Hey guys I thought we could have a good old discussion about fallout and peoples urge to make it a realistic as possible, this has me slightly worried due to the fact that the devs read these forums and may take what we say as what we all want. When I think fallout I think of the TV show scrubs, the setting is a hospital, a serious place of life and death, however the events depicted within are not and what we are left with is a surreal and funny view of something serious. This is exactly what fallout does, while a post apocalyptic wasteland is a terrible place to be the events and happenings within are tongue in cheek. It concerns me when I see people on these forums saying things like:

"aliens are stupid and unrealistic" (and I suppose 6 metre long ants aren't)
"No magic pockets"
"no magic" (then we wouldn't have weird and cool quests like the dunwhich building)
"Fallout isn't about humour it about survival" (somebody actually said this, I'll try to find the quote)

I don't mind a little realism but I don't want it at the expense of Fallouts soul or gameplay, I want to see weird quests, strange animals, funny surreal happenings that make no sense(naughty nightwear anyone) that's what fallout is about people. Play stlaker if you want a dry, realistic survival game. I just want to see where some of you stand on this matter.

i dont think people care that much... about the non realistic stuff and hate it so much that they want it taken out of the game.

A game shouldn't be 100% realistic('cause it would be boring, right?), but a game like Fallout should feel like a post-apocalyptic survival game, and not something like Halo.

exactly how i thought

Thank you for posting this. Realism at some point starts to svck. If everything was actually realistic in a game, you wouldn't be the protagonist. You would be just as helpless as the other people in the game. Why do you think you can mow through enemies with ease? Because you aren't hindered by reality. Bullets wouldn't just cripple your head, they would make it explode just like they do with enemies in the game. Your lazy ass in real life couldn't carry 300 lbs on your back. Hell, I have a hard time squatting that much right now. All those weapons that you think are too powerful wouldn't even fit in your house, let alone on your back. Realism svcks, and that is why we play video games. If you want realism, hang out in Chernobyl for a week.

I just don't like games that hurt my brain.

Dude, there's suspension of disbelief and there's random, stupid [censored] made for kiddies. Fallout is a fictional world with some things diffrent from ours, but it's not a place where girls wearing pink dresses and armed in japanese swords should run around doing more damage than a PA-wearing soldier with a minigun (a real situation from Fallout 3).

What some people want and other people don't seem to understand, is to New Vegas to be *believable*, at least to an extent. We want a game that won't make us face-palm every 5 seconds. That's all.

Thank you, I agree completely.

I have to agree with Wheatstone here.

This, pretty much. If you played the first two Fallout games you know that Fallout isn't 100% realistic. I've loved Fallout since before it was released (fell in love with the precursor game, Wasteland, in the '80s and have been a fan ever since). However, there's a time and a place for silliness and Science!. In the first two games (especially the first one) the developers were very careful about what was presented as realistic and what was silly/funny/goofy. Yes, there are jokes, and yes, there is an overall irreverent attitude, but the entire game isn't one goofball stunt after another. The reason that the humor in the first two games was effective was that so many other aspects of the game were very grim and semi-realistic. I personally feel like Bethesda didn't quite get that balancing act right in Fallout 3...IMO they leaned a little too far into, "ok, that's just dumb" territory.

The game should largely be grim, dismal, and serious, and when you come upon the signpost with the joke on it it's all that much funnier because of the contrast with the direness of the world's situation. Get it?

Oh, and for the record, I don't want to see any more aliens. Not because they're not realistic, but because they're not what the Fallout world should be focused on. Aliens to the degree they were presented in Mothership Zeta are more of a distraction from the things I like about the Fallout universe than an addition. Don't get me wrong, MZ was fun as a sort of "Easter egg" DLC, but no more, please.

Actually, I wouldn't call S.T.A.L.K.E.R. a realistic survival game, while it lacks some of the more far-fetched aspects of Fallout, mostly because it's not inspired by '50s science fiction and it's in a nearer future, I don't think you'll see too many mutants that can turn invisible, muntants that appear as nothing except a distortion floating around in the air and throw stuff at you with telekinesis, and gravitational anomalies that crush you or svck you in if you step in them. Still, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. is pretty different from Fallout, and while there may be some things Obsidian could learn from that game, I definately don't want Fallout to be like S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (Okay, if I ever need to use that name in this topic again, I'll just copy and paste it.)



Considering that I don't recall any pink dresses or "Japanese swords" (I like how you make it sound like there's only one kind of sword in Japan, although some writers of fiction seem to really believe that's the case.) in the default game, so you're probably talking about something added from a mod, and it must be said that players can add whatever they want with mods (within the limitations of what's possible in the engine, anyway.) and pretty much every game that has ever been heavily moddable has likely had some pretty silly things added by mods.

However, it seems to me that, at least for serious fans, the players asking for realism are mostly talking about realism in gameplay rather than in setting. It's possible to have an unrealistic setting in the game while still having realistic gameplay, as well as the opposite, you can create a game set in a futuristic world, with robots, aliens and mutants, power armor and what not, but still have everything behave exactly as you would expect them to in real life, likewise, you can have a game set in a relatively realistic world. Taking place in a modern city, with vehicles, weapons and so on that, if they don't use real names, are based on real ones, without any sort of science-fiction or fantasy themes, but still make the gameplay very unrealistic (The GTA series comes to mind, and the non-interactive varient often shows up in action movies, where you'll get people doing impossibly cool stunts with guns and vehicles that if they don't kill you in real life would probably be very impractical, and with cars exploding all over the place and so on.) To a certain extent, I wouldn't mind this kind of realism, but with that it's also important not to take it too far. After all, I play Fallout because I want an entertaining experience, not because I want an accurate simulation of what life in a post apocalyptic world would be like. Sometimes, a bit of realism can add to the entertainment value of the game, and as much fun as it would be to watch, I don't really want my attacks to throw enemies across the room, smash them against the wall with a loud crunch, cause them to cough what seems like more blood than they should have in their entire body out of the mouth, and then stand up and fight again. But too much realism would simply make the game boring, and if I really wanted full realism, I'd play a game where that's actually the point.

As far as the world is concerned, I think that Fallout fans mostly want internal consistency. In fiction, when it comes to crafting a believable world, this is often more important than realism. As an example, let's take a hypothetical fantasy world. Fantasy as a genre tends to be fairly unrealistic, that's the point of it, it's about crafting a world that is not real. Whether this world is some fictional world in a universe completely different from our own or if it's a side of Earth hidden away from our every day lives, so therefore, it can get away with a lot of unrealistic things. Fantasy will often involve things like magic and a surprising mix of mythological or made up creatures, fans of the genre can accept these things. Now let's say you're reading your favorite fantasy novel, the author created a detailed world, with clearly defined races, nations, cultures and so on, maybe the author even defined rules for how magic works. But then when you're reading through the book, the wizard suddenly uses a spell that completely defies how magic is said to work in the setting, or maybe the villian has the heroes trapped in a situation where there's no hope of escape, and he decided NOT to spare them so they can come back another day or use an easily escapable deathtrap, and just starts executing them, then suddenly aliens appear out of nowhere and shoot the villian and his minions with lasers. You'll probably suddenly find that this is a pretty hard hit to suspension of disbelief, not because the idea is any more unrealistic than anything you've already seen, but because it clashes with what's already been established about the world. I'm perfectly fine with seeing super mutants, laser guns, and power armor in Fallout, because those are already established aspects of the world, and taking them out might actually ruin it. But I don't want to see elves using magic and wearing dark spiky armor with glowy parts come out of nowhere, those can stay in fantasy.



Those are my thoughts too, actually. In fact, aliens really aren't a very unrealistic idea, the reasons for that I shall leave for the "Do you believe in aliens?" threads that sometimes pop up in Community Discussion, but I won't go declaring a science-fiction story unrealistic because it has aliens (although if we ever encounter aliens in real life, I doubt they'll look anything like what we saw in Fallout 3, but science-fiction writers don't need to let such petty things as biology or logic get in the way of crafting an interesting story.). And also, the occassional hint of aliens did show up in earlier Fallout games (The alien blaster, for one thing.) they're just not the main focus of the world, and shouldn't play a major role in future games. I didn't object to the crashed alien spaceship, the Firelance, or even the reference to aliens in one of the Pentagon terminal at all, Bethesda should have just kept them to easter eggs like that.

QFT.

Fallout 3 was pretty realistic, all the mutants are basically mutated species that lived before the Great War. A Feral Ghoul is a crazed Ghoul, which is a human with an ungodly amount of radiation. lol. All the mutants in Fallout 3 are basically from habitants from before the Great War, so fallout 3 was basically realistic, for the most part.

- What is a Centaur mutated from?

Oh and the aliens in MotherShip Zeta was intended to be the view of aliens from the people living in the '50's. Atleast that's what I got from that add-on.

This, exactly. A fictional, "made-up", world is defined by its boundaries as much as anything else. You can make up anything you want, and if it's presented well, it can be believable in the imagination of the player/reader/viewer. When you begin to change things that have already been established the world goes out of focus and becomes less believable. As a fan of the Fallout universe consistency is, by far, the most important thing to keep in mind when creating new content.


Agree 100%.


The super mutants were the result of an experiment with a retrovirus (FEV) that alters the host's DNA.


They're the result of multiple animals and/or humans being "dipped" in a vat of FEV at the same time and fused together into a single organism.

I can't speak for everyone here, but I didn't find the events of the Fallout games funny at all. The premise of the setting is over the top and unrealistic yes, but really no more than your average fantasy RPG like Dragon Age. The Fallout games (particularly 2 and 3 as the original took itself quite seriously) contain a bit of comedy relief sure, but this is mostly to counterbalance the otherwise depressing setting. Those two idiots dressed as super heroes in Canturberry Commons aren't there because Fallout is a funny game; they're there to counter seeing the bones of dead children in their beds, and the fact that the remnants of the US Government want to commit mass murder.

I think you're confusing humor with the fantastical. If you think Fallout is like Scrubs, you might as well say that Dragon Age is like Scrubs as well. The fantastical elements, and their unique and imaginative execution are what keep Fallout from being a "dry" setting like S.T.A.L.K.E.R, not the humor.

i dont think the people who work on the original at obsidian will let people toy with the games humour etc

As people have said, it's more about believability; we can be engrossed in a game with mutants because that is it's setting, but as was said before, it's really dumb to see some chick in a pink dress beat up on an enclave soldier. Also, Selbeth, I don't think you've actually played the game; the girl in the pink dress with a katana is Clover, a possible companion. The dress she wears is really common too; you can't have played the game without seeing a pink dress! And don't pick on someone because they don't know the exact type of sword - it's a sword that is of Japanese origin, how specific do you want?? "A girl in a pink dress weilding that 24" Tamahagane katana with a quenched edge"; is that better?

Anyway, the main reason a lot of people are screaming for realism is because they're talking about hardcoe mode. I don't want hardcoe mode to just be an extra difficulty, I want it to be semi-realistic; hell I want to actually be forced to make use of half the crap in the game. Who honestly ever used a drinking source or even ate food in the game? Stimpacks were so common that they weren't needed, but even if you did somehow run out of stimpacks and find yourself in a dire situation (never happened to me even on the hardest difficulty), then drinking or eating would hardly have any drawbacks. At near maximum radiation poisoning you'd only have some stats reduced; but I never even got close to maximum. It actually took me a lot of effort to get the required radiation level for Moira's quest; if it takes me effort to half-irradiate myself, how the hell is that even remotely challenging?

So basically, some people are talking about making the game a little more believable; others are talking exclusively about hardcoe mode; and others want to have to use things in the game and have game "features" like radiation be something other than a gimmick.

I think it's just a matter of taste - we could go back and forth forever on what each of us think Fallout should be; but when you get right down to it the more important question is what each of us want out of the experience. Personally, I take the "videogames are art" route, and if we go with that then each individual is going to take different things away from the experience of playing the same game.

Some are looking for a bit more grim realism to go with their Fallout, and others are going to want things to be a bit more silly. It's always been a very, very thin line for the designers to walk (and not something that I think any of the Fallout games have tread with 100% consistency, or success, either.) I don't think anyone's going to argue that Fallout isn't supposed to be a mix of grim post-apocalyptia and slapstick humor - the difference lies in exactly what ratio each person is going to be looking for.

For my own two cents: I always figured that Fallout was supposed to be the spritual successor to Wasteland, which itself was once described by one it's Devs as "Bugs Bunny meets the Road Warrior," and I figure anything that falls into that sort of category "fits" into Fallout. But again, it's about acheiving the right mix. I like a bit of chocolate in my chili recipe, for example - but too much and it overpowers the whole point of eating chili; not enough and it's like you might as well have done nothing.

For me, the humor in Fallout is the seasoning that's used to offset the basic flavor of the harsh realities of the Wastes. To my tastes, it's less about what is used for that humor, so much as it's quantity. Humor's great as comedic relief in an otherwise drab and depressing world; but too much and you've ended up with a comedic game that's just not all that funny...

wow had some good comments in here, just wish i was articulate as you guys :sadvaultboy:

I never totally understood this concept... I mean do some people want one hit kills....no saves....and when you die it deletes your hard drive

I remember a forumite commeting those things as a jest in one of the HC mode threads, because he/she couldn't understand why people want challenge when they can selfgimp.

That's exactly it - there's a lot of intelligent, articulate people who are die-hard fans of Fallout and simply do not want to play a silly-fest. Just because game are entartainment doesn't mean they don't need to (or should) be meaningful and make sense.

For me, even in sci-fi, there needs to be a level of realism or "believability" to the game. I am not talking about the fantastic main aspects of the game (super mutants, ghouls, a computer acting as the president, laser guns, UFOs), I am referring to the environment which supports the story and game play. And to me, it has all to do with immersion in the game.

Take combat, for example, in a game that I hated, Dragon Age.
In Dragon Age:
* You can wield a shield, but you cannot use that shield to "physically" block attacks. You can hit with the shield, but not block?
* You cannot physically dodge projectiles thrown at you: if the game's program decided you were going to be hit with an arrow, no matter how far away, even if you moved out of the path of the arrow, the arrow would curve mid air and hit you.
* You cannot use your environment to fight: following the arrow example, if someone shot an arrow at you, and you move behind anything, if the game decided you were going to get hit, the arrow would curve midair AND would go through whatever is in front of you: wall, rock, etc.
* You cannot use your environment to fight part 2: since your character cannot jump at all, you cannot take advantage of higher ground to fight multiple foes at one time.
* You cannot engage anyone at any time, only when the game allows you to and against who the game allows you to. If the game has decided a foe was going to attack someone behind you, you will not be able to attack that foe ,and that foe will push his/her way through you to attack whoever the game has decided will be attacked by that foe.

Ok, so I did say I hated DA (and believe me, I have many more) ...but the point is, combat in DA is totally unrealistic. NOW, coming back to the midair curving arrows, IF you told me I have, say, magical heat-seeking arrows, and you make magical heat-seeking arrows part of the story, THEN when I see the midair curving arrow hitting me, I don't go "WTF" and immersion is not broken.

To put it another way, I want the game to either follow simple logic/common sense/common knowledge and the laws of physics, or give me an explanation as to why this action or that character doesn't follow them, even of the explanation is fantastic.

If the game was realistic you would die within 5 minutes of every game.
Thats why the people who call for ultra realism should stay away from fallout gaming and go and play sim city.

Fallout is not and never was a post apocalyptic life simulator, it's like every other game but set in post apocalyptic war, so why when everyone hears the words "post apocalyptic game" thinks that it should be a life simulator?? Why oblivion wasn't a life simulator? It's all fantasy.

Someone said Fallout is not about the humour?? these casual players...

but aliens I really don't want to see them, I know there are already unrealistic creatures, but I just don't want them.

No magic pockets... It annoys me a lot too, Why won't they play FPS if they don't like that? duh.