[QUOTE=Reagy;50557988]So I recorded a walk around of my 3 most built up settlements, nothing amazing though, just felt like doing it and it might give you some ideas on stuff to build even though most of this is half arsed. v:v:v[/QUOTE]
What's the rifle you are carrying on your back in the first few seconds of your sanctuary video ?
Also the weapon racks in this new DLC are another major disappointment, I at least expected them to be better than the ones I could get through mods but nope, I mean a one weapon only limit? Bullshit, give me the weapon rack you see in the fucking trailer with like three weapons on it!
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;50559654]That's because it's 200 years later; [I]that[/I] part makes sense but stuff like there being untouched hoards of loot sitting everywhere waiting for someone with sufficiently steely balls to walk along and take it doesn't make as much sense. How are there even things like Nuka Cola or preserved food sitting around in obvious containers after that long? Not to mention the other stuff like so much radiation still lingering.
I'm not going to go off on a big rant about this like I did with the Institute but basically, the primary difference between setting the game 30 years after and 200 years after is that everything in the game makes more sense as-is, as the game shipped and we play it, if you consider it to be 30 years post-war and not 200+.[/QUOTE]
Like most other things in a game, this isn't a matter of making sense. It's about the setting. Fallout has a very specific kind of setting, and regardless of how much time passes lore-wise from the first game to any consequent iteration, the setting has to stay the same.
A Fallout game where the third or forth generation after the war get their shit together and start rebuilding cities, having proper governments and services and maybe taking a broom to the fucking floor already will not be what we expect Fallout to be. It will be, what, science fiction rather than post apocalypse. New cities, new cultures, new music. That's not Fallout. Fallout is a world forever stuck in the aftermath of the moment the bombs fell. It's a world that needs to constantly remind you that it was all 50s retro-future Americana, and what a contrast it is to the current Mad-Max atomic post apocalypse it is now. The skeletons slumped in ruined diners have to be there forever, or there will be less to remind you that THIS IS ALL BECAUSE THE BOMBS FELL HERE AND KILLED ELL THOSE 50s PEOPLE! POST APOCALYPSE!
This is the exact same reason most fantasy worlds can make it through thousands of years of history without having an industrial revolution or making it out of the feudal system. It would make for interesting worlds, but it won't be fantasy anymore.
They probably won't be able to keep it up forever. We're quickly approaching the point where it becomes ridiculous. How long are the wastlanders going to wait before they figure out brooms? Another decade? Another century? Eventually Beth will have to do something. Anything.
I'm thinking reboot.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50560215]Like most other things in a game, this isn't a matter of making sense. It's about the setting. Fallout has a very specific kind of setting, and regardless of how much time passes lore-wise from the first game to any consequent iteration, the setting has to stay the same.
A Fallout game where the third or forth generation after the war get their shit together and start rebuilding cities, having proper governments and services and maybe taking a broom to the fucking floor already will not be what we expect Fallout to be. It will be, what, science fiction rather than post apocalypse. New cities, new cultures, new music. That's not Fallout. Fallout is a world forever stuck in the aftermath of the moment the bombs fell. It's a world that needs to constantly remind you that it was all 50s retro-future Americana, and what a contrast it is to the current Mad-Max atomic post apocalypse it is now. The skeletons slumped in ruined diners have to be there forever, or there will be less to remind you that THIS IS ALL BECAUSE THE BOMBS FELL HERE AND KILLED ELL THOSE 50s PEOPLE! POST APOCALYPSE!
This is the exact same reason most fantasy worlds can make it through thousands of years of history without having an industrial revolution or making it out of the feudal system. It would make for interesting worlds, but it won't be fantasy anymore.
They probably won't be able to keep it up forever. We're quickly approaching the point where it becomes ridiculous. How long are the wastlanders going to wait before they figure out brooms? Another decade? Another century? Eventually Beth will have to do something. Anything.
I'm thinking reboot.[/QUOTE]
So new cities, new societies, and cleaning shit up isn't Fallout huh. I guess Fallout 2 wasn't really Fallout this whole time.
[QUOTE=Hamaflavian;50560239]So new cities, new societies, and cleaning shit up isn't Fallout huh. I guess Fallout 2 wasn't really Fallout this whole time.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, those aren't the Fallout games we're living with right now. Even New Vegas had a case of "no one took this yet?". The old Fallout's style is gone.
