First: I have a question for the dinosaurs: Did the early Fallout games (the 2-D classics) have the same heavy 50's cultural influeces and mannerisms as the last two?

Second: Would anyone else like to see a little more of that Cold War scare in the games? Personally FO3 had quite a bit of it (not just the music, less country and more classical fifties, also Liberty Prime with his anti "Red" rhetoric, the slides displaying the Vaults, and of course the Chinese opperatives in the DC ruins) While New Vegas had quite a bit less. (Maybe Tabitha was a bit of an alagory toward anit-commusism propaganda?) So which do you prefer? Would you like more 50's references or less?

If more: what would you want to see?

If less: What aspects do you not enjoy?

With the originals - in practice, the "retro-futurism" thing really boiled down to just the music that played during the first part of the intro cinema, and a lot of technology that made use of vacuum tubes. And (though some could/would likely argue this) Vault Boy himself. You'd see an occasional art deco influence in some of the buildings on some maps, but that really was about it.

That's why you'll see some of us "dinosaurs" worrying about the extent to which that theme played out in Fallout 3.

Personally, I kind of thought that Fallout 3 rather got it spot-on. Or at least pretty close to it. (But then, I'm a big fan of their overall art direction in that game - beyond simply "is it true to previous lore," and more along the lines of admiring it from the point of view of my own art background.) It did take a lot of liberties, but in the end I think it was a move that I agree with, even coming from the old-timer camp.

The distinction that I generally make - and that I would find ideal for future installments of the series, is that Pre-War civilization was retro, but that the Wasteland in which the game takes place isn't. So it fits to find remnants of an idealized Pre-War utopia, but the times where you see people dressing like they're from the '50's or otherwise trying to emulate Pre-War civilization should be specifically when you're trying to point out that they're attempting to appear more civilized or learned, or otherwise seeking wisdom from the times before.

The Kings in New Vegas would be a good example of that, for instance. They're taking on the trappings of their own (somewhat inaccurate) view of what Pre-War society was like. The inhabitants of Tenpenny tower would be another good example of this, I think. It's very conscious that everyone you see there is trying to dress up like what they thought well-to-do people from Pre-War society would, and to take on their mannerisms and such.

But opinions will vary on this, of course...

As nu_clear_day pointed out the first games do have that "retro-futurism" feel Tech using vacuum tubes, the intro songs, but that's about it. The people in the games were not stuck on the 1950s mindset. The Great War was, the "before time" that people no longer cared about.

Fallout 2, with the Enclave, has President Richardson saying things like "Those Damn Reds." Since the Enclave lived by themselves on the Rig since the Great War, they would be the only ones still in a pre-war state of mind, but even they they were looking toward the future.

Fallout 3 to me was stuck in the days just after the great war. It had been 200 years, yet zero progress beyond basic survival in all that time. The devs over did it with the 1950s thing. The game isn't about the past, its about the future.

I have to agree.

I love the increased amount of the 1950s "world of tommorow" retro-futurisic feel in Fallout 3. I think it was a step in the right direction.

I think most of it was good and other parts were spotty, I would have to travel around the area to find what I am talking about, but I remeber seeing things that were stupid ot overdone. But overall a good choice, not everything has to represent modern times.

I disagree, The increase in retroness is one of the reasons I dislike Fallout 3 so much compared to Fallout 1 and 2, in those games people weren't oblivious to the world they live in and designs made sense with how the world worked. Bethesda just doesn't get Fallout or how its universe works, in the slightest, the increased Retroness is proof of that. "Well the original Fallout had some retro stuff, so that means everything must be Retro".

I just wish Bethesda cared about Fallout fans,

also I think New Vegas went a bit too far with the Retro Futuristic stuff too in places before people say anything.

I don't think that because FO1 and 2 ddin't touch on it as much that FO3 necessarily was out of line with it's pre-war 50's themed rhetoric.
It's a different region, where people could have recovered from the war with a completely different mindset. Let's remember that this is the DC wastes.
There would be a whole lot of pre-war propaganda still about for the first scavengers to find, which would shape their re-emerging society and culture.

I think they understood how the originals were not focused on the Retro feel. However Bethesda made a conscious design choice to increase the retro(ness) because they felt it would be a unique concept and they wished to put emphasis on it. They aren't bound by law to continue to follow a certain concept that was in the original games (less retro).

