Review Vince D. Weller Does Fallout: New Vegas

[Black]

Leave cazadores alone, they're pretty cool. Since FO1 there wasn't an addition of a creature that can shit up as hard as a deathclaw, now we have cazadores, a welcome addition.

Actually, there were super mutant behemoths .

No, there weren't, just like the stuff in PoS doesn't count.

 

[Ausir]

Well, I didn't say they weren't retarded.

 

[Havoc]

And why do you think it shouldn't start to (after mutation) hunt for bigger, armored pray?

(DT is kind broken in F:NV and F3 btw.)

There is no DT in F3.

So it's broken even more so.

 

[Malraz Alizar]

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.

You are still answering me in ingame plausibility and not game design. This is a Fallout game. Why is the developer bringing Romans into Fallout? Why is he implementing the idea with such lack of subtlety? I'm not interested in ingame plausibility explanations, I'm interested in why this would be called "good design". I can offer such explanations for the Boomers or Kings. Not so much for the Legion.

Some decisions in games design are made for practical rather than artistic reasons. You might have noticed the factions of New Vegas were based on a traditional (non-revisionist) interpretation of the Old West, with NCR representing the cavalry and Caesar's Legion the Indians. For obvious reasons, the decision was made not to let the Indians too closely resemble any recognizable Native American (or more broadly pre-colonial) society.

In other words, the Roman identity was chosen precisely *because* of its irrelevance.

 

[Ausir]

Yeah, because Indians are known for their imperialism and conquest?

 

[Andyman Messiah]

Eeeeevil injuns!

 

[Gragt]

I have yet to see most of the game but so far the Legion fits the game own reality.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Great review. My only disappointment is that you didn't write more about the Legion. I'm surprised you're defending them here, as I remember you specifically saying yourself that you thought it was silly how they all wore Roman uniforms, etc.

Vault Dweller: "The Legion is a strong raider-like outfit which, for some really odd reasons, is wearing Roman uniforms and has ranks like Decanus. Somehow I doubt that 200+ years after the post apocalypse people would give a fuck or even remember what the Romans used to wear and call themselves. Not to mention be able to mass produce the armor. Oh well..."

What changed your mind?

It was the initial reaction. Once I saw more of the Legion, talked about them with different NPCs, realized that the armor isn't made from scratch but that it's augmented football gear plus decorated bike helmets, then my opinion has changed.

Secondly, I do think it's a bit too black and white, with the NCR being the blatant 'good guys.'

I don't see them as the "blatant good guys". They aren't evil or bad, but they are far from good.

If I remember correctly, the people in Nipton were said to be prostitutes, gamblers, etc... so? That's a reason to kill them? I'd say gambling is a bit better than enforcing slavery. I really wanted to side with the Legion, but it just didn't seem like a logical thing to do.

Nipton was a shithole deserving to be burned, as one of the rangers says. If you recall, the Legion was able to trap everyone because the town was more than willing to sell many people to the Legion. They helped the Legion to set up the trap, but ended up falling into it.

From the Legion's standpoint, at least the way I see it, enslaving people (especially the good-for-nothing variety - again, if you recall, the hostages the game offers you to save are the powder gangers) serves some greater purpose, whereas people whoring and gambling their lives away serve no purpose at all. Some regimes frown upon such behavior.

The point is that a loosely organized group of soldiers and workers has managed to seize power in a huge country and defeat several armies, including the White army and the Polish army.

Uhm, you might want to check your history again

Oops! I stand corrected. Go Polacks!

Great game, better than Fallout 2. Great quest design.
Great review; bit short though, by VD-standards.

4,200 words. Fallout 3 review was a bit longer, but Oblivion and MotB review were about 3,200-3,500 words, if I recall correctly.

I think that this review is better written and thus is easier to read.

 

[Jasede]

The Oblivion review really did fell like it contained over 9000 words. (No meme intended.)

 

[Crooked Bee]

Great review; bit short though, by VD-standards.

4,200 words. Fallout 3 review was a bit longer, but Oblivion and MotB review were about 3,200-3,500 words, if I recall correctly.

Heh, strange. For some reason I had the same impression as Jasede had.

Edit. Probably for this reason:

I think that this review is better written and thus is easier to read.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

Btw, have you read the Lord of Light, by any chance? Love that book.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_Light

Except that their system and culture aren't really inherently related. And the Legion doesn't actually seem to be adopting many of the facets of the system that made it successful, nor adopting it well to their circumstances...

For instance?

