http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Mutant_cannibal :deal:

I agree with this question. Fallout, from original to present was never about 'scare' Fallout is about survival, that has always been the whole point of the series. 'Despite is all, humanity is still surviving and attempting to rebuild.'

Well I admit there were some places that were eerie like Cathedral, Necropolis, Ghost Farm and The Glow but I never felt the game tried to be "scary".
Unnerving perhaps, but never "OMYGODIHEARGHOULSINTHECORRIDORS!"
So shock scare? That can [censored] right off IMO.
And psychological scare? This ain't Silent Hill 2. (On that note, watch the film Frozen, it's about 2 guys and a girl that gets stuck in a lift at a ski resort. When... Well.. At one point in the film I felt like the movie ate a bit of my soul. Was paranoid to go out on the porch at night to smoke for like a month after that.)

Dead Money isn't scary enough? Freaky silent holograms, weird gas-masked killers, and eerie music throughout. I thought it was plenty scary.

I believe I stated why.
The game shouldn't feel terrifying all the time, but when I'm knee deep in a quest in the middle of the night..I should feel on edge.
New Vegas just didn't deliver that.

I will say however, that Dead Money did deliver this to a certain extent.

Still don't get it.
Mojave Wasteland is rather civilized compared to say Arizona pre-Legion or DC.
It doesn't scare you because it's not meant to scare you.
Although, there "are" the vaults... Which I absolutely hate now... All of them feels like they're trying to be some damn horror fest.
Still, when looking at how the game world is designed I don't see why it's suppose to be scary.
And we already have a Saw DLC, let's wish for a PL and RPG DLC instead?

Feel free to discuss it. As for the survival horror thing, try looking at a post a week or two back from the new vegas forum. I think I gave a pretty good response that wrapped up the topic. As for DLC, well while survival-horror isn't given in the Fallout genre at times it does feel like it and it especially did in Fallout 3. Its not a big deal as all these genres we've made due to both technology and the knack to make a game single minded is disappearing as different genre mechanics are being combined into one another.

I wouldn't mind seeing another Dunwich Building like area along with the quest that PO hooked onto it. As a basis for a whole DLC? Not exactly. Then again the Mojave doesn't seem fit for such a thing. And Dead Money does have the survival vibe to the max already. Seems Obsidian has their DLC plans in boot anyways as Bethesda's already gone ahead with the trademarking. Of coarse there's always a chance there'll be 5 DLCs like Fallout 3. I just hope their less inclined to experimentation that they know will be panned by the majority of fans along with more bang for your buck in the DLCs. Thats always good seeing as console owners have settled on having to pay for odds and ends other than large content adding expansions for a low price(Not their fault in a way. Own a 360 myself.)

Is there a JP Lovecraft (Or whatever his/her name is) book I need to read before I get that place?
Cause I honestly never understood what is so great about it.
I found some ghouls, flashed some dude, dropped down more floors than I thought the building had and found some monolith in the basemant.
Never understood what made it so great. :shrug:

Psicological horror, first one in a Fallout game, much worse with the Dunwinch Building Mod

Fallout needs a survival horror aspect based DLC

And the Mojave Wasteland wasnt supposed to have "horror feeling" but the "People constructing their lives in the post-apocalypse world feeling!

It takes place post Nuclear Holocaust, there are supermutants, feral ghouls, and a bunch of other creepy monsters running around... OFCOUSE IT SHOULD BE SCARY!!!

Vegas dissapointed me because the thing I loved the most about the first person thing was standing in near pitch blackness with only a pistol with the sounds of feral ghouls in the distance.

The originals weren't scary because it's probably very difficult to make a scary 2D turnbased game where nothing can run out of the darkness straight at you... well it could be shocking but not scary.

Psychological horror?
Like Amnesia?

*sigh*

The reason why the originals weren't scar, because again, it isn't SUPPOSED to be scary. Fallout was never about thrills, chills, and Michael Bay explosions. It's about ethics and birth of a new world from the ashes of an old one.

I've been hearing that a lot now, what the hell is a Michael Bay?

Fallout wasn..... bah, never mind, what shadowhunt say was enough of what I think,

Not all Fallout games must be scary, because that wasnt the formula of Fallout and that wasnt never supposed to be the Fallout formula of creepines, just because Fallout 3 is scary doesnt means that every next Fallout must be, Fallout 3 has that feeling because it has the "bombs dropped 20 minutes ago feeling"

Fallout isnt about ZOMG GHOUL THATS SCARY, its about life in the Post-Apocalyptic era

Michael Bay is the infamous director of the craptacular Transformers movies who is known for putting excessive explosions in ALL of his movies.

