/ga/ - Games

lol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqRKKpnWkh8

I really can't grasp the fascination with Fallout and New Vegas.

The setting in general is just a boring post apocalypse nr. 32452, with the only real distinguishing features being the bulky tech that isn't at all cool (no, not even power armor, it just looks like a walking soviet radiator). Also the kitschy 50's aesthetic combined with corporatist American authoritarianism of the past is a cool idea, but it can't carry the whole thing and gets old, especially when later installments start treating it at face value as epic cool art style and a descent into silly shit. I'd argue NV does some of this with the cartoonish ghoul rocket or that entire DLC set in a science park, or, when it comes to the silliness, the concepts behind the Khans or the Kings (or the entire Caesars Legion). Not to mention the burger-centrism of never showing the rest of the world. A good fictional setting actually makes you have some sort of attachment to the world, caring about how each region could develop and change, wanting to create a headcannon around smaller aspects never mentioned by the media piece and so on, but FO just makes me feel apathetic about it all.

And now specifically about NV - it is incredibly overrated, more so than Witcher 3 tbh. I don't understand why there is this internet culture of "which shitty / boring / underdeveloped faction best" debates. But I get ahead of myself. Let's talk about the general game before all that. In short, it is above average, but not special. Combat is… okay I guess. I don't really like it, but I know that there are enough FO3 fans that like that game specifically for gameplay only, so maybe its just me being subjective. The visuals, even though I usually don't hate on this, look fucking terrible. Like frickin' KotoR's looked better than this. I get that it is mainly because it is a desert and all, but even visually distinct stuff like different DLC zones etc look awful. But let's ignore that, as it is the story that we truly care about here. And it is, in my opinion, really meh. The journey your character takes is probably the best part, but still, I saw way more competent examples of it. Issue I see is that you get too much of a special treatment in the game. You'll say that it is due to the chip, but the problem is that it is just so easy for you to get robbed of it, and there is no real reason the faction leaders should trust me. House is extremely influential in Vegas. Surely it would be smarter to hire a yesman (pardon the joke) and just kill the courier. Similarly is with Caesar (with whom the only interaction you'll most often have is meeting him once, accepting his task, betraying him and then getting a pat on the back because the guy is too lazy to double check if you crossed him. Not to mention that to anyone else in the Legion you should be just another profligate. It is only the NCR that seem actually well developed in this regard, as you'll start with them as a free-lance grunt that eventually gets their trust to do more important tasks. But again, perhaps this is just my nitpick, so let's go into the main thing that spawns these discussions: the factions.

Pretty much all of the factions are completely forgettable. Legion is just a fucking joke. There are no redeeming qualities apart from "hey, maybe the merchant is slightly safer under us". Their entire system will collapse the moment Caesar dies and I just can't take them as a real threat, especially knowing that they are also luddites that hate advanced tech. NCR are better, but for a game that allegedly has such interesting factions, are just so basic. They are just a normie modern democracy that is expanding into a frontier, along with all the issues that arise from that. They could be way cooler if, say, we got to see their internal workings, perhaps see a faction that wants increased power for the frontier lands, perhaps some class conflict between the newly forming elites of the nation and the proletariat, or perhaps some sort of increase in authoritarian army control in order to keep control of an increasingly spread out country. However there is none of that. All we get is "these darn NCR be infringing our freedumz". House is probably the only standout faction, as he carries an interesting backstory, is generally charismatic and has a solid plan that is more than just conquer the other factions, but to instead become a power player that would become invaluable to NCR. Yesman is an interesting concept - uniting all the lesser regional players into an independent power, however the problem then becomes these smaller factions. Boomers just seem stupid - wasting wast amounts of invaluable ammunition just to isolate themselves, but generally are just another settlement with nothing more. The Kings are for the most part just a gang that just want to take care of their little neighborhood. And the Brotherhood are just people characterized by the fact that they have all the old tech. In the end this Vegas coalition ends up looking like a bunch of ragtag randoms without a coherent goal. Now, all of this that I said about the factions doesn't make the conflict boring, but it isn't that interesting either. Boil it all down and you get a choice of either: everyone suffers horribly / the region becomes the newest frontier of an expansionist republic / the region becomes an independent technological and technocratic powerhouse / the region becomes independent and does whatever you want to imagine. It's not really that engaging of a conflict, is it?

In the end I guess the main reason this NV fascination slightly pisses me off is because of all the other great RPG's with far more interesting conflicts that get ignored. Just of the top of my head, Dragon Age: Origins and Tyranny have far more interesting faction conflicts. I kinda wonder if this is because of the fact that Fallout is more accessible due to it functioning like an FPS. But then again, even Witcher 3 is more interesting with the who wins the war decision, but I rarely if ever see that part discussed. So again, I really don't get the fascination with Fallout specifically.