When it comes to stories that deal with very large spans of time, up to several centuries or more, I generally really dislike when everything advances at the same pace like some kind of universal tide of progress.
While the advanced state of decay presented on the East Coast can create some (in my opinion minor) discrepancies such as finding pipe guns in areas sealed off since the war, or even finding sealed off areas to begin with after two hundred years of people inhabiting the area, I genuinely like the fact that the remnants of the United States as portrayed in Fallout didn't universally get better over time, and the area that logically got the more bombed is the area that is also logically having the hardest time getting back on its feet.
It makes the world feel more cohesive and it's in my opinion more interesting to have this fluctuating viewpoint between a successfully rebuilding landscape and a rotting shithole that struggles to pick itself back up.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50560215]Like most other things in a game, this isn't a matter of making sense. It's about the setting. Fallout has a very specific kind of setting, and regardless of how much time passes lore-wise from the first game to any consequent iteration, the setting has to stay the same.
A Fallout game where the third or forth generation after the war get their shit together and start rebuilding cities, having proper governments and services and maybe taking a broom to the fucking floor already will not be what we expect Fallout to be. It will be, what, science fiction rather than post apocalypse. New cities, new cultures, new music. That's not Fallout. Fallout is a world forever stuck in the aftermath of the moment the bombs fell. It's a world that needs to constantly remind you that it was all 50s retro-future Americana, and what a contrast it is to the current Mad-Max atomic post apocalypse it is now. The skeletons slumped in ruined diners have to be there forever, or there will be less to remind you that THIS IS ALL BECAUSE THE BOMBS FELL HERE AND KILLED ELL THOSE 50s PEOPLE! POST APOCALYPSE!
This is the exact same reason most fantasy worlds can make it through thousands of years of history without having an industrial revolution or making it out of the feudal system. It would make for interesting worlds, but it won't be fantasy anymore.
[/QUOTE]
This is a pretty bad mindset to have about the Fallout series. It's both limiting and flat out wrong. Dwelling around in the current setting is hurting the series, and the previous games have never been afraid to project a well thought out future to the whacky retro futuristic apocalypse. Fallout 2 had what you could call "new cities and cultures", and New Vegas was praised for logically following through with this aspect.
Watching cities, governments and societies rebuild is [I]definitely[/I] Fallout. Fallout 1, occurring first in the timeline, didn't even come across as dilapidated as some of the newer games. It had plenty of communities thriving and growing, and the fact that the direct sequel dealt with those societies thriving even further should set precedent that rebuilding is a pretty heavy theme in Fallout.
The series may be filled to the brim with whacky dark humor, but it's never been afraid to come back to grounded reality and explore interesting questions the setting raises. Insisting Fallout is a "world forever stuck in the aftermath of the moment the bombs fell" is just an outrageously incorrect reading of the series, and one that I'm convinced you could only get from playing solely Fallout 3 and 4.
The world [I]needs[/I] to rebuild, if for nothing more than so armies and societies can rise and fall to reinforce the theme that war never changes.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50560260]To be fair, those aren't the Fallout games we're living with right now. Even New Vegas had a case of "no one took this yet?". The old Fallout's style is gone.[/QUOTE]
Tbh it was to a lesser degree and they offset "No one took this yet" with actual progress in other areas, as an example the fucking NCR, from what I remember most of the towns you go to were mostly clean of common trash too, I mean the first place you go too, as in Goodsprings is pretty clean all things considered, like they actually got a broom and cleaned there fucking rooms for once, at least compared to places in the Commonwealth like Diamond City.
You can still have that "No one took this yet" feeling and still retain progress and in fact that's what the entire series is really about, PROGRESS in the face of adversity, that things WILL get better, that we aren't stuck in the past.
[QUOTE=jonu67;50560302]Tbh it was to a lesser degree and they offset "No one took this yet" with actual progress in other areas, as an example the fucking NCR, from what I remember most of the towns you go to were mostly clean of common trash too, I mean the first place you go too, as in Goodsprings is pretty clean all things considered, like they actually got a broom and cleaned there fucking rooms for once, at least compared to places in the Commonwealth like Diamond City.
