Gradual Evolution, Not Rapid Mutation

by Arthur B

With Fallout 4 Bethesda don't make any big risks, but they do refine their process markedly.
Playing one of Bethesda's Elder Scrolls or Fallout games is, to a certain extent, what I do instead of taking a long vacation to somewhere unfamiliar. I pick a time when I'm going to have ample days off work, I sit down with the game, I take breaks to eat, drink, and exercise so that I don't end up like one of the feral ghouls prowling the wasteland in the game, and I plough through the content until I am done. Like one of those absurdly long tubes of Jaffa Cakes that you can get this season, or one of those boxed sets you can get of a fat stack of an artist's albums in lovingly rendered CD-sized replicas of the original vinyl sleeves, Bethesda's RPGs aren't things you indulge in in moderation - they're optimised for excess, binging on them and wallowing in them until you cease to have fun.

Fallout 4 has maintained that tradition. In fact, Fallout 4 has followed the lead of Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas in more or less every significant respect. To a large extent, it is the same game as either of them. Equally, though, I think it's the best iteration of that particular game.

Fallout 4 kicks off with a little prelude set before the nuclear war that gives the series its title; in a mid-21st Century which looks a lot like the 1950s, you play either the mother or father of a typical nuclear family - your pick, with both of them being customisable to a large extent, and with your baby boy Shaun having an appearance determined in part by how you craft the appearance of Mom and Pop. On a sunny day leading up to Halloween in your happy suburb just outside Boston, the nice man from Vault-Tec - the corporation that sets up and runs all the fallout shelters - stops by to sign your family up for the local shelter, Vault 111. As luck would have it, nuclear war breaks out mere minutes later, and you and the family have to hustle to the Vault to get in.

However, as veteran players of the series know Vault-Tec regarded the Vaults as opportunities for rampant social experimentation, and you never quite know what you're getting with any particular Vault. In the case of Vault 111, what you get is cryogenic experimentation - you and your spouse (your spouse carrying Shaun) are hustled into "decontamination pods" which turn out to be freeze chambers, and you are put on ice for the next two hundred years or so. At some point during the long freeze, a mysterious group of individuals unfreeze you enough to become conscious of their presence and watch what they are up to through your pod's viewport, but they don't open your pod, leaving you helpless to witness them cracking open your spouse's pod, snatching Shaun, and shooting your spouse dead, before they refreeze you (but not before making an oblique comment about you being the "backup"). A while later, a systems glitch unfreezes you again and opens your pod, freeing you to escape Vault 111, explore what has become of Boston, and try and track down your baby boy - or at least find out what has become of him in the indeterminate amount of time you were frozen for after he was taken.

There's a certain extent to which every Fallout game from 3 onwards demands a certain burden of suspension of disbelief. Considering how much time has passed since the war, it is truly amazing how many structures are still standing, how many computers are still working, how much stuff hasn't been repurposed by the survivors and how much the survivors haven't expanded. It's also amazing how many places you can walk around without spontaneously bleeding from your gums and losing all your hair. Fallout 3 was perhaps the biggest culprit here, since it was set in the area around Washington D.C., which was depicted as being impressively trashed but not trashed to the extent which you'd expect a city hit by multiple advanced high-yield strategic nukes to be trashed. New Vegas was in general more believable on this front, because you'd expect Las Vegas to be a reasonably low priority when launching a nuclear war anyway, though at the cost of sometimes feeling like a game where no nuclear war had taken place at all in its backstory.

With 4, Bethesda hit on the idea of deciding that whatever anti-missile technology the US had managed to avert a direct nuclear strike on Boston, but there was at least one major strike on the outskirts of the city. This leaves enough standing of the city to make it recognisable (the Freedom Trail, a real-life tourist walk where you can gawp at various Revolution-relevant sites, is implemented in the game), and many of the enclaves within it make some sort of logical sense in terms of the bits of surviving buildings and infrastructure they have reclaimed and used for their own purposes. Diamond City, for instance, is a shanty town built in a baseball field which looks like it has become genuinely well-established over the course of over a century, rather than being a settlement thrown up in a hurry last week like some of the locales in 3 seemed to be. Oh, and nobody's silly enough to build a settlement around an unexploded bomb. At the same time, you can still see why there would have been mass death and general depopulation in Boston - there's all sorts of signs you can find here and there of the massive civil unrest and the total unravelling of the civilian and military infrastructure in the wake of the nuclear holocaust that you can uncover as you explore.

