Discussion VideoGame / Fallout3

The game never says that this involves more mind control than a typical pheromone and, as noted, the action of Angela to sent Diego to the bed is described in-universe as a "seduction"-implying more effort than the typical level of effort of Love Potion users- and reading the dialogue of the watchable "seduction" in question, Diego only changes his mind in the third question of Angela- and sounds hesitant.

Edited by MagBas

Counterpoint - part of Angela's request is that she has been trying to "seduce" Diego for a long time, and the pheromones are the only thing that will make it work. Talking to him before the quest has him explain that she has been flirting with him for quite a while and that he's turned her down every single time. It's clear that he doesn't want to abandon his priesthood - even if he sort of kind of likes her, he doesn't want to break that celibacy vow. Then Angela puts on the pheromones and suddenly he's more agreeable. Pheromones work by altering brain chemistry; it's not like she's just wearing a nice outfit or being especially charismatic, she is flat-out using chemicals that up his sex drive to make him want to bang her more.

Not to mention the fact that she never tells him or anyone else about the pheromones. It would still be kind of creepy, but if she said at any point "Yeah, I'm trying this new perfume made from mutant ant pheromones or whatever" then he'd at least be fully aware of the situation - but she intentionally hides the fact, making the whole thing seem deceptive and manipulative. This whole situation, in my eyes at least, is running on the same principle as getting someone drunk so that they'll say "yes" to something they normally wouldn't, which in most western countries can legally constitute Date Rape.

Edited by Dirtyblue929

Many perfumes of the erotic perfume industry use pheromones. And they do promise that the perfumes has the same effect than they have in members of their species of origin.

Edited by MagBas

And if they actually worked that way, I'm willing to bet people would be calling for a ban on the basis that they can be used for date rape. They don't, though; they just smell nice, which may or may not get you laid depending on a number of factors.

I think this ultimately comes down to our interpretations of how the pheremones are being used. The way I see it, they're being used in the way that pheromones actually work in nature - altering his brain chemistry to up his sex drive and make him more agreeable, which is unquestionably rapey when applied to humans. Your interpretation has it being used like these "erotic perfumes," in that it's not actually altering his brain chemistry like a pheremone does, and he's just changing his mind in a totally normal way based on a number of unrelated factors.

Given the series' sci-fi nature, the way she goes about using them, and her wording about them, I lean towards the former, but I guess it's entirely possible to view it the other way.

Edited by Dirtyblue929

The work treats the pheromones as doing something and given Diego later on says "I don't know what came over me..." indicates him kinda not being in his right mind. Fallout runs on Raygun Gothic tropes and "pheromones make you irresistable to the opposite sex (whether they want to resist or not) is right up its alley."

That said, I'm a bit confused about the comparison to the Nuka Cola Quantum quest. That quest is quite explicitly not rape-y.

Found a Youtube Channel with political stances you want to share? Hop on over to this page and add them.

I think the idea was to contrast how the game considers helping a man seduce a woman through gifts solely because he wants to have sex to be "Evil" but helping a woman "seduce" a man through date rape and a possible Baby Trap solely because "they're prefect for eachother" is "Good". But yeah, I can agree with cutting that bit. (Full disclosure - I didn't write the original entry, but I did re-add and (slightly) re-word it a while back, after it had been deleted without discussion or a given reason)

Edited by Dirtyblue929

Uh, those aren't mutually exclusive interpretations considering the ultimate goal of project purity. Plus, Metaphorgotten is more for when somebody makes a metaphor that starts off semi-sensible and descends into nonsense, not people misinterpreting other people's metaphors.

I get where you're coming from with the no-response thing, but the game is six years old and they're working on other projects. Typos and BGM bugs (the latter of which I've never encountered, by the way) in a game they stopped working on long ago are probably at the far end of their to-do list (plus a facebook page isn't the best place to report a bug.)

As for the entries being deleted, the first is because neither of those break the game, so it's not an example. The second is more complicated, but, well... as you can see below, that trope has been abused to hell and back on this page by the game's Hatedom, to the point that it sparked a flame war between them and the Fandom, so I can see why people wouldn't want a repeat of that.

Edited by 76.218.116.74

They Just Didn't Care isn't "someone didn't respond to my complaints", by the way. Also, listing every bug is not quite what we are here for.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

So is this "overhaul" why the main pages for Fallout 3 and New Vegas are blank?

I love the smell of plot device in the morning!

The page still exists, but under "Video Games". The Main page is normally supposed to redirect to it, but apparently it doesn't anymore. I don't know if this is a bug or not, but it needs to resolved at some point.

"Pancakes. Oh, I blew it." - Joel Hodgson Nobody better lay a Butterfinger on my 3DS!

Feel free to make a Fridge section yourself.