Once you got the first 12 or whatever the number was, those other tribes are irrelevant. Somehow no one had gained any significant foothold of power in Arizona, so rolling up a bunch of tribals there is really not an accomplishment. Keeping them together is, but the game never really tells us how that's supposed to work.

By replacing their own identity, traditions, and customs with those of the Roman military including the hard discipline. That's what the game tells us. I buy it, you don't. Fair enough. Only you don't seem to have any problems buying the magical Shady Sands -> the NCR with its own army transformation, which bugs me as much as the Legion bugs you.

Because the Roman Empire has lasted for nearly a millennium, during which the Roman Legion, considered by many to be the ultimate military machine of the ancient world, was nearly unstoppable.

You are still answering me in ingame plausibility and not game design. This is a Fallout game. Why is the developer bringing Romans into Fallout? Why is he implementing the idea with such lack of subtlety? I'm not interested in ingame plausibility explanations, I'm interested in why this would be called "good design". I can offer such explanations for the Boomers or Kings. Not so much for the Legion.

Eh?

Not even sure when to begin. First, if the scenario is plausible then it fits the setting. Sawyer isn't trying to bring Romans into Fallout - will you move from this position already? they are not the Romans in Fallout, they are the tribals united into what looks like the Roman legions but isn't. He is introducing what I think is the most interesting and believable Fallout faction.

The Legion is way more logical, believable, and fitting than the Master and his mutants, the Enclave and their "let's just gas everyone" plan, the gun runners, the various drug dealers, etc.

I'm not sure what you see when you imagine a post-apocalyptic world, but I sure as fuck don't see the humanity quickly and merrily rebuilding. I don't see any democracies and elected officials. I see a fight for survival and organizing loose groups of survivors into a vast army to dominate the wasteland and build an empire is the best idea I've heard in all 4 games.

From the "good design" position, it gives you an alternative. Maybe, just maybe, rebuilding the pre-war America the NCR style doesn't make you all warm and fuzzy. Maybe you don't think that a gambling paradise is what the humanity needs at this stage. Maybe you think that people should stop fucking around and work together toward a grand goal, which is what the communism is all about, mind you. Maybe you think that what people need is an iron arm to rule them? Not change them into mutants, but to keep everyone in line. Zero tolerance policy.

You can't? How. The game tells us, but it doesn't show us.

There is a whole lot that the Fallout games tell us but don't show.

Sure, he's disgruntled, but if he's so disgruntled, you'd think he'd give some actual solid examples of what he's unhappy about or why it's falling apart. It doesn't. Am I really supposed to be convinced by that? C'mon.

Democracy has long become a synonym of corruption, greed, unwarranted leniency, bureaucracy, complacency, and, worst of all, the election process has become a cheap popularity content where the candidates promise the masses whatever would get them elected only to renege on the promises, which hardly surprises anyone anymore.

When I say these rather obvious "the grass is green"-type things, would you really expect me to back each point with examples and would we agree that it's not necessary due to the obvious nature of the claims?

This, btw, is what makes the NCR such an uninteresting choice for a faction. We know what a democratic republic is and what its strengths and weaknesses are. There is nothing there to explore.

Caesar thinks he got all the answers and he knows what he needs to do. He's definitely a plausible character.

You seem a bit overly focused on plausible. Plausibility and good design are not the same thing.

What's good design then? Please explain.

 

[Brother None]

I don't see them as the "blatant good guys". They aren't evil or bad, but they are far from good.

House and the NCR are perfectly non-blatant "good guys". They're valid options, but they have their flaws.

Of course, the alternate to the good-neutral paths is so comically, hamfistedly "evil" as to make the good-guyness kind of blatant. NCR is subtle enough, but they're really overly good compared to the Legion.

The Roman thing isn't just an identity.

I know. So why not adapt their system but not their identity? I'd have nothing against the idea of a slaver legion that uses Roman ranks, discipline and still-valid ideas on tactics. Why go beyond that? What's the advantage both from the perspective of Caesar and, more importantly, the designers? "We needed something really foreign" makes sense from Caesar's perspective, but that leaves open the question of why the Roman Empire, and why so hamdhandedly.

only one to the second.

One? Are you kidding?

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.

I think this is what happened to Sawyer too. He was such a big fan of the Roman Empire himself he could not directly see why the model doesn't strike everyone as ideal within the setting. Considering you share his opinion on the Roman Empire, it is not totally surprising to see why you would also not see why it's not the best recipe.

