rusty_shackleford
Arcane
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2018
- Messages
- 50,754

You're right but that's not in-game... so yeaPrepare for the Future was an advertising campaign created by Bethesda Softworks to promote the release of Fallout 3
You're right but that's not in-game... so yeaPrepare for the Future was an advertising campaign created by Bethesda Softworks to promote the release of Fallout 3
You realize I'm not the person who actually made the video, right?Because if you want mechanics to be a part of a word/setting/lore, so you can avoid having a ludonarrative dissonance, you want this to be a part of the actual game? In the age when people are unhappy, when the premise of the setting isn't expressed through quest design, when people rightly call lore dumbs a lazy way of pretending to have an unique setting, you come and say that having this in marketing materials is good enough. This sounds more like a parody of your position, than a real thing. The only positive of your argument is that no one can strawman it.
You are worse than people who say that the bad movie isn't bad, because everything is explained in the tie-in book.
It clearly does because Bethesda took the time to provide an in-universe explanation of how it works.You said that it has a bearing on plot or universe.
It clearly does because Bethesda took the time to provide an in-universe explanation of how it works.You said that it has a bearing on plot or universe.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but disagreeing with something doesn't make it not true.
It's an officially published piece of Fallout material by Bethesda. You not liking it doesn't make it not exist.It clearly does because Bethesda took the time to provide an in-universe explanation of how it works.You said that it has a bearing on plot or universe.
I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but disagreeing with something doesn't make it not true.
This video being in-universe is only aesthetic. When people want an in-universe explanation they want it being provided in game, being referenced/ used by characters and being expressed in quests/mechanic.
Competent designer would create a quest in which you help other vault dweller whose VAT systems were damaged.
If the cosplayer is reading out lines that were approved by the people who own the IP, then yes, it's now part of the game's lore.Explain to me Rusty. If a company has a PR event with cosplayers dressed as in-universe characters, do you consider this a part of the series universe? When cosplayer playing a character makes jokes with devs, is this a part of a given character characterization and should be treated on equal footings as a part of character story/characterization with the character portrayar in the game? If there is a story inconsistency in the game, but the cosplayer gives an in-character speech at the PR event that resolves the inconsistency, should we now pretend that this inconsistency doesn't exist in the game?
Yeah, I hold this insane notion that officially published material is canon.Wow. I was actually expecting you to answer NO to my question and then proclaim that my comparison is unfair and ridiculous.![]()
What does any of that have to do with it being an in-universe explanation?Do you understand that people want their story to be told in the medium they bought not in some periphery book, marketing video, cosplayer event or officially sanctioned brochure?
Where is the clip of Plinkett shouting, that he doesn't give a shit about prequels explanations coming from the books, when you need it?
Tough titty, it's 2021. ConSOOM product.Do you understand that people want their story to be told in the medium they bought not in some periphery book, marketing video, cosplayer event or officially sanctioned brochure?
Where is the clip of Plinkett shouting, that he doesn't give a shit about prequels explanations coming from the books, when you need it?
...no?The whole argument was about not being there an in-universe explanation in the game
fallout's vats has no bearing on plot or universe
And there is no inconsistency. The video I provided is the only time any in-universe explanation was provided, ergo it is the in-universe explanation. If there was a conflicting explanation in-game, it would likely be considered 'more canon', yes. But there isn't.
It's implicitly canon by being licensed material published by Bethesda.And there is no inconsistency. The video I provided is the only time any in-universe explanation was provided, ergo it is the in-universe explanation. If there was a conflicting explanation in-game, it would likely be considered 'more canon', yes. But there isn't.
I mean that is exactly the issue. The fact that the only supposed in-universe explanation is in a promotional video.
The fact is VATS is probably just something that was made by the dev to emulate targetting body parts in old FO "Hey guys we can target specific body part in FO2, it's a cool feature" "How to do it in FPS RPG?" "Let's do it like this"
That promotional video is something that's just made to advertise a game feature in the style of "old PSA" to fit thematically with the game. Is it a good advertising gimmick? Arguably yeah. But to say that it is a "lore" especially as there is no lore implication of it in any of the games is kinda silly.
It's implicitly canon by being licensed material published by Bethesda.
I'll even go one step further to trigger the codex: It's more canon than the fallout bible.
if it was intended to be part of the game, then, yes unless specifically noted as non-canon.Can you say that this is canon to Fallout universe?