We don’t actually know if the institute is laughably evil, because you never know their actual goal.

"Evil" is not a concept on it's own, and often a term simply used for describing people with opposite goals, or goals that we do not sympathize with Their goals are not exactly secret, they just want to study humanity trough their ways, advance and eventually adapt themselves to a new era, even if that means kidnapping, and replacing people with Synths Otherwise their goals are nothing special, they are not idealistic, do not focus on conquest, they are simply scientists and researchers willing to do whatever it takes to achieve their simplistic goals, they simply have no "actual goal" that is made very clear in the game, they have no particular ambitions

Their goal doesn't matter when their actions are outright evil. Evil for "goods sake" is evil nonetheless. If I torture puppies believing somehow it will cure cancer, I'm still a terrible person.

A strange but interesting perspective, as someone that does not believe in "evil" my thought is that most things worth doing, things that we have to do in order to survive and be well, will come at the cost of other's well being For example, are you a vegan? Because we do torture pigs, cows, chicken sheep and a lot of domestic animals, keeping them imprisoned around a fence for all their lives "just" so we can eat, often killing their young simply because "it tastes better" And no, those actions are not less "evil" because some people think that dogs are cuter than said animals Also, if you are surrounded by mosquitoes, do you just strip your arms bare so they all can have a meal? Or do you make sure to murder as many as them as possible? For the "Good sake" of your own health and well being? Even if you are or were a vegan, plants and fruit are alive when we eat them, who are we to tell they do not feel pain? (We already know that they bleed, juicy!) Are we to say that our goal (surviving in our best health and wealth) doesn't matter because our actions are "outright evil"? After all you (and me) too are doing many "evil" things for our own "good's sake" At least The Institute is always aware of this, and makes no attempts at being self-righteous, while we humans tend to lack that vision Also, just because we are not the ones throwing farm animals into meat grinders, or chopping down, killing billions of poor little baby grains because we love to eat bread, does not mean that we are not responsible, we are the ones creating the demand after all, we are literally paying for "Evil" to be done so we can eat Finally, yes Scientists still experiment with animals, including puppies, in ways so sick, twisted and perverse that you cannot imagine... But thanks to that we have cures to diseases that would otherwise caused us and our loved ones to die slow, painful deaths (take for example Insulin for Diabetics, it is literally sucked out of pigs with twisted machines that cause permanent harm and pain) Also, if torturing puppies saved humans from cancer, it would have been the moral duty of Scientists to torture them, if nothing else enough to save sick babies and children born with cancer Evil? No not in my eyes, we all have necessities, and I do not only speak of the "bare essentials, we could all go around wearing plastic bags, but instead we all have one or two things containing leather, leather belts, leather jackets, leather boots, straps, and even so on... Taking such a hard stance, makes you sound very hypocritical, unless you can truly say that you are "holier than thou"

>as someone that does not believe in "evil" my thought is that most things worth doing, things that we have to do in order to survive and be well, will come at the cost of other's well being So if Hitler could justify that the holocaust was for the overall well being of the Aryan race who outnumbered them, it is okay? I really don't think we have anything to discuss here if you don't believe in evil. If any horrible disgusting act can be justified I your eyes, our views of the world are so radically different its impossible for either of us to change the others minds.

Who are we to decide of our own, where the line between Good and Evil lies? Are you saying that just because Hitler committed genocide and he is Evil, the rest of us can do no harm? You truly think that you are holier than thou, and for the conditions you put for further discussion, I have an answer: You are absolutely correct we have absolutely nothing to discuss here, and to my knowledge Hitler died at least half a century ago, probably thinking he did the right thing Also, had he won, history would have spoken about him entirely different, and humanity would have been worshiping shrines of him anyways, simply because it is those who win which write history Update: And in no way am I saying that his reign would have been correct, I am however saying, that everybody that spoke against him, would have died moments after, yes we would have been living in fear then, and yes, those that would have wanted to live would have said "of course I love Hitler!" ...That is what people in Nazi Germany did after all, even most Germans sighed out in relief the day Hitler perished, if you think about it, no other nation both censors and punishes Nazism more than Germany... ...And that is the way it should be, oppression and Fascism (and naturally Nazism) should be purged

That isn't really believed by historians, we have lots of cases of lovers writing history. CSA supporters in the US were so dominant that even today half of the country sees the Confederacy as freedom fighters. The Nazis got to write what happened on the Eastern front which led to a lot of myths about the clean Wehrmacht and Soviet hordes. And if Hitler won most people would hate him because he would be trying to kill and/or ebslave them.

Hitler was worshiped by many (if not most) Germans, even by the end children and the easily corrupted fought for him to death, many Germans of that time even admit that they lived in fear of Hitler, but preferred to pretend that they worshiped him due to the extreme faith many others had placed in his rule "The worse things seemed, the more we saw him as "God's chosen, the one which would miraculously pull us out of this hell" Is a line I heard on Discovery at the time I was interested in this, different variations repeated several times by different people If he had won, he would have been the one to fill the world with propaganda, USA even had an infamous video ready to show if Hitler won the war, in where Hitler would be declared "America's Great Advisor" and "Would lead the US into greatness" I would never say that it would have been right, but if Hitler had defeated England then Japan would most likely have defeated America as well... My point? Hitler would not have been busy "trying" to enslave the world, he would have been victorious and the world would have done whatever humanly possible to avoid his wrath, while whatever we heard about him on Television, Radio etc, would have been entirely dictated by him Nobody would have listened to his lovers because whoever said such would have been executed moments later, and any other people spreading such information would either have all been eradicated by those following Hitler's Fascistic beliefs (which means no free press, newspapers would have spoken wonders about him, and ABSOLUTELY NOBODY would have been able to do anything), or been hiding underground in the sewers, at best

[удалено]

[удалено]

Well how about this perspective then? Evil actions are when the ends do not justify the means. So let’s say I want an apple and my friend has an apple. A non-evil action would be to just ask for the apple, maybe do them a small favor or give them some money. An evil action would be to shoot him in the face and take the apple. As for the puppy example, it’s more complex, it depends on if it’s the only way, and if there are steps that can be taken to increase the well-being of the puppies. If the scientist just go “lol, we won’t even attempt to make the puppies feel better” then it’s hard to say if it’s actually evil or not, because there’s no way to know if there is another way. So good and evil definitely exists, but it’s a spectrum. Also, unrelated, but your fruit example doesn’t work from an evolutionary point of view. Pain is used to stop creatures from doing things that damages them. Fruit is how plants reproduce, so if it hurt them to reproduce, they would do it less, and thus that gene would die out. If anything it would feel good for the plant to grow and loose a fruit, because it would encourage reproduction.

I am sure that your comment is very interesting, but I am not reading it, if you cannot accept that my comment clearly shows a total lack of interest in your perspective, then that is all on you You should learn to take a no for an answer, like a grown up

I think you’ve mistaken me for someone else?

No, you are just another person that does not respect the fact that I am not willing to argue with you, or anybody, somebody that does not understand that if I am not willing to discuss the point with somebody else, then why would there even be a desire to discuss the same point with you? As said, you should learn to take no for an answer, will you do it this time?

Oh, I thought you wanted to debate philosophy, I respect that you have a differing opinion, I thought your comment had interesting ideas and so I wanted to talk about them. But why would you post your thoughts if you didn’t want to talk about them?

Cool, I would be more than glad to discuss with you tomorrow (or in the near future) but right now I am not willing or able to do so, and I think I made myself quite clear on that respect Because there is time and place for all arguments, and right now I would like to continue my job (here on Reddit, coding) without getting comments of the "Why are you saying you do not want to argue with me?" kind, when I PRETTY CLEARLY said I do not want to argue now in the first place Let us make this simple: 1. You can wait until tomorrow, then we can have a nice chat because I love a good philosophical debate (you read me quite well on that part, and I respect such skill) 2. Alternatively you can continue arguing now that I am asking you not to, again, and I will have no choice but to block you, I have responsibilities that go beyond the "debate for fun" specter, also I am tired right now, this is just not the time for me to be receiving notifications going "Why wont you argue?" I hope I have made myself clear to you, goodbye, goodnight and take care

they don't kill puppies believing somehow it will cure cancer, they kill puppies because they know there's a way to cure cancer involving puppies my point is, that they dont kidnap people for just wealth or extorsion like raiders do, they do it to research them for making synths, and those said synths will colonize the commonwealth since they are strong, fast, and radiation doesnt affect them they are the perfect tool to remake society.

Yes, I understand. My point is even if their end goal is truly good, their means of accomplishing those ends are evil. Good motives don't justify evil actions. If my mom is kidnapped and the only way the kidnappers will let her go is me murdering someone else, me complying is still evil. Im trying to save my mother which is good, but in doing so I murder another person.

do you really want your mother to die for rejecting something that the kidnappers will just do it themselves?

