Call Out To The Fallout (Amazon Prime show)

[Werthead]

After three episodes I'd say it's been pretty strong so far. Not artistically amazing, but it does nail the black humour of the games, and there's tons of cool shout-outs to the game and some of the background material. All of the actors seem to have gotten the assignment as well.

The mcguffin being 

Spoiler

Michael Emerson's detached head!

is genuinely very funny.

One thing has ruffled lore hounds' feathers though:

Spoiler

The insinuation that Shady Sands - and therefore the New California Republic - was destroyed in 2277, which effectively decanonises Fallout: New Vegas, the best game in the series, which takes place in 2281 and has the NCR fighting Caesar's Legion at Hoover's Dam, with Shady Sands being mentioned as still being extant. Though some have pointed out the person who said that could be wrong and it happened later.

Also some annoyance that the city the player effectively took control of in Fallout 1 and expanded into a major city by Fallout 2 has been vapourised in the first place, but I wasn't too fussed on that.

The very ending of the series does suggest that New Vegas did happen in some form though, and even hints that Season 2 will revisit it.

Hoping that gets clarified, otherwise it just confirms that the TV show and the video games can't take place in the same continuity.

[Ser Not Appearing]

Spoiler

New Vegas is the one done by a different team and I can only imagine they intentionally de-legitimize it.

I think people are silly when they say it's the best but ... whatevs.

^ regarding that thing that got people upset

Edited April 11 by Ser Not Appearing

[Werthead]

3 minutes ago, Ser Not Appearing said:

  Reveal hidden contents

New Vegas is the one done by a different team and I can only imagine they intentionally de-legitimize it.

I think people are silly when they say it's the best but ... whatevs.

^ regarding that thing that got people upset

I think that gets overstated.

Spoiler

Bethesda paid for, signed off, approved, marketed and still sell New Vegas and have made a ton of money off it, and it was more successful than their own Fallout 3. They also get 100% of legacy sales on it (Obsidian get jack shit).

They outsourced work on it but still profit from it enormously, and just did a whole blog post on the games confirming it's still a big deal to them (although they are pushing Fallout 4 and 76 more at the moment).

 

[Ser Not Appearing]

I would simply say that general disdain is an accurate descriptor for how I've heard it discussed.

[Werthead]

Also worth noting that New Vegas has several entries in the recent Fallout set for Magic: The Gathering, which Bethesda signed off on, and is also represented in the recent Fallout miniatures games (whereas Fallout 3 is not).

Bethesda are happy to use New Vegas as a representative of the series, behind only Fallout 4 and usually ahead of their own Fallout 3.

I think it's probably fairer to say that Todd Howard is not hugely vocally keen on the game, but other people at Bethesda seem happy to talk about it.

Edited April 11 by Werthead

[WATDUDEYEET]

I think people are going about this the wrong way, while Bethesda may have given input during the show's production, I don't believe they actually wrote the show themselves nor dictated what should happen in it, they just left the state of the West Coast setting mostly up to the writers of the show to decide what to do with. 

This might be why 

Spoiler

there are fanservice-esque references to the games like Robert House and Frederick Sinclair make an appearance in the finale, hints of the Enclave at the beginning with the president being missing shortly before the bombs dropped plus them still being active in the East Coast, Operation Anchorage being constantly mentioned, Vault-Tec being responsible for dropping the bombs was apparently hinted at in Fallout 76, and of course New Vegas at the end. The impression I got was that the writers were just attempting to meld all the games together (although this may have created some inconsistenties.) rather than Todd Howard personally going: "You will blow up the NCR!".

I will note that a bunch of controversial elements such as the 

Spoiler

destruction of the NCR capital via nuke, Vault-Tec dropping the bombs, and the society reverting back to an apocalyptic state

were all stuff present in Chris Avellone's cut writings like the original plans for New Vegas (which he kind of reused in Lonesome Road with The Divide) and Fallout movie screenplay he wrote decades ago. I think Avellone has stated before that he personally believes that the franchise should remain apocalyptic otherwise it wouldn't be Fallout anymore.

