Monday, July 13, 2015
In Defense of Fallout New Vegas
Here’s the thing. You kids can hate New Vegas all you want, because unlike 3, it didn’t have a constant, unrelenting, oppressive atmosphere of misery and horror, and didn’t look like it took place in the Matrix under the same green haze.
I like that game, so I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that.
But New Vegas FITS THE TONE OF THE INTERPLAY GAMES MORE ACCURATELY, okay? Fallout 3 is the diversion in this series.
These games were always a combination of ultraviolence and goofiness. New Vegas adopted a lot of stuff from Van Buren, and Van Buren was right in line with the other Interplay games. All of the stuff you probably don’t like about New Vegas is probably stuff FROM INTERPLAY. As in, it’s original, old style Fallout, what this series was about from day one.
You can prefer Bethesda’s version in 3. As I’ve said here before, Interplay kept ramping up the goofiness and smut and swear words with every new game, until by Brotherhood of Steel they’re making extended Vault Boy sex jokes and every woman you meet in the game is a hooker who says the f-word all the time.
Granted, I personally would LOVE a really good Total Recall RPG. But I don’t think the Fallout universe was the place for it. Interplay was getting too broad and desperate with it, perhaps in a desperate attempt to appeal to a wider audience (see everything THQ did right before they fell apart). And Van Buren / New Vegas are right in the midst of that, so you’re within your rights to think the tone of New Vegas is too sassy and goofy to be a “core” Fallout game.
But if your only real experience of Fallout is 3, then you want something this series was for literally only that one game. And again, fine, but I don’t know if Bethesda intends to do that again. Clearly, they decided to let Obsidian make a Fallout game that was way more in line with the old Interplay years than 3. Was that itself just a temporary diversion? Were they trying to see which was going to sell better?
…Kind of stupid then to let Obsidian put out something that barely worked.
Plus, I think it came out too soon after 3. People had wasteland fatigue and weren’t ready for another game like that, of that size.
But maybe Bethesda knew that, which is why they had Obsidian do it. Maybe it really was yet another temporary diversion, this weird throw-back to the old Interplay stuff.
But that seems an odd thing to do, when you’ve only done the one other game, and the next one is so highly anticipated by most people.
At any rate, we’re going to have to see what they do with 4 to know their intentions. Based on the trailer, I think they’re certainly going for more of a serious, melodramatic tone. …In a game with flying war robots that yell like drill sergeants as they’re fighting deranged, invisible purple Hulk-Frankensteins. And most of the other Vaults you come across are stupid joke vaults, because Vault-Tec knew the Apocalypse was coming, but figured the resulting 500 years of devastation would be a great time to see what happens to 1000 people when you lock them in a metal box for half a millennium with only oatmeal to eat. Ha ha ha!…anyone would care to see the results of that experiment are going to be BEYOND dead. Why would you…?
But THAT’S FALLOUT. That’s the kind of thing that underpinned the Interplay games. That sardonic, broad commentary about unchecked human greed and stupidity being the one unbroken constant in the world - that’s what the entire game was about. “War Never Changes” - and war is the ultimate expression of rampant human stupidity. That’s, like, the whole POINT. That’s why the Apocalypse happened. The US and China were fighting over oil and uranium rights, so China invaded Alaska, the US annexed Canada, and when we reached a stalemate we responded by NUCLEAR BOMBING THE ENTIRE PLANET. The entire premise is fucking goofy and stupid. But that’s the point!
Google them, and compare the Fallout 4 trailer with the opening cinematic from Fallout 1. The Fallout 4 trailer is about the dark devastation and human toll of the apocalypse. The opening cinematic from Fallout 1 makes a joke about ‘50s cars being ugly and slow, and shows a flying robot octopus holding a spatula, right after it shows American space marines committing war-crimes against Canadian citizens and laughing and waving at the camera about it.
Fallout NEEDS that kind of dark sarcasm. Otherwise it’s just oppressive misery and shotgunning rage-zombies in sewers. I really like Fallout 3, but it erred too much on the side of melodrama. I personally think New Vegas is, tonally, a more perfect Fallout game: it has strains of the melodrama and anxiety, but it’s also colorful and boldly goofy, and everything works and is held together by the good writing and great characters. It’s not too much Interplay goofiness, and it’s not too much Bethesda washed-out brooding.
I don’t need more Fallout 3. We’ve had enough of that. I don’t need more Fallout 2. We’ve had enough of that. But more New Vegas would be perfect. That’s the mix I’m looking for in a Fallout game. That’s when Fallout becomes 100% Fallout, and really works as an IP. If anyone could figure that out and stick to it, it’s Bethesda. I don’t think they’ll do 100% what I want, because they never will (see the Elder Scrolls progression as proof of that). But I hope in 4, all of the Sims and Minecraft and dog-petting stuff don’t trample the guts of the series. And I personally hope it’s not Fallout 3: II.
Excellent post my man.
But dwell on this… What if with New Vegas, Bethesda were setting themselves up with a [I hate to say this] Call of Duty style franchise? They do the core game title. Fallout 3. Fallout 4. Fallout 5. Obsidian get to do a follow up title which is more ‘Falloutverse’ than the previously released Core title.
This way, they get to please the fans that came on board with 3, and the older fans get to enjoy the slightly more goofier follow up.
It’s all just a pipe dream of course, but it would be lovely to get a couple of Fallout games every seven years rather than just the one!
In a perfect world they might try something like this, but I think these HD games just cost too much to make at this point for them to do it. They didn’t bring Obsidian on board for New Vegas as a cost-cutting measure - it was literally because they wanted to put out a new Fallout game, but the entire Bethesda team was working on Skyrim, and TES games are their principle IP.
Plus, remember that Obsidian employs a handful of old Interplay people who worked on the old Fallout games, so they could trust that the story and characters would at least be “core Fallout.”
But that said, they vetoed some of their ideas. They agreed to Obsidian’s choice to set the game in the West, near the Fallout 1 map, but Obsidian also wanted to make it a PREQUEL to Fallout 3, set between it and 2, which probably meant they were looking to tie it into the Fallout 1 map. But Bethesda said no. Who knows why, but I’d guess it’s because Tod Howard and crew really wanted to continue to establish that these were BETHESDA’S Fallout games. Yes, it’s a continuation of the old series, but it’s not Interplay’s bag anymore. It was either simple ego, or because they knew, as I said above, what these same guys had done to the series before Interplay fell apart. They wanted to keep a tight rein on it. So we still got a ton of Van Buren stuff, but Bethesda forced it to more closely fit their new, slightly more serious and brooding tone.
If they were going to “split” the series, they would’ve done it then. They would have let Obsidian make whatever goofy nonsense they wanted, because they wouldn’t have cared. They clearly do, so that means they’re keeping it a single, consistent, AAA Bethesda franchise.
Plus everyone knows what Fallout looks like as a simplified shooter, and it’s gross and hollow and not what anyone wants. -Via tumblr
I like that game, so I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with that.
But New Vegas FITS THE TONE OF THE INTERPLAY GAMES MORE ACCURATELY, okay? Fallout 3 is the diversion in this series.
These games were always a combination of ultraviolence and goofiness. New Vegas adopted a lot of stuff from Van Buren, and Van Buren was right in line with the other Interplay games. All of the stuff you probably don’t like about New Vegas is probably stuff FROM INTERPLAY. As in, it’s original, old style Fallout, what this series was about from day one.
You can prefer Bethesda’s version in 3. As I’ve said here before, Interplay kept ramping up the goofiness and smut and swear words with every new game, until by Brotherhood of Steel they’re making extended Vault Boy sex jokes and every woman you meet in the game is a hooker who says the f-word all the time.
Granted, I personally would LOVE a really good Total Recall RPG. But I don’t think the Fallout universe was the place for it. Interplay was getting too broad and desperate with it, perhaps in a desperate attempt to appeal to a wider audience (see everything THQ did right before they fell apart). And Van Buren / New Vegas are right in the midst of that, so you’re within your rights to think the tone of New Vegas is too sassy and goofy to be a “core” Fallout game.
But if your only real experience of Fallout is 3, then you want something this series was for literally only that one game. And again, fine, but I don’t know if Bethesda intends to do that again. Clearly, they decided to let Obsidian make a Fallout game that was way more in line with the old Interplay years than 3. Was that itself just a temporary diversion? Were they trying to see which was going to sell better?
…Kind of stupid then to let Obsidian put out something that barely worked.
Plus, I think it came out too soon after 3. People had wasteland fatigue and weren’t ready for another game like that, of that size.
But maybe Bethesda knew that, which is why they had Obsidian do it. Maybe it really was yet another temporary diversion, this weird throw-back to the old Interplay stuff.
But that seems an odd thing to do, when you’ve only done the one other game, and the next one is so highly anticipated by most people.
