I like post apocalyptic stuff. The mad max or zombie-virus aesthetic isn't exactly fresh loam for the imagination, but generally the setting tends to lend itself to greater mechanical variety than straight sci fi / fantasy material... To explain myself..:
In most settings, particularly video games, that are not P-A, there is a greater sense of established order and 'status quo'. Typically, side missions aside, all efforts in the game exist to support the narrative goal of maintaining the existing order, overthrowing corrupt order or, most commonly, preventing the end of the world. The matrices of choice within this tend to lean towards a binary, or polar spectrum of good or evil, strength or stealth, lethal or non-lethal. See: Mass Effect, Deus Ex HR, Skyrim, Infamous, Dragon Age and multitudes of other titles. Exceptions exist, of course.
In P-A settings, by contrast, the same mechanics often exist, but not exclusively in service to a singular goal and often without a central authority to answer to. The end times have already come and gone and the past is prologue. Typically there are still central antagonists that must be brought down, but the stakes are often more regional and more personal in scope than 'the world'. Surrounding that, too, is a greater freedom to explore player expression in lawlessness and narrative freedom to imagine a greater diversity of subcultures and societies that have emerged in a smaller area. STALKER, Fallout(s), Metro and a few others come to mind.
Basically, what I'm driving at is that P-A, in the broad strokes, offers writers greater leverage to create less uniform and more diverse worlds and players more freedom to evaluate the merits of the different sides of conflict and support the values they embody through a greater choice of approach... At least, that is what I love about it - DONE WELL... There is nothing, however, inherent to the nature of the setting that will make it "better" than another or protect it from poor design and writing.
