What game series is most realistic based on lore?

[scottym23]

The title pretty much explains it all, and the two game series i'm referring to are TES and Fallout. I think TES wins by a long shot and i'll explain why:

 

When making a game realistic (based on the lore of the game) it's MUCH easier to compensate the few flaws that are inevitable by making the game fantasy like. The protagonist in any game (the main player) is always going to be the strongest, or one of the strongest. And in order to make it believable and realistic when taking on hordes of enemies, it's easy to just say, "Oh well the main character is the dragonborn, and therefore has the blood of the dragon and is more powerful than most people". In Oblivion the emperor at the beginning of the game tells you that you're practically the chosen one he's seen in his dreams that will play an important part in the upcoming crisis. Since we know there are gods (the divine and the daedric princes) it makes sense that you don't die as easily as others because you've got "guardian angels" so to speak looking after you.

 

But for a game series such as Fallout, it's much harder to stay realistic. The lore of that game series is pretty realistic to start with, besides the mutated animals and creatures. Everything else is plausible since in the future they could build smart intelligent robots and weapons as advanced as lasers. But they don't do a very good job at justifying the protagonist's (the lone wanderer, or courier) almost super human abilities. In fact they do a pretty good job at making you seem especially normal. So how is it that as a 19 year old vault dweller with little to no combat experience, you're able to leave the vault and go directly to an abandoned school overrun by a gang of a dozen or more well equipped and armored raiders and obliterate them all? I always thought that the Fallout 3 story line would have been better if you left the vault with good weapons and armor in pristine condition (because it's vault issued of course) and maybe had a background in combat being a security guard. It would have at least made it slightly realistic. The way it is in the game though doesn't make much sense, even for the lore of the Fallout series.

 

So what do you think? Which one would you say is most realistic based on the lore of that game?

Edited August 31, 2012 by scottym23

[brokenergy]

Neither because it's set in an alternative universe with it's own rules

[Vagrant0]

In fact they do a pretty good job at making you seem especially normal.

Yes, and no. Generally speaking, there are relatively few games out there that don't impart some level of sudden expertise to set you above everyone else. Just usually these things are such that they are covered by a backstory. FO3 technically shot itself in the foot by having that whole childhood part of the game, but also by throttling encounters such that there really isn't anything (outside of a Supermutant Behemoth) that would necessarily leave the player outmatched and running for their life (not that they actually can run for their life). The original Fallout games were quite different in that you could easily be killed by the first few encounters despite being a tribal in the second game. But this has more to do with current trends regarding game difficulty than anything about the individual game. Even Morrowind was more brutal early on than Oblivion.

[scottym23]

In fact they do a pretty good job at making you seem especially normal.

Yes, and no. Generally speaking, there are relatively few games out there that don't impart some level of sudden expertise to set you above everyone else. Just usually these things are such that they are covered by a backstory. FO3 technically shot itself in the foot by having that whole childhood part of the game, but also by throttling encounters such that there really isn't anything (outside of a Supermutant Behemoth) that would necessarily leave the player outmatched and running for their life (not that they actually can run for their life). The original Fallout games were quite different in that you could easily be killed by the first few encounters despite being a tribal in the second game. But this has more to do with current trends regarding game difficulty than anything about the individual game. Even Morrowind was more brutal early on than Oblivion.

 

Yeah I agree that it has more to do with the current trends as you said, and i'm not saying I don't like the fact that games seem to be getting easier. All i'm saying is that if you're going to make a game that easy, at least give the player a back story or explanation as to why they've got this sudden expertise. And I know most games do give back stories that explain it, I don't think Fallout 3 does which was what I was referring to. If you could explain to me how the vault story (or any of the main Fallout 3 story) gives any explanation to his physical prowess i'd greatly appreciate it.

 

Thanks for your comment!

[scottym23]

Neither because it's set in an alternative universe with it's own rules

 

I don't think you understand the three most important words in the title, "based on lore". I'm assuming you know what lore is, basically the makeup of that particular universe and it's laws and history. Just because a game is set in an alternative universe with it's own rules doesn't mean an aspect can't be unrealistic based on just that; it's own rules.

