Poll: Do you like your apocalypse fixable, or doomed forever?

[Lord Garnaat]

I was going over some Fallout: New Vegas stuff recently, and was reflecting on how much I love the NCR. I realize that they're not perfect, but damn it at least they're trying to make the wasteland a better place. I appreciate that they give order and democracy and rule of law back to the chaos and disharmony that is the wasteland, which is why I can't help but support them whenever I play Fallout.

I learned, however, that one of the important people behind the series, Chris Avellone, despises the NCR. He's of the opinion that including a real civilization to the games has taken away from the idea that it's the post-apocalypse, and everything is pretty much terrible all the time. Apparently he's hoping to destroy it in the future if he gets the chance, but I can't help but feel that's not a good way to think of the situation.

Why is having a civilized influence, trying to bring the old world back, such a bad thing in a game like this? Surely a desperate and desolated place like the Fallout world can't stay that way forever - isn't it inevitable that humanity will start to rebuild eventually? If they can't, then what's the point of playing to begin with, if nothing you do can make any sort of difference? I don't know, it seems like the inclusion of the NCR is just a suggestion that things are starting to come back, and while I can understand that Avellone worries it might defeat the whole apocalyptic setting I can't help but feel that without that indication there'll really be something lost in the series.

What's your opinion? Should apocalypse settings be able to recover, or is Avellone right ot think that the NCR should burn and die?

 

[Dismal purple]

Depends on how much grimdark you want.

 

[tilmoph]

Depends; I like my impending or threatened apocalypses to be of the "doomed forever" variety; giant space gods will eat reality or some bored cosmic level super will unmake all the universes or something.

In something like Fallout, where the setting is after the apocalypse, I prefer the sense that things can be rebuilt. I'll accept they may need to be done differently to account for different resources, but I just can't buy that with a decent number of humans (or whatever new form of sapient life takes over for humans), civilization stays dead forever, tech never going beyond scavenging. It just doesn't add up for me.

 

[Dr. Cakey]

Isn't a fixable apocalypse somewhat contrary to the concept of "apocalypse"?

But I guess that really only counts when you've got a bona fide Wrath of God-type apocalypse.

 

[The Gnome King]

What's your opinion? Should apocalypse settings be able to recover, or is Avellone right ot think that the NCR should burn and die?

Personally - and this honestly boils down to taste and opinion no matter how you slice it - I like my apocalypse settings "with a side of hope" - ala, with the NCR or something like it. I like the idea that there can be a rise from the ashes, or a glimmer of hope.

Quite frankly, a game or setting where there is no hope and the world is just utterly and hopelessly irredeemable and broken sounds boring. It's kind of why I'm not too into "cosmic horror" Call of Cthulhu style roleplaying games where everything is hopeless in the face of bone-shattering power and mad-God terror. It's just all too... blah. I don't know, for me the fun is in the story and the story is in the human experience of being able to beat the odds, in hope.

 

[Norithics]

I always find the idea of the Permanent Apocalypse rather laughably egotistical. It seems to come from this idea that once you've destroyed a still frame in culture, you've destroyed Culture itself. In reality, however, humanity has risen from something far worse than any apocalypse: its beginnings. If we could rise to where we are now from bashing pigbeasts' skulls in with rocks, then crushing some buildings and infrastructure feels less like "Humanity is doomed" and more like "Welp, who's gonna unify China this time?" We simply aren't programmed to stagnate; we're an arrogant animal that builds despite anything.

 

[Vern5]

In fiction, a "Doomed forever" scenario is essentially boring. If we're given overwhelming proof that the world is doomed and that total destruction is only a matter of time, then the setting loses all tension. There is no "will it or wont it?" tension because we know that that everything is over. Thus the entire setting becomes tedious and anything that occurs within that setting is pointless in the face is unswerving doom.

On the other hand, a "fixable" apocalypse sounds like an ass-pull. It diminishes the threat of something like an apocalypse if it is even remotely reversible.

 

[Queen Michael]

I don't want an apocalypse where the ruined world can go back to normal again. If there is hope for the world, it should be the hope that we can go on living more primitively but still live at least. No quick-fixes.

