Review Vince D. Weller Does Fallout: New Vegas

[Murk]

Your gentlemen's exchange was actually a nice read - it seems the game has much more depth, or rather the potential for depth, than one would surmise from the short snippets of 'reviews' constantly plastered around here.

I don't know if I want to make the leap and try it just quite yet, but mayhapse.

Interesting and entertaining (the exchange), well done.

 

[Mangoose]

So VD, does the implementation of factions in FNV and your discussion with BN affect at all your philosophy with AoD?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

What's more believable? A man falling into a mutagen and then deciding to dip more people into it and create an army of super mutants or a man using his knowledge to teach the tribals how to fight and unite them into an army?

The first is more believable in the Fallout setting.

Gun runners? How does making high tech guns and selling them makes sense again? A gang that makes and sells weapons instead of using said weapons to take what they want? Seriously?

Gun Runners are simply badly designed - they make too high tech weapons with "mills and lathes" and their workshop doesn't even have a power source on the map and is surrounded by a fucking toxic moat. And there's a guard standing over that moat for a whole fucking day. It's basically the worst location in the whole game.
Anyway, Feargus Urquhart is responsible for L.A. Boneyard and he invented stuff like Power Armor/Plasma Rifle upgrade. The whole L.A. is basically a foretaste of Fallout 2 and its theme park design. Feargus Urquhart happened to become a lead designer of Fallout 2...

As for selling the weapons...
They claim that they aren't fighters. They can simply make money continuously without getting killed in process of taking over places and with other people caring about stuff like food, managing towns, etc.

 

[Ausir]

It all boils down to the matter of personal taste.



I personally did not have any problem with the 'aesthetic' choice or design for the Legion. More with how they seemed so vicious and just outright evil, even with Caesar's explanation of their genesis. It seemed rather incongruous to the general campy and sometimes silly 50's derived Fallout feel, but that is just me. It had a sobering effect on my general appreciation of the rest of the Mojave.

Same here, I don't really mind them being based on Romans, but I do mind them being "BioWare evil" and having a pitiful amount of quests. I didn't actually mind them when I read about them originally in Van Buren docs, but I do mind the way they were implemented in FNV.

Brutal treatment is a very effective tactic which sends a strong message. You can say that it's a historically proven argument. Burn a town down, the next town will surrender or join you to avoid the fate.

They did not burn down Nipton and kill its people for not surrendering to them, but for cooperating with them to entrap the NCR and powder gangers in an unhonorable way.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So VD, does the implementation of factions in FNV and your discussion with BN affect at all your philosophy with AoD?

In what ways?

BN and I are disagree because we look at the setting differently. As he said:

"Makes you biased on this. Your view that Fallout's setting should have developed into feudalism is valid, but the fact is that it didn't. I "get the feeling" (but correct me if I'm way off the mark) you're predisposed to like the Legion because they're closer to your vision of what should've happened between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2."

That's exactly the issue. What's missing, imo, is a violent struggle for domination. The Master wanted to unite people and create a better man. The Enclave wanted to gas everyone. What the fuck did the rest want? Where are the other "players"?

Anyway, I am aware that these are subjective issues and personal preferences. As for AoD, the game's faction quests can be described as "a violent struggle for domination", so no adjustment is required.

What's more believable? A man falling into a mutagen and then deciding to dip more people into it and create an army of super mutants or a man using his knowledge to teach the tribals how to fight and unite them into an army?

The first is more believable in the Fallout setting.

Why? What makes it more believable?

Plausible? Yes. The Master and the super mutants definitely fit into the campy 50s sci-fi and thus should be considered a possible (and when presented to you, believable) scenario, but overall, a man uniting small bands of survivors, raiders, or tribals into an "army" is a fairly trivial and highly likely scenario. For example, since the setting has raiders it makes sense for the raiders to unite into a group large enough to be able to raid towns (Mad Max 2 style). This is a logical and believable scenario.