You can still have that "No one took this yet" feeling and still retain progress and in fact that's what the entire series is really about, PROGRESS in the face of adversity.[/QUOTE]
I mean The Institute turned into what it was over it's 200 year timespan being basement dwelling nerds, and the Brotherhood is obviously out of the backwards slide the west coast side is having.
Children of Atom's religion has developed heavily also.
I think in Fallout 4 it's more of an aesthetic thing, Diamond City looks rough because it's some shanties set up in a baseball stadium but you can tell they're way, way better off than Megaton ever was at any point.
I think there's a good balance in FO4, unlike FO3 which really was a circlejerk of wanting it 30 years after the war.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;50560273]When it comes to stories that deal with very large spans of time, up to several centuries or more, I generally really dislike when everything advances at the same pace like some kind of universal tide of progress.
While the advanced state of decay presented on the East Coast can create some (in my opinion minor) discrepancies such as finding pipe guns in areas sealed off since the war, or even finding sealed off areas to begin with after two hundred years of people inhabiting the area, I genuinely like the fact that the remnants of the United States as portrayed in Fallout didn't universally get better over time, and the area that logically got the more bombed is the area that is also logically having the hardest time getting back on its feet.
It makes the world feel more cohesive and it's in my opinion more interesting to have this fluctuating viewpoint between a successfully rebuilding landscape and a rotting shithole that struggles to pick itself back up.[/QUOTE]
It's a nice way to look at it, but overall I honestly don't see the benefit from taking this direction with the series. It's very limiting to the themes and ideas you can explore, namely because Fallout 1 mostly covered the "everything is fucked up and terrible oh god" aspect at times, and Fallout 3 preeettyy much hit the nail on the head with a shanty town filled shithole. They've already run out of interesting things to do with a setting that's so limited, to the point where the most interesting aspects of Fallout 4 tended to be more related to the post apocalyptic culture than the pre apocalyptic culture or the fringe between the two.
Unlike Fallout 3, there's a whole back story lore to how these competing factions and towns formed and interacted in the past. Cities and people bounce off each other in the history of the commonwealth. Stuff like the CPG, the gunners displacing the minutemen, historic tidbits about diamond city, relationships between major leaders like Hancock and the diamond city mayor - these are all steps in the right direction toward lore building that Fallout 3 didn't have. They also tend to give way to a logical conclusion of cooperation, rebuilding and thriving, or at the very least a more developed world than currently exists.
I'm not saying that they [i]have[/i] to lead to that, or that Fallout 4 got it "wrong" by explaining away the development of the commonwealth with "the institute", I just think that the commitment Fallout 4 took to maintaining the apocalyptic shithole aesthetic hurt the more interesting ideas the game presented.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50560317]I mean The Institute turned into what it was over it's 200 year timespan being basement dwelling nerds, and the Brotherhood is obviously out of the backwards slide the west coast side is having.
Children of Atom's religion has developed heavily also.
I think in Fallout 4 it's more of an aesthetic thing, Diamond City looks rough because it's some shanties set up in a baseball stadium but you can tell they're way, way better off than Megaton ever was at any point.
I think there's a good balance in FO4, unlike FO3 which really was a circlejerk of wanting it 30 years after the war.[/QUOTE]
I still think we give Fallout 3 a bit of a hard time in regards to that, given we weren't really given the full treatment of how horrible it really would be and given it was hit the hardest.
But anyway, yeah Fallout 4 did TRY to do that, but then they pulled the "Institute has pretty much stopped any progress" card, which is a pity because a lot of the ideas Bethesda had for a more progressive wasteland sound REALLY fucking neat and I wish we could have seen that instead of what we got, I mean the "dilapidated wasteland, everything has gone to shit and will stay shit" setting get's really stale after a while, some progress IS required to keep things going.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;50559976]That bumper sword looks very... glossy[/QUOTE]
welcome to porting non pbr to pbr
So, after the DLC's that has been released, do you guys recommend getting the season pass?
[QUOTE=Ctrl;50560358]So, after the DLC's that hace been released, do you guys recommend getting the season pass?[/QUOTE]
Far Harbor is good, Nuka World might be good.
The rest you might as well get because mods will eventually require at least one of them down the line.
I just want to comment on how much I like diamond city as a location in Fallout 4. Sure, it's a bit more shanty than I would have liked, but given the (admittedly silly) location of central boston I imagine the inhabitants are more concerned with upkeep than remodeling the place.