 

Anyway thanks for your comment.

[brokenergy]

Neither because it's set in an alternative universe with it's own rules

 

I don't think you understand the three most important words in the title, "based on lore". I'm assuming you know what lore is, basically the makeup of that particular universe and it's laws and history. Just because a game is set in an alternative universe with it's own rules doesn't mean an aspect can't be unrealistic based on just that; it's own rules.

 

Anyway thanks for your comment.

 

I do and I state that both are unrealistic. What you are talking about is not realism

[scottym23]

Neither because it's set in an alternative universe with it's own rules

 

I don't think you understand the three most important words in the title, "based on lore". I'm assuming you know what lore is, basically the makeup of that particular universe and it's laws and history. Just because a game is set in an alternative universe with it's own rules doesn't mean an aspect can't be unrealistic based on just that; it's own rules.

 

Anyway thanks for your comment.

 

I do and I state that both are unrealistic. What you are talking about is not realism

 

Obviously both of them aren't realistic and are in a different universe, that's common knowledge. This topic was about which one was the MOST realistic, not if either of them were or not...So saying neither doesn't make any sense.

[JimboUK]

The problem with Oblivion, Fallout 3 and Skyrim isn't one of realism it's that the whole world is scaled to the player, you're never too weak or too strong. In that sense none of them are realistic in the slightest. Morrowind got it right, if you walked into the wrong place as a low level player you died, you had to build your character up before attempting to access these places. New Vegas was similar, leave Goodsprings and turn left rather than right at the bottom of that hill and enemies there will kill you, again you had to build your character up before accessing certain areas. Admittedly the world was set up to push the player in the direction the devs wanted but still the result is the same, you weren't a god from the start. The older Fallouts were even less forgiving.

 

I remember an interview with Todd Howard where he said "Let the player win", this for me sums up everything that is wrong with modern day Bethesda, they don't understand that success is meaningless without the possibility of failure and that winning is no fun if that win is handed to you on a plate.

[Thedragonemperor]

If I had to choose one or the other, I would argue for Fallout. It's arguably based on our history, except for a key divergence point where everything went towards a different kind of history compared to us. In their alternate history, it can be argued that having laser weapons right next to computers from the Dos era makes sense.I mean, they have fusion batteries. We can't even really make fusion work for us and we have computer technology 100 times more advanced than what they seem to operate on. I don't know. I guess it all makes sense in the "If our history split into a completely different focus in technology and went on for 100+ more years than our current time" sense. Edited September 1, 2012 by Thedragonemperor

[scottym23]

If I had to choose one or the other, I would argue for Fallout. It's arguably based on our history, except for a key divergence point where everything went towards a different kind of history compared to us. In their alternate history, it can be argued that having laser weapons right next to computers from the Dos era makes sense.I mean, they have fusion batteries. We can't even really make fusion work for us and we have computer technology 100 times more advanced than what they seem to operate on. I don't know. I guess it all makes sense in the "If our history split into a completely different focus in technology and went on for 100+ more years than our current time" sense.

 

Thanks for your comment, but again people aren't understanding what i'm asking. The question that you answered was one along the lines of, "Which game is more realistic?" That is NOT the question I am asking. The "based on lore" part is where people misunderstand what I mean. In the Fallout lore, laser weapons and fusion works. That's just a fact and doesn't affect the game's realism based on lore AT ALL. It's the same way as having dragons in Skyrim doesn't affect the realism either, because that's part of the lore. The part i'm talking about is combat and how you can take on 50 enemies at a time in Fallout without dying, or how you can take multiple shots to the face by a sniper rifle or combat shotgun and barely flinch. There is no where in the game's lore that states any human player should have that resistance, in fact it's quite the opposite. THAT is an example of a lore breaking aspect. I'm not saying you're wrong in thinking Fallout is more realistic based on lore than TES series, but the reasons you gave didn't have to do with the main question at all. Sorry if i'm sounding rude or impatient, it's just it seems a lot of people are having a hard time grasping the question in it's entirety.

 

Thanks for your comment though!