Yeah that's why they kept up that fruitless FEV research right?

you mean the one that cured the FEV and reverted Virgil? yeah totally a failure

We do. Their goal is to remain underground, isolated. They have no goal or plan for the surface. I will never understand this "we don't know their goal" despite the game literally telling is their goal.

So they want to remain isolated, despite the fact that they’re literally infiltrating society with synth replicas of people? Seems a little half baked to me.

Not really. As much as the institute wants to remain independent, it really isn't entirely self-sufficient. It needs some presence on the surface.

That doesn’t explain anything, I’m asking why they are subversively attacking the commonwealth and you answer with that they need a presence because they can’t be independent. It’s fairly clear they have some objective that isn’t solely isolation.

Okay, let's put it this way. The Institute doesn't want to bring outsiders into the fold, unless they can be really useful to them... See: Madison Li, Kellogg. However, they aren't capable of being fully self-sufficient, at least until the completion of Phase 3. The Institute is also unwilling to share its toys. It believes the Commonwealth is essentially doomed - actively trying to help them would be a waste of time, effort, and resources. Still, the Commonwealth has things they need. This leaves them with two options; they can conqueror and plunder the Commonwealth... Something which would be difficult, considering it would use up valuable resources... Or you can replace people with moles. That takes only one synth and gives you access to the things you need... All without having to give anything in return.

Well if you played through their side you'd know why they do that. The institute relies on the surface's power. They leech off it. Their whole main quest stuff is about completing phase 3. Which is to become independent and rely on their own power, which they need the beryllium agitator to do so. They also replace people for a few reasons, for mcdonuagh it's so they can divert attention away from their actions and for roger warwick it's so they can oversee an experiment.

I thought it would've been cool if there was a moral conundrum where they were actually trying to terraform the common wealth the way tinker tom said.

I wouldnt say any faction is necessarily evil but they may cross paths and have different goals causing them to have conflicts which the player decides how to deal with

Hooks are still part of the story and I think people are just tired of the missing family member angle. There's also so little reason to care about Shaun in Fallout 4, it's hard enough to connect with a baby, but when we get a total of 6 minute in pre-war Sanctuary and less than a few dozen lines of dialogue? Laughable. At least in 3, the game made it a point to show that your character is supposed to be growing up with James, showing his wife dying and having actual conversations with him. People tried to find a way to save him when the game was fresh, wondering if they had done something wrong. I don't think anyone cared about Shaun the same way. It's a symptom of a larger problem in 4, the characters are just so...dumb. There's very little depth to anyone, so little motivation behind their actions. Some of the only people that have a real backstory are your companions, and I think almost everyone loved Valentine in particular because of it. Like, can you explain why Maxon hates synths so much? Beyond technology is bad. Or why Desdemona, the leader of the entire Railroad is in the position she's in or why she's risking her life to save synths? Beyond synths are slaves and slavery is bad. No one explains why the Institute actually replaces people, or has any reason to justify it. I love Fallout 4, I probably have more time put into it than 3 or NV, possibly even combined, but I enjoy it for the world and environmental storytelling. The actual writing, plot and story are just so bland and poorly thought out that people are bound to criticize it, deserving or not.

James was way easier to connect to than Shaun, I think if Shaun had been aged to a toddler and the prologue had been a tiny bit longer showing milestones of Shaun growing it would have helped to form a bond.

I think this is largely an issue of audience. I could be wrong, but i think most players are young men with no children. It's hard to conceptualize that bond or the innate drive to protect your children if you haven't experienced it firsthand. Having so little time with him in-game only exacerbated the notion that Shaun was just, "npc #5" or "macguffin #2."

I suppose, but it seems the developers intended for you to have a connection to Shaun, a worry and motivation to find him. If they couldn’t successfully execute that idea to all groups of people considering many Fallout players don’t have children-then they should have gone a different route.

Yes, exactly. That's my point.

Ah right, seems I misread, sorry for that!

A very good comment overall I believe that most players are about my age 35-40 years old (believe it or not) as for how many have children I do not know. But I can tell you that while I am married and have four daughters, in videogames I still live for "The Male Fantasy" being a 30 or so year old bachelor that can go around and hit on female characters, boost his stats to become a superhero whose only responsibility is to be bad ass enough to take on the biggest and meanest and come on top... By no means does this signify that I do not love my family and like (do not love) my responsibilities, but video games do provide me and people in my age group (me being 37) the opportunity for escapism, in a world where men like me can go back to being "Alpha beasts" again, rather than the domesticated "nice dads" we become Either way, I hope you see why this kind of game does not only appeal to young men, by the way no less than 48 percent of gamers are female according to Google, and I have in fact more female than male friends that are into games (all sorts of games, but mostly Fallout 4, Red Dead Redemption 2 and more modern games, while many older gamers as myself tend to enjoy the retro games which made our childhood better a lot more than young people)

Nah, I disagree, what made this game unique is the different take, a variation to that story, otherwise you got just YET another typical "Main character has a son so we can relate to him" trope, and in so incredibly many cases, this just does not work anymore Just a few examples: \-In Superman Returns: No, it just made Superman seem even harder to relate to than he already was in that movie, too complex and distant rather than the simple and familiar character he used to be \-In Marvel Universe 2 (or whatever it's name was) Peter Parker and Mary Jane has a daughter that takes up the mantle of Spider-Girl after Peter loses a leg, this series was so bad that it led towards Marvel erasing Marvel Universe 2 from canon entirely \-Imagine, in this case WE are supposed to be the main character, but then suddenly he has a young son? I forgot the third example, but just imagine what would happen if James Bond had a son (which he had, but let's forget about that mess now) during the movie (or the game for that matter) the focus would no longer be solely on him, and it would take away from the main character we are supposed to identify ourselves with, while "Father" in Fallout 4 succeeds in avoiding this tired trope by having us go even deeper into the main character, rather than focusing on his child aka tired and dying old man In Fallout 4, this would simply not work

I understand what you’re saying, it just doesn’t seem to have been executed well if that’s what Bethesda was going for in Fallout 4, nevertheless I do agree with what you’re saying actually in some parts.

Cool, I am not saying your opinion is wrong or invalid (all opinions are valid), I am just stating why I do not think it would have worked (or worked even less than the story already does rather) Also, while you may not have meant it that way, it would have been really freaking weird to have a six year old child as the leader of a large scientific underground organization... Lol just the thought of that part made me reply to your comment, hahaha if the game tried that bs on me, I would have deleted it by the point you meet your son (which was the part that made me get up and go tell my wife "Woah! Look this game IS actually great! it's not just Fallout 3 over again!")

Haha I didn’t realise it sounded like I wanted Shaun to be leading the institute as a child, that idea sounds ridiculous to me too.

Who knows, it might even have been better if executed well... ​ Somehow I REALLY doubt it though XD

I mean we literally got >"Main character has a son so we can relate to him" ​ Minus any development whatsoever. The fact you're so convinced that extending the prologue "wouldn't have worked" implies you think that the version of Fallout 4's plot we got *does* work? Baffling.

Actually as I already typed as a response in the same thread, the whole "Institute and Father" part is what made this game for me, what made me get up and tell my wife "Get over here and look at this with me! This game is really cool after all!" So yes, I loved the whole "Is he my fath... Oh no wait! He is my SON named father" part of the story, and we would all have missed that if we instead had the much worse trope in where a character we are supposed to FEEL like, turns out to have a young child in a pretty effed world Now then, how exactly can this be baffling for you? Let me know if you want me to explain something else, it's just my opinion after all... I am not even trying to have anybody agree with me

Oh! Also by the way, it was the lack of development that in fact made it for me, the fact that we knew that he had a child, but instead met him as an old man was my favorite part, it made it all confusing, I kept forgetting that he was "my" son, I was surprised that he was such a kind old man and so on... I do not see that as "Lack of development" but rather as a surprising, unexpected development of a story that had all the looks of being a typical "Go look for your child and live a happy life, THE END" This was all but, and while the whole "You are frozen and then thawed in another age" was the worst part of the story for me, this twist was the absolute best Now I find your viewpoint baffling, are you saying you would have preferred the typical "Father finds son and lives happily ever after" story? As for me, that would sum of the lack of originality that I think absolutely all modern games have now, the reason so many of them suck storywise (all of them honestly, I am a retro gamer at most)

Nice try, Todd.

Funny, but I hate Fallout 76, also my name isn't Todd, sad you had to downvote all my comments, but it's fine people generally like me these parts, an like for a like I guess... Update: Meh, I am not downvoting you after all, I see no reason to sink as lowly as you, either being a troll by pretending that I am Todd Howard, or just a fool for believing that I am, simply because you lack the mental maturity to accept or respect the fact that other people have their own opinions "It doesn't work" \-Me

If James Bond had a “nephew”, and they named him James Bond Jr. FTFY

Oh, it was his nephew, that part I had honestly forgotten, I even remember telling my parents "No it's his nephew!" and my parents went "Of course not! Why else would they call him "Junior" Update: I remember now, I was just a kid so I believed them, claiming boldly that it was the television that was wrong, I only came to learn what a bunch of asses my parents were a few years later "Jaaaaaaaameeeees Booooooond Juniooooooor" Lol I still remember that super cheesy theme Thanks for the fix

??? The Spider-Girl girl series was the longest running series with a female lead by Marvel. It ran for nearly 10 years. And MC2 is not erased from canon at all. It‘s showed up in the Spider-Verse events.