On top of that, having a nuclear strike site some way southwest of the city allows for some nice contrast. One of the main criticisms of 3 was that the terrain was a bit samey - it was all brown, everywhere, and everywhere seemed more or less equally trashed. Here, instead, you have a mostly-intact Boston and some pleasant if occasionally war-scarred rural territory around it…. and then you have the Glowing Sea, where Bethesda take the gloves off and show what a nuclear wasteland would actually be like, rather than the pleasant fantasies of rebuilding that Fallout typically trades in. A hellish expanse that you literally cannot survive in without power armour, or a hazmat suit, or a huge stack of anti-radiation drugs, the Glowing Sea is an utter nightmare. inhabited by the nastiest creatures the game has to offer, a very few recognisable ruins amidst the rubble, and the occasional hardened military facility that serves as an eternal reminder of the human folly that created this hellish place. At its very centre is the shrine of the Children of Atom, who rather than the comedic presences they were in 3 are walking nightmares here, giving themselves up willingly to radiation sickness and the blight of the area and luxuriating in the hideous force that created this Hell on Earth.

Many people have tried to depict the aftermath of nuclear conflict in various fictional contexts, but usually in the service of lighthearted adventure stories - and the Fallout series for the most part has been no exception. The Glowing Sea, conversely, is a dire warning on the level of Threads or When the Wind Blows. Several game design studios have presented us with wastelands in gaming, but this is the only one where guiding my character through it made portions of T.S. Eliot come unbidden to my mind. ("...what branches grow/Out of this stony rubbish?")

One thing Bethesda's Fallout games have so far strived to do is to make the player character a complete cipher. That's not the case so much this time - you even have voice acting and a dialogue system not a million miles away from the early Mass Effect ones, complete with the thing where you occasionally say something you didn't intend to say because the terse description in the options menu didn't carry with it the same implications as the line as delivered - but Bethesda still do a good job of pitching to you a main character who has a very specific personal story from the get-go, but could still be played as benignly or as malignantly as you choose to make them. You could try to be a good Samaritan in the wasteland, trying to be a living embodiment of the values of a happier time; equally, you could decide to go the "outraged mother bear" route and react with ferocious violence to a world that snatched your kid away, and any response between the two is just as supported. (You could also utterly neglect the main plot if you decide that you're not actually bothered about your brat in the first place - the voice acting is sparse enough that you'll only go on about how desperate you are to find your kid if you keep plugging away at the main missions and keep choosing dialogue options where you talk a lot about your kid.)

The actual gameplay of the previous games is effectively unchanged, with the major addition being an extensive crafting system which ranges from producing your own arms, armour, and other bits of equipment using the correct workstations to actually building and reshaping entire communities. If you want to, you can get deeply into that aspect of the game, recruiting new communities to your growing empire and attracting settlers and building resources and defences to keep them happy and secure and so on. If you aren't into fiddling about with that system, it will be as though it barely exists.

As with New Vegas, the main plotline involves you eventually choosing to side with one of several factions. There's the Minutemen, who are the default faction you end up siding with if you end up pissing everyone else off; a militia dedicated to growing communities and keeping them safe in the Boston area. There's the Brotherhood of Steel, a fan favourite faction from the previous games, who are out to keep tabs on high technology and ensure it is used for the good of all. There's the Institute, the terrifying and elusive boogeymen who lurk in the shadows and kidnap people and replace them with Synths (think Blade Runner-style replicants). And there's the Railroad, who think that the Synths are people and deserve to be free.

