Ok, let me put it another way.

If you want to invoke Diversity, not something enhancing diversity, but Diversity, then you had better be prepared to discuss religion, gender, race, sixual orientation, height, weight, nationality, disability, ethnicity, occupation, handedness or any other way we can categorize people.

Your logic is bizarre. "We don't have everything, therefore it's okay to take away something"?

If you accept that gender selection enhances diversity, the logically, the removal of gender selection removes diversity, and I don't see the removal of diversity and variety options to be very helpful in an RPG.

I don't quite get where you are coming up with "no gender selection". There IS gender selection. The human race has TWO, male, and female, the game-play video clearly showed that you can choose to be male, or female. Where is the problem?

Fallout isn't TES and i hope it never becomes TES. We should not have a story so empty and a world so shallow that we have to use our imagination to make it playable and enjoyable.

Our character is a married person with a kid, deal with it, let the story unfold like it's meant to.

You can play as a man or a woman, that should be enough for everyone to be happy. Asking for Bethesda to take away everything just so you can pretend your character is this or that is completely absurd.

I also agree completely with HeyYou.

Your character can STILL be anything you chose for them, gay, trans-gender, pacifist, whatever. Maybe they are just.... playing a role, to fit in with 1950's society.

Just out of curiosity, when was gender selection removed from Fallout? As near as I can tell, it was never there, at least not in the sense as it has been applied in this thread and its precursor.

Additionally, I am not advocating the removal of anything, I am just stating that if you use such all encompassing terms like diversity, you had better be ready to discuss any and all facets of it.

Because gender identity is more then that, gender identity is a social construct and even scientists are accepting that. There is more to gender identity then what you were born as.


IT
ISN'T
THE
FREAKING
1950S

What part of that aren't you getting? Just because the series have 1950s-esque imagery DOES NOT MEAN IT IS THE 1950s

I'm speaking in general. *If* they removed gender selection from Fallout, which they wouldn't (silly Reddit trolls) it would mean significantly less diversity.

I think you can advocate gender selection in the name of diversity without having to open up a can of worms. Simply invoking diversity doesn't mean you're speaking for absolutely all kinds of diversity in every form (which by the way I'm also for the inclusion of as much diversity as realistically possible in a given game).

The original premiss of the first thread was the ability to select the gender of the spouse, not the protagonist. This would enable anyone that wanted to create a LBGT character to do so without having to jump through a series of implausible hoops explaining the Ozzie and Harriet marriage.

We are never going to get full, total, complete, whatever diversity simply because humans are really good at categorizing themselves. We come up with categories and delete old categories faster than any game developer can handle.

That's part of what I mean about a connection needing to actually be there. I actually find James to be an interesting character in Fallout 3. But I never cared about him in relation to the Lone Wanderer, because they barely interacted. The relationship was mentioned, but the connection never really made. Similarly, if the spouse and son are only there in the beginning to set up lame twists, without an actual connection being established between the characters and the player, then the twist will fall on its face because it doesn't pack any dramatic weight.

I agree. Right now, the idea of Father vs Daughter or Mother vs Son is a lot more compelling to me than a Father vs Son struggle, even if it is reversed compared to how it usually is done.

I remember both stories, and New Vegas had a much bigger impact on me. Very little in Fallout 3 was very compelling to me, and while I found James to be an interesting character, his relationship with the Lone Wanderer isn't. But the power struggle between Mr. House, Caesar, and the NCR and all the lives that get affected by the outcome? The stories of all the companions? Joshua Graham? Father Elijah? The Think Tank? Ulysses? I found all of that to be fascinating.

But again the question becomes why is our marital status and child so important that it has to be riveted to the character? Does it actually serve the plot? If it's an integral part of the story, then absolutely. But if it isn't? If it's just an opening device meant to make you feel sad because you aren't going to see those particular character models anymore? If that's the case, then why bother forcing the character into a certain lifestyle rather than let the player choose it?