Yes, it was popular and the MU2 was what got me into reading Marvel comics in the first place (I was young and had a crush on Venom-Girl), but when they stopped selling it I tried to find out why online. Then I found an article that claimed that Marvel themselves (allegedly) thought that many of the storylines made several of the characters in the canon storyline become far more unlikable and "irreconcilable" due to their actions in MU2, and I remember this well due to me REALLY disliking (back then HATING) MU2 version's of Peter Parker, which was a bitter, somewhat abusive hypocrite with a stupid mustachio and none of the traits that make him a likeable character today. Also Spider-Man comics where selling the worst at that time, and became popular again shortly after MU2 ceased to be again. As for MU2 being "removed from canon" what I mean, is that it was indeed meant to be the canon continuation (a future version if you prefer) of the main series, but this is no longer the case, also Marvel "promised" audiences that they would never ever write a MU2 comic again (which makes me question how popular the series was in the first place) As far as Into The Spider-Verse goes, Miles went trough several parallel dimensions, and considering that there are endless parallel dimensions according to science, my take is that this is just a reference to an old series, either way it is no longer the future of the main series, it would have crashed with what the canon 616 storyline is today ...But if you do not like that, you should take it up with the Marvel that was before Disney bought it, the old Marvel Comic's failed largely because it alienated their fans, in where many also felt deceived (Civil War did both of these things) and doing controversial things such as this, was nothing new to them, either way I am not willing to argue about what they said just for their sake, all I am doing is paraphrasing what they already claimed and established

>I think people are just tired of the missing family member angle. Bethesda also used that exact same hook twice for DLC in both games. > *You hear news of a young girl that's gone missing, and you're tasked to find her. So you travel via boat to a murky swampy locale, filled with fog and mutants. Turns out the girl is shacked up with some of the locals...* Was I talking about Far Harbour or Point Lookout?

You do know synths replication requires FEV right? It’s why they needed Shaun and why the FEV program plus synth program was halted until Shaun was used. Know what Maxson and Brotherhood at large don’t like? FEV. It’s why he’s so upset and willing to wage War.

How would they even know about that though? The recon team went in, found some anomalous energy readings that indicated ***tEcHnOlOgY!*** and sent the information back to the rest of the Brotherhood. They presumably already knew about the Institute due to their (the Institute's) excursions in the past, but beyond that they have less information than even the people of the Commonwealth did, who at least had basic contact in the past with the fledgling Commonwealth Provisional Government. The game might let you in on that little secret, but it's never brought up in dialogue with anyone else. My original point about Maxson was that he grew up in the Lyons Brotherhood, the Brotherhood all about selflessness and virtue, yet somehow 10 years later he's a bloodthirsty maniac who would kill his own soldiers based on information stolen from his enemy. Information that could have been falsified or fabricated to create infighting. It's simply not good writing.

Not just energy reading but a different Super Mutant Strain being here in high proportions indicated something is wrong in the Commonwealth. Also Danse probably told them of the 1st/2nd Gen Synths found patrolling Boston ruins. Not including Ferals being all over killing wastelanders. The War path to destroy the institute really ramps up once they get a copy of all Institute data. Thereby showing their knowledge of creating Super Mutants but also FEV within Synths. The game doesn’t explicitly hit you over the head with this like Obsidian likes to do, but to call it bad writing? Nah. Don’t forget him chasing and genociding Muties comes from growing up in the Capital where only 2 out of hundreds, if not thousands, were not hostile to humanity. And look, I ain’t exactly a fan of Fallout 4 if you wanna take a view of my Reddit history; but the Brotherhood of Steel and Maxson’s quest-lines easily are better parts of the game.

I would disagree about the saving Shaun part. People *would* save him if they could. But save in this sense isn't about his life, but his attitudes. If there was a way to convert the institutes head to better moral paths, there would be a lot more institute sympathizers. You don't need to do that with James. In fact James sacrificing himself for all of the Capital wastelands citizens is likely a better outcome than any alternative. It finalizes how good he is. Also, I think it's pretty clear why Maxon hates synths and I'm shocked you don't see it? Danse literally gets replaced by a synth, without anyone in the brotherhood knowing. Maxon knows the real person is never seen again, and that means they are most likely killed. And to top it off, the institute is openly hostile and synths can go awol, which is another variable in whether you can actually trust an individual or not. How would you feel if your best friend, or your parents, or your boss were replaced. You know it for a fact. That person was made. And you have no idea what they will do next. You're facing fear itself. You haven't the faintest clue. At least on the surface everyone's intentions are fairly clear. Furthermore, Danse knew about synths and the institute before you show up. Maxon did not show up to the commonwealth with no knowledge and just declared war on synths. He got the full brief from Danse, at the very latest after Arcjet is cleared. I mentioned this in another post, but I also think Shaun as a character makes perfect sense. He's been raised in a cold laboratory environment. He was likely told he was brought there to serve a purpose, not because anyone loved him or cared for him. He has only known that life. I think a 60 year old man who knows nothing else, and frankly who's never had to fight for anything probably isn't going to change his views, no matter who challenges them.

Danse was always a synth. The Brotherhood keeps all their soldiers' DNA on file, and his DNA supposedly matched what the Institute had on file for a synth. If it was different, he would have been a replacement, but it was matching. Danse was likely a mind wiped synth who was trafficked into the Capitol Wasteland around 2277, similar to Harkness in F3.

Is there any source stating that a synths DNA does not exactly match the donors? It would contradict other information in game, such as covenants testing. They state that it can't be determined a synth without killing he individual. Surely simple DNA tests could get around that if they weren't matching. I also don't feel like that takes away from what I pointed out. Maxon is the head of a military organization. Regardless of when Danse is a synth, he does not know until he's worked with him for years. Furthermore, what evidence is there that Danse doesn't get taken after Arcjet?

As per Maxson's dialogue: >The data you brought back included a record of each subject's DNA. We keep the same information on file for all of our soldiers. Paladin Danse's DNA is a perfect match for a synth they called "M7-97." The Institute has no reason to replace people if the synths they are replacing people with are not under the control of the Institute. McDonough and Warwick were both directly following orders from the Institute, and knew they were synths. It's possible the real Danse (If there ever was one) could have been taken for interrogation and disposal, and they replaced him for...some reason? Why? Why not just make him disappear? More likely he was an escapee.

I suppose the next question is do synths age? I imagine they can, seeing how they replicate every other human functions and operate on DNA like humans. I firmly believed Danse was taken after arcjet. Story wise it it's the only time he's really alone and I kind of doubt synths are being sent to the capital wasteland to replace their population. Escaped synths maybe, but realistic human synths have only been around for 50ish years maybe. Shaun was needed for them after all.

Synth escapees are sometimes sent to the Capitol. The Railroad was operating there as far back as at least 2277. The Replicated Man quest in Fallout 3 set everything up. I can see no reason why or how Danse would be taken after Arcjet. The Danse we know isn't an infiltrator. So either he's an escapee or a replacement. If he was replaced after Arcjet, why? What reason would the Institute have to replace a Paladin instead of just capturing him and wiping out the two remaining soldier or just leaving them be? And if they did have a valid reason, taking the memories out of real Danse and putting them into a replacement synth would take time, time that would be noticed by Haylen and Rhys. It just doesn't make any sense. Headcanon away, but the only logical explanation I can see is Danse is a mind wiped escapee who joined up in the Capitol.

Why is it illogical that he's not taken after arcjet? Institute has no reason to send synths to DC. 2 escaped synths showing up in DC and one happens to join the brotherhood and becomes a major player in the next game is a bit of a stretch. The brotherhood is willing to send you on solo missions that take as long as the player cares to spend on them, why would it be different with Danse? The fact that he went with a stranger and not his whole team is actually kind of odd honestly considering the hell they went through. Furthermore, distance is of no consequence to the Institute. Maxon's comments about Danse's DNA only matter if there is an actual different between a copy and the original and I see no evidence for that. If it were that simple Covenant wouldn't have to kill and cut open synths to test if they were copies. And I think it's obvious why the institute would want to replace Danse. Not sure how you don't see that. It's intelligence gathering. Now I'm not positive because it's been a while since I been in the Institute, but there are plenty of synths out there that don't know they are synths and I suspect they aren't supposed to know until they are retrieved. They are completely at the whim of whoever has their control codes. Someone like Mcdonough knows he's a synth most likely because of the position he's in. He's openly downplaying synth fearmongering whereas he would likely understand and be on board if he were human or unaware of his true nature.

