more 'film grading neutral' color and luminescence profile that then allows you to better dial in something less... Fischer-Price.
I really hated the coloring on FO4. It's two prong. Bethesda's color work has always been terrible. Sometimes, I think they don't really do anything. What they leave you with is something both flat and overdone. The colors in the textures never jive right with the rest of the image. It's as flat as it is stark. This is fixable with injection modding. All of their games benefit from custom color grading. They do the bear minimum, generally.
@@TheKittenBreaker i love how fallout 3 feels like it's still struggling to recover.
I agree with you. :)
@@differentbutsimilar7893
The usage of filmic tone mapping in FO4 was a deliberate artistic decision, it was an attempt to “fix” the constant criticism of Fallout it 3’s visual style, which was derivative of the constant usage of lifeless colours for a “gritty and realistic” aesthetic.
It’s really down to preference, and I do like it’s appearance.
Some people don't like it, but "where do they get their food" is an important question if we're going to take the series' lore seriously. It stands not just for crops, meat and water, but for the general way the map is set up and how that ties into the lore.
If you look at New Vegas, you can see that a lot of work was put into what went where. You have a number of strategic locations that matter to the story, like Hoover Dam, the west bank of the Colorado River, Helios One and the city of New Vegas. That's where all the main factions focus their attention. Going through the map, you can see *why* a certain faction is in a certain place. Cottonwood Cove is a good example. Why is Caesar's Legion there? Because it's another major foothold on the NCR's side of the river, and a great staging area for slave raids into the southern part of the map. This logic ties the location and its lore together with the rest of the map.
With the Bethesda games, the relationship between lore and location is much, much weaker. Locations tend to be solitary dungeons, designed and placed on a gridlike pattern because the player needs to run dungeons at a particular rate to occupy his time and keep him hooked, not because the design or placement of those dungeons makes sense within the world's lore. Megaton is the polar opposite of Cottonwood Cove in that regard; it's a town that was slapped there because a town needed to be there for the gameplay loop. It doesn't make sense why actual people with actual interests and needs would settle in that location, especially not with the prewar suburb that would later become Big Town just up the road and nearer the river.
It kinda does though. The Capitol Wasteland is much more a wasteland than the Mojave. Which, aside from already being a desert, and thus a much lower priority target than Washington DC, was massively protected by Mr. House's lasers. It's not crazy to think people would take whatever cover they can find from the dust storms, especially if it's much further away than the Hulk impersonations trying to harvest you for food.
As far as the "where did they get their food" question, I believe it's mentioned that trade with food caravans for scrap (or what have you) supplies the settlements plenty, as well as the plentiful, albeit horrendously mutated, wildlife they can hunt, like Bloatflies, Mirelurks, Radroaches, Mole Rats, Ants, ghouls if you're incredibly desperate, Yao Guis, Deathclaws, and probably some more I'm forgetting. Hell, even Megaton shows a Brahimin, though scaled down, it's certainly an implication of where their food comes from.
@@FalonGrey this
@@FalonGrey Megaton still make no sense whatsoever. The town does not make sense because the location is not in any trade route near any settlement. It is not located near any pre-war town where you could easily find scrap to trade.
Why would people in the Capital Wasteland set up near rivers when all of those rivers are heavily polluted and irradiated, which is the ENTIRE POINT of the game's plot?
@@leitodamien3835 "It not located near any any pre-war town" What about Springvale and Grayditch? Also, Megaton is relatively near DC itself, though I accept there being some space compression going on and realistically it's actually relatively far.
Gothic Revival and Art Deco were some of the most prominent western styles by the 1890s and 1920s respectively. Buildings created in this style would still be around in the 50s when a lot of the divergences start. At the same time retrofuturism which often focuses on the 50s - 60s is an evolution of the historical futurism art movement that started in the 20s. So the mixture of these guiding the future in the franchise works perfectly to me. In the real world however, the international and modern styles became dominant and very uniform. I believe we simply don't see as much "clashing" and culturally unique styles mixed together in cities these days. This causes us to think its unrealistic/weird and that an aesthetic needs to be uniform.
I think FO3 should had taken place much much earlier in the timeline, just a few years after the war and replace the Brotherhood for another ex-militvry group trying to help out the people and fighting off the Enclave because they're pissed for being left to die in DC, which was already in turnmoil and riot before the war. Supermutants would be replace for another kind of Mutant to make it more diverse, radiation would be more important in the gameplay and meaby add a ghoul race/ghoulification for diversity. Reference to the classic game would be removed exept of course Maxson (who at this time would be alive) and the Enclave, who has regular contact with the chapter hiding in Raven Rock.
I think it would better explain why everything looks so dead, the huge amount of riders and why a lot of buildings haven't been looted yet by wastelanders
Replace Enclave with Chinese communists (land forces and stateside spies), super mutants and horrific mutated experiments from West-tek contractors and you have a great story. The Enclave should be a shadowy organization from early on and built up until later. I like your thinking.
What a very unique take it’s almost as if that’s what the devs planned originally
This I agree a lot. And I like Fallout 3.
i feel that 3 could have given us a bit more in choice, as much as i love lyons, the main quest was linear as fuck.
side quests though i think made up for it but it could use more meat.
@@chainsofgames [no one liked that]
You just can't beat the 90s for that grim dark , batterd scifi theme.. it was cool back then and even ingrained into pop culture down to how people dressed.
I feel the settlement building was a great addition to fallout 4. The mistake was just the sheer number of settlements left to the player to build up. Had they left it to just one settlement you're responsible for I think it would have gone much better and let the team flesh it out a lot more.
I could see maybe up to five or so, including a reclaimed Castle. With the Minutemen restarting it doesn't make sense that they could defend more than that at lrast for a few years. Having a dozen or more settlements makes me think they're spreading themselves too thin.
@@phildicks4721 in game in pretty sure the settlements are the primary source of recruits considering the more you build up the more minute men there are and it's also what's implied by the dialog at many points.
So I don't think that are spreading too thin with it. Rather each settlement has a handful and nearby settlements send additional support when needed. So a bunch of settlements probably makes that more viable rather than less. Considering how many settlements are only a few minutes away from one another with how packed the map is with them
@@nip3004 Makes it so much worse because you have way more territory to defend. You not only have to defend settlements but you have to defend roads. The Gunners (as at least they are somewhat organised faction) for example would lay an ambush on the roads and pickoff any support coming while another squad raids a settlement. If settlers were killable and somewhat realistic they'd all be dead and there'd be nothing left but a smoking hole in the ground before support can even get there. If settlers were killable all it would take is one supermutant suicider and it's over.
There's a reason even in ancient times there have capitals have been so important. Safety in numbers.
@@Midori_Ringo yeah, if we wanted to use any semblance of logic, but at that point the entirety of fallouts premise falls apart. Especially the ones Bethesda touched.
@@nip3004 but you're applying some semblance of logic with your original statement. You can't have it both ways .
Ruined? No. Mishandled, yes. All of Bethesda's ideas had potential, but some were improperly implemented.
New Vegas perfected Bethesda's open-world design by making everything in the world connected in some way. Whether it be the factions, player-actions, or connections to the dlc. Plus, New Vegas incorporated both new and old Fallout together.
Idk New Vegas is really dumb. The entire plot of a mormon and a follower conquering a bunch of primitive man tribals is really dumb, especially because fallout 2 shows that trying to live off the land as a tribal isn't very effective.
I mean it's not like they could really fuck up the NCR like that, it's literally not anything new and they just said they grew bigger this time too, which is hard to argue against because sure it could grow bigger.
Things get really stupid when you consider places like Zion valley being a wonderful place to essentially try to build from, but for some reason the rest of the world is just being really nice to the tribal people that live there instead of taking it for themselves... Especially because it's not exactly a secret that it's there.
But it's not like a heavy amount of realism is all that important to the fallout experience. If that was true you should have tuned out when the Big Green Hulk men showed up, or the immortal sentient zombies.
@@coldeed "The entire plot of a mormon and a follower conquering a bunch of primitive man tribals is really dumb" What is a cult? I don't know if you realise this but Caesars Legion isn't "living off the land". Not when they have traders visiting them, using slaves and control Arizona and New Mexico. You need an army to control that much territory and you're not feeding an army that size by being hunter/gatherers. They trade and are using slave labor to tend fields.
"I mean it's not like they could really fuck up the NCR like that" Yes they can. Why can't they? It happens IRL all the time. 2 of the global superpowers have been embarrased in the last 50 years at least 3 times against what was deemed vastly inferior opposition for the exact same reason the NCR is being reamed by the Legion-basic logistics. The NCR is stretched too thin - they can't even protect a quarry from deathclaws.
"Things get really stupid when you consider places like Zion valley being a wonderful place to essentially try to build from" How so? It's a valley with a river. There is limited space to build /extremely difficult to build due to the terrain. Look at pictures of Zion not just in game but IRL. Where are you going to build? On the cliff walls? On the valley floor next to the river? You know what happens in small valley with a river when it rains? It FLOODS. Every spring time after the snow melts Zion IRL floods regularly. It's a terrible place to build any sort of large settlement
@@Midori_Ringo you have no idea what infant mortality or birth rate mortality is do you? That is entirely the reason why Caesar's legion is incredibly stupid. The NCR would significantly outbreed them, regardless of if they put people in tents just to be fucking semen depositories.
Also I'll just put it this way. No I don't think you have to build in the crater like the tribals think they have to live in the crater like it's fucking megaton. If there is a place that they can go during the winter that is still near the valley, then you can build fucking there can't you? If that location is habitable in the winter it's probably also habitable during the summer, and it would let you take advantage of the resource very close by.
It makes literally no sense why the people would still be butt fucked tribals. Either other people would move into that region and modernize the thing for the proof of efficiency working better (especially with those tribals that are very peaceful), or would just run them out of town cuz they're a bunch of stupid savages wearing leather that doesn't protect you from anything aside from scraping your nuts against a sharp Rock on the ground.
If you don't understand the point, play fallout 2. It will show you how denying use of technology is a bad thing, because that is the centric plot of fallout 2.
I miss the more cartoony look and deco gothic architecture of the classic games, but i also dig the more atom punk look of 76 specifically. I hope they make a compromise in the next Fallout, maybe setting it in two different mega cities with both styles?
Cartoon look? The actual cutscenes and people look wayyyyy more realistic in the first two.
New york and new jersey, new york would be like the old games in style while new jersey would be like the newer ones
Doubt it. Bethesda hates the old fallouts, new vegas included. They’ll stick pushing the 50s aesthetic and their shitty makeshift guns that make no sense and look horrible.
@@ViPER5RT10
That’s the reality. Either way, they’re not able to recreate the old style, the creativity is not there nor the passion for that type of mood. Although, I do like the atompunk style, myself, but the wholesome wasteland is banal.
I think their desire has been to increase the audience base and the old style is too narrow.
@@J.B.1982 Sadly the gritty asthetic Fallout 3 was pushing died along with Adam Adamowicz, his concepts were really something.
Personally, I think old world blues humor worked because all the zany stuff reflects on the insanity and unscrupulousness of the think tank. Like it may seem really dumb but if you think about it, its really fucked off. It shows how they are willing to do anything just for the sake of experimenting and the inhuman nature of them, think thats why it works in that dlc
I feel like cheapened is a good way to look at it, classic fallouts and FNV gave a natural sense of progression with time and a fair amount of stark realism that the occasional moments of zany humor work well to complement the story and offer the player with a brief moment to laugh and remember it’s not all doom and gloom in the wasteland.
Fallout 3&4 on the other hand feel jarring and disconnected to the other entrees in the series. The wasteland of fallout 3 feels as if it was supposed to take place 20 years after the bombs fell. Fallout 4 feels like it was heading in the right direction until it ultimately got gutted to support settlement building and some other gameplay features.
In short it just feels like Bethesda reduced fallout to [insert wasteland] sprinkle in some super mutants, raiders, and ghouls then your half way done.
Fallout 3 *was* supposed to be set 20 years after the bombs. The change was very last minute.
Not to mention every Bethesda story thus far has been to find [insert random person]. At least with New Vegas, while finding Benny was the first half of the game, it wasn't the end goal by any means, because as soon as you meet him, you're tasked to meet with the main factions, progressing the story further.
With Fallout 3 and 4, once you meet [insert random person], the game is basically over, or at least 75% complete. I haven't played a lot of 76, but I know the main goal is to find the Overseer (I think anyways).
@@trouslinabone New Vegas isn't a Bethesda game.
@@williamchristy9463 Yes, obviously. I was saying that while FNV uses the same "Find this person" plot as the Bethesda games, it does a lot more with it, and excels the Bethesda games.
Wasteland of Fallout 3 feels like either no war happened and nobody lived in the area for 200 years (that's pretty much how our cities would look like unattended for 200 years) or the war happened yesterday.
There's no in-between possible here, because if the war happened and THEN the area was left unattended for 200 years, then there'd be almost no walls standing and all the rubble left directly as the cause of bombs would've turned into unrecognizable dust.
Like, I've had an old brick house left unattended in the neighbourhood for 20 years (owner died and nobody from the family cared to do anything with the plot) almost completely collapse (there was like half a wall left standing when somebody finally decided to clean it up) and I know USA architecture ain't even half as sturdy. No amount of American dream could keep it standing for 200 years, let alone after it got nuked.
Ill go ahead and say I really like how bulky the new power armor remake is because it really shows a difference between infantry and walking tank
I never understood why newer fallout like 3 or NV clear out the roads. Like if you’re gonna use em for caravans and trade it might help to clear the roads
It's a gameplay concession, if there weren't any threats along the roads players would beeline straight for New Vegas with no reason to ever visit half the locations nor get introduced to the Legion.
@@hurrdurrmurrgurr I think he means cleared of debris and broken down cars, not enemies
As small of a complaint as it is, its actually one of my biggest gripes I have, even going back to the very first time I played FO3 on release. At one point I just sort of asked myself "How have these people been living here for years but they just have the roof collapse in their living room and not clean it up?"
I've seen people defend it by saying "Oh well they dont know any better" or "Well they dont have the energy to do that since they're more focused on food and water" but i've personally found these answers are poor excuses, especially when you have NPCs who are pretty well educated and better off in terms of supplies who also live in these conditions.
@@ohlawd6763 I 100% agree
But as a comedic counter point: Bro people live like this IRL and don’t do shit about it 💀💀 poverty and drug addiction is a bitch
new vegas roads are clear tho, the cars and stuff are more trouble than its worth since they never take up the entire road anyways
Fallout 3 did an Amazing job with Art direction. And a lot of 4 was really nice, but too many things in 4 we're over designed. Like how many of the various automobiles like the rocket powered hot rod, or the Utility pickup truck are literally single seater. With the fusion flea that makes sense it was supposed to be an economy ride. But why would you want a single seat sports car or work pickup? Not only that, even in the old days I have no idea how the hell the cryslus corvega could ever go up even the lowest of hills, and how people fit in a car so damn short.
Don't even get me started on the crummy pipe guns, combat rifle, left handed hunting rifle, and 'assault rifle'.
I do like some things... Like the pipe revolver. That is a neat gun.
Also a lot of people say the 10mm is bulky, that's because it is. Even since the first fallout it's always kind of been hinted as a side arm for power armor. You can even see one being used by a power armor soldier in fallout 1s intro.