 

[PFCboom]

I believe it was George Carlin who mentioned how the Earth will basically correct itself, no matter how much the human race screws it up. Short of some planet-destroying cataclysm, it will correct itself and we'll have a beautiful blue and green marble in space, in time.
Also, in case of a zombie/parasite (The Last of Us) apocalypse, well, I'm sad to say that they'd be dealt with in short order. There are enough pests and vermin to strip a zombie to the bone, and any extreme temperatures will cause a zombie to either become to cold and stiff to move, or so hot that their decomposition would accelerate. Also, we humans are really, REALLY good at defending ourselves.

Long story short: An apocalypse might not be "fixable" in the sense that humans can just science - science: verb, to apply appropriate sciences to a situation towards some end or another - everything better. It's more like any apocalypse would be self-fixing... or something like that.

Edit: It occurs to me, mere moments after posting, that I didn't really answer the topic question. So, yes, I'd prefer my apocalypse to be fixable, either through science, or simply bunkering up and waiting for a good while.

 

[Heronblade]

The inclusion of the NCR just opens up new, and quite important possibilities. Without hope and/or a sense of progress, what the bloody hell is the point? If anything, it allows for even more desperate scenarios. What do you think happens if this last light of civilization is once again snuffed out? Just how many times can you really expect humanity to pull itself back on its feet?

I can understand the feeling that real civilization messes with the grim atmosphere (although personally I think the goofy retro-futuristic look of the series does much more harm along this line), but this is simple enough to solve. Just stay on the frontier. There will always be places and opportunities where the land and its people are more than wild enough. New Vegas made the mistake of centering itself around a place that nearly matched prewar opulence, at least on the surface. Fallout 3 on the other hand had the balance just about right in my opinion.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

An apocalypse that does not result in doom for all isn't much of an apocalypse.

 

[Vegosiux]

I'd prefer my apocalypse to be fixable. If causing it was fun the first time, maybe I can try something different next time! And-

Uh, am I saying this out loud? I mean, did I say "apocalypse"?

 

[Johnny Impact]

The apocalypse story can be made poignant as points of light gradually dimming into total darkness as the radiation/zombies/whatever slowly gain ground, or in a situation where desperation and hopelessness prevail, but there's just enough hope to encourage you to go on, or in other ways. I care about poignancy. I don't so much care whether it can be fixed or not, so much as whether it's a well-told story provoking thought and/or emotion.

 

[briankoontz]

I always find the idea of the Permanent Apocalypse rather laughably egotistical. It seems to come from this idea that once you've destroyed a still frame in culture, you've destroyed Culture itself. In reality, however, humanity has risen from something far worse than any apocalypse: its beginnings. If we could rise to where we are now from bashing pigbeasts' skulls in with rocks, then crushing some buildings and infrastructure feels less like "Humanity is doomed" and more like "Welp, who's gonna unify China this time?" We simply aren't programmed to stagnate; we're an arrogant animal that builds despite anything.

The likely real-world apocalypse is the ecological one, which may claim all of humanity despite it's tendency to not wish to die off.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

The NCR is doomed at the moment, even if they do win out in New Vegas. The nation is just spread too thin to handle itself, and it's put all its chips in the Mojave. The Mojave campaign is not popular at all back in California, where the country has just finished up two costly wars with the Enclave Remnants and then the Brotherhood of Steel. Suddenly pushing all your armed forces into a meatgrinder at Hoover Dam (thank you so much Lee Oliver) stretches border patrols extremely thin.

The NCR is corrupt, and falling into the same pitfalls of the old world. There are good people in it, sure, but good intentions mean nothing when you steamroll people's rights in favor of unpopular wars and land grabs.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

I think there needs to be some level of hope to the whole thing. To me, half the point of post-apocalyptic fiction is the juxtaposition of humanity at its worst (Raiders, Bandits, Slavers, etc.) and humanity at its best (groups of people who band together to form communities where they work to take care of one another). If you put them in a setting in which there is literally absolutely no hope whatsoever, then what's the point?

Heck, even mind-numbingly depressing post-apocalyptic fiction (Cormac McCarthy's "The Road" is a perfect example) had SOME hope in it that there are still good people out there and we stand a chance.

 

[Olas]

Well if there's no hope for the future then there's pretty much nothing at stake is there? And if nothing's at stake then there isn't much tension or drama and all I'm left with apathy about everything.

Besides, it's realistic that humans would try to band together and fix everything, it's in our nature more than anything else. That's not optimism, it's just observation. In real life the post apocalyptic world wouldn't be all fighting for resources, it would be a bunch of trading and cooperating.