At any rate, we’re going to have to see what they do with 4 to know their intentions. Based on the trailer, I think they’re certainly going for more of a serious, melodramatic tone. …In a game with flying war robots that yell like drill sergeants as they’re fighting deranged, invisible purple Hulk-Frankensteins. And most of the other Vaults you come across are stupid joke vaults, because Vault-Tec knew the Apocalypse was coming, but figured the resulting 500 years of devastation would be a great time to see what happens to 1000 people when you lock them in a metal box for half a millennium with only oatmeal to eat. Ha ha ha!…anyone would care to see the results of that experiment are going to be BEYOND dead. Why would you…?
But THAT’S FALLOUT. That’s the kind of thing that underpinned the Interplay games. That sardonic, broad commentary about unchecked human greed and stupidity being the one unbroken constant in the world - that’s what the entire game was about. “War Never Changes” - and war is the ultimate expression of rampant human stupidity. That’s, like, the whole POINT. That’s why the Apocalypse happened. The US and China were fighting over oil and uranium rights, so China invaded Alaska, the US annexed Canada, and when we reached a stalemate we responded by NUCLEAR BOMBING THE ENTIRE PLANET. The entire premise is fucking goofy and stupid. But that’s the point!
Google them, and compare the Fallout 4 trailer with the opening cinematic from Fallout 1. The Fallout 4 trailer is about the dark devastation and human toll of the apocalypse. The opening cinematic from Fallout 1 makes a joke about ‘50s cars being ugly and slow, and shows a flying robot octopus holding a spatula, right after it shows American space marines committing war-crimes against Canadian citizens and laughing and waving at the camera about it.
Fallout NEEDS that kind of dark sarcasm. Otherwise it’s just oppressive misery and shotgunning rage-zombies in sewers. I really like Fallout 3, but it erred too much on the side of melodrama. I personally think New Vegas is, tonally, a more perfect Fallout game: it has strains of the melodrama and anxiety, but it’s also colorful and boldly goofy, and everything works and is held together by the good writing and great characters. It’s not too much Interplay goofiness, and it’s not too much Bethesda washed-out brooding.
I don’t need more Fallout 3. We’ve had enough of that. I don’t need more Fallout 2. We’ve had enough of that. But more New Vegas would be perfect. That’s the mix I’m looking for in a Fallout game. That’s when Fallout becomes 100% Fallout, and really works as an IP. If anyone could figure that out and stick to it, it’s Bethesda. I don’t think they’ll do 100% what I want, because they never will (see the Elder Scrolls progression as proof of that). But I hope in 4, all of the Sims and Minecraft and dog-petting stuff don’t trample the guts of the series. And I personally hope it’s not Fallout 3: II.
Excellent post my man.
But dwell on this… What if with New Vegas, Bethesda were setting themselves up with a [I hate to say this] Call of Duty style franchise? They do the core game title. Fallout 3. Fallout 4. Fallout 5. Obsidian get to do a follow up title which is more ‘Falloutverse’ than the previously released Core title.
This way, they get to please the fans that came on board with 3, and the older fans get to enjoy the slightly more goofier follow up.
It’s all just a pipe dream of course, but it would be lovely to get a couple of Fallout games every seven years rather than just the one!
In a perfect world they might try something like this, but I think these HD games just cost too much to make at this point for them to do it. They didn’t bring Obsidian on board for New Vegas as a cost-cutting measure - it was literally because they wanted to put out a new Fallout game, but the entire Bethesda team was working on Skyrim, and TES games are their principle IP.
Plus, remember that Obsidian employs a handful of old Interplay people who worked on the old Fallout games, so they could trust that the story and characters would at least be “core Fallout.”
But that said, they vetoed some of their ideas. They agreed to Obsidian’s choice to set the game in the West, near the Fallout 1 map, but Obsidian also wanted to make it a PREQUEL to Fallout 3, set between it and 2, which probably meant they were looking to tie it into the Fallout 1 map. But Bethesda said no. Who knows why, but I’d guess it’s because Tod Howard and crew really wanted to continue to establish that these were BETHESDA’S Fallout games. Yes, it’s a continuation of the old series, but it’s not Interplay’s bag anymore. It was either simple ego, or because they knew, as I said above, what these same guys had done to the series before Interplay fell apart. They wanted to keep a tight rein on it. So we still got a ton of Van Buren stuff, but Bethesda forced it to more closely fit their new, slightly more serious and brooding tone.
If they were going to “split” the series, they would’ve done it then. They would have let Obsidian make whatever goofy nonsense they wanted, because they wouldn’t have cared. They clearly do, so that means they’re keeping it a single, consistent, AAA Bethesda franchise.
Plus everyone knows what Fallout looks like as a simplified shooter, and it’s gross and hollow and not what anyone wants. -Via tumblr
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)