I always say the problem with fallout is the Art department is bored and trying to justify their employment. This means everything is over-designed and a lot of the vehicles and weapons look like concepts but in all reality would never be adopted.
I'm usually a fallout 4 defender-- but god, Bethesda sucks at guns.
I've always liked the barter and scavenging economy of the capital Wasteland where people also raid and find resources in order to survive in the east coast in fallout.
In the West Coast there's a lot more people who survive by shopping for what they need which is also cool. In places like the NCR, Vegas, even legion there are enough raw materials and the ability to grow crops to support large scale trade - at least thats my opinion. The whole post apoc towns, shops, caravans are neat.
I just like seeing how people Ghouls and mutants survive in fallout more so than defending whatever faction i think is best.
Personally I feel like settlement building though a cool idea did extreme damage to what the commonwealth could have been. Where there could be towns there is essentially nothing but empty space
To me it would make more sense to have limited the amount of settlements to probably 4 at the max(5 with the reclaimed Castle). You could then have more towns. It would also kinda make sense of where possible settlers would come from. There are always people who are willing to take chances to build a better life. Those would be the type of people I imagine would flock to a new settlement to start a new like, where they might better their circumstances, especially if a new Minutemen organization was forming to help protect those settlements.
The aesthetics in Fallout 3 and Nv have a late 40s and early 50s vibe with a lot of Art Deco elements. The aesthetics in 4 lean more towards late 50s and early 60s vibe with lots of retro futurist motifs. The vision of the future presented in Fallout 3 in particular really reminds me of the 1927 film Metropolis, though it still has a healthy dose of 1950s influences. Fallout 4, on the other hand, relies almost entirely on its 1950s influences and the future which it presents feels a lot more like The Jetsons. The changes to ghouls bother me the most. Before Fallout 4 they looked like disgusting rotting corpses, but now they look like lumpy humans with pink skin. I think the art style seen in 3 and NV is much more faithful to the original games.
Yes, they changed art styles, but in my head canon, each city has their own architectural style.
Watoga is lifted right out of Fallout 4. and it has no other cities
Not only art style but just grittiness. Death claws as told by Tim Cain the creator of Fallout were so scary that you only meet them half way thru the original game and survive by the sheer will and luck you have. Then you find out it was a baby DC you were fighting. Todd throws everything at player from beginning cause he insists in his bethesda loop. Wise to give you a death claw right at beginning of game when you can barely take down silly bandits....and you beat it? he also give you an ebd game armor in power armor right at beginning of game....voiced protaganist etc etc etc. Guy sucks the life out of the franchises he grabs aka the elder scrolls and fallout.
@@dealwolfstriked272 they did way better in f3 where you meet them only in the north or after the enclave spawn
Fallout was originally a post-post-apocalypse that was inspired by America's frontier era. People weren't barely scraping by for resources or living in garbage. They long moved past that and have rebuilt civilization to an extent. Conflicts aren't the result of people fighting to survive but instead, conflicts are the result of factions pushing to expand their territory and/or to enforce their vision of a new civilization. Hence, "War. War Never Changes"
Bethesda put way too much emphasis on the "apocalypse" part and did away with the wild west aesthetic in favor of the 1950's theme
My problems with 4 is that we lose the ability to make the character our own. In the earlier games your stats and skill influenced how you could portray your character in four I always played male so I was stuck as ex military (which even that is not brought up alot) dude with like a basic education. Like if I try to go high intelligence the best I get is my guy just managing to following along when someone is telling him super sciency things.
And while I agree with how alot of people and things are portrayed in 3 make it seem it should have been earlier in the timeline of fallout we also have to remember that it is the capital wasteland the capital would have been hit the hardest. Also we do have an area of the capital wasteland that grows food there is Harold and his followers in the Grove while that does not explain away all the lack of farming it is a second source that tells the player that the capital wasteland can't support much plant life unless there is a super mutated tree giving it a hand.
I wonder if a level cap in 4 would have helped so that all players wouldn't eventually become jacks of all trades, even if it was something high like 80. Some enemies do level with the player but eventually the player gets to point where only if they encounter multiple high level npcs at the same time does combat even become a challenge again, especially after the player does the dlcs.
@@jcohasset23 Ya a level cap would help another option i think might be cool is only being able max out like 3 or 4 skills and doeing so gives special abilities of some sort.
Wackiness with a realistic dark, logical explanation and lore make the difference for me. Having a crazy guy that actually ends up being right about something improbable or talking animals from gruesome genetic experiments are some crazy things that have a reasoning, something like dolphin and horse armor on what is peak soldier armor and military tech doesn't make sense. The Enclave giving a suit of X-01 to Nuka world for a promotion doesn't make much sense and doesn't add anything. Robots that don't really have a goal or destination, just want to fly a ship into a building, Mayor Mcdonough being a synth and nothing coming of it for the institute, the psychic Cabot.
Bethesda's problem is putting their worst things in the limelight, giving them whole side quests or detailed lore while the major conflicts and the literal main story feels like it is minimal and not thought out at all. "You wouldn't understand."
Honestly, the next fallout game I think should be in the northwest part of America, like Oregon, or Washington. I'd love to see the dev teams take on Seattle in the fallout universe
i hope we get a game in canada or alaska
@@cavemangaeming4207 agreed, a snowy wasteland might be fun
@@Xanarchist7777 its the one wasteland concept they havnt done yet
I think I'm insane but I would really want to see other parts of the world. Not only USA even if it's main theme of Fallout. But places like Europe for example.
@@erlandir9121 that’s just games like stalker and metro
I loved how bleak and grim fallout 3 was. It had an amazing atmosphere. The whole feel and look of Fallout 4 was just too cartoony and childish.
I enjoy the grim art- deco style of the originals, but don't really mind how Bethesda translated the designs into 3d up until 4, where I believe 4 looks oddly less realistic than 3 and New Vegas even if it has better graphics.
4 pushes the '50s revival way harder and loses the art deco and the punk influence.
Granted, something I think this video misses is you need pretey specific conditions to make tme sort of earthworks buildings you see in the classic games, conditions you'll rarely find on the east coast. But FO76 where trees are growing again? No idea why no one's building anything.
tbf one thing that could explain the lack of development and progress in fallout 3 is the presence of super mutants, u can't exactly build up a proper functioning society when a bunch mutants are kidnapping u in order to turn u into one of them or killing u to take ur resources. From the way ppl talk in the game is everything seems to have been build recently, if I remember correctly one of the older settlers of megaton said she was a child when megaton was being built, Rivet city was also founded relatively recently since one of the founding members is still around.
If I'm not mistaken it's even stated in game that the capital Wasteland was in even worse shape before the Brotherhood arrived.
You guys are expecting critical thought from Fallout fans, which can't form a thought more complex than "Bethesda bad, Obsidian good"
@@Marcelelias11 well personally I prefer new vegas and the classics over the Bethesda games and the set up for fallout 3 was kinda retarded, like, the mutants had so much time before the BoS arrived they should've stumped out humanity ages ago especially since they are actively looking for humans to turn into super mutants and I doubt that lone sniper guarding megaton would do jack shit if a mutant horde showed up
@@misaka3468 Unless that horde was composed of Overlords, I'd bet on Stockholm. I've seen the dude mow down scores of legionnaires (yeah, legionnaires). Rivet City has their moat, so they're safe as well. As for the rest? Yeah, that's a plot hole.