Edited April 12 by WATDUDEYEET
Typo

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

6 hours ago, WATDUDEYEET said:

I will note that a bunch of controversial elements such as the 

  Reveal hidden contents

destruction of the NCR capital via nuke, Vault-Tec dropping the bombs, and the society reverting back to an apocalyptic state

were all stuff present in Chris Avellone's cut writings like the original plans for New Vegas (which he kind of reused in Lonesome Road with The Divide) and Fallout movie screenplay he wrote decades ago. I think Avellone has stated before that he personally believes that the franchise should remain apocalyptic otherwise it wouldn't be Fallout anymore.

And it's a very good example as to why Avellone needs to be kept on a leash.

[Ran]

Is that really a crazy position, that a series about living in the apocalyptic wasteland should stay apocalyptic?

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

Yes. Because a setting should not stay stagnant if there is supposed to be a point to it and the point of Fallout was to explore how a society/humanity would move on from the apocalypse. At some point it means that it needs to move beyond the stage were everybody is living in scrap houses in the middle of ruins and rubble barely scraping by. It doesn't necessarily mean that this new society needs to be a copy of the old one, but there needs to be something.

And if that means that you cannot tell "Fallout" stories anymore, than so be it. A time-limited setting isn't something bad. Tolkien recognized that 4th Age stories would have to be very different from what came previously and Middle-earth is undiminished as a setting. It's also not like that they have no room for more Fallout stories. Probably most of the US is still untouched.

Additionally, if there is no chance of advancing beyond the post-nuclear hellhole stage, why should I get invested in any of the factions and characters who want to improve the wasteland?

Edited April 12 by ASOIAFrelatedusername

[Corvinus85]

I watched the 2nd episode and I'm really glad that the plot is 100% like a game quest. And it's funny how the protagonist can find her way through an environment with which she's completely unfamiliar. Almost like she has a map with an arrow pointing towards the destination. 

Also, surprised that

Spoiler

all the major characters intersected in one location so soon.

 

Edited April 12 by Corvinus85

[Ser Not Appearing]

I just realized I had followed the song title too closely and messed up my thread title. 

I've fixed it but I'm now sad.

[WATDUDEYEET]

4 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Additionally, if there is no chance of advancing beyond the post-nuclear hellhole stage, why should I get invested in any of the factions and characters who want to improve the wasteland?

Preferrably we get introduced to new major factions. It is a recurring complaint that the Brotherhood of Steel has lasted like 150+ years at this point and remained mostly the same or how the games in general keeps reusing the same factions just because they're iconic or associated with the franchise.

Also maybe introduce new threats that affect the landscape and change the dynamics of the Wasteland.

1 hour ago, Corvinus85 said:

I watched the 2nd episode and I'm really glad that the plot is 100% like a game quest. And it's funny how the protagonist can find her way through an environment with which she's completely unfamiliar. Almost like she has a map with an arrow pointing towards the destination. 

The lore implications will cause a shitton of discussion but I think the show is great at adapting the general premise and structure of the games in a semi-episodic format where the characters run into some weird or quirky side adventure each episode or two that escalates into something fucked up.

[Ser Not Appearing]

This show really breaks my video game emersion when the characters walk through rooms and spaces without taking the time to pick up literally everything and bring it back to base to stash in a single drawer.

[Ran]

5 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Yes. Because a setting should not stay stagnant if there is supposed to be a point to it

I think Avellone's point is that people who want to play Fallout want to be in something recognizably post-apocalyptic rather than in some stage of having put the apocalypse behind you and steaming ahead through recovery. I suspect one reason to set games in different locations and times and featuring different protagonists is in part to maintain that vibe rather than being left to wonder, "Gosh, we've played games improving this same place over x years, but it's all the same." Well, what you did is a drop in the bucket against something that swept the globe. Shady Sands, whatever that is, may prosper now, but that's a small place in a big ol' wasteland.

5 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

and the point of Fallout was to explore how a society/humanity would move on from the apocalypse.

Is that "the point"? I'm sure it's one notion the creators had, but I suspect they mostly wanted to give people a post-apocalyptic setting to enjoy gaming in with mutants and monsters and crazy societies.