It has a well thought out history that you can read and hear about that explains how it came to be such a successful city, it has it's own supply of water with food growing, it has a mayor and a jail and just feels like a town when you're walking around in it.
My favorite aspect of it that I wish was expanded upon further was this whole class divide between people living in the field to the people living in the upper stands. It doesn't amount to much other than that one guy being a dick to you, but it gives you an outline of the economy of the place and how the city's logically expanded over time.
I just wish that the design principles that came into writing diamond city were applied to other settlements. (looking at you goodneighbor)
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;50560363]I just want to comment on how much I like diamond city as a location in Fallout 4. Sure, it's a bit more shanty than I would have liked, but given the (admittedly silly) location of central boston I imagine the inhabitants are more concerned with upkeep than remodeling the place.
It has a well thought out history that you can read and hear about that explains how it came to be such a successful city, it has it's own supply of water with food growing, it has a mayor and a jail and just feels like a town when you're walking around in it.
My favorite aspect of it that I wish was expanded upon further was this whole class divide between people living in the field to the people living in the upper stands. It doesn't amount to much other than that one guy being a dick to you, but it gives you an outline of the economy of the place and how the city's logically expanded over time.
I just wish that the design principles that came into writing diamond city were applied to other settlements. (looking at you goodneighbor)[/QUOTE]
Yeah tbh, [I]more[/I] Diamond city style cities in the future games would be nice, just to show the wasteland in the East Coast progressing steadily, perhaps even a militia that doesn't suck and actually succeeded in it's goals of bringing some form of government to that particular area of the wasteland like the Minutemen tried to do but not shit and not run by Preston Garvey.
[QUOTE=Ctrl;50560358]So, after the DLC's that has been released, do you guys recommend getting the season pass?[/QUOTE]
Absolutely not. Wait a year and get the two important DLCs for cheap.
We don't even know if Nuka World is good yet.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50560380]Absolutely not. Wait a year and get the two important DLCs for cheap.
We don't even know if Nuka World is good yet.[/QUOTE]
I mean he might as well pick them all up with the pass, though he should wait until they go on a [I]major[/I] sale.
Mods will require a lot of the assets used by these DLCs eventually, so it's more future proofing your game than anything else.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50560380]Absolutely not. Wait a year and get the two important DLCs for cheap.
We don't even know if Nuka World is good yet.[/QUOTE]
But are we sure that there are only going to be 2 major DLC? Not 4 like with other games?
[QUOTE=Ctrl;50560391]But are we sure that there are only going to be 2 major DLC? Not 4 like with other games?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's been confirmed by the Todd.
Nuka World will be the last DLC for Fallout 4 as a whole.
[QUOTE=jonu67;50560395]Yeah, it's been confirmed by the Todd.
Nuka World will be the last DLC for Fallout 4 as a whole.[/QUOTE]
Thats shitty then.
Is Far Harbor as good as OWB or Dead Money?
[QUOTE=Trainbike;50558726]It's unfortunate that you feel that way. After what I've been seeing of your work here I'd love to see more of this kind of thing from you and I'm sure others feel the same.[/QUOTE]
Well it's not like I don't like making things for the community and a game I enjoy (and this thread in particular has kept this project alive honestly) but this has been a side-side project for me on top of a dayjob and a gamedev nightjob. What time I have to spend not working in 3d programs, photoshop, and unity against deadlines could be spent in less... hair pulling ways than fighting an engine that's old enough to be a high school freshman.
[QUOTE=WillerinV1.02;50560294]This is a pretty bad mindset to have about the Fallout series. It's both limiting and flat out wrong. Dwelling around in the current setting is hurting the series, and the previous games have never been afraid to project a well thought out future to the whacky retro futuristic apocalypse. Fallout 2 had what you could call "new cities and cultures", and New Vegas was praised for logically following through with this aspect.
Watching cities, governments and societies rebuild is [I]definitely[/I] Fallout. Fallout 1, occurring first in the timeline, didn't even come across as dilapidated as some of the newer games. It had plenty of communities thriving and growing, and the fact that the direct sequel dealt with those societies thriving even further should set precedent that rebuilding is a pretty heavy theme in Fallout.