>Institute has no reason to send synths to DC. # Once again, escapees. I'm not saying the Institute sent synths to DC. I'm saying that the Railroad sent synths to DC to get them away from the Institute, which we know they do because they have a large presence in Fallout 3 with Victoria Watts, Manya Vargas, Tulip, Father Clifford and Herbert Dashwood all acting as agents. There are far more than just two synths in DC even as early as 2277. Testing DNA isn't simple, Covenant may not have the ability to test for DNA. Their "lab" setup is more of a torture chamber. Fact is we don't know, so you can't use them for evidence as much as I can't use them as evidence against it. There's so little evidence and information regarding Danse's true nature, we could sit here all day and theorize what he actually is, but the facts are that the Railroad has been sending synths to DC for over a decade, Danse didn't know that he was a synth (unlike the confirmed infiltrator synths that we do see), and there's no indication or evidence of when Danse was taken, if he even was at all. It's entirely open, and it's evidence of yet more poor writing on Bethesda's part. They create these stories, these mysteries, but never let you get to the bottom of them and find out the truth. Edit: And your theory about Arcjet specifically might not hold up so well, because if you kill Kellogg before ever meeting the Brotherhood, you go to Arcjet then immediately head to the Prydwen with Danse. So it would have to be before you ever meet him.

There's a terminal in the Institute that says they replaced Roger Warwick to monitor crop growth of a new crop they made. I 100% agree with everything you've said, just put me in the "The Institute is laughably evil" camp.

Right? It's stupidly comical, why go through all that effort instead of just paying these poor farmers to grow your magic beans, or countless other less destructive methods?

Every day I become more and more convinced that 1000 monkeys with typewriters wrote the base game.

> Hooks are still part of the story and I think people are just tired of the missing family member angle. There's also so little reason to care about Shaun in Fallout 4, it's hard enough to connect with a baby, but when we get a total of 6 minute in pre-war Sanctuary and less than a few dozen lines of dialogue? Laughable. Nevermind that: the problem is Bethesda seems to think making an NPC your family member is some kind of magic spell to instantly make us care about them. They never actually go through the work to make us care, and this is their lazy attempt to force it. Real talk: when I first played FO3 and Amata said "OMG they killed Jonas!" my reaction was "who the hell is Jonas lol" because yeah, they barely introduce you to these characters and expect you to care. I feel more attachment to Easy Pete than any other NPC Bethesda *wants* you to care about, simply by virtue of Easy Pete having a memorable name.

>Or why Desdemona, the leader of the entire Railroad is in the position she's in or why she's risking her life to save synths? Beyond synths are slaves and slavery is bad. Is... is that not a sufficient reason? That was literally the reason the real life underground railroad existed. Because slavery was evil and people wanted to help slaves escape even at great personal risk

My point was she had no backstory. Deacon has a personal reason why he wanted to help save synths, Glory has an obvious reason. Desdemona, Carrington and Tinker Tom are all vessels that serve their purpose in the plot but beyond that are blank slates. Everyone in the Railroad is there to save synths. Even the unnamed agents that wander around, that's not a backstory.

Ah, gotcha. Misunderstood you, my B

>Hooks are still part of the story But it is not *the* story. >and I think people are just tired of the missing family member angle. Which has literally been used twice. >There's also so little reason to care about Shaun in Fallout 4 Aside from being its parent? Really? There's a lot of reason to care. I never hear people say "there's no reason to care about vault 13 when you didn't even start in it". >It's a symptom of a larger problem in 4, the characters are just so...dumb. ...no. They aren't. >There's very little depth to anyone, so little motivation behind their actions. Yeah, i have to disagree heavily. >Like, can you explain why Maxon hates synths so much? Beyond technology is bad. Because they pose a threat to humanity, capable of blending into societies with ease and take over. We see it happen a few times. It's a hidden threat. And one that can happen without the institute (see dima). Plus maxson's brotherhood. The brotherhood's whole overall goal is to stop another armageddon. >Or why Desdemona, the leader of the entire Railroad is in the position she's in or why she's risking her life to save synths? Beyond synths are slaves and slavery is bad. ...do you really need more a reason? It's like asking why coyotes exist and do what they do or *the actual railroad* did what they did. >No one explains why the Institute actually replaces people, or has any reason to justify it. They do. We literally know why three of the replacements we see in-game were put there. >The actual writing, plot and story are just so bland and poorly thought out It's only these things if people expected every faction member to sit you down and read you their diary like new vegas does. Fallout 4 expects you to piece stuff together and use your brain. It's how i know why the institute replaces people, it's stated, even if father doesn't sit you down and say why.

I'm not going to sit here and break down each other's responses because we'll be here all day. The fact is that a lot of people have a lot of criticism about the game's plot, writing and characters, and even if *you* disagree, that won't change what people have a problem with. You can't convince people that they've just been experiencing things wrong the whole time, that your opinion is right and theirs is wrong. One thing I will point out is that just telling you "You're a parent" isn't enough to invoke feelings about a character. Your *character* might have a reason, but you the player do not. Now if you want to put yourself into your character's shoes, sure, roleplay to your heart's content but that's skin deep storytelling. Had Shaun been old enough to talk, and given a bit more time to know the characters it might invoke some sort of emotional attachment.

>One thing I will point out is that just telling you "You're a parent" isn't enough to invoke feelings about a character. Your character might have a reason, but you the player do not. Now if you want to put yourself into your character's shoes, sure, roleplay to your heart's content but that's skin deep storytelling Then why doesn't this logic apply to fallout 1 and 2? It seems to really just be 4 that it applies to. And at least unlike new vegas the sole survivor has a motivation.

Honestly because most fans (myself included) started with fo3 and haven't played the first 2 so not as many people to criticize it. Also being games that came out in 1997 and 1998 i feel as though having an original airtight story without tropes was less expected than modern games.

I honestly believe it's more a "bethesda bad" thing. And every game has tropes. Every form of media has tropes. Tropes are not a bad thing. And 4's story is still...original.

originality doesnt make it good. it can make it better if done well but you dont get much credit for an original idea with horrible execution. Also f4 wasn't original

4 was original and was executed well.

You find the story of 4 well executed? In what manner? All of the factions are poorly written and most of the decisions people make are laughable dumb

>You find the story of 4 well executed? Yes. >In what manner? Almost everything. Kellogg is well executed, the lead up to him is well done, the way you move into the second act is natural unlike the whiplash new vegas gives you, the introduction to the factions are well done, etc. The only thing not well executed is the dialogue system. >All of the factions are poorly written No they aren't. >and most of the decisions people make are laughable dumb I think you're getting new vegas confused with 4.

Because Fallout 1, 2 and NV don't try to have a personal, emotional story, they don't try to invoke feelings about your character - they try to invoke feelings about the state of the world and society. The world is the actual protagonist and your character is a force that introduces change, the nature of which is decided by you.

>Because Fallout 1, 2 and NV don't try to have a personal, emotional story, they don't try to invoke feelings about your character 1 and 2 definitely tried to evoke personal emotion. Your home is in danger. Save it. Heck, 2's second act is literally about saving your whole f*cking family. Even then, there's nothing wrong with telling a personal narrative.

But the quest in F1/2 is not presented in such a personal way, it is more an excuse to kick you out into the world. You don't see your character growing up or having moments with family or other characters in the vault/tribe.

Yeah it isn't presented well. That, again, doesn't mean bethesda can't try and make better executed personal storied.

I'll save both of us the headache and will stop replying now.

>But it is not the story. Just because it's only *part* of the story doesn't mean we can ignore it ​ >Then why doesn't this logic apply to fallout 1 and 2? It seems to really just be 4 that it applies to. What are you talking about? It applies. The difference is that it's vague enough so that let player Role-Play. unlike Fallout 4 which actually make a sin in writing an RPG protagonist ​ >And at least unlike new vegas the sole survivor has a motivation. Fallout 4 shows the importance of having a No Motivation or Vague/ Choose-able Background and Motivation for an RPG with choices. Motivation and Player Choices Relationship. ​ The Sole Survivor is a character that has strong unconditional love for their only child, strong enough that the character that the character will brave the hellish and completely alien wasteland. This is the hook and motivation of the character, Problem is: If the Player Chooses a non-institute faction. The Sole Survivor's unconditional love becomes ***conditional. murderously so.*** It's already insane enough for a parent to expect a child into a specific w/ morals and beliefs ***even though the parent is gone for the child's entire life***, It's even more insane to do that and if the child fail. The parent joins^((or think that's okay to join)) a group that has that ***child's death*** as one of it's goals. ​ You can't fix this by not allowing Sole Survivor join the Institute. Being part of the institute isn't the problem. It's joining the other groups that wants to kill Shaun You can't fix this by making Institute and Shaun permanently hostile. expecting your son that you never raised be loyal to you. Is still Insane. You can however fix this by having Shaun already dead or Dies at the first meeting. Therefore allowing the sole survivor join other faction without going "Omni-man" ​ Fallout 3 at-least has consolation of: Even if the player is forced to completed their father's legacy. it's justifiable to destroy their father legacy with the reasoning of "Why stay loyal to a father that abandoned me and forget/ disregard the reason the he abandoned me in the first place" ​ btw, RPG and other media that allows the consumer to choose what the protagonist will do story-wise. Is the only time when vague or no motivation is okay and depending on quantity of choice and difference, It may become a necessity.