@@Marcelelias11 when did stockholm ever mow down legionnaires ? Even if he did a behemoth would be bound to join the attack and canonically as u can see in the first behemoth encounter with Lyons they can break through rubble which means they can probs break through or severely damage megaton's gate or walls. Also if we are being realistic megaton shouldn't have even existed since the mutants would've taken them out early on. As for rivet city, it's also pretty recent which means that it shouldn't even have formed in the first place, there'd no way humans would get through the core of mutant territory. Assuming they somehow managed to do it they simply wouldn't have been able to turn an old ass aircraft carrier into a proper settlement while being chased by a shit ton of mutants. Only way for Megaton and rivet city to have formed is for the super mutants to sit on their asses for 50 years and just let them which obviously wasn't the case but they seem to just ignore the big settlements which logically should've been their main targets due to how badly defended they would've been at their earlier stages
In fallout 4 you can build a pristine nuclear reactor in your settlement made from random junk you find in the wasteland but you can't pull the weeds or pick up trash, which just looks ridiculous. Also that nuclear reactor isn't always enough to power the whole settlement if you go a little crazy.
Also I hated that you could find a settlement of two adults and a child with like one pipe pistol for defense while there's a super dangerous red scorpion that lives only 100 yards away. How could they possibly survive there?
They didn't ruin the aesthetic, though it is different from region to region. Even today different cities look different from one another. And there is a big difference between a places like DC and Boston compared to Nevada. Heck, the Mojave is already a wasteland. I was really happy how they kept some things very precise throughout the games such as the look of T51 power armor.
_"I was really happy how they kept some things very precise throughout the games such as the look of T51 power armor."_
...and then they changed THAT in Fallout 4.
@@Idazmi7 how so? It’s still the same thing, just “thicker” for lack of a better word.
@@jonahulichny9874
Are you kidding? Aside from the helmet they completely redesigned the suit, its mobility, and it's power system.
@@Idazmi7 using mobility and power system in an argument about AESTHETICS is literally a straw man. It doesn’t actually debunk the actual point, but rather a different argument I never made.
On to aesthetics, what was actually changed? It’s been a green torso, with metal arms and legs, and of course the iconic helmet for literally the entire series, save for it being thicker like I already mentioned.
@@jonahulichny9874
Uh, no, it's not a straw man. You can't be mobile and ALSO be "walking tank" levels of bulky without looking ridiculous.
i hope “fallout 5” feels more like FO3 i loved the depressing color pallet and setting much more then the newer colorful pallet. but i still love all the fallout games regardless
I would say it’s also possible that the humans in Fallout could have re-evolved the ability to synthesize vitamin c in the liver, something that most other species do
I've loved all the games and didn't really notice many of the issues you mentioned. But you certainly made some good points, in particular how empty F4 seems in terms of settlements and population. I'm not sure the settlement system is to blame. I seem to recall it was added after the game was completed when the dev team were invited to spend a week coming up with their own ideas some of which made it into the game. I think the same thing happened with the vampire lord and Skyrim. But I'm not a hundred percent sure.
I think it just speaks to a lack of forethought and world building for Bethsoft games. At none of the meetings for any of their games did anyone ask things like how does this society sustain itself, how does the economy and trade function, is there enough food production, where is the manufacturing, is it realistic there's so many monsters or raiders/bandits, who exactly are all these raiders and bandits, and why doest anyone get a broom or shovel and get rid of some of these piles of trash and mounds of rubble?
The Capital Wasteland always felt like it was in the wrong time. Like you said, it felt like it should have been much closer to the Great War. I would have been totally okay with Fallout 3's environment if it was placed in the 2090s or early 2100s instead of 2277.
I've been talking about this a lot lately, mostly because the theme change inspired me to make my own ttrpg inspired by fallout.
"Did Bethesda Ruin The Fallout Aesthetic and Atmopshere" ....literally everyone who loves ACTUAL fallout agrees, yes. Why make this video?"
or to be more fair, why the rhetorical question in the title. but agreed, only naive millenials enjoy the vibe of new fallout
Only Fallout fans will tell you how much they hate Fallout
my greatest problem with how Bethesda handled the atmosphere is this strage happy go lucky vibe of fallout 4, with everything being extremely bright and colorful, almost rivaling Oblivion when it comes to bloom and that they got ride of the gothic elements of the series all together in favor of these strange buildings that look like someone build gigantic 1950s cars and stuck them into the ground upright. I get why they went for such a strange architecture since they focus a lot more on atom punk as a style rather than the gothic and dieselpunk elements that the originals also had but I personally don't like it at all, it just takes away every bit of seriousness the game could have had if everything seems so happy go lucky about how the people live and the colorfullness of the wasteland. I'd say in that regard Fallout 4 is for the fallout series what Oblivion was for the Elder Scrolls series, just cranked up to 11. Oblivion fits at least sometimes to the rest of the entries when it comes to atmosphere but I seriously have issues believing Fallout 1, 2, 3 and NV exist in the same world as 4 and 76.
I like it - it provides visual flair to the wasteland, instead of forcing you to look at a gray or yellow landscape for the entire game. I don't think it's so "happy go lucky" as you say.
@@octodaddy877 different tastes, glade there is people who enjoy that style. Would be horrible If bethesda made something literally noone can enjoy
Fallout 76 outside of Watoga basically feels exactly like Appalachia in the real world. Walking down the street of Sutton, Point Pleasant etc feels like I'm walking down the street in my own town. They really nailed the Appalachian small coal/steel town vibe. I even built one of my CAMPS as a replica of my own house because, it feels like home. It might not have the gothic influence, but neither do small pre war Appalachian towns. Fallout 4's Downtown and 76's Watoga do feel out there, but both Boston and Watoga where supposed to be centers of technology, robotics and automation so the "world of tomorrow" look gets a pass from me there, especially since Boston still has it's more historic and iconic architecture outside of Downtown.
4 certainly feels more realistic to me. Especially 50s realistic, back when making things pop was still in vogue.
@@williamchristy9463 idk, it feels to me like they missed the tone of a Post Apocalypse, but that's all opinions anyways
New Vegas Old World Blues is pretty crazy to think as canonical, but I still find it fun to imagine the fallout world in the future because of all the Sci fi tech
I absolutely love the atmosphere of Fallout 3. It nailed the quiet desperation of a nightmarish post-apocalyptic wasteland where you can still find patches of hope and for most people this horror is routine. The problem is, after Fallout 3 Bethesda decided to go with "bright and flashy" as their key aesthetic rather than the quiet desperation that permeated 3.
You can't show the world "rebuilding" and be dark and edgy all the time.
To be fair; it is pretty neat that you get to build up the settlements via the minutemen in 4; though it can be a bit micro-manag-y. Ideals like the sim settlements mod where you act more like a mayor and zone out areas, only build major infrastructure, and let the settlers build out their own housing, framland etc adds a touch more realism. It's a bit odd to think every single settlement items is placed with intention by one person, and the settlers just sorta live in whatever you put together for them.
I think some of the issues with fallout 3 almost seeming like the bombs just fell is that originally it was going to take place shortly after the bombs fell, but they changed it to include the brotherhood
Personally just prefer the ruined city bordering a wasteland environment. Fallout 3 was my first and even after playing and preferring fnv, I still wanted to play f3 because of it (also because there were no automatic assault rifles. But I can definitely understand the tribal feel being so close to the fallout asthetic after 1 and 2. It's just to me that's not all it has to be every game.
For the topic of why fallout 3 and 4 are still so desolate for so long. The growth of nations in west all have an origin from the vaults. But if you look at 3 and 4 you can see they don't have those origins. 101 and 81 are the best contenders for that, but they were both heavily isolationist. Never growing out to the surface. There just very few vaults that actually had it inhabitants survive and it seemed they didn't nearly thrive as well as the west did at their start. Also for 4, there was a nation growing, but the institute has had a very heavy hand in some sort regression and stagnation toward the west's early tribalist nomad society thing. Something that only could have been broken if it wasn't for another faction coming into the picture.
Fallout 3 was supposed to be set earlier, and got changed last minute. Fallout 4 had the institute destroying society for the last forty odd years, at least.
@@williamchristy9463 Yeah I saw that video too. That is not proven. There are very decent reasons to suggest that it would fit better, but there's nothing that proves it. Plus, there's a few reasons why f3 wouldn't fit having started that early.