The series may be filled to the brim with whacky dark humor, but it's never been afraid to come back to grounded reality and explore interesting questions the setting raises. Insisting Fallout is a "world forever stuck in the aftermath of the moment the bombs fell" is just an outrageously incorrect reading of the series, and one that I'm convinced you could only get from playing solely Fallout 3 and 4.
The world [I]needs[/I] to rebuild, if for nothing more than so armies and societies can rise and fall to reinforce the theme that war never changes.[/QUOTE]
I'm not saying this is how it should be. I'm saying it's how it inevitably *is*.
Forget about Fallout for a moment. Take a look at TES, or GoT for that matter. Both epic fantasy series with histories spanning thousands of years, massive global wars, societies destroyed and rebuilt and so on. And yet in the end it's always people living in kingdoms, getting around by foot or on horses and mostly stabbing each other with swords (/spells/dragons). When someone does try to advance technology or science they're promptly wiped out (Dwemer), and the status quo is restored. Because that's what fantasy is. If it wasn't it would be steampunk, then dieselpunk, then cyberpunk and so on.
Same goes for post apocalyptic media. If its no longer directly tied to the apocalypse that the "post" part doesn't matter, right? Yes, there are always changes and development because that what moves the plot and makes the lore interesting. There can be massive wars and societies that rise and fall. There is guaranteed to always be someone with badass future technology, more advanced and dangerous than all the ones before it, to pose the ultimate threat to the world (because this is science fiction and threats must be technological in nature), but they all must be eventually destroyed. There will likely always be opposing forces of similar power to equip the protagonist with the end-game badass tools he needs to defeat said threat, but they also have to fuck off at the end of the final battle without actually improving anything in the world.
So yeah, there are cobbled together cities and new towns all over the fallout world, but they'll probably never grow into real cities. The roads will never be re-paved. There won't be factories churning out new atomic cars for everyone. The NCR and BOS and whoever runs New Vegas may become bigger, take over more of the continental USA, fight wars with each other and whatever else the people who write the lore may find interesting, but they'll never let them just have normal, non post-apocalyptic societies where people actually wear clean clothes and there are no rad-roaches in the basement. Because if the people of the Fallout universe actually manage to rebuild to the point that they're more like a modern society than the remnants of a destroyed one than it wouldn't be what Fallout is all about: a game whose mere name implies its about the aftermath of a nuclear war.
It's not even just Fallout. Take a look at Wasteland 2. Decades after the first game, with the Desert Rangers an established regional power and you're still all about running around pre-war facilities, small desert towns and raider camps and fighting a pre-war technological threat.
In the words of Snake Plissken: "The more things change the more they stay the same." It's the nature of the beast.
[QUOTE=Ctrl;50560403]Thats shitty then.
Is Far Harbor as good as OWB or Dead Money?[/QUOTE]
I mean you'd have to play it for yourself, it's certainly on par with almost every other DLC, other than OWB because OWB is pretty much perfect, but yeah it's up there with the greats.
[QUOTE=Ctrl;50560403]Thats shitty then.
Is Far Harbor as good as OWB or Dead Money?[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's definitely better than Dead Money, but you can't really compare it to OWB because OWB was comical and Far Harbor tries to be serious.
It's also significantly better than all of the Fallout 3 DLC, except maybe the Pitt.
Far Harbor is more in-line with Point Lookout, I'd say it's got a little bit of Dead Money sprinkled in though.
The whole DLC is basically a Stephen King novel.
[QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;50560434]Far Harbor is more in-line with Point Lookout, I'd say it's got a little bit of Dead Money sprinkled in though.
The whole DLC is basically a Stephen King novel.[/QUOTE]
I'd say it's more like, Point Lookout's location meets The Pitt styled writing.
Alright, thanks everyone for your input.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50560421]I'm not saying this is how it should be. I'm saying it's how it inevitably *is*.
Forget about Fallout for a moment. Take a look at TES, or GoT for that matter. Both epic fantasy series with histories spanning thousands of years, massive global wars, societies destroyed and rebuilt and so on. And yet in the end it's always people living in kingdoms, getting around by foot or on horses and mostly stabbing each other with swords (/spells/dragons). When someone does try to advance technology or science they're promptly wiped out (Dwemer), and the status quo is restored. Because that's what fantasy is. If it wasn't it would be steampunk, then dieselpunk, then cyberpunk and so on.