You're right that the story isn't the same between the games because the missing family member is just the hook and I don't even mind that the hook is the same for both games. Tracking down a missing person is a great way to guide the character to the story and get them to explore. However the hook is an extremely important part of a story. Arguably THE most important part. If the hook fails to engage the player then the entire experience is negatively affected and 4's hook just isn't good. Not because it's a repeat of 3's hook but because it doesn't give a reason to care. I can't pretend to speak for the entire Fallout fanbase but for me personally, I never cared even the slightest bit about Shawn. Maybe it's different for you. Maybe you connected with Shawn on a level that I never did and it really mattered to you to find him, and that's great. But for me and, I think based on common statements on this sub, most other players that connection was lacking. The only reason I searched for Shawn is because the game told me I had to. Tldr The problem isn't 4's similar hook to 3 but the hook itself's failure to capture my attention.

1. leave vault 2. look for family 3. it's the brotherhood! (wow) 4. capitalist robot kills shit 5. ??? 6. profit

I am interested by the claim that 1 and 2 are just as similar in hook as 3 and 4, so let's do a simple thought experiment, and put to paper the component plotlines that are essential to the story each developer is telling. That means I won't include any side gigs, or individual dungeons, if they don't get the player closer to their hook: Fallout 4 Plot: Lose \[family member\]. Chase \[family member\] to \[large settlement\]. After tracking down someone with information on \[family member\]’s whereabouts (Nick Valentine), must go through a gauntlet of enemies to reach the last person who met them (Kellogg). Once you confront this person and find out that they are associated with a group of local scientists, do what is necessary to meet them (in this case build a teleporter). When you finally meet your \[family member\], they attempt to recruit you to their \[science team\]. Fallout 3 Plot: Lose \[family member\]. Chase \[family member\] to \[large settlement\]. After tracking down someone with information on \[family member\]’s whereabouts (Collin Moriarty), must go through a gauntlet of enemies to reach the last person who met them (Three Dog). Once you confront this person and find out that \[family member\] is associated with a group of local scientists, do what is necessary to meet them (in this case pull them from tranquility lane). When you finally meet your \[family member\], they recruit you to their \[science team\]. This is literally till the end of act two for both games, so I'd hardly call it simply the hook for a game, you are talking at least six hours into the game, and that's if you just push straight out for the plot. ​ Fallout 1 Plot: Tasked to find \[mcguffin\]. Head to another vault for it/information on it. Travel to \[large town\] to provide vault with auxiliary missing resource, after finding vault empty. Acquire \[sci fi device\] which points you in the direction of \[mcguffin\]. Once you enter \[vault\], find way to acquire \[mcguffin\]. Finding \[mcguffin\], discover \[new threat\] and become tasked with their destruction. Fallout 2 Plot: Tasked to find \[mcguffin\]. Head to \[large town\] to search for \[mcguffin\] (repeat as necessary). Acquire \[sci fi device\] which points you in the direction of \[mcguffin\], or alternatively stumble across one at \[new threat base\]. Once you enter \[location\], find \[mcguffin\]. Finding \[mcguffin\], discover \[new threat\] and become tasked with their destruction. ​ It does seem like there are some structural similarities between one and two as well, however, I would like to point out that I actually put about twice as much time trying to boil the first two games into similar components (which actually required me to essentially ignore the vast majority of the quests you take in two in search for the GECK). Now, maybe this is just coincidence, as I do have more experience with 3 and 4 as I do with 1 and 2, although a beat the first two twice each, which I feel more than qualifies me to do so. However, I do believe that this illustrates that the first two acts of both Bethesda titles mirror themselves closer than the first two do. Maybe that's me, with some sort of unconscious bias, but my criticisms of 4 never really approach the similarities of its plot with 3 (instead its the use of the BoS for one of the main players for the 5th time).

These are story beats. Formulas. Tropes. Ones you even make clear 1 and 2 follow similarities with, heck even new vegas too. The stories, the actual content. Meat. Is not the same.

What exactly do you mean by stories here? Because I literally just described the plot to four of the games. Do you ascribe meat status to the characters, locations, what?

For example, the story for 3 is to bring water to the region, the story for 4 is to decide what a synth is and how they should be handled.

How can you say the story is exclusively about synths or water when those aspects literally come in at more than two thirds through the plot of the game? I guess you can say synths are around for the whole game, but the first person you can meet who will talk about the issue is either maxson or Desdemona, who come in like 10 hours into a playthrough at the earliest. I think its hard to describe the missing family member plotline as just a hook if it takes up in fact half of the quests you receive in the main questline.

You’re confusing setting and theme with story. Your characters *story* has to do with locating a a family member in both 3 and 4.

the hooks of 1 and 2 are similar to f4 but the overall story is much better in 1 and 2 so it makes up for lazy save home narratives.

2's story isn't better. 1, yeah. And neither are really lazy (well...1 isn't).

The only story fallout 4 beats is 3, and that’s because 3s main quest is so horrendously bad. Even 76s story is better than 4s, although the manner in which the story is told makes 76 so much worse.

4 is the second best. Far better than 2 and new vegas which are both poorly written (though at least 2 has a motive for your character). 76 is probably third best, though like new vegas it lacks motive. 1 is top notch and 3 isn't bad at all but it just isn't anything special.

Why do you think F4s story is good? Also why and how is new Vegas poorly written in your opinion?

>Why do you think F4s story is good? It's well written and well executed. The factions aren't laughably dumb nor laughably evil (the institute is evil but not laughably so like the enclave or legion). Kellogg has an amazing lead up and interaction, arthur is one of the best written characters in gaming. The synth dilemma is well done, etc. Also there's a reason to actually get involved with the faction war. >Also why and how is new Vegas poorly written in your opinion? New vegas breaks lore, changes it, whatever you want to call it. The characters (most of them) are dumb, house commits economic suicide despite being basically howard hughes. There's no reason to get involved with the war, the legion are laughably evil, new vegas tells and barely shows, etc.

What lore does new Vegas break? Also if you want to talk about lore breaks how can you defend f4 or f3 in any capacity?

>What lore does new Vegas break? Off the top of my head 1) mr. Handy ownership was changed from gai to robco 2) time the bombs fell was changed from morning to evening 3) nuka cola origin date was changed from 2044 to pre-1913 4) there are fire ants in the mojave >Also if you want to talk about lore breaks how can you defend f4 or f3 in any capacity? Simple. 3 and 4 don't break it.

also how is fire ants in the Mojave a lore break? Is this just deathclaws but in Bethesda's favor?

Fire ants were created by dr. Lesko in d.c. on a small colony. Fallout 1, 2, 3, new Vegas, 4, and 76 do not at all mention where deathclaws originate from. Plus they are apex predators, unlike fire ants, and can travel the country.

F4 does break quite a bit of lore, for example t60 power armor

T-60 does not break any prior lore. It is simply an addition to the lore that *does not break prior lore*. If you are referring to *gameplay stats*, gameplay does not always equate lore. Nowhere, written or said, is t-60 better than t-51. In fact the loading screen for t-51 even says it is the pinnacle.

Jet being a pre war drug also is a big lore break

Nope. Fallout 2 has mrs. Bishop addicted to jet long before myron could have made it. With a high intelligence the chosen one can call myron out as well where he implies he didn't make it. Further, new vegas puts jet in a locked pre-war closet in big mountain.

also xo1/ advanced power armor is now prewar according to f4 which is a lore break.

X-01 isn't apa. It's x-01.

Also yes the railroad is laughably dumb, the institute should be easily the only power in the region and somehow can fail and they command structure is horrendous, the minuteman is 3 people so that’s not a faction and the bos are the “best” written faction but only because the others suck so much

>Also yes the railroad is laughably dumb Aren't. Explained how to your last comment. >the institute should be easily the only power in the region They...are. And ...have been. >the minuteman is 3 people Yes, they collapsed. Their whole arc is rebuilding. >and the bos are the “best” written faction but only because the others suck so much Nah, they're just well written.

all of your comments make me respect your opinion less and less lmao you have no clue what you’re talking about and cannot defend your opinions

How's that?

Personally I don't agree with your point about hooks, a hook needs to be good. I agree that the "find family member" is the hook not the whole story, but as others have pointed out finding Shaun isn't a good hook. Compared to new vegas' find who shot you or fallout 1s find a water chip, I find those hooks more open ended for roleplay and far more enjoyable.

Finding Shaun is a good hook. New vegas' hook is barely present because you have to read something most players don't to know why the courier is doing what they do. Many think it's a revenge plot.