The purified water by 2277 would have been far more wide spread in product and attention. They would grabbed attention of the legion and ncr far sooner. Which would have to necessitate a different situation than what we see in fallout nv. I highly doubt that the brotherhood in their condition at fallout 3 and even fallout 4 would have been enough to stave off the legion from going wast. Fallout nv have been instead fallout dc.
After that, fallout 4 would have to take place in 2287. The place that the story takes place for the institute would be far too soon. Elements of fallout 3 are far too integral to fallout 4 for the two to be centuries apart. Elder maxson wouldn't be still alive and his principles and work ethic are integral to the way bos looks in fallout 4. The scouting missions that the bos undersakes in the common wealth wouldn't make sense. The commonwealth is starting to become a nation. For that matter the state we see CW in f4 wouldn't make sense. It took a century for everything to finally decline to the state that we see it in. Scouting missions so early would be too risky. They would only do that when there is no apparent power. The manufacturing capabilities that bos has when maxson takes over is far too impressive for too little to change for centuries. We would have seen far more advanced power armor models by 2250 let alone 2287. There would other combat infantry support units produced like maybe tanks or advanced sentry bots.
@@gpheonix1 Keep in mind F4 was made after F3 so F4 was designed around F3 as it shipped, and not how it was intended. Same thing with New Vegas.
Though I'd also point out that it's somewhat unlikely they'd ship purifier water across several mountain ranges to California. That's months of travel by foot.
@@williamchristy9463 i can keep the meta in mind, but we're talking about lore and the guy specifically used the lore to suggest their point.
Yes they would. Ncr and legion and any faction would drag their ball sack through a mountain of aggressive bighorners if they could have a steady supply of pure water. If distance is the issue then legion would still be an issue. They're mid west and absolutely within the range for any faction on the east coast to worry about. Besides this would be before the ncr became a serious threat. The legion scouts would report that the east coast has a working purifier. This would give the legion far more power than a simple dam. By 50 years every faction east of the legion would be under their banner.
Something i think was worth a quick mention are weapon & armor redesigns. The jump from 1&2 to 3 having many redesigns is a no brainer, but it happened again with 4. We go from a g3 clone in f3 (&ar variant in nv) to... a water cooled mg in 4? Or what about the power fist & gauss rifle? Went from believable (imo atleast) pre war equipment to what's basically a construction gauntlet & handmade gauss. Or just the overall look to sht like the thompson from nv - 4, what dev turned that into a cursed toy? Im not sure bethesda knows what they want from the series' presentation & that's just from focusing on that type of stuff ^^
Oh & i'd say characters like mr spectacular & no bark are memorable b/c theyre relatable, tangible to our own world. Dipshts like my user-namesake having high positions in govt, elected or not? There's a point where the comedy of that stops & unironic parrelels begin with the more... classic(?) titles
FO 1 and 2 felt more like individual vignettes taken from or homages to a wide variety of specific aftermath themed movies. So you'd get an encounter setting from A Boy and His Dog, or Mad Max, or Godzilla vs Bambi. When those encounters were done you didn't need to expect that they were relevant to a canon world setting, even though they all are now.
Bethesda's FO3 setting was it's own thing with all those ideas mashed together at the same time as a unified world. At the same time and for the most part, it didn't reference other sources with a wink and a nod, except maybe Lovecraft which they seem to like to do in their games.
Also the Capitol Wasteland of FO3 is IMO far more devastated than the west. The west was already a prewar desert environment and yet had abstracted cities and farms to feed them. The Capitol areas trees are all 200 year old dead husks, at least until you meet Harold and Bob. All the food and water sources are still irradiated. I guess they got really dirty bombs dropped on them or just more nuclear fallout than the west.
Also, FO1 and 2 used out of play overland travel for getting from location to location of a larger map, and then restricted the player to a small section of the area they interacted with. Bethesda's FO went with one small in game world area and then crammed a much larger realworld area into it so that you could run from one end of the map to the other without a loadscreen. in 1 and 2 the player only deals with small sections of the game world with makes it feel bigger and more developed. In 3+ you are actually encountering everything in the contiguous game world area, making it feel small.
For example vaults were supposed to nominally house 1000 people in the world, but modeling that in a 3D would be a lot of work. Apparently, even modeling cut scenes or views through windows at larger areas was too much. So the vaults in Bethesda's version are only modeled for a population of like 50 people. In FO 1 and 2 it was more clear that vaults were really larger than the areas that the game allowed the PC to go.
My take:
Bethesda has really strayed from the original aesthetic and atmosphere of the original game in different ways.
Fallout 3, they peaked in terms of general artistic aesthetic, but fail in several regards, and mainly that they try to force the lifeless feel of the originals, but at the cost of basic worldbuilding (i.e. food) all while forgetting that the reason Fallout 1 and 2 felt so lifeless, is because they were set in a literal desert. And no I don't buy that D.C. was nuked harder, when the city itself is barely nuked.
Fallout 4 is where they really stepped away from the fallout aesthetic, over using bright colours to make their, as if the 50's is the only thing Fallout can be. Don't mind colours, in fact the fallout world on the west coast should be a lot more green, and more colours could be used to distinguish different civilizations and tribes in terms of wealth. Example: Fallout New Vegas, there is very little colours in the wastleland, with the most you get are reds of the Legion, and maybe the few on the flag of the NCR. but as soon as get to New Vegas, it is split between the dull Freeside, of its decapitated buildings, with the most colour you get are from some neon signs from shops, and the brightly and clean looking Strip, with more neon signs, coloured buildings, and clean streets.
Fallout 76, has a lot of the issues of 4, but at least its actually green. And probably way to much bloom.
One of the most things i dislike of Fallout4 is how colorful the abandoned cities and cars are, 210 years has passed, the bomb literally fell near Concord, yet everything looks like it was just some days ago, hell even Cosword may be need to look more rusty.
You have an excellent channel and video format. Keeep up your momentum and you'll have millions of subscribers before long!
One thing to note for Fallout 3 is that they actually have food imported from Point Lookout. In game and the official guide state Tobar is importing punga fruit.
Although this might just be gameplay, I remember you can buy punga fruit even in the Pitt.
You can actually buy some in Rivet City, I recall being able to buy some from the Hotel
Plus I think they grow mutfriut. I remember seeing some of them in the stores in the capital wasteland. However it looks like that’s the only crop they can grow. It looks like one of their main source of food is protein with Brahmin, mole rats, scorpions, bears, and maybe the radstag.
I'm going to have to go on a 1000 year long form of meditation to figure out why I like old world blues and not the antaganizer and mechanist side quest
I didn’t mind Fallout 4 at first but after awhile I kinda got burnt out on the whole fallout thing, it’s sad too since I put so many hours in Fallout 3 and New Vegas and remember them fondly
I feel like the lack of food sources in Fallout 3 was just an oversight on Bethesdas part, not really a conscious decision.
The game doesn't really lack food sources, it's really easy to find food intentionally placed all over the world. People just don't like that it's not a full on farm because it's basically massive amounts of pre war food. I don't really find that believable either, I just don't care because it was far from the first time something stupid and convenient was a genuine piece of world building.
Yes. I don't even need to elaborate, just look at society in Fallout 2 and society in Fallout 4, or even Fallout 3.
In Fallout 2 society has rebuilt for the most part and actual currency has been minted.
In Bethesda's Fallouts, everyone lives in favela slum shacks and STILL uses bottle caps.