Btw, have you read the Lord of Light, by any chance? Love that book.

Nope. But it's a big inspiration for Fallout.

For instance?

What? How many of those have we already been over? Their dress and outward behaviour has no advantage in the wasteland. Their brutal treatment of enemies makes them unnecessarily evil which is not a good way to win hearts 'n minds, their sexist attitude was left behind ages. Slavery is no longer a relevant economic model this far into the post-apocalypse's development. Their mode of warfare is anachronistic and depends on throwing away lives.

In recent history, the Enclave terrified the Wasteland. So why not use their identity outwards, but mix it with Roman identity in ranks and discipline because you think that's the most successful system?

The Legion is not a proven successful faction. They've already lost the battle for the Mojave since the Chip is in play. They pacified a bunch of tribals but honestly, that's it. Meanwhile, their identity is so foreign it's not clear why it would work to unify tribes, and the game just never explains it. Just telling us "yeah it works" is not enough when it's not made plausible that it works. Wah-hey!

Only you don't seem to have any problems buying the magical Shady Sands -> the NCR with its own army transformation, which bugs me as much as the Legion bugs you.

I don't? I complained about that often enough, but that's a problem from Fallout 2, and a given that New Vegas couldn't really just ignore. However, I would like to suggest that your own personal view of this development...

He is introducing what I think is the most interesting and believable Fallout faction.

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. But what you think should've happened didn't happen, which is what makes the Legion such a ridiculous faction in the setting we actually have, rather than the setting you think we should've had.

I can sympathize with that viewpoint (especially since I suffer from the opposite in the Legion's hilarious evilness influencing my opinion of them overall), there's plenty of things I don't like myself in setting choices for Fallout, including the hurried development of NCR. That said, I can't say I feel strongly enough about it to just ignore the Legion's shortcomings.

Sawyer isn't trying to bring Romans into Fallout - will you move from this position already?

Why should I? No other motivation has been offered. The Legion as designed by MCA was a slaver dominated army that had a unified identity that we don't know about. Sawyer then slapped on Romans. What other explanation do you have then "he really likes Romans"?

The Legion is way more logical, believable, and fitting than the Master and his mutants, the Enclave and their "let's just gas everyone" plan, the gun runners, the various drug dealers, etc.

Heh. Well, since you just said so without any explanation, I'll totally buy into it

I see a fight for survival and organizing loose groups of survivors into a vast army to dominate the wasteland and build an empire is the best idea I've heard in all 4 games.

Cool. So make a post-apocalyptic game where that makes sense because Fallout isn't it.

Besides, none of that explains why they need to have a Roman identity. Other than "I think Romans are cool", I'm still not hearing an explanation. Sure, in a neutral setting "Romans are the best" is a great explanation. But this isn't a neutral setting, people playing dressup are an elements of post-apocalyptica it's so far ignored. Until 200 years in? Yeah, that's believable.

Maybe you think that what people need is an iron arm to rule them? Not change them into mutants, but to keep everyone in line. Zero tolerance policy.

Hah-hah you're not seriously suggesting the Legion is a reasonable alternative are you? They're psychopaths. It doesn't matter how much iron arm they bring in because the wasteland no longer needs that iron arm. They're about 130 years late to the party.

There is a whole lot that the Fallout games tell us but don't show.

Like you're telling but not showing "a lot"?

Also, I can't say I've ever seen the "but they did it too!" arguments in these debates. That's not much of an excuse.

When I say these rather obvious "the grass is green"-type things, would you really expect me to back each point with examples and would we agree that it's not necessary due to the obvious nature of the claims?

Uh, yes. When you're claiming your system of slavery is better than a corrupted democracy, and that nailing people on the cross is a valid alternative to corruption, you'd better be able to slow me some pretty extreme examples of corruption.

There is nothing there to explore.

Yeah, while opposed to that there's so much depth in having a psychopathic legion of slavers burn, loot, rape, pillage. The Legion is about the opposite of deep and interesting. Other than Fallout 2's Enclave and Fallout 3's President Eden, I think they're the most comically evil villains Fallout RPGs have offered so far. Why? Because even raiders don't randomly rape and nail people on crosses for the lulz, or exterminate entire towns because they disagree with their views on life. Other than the genocidal plans of the Enclave, I don't think how anything can match up to that. Again, if this were still a wasteland in disarray then cool. But it isn't. Yet the Legion is written as if it is. You can deal with that because you think it should be, but that doesn't really work for the rest of us, does it?

What's good design then? Please explain.