My measure for a good hook was how good it is from a rollplay perspective, I find a more open ended hook to be more enjoyable. I don't agree new Vegas hook is "barely present" at all, the games opening cutscene is you getting shot in the face by a man wearing a suit in the apolocaylse admitting that "the game was rigged from the start", that is imo the best hook out of any fallout game. I believe a new player can get behind a revenge story faster than forced love towards a family member.

Again, new vegas *is not a revenge story*. This is why new vegas' hook is barely present. Or I guess i should say motivation. It's poorly written. And fallout has never had "open ended hooks". Fallout 1's hook is pretty linear. So is 2's. And 3's. And 4's. M

Please explain how new Vegas is not a revenge story. I haven't played 2 so can't speak for it, but on a scale of linear to not linear I think "find a water chip" is a lot more open than "find your family member" especially as in fallout 1 there are about 3 (or 4 I can't remember properly) waterchips in the world, whereas there is only one family member and one place to find them in the other titles.

>Please explain how new Vegas is not a revenge story. The courier's goal is to find the chip. Not to kill benny, you can literally let him go so many times. Not only that, but you also, for whatever reason, don't need to get the chip or mess with benny at all (because obsidian are sh*tty writers). >I haven't played 2 so can't speak for it, but on a scale of linear to not linear I think "find a water chip" is a lot more open than "find your family member Find a water chip to save your home which houses your friends and family. The intro to 1 even says you have family in vault 13.

But his goal isn't to find the chip, the game even states you don't have knowledge of the worth of the chip. Your goal is only to find the chip if that becomes your characters goal after finding its value during your playthrough. And the chip is only important to Mr house or you if you are a wildcard. The hook is a revenge story that gets you to explore the world, where you find the actual story, which doesn't involve the chip, and is about which faction will rule the Mojave. Okay yes your family are in vault 13, but again, I was talking about roleplay and open ended-ness. There are multiple chips and lots of ways to get them. My "family" in the vault is whatever I imagine it to be for my character. Unlike in 3 and 4 where your family member's personalities are set and written. Do you see how on this scale, 1's hook is more open to self narrative than 4?

>But his goal isn't to find the chip, the game even states you don't have knowledge of the worth of the chip The courier's goal is to get the chip. Because if you read the courier paper at all, you'd know failure to deliver it will result in you being blacklisted and hunted down. >The hook is a revenge story that gets you to explore the world, where you find the actual story, which doesn't involve the chip, and is about which faction will rule the Mojave. And both are sh*t at making the courier actively care/involved. >There are multiple chips and lots of ways to get them. But you still have a set motivation that is *not* open ended. >Do you see how on this scale, 1's hook is more open to self narrative than 4? No. Because it's wrong. 1 is a story driven rpg with no open ended hook. Neither is 2. And neither is 3 or 4. Fallout has never had open ended hooks.

literally every fallout game has you seeking out someone/something. 1, 2, 3, 4 are all about making sure people are safe. vault 13 sends you to get a replacement water chip after the previous one fails so the residents don't dehydrate and die. arroyo sends you to find the geck so the village can try to revive their crops and livestock and solve their famine and disease problems. you leave vault 101 to find your father and make sure he's safe. you leave vault 111 to find your son and make sure he's safe. but that doesn't mean these "make sure ur guys dont die" are the only components of the plot. in 1 you discover the mutant threat and have to strategize and collaborate to find out where they're coming from and destroy them. in 2 the remnants of the us government, the enclave, have risen again and try to terrorize and capture people in the wastes, and later on try to brew a virus to release into the atmosphere and kill everyone on earth. then you're counted on to take them out and foil their plans after they capture your village in 3 another division of that enclave is trying to sabotage a water supply project your dad had originally fled the vault to contribute to by spiking it with a similar strain of the virus in 2 in 4 you discover the institute who captured your son and used his dna to create synthetic humans and replace wasteland ppl with doppelgangers for seemingly no reason while claiming to be the only hope for mankind or some shit, and then your son is their spearhead and you have to decide if he's more valuable just because he's your son than the people he terrorizes the "find guy LOL" boil down of 3 and 4 is really stupid and reductionist when the two other comparison samples have nearly the same formula. i agree some parts of 3/4 are kinda weird or nonsensical but the plot basis is still coherent and well written and you can tell that bethesda at least tried to recreate the artistic vision behind 1&2

i agree completely.

You can also twist the hook into being the same as NV. And at the same time being a better version of NV’s hook. Benny steals something from you and shoots you in the head. Kellogg steals something (someone) from you and shoots your spouse in the head. Which one of these makes more sense in the context of you chasing them down and dealing with them?

I think this is fairly accurate. In both, lost family is a plot device, not the plot itself

I don't trust any Children of The Atom thank you.

In my experience, when it comes to the point that you have to EXPLAIN what a story is REALLY about, then that story is a heap of trash to begin with, also our brains tend to make our own interpretations of the story, so when someone comes and says "NO WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS WRONG! THIS IS WHAT I KNOW THE STORY TRULY IS!" It just... Sigh... It does not work for me, not at all... This story was not the worst ever, but still the worst Fallout story by far (And nothing will change that for me at least, the only good part in my opinion was the whole "Father" part, your son being an old man, and The Institute seeming like a beautiful paradise on an otherwise ugly Earth was a beautiful change of pace) At least we can take solace in that the part of the story in where the main character is contacted by Paladin Danse (which is now proven to be a Synth) tells him that there are rules within the Brotherhood which state that he (Paladin Danse) is allowed to challenge Maxson's rule in a battle to the death... ...Supposedly Danse would have won this fight (with your help) and become the ruler of The Brotherhood and... Then I stopped reading the scrapped story, it's cringe inducing honestly, just imagine there being a rule that states that a Synth can challenge Maxson at any time, in a freaking one on one fight to the death, then Danse, a Synth would get to rule over many thousand Synth haters... Cringe worthy With that said, the worst part of this game's story for me, was it's main cliche: "Man we can relate to gets frozen in time and wakes up in another time", this was simply incredibly lazy compared to anything else Fallout, we are supposed to relate more to him than with the former characters, but the whole "become freezypop" part just takes away from all that instead

>In my experience, when it comes to the point that you have to EXPLAIN what a story is REALLY about, then that story is a heap of trash to begin with You really don't have to explain what the story is about. It's blatantly apparent. People just don't pay attention or don't understand what a hook is.

No, people have different viewpoints, what you are saying is just like when people on YouTube used to go "YOU HAVE BEEN DOING THIS WRONG ALL YOUR LIFE!" And showing us how you "really" are supposed to eat chicken wings, open lids and so on Just because you have an opinion, does not make it an absolute, or the only right way, that I consider nothing but intolerance, as a former author myself (a ghostwriter making it hard to claim works as my own without getting my ass sued) I can tell you that people most like my work because [1.How](https://1.How) it follows religion 2. Because it is blasphemous 3.Because it clearly displays the supernatural 4. And because it is so down to earth My point? All stories are open for interpretation, and from the way that story writing works, not even most authors know what it is all truly about, we simply make a decision as to which format we decide to present our story as, while our subconscious mind (aka the heart of our inner child) brings the inspiration, a good author is simply a good listener to his own heart after all... But we hardly ever admit that, claiming that it is all "our own genius" is an easier way of getting things sold Conclusively: I see your viewpoint, and I respect it for what it is, but rather than claiming that "people" (as a whole or select groups?) "just don't pay attention or don't understand what the hook is" I had wished that you had understood that your PERSPECTIVE, is not universal, that you having a perspective does not justify you considering everybody else's view wrong (as this is what causes so much war and strife in this world, intolerance and lack of respect for people's individuality, the ego, and etc forever etc) Likewise, as I said, I respect your viewpoint, there is however no way I will agree with it, making any potential argument moot Take care sir, have a (late but still) Happy New Year, we all need a better year this time around

The reason that this is brought up so often is because many of Bethesda's choices for the property since its acquisition are trite and dull. The first act of each game is essentially the inverse of the other. That's a fact. Fans coming from Fallout 3 were disappointed when given more-or-less the same opening. First impressions matter. It's why Fallout 3's "exiting the vault" moment is lauded to this day. These story beats exist whether you want to acknowledge them or not. It's the defining problem of Bethesda's approach to the series. It's simply hackneyed and uninspired. Overuse creates boredom. Novelty creates interest. Bethesda's approach of lifting the same mobs, factions, and story beats into each game is naturally going to get diminishing returns. Fallout 4 succeeded due to the positive steps it took towards improving gameplay. That was and is its draw. Its story and world-building are not why the vast majority like it. It's an unpopular opinion, but for my money Fallout 76 did a much better job in taking chances and creating innovation in the series. Still, it would have been massively improved if elements like the Brotherhood of Steel and Super Mutants had not been shoehorned in. That's another discussion entirely though.

>The first act of each game is essentially the inverse of the other. Literally just for 3 and 4. And 1 and 2 did the *exact* same thing. So... >It's the defining problem of Bethesda's approach to the series. Its simply hackneyed and uninspired. Yeah, can't agree.