Personally I agree with them. I understand how people who originally played Fallout 1 and 2 can have a problem with it (seeing as how it is a change in design choice). But I'm not going to pretend that I share those feelings. :shrug: The idea of the post-apocalyptic "World of Tomorrow" is something that drew me to Fallout 3 when I first played it.



I'd argue that they do. Having Obsidian develop New Vegas is proof that they are attempting to re-create that "originals" feeling for fans who prefer Fallout 1, 2 and Tactics.

I doubt that Bethesda is ever going to satisfy everyone though, short of disbanding and bringing Black Isle back from the dead and saying "Shut up and take this game franchise from us!"

I'm ok with the increased retro-ness, as long it's everything old world that is... old. Like the gas stations, car wreckages, buildings (seriously, why has the architecture changed? I liked the faces on the buildings) and stuff like that. But people like the residents of Tennpenny can just go svck it. And I usually let that ghoul do what he wanted, he knew that stuck-up 50's people had no place in the wasteland, nor did the Andale cannibals.

I would have liked Fallout 3's increased retroness had it not contrasted with the previous games. The architecture has changed massively and now to appeal to the exploration crowd they are all structurally sound and fully furnished unlike the previous ones which in most cases - in the direct hit ruins anywau - the ground floor wasn't even in-tact and the floor was begining to rot away. I like the little details like the cars and even the general asthetic but the whole change in buildigns and D.C. being almost entirely in-tact just bugs me.

Oh and that mad women having a completely sound knowledge of the context of a "Spring Catalouge", how does the raving women even know what these words mean?

I agree




I also like to think that letting Obsidian make New Vegas was Bethesda's way of trying to figure out how to bridge the game between their long time fans and original Fallout fans. Since New Vegas did really well, I hope Bethesda will sit up and take notice of how it should be done.

I feel more should be taken from the Originals and put into future fallouts, such as the levelling system and removing locking mini games and bring back locking tools.

One of my favorite aspects was the faces on the buildings (a little baroque and very much the perfection of man that was around in the fifties) I lways assumed that it was a reflection on the Capital, the government and such, not a style for the whole country. (like how government buildings are based on roman architecture, but the rest of our stuff is not)

Also: the more I think about it, the more I wonder if Tennypenny Tower is an alagory to segregation (maybe?) I mean they basically discrimnate against ghouls and make them live in the sewers while they reside in comfort and luxury. (just a thought... probably for a different thread)

Personally I would love to see more of the fifties culture and cold war scare. On the other hand I don't think it would make sense to see so much of that influence some two hundred plus years after that culutre was comepletely anhilated (I think I misspelled that) Maybe a future installment could involve something a little closer to after the bombs fell. (On that note, Fallout does seem a little retroactive. The earlier games seem to better reflect what the later games should have, while later games represent something that could have come from a time soon after the bombs fell IMO) (I haven't played the earlier games so I'm going on what I've read here and on the wiki)

I think Fallout 3 just tried way too hard.

I agree. Bethesda will certainly have learned from New Vegas and will almost definitely incorporate many of the things it brought to the series (and in some cases brought back) into Fallout 4.

Fallout 3 was their first "crack" at trying a Fallout game. I'd say that they did fairly well, considering what it could have been (aka on par with the Burned Game).

I am greatful they didn't make another Burned Game. I agree they did a good job, but they could have done a great job if they were willing to lookout side of the TES box and just sit down and play the first three Fallout Games.

I do have hope that Bethesda will make a great Fallout game for Fallout 4. I just have to wait like everyone else to see :foodndrink:

I would love Bethesda forever if they do something with the MWBoS, pick an ending of Fallout Tactics and run with that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2ZcpcO7C58 :deal:

I disagree, actually.

Looking through the Fallout 3 art book from the Collector's Edition was something I found to be rather informative about a lot of this. I don't think anyone would argue that they went a lot further with the retro stuff in Fallout 3 than anything the previous games had clued in.

I do think it's a mistake, however, to assume that's because Bethesda actually thought that in this way they were staying 100% true to the art direction of the originals. It looks very much to me like a conscious decision to push it further. It's my belief they knew they were doing this on purpose.

Like I said, I think it gives the game a very unique aesthetic. In the decade between Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, a lot of other post-apocalyptic games had come onto the market. And with increased fidelity, they needed something to make sure it stood apart visually from a lot of the other games.

