"Fallout" on Prime Video is a front runner for my favorite show of the year so far — but I wish it took a little more inspiration from the best Fallout video game.
Moral ambiguity is not a plus, it is weak writing. Yes, Fallout games are good at giving the player the freedom to do what you will. But actions should have consequences, otherwise there are no real stakes. And that is one of the downsides of the Bethesda versions, as well as Starfield. Emil Pagliarulo has stated that it isn't worthwhile to put effort into writing good stories or having your actions bring real consequences in the world, for good or ill, stating that players would just "make paper airplanes" out of their story. He thinks players just want to shoot stuff. The Bethesda games contain "moral ambiguity" because the main stories are not well planned out, and the plotlines are simple by design. Think of great stories, even in Hollywood, and in the best of them, bad people come to a bad end, and good people may sacrifice for good, but overall heroes win. The Godfather, and the Sopranos, even when the bad protagonist wins, he loses. Walter White and, even Saul Goodman...nobody gets away with it. And in real life, this is usually the case as well. Conversely, Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter have been hugely popular movie series based on well regarded stories, and the dividing line between good and evil in those is as stark and wide as an ocean.
I don't know where this ridiculous notion came from that moral ambiguity equates to good, or gritty writing. Moral ambiguity is not the same thing as showing tempted or weak characters that struggle with doing the right thing, or characters facing moral dilemmas needing to figure out the right path. Those scenarios can be features of good stories. But in a story that is morally ambiguous, the author, and perhaps the audience, are set adrift with no moral compass or direction, and there are no consequences or stakes. Nothing matters, really, and the show or movie cannot rise above spectacle, and the audience is never invested. Perhaps this view that moral ambiguity is desirous comes from the cynicism and nihilism that is a big part of Postmodernism nonsense, and perhaps the article's author has been brought up immersed in that. And there's nothing wrong with a good redemption arc,
even if the article author was wrong on his prediction of Cooper undergoing a redemption arc by the end of the season.
But perhaps we shouldn't expect much from a video game "journalist" who doesn't even bother to watch the released episodes before rushing out this garbage article, especially when so many of the public have watched them all.
In any case, I think the Fallout series is more morally ambiguous than the games.
In the games' canon, the Red Menace is much more real than it was in the Cold War. In the games, China invades Alaska to set off the chain of events, and launches their nukes first. In the series, Vault-Tec seems to have goaded the war into happening by stealing and launching a nuke on their own, or with the help of an allied defense contractor. This isn't presented as a moral dilemma. Armageddon is somehow presented as more profitable, which is ludicrous, because it will spell the end of the economy and any revenue they'd receive. A more plausible scenario would've been Vault-Tec and the defense contractors trying to keep tensions just high enough so they can sell more vaults to the public, and more armament, robots, etc to the military. Then, their efforts to keep the pot simmering but not boil over spiraled out of their control, and they ended up bringing about circumstances that led the Chinese to feel they had to launch. But instead, they series gives the commies a free pass (other than a passing reference to bread lines) and instead makes this a wholesale indictment of capitalism (ironic, given the series was created by rich people in Hollywood, and funded by the one of the largest corporations in the world, headed by one of the riches men in the world. Probably an irony lost on the show's writers). The games had a lighter touch: it lampooned Cold War rhetoric, 50's and 60's laughable safety and health practices, and corporate excess, but it also turned that wit on us, the players. After all, aren't we the real vault dwellers? Isn't America, safe between it's ocean barriers, and (despite media sensationalism) safe from the dangers that historically faced most of humanity, and face many people today? And the games were more humorous in this as well, while the anti-capitalism here is cheerless and edging towards sanctimonious, as Hollywood is wont.
I could go on with other examples.
Despite this, I think it is an enjoyable series. Generally, it keeps the woke propaganda to a surprising minimum, and they nailed the set design and feel. It was a surreal experience to see the games where we've spent so much time brought to life. It's the closest thing to finding yourself waking up from a recurring dream you've had for years, and finding yourself in that dream world. The Fallout world is so unique and rich in details like brands, music, etc, and they got all that right. And besides the plot holes and taking liberties, it does have an engaging story, and I want to see what happens. Maybe in Season 2 it will be revealed that Cooper had talked his wife out her plans , but something like my scenario above happens anyway. That would be an interesting twist, and I think make this a far more interesting story.
Facebook
Twitter