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.

While Walter does have a tendency to not to show up at the Water Treatment Plant, I've seen him in Moriarty's Saloon while he wasn't in the aforementioned plant. So there's the solution for that.

There's also the glitch (maybe?) with a random Super Mutant Behemoth spawning somewhere between Evergreen Mills and the Jury Street Metro if you take a Teddy Bear out of a cart cage.

CADIA STANDS!

^it goes into the Nightmarefuel tab. We don't have ANF and HONF anymore.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I have to agree with whoever took it out.

Fallout 3's landscape is much bigger, much prettier, has more loot, more monsters, and more stories then New Vegas'. It's clear the developers cared immensely.

And I have no idea what 'arbitrary choices' you're talking about.

Arbitrary choices: hideously linear main story, forced to stand with the Brotherhood with no choice given and the game forcing the player to do the stupid without eg. the ability to send in Fawkes or Charon to press the big red button.

Note that I did limit the original sentence to the story and characters. The environments in Fallout 3 are great, though whether they are prettier is YMMV (I consider New Vegas to be a much better written and designed game, not to mention with much more stories). This trope is aimed at the large amount of inconsistencies, such as Tenpenny Tower/Girdershade/Megaton/Canterbury Commons/Big Town/Little Lamplight existing on nothing more than a steady flow of Plot Device.

It's invoking that the writers/developers just didn't care enough to provide any kind of integral cohesion in Fallout 3. Compare Talon Company to eg. the Fiends. Both are general mooks to kill, but the latter have an actual story and place in the universe. The former just exist to give more targets to shoot at.

First of all, there's nothing wrong with a linear story. Nearly all games 'force' the player to side with someone. Second of all, New Vegas' supposedly branching storyline came off to me as a joke.

This just doesn't qualify. If you want to go track down a trope about what you think is an inconsistent setting, be my guest. But you can't blanket everything you don't like under They Just Didn't Care and stick it in.

Which is why I limited it to the writers and story designers. Fallout was always about choices and every Fallout besides the spinoffs and 3 included a story with multiple outcomes and choices. Only in Fallout 2 joining the enemy was impossible (and with a story reason for that).

You don't like New Vegas. I get it. I, on the other hand, love it, which makes Fallout 3's poor excuse for a story and atrocious writing all the worse, considering that Adam Adamowicz's art direction really shines, as does a lot of the exploration.

Kindly help me out here: instead of hammering FNV and feigning ignorance about F3, help me out tracking down a more specific trope. As a mental exercise in being critical about your favourite game.

Placing settlements without justification isn't a strong reason. For example, the randomly placed shacks don't really have much of a reason to be there, and neither does the random cave. Also, some of the settlements do have a backstory - Rivet City used to be a science lab, Megaton grew around a church worshipping nuclear blasts, and so on. Just because there isn't an explicit reason for each settlement doesn't mean there isn't a backstory.

Linear main story: That's business as usual. IIRC, Fallout 1 was also linear where you had to get some water.

Being forced to stand with the Brotherhood? Not much of an issue either - since that can be subverted by a last minute decision, especially with the DLC. You can also send in the paladin if you prefer, even if you get called ~~pragmatic~~ a coward.

Large amount of inconsistencies is best handled by showing examples about them breaking down. For example, you can add a comment about Little Lamplight still having children around despite pushing out anyone who reaches child bearing years (i.e. There Are No Adults). You could even place something on Headscratchers about that too.

If you don't like a work, then something neutrally written will look like a love letter. There's nothing you can do about that, since they are all neutrally written examples explaining how things work.

Besides, I'd prefer placing They Just Didn't Care on FNV because the radio station is rather bland.

Wow, I always thought They Just Didn't Care was just about throwing "The Research" out the window and running everything on Rule of Cool. But looking at it, it just seems like a license to whine. Why do we even have that as a trope?

"First, I don't recall insulting other users is the foundation of TV Tropes." - I didn't insult you, I insulted your shallow bullshit whining. :)

"Second, it's justified: pretty much every location exists just because the devs say it does, without much actual justification or exposition given." - Every settlement is explained in history, not in full depth but there is explanation, and many locations such as abandoned buildings or Vaults have backstory on their purpose.

"New Vegas, 1 and 2 go into detail about what makes each settlement tick, indicating (and sometimes just telling) about agriculture, economy, water supply etc." - Whatever little credibility you had is thrown out here, making it obvious you're one of the camp of fans who hate Fallout 3 solely because Black Isle didn't make it, since you think so highly of the ones they did.