Considering Todd Howard talked about improving their storytelling techniques while refusing to tell us anything about the story, I'm not feeling generous enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I do not know any of that, or remember. Seems to tell me that NV was less impactful to me. None of the characters or factions are that interesting in my eyes. Joshua was never that interesting. Elijah was simply a madman that I lock in the vault. The think tank are not noteworthy. Ulysses is an idiot who did not deserve a DLC. How impactful are these caracters when I think that the best thing about NV is the character customization.

*Shrugs* Different strokes for different peoples.

Moira Brown is the only NPC in Fallout 3 that really made an impact on me. I really like her mosaic speech that she gives to explain why she wanted to make the Wasteland Survival Guide. It's a beautiful, poignant, mentality that shows optimism even in the darkest of times. I was interested in Li's story too, but she gets unceremoniously shooed off without any real development.

On the other hand, Three Dog's "Good Fight" thing is utter nonsense.

Out of curiosity, what makes Fallout 3 impactful to you? You keep saying it is, but without qualifying it. So what makes it stick in your mind when New Vegas doesn't? Not being snotty. I'm genuinely curious.

When I played 3 (my first fallout game btw) I felt like the LW. I felt like I was leaving my vault for the first time, looking for my father. Like I lost my dad when Autumn got him killed. Like I was helping the BoS defeat the Enclave. None of that I could feel in NV, no matter how I created the character. Benny never had any motivation, nor did I actually see him until I found out he was pathetic in the strip. House it just a computer. All the characters, I felt, were dull cardboard cutouts with recordings duct taped to their backs, even the "fascinating ones".

Hell, I felt the same way as I did with 3 when I played Bioware's Mass Effect Trilogy and Dragon age 2.

New Vegas does not center around the character's story though; it centers around the politics of thriving new groups of people & excelled at that compared to personal story. Personal story was left open for people to fill & experience the political landscape better with as that is the best way to do it.

Benny served to take over New Vegas by getting the platinum chip off of you. That was the only reason he went after the player character in the first place. While Mr. House, the NCR, Legion or Indy served as the major power plays of the political landscape. No one served to offer player gratification on a constant basis due to this. It was all geared to be political; as almost all quests & side-quests were connected to the political events taking place. Few did not.

But you do not know that at first. All you know is that you get robbed. How did Benny find out who was carrying the Platinum Chip anyways. For me, the story, no matter what backstory I gave, never felt that personal. I not some BoS paladin or an NCR soldier, or a Courier. I could relate to the LW more than any courier. I felt like I had to make up the story to play the game.

O.o?

Fallout 3 was my first game in the series too, and none of that happened to me, and I make emotional attachments pretty easily in games. The most I thought when James died was that I was sad I wasn't going to get more Liam Neeson voice acting.

As for the stuff you're saying about New Vegas... um, what? Of course you're not going to feel like you're leaving the Vault for the first time or that you lost your dad. Those things don't happen in New Vegas.

And someone actually likes Dragon Age 2?

You never know anything about a story when it first starts. That's why you explore it, and learn about it. And as for Benny knowing about who had the Chip, Yes Man is the one who figured it out for him.

Part of what I like about New Vegas is that the story isn't personal. It's not about you. It's about the world and what direction it should take.

I guess it is because I related to the LW more. Never found the Mojave or the world of NV fascinating. Never found any direction that interesting. None of NV really jumped out at me in the same way as it did for 3, because I can't really relate to the PC.

I was somewhere in my late teens early twenties, so for me, it was easier seeing myself in the LW than an experienced courier. Dragon age 2 was a personal story of someone I can relate two (someone who just wanted to help their family, when things go downhill fast). Mass effect was the tale of Shepard and the reapers. I am not a military person, but I felt as if I was actually taking the role of Shepard in that trilogy.

So REL_Dovahkin, to answer you first question officially: I felt that FO 3 was more impactful because due to being able to relate tot he LW more easily, I found it easier to feel like I WAS the LW. I cannot do so for the Courier, as I never was robbed or shot, so I can't find anything in NV as fascinating or impactful. It is a great game, but that feels like all NV was, a game.

That's fair. Clearly we have different approaches. I couldn't conned to Fallout 3 because the world is stagnate, lifeless, and nonsensical (looking at you, Little Lamplight). The Mojave was alive and dynamic, and felt like it would keep moving even without me, so it became easier to connect to the world. To me, that's probably the most important part of connecting with a game, actually having a world that feels lived in.