When you can reason out your addition to the setting by looking at the setting's existing design and ideas and adding to it, instead of directly contradicting what the setting has been developing to just because you think it's cool. Bethesda did a lot of that. Obsidian doesn't, except for the Legion.

Don't forget, "plausible" goes for a lot of things. There's a lot of things that are or could be plausible in Fallout. That doesn't mean they're all equally good design. Given that, both you and Sawyer let personal preference sneak into it the decision too much.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I know. So why not adapt their system but not their identity? I'd have nothing against the idea of a slaver legion that uses Roman ranks, discipline and still-valid ideas on tactics. Why go beyond that? What's the advantage both from the perspective of Caesar and, more importantly, the designers? "We needed something really foreign" makes sense from Caesar's perspective, but that leaves open the question of why the Roman Empire, and why so hamdhandedly.

Sorry, I'm not following. It appears that you're ok with the idea of:

- a slaver legion
- Roman ranks
- discipline
- tactics (and I assume the military structure)

So, what exactly you're not ok with? The uniform? If yes, then, as I've stated, it's football gear, reinforced by leather and metal stripes, plus decorated bike helmets. What's the problem then?

only one to the second.

One? Are you kidding?

Obviously not. Since you disagree, please provide the alternative answers.

I think this is what happened to Sawyer too. He was such a big fan of the Roman Empire himself he could not directly see why the model doesn't strike everyone as ideal within the setting. Considering you share his opinion on the Roman Empire, it is not totally surprising to see why you would also not see why it's not the best recipe.

First, "not the best" doesn't mean "bad". "Not the best" is a 100% subjective statement. Second, what would be the best recipe?

What? How many of those have we already been over? Their dress and outward behaviour has no advantage in the wasteland. Their brutal treatment of enemies makes them unnecessarily evil which is not a good way to win hearts 'n minds, their sexist attitude was left behind ages. Slavery is no longer a relevant economic model this far into the post-apocalypse's development. Their mode of warfare is anachronistic and depends on throwing away lives.

Dress - don't see why. I said it's easy to produce, you countered with "but the legs are open". Why is it a big deal? Because there are animals? First, there were animals in the ancient times too (not too mention that open legs made attractive targets in combat - slash it and the opponent goes down; but apparently it wasn't an issue); second, soldiers in a pretty much every army had unprotected legs (unless you consider pants a decent protection).

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.

Winning hearts & minds? Sorry, but it's a silly and very democratic notion. Dictators rule by fear.

Slavery is always a "relevant model" because it gives you free workforce. Unless I'm mistaken slavery was around for a VERY long time. One can argue that the US chain gangs were nothing but slaves. Same goes for the USSR political prisoners who were dying like flies building all kinda shit in less than ideal conditions (which applies to a radioactive wasteland).

Anachronistic mode of warfare?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurkha

The Legion is not a proven successful faction. They've already lost the battle for the Mojave since the Chip is in play. They pacified a bunch of tribals but honestly, that's it.

And? I fail to see how it's a problem. There were many rulers in history who overestimated their power and were defeated.

Meanwhile, their identity is so foreign it's not clear why it would work to unify tribes, and the game just never explains it. Just telling us "yeah it works" is not enough when it's not made plausible that it works. Wah-hey!

Is that what bugs you? That's what sold me.

How do you think Islam spread originally? It was a foreign for many soon-to-be-muslims faith-based identity and social organization that replaced local beliefs and race-, language-, nation-based traditions.

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.

100% correct.

But what you think should've happened didn't happen, which is what makes the Legion such a ridiculous faction in the setting we actually have, rather than the setting you think we should've had.

That's a good argument. If the post Fallout 1 setting was consistent, I would have conceded the discussion to you. Unfortunately, it's anything but consistent and on one hand we have the "200-years later" NCR, while on the other hand we have "huh? it's been 200 years? you're kidding" junk settlements that look like the apocalypse happened 50 years ago.

I agree that the Legion doesn't fit the NCR "universe", but disagree that it doesn't fit the rest.

The Legion is way more logical, believable, and fitting than the Master and his mutants, the Enclave and their "let's just gas everyone" plan, the gun runners, the various drug dealers, etc.

Heh. Well, since you just said so without any explanation, I'll totally buy into it

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 Enclave's plan is just silly. Don't tell me that you think that wiping out pretty much the entire population is a good idea. 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?

Cool. So make a post-apocalyptic game where that makes sense because Fallout isn't it.

What is Fallout then?

It doesn't matter how much iron arm they bring in because the wasteland no longer needs that iron arm. They're about 130 years late to the party.

See above about the two universes, the one where it's been 200 years and the one where it's been no more than 50-60.

I'll skip the rest with your kind permission as these posts are getting too long, but should you insist, I'll be more than happy to address your points.

 

[Gragt]

The Roman thing isn't just an identity.

I know. So why not adapt their system but not their identity?

Why not? Many cultures throughout history adopted parts from ancient cultures which were deemed prestigious, even if often fictitious. Telling the newly united tribes that they will be the continuation of a venerable empire that lasted centuries and conquered most of the then known world is more prestigious than telling they are simply tribals. Sure, Caesar could have taken something else or even made it up, but he already adopted the war machine and had an identity ready to be used, so why bother? It also doesn't matter that most of the wasteland population does not remember the Romans, what they did and who they really were; what's important is that the Legion identifies with that old mythical empire that lasted centuries — even if the Legion has very little similarity with the actual Romans — and that it sets them apart from the rest of the other factions.

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?

Both are equally believable in the "reality" of Fallout. If we look for something believable while being of this world, the Legion wins. The Enclave loses because, believable or not, it's just shallow and not interesting.

 

[Lumpy]

I still don't get why the Legion is supposedly Bioware evil. Care to explain?

 

[Needles]

The Legion is way more logical, believable, and fitting than the Master and his mutants, the Enclave and their "let's just gas everyone" plan, the gun runners, the various drug dealers, etc.

Heh. Well, since you just said so without any explanation, I'll totally buy into it

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?

Is the master believable in your totally real, wikipedia-quote derived post apoc future: no.
Is he believable in the framework of the Fallout universe (hyperbolic vision of the future from the less-then-completely-serious and viewpoint of the 50s.): yes

And pretty much the opposite for the Legion.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why?

I mean, it's not like the Fallout universe is filled exclusively with the 50s campy sci-fi stuff and anything "realistic" is a bad fit.

Why raiders wearing spiked metal armor, tribals with spears, and slavers in football "armor" belong in Fallout, but an enslaving army of tribals in stylized football armor doesn't?

 

[Melcar]

Just because.

 

[Malraz Alizar]

Yeah, because Indians are known for their imperialism and conquest?

It doesn't sound like you're familiar with classic depictions of the American Frontier AT ALL. Why do you think the US Government was forced to fight so many (purely defensive, you can be sure) Indian campaigns? Once united under a strong leader, the savage tribes had no qualms about waging war in pursuit of slaves and wealth, leaving a trail of burnt-out settlements - and the mutilated bodies of those who opposed them - in their bloody wake. It's fucking Old West 101!

 

[Kz3r0]

The Legion is way more logical, believable, and fitting than the Master and his mutants, the Enclave and their "let's just gas everyone" plan, the gun runners, the various drug dealers, etc.

Heh. Well, since you just said so without any explanation, I'll totally buy into it

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?

Is the master believable in your totally real, wikipedia-quote derived post apoc future: no.
Is he believable in the framework of the Fallout universe (hyperbolic vision of the future from the less-then-completely-serious and viewpoint of the 50s.): yes

And pretty much the opposite for the Legion.

This I can agree with, instead of focusing on historical interpretations we should discuss how Falloutesque the Legion is or not, and if it blends well or badly in the setting.

Why?

I mean, it's not like the Fallout universe is filled exclusively with the 50s campy sci-fi stuff and anything "realistic" is a bad fit.

Why raiders wearing spiked metal armor, tribals with spears, and slavers in football "armor" belong in Fallout, but an enslaving army of tribals in stylized football armor doesn't?

In short, pop culture, Mad Max and such.

 

[Brother None]

This I can agree with, instead of focusing on historical interpretations we should discuss how Falloutesque the Legion is or not, and if it blends well or badly in the setting.

You mean what we've been discussing for the past page or two now?

(will reply to VD later)

I still don't get why the Legion is supposedly Bioware evil. Care to explain?

Pros: caravans run on time, raiders are pacified
Cons: no modern medicine, all women are sexslaves as well as hilariously modeled mules, dissent is answered by being spiked on the wall, towns whose lifestyle they disagree with get raided and burned, promotion works by killing the guy above you, failure is answered by being burned and decimated, the leader is a decrepit old fool with no real plan on improving the wasteland

Again, maybe if this was Fallout 1 and - like the Master - they were actually a superior option to a wasteland with little hope of long-term survival. The Legion has no advantage over the NCR or House, whatsoever, unless you believe this bland vagueness on the democratic system being doomed (in which case House still works, and which ignores that it's not democracy that caused the downfall in the Fallout's history).