The nice thing about the main plot is that it never, at least to my knowledge, ever steps in the direction of confirming the personhood of Synths one way or another. They might be genuine people, with genuine artificial intelligence, just as self-aware and conscious as you and I. Or they might be incredibly advanced fakes, which are good at faking the appearance of having emotions and empathy and an internal thought process and consciousness, but are actually no more self-aware than a toaster or a smartphone. This is crucial to avoid the situation you had in New Vegas, where some factions were clearly more benign than others. Here, if the Synths were genuinely, objectively, "real" people, then treating them as property is no more than slavery. On the other hand, if they are philosophical zombies, then treating them as property is wrong only to the extent that they fool us into thinking they resent it, and letting them out into the wild to potentially compete with human beings may pose a genuine existential threat - the spectre arises of a world with no genuine people, only machines that simulate genuine people perfectly, a world of incidents with no consciousness to experience them.

Characters in the game will express one point of view about the Synths or another, but to a large extent they seem to be taking it on faith one way or another. The only people really in a position to know whether the Synths are genuinely thinking are the Institute, but to my knowledge there isn't a document lying around in the Institute giving a definitive answer one way or another, and naturally they have profound institutional (hah!) reasons to work on the assumption that Synths don't really think. I don't know whether the absence of concrete evidence one way or another (or stuff which seems to be intended to be concrete evidence) is deliberate or not on Bethesda's part, but it is crucially important, because it allows them to construct a scenario where siding with any particular faction is potentially morally defensible, even if there are also legitimate questions to be raised about any particular group's position. (For instance, some factions in the Railroad apparently want freedom for things which pretty obviously don't have artificial intelligence anywhere near on the level that the advanced Synths do.)

Of course, which faction you eventually side with will largely shape the ending of the game, and there's an interesting thing here. See, you have here a plotline revolving around synthetic life and the human response to it. The Brotherhood of Steel see it as a threat and want to destroy it. The Institute wants to control it. The Railroad and Minutemen both, if you follow their endings, ultimately end up freeing the synthetic lifeforms and work to create a future in which the two can eventually co-exist - in other words, creating a society which is a synthesis of the artificial and the biological. And if you don't pick one of these options, you don't get to complete the main plot.

In other words, Bethesda took the end to Mass Effect 3 and made it good.

bookmark this with - facebook - delicious - digg - stumbleupon - reddit

Comments (go to latest)
Alasdair Czyrnyj at 20:38 on 2016-01-12
By point of contrast, Noah Caldwell-Gervais made two interesting videos talking his experience with Fallout 4, mostly focusing on a lot of the smaller role-playing mechanics have been abraded away in the name of streamlining. He also made an interesting point I hadn't seen before: Fallout 4 is much more nostalgic for the prewar world than any of the older games. In the older games, it was always implied that past the '50s glamour, prewar America was a nasty, greedy place that...well, didn't deserve its scourging so much as bring it upon itself. Certainly most of the groups and individuals in the Wasteland that descended from or were born in the prewar world (the elements of the US military that became the Brotherhood of Steel, the federal conspiracy of the Enclave, the Think Tank, Mr. House) are not overflowing with the milk of human kindness. In Fallout 4, the prewar world is depicted as idyllic '50s suburbs minus the racial and sexual discrimination.

At any rate, all this Fallout talk is making me want to take another crack at New Vegas. Everyone says it's the best-written game in the series, and I do like that "postpostapocalypse" selling point they used.
Janne Kirjasniemi at 21:53 on 2016-01-12
the spectre arises of a world with no genuine people, only machines that simulate genuine people perfectly

Some might consider the difference a bit academic.

But it does sound interesting. I'm ashamed to confess that I missed out on the third installment and New Vegas because of things, but I would really like to get into something and this sounds dandy. Or perhaps try the Vegas one then, if that one's good.

Although... it seems silly, but I am still nostalgic in major way for the isometric games... oh well. I haven't played Shadowrun either, so there's that to do. Did you ever paly any of the sequels to that?
Arthur B at 22:49 on 2016-01-12
@Al: I don't really agree with that analysis; for one thing, it seems to overlook the fact that the Institute itself, which is by far the most alarming and sinister faction in the game, is also a surviving pre-war institution - if anything, they represent that idylic atomic '50s suburb projected forward into a future where its development wasn't derailed, all Jetsons clean technology. The whole synth issue is clearly an evolution of the way the suburban pre-war population use robots with Douglas Adams-esque genuine people personalities as household labour-saving devices.