"Then there are a myriad of working terminals, lights etc. without a single line of explanation" - see under Acceptable Breaks from Reality

"arbitrary choices in the storyline imposed on the player etc. - hideously linear main story, forced to stand with the Brotherhood with no choice given and the game forcing the player to do the stupid without eg. the ability to send in Fawkes or Charon to press the big red button. " - All Fallout games are just as linear, the story progresses in the same manner. As for Fawkes and Charon, the DL Cs corrected that and Bethesda says canonically it's been retconned, so go ahead if you want to send them in. The Brotherhood is a storyline necessity because no one else has the firepower to oppose the Enclave.

"All of these justify putting in said trope, but apparently, someone didn't like his favourite game being insulted." No they don't, and Fallout 3 is not my favorite game, if I had to pick a favorite of the series it would be 2, though the different perspective of exploration gave 3 a deeper wasteland feel.

"Second of all, New Vegas' supposedly branching storyline came off to me as a joke." - Same here, the supposed grey morality is nonsense since the Legion is so much worse than NCR and you have limited control over which factions survive without going the Wild Card path. You want House to survive but NCR to take power? Too bad. Although I did appreciate the Wild Card path, games that let you disregard factions and seize power for yourself always get a plus in my book.

Edited by DrakeClawfang

@Del Shift B

The problem is that settlements are placed and no effort is made to tie them into the world. In Fallout, the Hub was explicitly stated to be the centre of commerce for the Core Region and it showed: caravans connected the town to the rest of major settlements in the area. Characters in towns provided exposition on what made them tick, from Shady Sands (a self-sufficent, isolationists community relying on self-made agriculture andown water sources), through the aforementioned Hub and Junktown, to the Brotherhood (explicitly named by Hub caravaneers as the main providers of weapons and ammunition in the region) and Adytum (where the community's reliance on imported raw materials for producing goods is one of the main quests associated with the location. Each of the locations also has a definite backstory given - you don't wonder why it's there or how it exists, you are provided explanation.

Compare that to Fallout 3. You mention Rivet City, which is, essentially, a beached aircraft carrier that conveniently has high tech facilities that survived the war (that's acceptable). However, the story of the settlement doesn't extend farther than twenty or thirty years before the start of the game, where it's explicitly stated that remnants of the Naval Research Institute (which is quite hilarious, considering the timeframe) colonized the ship. No explanation or exposition is given, not a single passing reference by any of the NP Cs on board the ship, not even Pinkerton, as to who they were or why did they choose to take the ship. Same goes for Megaton, which is stated to have been built shortly after the war by people trying to get into Vault 101, yet no explanation is given as to why they chose to built a town around a crater made by an unexploded nuclear bomb (which is in itself a You Fail Physics For Life trope) when there was a perfectly usable (no signs of a direct nuclear strike anywhere near) town near the entrance to Vault 101, with a reinforced concrete school that would've provided readily available shelter. If there isn't an explicit reason given for a settlement, then that's bad design and a lack of backstory. Compare that to Fallout 1/2/New Vegas: every settlement, Arroyo, Klamath, Den, Modoc, Vault City, Gecko, Broken Hills, Redding, Shady Sands, San Francisco, hell, even New Reno, Junktown, Brotherhood, Hub, Adytum, Necropolis, Primm, Novac, Nipton, Vegas etc. etc. have a well defined reason for existence.

And linear story? In Fallout 3 you are railroaded into a particular, positive role, in a series of interconnected quests you can't skip or break (from finding Dad onwards). In this context, the decision to "subvert" the ending by placing the toxin in the dispenser is jarring, because it's completely disconnected from the rest of the game, where you work your ass off to get Liam Neeson's pet project working in accordance with your status as a loving child of Dad. It's not a viable evil option; a viable option would be siding with Autumn (or Eden as a second choice) to rule the wastes with an iron fist (which considering the chaotic, lawless state of CW would be a good thing). As it stands, it's just an arbitrary choice added in to not totally alienate evil players. The same goes for Broken Steel: arbitrarily including the option to nuke the Citadel is just jarring in the context, as there is no real reason for the option to exist, other than to give a moustache twisting chaotic evil option just for kicks. It's particularly strange when compared to, say, The Pitt, which gives two viable options that are, essentially, opposing takes on The Pitt's situation.

And surely you're joking about sending Lyons in being a viable option, when even Bethesda lampshaded their terrible writing in Broken Steel, when sending Fawkes in (something along the lines of "Of course! Being immune to radioactivity makes me the best candidate to go in and press the buttons releasing deadly radioactivity!"

The biggest inconsistency in the game is the timeframe: the game seems to be convinced that it takes place in 2097 (which would easily justify the generally chaotic nature of the wastes, the working power grid, lots and lots of events referring to events before one or two decades), rather than 2277. Dial back the time and everything works. Even Little Lamplight.

