Fallout 4 and the Art of the Sequel

I feel I should preface this by saying I thoroughly enjoyed Fallout 4 in spite of the tone I may take for the rest of the blog. Plenty of aspects of it need tweaking - a weak main story-line, a beginning that has you lock in your playstyle before you really know what you're doing, and a perpetually cluttered inventory - but it's intensely addictive and no matter what point you are in the game you always have something to do, and not only that, you always want to do it. The combat is much more comfortable than ever before, and while the graphics aren't phenomenal (save for the extra effort they put into the hindquarters of the female Vault dweller) the atmosphere is excellent and more than makes up for it.

But that's not really what I want to talk about.

I want to talk about the world of sequels, through video games, movies and television. There's a lot of talk about sequels becoming more and more prominent as of late, and, well, it's a cold hard truth. Take a look at the top grossing films of 2015 - Star Wars, Jurassic World, Minions, Furious 7, Hunger Games, Spectre, Mission: Impossible, Hotel Transylvania 2 and Pitch Perfect 2 are all spawns of previous films, and even those that aren't are not original stories. Ant-Man and Avengers: Age of Ultron have not only come from the past but are essentially the same hero movie on repeat; The Martian and Cinderella have come from a book and a folk tale, respectively. Home is apparently based loosely off a book as well, which is news to me as, somehow, I have yet to have heard of it. The only original - yes, the only purely original movie of the top fifteen is Inside Out. As you move down the list the percentage of original films starts creeping ever higher as the box office totals drop. Due to the successes of sequels I guess you can't blame the companies for  creating them. It's undoubtedly safe as they are already quite certain of the fan base that will come to support the movie/game/show in spite of ratings, bad press, etc. Anyways, this you probably know - it's become old news because we as viewers will flock to these recreations even if they're terrible - I'm looking at you, Hangover sequels.

Video games fare no better. Multiple Call of Duty's will always be at the top along with the latest installments of NBA, FIFA and Madden games. Naturally, Star Wars creeps in there as well. Television on the other hand you would think would be somewhat exempt. It's hard to reboot a show when typically they'll run until they're out of steam, lasting until the viewership wanes and the viewers move on to new programs. But even then, it's polluted by numerous Marvel and DC comics and CSI: [City Name] shows that don't really bring anything new to the table but will nevertheless do quite well in terms of viewership.

Turning away from the tried and tested is an incredible risk. Blizzard Entertainment, my favourite game company of Warcraft, Starcraft and Diablo fame, openly states they don't try to innovate all that much. They take what's already there and established, tweak and fix it relentlessly, and release it as a more polished and perfected version of what's already out on the market. They've also been running with the same set of games for ages (although just recently adding a new franchise to the mix). With that in mind, I should love sequels. It takes what I know and love and enhances it, a system that is not dissimilar to the idea of breast implants.

Also similar to breast implants, something just isn't quite right about it. Without taking any risks, it's hard to produce something really outstanding. I have problems believing that when I see a new Superman movie it'll be in some way new to me, considering the character itself was created in the '30s. Video games suffer the same fate of pigeon-holing themselves, but in a notably different manner. What people want out of the game is essentially the same thing but amped up a little bit; a touch better in terms of graphics, a little smoother gameplay, a few of the bugs worked out and so forth. This is, to a tee, what Fallout 4 is. Now, don't get me wrong, I understand why. If they went an entirely new route - even on a few features - they may anger their die-hard fans, and no single force of people carries more hate and vitriol in their veins than video game fanboys. Worst case, if they stick with the same and screw up there'll be hardly a fan that won't return for Fallout 5, praying it's a return to form and a reboot of the previous games in the franchise. However, if they change it up entirely it might not attract that many back if the game doesn't land particularly well. Call of Duty could have three terrible games in a row, and the majority will still come crawling back - just as long as it stays true to the same formula.

I suppose that's not all bad. You know what you're getting into, and hey, as I said, I did enjoy Fallout. But the problem is any potential for a great breakthrough in the game, that changes it up for the better, is squashed right out of the gate. I'll give them credit - they tried. The game brings in an entirely new feature to the franchise in the creation of settlements in the wasteland, a home to call your own thrown together from scraps of blown out buildings and old mailboxes that you can design to your liking. At the core it's a decent idea, even if in practice it wasn't all that great. Naturally, it's what's caused the rage to rise to the surface from the ever-present force of basement dwelling nerds (of which I am not so proudly a part). Cries of "This isn't Fallout! I want to explore, not play The Sims" became more and more popular.

I believe the reason why it might not have panned out so well is the fact that they tried so strongly to hedge their bets. In holding true to the style of the game (which means changing essentially nothing) they couldn't make settlements too intrusive - which means they are pretty close to useless. Their decision to make settlements mostly optional (you can absolutely pass the game with hardly paying attention to them whatsoever) meant that their focus must have been dragged away to the main core of the game, leaving a sloppily put together unfinished product. They're not all that interesting, provide little benefit, and the player could really use a little more guidance in how they function. Of course they're not going to be all that impressive. Why would they place a heavy emphasis on an optional segment of the game that not every player would participate in?

All this stems from the same problem - people fear change to the point that creators are forced to shy away from anything truly ambitious. New is dangerous, and what's the point of going out there for something new if the tried-and-true will undoubtedly provide you a larger paycheque? I would have really liked if there was a greater focus on settlements which would add a new element to a game that feels exceptionally similar to it's predecessor, even if it is a more polished, complete game. Perhaps if it was a more critical, central part of the game it would have received a little more love, making it less, well, sucky.

So all told, while I enjoyed Fallout 4, there's a part of me that's craving something brand new. Settlements could have provided that bonus to shake up the series, but alas, the will of the fanboy was imposed and only a lightweight attempt was put forth - and due to the lack of effort put in, it ultimately was left wanting. In a perfect world, Fallout would have had the freedom to push themselves in that new direction with the fans of the series willing to at least give it a shot before immediately shooting it down.

Perhaps I'm part of the problem in dutifully buying every sequel to the series' I enjoy and having what I would deem a successful year determined by the enjoyment I received from watching Creed (it was phenomenal, by the way). So, maybe there's no solution. Bring on double-digits of Fast and the... Still Fast. The world needs Call of Duty to come full-circle and go back to the past (I kind of mean that, actually). All I'm hoping for is that innovations to the tried and true be given a fair shake. Give settlements a shot, y'all.