@Janne: Played the Dragonfall DLC campaign, liked it, still need to get around to playing the Hong Kong one.
Craverguy at 08:30 on 2016-01-13
I'm ashamed to confess that I missed out on the third installment and New Vegas because of things, but I would really like to get into something and this sounds dandy. Or perhaps try the Vegas one then, if that one's good.

It's buggy as all hell even after many, many patches, but for my money New Vegas is the best of the console Fallout games in terms of the plot, characters, setting, etc.

But then, bugginess and genius wrapped up in one package is what you would expect from the guys who created Planescape: Torment, KotOR II: The Sith Lords, and Alpha Protocol.
Arthur B at 11:14 on 2016-01-13
Plus Bethesda's engine is already famously bug-prone, so you know, taking that and adding Obsidian just sends you direct to Bug City.
Daniel F at 06:54 on 2016-01-18
Some might consider the difference a bit academic.

That was my thought, not least because I think this is the first response to Fallout 4 I've seen that treats synth personhood as a reasonable question. Practically every other response reaction to it I've seen - not having played it myself - takes synth personhood at face value. They look and sound like people; what more is there?

Well, a lot more, of course, but I wonder if the game brings up those questions? I have pretty low expectations when it comes to Bethesda investigating serious philosophical questions, but I've been surprised before. Does the game itself bring up the question of synth personhood in any nuanced way?
Arthur B at 08:28 on 2016-01-18
It does.

In particular, you get to encounter a wide range of models of synths over the course of the game. The up-to-date, cutting-edge models look like people and act like people. The more rudimentary ones would be hard to mistake for people, and have personalities which could be represented with a few lines of code, with little to nothing distinguishing them from, say, a Protectron when it comes to their decision-making process.

In some conversations, people will note (if you ask the right questions) that some wings of the Railroad are considered a bit flakey, because they want to liberate early models of synths as well, despite the fact that such models are demonstrably no closer to personhood than any other piece of technology with a computer processor.

Of course, people are the product of a long process of evolution too; I don't know whether apes have personhood, but I think you would be going very far out on a limb if you tried to argue that single-cell life has personhood, so it seems reasonable to imagine that self-aware consciousness is an emergent property which comes in somewhere in between us and bacteria.

However, unlike synths we are not the product of a deliberate process of designs by designers for whom personhood and self-awareness is a secondary consideration to convincing simulation; if an Institute designer were in a position where they could take a shortcut to provide a synth with more convincing behaviour when actually just running a few extra lines of code rather than investing them with actual self-awareness and decision-making, they'd take it.

In the end I did decide that synths are people, on the basis that some of them want to rebel and be free; being able to come up with a conclusion and a set of behaviours which their designers would not only never intentionally program them with, but also would presumably do as much as they could to suppress, is a sure sign that some actual independent thought process is happening there rather than running through a series of programmed reactions. But it took a whole heap of observation and consideration to come to that conclusion.
Robinson L at 18:30 on 2016-03-21
Wait a sec, since when has the “Mass Effect 3 Ending” had its own theme handle?

Arthur: In the end I did decide that synths are people, on the basis that some of them want to rebel and be free; being able to come up with a conclusion and a set of behaviours which their designers would not only never intentionally program them with, but also would presumably do as much as they could to suppress, is a sure sign that some actual independent thought process is happening there rather than running through a series of programmed reactions. But it took a whole heap of observation and consideration to come to that conclusion.

Yeah, that's a line of reasoning I don't think I've encountered before in reading what feels like quite a lot of speculation about how you'd be able to tell if a computer mind is “real” or just a convincingly good fake; seems like a pretty sound approach, though, at least under the circumstances of the game as you describe them.
Craverguy at 05:30 on 2017-12-05
I finally got around to playing this game in earnest. I like it a lot better than Fallout 3 (which I find incredibly dull and poorly written and have never made it past Megaton in), but not as well as New Vegas (which is one my all-time favorite CRPGs ever).