[/QUOTE]
You misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that it's how it should be - I'm saying that it literally is. The Fallout series has featured rebuilding in the majority of it's previous games and depending on how Beth takes the series, should continue to do so.
I think you're getting confused over all. I'm not saying that Fallout will ever switch themes and outgrow it's post apocalyptic ties. I'm not saying that we should expect towns to start repaving roads and the societies to modernize. That's an issue of adhering to a setting for a franchise's sake, not an issue of writing. But unlike fantasy, the genre and themes Fallout explores don't give way to a lot of stagnation. You can't meaningfully explore the same story of people squatting in a shack and eating dead rats while a hero saves the day over and over again.
Which is why the Fallout series has made a point of including themes of rebuilding. Always. I would personally argue it's one of the core aspects of the series. There's still far too much to explore in that category, and the only reason one would think the 'point' of Fallout is whacky sci-fi fun while everyone dies of horrible living conditions is if they took how Beth handled 3 as an accurate representation of the series.
But it's not an accurate representation of how Beth is handling the series. Fallout 4, while it exacerbated a lot of separate issues, has taken clear steps back into exploring the themes that Fallout 2 and New Vegas did, even if they're minor and manifest themselves as a settlement minigame at times.
Even if Beth continues down this path of apocalyptic shit aesthetic, I can guarantee you that each Fallout game they release will show more and more signs of rebuilding, unless they go backwards in the timeline. They can't avoid it. It's inherit to Fallout as much as whacky 50's aesthetic is, and the idea that war never changes.
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;50560421]I'm not saying this is how it should be. I'm saying it's how it inevitably *is*.
Forget about Fallout for a moment. Take a look at TES, or GoT for that matter. Both epic fantasy series with histories spanning thousands of years, massive global wars, societies destroyed and rebuilt and so on. And yet in the end it's always people living in kingdoms, getting around by foot or on horses and mostly stabbing each other with swords (/spells/dragons). When someone does try to advance technology or science they're promptly wiped out (Dwemer), and the status quo is restored. Because that's what fantasy is. If it wasn't it would be steampunk, then dieselpunk, then cyberpunk and so on.
Same goes for post apocalyptic media. If its no longer directly tied to the apocalypse that the "post" part doesn't matter, right? Yes, there are always changes and development because that what moves the plot and makes the lore interesting. There can be massive wars and societies that rise and fall. There is guaranteed to always be someone with badass future technology, more advanced and dangerous than all the ones before it, to pose the ultimate threat to the world (because this is science fiction and threats must be technological in nature), but they all must be eventually destroyed. There will likely always be opposing forces of similar power to equip the protagonist with the end-game badass tools he needs to defeat said threat, but they also have to fuck off at the end of the final battle without actually improving anything in the world.
So yeah, there are cobbled together cities and new towns all over the fallout world, but they'll probably never grow into real cities. The roads will never be re-paved. There won't be factories churning out new atomic cars for everyone. The NCR and BOS and whoever runs New Vegas may become bigger, take over more of the continental USA, fight wars with each other and whatever else the people who write the lore may find interesting, but they'll never let them just have normal, non post-apocalyptic societies where people actually wear clean clothes and there are no rad-roaches in the basement. Because if the people of the Fallout universe actually manage to rebuild to the point that they're more like a modern society than the remnants of a destroyed one than it wouldn't be what Fallout is all about: a game whose mere name implies its about the aftermath of a nuclear war.
It's not even just Fallout. Take a look at Wasteland 2. Decades after the first game, with the Desert Rangers an established regional power and you're still all about running around pre-war facilities, small desert towns and raider camps and fighting a pre-war technological threat.
In the words of Snake Plissken: "The more things change the more they stay the same." It's the nature of the beast.[/QUOTE]
Okay, but even in Mad Max there's evidence of social advancement over time. In the Road Warrior there's just the Refinery and Lord Humongous's gang, but has the socially complex Bartertown in Beyond Thunderdome and even later in Fury Road has the hierarchically organized and economically interconnected societies of the Citadel, Gastown and the Bullet Farm. One of the seminal works of post-apocalyptia, a Canticle for Leibowitz, charts humanity's rebuilding after a nuclear war all the way until people have goddamn space ships. I'm sorry, but the notion that post-apocalyptic fiction means that people are eternally doomed to wallow in dirt forever is complete bogus.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