And the article is definitely not neutrally written. Things that don't make sense are conveniently handwaved as Acceptable Breaks From Reality, even when they stretch suspension of disbelief to a point a black hole would be jealous. I'm fine with most of the tropes; in general, I like a lot of stuff Fallout 3 added, such as background for pre-War America, some of the new factions, The Pitt, the brilliant art style. My point of contention is the writing, which is pretty much all around terrible, wasting much of the potential the game had.

@johnnye The main story of the game does run on the Rule of Cool. Republic of Dave, Superhuman Gambit,

Tenpenny Tower, Little Lamplight, Megaton? Rule of Cool, powered by Plot Device. Detracts from the game a lot.

@Drake Clawfang Actually, the implication of whining is that the poster is a whiner. You could've phrased it in a much less offensive way, but you deliberately chose to classify a legitimate opinion as bullshit whining. Please, show some civility when disagreeing.

I've already explained the point about arbitrarily existing settlements above. Just compare, say, Tenpenny Tower, to the Hub, Redding or Novac. Compare the amount of exposition and explanations given for the latter three, to the amount given for the former. Continue with any other settlement in Fallout 3, particularly Canterbury Commons (which is a trading hub because the mayor says so).

Furthermore, refrain from resorting to ad hominem attacks when you can't respond to a point raised. I could call you a apologetic Fallout 3 fanboy in response, but I don't, because I believe respect should be given, particularly here. Your point is particularly baseless because Fallout 2 was developed by a team that was bigger and for a big part new to the Fallout universe, while Fallout: New Vegas was made by an almost completely different team (sans for a few high profile devs), including a project lead who only worked on the cancelled Van Buren. This shows that your "accusation" of me "not loving anything not made by Black Isle" is false. I'm first to give Fallout 3 credit where it's due (environment design, art style, expanded background, atmosphere, exploration, sidequest structure), and criticize it where it's lacking (storyline, sidequest writing, poor character design, absolute lack of plot exposition).

The last point actually connects to your next response. A power grid working for two centuries with perfectly functional terminals scattered everywhere, including a terminal that supposedly sat out in the open for two centuries in Germantown, is conveniently handwaved by you as an Acceptable Break from Reality. This is actually a YMMV entry, as some will handwave it as acceptable, while for others it will be jarring. And here comes the lack of exposition: all it took was including a note, holodisk, dialogue, anything, that would estabilish that the power grid was turned back on due to unknown reasons, a few years before the game started. This would count as neat foreshadowing of the Enclave, as in, they turned it on when they got back, since they need more power for their bases. But there's no such note included, because they didn't care. Compare that to New Vegas, where the history behind the power grid functioning is well explained (NCR's arrival that prompted House to occupy the Dam; Dam's reactivation brought the power grid, reliant on underground cables for transmission, online).

As for your claims about the storyline: the point of Fallout is that they're not linear. In Fallout 1 you have two obligatory nodes (three, if you want the story to make perfect sense):

0. Retrieve the Water Chip 1. Destroy the Master 2. Destroy the Vats

That is all. You can tackle both of the latter two objectives as prepared or as unprepared as you want. Everything else in the game is completely optional. You can even choose to side with the Master, if you so wish. The exact manner of executing them is also left to your own devices.

Fallout 2 goes a step beyond, and the only required element is destroying the Oil Rig, which requires the tanker to function. Both can be done in a variety of ways.

New Vegas is self explanatory, with its branching, eventually mutually exclusive storylines. Four distinct ways of completing the game, with one being, essentially, a Screw You All, I Know Better ending you can choose. You might not like the game, but you can't deny that it offers significant choices and distinct options.

In turn, Fallout 3 railroads you from Tranquility Lane onwards into a series of unskippable quests obligatory to completing the game story. They can't be completed out of sequence and once stuck in them, you can't deviate from the story: if you try, you're dead (such as giving Autumn the code, which logically, should allow you to side with the Enclave). And since you can't make choices and are locked to the role of Daddy's Little Pet, the arbitrary option to dump toxin in Project Purity (and in Broken Steel, nuke the Citadel) is not so much a legitimate choice, but a jarring, Moustache Twist element, included just for the sake of providing an eeeeevul option.

Next, the Brotherhood being a storyline necessity: a competent writer would've made it so that you don't have to attack the Enclave. You're explaining crappy writing with more crappy writing.

As for New Vegas, what you raise stems from not understanding the political situation in Vegas. House is a strong political opponent of the NCR that is an unpredictable variable for the Republic. For these reasons they'd like to kill him regardless of whether or not he submitted to him. He explains this in the game.

So, again, as I asked David, if you're opposed to the They Just Didn't Care, then help me find an appropriate trope to point our the lack of effort on the part of the writers (which is evident when compared to other games in the series or hell, even The Pitt).

"location histories" - The first two games are full of inconsistencies, plot holes and general lack of creativity. Gecko, the ghouls moved there due to the power plant, except we never saw a power plant in the first game, so why a big deal about the Gecko plant? And why did Vault City never take over the planet for themselves before the Ghouls came? The Hub is a huge city, it ought to have needed a power plant, we never saw one. Adytum is inhabited by Vault residents and that's it, no other backstory except "Hi, we exist". And Arroyo is a big plot hole, it's so far away from Vault 13 it makes no sense the exiles would go so far north before settling down. And how did they build that huge-ass temple when they're primitive tribals?

"linear story" - Except that after finding Dad, half the main quest is over anyway. You rescue him, then reactivate Project Purity, flee the Enclave, find the Geck, get captured and escape, and retake the project. No more linear than the end of 2 - find the Geck, return to Arroyo, go to San Francisco, infiltrate Navarro, infiltrate oil rig, blow up. As for why did we never get the chance to ally with the Enclave in 3 - Why didn't we get the chance to do the same in 2? Ask Richardson to inoculate the other villagers and let us live with the Vault 13 residents when he's done wiping out the wasteland.

"working power grid" - water pumps and street lights work all the time in 1 and 2. And how is the Sierra Army Depo still working? And how does a 200 year old Howitzer shell still fire perfectly? And the Mariposa base and Los Angeles Vault before The Master found it? And all the lights in New Reno? The entire series is a case of Ragnarök Proofing, 3 is not unique in this aspect. The restoration of machinery and technology is only brought up when it's important.

"what you raise stems from not understanding the political situation in Vegas. House is a strong political opponent of the NCR that is an unpredictable variable for the Republic. For these reasons they'd like to kill him regardless of whether or not he submitted to him. He explains this in the game." - I was addressing that last part at someone else, but since you bring it up, I still say we ought to have the option to work out a truce between them. There's a dummied out option to negotiate a truce between House and the Brotherhood, why not House and NCR? You can't say the reasons for allying with the Brotherhood in 3 are crappy writing and then say that the reason House and NCR can't get along is because they don't want to.

As for our attitudes I call it as I see it, if you can't handle "bullshit whining" then grow some thicker skin, if I wanted to insult you I can say far worse, but I don't so I don't. Anyway, until this post you did nothing but criticize Fallout 3 and instantly labeled me a Fallout 3 fanboy defending his favorite game in your opening post. You don't get to act like a blind fanboy and then be offended when I treat you like one. My point to this post is, yes 3 is flawed, but its plot holes and poor writing in some areas is not unique to it among the series. The entire series runs on Rule of Cool, especially when it comes to mutation and the FEV.

And it all boils down to it still not being They Just Didn't Care because they did, they might not have put as much effort into the areas you would prefer them to, but effort was obviously put in and so the trope is not apt.

Edited by DrakeClawfang

They Just Didn't Care is a YMMV trope. Some people will think it fits and others won't. It needs to be listed on the YMMV tab, and one isn't supposed to remove it from there. Removing it from the main page was right (though the edit reason could have been politer), but it should have been put on the subpage instead.

I do not play Fallout 3, so I can't have an opinion about whether it fits. This is just standard for YMMV tropes.

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.

@Drake Clawfang

You're grasping at straws trying to prove that the frist two games are "full of inconsistencies, plot holes and general lack of creativity" (whut?). It's been explained in Fallout 2 and the Fallout Bible that the exodus of ghouls to the north was due to the Supermutant attack on Necropolis, which destroyed the only major ghoul settlement in So Cal. The big deal about Gecko's plant is that it's the only functional nuclear power plant in the area, that can potentially be a major supplier of power to the north. The caveat is that it's running unoptimized at a very low power output and its immediate neighbour, Vault City, is, well, Vault City. Why didn't it take over the Gecko plant? Vault 8 is running also on a nuclear reactor, the unoptimized Gecko power plant doesn't give out enough power to justify a campaign of military expansion and in the un-Killap'd game (where the best ending is bugged out), if you optimize the power plant, VC does invade and enslave the ghouls. So much for your point about Gecko. About the Hub: yes, a power plant isn't shown or mentioned explicitly. Good job cherry picking and ignoring every other exposition given: that the Hub is the only stable source of fresh water in the area due to its water tower (which implies a power supply), and thus the central, well, hub, of commerce and trade in the area. There are lots and lots of other bits and pieces scattered in the dialogue, elaborating on the political landscape of the Hub, the tensions between caravan houses etc. Next up, Adytum. Yes, it is the only bit of backstory... if you ignore every NPC in the area that explain the basis of Adytum's economy (Adytum produces goods from resources purchased from caravans, priamrily ammunition and tools; the player can make the community independent), and is a stop point for Hub caravans (in which you can participate) as well as the base for scavengers picking through the ruins of Los Angeles (Samael). Yes, Arroyo's problematic, but doesn't exist solely because of a hefty diet of plot device. Why wouldn't the Dweller choose a safe, sheltered location for his people? Humans journeyed great distances in far worse conditions. It's been also explained by Chris Avellone in the Bible. I agree, Arroyo is the weakest point in Fallout 2, but even at it's weakest, it's still far stronger than most of Fallout 3 settlements.

Now linear story. Try to be objective, rather than biased. Finding Dad isn't half of the main quest, it's one thirds, at best. From Vault 112 onwards you're railroaded into doing the exact same series of quests, in the exact same order, with no choice in the matter. In Fallout 2, the railroading begins with sailing to the Oil Rig, where you cannot leave until you blow it up. This endgame is equivalent to, more or less, the Raven Rock. Granted, you still need to travel to Navarro, but even then, the game offers you the ability to skip the tanker preparation stage: if you have <4 intelligence when talking to Matt in San Francisco, he arranges everything for you. Makes getting the FOB and Nav Com parts optional. Even if you argue that it's still railroading, to a degree, there remains the ability to both sneak/infiltrate both Navarro and the Enclave or bring it to its knees with raw firepower. Meanwhile, Fallout 3 gives you only one tool: violence.

As for the next point raised, the entire series isn't a case of Ragnarok Proofing. You point out that the power grid, water pumps etc. are working all the time in Fallout 1/2. Yes, they do. But did you notice the fact that in Fallout 1/2 they are working only in areas with a significant human population that has access to this technology? They only work where there are settlements and people are actively maintaing their tech. Elsewhere the world is as blasted as they come. Just look at any of the random encounter city tiles, with barely standing buildings. I'm particularly puzzled when you point out intact locations... that were designed to stay intact. The LA Vault was hidden underground and wasn't abandoned immediately after the War (a caravan of dwellers from said Vault were captured by the Master's teams, after which he learned its location). Mariposa was, one, located in a remote area, two, had working self-maintaining security systems, three, wasn't really cracked until Grey and Harold got inside, four, was a military base built to spec in a time nuclear paranoia run high. Same goes for the refurbished Sierra Army Depot (explicit mentions of its self-repair capability include the repair stations on level two). Even the howitzer round isn't implausible, as you find it stored in a military bunker, in an ammo case. Properly stored munitions last a really long time.

If you read closely, the problem isn't so much with all the working equipment; it's the lack of any explanation that's bugging me. I'd be perfectly fine if there was at least a single damn clue that the power grid wasn't online and running for the past two centuries. The Pitt goes to great lengths to depict a fledgling empire that's based on the concept of restoring an industry that's been dead for the past two centuries. The vanilla game just assumes everything worked and was dandy.

As for the political bit - yes, I can say that. In Fallout 3 the game forces you to ally with the Brotherhood - no option is given to ally with any other factions, all Brotherhood leaders are marked as essential, so that you can't accidentally killed them and you're railroaded into fighting the Enclave. This stands in contrast to New Vegas, where you can side with any of the major factions, but have to make choices along the way, and these choices are given a lot of exposition. House and NCR won't get along because they have divergent interests: House is interested in being the sole proprietor of New Vegas and it becoming an independent superpower in the region, complete with a self-sufficent source of energy. The NCR wants Vegas as a sixth state of the Union, without House in the picture: House is a dictator with a robotic army under his command; given that he's leeched off the NCR economy ever since the beginning, refused to estabilish diplomatic ties beyond the New Vegas treaty and continuously refused any closer cooperation with the NCR, the Republic has ample reason not to have him behind their lines.

This contrast is staggering. On the one hand, you have Fallout 3, providing two clear cut factions: the boring lawful good Brotherhood and the chaotic evil Enclave, forcing you to join the latter with little explanation given for why the latter is bad (and don't claim that the Enclave is genocidal; a. Eden wants genocide, he explicitly states that Autumn is opposed that b. if the Enclave could be sided with, more exposition would be given to make it a viable option, hopefully). On the other, you have New Vegas, with clearly defined economical and political interests of evey faction, and the ability to make informed decisions as to which faction to support.

As for attitudes, thank you very much for not insulting me. Yes, I am critical when it comes to Fallout 3, because bad writing and bad design need to be criticized. Does that make me a blind fanboy? No, that makes me a guy who criticizes bad writing and bad design. I am also providing you with a detailed explanation of why I consider it bad and explaining points raised by you that are misrepresented.

As for the entire series running on Rule of Cool: no, it doesn't. Fallout 3 may include random elements just because they seem cool (eg. Superhuman Gambit, Little Lamplight, Tenpenny Tower etc.), but in other titles, even in DL Cs for F3 (The Pitt <3), Rule of Cool takes a backseat to versimilitude and internal consistency. A very basic point many, many gamers don't understand, is that mutation and FEV exist not because they're cool, but because they are staples of 1950s science-fiction, that happens to be cool. It's a part of the setting very much like magic is an integral part of D&D, or the mass effect in Mass Effect.

Last, if you did notice, I mentioned, several times over, including in the original entry for the trope, that it's limited to writers and story/setting designers. It's not an overarching trope, it's obvious that a lot of care went into designing the aesthetic and capturing the retrofuturistic feel, but in the process, logic and internal consistency was forfeit.

@Telcontar

Technically, any trope can be considered YMMV, particularly Acceptable Breaks From Reality, also included on Fallout 3's frontpage. For some, these breaks are acceptable, for others, they are not.

What trope pointing out a lack of effort on the writers' part is not considered YMMV?

*adressing only the part of the above post directed at me*

If there is a trope that you think should have an official YMMV banner, bring it up in this thread. They Just Didn't Care already has such a banner.

I'm not sure what you're asking in that second paragraph. Is it a rhetorical question? Are you looking for a trope meaning the same thing, but without the YMMV banner? Or something else? If it's the second of those, then the answer is that no such trope exists.

*general question directed at anyone reading/taking part in this discussion*

Is there any reason not to have an entry for They Just Didn't Care on the YMMV tab, other than some people thinking it doesn't fit?

That was the amazing part. Things just keep going.

I'm done debating this, you're not even trying to pretend to be civil now and are being needlessly snide and condescending. You accuse me of cherry picking facts and being biased and using ad hominem attacks when you're acting the exact same way, and dodge some of my points and strawman others. You have your opinion, I have mine, I've explained my points and you've explained yours, so let's just agree to disagree on the validity of the game's content.

"Is there any reason not to have an entry for They Just Didnt Care on the YMMV tab, other than some people thinking it doesn't fit?" - Yes, it's a misuse of the trope. TJDC isn't a blanket trope for when you don't think enough effort was put into part of production. The page explains it refers to when lack of resources, time, creativity or enthusiasm results in a work being far below the production values and having obvious, glaring flaws, like poor special effects, bad editing, etc. Fallout 3 not giving its locations the backstory of the first two games and having a more linear plot is not so extreme as to qualify, and as this thread is proving, is Flame Bait since this game has a split fanbase. If this is disagreed a forum topic asking a wider audience can be started, and if consensus is reached I'll abide it one way or the other.

Edited by DrakeClawfang

@ Telcontar

Thanks for the link, I'll bring this up.

I was generally asking if there are tropes that point out shortcomings that aren't considered YMMV territory. It's problematic because, as far as I can see, negative tropes are usually boxed into the YMMV ghetto off the main page, while most neutral-to-positive tropes are considered non-YMMV.

@Drake

If I'm dodging points and using strawmen, it should be simple for you to prove that. It isn't even a question of opinion: I've simply pointed out the circumstances and exposition provided by the games themselves, which neatly ground the locations in the universe, while pointing out that Fallout 3 lacks that same exposition. And really, you're the last person to accuse me of ad hominems after first referring to my addition as bullshit whining and then claiming that I don't like anything not done by Black Isle (which I proved wrong).

Your second point stems from not reading my posts. I pointed out that the inclusion of TJDC I advocate is to be done with the caveat that it's limited to writers, pointing out that, well, a lack of creativity and/or enthusiasm led to the locations and characters having a small fraction of the backstory and exposition of characters, locations etc. in other titles in the series. I wasn't even comparing it against Torment; just other games in the main series.

I'm also interested why you're trying to smother another troper's opinions.

By the way, I'm fine with TJDC as a YMMV trope, thanks for Telcontar for pointing that out.

It is indeed a question of opinion, you are of the opinion that your views are better formulated than mine, which are biased, and that my counter-points to your arguments are faulty. I'm of the same opinion about you, therefore we are at an impass, there is no further point to direct debate about the merits and flaws of the series. I've been in a lot of debates before, it happens, all to do now is proceed with the discussion of how to approach the trope entry.

As for smothering, you're free to your opinions, but as I've come to learn and admittedly have done so in the past before learning, TV Tropes is not a place to simply shoehorn personal opinions into articles. Even YMMV tropes are not covered by the fact they're YMMV and people may disagree with you, there has to be some standard. If so there's nothing stopping someone who thinks 3 is awesome and 1 and 2 sucked from adding Surprisingly Improved Sequel to the YMMV page. This is what leads to trope misuse and trope decay. This is also why I made the forum suggestion, because if there is indeed a group that feels TJDC is an apt entry, then fine. But if it's just you then it has no place on the article because then everyone who has an opinion on the game can add a trope to the YMMV page with the justification it's okay to note it since it's just their opinion and not a fact.

Edited by DrakeClawfang

"most neutral-to-positive tropes are considered non-YMMV"

Well "neutral" tropes being non-YMMV should be self-explanatory. As for "positive", yes there's a general bent towards being positive about a work, but it shouldn't go so far as to be Gushing. I don't think there's much of that on the page. Even a certain amount of complaining is usually tolerated, as long as it's good-natured constructive criticism.

But accusing the game of being slapped together from spare parts (which TJDC essentially does) is just nonsense. Whether other games in the series are better or worse is entirely irrelevant.

@Telcontar: They Just Didn't Care is about works which generally have had the minimum possible input in terms of production and budget. It simply doesn't apply to this work, however good or bad one may think it is. By way of comparison, it doesn't apply to Michael Bay's Transformers either — clearly a lot of work and money went into sculpting, polishing and gilding that turd.

(Personally, I don't think TJDC should be a trope, precisely because it's such a whinge-magnet)

Edited by johnnye

@ Drake

Yes, my points are better formulated than yours. I specifically devote a lot of time (up to an hour in extreme cases) to look up references and ensure that what I'm writing is based on facts, not on faulty memory. I simply take each point you raise and provide a response. I'll also remind you that the original subject was not merits/demerits of the series, but the quality of writing (inclusive of setting definition, plot and background exposition etc.) in Fallout 3.

And yes, you are attempting to smother an opinion. YMMV, as entirely subjective tropes, are little more than glorified opinions. As I wrote, repeatedly (I'm not certain how many times do I have to restate this), TJDC, as a trope, is limited to the writers, who obviously did not care about providing internal consistency in the game.

For the record, I have no problem with adding Surprisingly Improved Sequel as a YMMV trope. Many gamers (among them many being the generic You Tube comment poster) consider the originals to be unplayable shit, it's a sad fact, but a fact nonetheless. Therefore both SIS and TJDC can be added to the YMMV page and it certainly won't be bullshit whining.

@ johnnye

I wasn't really referring to neutral tropes, but rather to tropes that are inherently more positive than neutral and above. Neutral tropes are fine, since they are pretty much non-disputable.

And again, I request the simple courtesy of reading what I write. As I repeatedly wrote and as the original entry stated (might not have been entirely clear, but that was the intended meaning), TJDC is limited pretty much exclusively to the authors of the stories and writers. Quest structure, art style— do I really need to repeat all of this every time I write a response? Fallout 3 has a lot of great things, however, its writing and story are definitely a case of being slapped together just for the sake of Rule Of Cool.

No, YMMV is not "glorified opinions", it's tropes about the game that are up to personal interpretation and are not factual. And as for your response to johnnye, accusing the story of being slapped together for Rule of Cool is an oversimplification of the matter.

Looking at the YMMV page however, I was confused to see a lack of Contested Sequel, which I know the game has been and could have sworn was already listed on the page. As such I'm going to add the entry now and note "poor writing" a point of contention.

Your point is that they're not an opinion, but that they're an opinion. Non-factual personal interpretations are pretty much opinions.

And how is my assessment an oversimplification?

"As I repeatedly wrote and as the original entry stated (might not have been entirely clear, but that was the intended meaning), TJDC is limited pretty much exclusively to the authors of the stories and writers. "

But that simply isn't what the trope is about. It has a crap name, and it's misused a lot as a result, but it has a specific meaning which is nothing to do with quality of writing and just doesn't fit this example. Read the description if you don't believe me. It's rather galling being accused of not reading your post when you clearly didn't read mine.

Edited by johnnye

Consider the following: He leaves a finger when killed, like all evil-aligned humans in the game (This is metagame thinking, but still). He almost certainly kept Mei Wong as a sex slave, not a worker (furthermore, just because peoples' moralities have regressed does not mean slavery is not evil). He keeps a sniper rifle by his person so that he can amuse himself by killing random wastelanders that get near his building. Even if he doesn't actively hate ghouls like some of the residents, he plainly doesn't care enough to help them himself. Burke is unaffected by Tenpenny's death to prevent player actions from locking them out of one quest by accomplishing the other.

Apathy and Evil don't necessarily go hand in hand. And just because we know why they made it so Burke want to nuke Megaton doesn't change the fact that he does. I do, however, agree with your point that having a slave would still be classed as evil if everyone else also had one

There is that whole 'shooting random wastelanders from his tower' issue.

My latest Trope page: Shapeshifting Failure

I would just like to point out how much I appreciate the writing of this page. It was very well done.

I don't even know.