You're talking to the person whose avatar is the Alex Jones website. I don't know if their harbors nor horizons are open to being broadened.

My apologies, I misunderstood your statement.

But you are mistaken, there are different types of those ideologies, as you have stated, but beside systems being different, individuals inside those systems see them differently on individual level, hence there are different definitions of those systems.

Also, people outside those belief systems define things as being "communism", "Christianity", "Satanism" even if they aren't actually that. Hence RWNJ calling everything they don't like as "communist" or Christian fundamentalist calling *insert denomination here* as Satanists.

If you mean that people percive and interpret things differntly, then that is true. However, this does not change the definitions of those things. Neo-Marsism is defined by certain paramters that makes it Noe-Marxism, if it did not then it would not be Neo-Marxism. When enough people meet up with a different interpretation, this do not change the original definition, but you get the start of a new system (a differrnt political system, a different denomination) wwhich is then defined by the new intrpretations. This is how systems change and evolve.

Yes, but thos people are wrong, usually they are strawmaning the systems they are outside of because they do not understand them (there is also a lot of in-group bias). Being wrong do not change the definitions, it is just being wrong

You're the one to start this tirade of falsehoods in the wake of my off-hand joke and then blame others for your behavior. I apologize for doubting your commitment to Communism.

I do not tell falsehoods. I am many things, but never a liar. And I am not committed to Communism, I said I am good capitalist in practice, but I need to get even better one.

There's no doubt in my mind you didn't consciously lie; you wouldn't be much of a Communist if you actually understood any of these words. Amok has made crystal clear what you're getting wrong, most notably the delusion between subjectivity and objectivity.

"Capitalist by practice" is just a weaselly confession that anything else is unsustainable.

The avatar is a reminder and my stance at being anti-censorship. when all the big techs seemingly within a few hours did a coordinated move and all banned him off their platforms without him breaking Terms of service. Pretty blatant move. Were he reinstated I'd happily go back to cute little Fidget.

Just finished watching it yesterday and I like it.

As a reference, my opinions are really close to those of Critical Drinkers, and I have an immeasurable impatience to watch series, so for me to 'survive' this one really means something.

Some things to point out that I think might be good for judgement (possible minor spoilers?):

» From the three "main characters", Ghoul character is probably the best and most complex character in this first season. I will not extend it further for heavy spoiler risk, because this is a very important character (and interesting) and the series is recent. I will respect those who read it and stop here; :)

» There are MANY Fallout game series story, lore, world, themes, and so on references and at least two BIG moments at the end for Fallout games fans, which is probably the reason I will try to watch Season 2, if they ever produce it;

» It shows that its a gamble production with 'low investment', but, for what it is, its ok;

» Dark humor all over the place (just like the games) and some set ups and payoffs that work well in the series world;

» Too much gore (...just like the games). So if you're sensitive to heavy and realistic practical effects (make up), blood, bone, body parts, explosions, and so on, avoid. They're well done imo and thought out, so they work with the theme of how violent the world of Fallout is;

» Sound effects and musics seems to be used directly from the games, specially the gore and gun sounds. Soundtrack is simply amazing. Full of musics from the games and that fits the world and scenes context.
Really enjoyed the songs used in the episodes;

(Possible minor spoilers warning 2)

» Story sets up many questions and then answer them briefly in the last 3 episodes, creating this effect of "this answer is good enough to create more questions that feel worth of being answered", which is good, albeit not being that complex. The morals and political themes were always present in Fallout, so the Communist and Capitalist themes are welcomed here, and we can interpret them (at least for now in the first season) that the series isn't trying to say X vision is Good and Y vision is Bad, but that those visions exist in Fallout's World and that there are people fighting for their sides, be it X, Y, Z, A, B .. or whatever, because the world of Fallout is complex and the series shows that well imo.

One minor spoiler here: There are two phrases that are well used in some episodes to show this idea: "Everybody agrees in saving the world. They just disagree on how to do that." Also, another one: "War never changes."

Both are used in moments of ideological and physical conflict, in the sense of saying that humanity is always trying to do what they think its best for them at the moment with what they have, be it for own survival, be it for greed, be it for a false sense of justice that cause more injustice, and is well shown for many of the sides in the episodes, at least, for now in Season 1. Lets see if they will favor one world view or other in the next one, which I have a feeling they will, because of many set ups from this first season.

So yeah... Lets see how they will do it in the next.

HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:

HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:
HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:

HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:
HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:

HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:
HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:

HEAVY SPOILER WARNING:

NV fans will like the many references from the game in it. The literal game menu song present in at least 2 episodes, the flagship armor and many NV guns used by desert inhabitants and so on.
Really a joy to see in a series like this and well done too, so yeah, that's nice.