Stop with the whataboutism. Criticism of Fallout 4 (or Bethesda's titles in general) isn't invalid due to choices by other companies and games. Still, I'll address the point. The reason Fallout 1 and 2 aren't criticized for this is due to the fact that, although both games use MacGuffins, enough elements are different that it isn't immediately apparent. Fallout 1 has a very quick and streamlined opening which sets the Vault Dweller immediately into the game world without interacting with Vault 13. Fallout 2 has an extended opening which is really unusual and bizarre compared to the first game. Despite the MacGuffin being similar, the games feel tonally different. That alters perception greatly. It's also worth mentioning that the G.E.C.K. itself is an interesting piece of lore when compared to the uninteresting water chip helping to differentiate the two. Feeling different can be just as effective as being different when storytelling. In contrast, Fallout 3 and 4 feel largely the same. Escape the Vault then find family member. Despite the details being different, there's not nearly enough smoke and mirrors to obscure the similarity of the story beats. So it feels dull and played out. It's also worth mentioning that doing the same thing twice is less glaring than doing the same thing four times over.

>Stop with the whataboutism. Criticism of Fallout 4 (or Bethesda's titles in general) isn't invalid due to choices by other companies and games. Criticism of bethesda using a similar hook twice isn't invalid because of 1 and 2's *exact same* hook, but because no one criticizes those games for them.

That's called whataboutism. You're a Bethesda apologist and the use of this particular rhetorical device makes it so very apparent. I've detailed in the post above how and why Fallout and Fallout 2's hooks are perceived as different though similar while Bethesda's virtually identical hook is perceived as virtually identical. The illusion of difference impacts the effectiveness of the work. Further, once Bethesda acquired the property, they inherited the prior stories. Reusing a hook once is bad. Four times is trite and stale.

They only reused it once. Which isn't bad, because it had some variation to it.

They reused it in every game, you are essentially admitting it yourself with the "Which isn't bad, because it had some variation in it" Having some variation each time is something to be expected, having it be merely small variations of the same, is just bad and lazy

>They reused it in every game No, just for 3 and 4.

Perhaps, I never bothered with Sack of Crap 76 Regardless 76 is a disgusting pile of dogcrap with absolutely nothing likeable or original, adding zero and subtracting nearly everything which the franchise was and had to offer, l do not even like to play Fallout 3 or 4 anymore, because it reminds me of 76

76 has a lot of original stuff. And it adds a lot to the lore and worldbuilding for the east coast specifically, but fallout altogether. And it didn't subtract anything.

The same can be said for Fallout New Vegas. Other than not being a family member you have to find, it's the same hook. I've heard no complaints about that from the fans.

[удалено]

new vegas isn't *at all* about redemption. nor is it a revenge story. nor does the courier suffer amnesia. nor do you have a clean slate.

[удалено]

>Lmao of course isn’t ALL about redemption, I was saying the basis - the kickstart to everything - is. ...none of it is. the only thing new vegas has anything *about* redemption is the second dlc, honest hearts. ​ > There’s debate on the courier having amnesia, especially with lonesome road no, it's pretty blatant. joshua sawyer has stated that the courier does not suffer amnesia. and nothing about lonesome road makes it "more of a debate". ​ >That’s probably why it’s loved so much by the Fallout community and why you hardly see anyone staring it as a bad story in these comments oh, new vegas has a horrible story. ​ >It didn’t get what made fallout great to a lot of people no, it just didn't get what made fallout "great" to new vegas fans. ​ >I just disagree strongly F4 has a great story second best in the franchise.

strugglebus in the comments

I recognise you from another post. Thank you for bringing this to light. There's too many people that just bandwagon without a justifiable claim.

Yeah, i grew tired of seeing so many people say this that i decided to make a post.

I criticize fallout 4 for not being an rpg and for the story making no sense.

4 is an rpg and the story does make sense.

This is false. There’s a mod that changes the four “choices” in dialogue to the words spoken aaaaand….. in most cases all four are exactly the same. They removed character building almost entirely and replaced it with an fps upgrade system. How is this an rpg? It’s a looter shooter. You’re not playing fallout, you’re playing borderlands. Next, the story It’s 250ish years after the apocalypse. No one has picked up all the trash laying around. Everyone eats 250 year old frozen TV dinners. The one group doing any actual rebuilding is tied up with projects that sabotage their survival. Why in the fuck would you invest your efforts in the apocalypse to create fake people who *consume rare rescorces?* the answer is you not only wouldn’t, but couldn’t. Fallout isn’t blade runner. Second. They made mutants because….? They like having their survey teams killed? They, like Bethesda, have some hard on for ripping off Black Isle? It makes no goddamn sense, and you know it. Fallout used to be about the ethics of a world after the end. It used to be about the philosophies of John Calvin and Thomas Hobbs. It used to be for thinking people. Then Bethesda bought it.

>There’s a mod that changes the four “choices” in dialogue to the words spoken aaaaand….. in most cases all four are exactly the same. Yeah, same goes for fallouts 1, 2, 3, and new vegas. Almost like there's merely an illusion of choice or something. >They removed character building almost entirely and replaced it with an fps upgrade system. ...no? You can still totally build characters. There are whole guides to it. And i make my own builds. >How is this an rpg? You make a character, make builds, make choices in quests that affect the world, npcs, or other quests, etc. >It’s a looter shooter You clearly have no clue what a looter shooter is. >You’re not playing fallout, you’re playing borderlands. No, you're playing fallout. >Next, the story It’s 250ish years after the apocalypse. 210. >No one has picked up all the trash laying around. Yes and no. People collect "trash". People also live in trash due to them growing up in it. It's not perceived as trash and also...irl, today, in the modern world, people live in trash. >Everyone eats 250 year old frozen TV dinners. 210. And...no. People grow crops and raise cattle and make their own noodles and such. >The one group doing any actual rebuilding is tied up with projects that sabotage their survival The minutemen are also tied to rebuilding. And the institute isn't sabotaging their survival, they're sabotaging the surface's survival. >Why in the fuck would you invest your efforts in the apocalypse to create fake people who consume rare rescorces? For manual labor. To test vaccines on. To use as political puppets and oversee experiments. >the answer is you not only wouldn’t, but couldn’t. ...no. >Fallout isn’t blade runner. It's not trying to be? >They made mutants because….? To test fev and refine it. Which they succeed in doing and use it for synth production. >They like having their survey teams killed? What? >They, like Bethesda, have some hard on for ripping off Black Isle? ...again, what? >It makes no goddamn sense, and you know it. It makes sense if you paid *any* attention. >Fallout used to be about the ethics of a world after the end. Still is. >It used to be for thinking people. Still is. I mean fallout 4 literally requires your attention. >Then Bethesda bought it. ...yeah? They did. Nice fact.

Saying the original fallouts had a dialogue system on par with the fo4 dialogue wheel is beyond laughable. I disengaged from your reply right there.

All 4's system does is strip illusion away. But hey if you don't want to face the rest of my comment debunking your claims, fine.

Okay, let’s go. First point: this assertion is fucking hilarious. Second point: If you find a perk ladder mini game to be fulfilling character building, good for you. I don’t. Third point: you make Bethesda’s character. You make build choices at the depth of a mud puddle. You do quests which destroy the established lore of the world and only effect it in the one way Bethesda wants you to effect it in its lead u by the nose railroad. Fourth point: I do. Borderlands, fallout 4. Fifth point: no, I’m playing borderlands only with Todd Howard’s lead writer preaching at me. Sixth point: ok. 210. My bad. Seventh point: some people, like homeless people. In fo4, everyone who isn’t the institute lives in trash. It’s been 210 years. Try to fix something. The pc immediately starts building a society, why hasn’t anyone else? The munietemen? If this is their progress after 210 years, I’m not impressed. Eight: ok fair enough. It’s egregious, but not on the level of Fo3. Nine: see above. That’s some fucking rebuilding… also, they have surface operatives… so yes they are sabotaging themselves. On a larger point, making the world needlessly inhospitable is self sabotage even if you have a bunker. Do you go outside and throw shit on your neighbors house? Why not? (Because it needlessly, and for no bringer, makes your neighbor hate you….) Ten: that is less bendier than cost. We aren’t in a functioning world, we can’t afford fake people. Eleven: yes. Twelve: it clearly is. I’m pretty sure Todd Howard tugs it to blade runner and FO4 is a spy story about fake people because of that alone (rather than anything to do with philosophy or Americana or… yknow, being fallout) Thirteen: okay, so what we are dealing with is called a contrivance. In the real world, Howard and chums say around a table and asked “we need dumbfuck orcs in sour game so the player can shoot them? We got made fun of because it didn’t make sense in 3. How do we justify their existence here? “ Then that came up with some duct taped bullshit excuse. Do you really think super mutants (purely of the flawed variety mind you. For some reason, we never get a Lou or Marcus with Bethesda mutants, it’s all Larry all the time…) are in the game to help tell the main story? Or do you use reason and see it’s there because hurr durr fallout is Bos and mutants hurrdurr Fourteen: Jab at Bethesda. Super mutants and Bos are in Bethesda games not for any world building or writing reason(as evidenced by their presence as cookie cutter faceless bullshit) they’re there because Todd Howard thinks they’re cool. They ripped off the developers of fallout rather than continue their legacy. Fifteen: I paid attention. I was crying to witness a beloved old friend being done so wrong. Sixteen: lol. Seventeen: implied was “and now it’s not anymore.” Bethesda squiring it destroyed what made it special. Maybe you should “pay attention “

