Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

"Deciding who is wrong and who is right"

Zed Duke of Banville

Dungeon Master
Patron
Joined
Oct 3, 2015
Messages
11,878
While I think we all agree it seems insane to join them, and even Sawyer admits they fucked that up, it probably WOULD make more sense if you lived in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the act of walking to the local store was as likely to get you killed as not. It's the good old "order versus chaos" thing (or in this case I guess order versus attempted democratic order drowning in lack of supplies and bureaucracy) but they didn't have the money/time to sell it. Still, if you use your imagination a bit and focus on the rare comments we do have about the Legion lands behind the army being peaceful and clean then you can just about squint and have it make sense. Kinda. Okay not really, but you can get close. Maybe.
There are a few scattered mentions in dialogue that the Legion does establish peace and security in the territory they control, since all tribals and bandits they encounter are destroyed or incorporated into the Legion. However, the game fails to actually show the player any territory under the Legion's control, aside from its forward military base. Thus, the player gains knowledge of the Legion through its military activities, including crucifixion and enslavement, without ever experiencing civilian life in Legion territory. Further, the New California Republic can make the same claim that, despite its drawbacks, peace and security are established in its ever-expanding territory.
 

Lurker47

Savant
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
721
Location
Texas
However, the game fails to actually show the player any territory under the Legion's control, aside from its forward military base.
This. I won't argue that the Legion wasn't poorly handled. I will argue that the pieces are in place for the Legion to be a suitable alternative to the NCR- they're just not immediately apparent.

NCR, House, and the Legion are all dark, dark gray. Even if the NCR isn't as "lolz evul" as the Legion might seem, you're really stretching it when you try to justify what they'd bring to help most people- besides pushing back the Legion.
If it were real life I'd be NCR all the way, sorry. Flawed as shit democracy is better than dictatorship or Legion any day.
Gross.
 

PorkBarrellGuy

Guest
If it were real life I'd be NCR all the way, sorry. Flawed as shit democracy is better than dictatorship or Legion any day.

The more I think about this the more I disagree with it. Democracy possesses no innate virtue, it's a means to an end. Do it well or don't do it at all. NCR is not doing it so well lately.

Back on topic, another thing C&C helps a lot with is the escapism element of a video game. Having choices that actually feel like they matter within the game world is an interesting feeling - I wouldn't necessarily call it always pleasant but it's interesting.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
While I think we all agree it seems insane to join them, and even Sawyer admits they fucked that up, it probably WOULD make more sense if you lived in a post-apocalyptic wasteland where the act of walking to the local store was as likely to get you killed as not. It's the good old "order versus chaos" thing (or in this case I guess order versus attempted democratic order drowning in lack of supplies and bureaucracy) but they didn't have the money/time to sell it. Still, if you use your imagination a bit and focus on the rare comments we do have about the Legion lands behind the army being peaceful and clean then you can just about squint and have it make sense. Kinda. Okay not really, but you can get close. Maybe.
There are a few scattered mentions in dialogue that the Legion does establish peace and security in the territory they control, since all tribals and bandits they encounter are destroyed or incorporated into the Legion. However, the game fails to actually show the player any territory under the Legion's control, aside from its forward military base. Thus, the player gains knowledge of the Legion through its military activities, including crucifixion and enslavement, without ever experiencing civilian life in Legion territory. Further, the New California Republic can make the same claim that, despite its drawbacks, peace and security are established in its ever-expanding territory.

The concept of the Legion is also founded on a massive error re history, and given its founders in-game motivations (copying a society that thrived under similar challenges instead of trying to recreate democracy from a more civilised era) it s seems to be Josh's mistake more than the character's:

He's basing it on the Western Roman Empire, and seemingly the late ultra-militarized Empire (ie post Diocletion reforms just without the Christianity). Sure, that marks the territorial peak, but that's exactly the kind of mistake that in game Caesar should have known to avoid. Hell, that ultra-militarised despotic era of the Empire wasn't even territorial peak anymore - it's what the West half of the empire was like in the century before its collapse.

Economically, things started decaying in the West once the Republic ended. The idea that West Rome over expanded due to overmilitarisation (going into England was particularly idiotic), which in turn resulted from the fall of the Roman REPUBLIC isn't some arcane idea - it's been the main view for centuries, perhaps even millennia (it was a pretty common view even during the Empire itself, especially as the Empire's early glory days under Julius and Augustus was quite deliberately still a semi-republic, with powerful senates - it was intended to just be a strengthening of the executive branch, the rest of the shift was more of a slow collapse of west Roman institutions until eventually they were so hollowed out that going all out military was the only way to delay total collapse for a century.

Then at the same time as the Western Empire rotted, the East was booming. Anyone in 500AD Constantinople would have laughed if you told them the Roman Empire had collapsed - "what, because we managed to jettison that backwater to the West? Who'd want to live in Rome when we've got Constantinople?" (they actually retook nearly all of the western territories at one point, and abandoned it upon realising "fuck, none of these places are worth anything economically, why would we want any of it?").

Ie NOBODY would pick despot-era West Roman Empire as their "great system" to take from that era - they'd copy either the Republic, or go hardcore monotheist unity and copy the Eastern Empire (no "barbarians" causing disunity in the East Empire, or different citizen classes based on tribe - they convert and then they're all fellow Christians uniting against the heathen hordes).

Either choice would eliminate the "why the hell would i support these guys", problem. Basing it on despot era west Empire is retarded - that's a system of collapse and decline, so of course all the player has to go on are these ungrounded assertions of superiority that don't make any sense in game or out.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Ogre Battle and Tactics Ogre did this actually, make you fail a 40-50 hours+ game due to your decisions and the way you played.

In Ogre Battle, if you fight too many parties that have a lower level than you, the game will have you become a tyrant in the ending.

In Tactics Ogre, you need to make the right decisions to save the princess, and through the game you need to be careful not to kill too many enemies of the various races, or else these races will build animosity against you and in the ending you will be executed in a coup d'état.
How does that translate to 'making you fail the game' when the consequences only occur in the ending, i.e. after you finished the game, meaning the consequences have no tangible effect on the game itself?

Another reason why I never thought very highly of the whole concept of "choice and consequence", is that very rarely do the choices you make really matter, because they all have to "even out".

This means that in most RPGs that offer this feature, no faction is ever "right", because they are all hiding information and misdeeds from you. Very rarely can you uncover information that can make you think more objectively that one faction is "right", because usually the designers try to make a balanced gameplay experience for everyone.

Let me list you a few examples:

-In Vampires The Masquerade Bloodlines, every major faction or character ends up using you, plotting against you or betraying you. So is it all down to just whichever gang of assholes I think in the coolest?
Bloodlines doesn't have a faction choice. There are no faction quests where you have to choose between the conflicting interests of factions or anything like that, except only tangentially (e.g. the gargoyle quest). The only difference the ending choice make is that if you side with LaCroix or Ming Xiao, you get to skip their respective endgame levels and boss fights, and the game makes it blatantly obvious from the start those two can't be trusted. The other two ending choicesa are siding with the Anarchs or siding with no one.

You missed Strauss?
 

Lurker47

Savant
Joined
Jul 30, 2017
Messages
721
Location
Texas
The concept of the Legion is also founded on a massive error re history, and given its founders in-game motivations (copying a society that thrived under similar challenges instead of trying to recreate democracy from a more civilised era) it s seems to be Josh's mistake more than the character's:
I'm fairly sure this was intentional.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom