For a game to show me the farms and stuff that a town eats from does help. It can increase immersion and so on.

But it's not essential. Just as I can assume that the Vault 13 I see in-game is not to scale with the "real" location, I can look at the one Brahmin in Megaton and assume that the town does have farms - they are simply "off screen."

And then I can just continue playing and hopefully enjoying the game. "What do they eat?" is a valid criticism, but it is not all-destroying "gotcha" that I see people treat it as.
That's missing the point being made: what do they eat isn't some all destroying gotcha, at least not in the original presentation. It's an example of a type of question that never seems to be answered. People continue to use it because it was explored at length and is simpler to say than the full complaint, not because it is the sole issue.
 
MrBTongue's question of what do they eat isn't really a gotcha, but a major question to a long line of the logistics and worldbuilding of Fallout and other settings. He actually spends a fair amount talking about Mass Effect 1 and how it smartly introduces its setting.

The video in question. Do refresh your memory lest we desolve into arguments that do not adress the question.
 
Except people do use it as a gotcha, frankly I'm interested in seeing what authority you have that lets you seriously dictate other people's anecdotes.

People repeating the arguement badly doesn't really represent or invalidate the arguement.

The "what do they eat" to me atleast is basically just a stress test for whether or not the writers put any thought into the setting. It's not a low bar to clear to address how a settlement gets food to survive, because that's kind of a basic aspect of why settlements exist in the first place. And if the writers can't even manage that much that's probably indicative of writing that's not very good across the board.
 
People repeating the arguement badly doesn't really represent or invalidate the arguement.
I completely agree, I just took issue with the idea that people don't use it in such a manner. They absolutely do.

The "what do they eat" to me atleast is basically just a stress test for whether or not the writers put any thought into the setting. It's not a low bar to clear to address how a settlement gets food to survive, because that's kind of a basic aspect of why settlements exist in the first place. And if the writers can't even manage that much that's probably indicative of writing that's not very good across the board.
Agreed.

I love Bethesda games but they really need a better head writer, the quality of their worldbuilding is rather inconsistent at best.
 
Except people do use it as a gotcha, frankly I'm interested in seeing what authority you have that lets you seriously dictate other people's anecdotes.
I'm largely basing this on stuff on this forum or thread in specific, as I haven't really seen this argument used much elsewhere, and here I disagree. I think they are misjudging what is being said.

As for the authority, well, what authority gives you the right to seriously dictate my anecdotes? I mean, if we're going the route that no one is allowed to challenge anyone else's statements ok, but then why did you start with something that was challenging my own rather than just saying I shouldn't challenge other people's? I mean beyond the standard hypocrisy of course.
 
I'm largely basing this on stuff on this forum or thread in specific, as I haven't really seen this argument used much elsewhere, and here I disagree. I think they are misjudging what is being said.
This is the problem, we're not talking purely about this forum.

Rather we're talking about the various places that we've seen this argument used, and in my experience many people absolutely use it as a gotcha.

As for the authority, well, what authority gives you the right to seriously dictate my anecdotes? I mean, if we're going the route that no one is allowed to challenge anyone else's statements ok, but then why did you start with something that was challenging my own rather than just saying I shouldn't challenge other people's? I mean beyond the standard hypocrisy of course.
Ha no, you don't get to act as if I were doing the exact same thing that you did.

You were the one that said people don't ever use it poorly, I never said that no-one can use it well.
 
This is the problem, we're not talking purely about this forum.

Rather we're talking about the various places that we've seen this argument used, and in my experience many people absolutely use it as a gotcha.
See, that's not what was conveyed to me: I just saw someone making a general complaint about the current argument in the thread, so I thought they were talking about, you know, the current argument in the thread (or the numerous other times it had happened in this thread or forum). Like I've said, I never really see the argument brought up outside of this forum (or tumblr essays that are being quoted), though the more critical part was the context pointing the comment to the current discussion.
Ha no, you don't get to act as if I were doing the exact same thing that you did.

You were the one that said people don't ever use it poorly, I never said that no-one can use it well.
I disagree with the statement that it is frequently used as a gotcha. That doesn't require that no one ever uses it that way, just that it is not commonly seen that way (I'm not dumb enough to actually try and say that any argument is never used poorly, that's like trying to argue that no human would ever do something criminal). And you directly disagreed with me (which is what I had done with Mechasaurian) and then criticized me for for disagreeing with Mechasaurian. So, no, you were doing the exact same fucking thing.
 
Dwarf Fortress has an incredibly user-unfriendly UI (abstract tile graphics that are difficult to parse, forcing you to use the keyboard where most games these days use a mouse, nesting everything in menus. Not to mention some unconventional choices that end up confusing the hell out of players, like not using the default WASD/arrow keys in a lot of places that would have used them.)

However, there is one thing that it does extremely well, and that is teaching you how to use the game's hotkeys (and constantly reminding you what said hotkeys are if you ever forget).

I mean, it's absolutely still a nightmare for a new player and there's no way I'll ever play with the default graphics, but the control setup is a dream once you're familiar with it.
 
Last edited:
pretty much the reasons everyone else likes it. It's a streamlined, intuitive system designed from the word go to remove the possibility of min-maxing or accidentally making ineffective characters, with a relatively simple system of magic. All of which add up to a game that feels to me like a hill of glass. Pretty, smooth, solid, and I cannot get even the slightest grip on it that would allow me to have interest in playing it.

"I see what you did, I respect the technical accomplishment of the system, and I cannot see myself ever having fun playing this" basically.
Huh? Streamlined? Intuitive? Did that proposed second edition of Scion come out at some point? I only played the 1st edition and I felt it was none of those things. I mean, I concur that it was incredibly dull, but I felt like the mechanics were pushing right against the theme and the ability to play in fun ways.
 
Last edited:
Huh? Streamlined? Intuitive? Did that proposed second edition of Scion come out at some point? I only played the 1st edition and I felt it was none of those things. I mean, I concur that it was incredibly dull, but I felt like the mechanics were pushing right against the theme and the ability to play in fun ways.
Scion 2e has been around for months.
 
I find myself agreeing with MrBTongue not necessarily because I think an RPG setting has to have proper food production to be good, but because I'm obsessed with the economics of fictional worlds.

Fallout 2 was bloated and overlong in comparison to the first Fallout game. The setting lost a bit of freshness from the game being a sequel. Both games had poorly implemented skill systems. 2 did have the car, which balances things out.
 
If you can't manage to make your 'open-world' game feel lived in, I'd prefer it if you didn't make it open-world.

Skyrim is very open (main quest, what's that?) but I can't help but notice that there are more bandits living in random caves than people in actual houses.

Same with Fallout, only Fallout 4 makes it even worse by drawing attention to it with the player-built settlements.
Diamond city exists for 150 years, yet there are more people living in my settlements which were built a year ago.

It also makes you wonder why nobody was living in Sanctuary Hills before the Sole Survivor arrived.
 
If you can't manage to make your 'open-world' game feel lived in, I'd prefer it if you didn't make it open-world.

Skyrim is very open (main quest, what's that?) but I can't help but notice that there are more bandits living in random caves than people in actual houses.

Same with Fallout, only Fallout 4 makes it even worse by drawing attention to it with the player-built settlements.
Diamond city exists for 150 years, yet there are more people living in my settlements which were built a year ago.

It also makes you wonder why nobody was living in Sanctuary Hills before the Sole Survivor arrived.
It certainly looks like people had colonised Sanctuary Hills, since if I recall correctly there's a house with barricades and the like set up inside.
Maybe there were, and they just died, or were forced out by the nearby raiders.

Diamond city has like sixty NPCs or something, so by default it's larger than even the largest (non-modded) settlement. Ultimately, though, it's limited by hardware.

There sure are a lot of raiders, though. Guess it's easier to live by the gun.
 
It certainly looks like people had colonised Sanctuary Hills, since if I recall correctly there's a house with barricades and the like set up inside.
Maybe there were, and they just died, or were forced out by the nearby raiders.

Diamond city has like sixty NPCs or something, so by default it's larger than even the largest (non-modded) settlement. Ultimately, though, it's limited by hardware.

There sure are a lot of raiders, though. Guess it's easier to live by the gun.
more like "Well, Mad Max had Raiders, and the first Fallout did, IIRC. So, um, we obviously gotta have Raiders?"
 
more like "Well, Mad Max had Raiders, and the first Fallout did, IIRC. So, um, we obviously gotta have Raiders?"
Genre obligation isn't the only reason, there's also the gameplay one in that "we want enemies who use guns who are lower tier then super mutants".

Honestly I question how many people are actually bothered by common raiders in Fallout or common bandits in Skyrim, personally I just viewed it as an abstraction to serve a gameplay purpose. A role IMO they served well.
 
Controversial opinion. I want to see a Fallout-style RPG where all, or at least most humans are cooperating, and the various monsters and mutants are the main opponents. There are so many quests you could do without having to involve humans being eebil or stupid.
 
more like "Well, Mad Max had Raiders, and the first Fallout did, IIRC. So, um, we obviously gotta have Raiders?"

You've had raiders as random encounters in every fallout, true, but what else are you going to replace them with?

They have their niche as humanoid enemies that aren't super-tough and can supply arms and armour when defeated.
You'd need a lot of different non-humanoid mutant types to give the same variety, and if they were all supermutants or w/e it runs into the same "why are there so many supermutants/sentient ghouls/possessed toasters compared to the number of people?"

It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but raider quantity is so inoffensive it's hardly worth griping about.
 
You've had raiders as random encounters in every fallout, true, but what else are you going to replace them with?

They have their niche as humanoid enemies that aren't super-tough and can supply arms and armour when defeated.
You'd need a lot of different non-humanoid mutant types to give the same variety, and if they were all supermutants or w/e it runs into the same "why are there so many supermutants/sentient ghouls/possessed toasters compared to the number of people?"

It's not an insurmountable obstacle, but raider quantity is so inoffensive it's hardly worth griping about.
It's less the quantity and more that it's not even attempted to justify anymore, it's just generic evil psychos because lolapocalypse.
 
It's less the quantity and more that it's not even attempted to justify anymore, it's just generic evil psychos because lolapocalypse.
Like the Khans in FO1, who left their Vault and immediately became drug-brewing murderous raiders, and continued this throughout every game they've appeared in. Or indeed the Vipers and Fiends, who needed no excuse to drop the trappings of polite behaviour and begin the killin'.

I'm not saying it's too great to have no deep mechanics behind raider gangs, but no Fallout has really bothered with going deep into their motivations because it doesn't matter too much. They're raiders.

Personally, I would have been happier if in FO4 raiders in different map areas had recognisably different iconography or variations in gear, but I'm not too fussed either way.
 
It certainly looks like people had colonised Sanctuary Hills, since if I recall correctly there's a house with barricades and the like set up inside.
Maybe there were, and they just died, or were forced out by the nearby raiders.

Diamond city has like sixty NPCs or something, so by default it's larger than even the largest (non-modded) settlement. Ultimately, though, it's limited by hardware.

There sure are a lot of raiders, though. Guess it's easier to live by the gun.

You can, without mods or the console (but with DLC), push the Sole Survivor's charisma to 48. Normal settlement cap is 10 + charisma, but Vault 88 has an additional 10, so you can, in principle, have 68 people living there.
 
Back
Top