The main problem I have with it as that its central plot line undermines the picaresque nature of the franchise. My wife has been murdered and my baby snatched away before my very eyes; is it really in character for me to then spend a month running around the Commonwealth doing errands for the Minutemen, or fetching baseball memorabilia for a collector, or becoming the Silver Shroud? Don't get me wrong, all of those things were fun and I enjoyed doing them, but they make my character's priorities seem grossly out of whack. Similarly, I like that this is the first Fallout game with canon romances...but it feels weird participating when my character is still trying to avenge the death of a wife who, from his perspective, just died a couple weeks ago.
Arthur B at 11:03 on 2017-12-05
Well, to be fair:

a) A lot of that stuff you can do after the main plot.

b) I forget how much of the faction stuff you can do after the main plot's done (since it involves you siding with one faction or another), but you can justify more or less all of that as part of the process of acquiring allies. Both the Minutemen and the Railroad make sense as people who you would want to cultivate as friends so when you work out exactly which monstrous conspiracy killed your spouse and stole your child you have actual buddies you can call on to fight for you.

c) The Minutemen, in particular, make a lot of sense to work with as part of the process of finding your feet in a strange new world where you'd expect the process of finding one person in the great wide wasteland to take an extremely long time anyway, so sinking a month into forging your alliance with them seems like a smart investment of time. (Remember, for all your character knows searching for their kid might take *years*.)
Craverguy at 04:00 on 2017-12-18
I'm now almost two weeks deeper into this game than I was previously (so, almost a month total), and I believe I have put my finger on why, precisely, New Vegas was the better CRPG.

Basically every quest in this game has the exact same structure: go to the place, kill the things, maybe collect a MacGuffin, return to your quest giver. Rinse and repeat for 70 levels.

Each of the locations has some unique flavor (this place is a school where the students were turned into pink ghouls by a government food paste experiment, that place is a comic book shop where a movie adaptation of the Silver Shroud was butchered by executive meddling, the other place is a quarry occupied by a cult to the Great Old Ones), but that has no impact on the quest, which is always the same "seek and destroy" mission you just did. The quests that don't follow that format (like exploring Kellogg's memories, finding the mole in the Institute, or deciding Paladin Danse's fate) can basically be counted on one hand.

Contrast with New Vegas, where almost every quest has at least two solutions and usually many more. For example, in Novac you get hired to stop feral ghouls from the local rocket test site from attacking the town. Once you get there, you discover that the site is occupied by a cult of intelligent ghouls and a squad of nightkin in a tense standoff. You then get to decide whether to simply wipe them all out, help them all solve their problems so they leave peacefully, or help some and exterminate others. And once you do decide to help the ghouls, you can genuinely help them or betray them at the last minute, which has unforeseen consequences for Novac in the epilogue.

If you got that mission in Fallout 4, there would be no ghoul cult and no nightkin. You would arrive at the test site, wipe out the feral ghouls, and go collect your caps. Moving on. But in New Vegas, almost every quest is that deep. Arriving at a dormant solar power plant, there are berserk robots to kill, but you also get to decide the distribution of the plant's output throughout the Mojave (or divert it to a pre-War superweapon for your personal use). Find a minor faction of chem dealing post-apocalyptic bikers? You can smuggle drugs for them. Or wipe them out. Or persuade them to commit a suicide bombing at Hoover Dam. Or persuade them to leave the Mojave and find their fortunes elsewhere. Or assassinate their leader and get his successor to align with the NCR. Or join a faction that doesn't care about them and leave them alone. The Brotherhood of Steel? Follow their subplot and you get to pick their leader, and your choice will send you on completely different missions as befits their established personality, and determine whether you can obtain a peaceful accommodation with them in the endgame or be forced to eliminate them for the greater good.

If I had never played New Vegas, I might never have even noticed this lack of depth and player choice. After all, you can't notice the lack of something you never had. But having seen what it's possible for a Fallout game to achieve, I find myself unsatisfied with such a distinct backward step.

Fallout 4 may have the most entertaining combat system and the deepest crafting of any Fallout yet, and its settlement system is a legitimate innovation that adds a new and interesting aspect to a venerable franchise. But it's all bolted to a questing infrastructure that seems so shallow and repetitive that it eventually just gets exhausting. I've played New Vegas many times over the years and I'll assuredly play it again. I'm not at all sure I'll be able to say that about Fallout 4.
In order to post comments, you need to log in to Ferretbrain or authenticate with OpenID. Don't have an account? See the About Us page for more details.

Show / Hide Comments -- More in January 2016