We do. I find it hard/impossible to connect to a world if I cannot connect to the character that I am supposed to be playing as. While both would be ideal, just having a world that feels alive is not that much if I cannot feel as if I am actually in the game itself.

But lets not get this off-topic. If you want to continue this discussion, my inbox is open.

This is wrong.

What you are trying to say is...

Balck Lab = Dog

Dog =/= Black Lab

As a Black lab is only a sub set of dog. All dogs do not equal black labs so...

Gender selection = Diversity

Diversity =/= Gender selection

Gender selection does provide diversity but diversity is not limited to gender selection, so one can not say you have diversity just with gender selection. Which is a hell of a lot different from what you actually said.

Yeah but I found NV was political without the politics. The Legion was an over the top caricature that any real sense of a political story went right out the window. There was nothing redeming about them when presented to the player. It is pretty much imposible to pick the legion over the NCR and not be a negative karma based character. When you create a political story and your players are as subtle as a deathclaw in an chinashop, Any semblance of a meaningful advlt story goes out the window. It becomes a popcorn and cotton candy story which has its place, and can be enjoyable but it isn't very deep.

One of the most important things in story telling is making your characters relatable to the veiwer, reader or player. If you have absolutly zero emotional investment into the characters your story is going to be flat. FONV does a terrible job giving the player any emotional investment in the game. You want a great villian create an emotional investment with your viewers, readers or gamers. For example King Pin in Netflix's Daredevil is a very good example of taking a villian and giving them complexity so when we watch the show we are emotionally invested in Wilson fisk. He is still a villian still not the person we want to win in the conflict but we are invested in the character. NV doesn't do that with anyone or any faction.

In Bioware's Kotor we see cut scenes with Malak that we as the player could never have personally witness so why were they included? because they gave us an insight to his character which allowed us to get invested into this character as a villian. Benny was such a let down as a villian because the whole plot was so contrived with regards to your character. For Benny and house to work we needed to gain insight into their characters beyond the interrogation of the player just before you make teh choice to kill or not. The Legion needed to be something more than just the boogieman. Don't get me wrong it is perfectly acceptable to create the boogieman villian but a political story doesn't work well when so many of the political players lack any kind of subtlty.

I enjoyed many aspects of NV but the story was not very well crafted.

I actually really agree with this. If there was a lot of previous character development and backstory supporting the relationship, then the effect would be far more profound. Like how in Gears of War, Dominic went from hopeful -> broken -> suicidal -> selfless sacrifice. His death had emotional weight and impact.

I think people have a tendency to confuse NV's witty dialogue as a sign of good storytelling. I definitely felt invested into the personality and character that came out from each character I met in the Mojave, but the main story felt contrived and stale.

Then they should have written a better story that didn't force marriage, a child and a voice actor for your character. Fallout is pretty much TES with a different skin. Bethesda games all take the same direction. If they put so much detail into world and want you to explore it while taking your time, forcing a situation like that on the player breaks the mold. I understand some people like voice-overs and a specific character who has a backstory or whatever, but this isn't the game for that.

I mean why go through the trouble of being able to choose your name, your gender, your race, and record a 1000 names so you can hear it in the game only to muck up the formula by forcing something that shouldn't be there? That's just an odd mix. It's never been extreme like that, so why do it now unless you couldn't come up with a decent story?

The story is in the lore and in the world. At least for me, I could care less that James died. In NV, I knew that I got shot in the head and I was able to seek out the answers for myself and yes, there were a lot of factions who had their take on the Mojave and what should be done about it. If I felt like playing a movie, I'd play Mass Effect or other.

Fallout is BASED ON 1950's Society.

And yes, gender identity is a social construct. Not a physical one. Once again, if you have the twig and berries, you are MALE physically. What you identify as has absolutely no bearing on gender selection in the game. Or, perhaps, you could tell me, what does a trans woman look like?

I would also point out, the the LGBT crowd makes up something to the tune of 3% of the population, should beth cater to this minority, and ignore us poor left handers, that are forced to play as rightys? We make up 3 times the percentage of the population.