Still talking on spoilers and easter eggs, I loved the last one in the last episode (The Mojave Desert and the New Vegas city itself being the focus of the next season), which shows their focus on pleasing NV fans, what is their focus, and specially that NV is now officially canon to the series. (At least for now, depending on what happens next.)

It seems they made this series recognizing that NV is probably the most beloved game in the series.
To add to that, it feels personally to me as a 'sorry' from its writers for FO4's hated main story or a way to appeal to Obsidian fans for whats coming next.

Seemed this thread derailed quite a bit.

I agree the show isnt exactly respectful to the source material but to be fair, neither is Bethesda.

As a very casual fan with limited knowledge of Fallout, I think its a good show and you are overstating the "wokeness" in it.

In regard to the "men being incompetent and the women are badasses," going to go into a little spoilers but we only see 3 women being competent: Main character Lucy, Harper (eyepatch lady), and council woman Betty. Lucy isnt hyper competent and the story is a good character study of an intelligent but naive person realizing the how mistaken she was and learning about "real life." Honestly a good allegory of the rich experiencing what common folk experience after leaving their ivory tower. Harper and Betty are competent but they also come from vault 31. Its strongly implied as the story goes on that dwellers of vaults 32 and 33 are purposefully put down so it is always someone from Vault 31 that is an overseer. Norm (Lucy's brother) is also one of the more competent characters in the series.

Lucy is not a mary sue like Rey. She gets her naive ideals thrown back in her face time and time again and beaten and bruised because she is naive. People literally mock her for her naivety and she gets taken advantage of time and time again, allowing her to evolve into a tough survivor. It is established in the first episode that she is smart and has some rifle training but she is far from a competent solo badass and goes through alot of loss through the series.

Maximus is a weird character. I dont know about the brotherhood to be fair but if its supposed to be a post-apocalyptic version of the crusaders, it kind of works. Dont really like how inconsistent he is in terms of capability and it is hard to gauge how competent the brotherhood actually is. He also isnt a good foil to Lucy, also occasionally being very naive unlike the Ghoul who is the standout of the show. Maximus does grow as a character as well in the series and may be more favorable in later seasons.

I do think storywise, this show really doesnt get alot done which may be intentional (the "golden rule" of the wasteland is you get sidetracked by BS) and while that works for a video game, it doesnt work for a tv show or movie. It really isnt until the second to last to last episodes where big progression takes place in the story imo. The last episode is also quite good after a bunch of really mediocre episodes tbh.

I prefer other shows like the Boys more but this is still a good tv show imo and has potential. The lead actress did a good job and actually played the games to get a better sense so props to her for that. Its a good thing Walton Goggins is a ghoul because he carried this show on his back. Easily the best character in the show.


SPOILERS
















I suppose one problem for fans of the franchise is the show is moving toward surface world vs Vault-Tec. Vault-Tec is the ultimate bad guy. something they were planning for in the cancelled movie and is now canonized with this series. Given the games seem to be more one-off stories about addressing the issue of survival rather than a battle against one big bad, I can see fans not enjoying the story as it continues for that reason as well. I think, it approaching the tv series as its own unique canon or fan canon seperate from the games, its a promising show.

I have no delusions between subjectivity and objectivity. Argument between Amok and me was if names have strict definition, or their meaning depends on context and use. I am firmly in the second camp, and Amok may call those wrong, but it doesn't change the fact that someone's subjectivity affects the objective use of the word, else you wouldn't be using the word "communism" to describe very capitalistic corporations. I just gave up on discussing things further.

Nothing is sustainable long term, current system certainly not for very long. Capitalistic system you want probably even less so because "healthy competition" sounds idealistic and naive as hell.

You are a political Schrödinger's cat. If I observe you, would you get fixed in either state?

The last thing a NV fan would care about are if the guns and armors are accurate lol, I mean it's a nice detail don't get me wrong, but they also mess with so much stuff (House, the status of Shady Sands during the events of the game, vaults popping out of nowhere) that it means nothing

And the city is also in a weird state, kinda dilapidated with no neon signs and Freeside missing

Keep in mind, though, that the TV series is set 15 years after NV. A lot could have hppened to it in that time, it also off course depends on which of NV endings that should be considered as canon.

Unless something changed greatly in meaning of political compass quiz, theoretically I am somewhere in the middle of down-left, practically I would say somewhere closer to the middle but still within lower-left quadrant. As far as pro-capitalists are concerned, that's not different from communist, no matter if you consider their subjective definition wrong.
Considering how different Fallout 4 guns are from mostly realistic guns in previous Fallout titles, I consider that game separate fantasy continuity. Trying to fit realistic New Vegas guns in show which takes place in Fallout 4 continuity is stupid.

True, but at the same time they're so fucking ugly I'm grateful for any opportunity to NOT see them