In comparison, the Master story requires a lot more preconditions. What if he was killed? What if he was tainted? What if instead of building an army he decided to sit there and feed on adventurers like a stereotypical dungeon monster? What if ...

So, overall, if you're stuck in a PA setting, the odds of a large group of raiders/slavers showing up one day to raid your town are a lot higher than the odds of super mutants taking over or the pre-war government gassing everyone.

Brutal treatment is a very effective tactic which sends a strong message. You can say that it's a historically proven argument. Burn a town down, the next town will surrender or join you to avoid the fate.

They did not burn down Nipton and kill its people for not surrendering to them, but for cooperating with them to entrap the NCR and powder gangers in an unhonorable way.

Sends a message, doesn't it?

In fact, that's what they want you to do. You are left alive so that you can carry the message (the quest requires you to "Spread word of Legion atrocities"):

"If you happen to wander upon the town of Nipton a man will approach you and inform you that he has "won the lottery". If you continue to make your way through the rubble, you will find that the Powder gangers who once took this town have now suffered the fate of crucifixion. As you move further toward the town center you will notice Caesar's Legion members near the double doors of the town hall. When you approach, the highest ranked member Vulpes Inculta comes toward you and engages you in conversation. He tells you that he will not nail you to the cross like the rest of the degenerates. He wants you to memorize what you've seen in the town, then travel to the Mojave Outpost and let "the Profligates" know "the little sermon" he prepared here."

As for the "Bioware evil", I disagree. The "best" ending for the Legion is perfect:

"Caesar entered The Strip as though it was his Triumph. The Legion pushed the NCR out of New Vegas entirely, driving them back to the Mojave Outpost. The Legion occupied all major locations, enslaving much of the population and peacefully lording over the rest. Under the Legion's banner, civilization - unforgiving as it was - finally came to the Mojave wasteland."

vs

"The Legate is crowned as the new Caesar. He entered The Strip as though it was a military target, destroying anyone who resisted him. The Legion brutally occupied all major locations, killing and enslaving a large amount of the population. Under the Legion's banner, civilization - savage as it was - finally came to the Mojave wasteland."

 

[Brother None]

That doesn't sound like BioWare Evil? All they did was kill a bunch of people, enslave "much" of the population and enforce their brand of civilization.

Again, we run into a collision of what actually happened and what the game tell us. Civilization didn't "finally come to the Mojave wasteland". It was already there. There were caravans, trade, refugees (from the legion) getting fed, independent towns getting along as long as the Legion didn't burn them. I'm not sure I'd even rank the Fiends and Powder Gangers as a bigger problem than the Legion.

Yes, the view that a faction that brings in slavery and slaughter to replace gambling, prostitution and corruption is a "civilizing" effort is, in fact, a comically, BioWare evil one.

Albania is a shithole (sorry, Albanians). If a bunch of Turks decided to revive the Ottoman Empire and went into Albania with fire and sword to slaughter all those that engaged in criminal activity, gambling, drinking, cavorting, I wouldn't exactly call it an improvement or step forward in the civilizing effort.

 

[Havoc]

I'm standing with VD on this subject. I think that the PA world shouldn't go back to Democracy, Freedom of Speech and other Freedoms (Corporations included). Why? It failed. They should try something new or try tested systems like the Roman Military Empire. Democracy and Communism in Fallout failed and brought the Great War.

Oh... and comparing today places/situations with PA... isn't good.

 

[Radisshu]

That doesn't sound like BioWare Evil? All they did was kill a bunch of people, enslave "much" of the population and enforce their brand of civilization.

Not really. Bioware Evil is cackling villain evil, whose main concern is being evil, but militaristic societies like Caesar's have actually existed. In the end, his plan was similar to the Master's, only he had military training and strict discipline as his tools (and the ones unfit to join the army would be turned into slaves instead) rather than the Vats. I'd say the Enclave is much closer to Bio evil.

The Mojave was semi-civilized, but unless you lived in the Strip you'd be subjected to either some kind of gang or band of raiders, or just mutated critters.

 

[Drakron]

That doesn't sound like BioWare Evil? All they did was kill a bunch of people, enslave "much" of the population and enforce their brand of civilization.

Pretty much what the Roman Empire did.

The only reason the Legion is "evil" is because they "enslave", its moral offensive to the post-17th century society.

I would say the Legion is a poor choice because they seem entirely military, there is no attempt at building anything and only conquest and as much NCR is bad, at least it brings something. I guess its a problem with the Legion not being fully developed as the NCR, we dont see Rome as a trading power in the Legion, we dont get the class structure of citizens that existed in Rome.

We get the Roman Legion and Ceaser, not the Roman Republic or the Empire that followed.

 

[Brother None]

I'd say the Enclave is much closer to Bio evil.

Fallout 2's and Eden's Enclave is retarded evil. But the problem with the Legion is...

The only reason the Legion is "evil" is because they "enslave", its moral offensive to the post-17th century society.

This isn't true. They don't "just enslave", they treat all women as sexslaves, pin their enemies on crosses, raze villages they don't agree with, etc. etc.

The problem is exactly not that it's morally offensive in post-17th century society. If they were a society that used criminals for slave labor (like the NCR does in the NCRCF) or the like, they'd be fine. The problem is they are evil by the standards of the Fallout society, not just ours.

Hence again the Fallout 1/New Vegas remark (man I'm repeating myself a lot). A group that is a necessary evil in a world in disarray is great. The Legion isn't a necessary evil, they're unnecessary and psychotic.

 

[Drakron]

This isn't true. They don't "just enslave", they treat all women as sexslaves,

Women also did not had that many rights until the 19th century, after slavery was abolished in the "civilized world".

pin their enemies on crosses,

Crucifixion was a common method of execution by the Romans, it got out of style in Europe for obvious reasons but the Japanese actually started to use it in the Sengoku Period and keep it until the end WW II.

raze villages they don't agree with, etc. etc.

Nipon was used as a example, it was a shock tactic against the NCR.

The Legion conquers tribes, they dont go around annihilating everything on their path as those conquered tribes will provide the Legion manpower.

The problem is they are evil by the standards of the Fallout society, not just ours.

Lets go a bit over a few facts.

Slavery is not uncommon in Fallout but its viewed poorly, sexism does not exist (oddly enough for the future of the '50) and you have a rather old method of execution that is done to inspire fear.

So why are they evil? Was the Roman Republic evil? they did wiped out Carthage from the face of the planet and salted the earth were it stood and women were not allowed to vote either, had few rights and lets not go over the slaves because we have Spartacus rebellion that ended with mass crucifixions.

Hence again the Fallout 1/New Vegas remark (man I'm repeating myself a lot). A group that is a necessary evil in a world in disarray is great. The Legion isn't a necessary evil, they're unnecessary and psychotic.

The Legion is not "unnecessary and psychotic", it what happens when someone with the brains, will and personality goes around creating a slavers army.

However the problem with the Legion is that is a army and nothing more and without a successor to Ceaser its going to collapse, its something that have no future as the game does not show it to have any ability to be anything but army.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

sexism does not exist (oddly enough for the future of the '50)

I remember being scoffed at for playing a woman during some points in 2, particularly when trying to join one of the families in New Reno (the Mordinos even have an extra quest just so I could prove the lack of a dick does not impair my shooting arm)

 

[Brother None]

Remarks on historical morals

Besides the point.

So why are they evil?

You just noted yourself how they are going against the morality the majority of the people express in Fallout. Even a raider band like the Great Khans considers the Legion's viewpoints evil. Do you have some more relevant definition to offer for evil than "they're evil by everyone's standards"?

Was the Roman Republic evil

The Roman Republic's morality is completely irrelevant. You might as well ask if the US government is evil because the Enclave is modeled after them. It's not relevant.

The Legion is not "unnecessary and psychotic", it what happens when someone with the brains, will and personality goes around creating a slavers army.

However the problem with the Legion is that is a army and nothing more and without a successor to Ceaser its going to collapse, its something that have no future as the game does not show it to have any ability to be anything but army.

Your second paragraph would in fact be why they're "unnecessary and psychotic". They do not offer a valid alternative. Either "evil" is not relative if you're not a relativist in which case the Legion is evil, if you are a relativists they're evil because they do not offer a valid, reasonable alternative to the flawed NCR or Mr House. Again, this is not a setting in chaos and disarray, and that's what makes them unnecessary, they do not improve the world in any way, they make life much worse. How else one can define comically, one-sided evil, I know not.

 

[Drakron]

Maybe Clockwork Knight but its not as there is a widespread gender discrimination or bias, we get it here and there but most of the time there is no difference.

Consider the culture of the 1950's discriminated women roles, in the military during Korea and Vietnam war they were relegated to medical personnel and support staff, Fallout have little to no problem with that.

The point I was trying to make is the Legion Gender Bias is not a sign of them being "evil" and the notion of women being sex slaves is incorrect, they do look at women at being nothing more that breeding stock but that does not make then slaves, according to the Fallout wiki the Legion have Priestesses that one of their roles is to raise the children of slaves and one of the footnotes says that information comes from the FO:NV Collectors Edition.

Edit:

Besides the point.

Its a question of if you see morality as a absolute or relative.

And that is the kicker, older civilizations did things that are now moral objective despite at their time nobody had a issue with that and people do excuse them from the fact they did those things because of when they were done.

You just noted yourself how they are going against the morality the majority of the people express in Fallout. Even a raider band like the Great Khans considers the Legion's viewpoints evil. Do you have some more relevant definition to offer for evil than "they're evil by everyone's standards"?

I pointed to what they do, I made no judgment and just because they are perceived to be evil does not mean they are because morality is subjective.

I can say I dont like slavery because I dont but does not mean I fail to understand the reasoning behind it and think its wrong.

The Roman Republic's morality is completely irrelevant. You might as well ask if the US government is evil because the Enclave is modeled after them. It's not relevant.

No, its not.

The Legion is modeled after the Roman Empire as the Enclave is the US Government but you can say as much the Enclave simply paid lip service to the foundations of the US of A I can also say the Legion completely misses what the Roman Republic did in terms of laws, culture and civilization in general and simply models the Roman Legions.

Your second paragraph would in fact be why they're "unnecessary and psychotic". They do not offer a valid alternative. Either "evil" is not relative if you're not a relativist in which case the Legion is evil, if you are a relativists they're evil because they do not offer a valid, reasonable alternative to the flawed NCR or Mr House. Again, this is not a setting in chaos and disarray, and that's what makes them unnecessary, they do not improve the world in any way, they make life much worse. How else one can define comically, one-sided evil, I know not.

Why do you keep missing the fact I said AGAIN and AGAIN the Legion is NOT a viable alternative and neither is Mr House that is a egomaniac, both are dead ends with Mr House having a slight advantage due to how long he will be around.

I think the NCR is because as bastards they can be, they are doing things that ultimate improve people's lives as Mr. House could not care less beyond his interests and the same goes for the Legion were the whole thing is just for Ceasar's ego (and worst without Ceaser).

I am not saying the Legion is a viable option, its NOT but I am saying they are not a option because they are "Evil".

Heck, look at the FO3 DLC "The Pitt" ... sure it sucked for the slaves but you could rise up and the fact is the leader was working on the cure that ultimate benefited them all.

 

[Brother None]

I like that Ausir is transcribing a lot of information from the FO:NV CE but let's not pretend for one minute that it's relevant to discussing how the Legion is presented ingame. If Arizona is some kind of communal valhalla that's great, but it's not like players get told that in the game. In the game, women are very much packmules and sex slaves. And even if you include priestesses, it's not like that's the faith of most women in their realm. Women they capture become slaves that can be freely used for sex by any soldier. The game's not even remotely ambiguous about this.

 

[Drakron]

I like that Ausir is transcribing a lot of information from the FO:NV CE but let's not pretend for one minute that it's relevant to discussing how the Legion is presented ingame.

I edited my post to reply to you but I want to address this, AGAIN.

The Legion is simply not developed in any form of meaningful aspect of society or economics, its only relevant as a military force.

I do say this, we know the NCR as the NCR is more developed the Legion ever is, now if the Legion had been more developed when it comes to it outside the military we could perhaps see it as a alternative society to what the NCR, even with the slavery and gender discrimination it have but as you are blunting put its not and so we have a Slaver Army and nothing else.

 

[Brother None]

Its a question of if you see morality as a absolute or relative.

And that is the kicker, older civilizations did things that are now moral objective despite at their time nobody had a issue with that and people do excuse them from the fact they did those things because of when they were done.

I wonder, do you read entire posts before answering? Seems like this point of yours was already addressed in the post you're replying to. Bit of a waste of energy.

they are perceived to be evil does not mean they are because morality is subjective.

Sorry, but that makes this entire conversation pointless. By that measure BioWare isn't evil either. If you want to sit around in some post-modernist circlejerk feel free, I'm not interested. The question was " why are they BioWare-like evil", answer: because they are unreasonably evil by contemporary standards and offer no advantage over the good guys.

The Legion is modeled after the Roman Empire as the Enclave is the US Government but you can say as much the Enclave simply paid lip service to the foundations of the US of A I can also say the Legion completely misses what the Roman Republic did in terms of laws, culture and civilization in general and simply models the Roman Legions.

That would be exactly why it's irrelevant, yes, thanks for fortifying my point.

Why do you keep missing the fact I said AGAIN and AGAIN the Legion is NOT a viable alternative

Missing it? I keep repeating it. You keep missing how that impacts their status as comically evil. There are shades of evil, and the Legion is BioWarian evil because it falls off the scale as being completely unjustifiably, pointlessly evil. There are no redeeming factors offered in the game. You keep making that point yourself.

Heck, look at the FO3 DLC "The Pitt" ... sure it sucked for the slaves but you could rise up and the fact is the leader was working on the cure that ultimate benefited them all.

Yes, that's a example of evil that serves a purpose. The Legion serves no such purpose.

Considering you keep making points that support what I'm saying, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Do you just not like the word evil or something?

 

[Drakron]

Considering you keep making points that support what I'm saying, I'm not sure what we're arguing about. Do you just not like the word evil or something?

Yes.

The good vs evil using morality is a good trick, its easy to set up a antagonist and by making him evil it makes the rationalization of defeating the antagonist for no reason to be easily be taken, they are moral repugnant to the player.

That is why I dont want to say "supporting the Legion is bad because they are Evil" since you are basing the entire argument in morality, kinda like "going to the caves and kill all the goblins -and take their stuff- is OK because they are Evil".

Just because they are Evil is not a good justification and perhaps I am going over this because Sawyer was asked if the NCR were the "good guys" and the Legion the "bad guys", as if the good/bad label automatic excuses actions and since you are saying the Legion is Evil I am picking on the fact you are using that label in them, as if them being Evil excuses the player from going into their camps, kill them and take their stuff.

 

[Brother None]

Uh, 'k. Thanks for the contribution but you stepped into a discussion on why the Legion is BioWare Evil. If you don't like the term evil than that's fine, but you could've just said so and avoided confusing me into thinking you were making a point relevant to the discussion.

 

[Mangoose]

I have had no idea what Drakron is talking about this whole page, actually.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

So VD, does the implementation of factions in FNV and your discussion with BN affect at all your philosophy with AoD?

In what ways?

BN and I are disagree because we look at the setting differently. As he said:

"Makes you biased on this. Your view that Fallout's setting should have developed into feudalism is valid, but the fact is that it didn't. I "get the feeling" (but correct me if I'm way off the mark) you're predisposed to like the Legion because they're closer to your vision of what should've happened between Fallout 1 and Fallout 2."

That's exactly the issue. What's missing, imo, is a violent struggle for domination. The Master wanted to unite people and create a better man. The Enclave wanted to gas everyone. What the fuck did the rest want? Where are the other "players"?

Fallout seriously lacked something that would justify the Master. There should be some kind of a war - not between neutral and evil but between neutral and neutral. Then his idea of Unity could look at least a bit non-batshitinsaneevil.
From what I saw, most of major conflicts were already settled by the time the Vault Dweller left Vault 13. There were mostly crime problems, not any war that would threaten the future of mankind.

What's more believable? A man falling into a mutagen and then deciding to dip more people into it and create an army of super mutants or a man using his knowledge to teach the tribals how to fight and unite them into an army?

The first is more believable in the Fallout setting.

Why? What makes it more believable?

Plausible? Yes. The Master and the super mutants definitely fit into the campy 50s sci-fi and thus should be considered a possible (and when presented to you, believable) scenario, but overall, a man uniting small bands of survivors, raiders, or tribals into an "army" is a fairly trivial and highly likely scenario. For example, since the setting has raiders it makes sense for the raiders to unite into a group large enough to be able to raid towns (Mad Max 2 style). This is a logical and believable scenario.

In comparison, the Master story requires a lot more preconditions. What if he was killed? What if he was tainted? What if instead of building an army he decided to sit there and feed on adventurers like a stereotypical dungeon monster? What if ...

So, overall, if you're stuck in a PA setting, the odds of a large group of raiders/slavers showing up one day to raid your town are a lot higher than the odds of super mutants taking over or the pre-war government gassing everyone.

Which makes it pretty banal and mundane for a topic of a Fallout game. Especially considering how well the Master and the whole FEV and Atomic Bombs thing was tied into the setting - it was epic. Not Bioware epic, but epic in a way that the whole story was tied to the history of war that destroyed everything. A bunch of LARPing raiders is a pretty serious decline when compared to it.

 

[DefJam101]

ITT videogame humans see no ignominy in wearing modified football uniforms as combat gear.

 

[DefJam101]

Even accepting that it can't (and I don't immediately see why it's impossible for the Fiends identity to function in this context assuming it's refined), this is still arbitrary. But I think you missed my point, since I did specifically say identities are about internalizing and externalizing. That means certain identities have an advantages either inherently or because of history that people still remember. People don't remember the Romans.

Most attempts to construct identity throughout history do exactly that by grabbing back to their own history. That's the easiest way of doing it, really, and it's what the NCR is doing. When it comes to choosing an identity, there's a range of options for both internal and external use. The Romans have no advantage in this sense, whatsoever.

The Roman thing isn't just an identity. It's the know-how, and that's the point that I think you're missing or ignoring. It's not about "what should we dress today as?", but about "which model gives us a good chance to dominate the wasteland?" There are many answers to the first question, but only one to the second.

Once again, the Roman military machine, developed into a form of military art, dominated the ancient world for almost 1,000 years, handling with ease both the advanced and well organized enemies and forest-dwelling savages. There were several impressive empires of the ancient world, but nobody came even close. This is what Caesar wants. Not cool identity to scare people with, but a recipe to dominate.

Why are the uniforms necessary

 

[Clockwork Knight]

ITT videogame humans see no ignominy in wearing modified football uniforms as combat gear.

Hey, as long as it works...it's not like they still have football around so it shouldn't look lulsy to them.

 

[Lumpy]

Why are the uniforms necessary

Why are uniforms necessary, generally?