And to answer OP, House is the best choice

>>4127
>Haha, ur just pretentious and I don't have to engage with what you said.
>Le smug anime pic
Wow, start making an argument any time you are ready bro

Anyway, as much as I despise the NV faction discussions, you are a fucking moron if you think House ending isn't the best choice.
>B-but he is an uncomfy porky control schizo tho :(
So fucking what? The guy is rotting away more and more every year. Sure he has a fancy machine to keep him functioning, but do you seriously think he can escape entropy? He is already 500yo, hell, did you even see how he looks? His brain will most likely turn to dust in a century or two, and will likely degenerate into senility way before that. So no, there is no risk of him becoming cursed 100 1984 reddit spooker. So what you should look into is what his path would achieve in short term. And out of all of them he is the only one who would actually improve the material conditions of the region, perhaps of the entire shitty setting. In the end his ending should be seen as NCR+ ending, as while House larps his snowglobe utopian shithole in Vegas, it is the NCR that would reap the massive benefits, mainly those of the technology they would receive from Vegas. It would allow for civilization to climb back out of the collapse, no longer rellying on barely understood salvaged and jerry-rigged tech. It is delusional to think that actual socialism could be built in the Wasteland as it currently stands as the material base for that simply doesn't exist. All the other endings should be considered as Luddite, since House, as unappealing as he is ideologically and personally, is offering a shortcut into the future, and without that it would likely take centuries for the Wasteland to recover. And no, not even if Yesman ending leads to a comfy communitarian Vegas, it still doesn't justify destroying centuries of progress. And if you are pro-NCR then as I said, they would be the ones who would really benefit from House succeeding, even if they have to pay more for electricity.

>>3856
I like your criticism even though I don't agree with it, but how the fuck is Dragon Age: Origins more interesting on the faction drama? I thought the Mage vs Templar autism began in the second game and I barely remember anything about faction drama when it comes from the base game.

>>3863
No time to respond today, but in short the conflict of the dwarf elections, as well as the Templar vs Mage conflict, which in my opinion was way better handled in the first game. And the human king elections also deserve a mention. I'll try to make a proper response tomorrow.

>>3862
Imagine recognising an anime shitpost and still writing out a paragraph in response.

its a video game, grow up

>>3870
Aight, so going down the list of those faction conflicts:

Templars vs Mages.
The reason why I really enjoy this one is because both factions are right in their own way. Mages are absolutely treated like shit and are very often subjected to a fate worse than death - to be made a tranquil, aka magical lobotomy. Also such treatment is reinforced by religious dogma. However, this is not without justification. All mages due to the rules of the setting are constantly a threat to others and themselves. Even the most experienced mages, when the situation is wrong in just the right way, or the circumstance forces one to "go all out", will become possessed by demons and cause destruction to all around them. Control is necessary. I quite like that this conflict is presented in the background and isn't shown as an open conflict (at least if you keep DA:O in a vacuum as it should be, because sequels weren't originally planned). This means that the discussion about what should be done should be far less partisan, and I believe it would be really interesting to discuss the possibilities of how such a conflict could be resolved. Also, I think, it is a very interesting portrayal of the policeman issue, so prevalent currently, of what happens when a guardian starts thinking they are the punisher.

Who becomes the king of Ferelden.
This one is slightly less interesting, but would be quite curious to properly dissect all of the many different paths, as they all relate to the rather interesting topic of feudal politics. I don't recall of the top of my head, but I believe there are like 10 outcomes which all have their own hooks.

Dwarf elections.
The best one for last. I partially delayed my reply so I could look this one up better, as I just discovered myself a new curious perspective for the conflict between the two candidates.
Basically the situation, as first seems presented, is this: dwarfs are a collapsing empire that also is ultraconservative and thus suffers for its failed caste system. The two likely royals are - the son of the last king, Bhelen, who presents himself as a social reformist and an old noble conservative Harrowmont, who claims to stand for stability and to be against the other candidate, alleging he murdered his siblings and father to get into power. Obviously first instinct is to support the reformer, however it becomes clear that he is deeply connected to the dwarf mafia and is also in fact killer of his family, while also being a total piece of shit himself, compared to the kind Harrowmont who truly seeks stability. However, what matters is what these would actually accomplish as king. Turns out as how horrible Bhelen is as a person, seeking power for himself he manages to reform the crumbling empire and drag it out of its ultraconservative isolation, while the nice guy Harrowmont manages to fuck the castles dwarfs even more than before while still leaving everything crumbling. And while it is clear for us lefties that Bhelen is based here, it would still be an interesting discussion on gaming forums.
But wait… that is not the full analysis of the dwarf kings. While taking some more research I had a eureka moment. No, Bhelen isn't based, they are both shit, and this conflict is a perfectly predicted parallel of 2020 presidential election. Let me explain. One of the main driving desires for Bhelin is power, that is the only reason he carries out his reforms. He wants to improve the situation for the castles, but mainly only so they could become his cannon fodder to restore the lost dwarf empire. He is the proverbial Trump - leading what remains of the dying empire into a last huzzah charge of the Light Brigade. There is no victory to be gained - the dwarfs got crushed by the darkspawn while their empire was at its zenith, Bhelin is fucking deluded in his quest and will only destroy the remnants faster. Meanwhile Harrowmont is the perfect Biden - a dying old man who is just so nice. It is literally stated in-game that he will die soon. His vision for the future is just a continued collapse under the old normal. Its the same "come on man, don't let that mean guy lead us to ruin, join me and lets all fade away as we always did". In short, dwarfs are fucked one way or the other, but the exploration of this situation, especially when it is presented stripped from IRL politics, can be quite fascinating.

Anyway, that's kind of it, hope I didn't sound too much like an epic redditor in the last paragraph with the 2020 comparison.

>>3829
flowers of pock lips

>>3829
The legion, because material conditions