What I do think shows Bethesda as coming from a Fantasy game background, however, is their mistake in the timeframe of the game. Clearly, the world looks like it's taking place not so long after the War. And yet it's much, much later than that. Personally, I think their biggest mis-step was in setting Fallout 3 as far forward in time from the previous games as they did. Now, in an Elder Scrolls game, that's likely a lot more normal. And people aren't going to be thinking about what "logically" would have happened in the intervening 200+ years. When you're dealing with a science-fiction setting, however, something like that means a lot more.

As far as "not caring about Fallout fans..." Well, I don't want to run the risk of trying to put words in Bethesda's mouth. My own feelings as an "original" Fallout fan is somewhat different than this, though. Honestly, I think I respect them more for having the guts to make the game that they wanted, instead of worrying too much about what I was going to think about it. If they'd ended up making a game they weren't comfortable with just to pander to what they thought I'd like out of a Fallout game, and it hadn't worked - well, I probably wouldn't even be here talking about...

Sure, there's a lot of things I think need to be improved going forward. I really hope Bethesda's learned some lessons from Obsidian. (And, we always hope they've listened to us on the forum. ) But getting back on track for this topic - one thing I don't think they messed up was the game's unique take on a post-apocalyptic aesthetic.

I can agree with Bethesda having done the aesthetic part right (although the overdone 50's felt a bit odd, things looking 50's when one would've thought things should've looked like the future from the perspective of the 50's, and even then, only slightly as the 50's was just an underlying theme -- I don't find it all that big of a deal, though). But the praisal that "they had guts to do what they wanted to do" comes with one major problem, although unrelated to the 50's topic. There is only one type of game Bethesda - apparently - wants to, and is prepared to do. I don't see much "guts" in them doing their routine job of slightly tweaking what they did previously as opposed to trying something at least a bit different (to the extent that it can be called different with a straight face in other ways too than just for the aesthetics).

That's about all I have for this topic.

I actually liked the 50s retro atmosphere of Fallout 3 and missed it a lot in New Vegas.

The retro-futuristic cars scattered around roads, ad billboards, Enclave propaganda posters, the music, the look of the intact or destroyed houses, diners and hotels, vault adverts...

That was in New Vegas..?

It was in New Vegas, however there was a difference.

Fallout 3's "1950s feel" was that of a more traditional one, sort of the 1950s "Anytown USA" concept.

Whereas New Vegas's "1950s" feel was more centered on that of 50s-60s Vegas and the "Rat Pack Era". Along with a good mixing of 50s country and western.

So same Time-period feeling, but different aspects and areas of 1950s America.

Would not have taken such an interest in Fallout had it not been for the 1950's retro feel. It's what got me interested-it would not have stood out from other post apocalyptic games without it-and then it is what got me hooked. Without it, Fallout 3 would have just been that game I rented that one time and it was okay.

The art style, the theme, was the sell for me. It's what made the game great and made Fallout my favorite franchise. A series I cannot get enough of.

Thankfully, I don't see it going anywhere. Kudos to Bethesda for taking that extra step with the theme. If you'll notice-post apocalyptic movies that are merely deserts and highways don't tend to be as successful as those that carry recognizable landmarks, settings, themes, or other plot devices such an alternate universe with a 1950's feel.

I wish they had been... Its was a pretty core concept; Several in fact.

I don't know - personally, I think if anything falls under "artistic license," then the visual aesthetic does.

I mean - the original Batman had a green costume. So technically, it would have been more "faithful" to the original concept of the character if Christian Bale was running around in green spandex shooting thugs with a pistol in the new movies - but I can't say I would have enjoyed that as much. :shrug:

That's a bit different, Fallout 3 is within the same continuity as Fallout 1 and 2, The Batman Begins Trilogy isn't within the same continuity as any of the batman things out there.

Really all Bethesda had to do was get rid of the 3 and call it a reboot, and then I would be okay because then it wouldn't have [censored] with the continuity of the series and I could just ignore it like every video game remake/reboot out there.

*cough* X-Com *cough*

Maybe Bethesda can think of something creative for the change, and keep the majority of the areas like Fallout 1 and 2. Maybe ICBM defense systems saved many lives and buildings in DC, and the lives were killed by radiation later on. Or about the 50's thing... hmmm, that is hard to think of something. Possibly since it is the capital they wanted more propaganda.

As for the people, that is just them being oblivious.