One thing that is never mentioned about the lingering radiation 200 years later- yes, nuclear weapons are meant to release all there energy at once, meaning radiation would be minimal centuries later: except in the fallout timeline, just about everything was nuclear powered by small modular reactors by 2077. That’s why some robots have operated for 200 years without external power. When the bombs dropped, cars sat on the road with there reactors not being attended too, robots wondered until they got damaged, or they got caught in the blast spreading the uranium in the reactor cores everywhere. The sole survivor in fallout 4 presumably has at least like 3 of them on his property alone. There’s presumably still radiation in some places simply due to the reactors of every prewar device having there protective casings get destroyed or degraded. Don’t get me wrong, nuclear power is really good- in large, fewer, well protected plants.
Fallout 3 has a fantastic look and atmosphere
I can forgive and look past the food thing, plus there is trading which helps a lot
Humor wise the game is fine too
I’d you ask me, some people get upset at dumb or small things.
i prefer storytelling that actually makes me think what happened and why is this place the way it is. Fallout 3 doesnt do that. New Vegas and some degree Fallout 4 does, and even then only after modding it. Also, luv the Loona icon.
Interesting commentary. Not a lot I didn't already know, but still. That said, I feel the original form of the comment that sprung up this analysis, is part of a larger problem affecting the game industry. People just keeping on going on about "X ruined the franchise". We've seen this happen with FO76, and also with Metal Gear Survive and Wolfenstein Youngblood; if taken with a deeper, cursory look, they really are far from as bad as people want to believe. Does the new release ruin the lore? the storyline? the franchise? No, it does not. However...
If the publisher decides to delete the older titles from the store to force you to only play a recent title or re-release (such as GTA Definitive Edition) littered with issues, and only that new title, then yes, that qualifies as ruined. Or at least, damaged. But ultimately, long as your favorite games are still available, and that you can still cherish them, then they are not lost. Everything changes over time. And eventually, everything ends. It's something we all have to accept. In the case of videogames, usually, those who complain a new entry trying something different has "ruined the franchise", are also those who laugh at Call Of Duty for releasing the same game with a new paint coat every year for the last decade.
Exactly this. Bethesda's long game development cycle has seen people lose their fucking mind. Skyrim has gone from generally loved to hated on the back of a standard none of their games stand up to. Fallout 4 is hated for having the same flaws as most of Bethesda's games, despite it having arguably one of the best maps.
People forget that the real appeal of these games is the exploration of the world.
I personally do enjoy all the Fallout titles for what they are, and a big reason to hop on 76 is just to have some fun with some buddies of mine and share the world with one another.
Honestly, I feel that the reason why Fallout 3 makes more sense to be less developed in terms of the aesthetic is mostly in-part due to it being the capitol of the US, obviously it and any military bases or other locations of strategic importance would be prime targets for Chinese nukes, so it stands to reason it got more of a beating than Boston or the West Coast or Vegas, even if Vegas was mostly untouched by the bombs thanks to Mr. House.
And as a result, the heavier nuclear fallout concentration contaminated the water and has irradiated it almost permanently, with people having to rely on wells and filters to get clean water until Project Purity is activated, and as a result fewer people survive to adulthood in order to help contribute to the settlements they grew up in, and even then surviving adults most likely still have to deal with radiation poisoning regularly if they don't have immediate access to clean water.
I never subjected myself to bethesda's games. Simply couldn't. New Vegas just feels right especially when you've already played the first two. Felt like coming home.
At this point, my headcanon now is that Fallout 76 takes place in an hallucenogenic-simulation vault where dwellers are all drugged up and routinely forced to go in simulations in West Virginia. Thus explaining the colorful world West Virginia is even when few decades earlier, the bombs fell and ended the earth, the lore breaking power armors, the reward system with Atom Currency, the lack or less use of NPC's thereof, and the so-called "world building" given to players via logs and diaries if they explore the simulation enough.
I refuse to take 76 as canon to the series as it is now a miles long trench dug by Bethesda as an excuse to inject their backwards creativity, impose real-life currency price tags, and retcon various established world building, while creating plotholes themselves. This was already obvious in Fallout 4, where you, the player, is railroaded to Bethesda's story, than following an overarcing background narrative that still allows you to still roleplay a story your character can take up on.
Insightful video, but since my interesting, but lackluster experience of Fallout 4, I would say yes: Bethesda changed the Fallout creative narrative. Beginning from an immersive, bleak, and dim-lit hope RPG to a railroaded action-adventure game with technical marvel and colorfulness with a blatant backhand to the RPG concept. And that will always make me bite my tongue, and nothing can sway how I feel about it.
I broadly agree with you, except I think Bethesda makes the best action adventure games on the market.
I mean people say fallout 3 should have taken place earlier, but I always kinda assumed people returned to topside later in fallout 3. It makes sense to me to be less built up in more hazardous places, and DC is clearly intended to be more hazardous than a place like Vegas.
It's good that we've come with excuses to justify why Boston and DC are so fucked up and weird in contrast to the rest of the wasteland, but I'm sure you know the reason why those wastelands are like that is simply Bethesda's writers inability (or maybe just lack of interest) in writing something better than what they did.
At least with the early silly stuff, you had to choose a perk to unlock it. Essentially the humour could be bypassed if it was likely to break your immersion.
The "kid in a fridge" bit is actually kind of serious, since a lot of real children died from playing in them. Then the next part of it has some weirdo threatening to kill you if you won't hand over the kid to be a slave.
Since that kid is never going to grow up, there's no practical usefulness for it as a slave except for perverts. And the slaver is clear - they only want children.
So it's a very strange thing to have if you are trying to tell a joke.
I would say the Silver Shroud stuff is closer to genuine humour, and it is a bit silly, but since the player character can effectively become a superhero - especially if they mod the game to allow for near limitless levels and stats like I do - then it actually makes perfect sense to dress up and talk like one. If you character can punch a Deathclaw to death, then you *are* a superhero, whereas that really wasn't an option in the earlier games.
As for the chess playing rad scorpion, eh, I give it a pass as the game is heavily inspired by Gamma World et al, and having an animal or a monster that is intelligent fits into that world just fine. Intelligent Death-claws are also about, and there's quite a lot of civilised supermutants in fallout, and modders have added many more. Clearly there's an interest in them.
If anything, it's a shame that you never see a reference to it within FO4 - stories about such creatures would fascinate, and i can imagine they might be told over a campfire, even if the rare meetings happened a hundred years ago and hundreds of miles away.
I don't know if it was ruined, but, I truly dislike the new look of the ghouls. Specifically, no exposed muscle from flesh coming off, this detail just maximizes ghoul terror for me.
Bostons retro future look fits very well, it does even have art deco
Art Deco even when it's easily missable is still art deco
Western Fallout always felt more realistic in terms of societal structures and rebuilding. Humanity can be lazy, but we generally don't stick with the bare minimum if we can take risks to better our lives. Our history is one of constant innovation with the goal of luxury and happiness, and being bombed back to the stone age wouldn't change that.
If the water is dirty, we find ways of purifying it, if our makeshift tent is blown away in a storm, we use stronger materials and make a proper home, if we hate eating the 200 year old food and drinks scavenged from stores, we find ways of farming our own crops and raising our own cattle. It's a simple concept, but I love when it is explored in settings like Fallout.
I prefer they keep the new 50s feel but bit go overboard
Mix the Apocalypse/Mad Max vibe in there aswell
We seriously need a bleak and hell hole Fallout like 3 again
Hot take: Fo4 and Fo76 get too much hate. Now before you get mad, let me explain. So first for Fallout 4. Fallout 4 felt eh at first but later on feeling the tension of the different factions and learning the story more just hits different. And on top of that, the map was absolutely amazing. Another thing I liked was the way it made power armor feel. In previous games, it was just a normal armor piece, but it Fo4 it feels like a whole new iron man suit that’s big and clunky, but provides protection. Now for Fo76. Now don’t get me wrong, this game has a ton of glitches, but has gotten better and somehow has a steady player base. And on top of that, we get free gameplay updates at a steady rate, sort of. Plus the multiplayer aspect of the game adds so much to it, like the ability to nuke areas to summon an epic boss to fight with the entire server , or go on an expedition in the Pitt and get new, epic loot. Okay, I’m finished ranting now.
As bad as FO76 is in a lot of ways it has a large amount of the lorefriendly stuff and good explanations... but ofc it suffers from the monetisation and cool factor that is a carryover from FO3/FO4 and the modern trends, but hey it is actualy pretty good as a fallout aesthetics etc. (if We don't count the multiplayer aspects mentioned above etc.)
Maybe the next game witouth a settlment system could make it work.
There are things they did right like Power Armor in Fo4. And things they didnt do right like some of the guns in Fo4 *Assault rifle cough cough*. But i dont think artstyle is the biggest problem with Fallout, its the fact how laggy and buggy the games are. Even now you cant patch Fo4, you will never have a bug free or nicely flowing fps even with the modders doing gods work.
12:52 Except for those deemed canon, such as the inferno Hellfire one in Vault 51.
I still argue that 3 makes less sense because LA (a potentially high value target) is a crater, yet the Capitol Mall is fairly intact 🤔. It should have been "The Glow" for Fallout 3.
Visually I think fallout 3 did it best. A nice blend of Atom punk, Diesel punk, and 50's retro futurism all topped with mad max style post apocalyptic grime. 4 and 76 lean heavily more towards the 50's aesthetic than anything else and pretty much dropped the mad max inspiration which lead to things being more bright and colorful. Oh and they ironically turned vault boy into what he is in the in game world: An oversaturated marketing puppet which added a whole new aesthetic of its own. I'm hoping Fallout 5's art direction will head more towards the look of fallout 3 but just without the green tint. Meaning tone down the bright plasticky and colorful look a bit and rough everything up more.
with fallout 3 it makes sense in the setting its mostly around the one city also adobe isnt really an east coast thing
I appreciate you actually having nuance. I like FO76 aesthetic, but 4 needed more rust and dust. The only settlements that I like/use are sanctuary, red rocket and the castle. Others should've been towns or farms
Honestly I find 76's feel quite endearing, especially with its updates. If you've played since launch or near launch, you have this feeling of real time progression. You can realistically believe that after the queen was defeated and the threat largely under control, word would spread over a couple months and folks would move back into WV. After that, with each update we get more locations and changed locations making it feel like the world is progressing because of the 76ers and will progress more with more help of said vault pioneers. It captures the feel of progress that 1 and 2 has, just in real time
I think the deal with the lack of NPC towns in Fallout 4 is that the Institute synths have been a huge problem for social cohesion and trust. People are just too paranoid to get together until you came along, wiped out the Institute, and started building settlements with supply lines.
I feel like Fallout 1 and 2 expertly mixed dieselpunk and atompunk together, with a little touch of cyberpunk in some of the Brotherhood and Enclave. Bethesda seems to have made it entirely atompunk, which just seems jarring
I don't like the architecture in fallout 4. I liked how the older games and 76 are more dark and have architecture like real life. Watoga in 76 is supposed to be a futuristic robot city so the weird colorful buildings make sense. But not for older cities like boston.
Oblivion AND Skyrim have tons of settlements, Bethesda can build them. Post apocalypse or not I think we can justify more than 2 towns in Fallout 4 and beyond. Bethesda relied on settlement mode too much in F4. We didn’t need 30+ settlements at the cost of bespoke npc run villages with their own narrative implications. Sanctuary Hills, Hangman’s Alley, County Crossing, Nordhagen Beach, Sunshine Tidings, Murkwater (changemymind)should have been player built, all those other locations should have been a mix of faction locations. Bespoke and hand designed with named npcs and quests. Maybe a small plot or player home to build in but primarily and majorly developer designed buildings, quests, npcs the whole 9 yards.
I would hope to see a more developed society if they are still 200+ years after the fact. Now, not every place will have a GECK, but it surprises me people can’t figure out how to properly keep 2x4s next to each other for their own home
Apparently one reason that the Bethesda games are Like That:tm: is because Todd has been described as 'seagulling'; suddenly flying by to shit all over an idea. This isn't new, even back in Oblivion Cyrodiil was supposed to have a lot of really cool flora and fauna until Todd watched lotr. The dev teams for 3, 4, and 76 really did have good ideas and wanted to make these games work, but the whims of one man are responsible for many (although not *all*) of these concepts being shot down. That's why in 3 and 4 people simply don't have the ability to build anything meaningful in two centuries and survive off of nothing, making booze from thin air and pulling 200 year old food from their asses.
On a different note, I think that how well humor is handled in the games is how well it can be integrated into the canon. Funny shit exists in real life, but that doesn't make it unreal, so I feel as though the zanniness holds up only when you can look at it seriously and as 'why'? The kid in the fridge flops miserably because it goes against so much of what we know to be true of ghouls in established canon. The talking deathclaw is iffy because we know that animals can gain intelligence in the wastes *and* that they already have cognitive functions far beyond most animals, but having one that's so exceptionally advanced feels kind of forced, even if what we need to make it is theoretically there. Old World Blues works because it takes itself seriously; the Think Tank were forced to have new discoveries and information erased from their brain so as to keep the world safe from them, resulting in a lot of mind-fucking. Past this, we know that biogel can only house a brain for so long, and it's likely that they're suffering from neural degradation. The comedy also never runs ahead of the world building, as we're reminded that the Think Tank is also incredibly dangerous and disgustingly unethical with the creation of nightstalkers, cazadors, and lobotomites, plus the horrors of Little Yangzte. When Bethesda attempts the same, they often neglect to give valid reasons for some things to exist, resulting in things like the comic book nut jobs.
I absolutely love the new power armor designs in Fo76. But I also think that the newer games should be a lot darker to kind of balance out all the goofy things.
76 sucks like its fans
There’s way too much goof with Bethesda and that’s one of my huge issues, I want this shit to disturb me I wanted to make me fucking uncomfortable it’s OK to laugh sometimes but fallout was never about the laughs
@@hmanvlogs2956 have you played fallout two?
@@TheBenjiNebby multiple times, the only one I haven’t is bos bc I’m tired of the brotherhood, there’s plenty of darkness in that game and the world itself is still very grim, and the Easter eggs are just that Easter eggs they’re not actually part of the world, and the in game politics is complex as well
Fallout 2 and onwards ruined the fallout aesthetic and atmosphere. Grimdark Mad max setting littered with killer 50’s retro futuristic robots isn’t a hard concept to keep going but here we are with like only the first game in the series being truly dedicated to the concept. Everything after became it’s own stylized thing or deviated from the “post-apocalypse” idea into like post-post apocalypse stuff.
I think all Bethesda games have this huge problem with enemy to friendly human ratio. I mean literally 90% of Skyrims population is bandits, and 90% of 4s is raiders. It would make sense if they would ever bother making them into actual factions or gangs with motivations and not just goofy cavemen to act as filler content to shoot at and act as xp machines.
Well, yeah. Bethesda went too far into a 1950's futuristic aesthetic, when the first two never really had it that much. It has certain elements of that, but it was more of a generalized sci-fi style and somewhat art-deco than the retro futurism of Fallout 3 and onward.
I think 3 and NV felt great, eerie and very dead. Fallout 4 and 76 don’t feel like fallout to me, the atmosphere and just bright colors of the game make it seem less like a dreary wasteland. But despite that, I still love the games
About the Commonwealth, it's said a few times that the Institute goes out of its way to sabotage the whole suface area around them.
And they gain nothing from it, in fact they gain nothing from being such comically evil for no reason other then plot
Edit, because somebody, not to their discredit, believed I was referring to the video: I do say "before anything else" but I suppose my point was not clear. This is not to point out a video, just looking at some part I enjoy, talking about the visual design and not the actual design of the games themselves. I know what the creator's point was, I know nobody asked, and still, I just wanted to point out something I love. I did say that I do not believe Bethesda messed up Visually. That is all. The og comment is still below.
I'd say, before anything else, no, I do not believe that Bethesda messed up the visual aspect, they put almost too much work into the models for Fallout 4 for me to say they didn't nail the grungy sci-fi look and the atmosphere is mildly scary, ghouls pop out of random nooks and crannies and startle me. Personally, I prefer F4's level of detail, I've watched all those small moving pieces longer than I reasonably should have.
But it's up to you to determine what you prefer. I enjoy the most recent (in terms of timeline, so F4, I think) styles, I'm not a fan of the old power armor look personally, but it is neat.
That's not really his point, though. His point is that the classic games understood that people wouldn't just stop building things because some nukes dropped. Where's the new construction? Why does no one know how to throw trash away?
@@colbyboucher6391 Why else would I say, explicitly, "Before anything else"?
I know that's not what he was getting at, and I'm perfectly aware of what his point is. I was just stating my opinion on something I liked, nobody asked, but I said my opinion anyway. This is just an observation at design, not the actual games themselves.
I don’t think they “ruined” it but they did alter it. I love the Beth fallout atmosphere! It might not instill endless dread like it’s supposed to; but it does have a “there is hope in utter hopelessness” vibe which I feel is absent in media. I get that people love their dark and brooding stories, but I’m a big fan of the indomitable human spirit
Nuclear Devastation when it meets the indomitable will of human kind:
what are you talking about? fallout always had that- in fallout 1 you destroy a powerful abomination and his army seeking to destroy humanity. in fallout 2 you see the world moving on and becoming something close to what was lost; despite being little more than a tribal, you end up destroying the remnants of the fascist united states and rescue your people, along with the people of vault 13, bringing two lost bloodlines together as your small hungry village grows into one of the dominant forces in the region. idk why people have this idea in their head that before bethesda came along, fallout was just this dour game series-it's quite the opposite.
@@yareyarejose5080 ok
@@newtybot have you ever played the earlier games? you can be honest. im not trying to insult you or anything, im just curious where ppl get this notion from.
@@yareyarejose5080 you are literally the first person on UA-cam who has ever done a follow-through comment on one of my replies for literally the entire fucking year
I have had people reply entire biographies and disappear from my notifications and it’s fucming insane to me that that’s just normal??
Anyways, the notion comes from Beth fallout being the equivalent of a child’s playground to the original fallouts Haunted House
This is an interesting video concept because, as an avid Fallout fan that dislikes what Bethesda has done with the franchise, the aesthetic redesign in 4 and 76 is actually one of the things I think they really got right
Naaah the vaults for example look like children’s play pens. A far cry from the cold, dank interiors of the old style. Thankfully there’s a great retexture mod on nexus that addresses exactly that.
I like the more vibrant colours of 4 but still keeping it muted, and the foliage of 76 actually makes it world outside cities look not like garbage
mixing the two seems like a good combo
@@ViPER5RT10 sounds like someone who hasn't played the games
@Day Zero Prepping So true
@@ViPER5RT10 My guy I couldn’t agree more
My biggest issue with Bethesda's take vs Black Isles/Obsidian is that the timeline doesn't make sense, I think that all of Bethesda's wastelands make a lot more sense if they take place no more than a generation after the great war, it would explain why the state of survival is so rough, why looting old ruins is something people do for food, why there is basically no larger organized factions and why the environment is still so heavily barren and irradiated. It also justifies the fixation that people have the with pre-war, as everyone currently alive was either around to witness the pre-war or has known something that did. There are plenty of interesting stories we get to read in the games about people surviving immediately post war so a game about that certainly has a lot of potential.
New Vegas also doesn't fully escape this either, it is mostly the Legion however, the Legion shouldn't be running around in 200 year old sports gear, using swords made of ancient lawn mowerblades. They have an established empire that is capable of producing high quality custom coinage, there is no reason why they shouldn't also have smiths capable of producing weapons and armour at the level the Ancient Romans could.
Even if we assume that everything in the fallout universe was built to still be somewhat usable on those timelines, I imagine most things that don't require extremely high levels of technology would be newly created
Its been said a billion times but fallouy 3s biggest issue was timeline placement
Youre completely forgetting a huge aspect of the Capital Wasteland is the super mutant threat. The Brother hood of steal basically just manages enough for super mutants to not completely over run the DC area.
It still pains me that they wasted the setting of Appalachia on Fallout 76. That would’ve been such a good setting for a fully fleshed out single player Fallout game.
What's funny (well not literally) is that we have a couple real life examples of how civilization rebuilds after a nuclear attack (Hiroshima/Nagasaki and Chernobyl) and we know that it doesn't take 200 years to rebuild a city, and we know that vegetation doesn't just die off and can't grow back, and we know that the water isn't permanently irradiated for all time, and we know that the ant population won't turn into dog sized monsters. So, it's hard to start looking at this franchise with real world logic because it's just a different reality.
Not quite the same thing; Hiroshima/Nagasaki were hit with singular bombs each. Whereas in Fallout it's heavily implied each U.S. state was hit with numerous, potentially dozens, of nukes each (As seen by the Mojave being targeted with nearly 80 nukes in New Vegas, and Boston having at least half a dozen giant craters in Fallout 4). Furthermore, that the nukes in Fallout are clearly several times more radioactive than real-life nuclear bombs, as evidenced by the residual radiation after 200 years. Not to mention the effects of radiation in Fallout are obviously fictitious. Point is, to say that it doesn't follow real-life logic perfectly, and that therefore we must discard any semblance of grounded logic at all is nonsense.
Fallout 4's biggest flaw is the settlement system. It feels very out of place and like a very strange change of pace. 3/NV were strong from a narrative point because they worked well enough in making you feel like you were just a survivor who could lend a little support and impact the world. I don't see how that forms up with a Minutemen/settlement builder playthrough in which the Rebel Alliance defeats the Axis of Evil.
Minutemen have no true nuance, settlement building is mostly soulless (just good guy vs bad guy raiders), and the player character doesn't fit as just becoming the Neighborhood Watc- I mean "Minutemen General". Not to mention as you say the settlement system makes the world feel stagnant because YOU are supposed to build everything. This is likely a design decision to cut corners, but from a narrative standpoint it's weak. The Fallout Main Character might be OVERPOWERED but he shouldn't be the person changing absolutely everything in the world. The world needs life that feels like it exists without the character. Fallout 4 sometimes feels like a bunch of people waiting for the Player to come fix everything.
Minor side note that plays into this: I do think Fallout 4 is too LIGHT, not too humorous. There's not enough dark and serious themes to justify the suspense of the world like the other games. 3 I think nailed this atmosphere just with the setting of downtown DC, NV with it's setting of the impending Legion takeover. And a more minor gripe, but Fallout 4's color palate does it no favors here and is much more saturated than any other Fallout. I want to feel like I'm in a wasteland, not an alternative-reality civilization.
what about bunker hill? edit it's already a settlement before the player gets involved
maybe there isnt much agriculture in f3 due to big buildings people rather live in like a rusty city like megaton or a giant boat like rivet city, which is far more safer to live in when theres yao guai roaming about, not to mention the area was hit harder than most during the war
Heavier bombed area means people need to spend more time underground and the environment takes longer to recover, at least from my assumption. It also means mutants that can survivor topside have more time to spread and control the region.
Like people complain they don't see big farms, but they wouldn't reasonably be able to protect them. The only jarring thing is the population is inflated to be a game with people to fight and talk to, and they didn't put a lot of details into stuff like the fauna design etc.
Fallout 3 has a lot in common with 2 in that way, where stuff is added to be more interesting as a game vs any attempt at realism.