 

5 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

And if that means that you cannot tell "Fallout" stories anymore, than so be it. A time-limited setting isn't something bad. Tolkien recognized that 4th Age stories would have to be very different from what came previously and Middle-earth is undiminished as a setting. It's also not like that they have no room for more Fallout stories. Probably most of the US is still untouched.

I think that's more Avellone's idea. I took the statement to mean that the games (since he's a game writer and creator, that must be what he cares about foremost) are always going to have the crazy post-apocalypse. If some game ends with law and order and justice and civil society being restored, the next game either needs to knock it down or alternatively go somewhere else where the post-apocalypse wasteland is still a thing. 

I'm sure the number of people who want to play a Fallout game set 1,000 years into the future where the world has recovered is relatively small, and I suspect they would wonder why you're calling it "Fallout"  anyways if the disastrous apocalypse is no longer front and center in the game.

5 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Additionally, if there is no chance of advancing beyond the post-nuclear hellhole stage, why should I get invested in any of the factions and characters who want to improve the wasteland?

You can imagine whatever you want happens, regardless of what Avellone or Howard or anyone tells you. Personally, I think the reason to invest in factions or characters is because they and their journey appeal to you in the moment when you're playing and not because you believe the destination is anything other than a mirage. I've played Cyberpunk 2077 in full 3.5 times, knowing after the first one that my character's future is not great in every ending possible, and yet I was invested because the journey of the game was fantastic. 

 

Edited April 12 by Ran

[Werthead]

8 hours ago, Ran said:

Is that really a crazy position, that a series about living in the apocalyptic wasteland should stay apocalyptic?

As has been frequently said, if that was their position they should have kept the series relatively close to the apocalypse and not 220 years later.

That was a call made by Avellone himself, alongside the rest of the Fallout 2 team (note: despite Avellone's PR machine, he was not the lead on Fallout 2), when they decided to set Fallout 2 in 2241, 80 years after Fallout 1 (set in 2161, less than 100 years after the bombs dropped).

Bethesda did then exacerbate the problem by setting Fallout 3 in 2277, 200 years on the money since the bombs dropped and showing DC like it was bombed the week before. New Vegas did attempt to make this work by creating more of a realistic landscape of larger countries, armies and factions fighting over the Mojave (based on the original plan for Fallout 3 before Interplay collapsed).

As has been said many times, the direction of travel from Fallout 2 through New Vegas was one of the series being "post-post apocalypse," with the immediate post-apocalyptic issues resolved and the world now recovering in some fashion. Fallout 4 leans into that by having a relatively well-developed Boston area with multiple, mature factions but also a good explanation for why the post-apocalyptic vibe has somewhat endured (constant political intrigue by the Institute to deliberately prevent any civilised nation-states from arising and also the destruction of the Minutemen).

Bethesda also seemed to accept that the series remaining "post-apocalyptic" given the worldbuilding no longer made sense, so set Fallout 76 in 2102, just 25 years after the bombs fell.

5 hours ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Yes. Because a setting should not stay stagnant if there is supposed to be a point to it and the point of Fallout was to explore how a society/humanity would move on from the apocalypse. At some point it means that it needs to move beyond the stage were everybody is living in scrap houses in the middle of ruins and rubble barely scraping by. It doesn't necessarily mean that this new society needs to be a copy of the old one, but there needs to be something.

And if that means that you cannot tell "Fallout" stories anymore, than so be it. A time-limited setting isn't something bad. Tolkien recognized that 4th Age stories would have to be very different from what came previously and Middle-earth is undiminished as a setting. It's also not like that they have no room for more Fallout stories. Probably most of the US is still untouched.

Additionally, if there is no chance of advancing beyond the post-nuclear hellhole stage, why should I get invested in any of the factions and characters who want to improve the wasteland?

Yes, that's a reasonable point. There is also the very simple solution - already explored by Fallout 76 - of simply setting stories earlier in the timeline, closer to the war.

1 minute ago, Ran said:

I think Avellone's point is that people who want to play Fallout want to be in something recognizably post-apocalyptic rather than in some stage of having put the apocalypse behind you and steaming ahead through recovery. I suspect one reason to set games in different locations and times and featuring different protagonists is in part to maintain that vibe rather than being left to wonder, "Gosh, we've played games improving this same place over x years, but it's all the same." Well, what you did is a drop in the bucket against something that swept the globe. Shady Sands, whatever that is, may prosper now, but that's a small place in a big ol' wasteland.

Is that "the point"? I'm sure it's one notion the creators had, but I suspect they mostly wanted to give people a post-apocalyptic setting to enjoy gaming in with mutants and monsters and crazy societies.

I think that's more Avellone's idea, but I may have understood it. I took the statement to mean that the games (since he's a game writer and creator, that must be what he cares about foremost) are always going to have the crazy post-apocalypse. If some game ends with law and order and justice and civil society being restored, the next game either needs to knock it down or alternatively go somewhere else where the post-apocalypse wasteland is still a thing. 

I'm sure the number of people who want to play a Fallout game set 1,000 years into the future where the world has recovered is relatively small, and I suspect they would wonder why you're calling it "Fallout"  anyways if the disastrous apocalypse is no longer front and center in the game.

You can imagine whatever you want happens, regardless of what Avellone or Howard or anyone tells you. Personally, I think the reason to invest in factions or characters is because they and their journey appeal to you in the moment when you're playing and not because you believe the destination is anything other than a mirage. I've played Cyberpunk 2077 in full 3.5 times, knowing after the first one that my character's future is not great in every ending possible, and yet I was invested because the journey of the game was fantastic. 

It's worth noting Avellone's contribution to Fallout is limited: he did not create the franchise (that was Tim Cain), and he was a simple writer and designer on Fallout 2 and New Vegas, and was project lead on one New Vegas DLC and a strong creative force on another.

It's also worth noting that the idea of civilisation rebuilding was present from Fallout 1, where you visit Shady Sands and it's already a considerable town some 84 years after the Great War, and is then a much larger city in Fallout 2. This isn't a late or recent retcon or reinvention, but something fundamental to the series.

Wasteland as a franchise is much more immediately post-apocalyptic: the nuclear war happens in 1998, Wasteland 1 takes place in 2087 (+89 years), Wasteland 2 in 2102 (+104) and Wasteland 3 in 2107 (+109).

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

41 minutes ago, WATDUDEYEET said:

Preferrably we get introduced to new major factions. It is a recurring complaint that the Brotherhood of Steel has lasted like 150+ years at this point and remained mostly the same or how the games in general keeps reusing the same factions just because they're iconic or associated with the franchise.

Also maybe introduce new threats that affect the landscape and change the dynamics of the Wasteland.

That does not answer my question.

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think Avellone's point is that people who want to play Fallout want to be in something recognizably post-apocalyptic rather than in some stage of having put the apocalypse behind you and steaming ahead through recovery. I suspect one reason to set games in different locations and times and featuring different protagonists is in part to maintain that vibe rather than being left to wonder, "Gosh, we've played games improving this same place over x years, but it's all the same." Well, what you did is a drop in the bucket against something that swept the globe. Shady Sands, whatever that is, may prosper now, but that's a small place in a big ol' wasteland.

As I said there is plenty of room for post-apocalyptic stories and the advancing civilization on the West Coast to coexist. Even if you restrict yourself to the US and to the notion that you can't set games earlier in the time (which Fallout 76 showed isn't necessary).

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

Is that "the point"? I'm sure it's one notion the creators had, but I suspect they mostly wanted to give people a post-apocalyptic setting to enjoy gaming in with mutants and monsters and crazy societies.

To quote Tim Cain

"My idea is explore more of the world and more of the ethics of a postnuclear world, not to make a better plasma gun. "

And again it's not like these things are mutually exclusive.

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

I think that's more Avellone's idea, but I may have understood it. I took the statement to mean that the games (since he's a game writer and creator, that must be what he cares about foremost) are always going to have the crazy post-apocalypse. If some game ends with law and order and justice and civil society being restored, the next game either needs to knock it down or alternatively go somewhere else where the post-apocalypse wasteland is still a thing. 

That's what should have been done then. It is what Bethesda did when they made FO3 (which really should have happened earlier in the timeline)

22 minutes ago, Ran said:

You can imagine whatever you want happens, regardless of what Avellone or Howard or anyone tells you. Personally, I think the reason to invest in factions or characters is because they and their journey appeal to you in the moment when you're playing and not because you believe the destination is anything other than a mirage. I've played Cyberpunk 2077 in full 3.5 times, knowing after the first one that my character's future is not great in every ending possible, and yet I was invested because the journey of the game was fantastic. 

Well the Fallout games were never about the personal story of the protagonist and their relationships unlike Cyberpunk 2077. It was always more about the world.

Edited April 12 by ASOIAFrelatedusername

[WATDUDEYEET]

4 minutes ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

That does not answer my question.

To be fair that question is fairly subjective, personally I'm invested in the factions if I find them interesting and if they have enough verisimilitude in them to have depth.

Not necessarily because I want to see them survive out into future entries, I actually think a dilemma of the Fallout games as open world RPGs that leave the fate of the setting completely up to the player is that it feels like your choices will ultimately be pointless because the next entry will either have to pick a lane on one of the faction endings you chose or play it safe by vaguely acknowledging that "stuff happened".

[Ran]

15 minutes ago, Werthead said:

 for why the post-apocalyptic vibe has somewhat endured

A Fallout game without the "post-apocalyptic vibe" isn't really a Fallout game, I'd think, so I can understand why someone like Avellone would think that has to be an enduring element of the games. And presumably why it is, in fact, an enduring element of the series.

 

13 minutes ago, ASOIAFrelatedusername said:

Well the Fallout games were never about the personal story of the protagonist and their relationships unlike Cyberpunk 2077. It was always more about the world

Right. But if the creator and lead of the series says, "You all know this world is a dead end, right? At the end of it all, it's the cockaroaches that'll be running thing, humanity will be gone," I'm sure a lot of people may say "Well, what's the point?" but it's all illusory. It's fiction. It's not real. Disregard what they say. Or embrace it, and enjoy the hopeless struggle for the sake of the struggle. 

Take whatever I say with a grain of salt. My total knowledge of Fallout comes through cultural osmosis and four episodes of the TV show. I've never played the games. I just know that when someone says Fallout to me, it's a game set in a post-apocalyptic world along the lines of Mad Max or Wastelands. There's nomads, there's factions, there's pockets of recovery and pockets of chaos, etc. I've never heard of a Fallout game that doesn't have something along these lines, presumably because they wouldn't really be Fallout.

Edited April 12 by Ran

[WATDUDEYEET]

17 minutes ago, Werthead said:

Bethesda did then exacerbate the problem by setting Fallout 3 in 2277, 200 years on the money since the bombs dropped and showing DC like it was bombed the week before. 

Also worth nothing that Fallout 3 was originally set to only take place just 30 years after the bombs dropped which is why everything is still in ruins and dilapidated but then they apparently changed it to 200 years after late in development for some reason.

What's interesting is that Obsidian wanted New Vegas to take place before Fallout 3 around like 2261 (as the original Interplay Fallout 3 was set during) and that was one of the few creative decisions Bethesda (who were otherwise mostly lenient and gave Obsidian full creative freedom) vetoed. Maybe Bethesda is just allergic to interquels.

[ASOIAFrelatedusername]

12 minutes ago, Ran said:

Right. But if the creator and lead of the series says, "You all know this world is a dead end, right? At the end of it all, it's the cockaroaches that'll be running thing, humanity will be gone," I'm sure a lot of people may say "Well, what's the point?" but it's all illusory. It's fiction. It's not real. Disregard what they say. Or embrace it, and enjoy the hopeless struggle for the sake of the struggle. 

Chris Avellone is hardly the creator and lead of the series.

And yes I do disregard him (but will criticize him for bs like that) since it at this point what he says won't have any impact on the franchise. What is difficult to disregard is the show since future games will build on it and it most likely destroyed something that could have been an excellent foundation of the series.

Plus it sucks when something you love gets a shitty ending in tv series. See the countless "Rant and Rave" threads for evidence.

 

Edited April 12 by ASOIAFrelatedusername