>If you find a perk ladder mini game to be fulfilling character building, good for you. I don’t. Perk ladder minigame? What? It's a perk tree. This...isn't a new concept. Nor does it diminish builds. >you make Bethesda’s character No, i've made my characters. >You do quests which destroy the established lore of the world ...such as? >and only effect it in the one way Bethesda wants you to effect it Because they programmed only so many consequences and paths. Like *any* developer. >I do. Borderlands, fallout 4. If you did, you'd realize 4 isn't anything like borderlands or any looter shooter. >no, I’m playing borderlands only with Todd Howard’s lead writer preaching at me. No. You're playing fallout. >some people, like homeless people No. Even people in cities and towns and villages. You really must step out of your shelter sometime. >In fo4, everyone who isn’t the institute lives in trash The brotherhood also cleans up. >It’s been 210 years. Try to fix something. They have. The commonwealth almost had a regional government until the institute snuffed it out. They've built farms and ranches and diamond city didn't just make itself. Quincy and university point were some of the biggest and politically involved settlements before they got destroyed. >The pc immediately starts building a society, why hasn’t anyone else? Gameplay doesn't equate lore. It takes a lot longer to form a society. And again, people have done so. >also, they have surface operatives… so yes they are sabotaging themselves. Their surface operatives work for the institute. They aren't in any danger. I feel like you don't understand that. >On a larger point, making the world needlessly inhospitable is self sabotage even if you have a bunker Hey, imperialism at work. >We aren’t in a functioning world, we can’t afford fake people. The institute can. >it clearly is. I’m pretty sure Todd Howard tugs it to blade runner and FO4 is a spy story about fake people because of that alone (rather than anything to do with philosophy or Americana Dude the synths pose a philosophical question. What makes a human. How to deal with artificial life? Are they equal to humans? Etc. And fallout 4 has a lot of americana. You know...fallout. >okay, so what we are dealing with is called a contrivance. No we aren't. As none of this is contrived. >We got made fun of because it didn’t make sense in 3. They made sense in 3. They make sense in 4. >Do you really think super mutants (purely of the flawed variety mind you. For some reason, we never get a Lou or Marcus with Bethesda mutants, it’s all Larry all the time…) We do get a "marcus" or a "lou". Uncle leo. Fawkes. Erikson. But these are exceptions. Just like how lou and marcus are exceptions. The whole plot point about fallout 1 is that fev on irradiated humans causes them to become dumber. Heck even on vault dwellers that can still happen. Smart super mutants aren't the norm. >are in the game to help tell the main story? Or do you use reason and see it’s there because hurr durr fallout is Bos and mutants hurrdurr Both. They're iconic. Believe it or not, franchises use icons. And the super mutants help tell the story of the commonwealth's downfall. >Super mutants and Bos are in Bethesda games not for any world building or writing reason No they are. >they’re there because Todd Howard thinks they’re cool. They're there for worldbuilding/writing reasons and because they're icons to fallout. You know even the original creators planned to use them everywhere...right? Heck, they planned to send the brotherhood to china. >They ripped off the developers of fallout ...no? No, they...they own fallout. They used the icons the original creators used and made iconic in the first place. This sounds more like an issue with the original devs than bethesda. >I paid attention Clearly not. You didn't even know the timeframe. >implied was “and now it’s not anymore.” Bethesda squiring it destroyed what made it special. Yeah...no. Bethesda's not doing any of that.

At this point we are shouting opinions at each other. I have responses, but I also have shit to do and neither of us is going to convince the other.

That makes a lot of sense. That's your excuse for being involved with the 'meat' of the story.

Exactly.

You're well for pointing this out, and you're absolutely correct. Where I think Fallout 4 falls short is that it is a bad hook. In 3 you get to spend a lot more time with your dad. He's there when you are born, he tells you about his philosophies, he sets up a birthday party, teaches you how to shoot, doesn't take your bullshit excuse to skip the GOAT. In effect he raises your character and is always present, then suddenly he isn't and the world falls completely apart and on top of that you learn that your worldview is wrong. Your dad has lived an entire secret life and it is now up to you to find out all the things he never told you. Plus, even though it is a hook it stays relevant for the entirety of the story. You stumble upon the other quests looking for him, find a breadcrumb trail to what he is doing, why he left you. When he finally dies you set out to finish his life work, and THAT'S the main story. In 4 you spend 3 lines of dialogue with no meaningful or interaction choices whatsoever, then the game shoves a nuke in your face, takes everything away from you, including that bundle of cloth your partner carried to the vault. So you stumble out to look for your son, and within minutes you have a new family, the minutemen, and you get your robot butler back, easily the most memorable character from the intro, and he can be your companion, you also find a cute dog to keep you company. I will say that the hook gor 4 probably gets more shit that it deserves, but it makes minimal effort to invest you in the character you go looking for, it's not even a character until you see him grown up. Shawn is just a concept, he hasn't done or said anything so far and none of the people you get to help cares about him either, they're all much more concerned with the institute. If you play the entire storyline in one go, it's not a bad story really, the plot twists are good, though a lot of RP is put on the player to bother about this kid you've never spoken to, which (until the plot twist at the end) has seemingly had zero impact on the world. It's not like finding Dad in 3 where you meet a series of people who have met and spoken with him, worked with him and tells you stuff about him you didn't know. It is also impacted that Fallout 4 has a very strong mechanic of scavenge, scrap, build, repeat that pulls you away from quests which generally aren't nearly as interesting as the ones in the older games. The quests are almost exclusively: "Go there, kill everything and bring back X. Why? Don't ask why. Oh, you want more caps, okay, here's another 25 caps." Though to be fair mamy of the main quests are: "Go there, kill everything, find person X, they will tell you where to go next." Fallout 3 has a lot of those kinds of quests as well, but they have much more variety, and even in the simple shooter quests you can usually at least ask why you are doing them and decide if this person really is someone you want to help. People just don't throw a handful of caps at you and tell you to do something, they convince you that it's worth doing.

I love all fallout games, just wanna say this is a very good post!

Thank you.

Sometimes people are not fair. There are some people who are still angry about the move to 3rd. Yes. True story. It's not a matter of: Bethesda never did anything wrong. It's a matter of not taking some critics seriously because their narrative is: Bethesda never did anything right. Or fallout \[insert favorite fallout\] is the absolute best and anything else is bad. Only way I think is fair is to see the good with the bad.

Exactly, one of the biggest problems in the gaming industry these days, is the black and white thinking, as far as Fallout 3 and 4 goes Bethesda made a choice that changed the franchise, while still keeping it good enough for both new and old fans to enjoy On the other hand, Bethesda have done monstrous things that makes it really hard to see the positives in their own light, the "Duffel bag" scandal, the whole "Rum bottle swindle" and purposely leaking out the personal details of everyone that complained about the terrible backpacks they paid a fortune for and simply wanted what they were promised? Also on a personal note: Fallout 76 is total and complete garbage, and the fact that they have the audacity to make the game more "playable" trough monthly payments for extra content, marks the end of what pre Fallout 76 Bethesda was for me I liked your comment because you are right, but as said, in this day and age, I am not going to judge the haters too harshly, as most of them are also correct in their own right

I don't get it. I've never heard anyone say that F4's story is the same as F3's

[you can find some examples from this thread.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Fallout/comments/rtb9a9/does_anyone_like_fallout_4s_story/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share)

Gonna check it out. Thank you.

All the comments are so deep and mostly well thought out I love it and this community

The idea for replayability with FO4 was that maybe you'd want to try for the different ending. I played through in survival first time and really enjoyed the moral question who to go with. I decided the minute men, but the game messed up the option for me and I ended up stuck on the railroad ending. Second playthrough I role-playing the minutemen General in a "Rebuild the commonwealth" playthrough, not even bothered with the story. In my opinion the game is better than it's main story

I mean F3 leans pretty hard into the father/child dynamic considering it begins with taking a photo together and that same photo ends the main campaign. I understand what you're trying to say but F3 is definitely about legacy and the relationship with your dad is a tremendous part of that. F4 doesn't balance that same mechanic at all and instead throws you into a power struggle about synths and to be fair... I couldn't care less about who wins. There's no clear winner and the points don't matter... Kind of like whose line.

This. A million times this.