Supermutants arn't scary, they were/are mostly intelligent beings and feral ghouls arn't scary either, they are loony old folks. so no, it shouldn't.
Go play FO3 and go into those damn metro's if you feel the itch for boring atmosphere with boring enemies that just are bullet sponges.

The originals weren't even TRYING to be scary.


He was the world's greatest mistake.

He likes explosion too much

If a DLC involving being strapped with an explosive collar and encountering a Schizo, a limey thief, a mute, a crazy old coot and fighting off creeps in hazmat suits with knife spears and creepy silent holograms counts as 'survival horror' you watch to many terrible modern horror movies.

Why should all sequels stolidly maintain the exact tone and feeling of their source material? Film, literature and games would be less rich if this was always the case, don't you think?

I like a bit of fear & horror, myself. I agree that the Fallout franchise is primarily not 'survival horror' but the occasional element of fear and uncertainty (in a series where one spends most of his time fighting for his life) is not a game breaker. What's terror if not fear of physical damage? What's horror if not fear of mental damage? Both have their place, I think, along with elements of humor, adventure, espionage, etc.

The problem with the Dunwich Building and its associated quest in Point Lookout is that it was supernatural, not that it attempted to be scary. I don't think the supernatural has a place in Fallout (I was hoping for some shudder-pulp [Scooby-Doo] explanation for Dunwich and was disappointed); leave that to Elder scrolls. Dunwich was fun (especially with Agatha's violin music playing), but it has always seemed to me to be a bad fit with the rest of the game.

So, some fear is suitable, I'd say, but the supernatural should be avoided.

I didn't note anything supernatural, per se, when I did vanilla Dunwich in FO3... I didn't realize that there was another part of it in Point Lookout. Supernatural? Really? That's really weird.

Dunwich's apocalyptic logs detailing the descent into feral ghoul-dom were really atmospheric. While strange, I wouldn't say Nyarlehoptep caused the weird cave imagery in the basemant. People just go nuts sometimes, especially ghouls in the post-apocalyptic wasteland.

Supernatural in the Lovecraftian sense, where 'magic' is alien science. In Point Lookout you are quested to return a Necronomicon-style ancient tome to the altar in Dunwich. I suppose you could interpret it differently than I did, but to me even psuedo-supernatural feels weird in Fallout.

I haven't read the entire thread but...

If you guys think Dunwich Building was scary, you don't know what horror is.

No insult intended. Just read some Lovecraft if you need verification.

I feel like I'm in a room full of jaded scientists trying to explain why some people feel fear when they're in the dark and all I'm getting is puzzled looks and comments like "Why should someone ever "fear" the absence of light? It doesn't make any sense."

Your all free to pitch ideas as the topic was intended for. Or maybe it was the sake or argueing if a horror DLC is really needed, many people now expressing Dead Money was enough to try to get a horror-survival feel into the game. I personally find horror subjective, unless the DLCs whole point is to top the subtle horror of Dead Space/2 and "scare" you to -death-. Take a gander at an old post on a similar topic, and I might of had a spot of adderoll to help me:


Alright, keep in mind I haven't thoroughly read every post. I get your point and what you mean. More specifically, the atmosphere of the two games. In all honesty Bethesda achieved something with Fallout 3 I'm not sure anyone will attempt to emulate in the future. And thats the pure bleakness and despair of the whole world they crafted. Its not scary but more so unnerving. The things Fallout 3 depicted or the world itself, the music, and the atmosphere, it all created a mood that didn't make you sad but somehow couldn't help but make you feel drained at how bleak the Capital Wasteland was and would continue to be for some time. It was something Black Isle didn't (And couldn't in the late 90s, or maybe even want to) achieve with Fallout 1 or 2. Which is surprising, for people you consider "nerds" many Fallout fans do love good humor and found Fallout 3 too bleak as well.

And because of this and geographical reasons Fallout New Vegas is different because first Obsidian needed to establish a different mood to differentiate the game from Bethesda's 3, so it didn't seem like a meaningless side story or just an expansion pack just because it wasn't Fallout 4. Plus the west coast, and as Mr. House explained Vegas, wasn't as badly ravaged by nuclear warheads as the east coast which isn't surprising because D.C. is a more high priority target(Or in realistic terms, there should of been barely anything left standing in 3. Wouldn't of made for a good game though, and Fallout in general is far from realistic at times.)

Plus unlike the east coast, or D.C. anyways, the west is slowly starting to recover and even more the NCR states and whatever Caesar's established. So basically that's why New Vegas is different from Fallout 3 and why it doesn't convey the soul-svcking bleak mood of the later.

There were actually no real overtly supernatural elements. It was just eery, and very nicely done.



Because humans are prey. Short answer.