Why raiders wearing spiked metal armor, tribals with spears, and slavers in football "armor" belong in Fallout, but an enslaving army of tribals in stylized football armor doesn't?

The tribals fit? They never made much sense to me either.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why?

I mean, it's not like the Fallout universe is filled exclusively with the 50s campy sci-fi stuff and anything "realistic" is a bad fit.

Why raiders wearing spiked metal armor, tribals with spears, and slavers in football "armor" belong in Fallout, but an enslaving army of tribals in stylized football armor doesn't?

In short, pop culture, Mad Max and such.

You mean like the NCR?

(will reply to VD later)

Well, unless you're dying to continue, we can't stop right here. I hope that my position is clear to you, just like your position is clear to me. Since we won't convince each other, why won't we thank each other for the delightful exchange of opinions, tip our hats like true gentlemen (or salute each other with our monocles), and call it a day?

:monocle salute:

 

[Pegultagol]

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.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Great review. My only disappointment is that you didn't write more about the Legion. I'm surprised you're defending them here, as I remember you specifically saying yourself that you thought it was silly how they all wore Roman uniforms, etc.

Vault Dweller: "The Legion is a strong raider-like outfit which, for some really odd reasons, is wearing Roman uniforms and has ranks like Decanus. Somehow I doubt that 200+ years after the post apocalypse people would give a fuck or even remember what the Romans used to wear and call themselves. Not to mention be able to mass produce the armor. Oh well..."

What changed your mind?

It was the initial reaction. Once I saw more of the Legion, talked about them with different NPCs, realized that the armor isn't made from scratch but that it's augmented football gear plus decorated bike helmets, then my opinion has changed.

Secondly, I do think it's a bit too black and white, with the NCR being the blatant 'good guys.'

I don't see them as the "blatant good guys". They aren't evil or bad, but they are far from good.

If I remember correctly, the people in Nipton were said to be prostitutes, gamblers, etc... so? That's a reason to kill them? I'd say gambling is a bit better than enforcing slavery. I really wanted to side with the Legion, but it just didn't seem like a logical thing to do.

Nipton was a shithole deserving to be burned, as one of the rangers says. If you recall, the Legion was able to trap everyone because the town was more than willing to sell many people to the Legion. They helped the Legion to set up the trap, but ended up falling into it.

From the Legion's standpoint, at least the way I see it, enslaving people (especially the good-for-nothing variety - again, if you recall, the hostages the game offers you to save are the powder gangers) serves some greater purpose, whereas people whoring and gambling their lives away serve no purpose at all. Some regimes frown upon such behavior.

The point is that a loosely organized group of soldiers and workers has managed to seize power in a huge country and defeat several armies, including the White army and the Polish army.

Uhm, you might want to check your history again

Oops! I stand corrected. Go Polacks!

Great game, better than Fallout 2. Great quest design.
Great review; bit short though, by VD-standards.

4,200 words. Fallout 3 review was a bit longer, but Oblivion and MotB review were about 3,200-3,500 words, if I recall correctly.

I think that this review is better written and thus is easier to read.

It gives you an insight into the Legion's modus operandi:
(1) find a town that says they are willing to strike a deal with you,
(2) see just how far that town will go out of greed and corruption
(3) wait to actually confirm the town's greed, by making a deal for the town's leadership to sell the weaker citizens into slavery,
(4) go in there with a small enough force that if the town really wanted to resist they could;
(5) entrap the town in a manner where it is the town's own greed and cowardice, rather than any overwhelming numbers on the Legion's behalf, that seals their fate.

All that is pretty much spelt out by the legion and the mayor's notes (in town and in the mayor's stash out to the east of the sand basin). It's absolutely clear that the Legion has chosen this town because Nipton is willing to sell those it given lodging to, as well as its own people, into slavery, and because the people there are too cowardly to fight them despite greatly outnumbering the Legion force sent to attack it.

 

[Brother None]

Well, unless you're dying to continue, we can't stop right here. I hope that my position is clear to you, just like your position is clear to me. Since we won't convince each other, why won't we thank each other for the delightful exchange of opinions, tip our hats like true gentlemen (or salute each other with our monocles), and call it a day?

Sure. Seems we've said all there is to say and'll just go in circles. Good debate, though.

:fistbump: