I don't think Bethesda will ever talk about the Pre-War opinions on race and sixuality... it would be interesting, sure, but I don't think Bethesda would do anything more than imply just barely enough for us to draw our own conclusions.

And, there's no reason to get defensive or defend Bethesda's writing in this thread. The OP didn't say anything disparaging about Bethesda's design choice. We don't have to get tense every time someone talks about race, gender, or sixuality.

You are forgetting that you can be the wife.

I think we should just kill this topic. Don't get me wrong, I am gay as well and I will admit I am bothered by the fact we are in a straight marriage at the start.

However, this topic never goes well. The same dumb crap is said over and over again. Often it's snide little comments or outright insults. Even times where the topic moves away from

I bet if this topic continues a few things will be repeated

Just telling the gay community to "deal with it"
Complain about "political correct" getting annoying
Some stupid crap about how it is 50s culture (even though its 2070)
Something about mods
Being told you can be a woman


This topic will go absolutely no where. I promise you that it will go in circles. The game is done, what is will be, there is no more sense in discussing it.

I believe this board is incapable of discussing this like civilized folk. If this continues and it does, I will be very surprised lol

I would have nothing in particular against starting with the option for same six marriage. I just would prefer to start with no background at all either way. Basically the game starts, you choose your starting stats and appearance, and then you are dropped down into some random part of the wasteland. No back story at all.

But that said if there has to be a backstory I've nothing against same six marriage being an option.

That said I'm not outraged by its absence either but I'm not thrilled by by having heterosixual marriage either, cause like I said I wouldn't have gone either way if it was up to me.

My question is why does Bethesda even bother putting stories into their games? There's never anything but complaints about their stories. "Bethesda's writing svcks!" or "I don't like that the story is about a straight couple!". Why don't they just do a game full of side quests and leave out the main story?

Cause the people will still whine, [censored] and moan about it anyways. As the saying goes, you're [censored] if you do, [censored] if you don't.

As I've been telling people, lets wait to play the game before we decide if the story is gonna svck or not.

This is what I would advocate too. Wish more folks would listen.

Still, you have to admit it's odd for a game like Fallout to have such a defined background for the player character. When our characters were blank slates with mysterious pasts, we could fill in the blanks however we wanted, and make the character our own. Introducing something like this into the mix limits the number of people who can relate to the story, and the character.

like just about any other story ever written. You can't make a story that everyone can relate to.

I'll say it's odd after I play the game and see if the intro actually has any bearing on the story post Vault 111. I'm betting it does. Until then, I'm just going to wait and see.

How is it different than Fallout 3? I would say that this beginning - to the extent that we know anything about it - does not "introduce" a single thing.

Well, like the OP is mentioning, it seems to force sixual orientation. And, even in regards to people who are straight, not everyone out there wants marriage and/or a family. In Fallout 3, sixual orientation was left open ended. Sure, there weren't opportunities to to flirt with other people of the same gender like New Vegas. But you didn't have to flirt with members of the opposite gender if you didn't want to. On the other hand, we all have parents; fathers. The story showed both positive and negative aspects to the relationship, so there's something in there for everyone.

I personally got really lucky in that regard with Fallout 3. My mom and dad split up when I was very young, so I identified with the theme of a missing father. My dad's name is James to boot. I was also 19 when I first played the game, so that made my whole Fallout 3 experience pretty immersive.

I wish people would stop suggesting an entire valid topic be banned because some, often recurring, posters can't behave themselves. Ban the people not the discussion.

Anyway. I'm fine with the current setup. I don't wholly buy the 'it's the 1950s OHEMGEE' angle because it's not. Some fundamental attitudes have pretty clearly changed. And cultural stagnation in some respects does not necessarily imply generalized cultural stagnation in ALL respects. BUT! My primary gripe was the possibility of not being allowed to be gay ever because of the initial setup with the spouse and kid and Beth's attempt at making a more emotionally compelling story. Luckily this is not the case tho so... yeah. I can easily headcanon my way around a hetero marriage as long as can go and smoke pipe to my heart's content in the Wasteland and have that reflected in some capacity by the gameplay.

This, I can understand the frustration back when all we had to go on was E3 and the straight coupling there, but with the more recent info that we can romance companions, regardless of gender the whole starting couple thing becomes null.

I would technically be considered straight so the whole hetero marriage thing doesn't bother me too much, though if I were to pick something that I don't like if would be the kid.

I wonder if it will ever be explicitly stated that you are married and the child is yours? Or is it just assumed?

Could you play as if you are friends or brother and sister? (I know the child is supposed to be generated based on your character, but that's easy enough to ignore).

I'm still not seeing how this is something radically different than what we had to work around in Fallout 3. In one game we are forced to have specific parents; in another game we are forced to have specific spouses. Both games, it seems to me, equally limit our freedom to roleplay. Only the details are different. *shrugs*

Pretty sure the kid will play an important role

mother-son or father-son(or daughter?) relationship will somehow probably be a part of the story

As for the gay thing, the background/story is setup like it's setup. Beth can't please everyone. Use your imagination or deal with it.

I don't like Emil's writing, but this is his story. This is the story he is going to tell in Fallout 4. His story has a protagonist that is married and has a child.

Don't like it? Deal with it, but don't expect everyone to cater to you just because you disagree.

If you'd read the OP you'd know you could keep that edge for when it's warranted.

Just tired of beating the dead horse over and over again...(even if it's subtle like the OP)

First it was "Why there wasn't a female protag in the trailer?", then the rumour that you can't play as a woman which was debunked...then it was "why can't I be gay, trans whatever" and Beth said you can woo both genders...now the main story is being targeted for being, well, the story.

People need to learn that they're not special. For example, Beth didn't cater to cripples, half blind/deaf people, people with speech impediments...just deal with or don't buy.

Or phone Godd Howard and see how it goes


I'm out.

ROFL! As a half-blind/half-deaf man with a quasi-speech impediment, I applaud this post. Bethesda doesn't cater to anyone, they don't owe us a single thing. I look forward to playing a Howard/Nora that is not crippled, half-blind/half-deaf and/or has a speech impediment. To be honest, as a writer myself (well, dabbling in it anyway), I can always go write a disabled character if I wanted to; no need to demand Bethesda/or any other creator of creative works do it for me. This is the story they're telling. Don't like it? Don't buy the game. Simple!

The problem here being that what you're suggesting is present (entitled, cater-to-me whinging) which DOES happen is simply not present in the OPs post. It's not 'subtle,' it's simply absent. When you approach every thread that pertains to a specific topic with the mindset that the entire topic is centered around something you find objectionable (entitled, cater-to-me whinging) it always will be [for you]. It's called confirmation bias.

All I ask is that people check themselves before they complain about something that is not present. Because this is exactly why these threads devolve into hair-pulling so often.

It's easy to find offense in everything. Think about it long enough and jump through enough mental hoops, even a lamppost standing at the corner of an intersection could be offensive. It's also easy to whine about it rather than saying, "OK, am I just getting to worked up about this? Am I just overreacting just a tad here?" Not every little thing is a perceived slap in the face to you.*

* 'You' in general. Not you, Fredward.

Yes and I get that. But this thread isn't about that. Nowhere does the OP indicate offense or an intent not to buy or tries to guilt trip or anything. He is literally asking a question. Bringing in drama and snide remarks is unnecessary.