I’m convinced they did it in purpose to highlight what a dumbass Caesar is. He verbatim says dialectics makes it inevitable that the NCR is destroyed by him, which is just so incredibly stupid. If you read enough of Hegel to write Caesar talking about Hegel as he does, then you’ve read enough to know that would be about the dumbest you could say.
Look the only critique I can leverage at new Vegas is that there isn’t a communist or anarchist ending where the courier unites the disparate communities and makes something that lasts until after the courier dies. I want to be the Stalin of the wasteland.
Edit: After getting the Lee Kuan Yew speeches on my Instagram reels I also realise Houses “give me 20 years” speech is taken from there. The people behind the game were very politically aware.
Also apparently fallout 1, 2 and new Vegas are based on a tabletop game the designers played? Arcade Gannon was Josh Sawyer’s character
Having seen a documentary about the production the designers wanted the game to be about “letting go of Old World Blues”. All the factions cling to the past, to systems that led them to where they are today. I take it they were a bit better than regular US radlibs, which is why there isn’t any left-bashing, but they probably see communism as part of that old world blues too. It would also go against their goal if there was an obvious “good” ending.
That said it would have done wonders for the political awakening of a bunch of people if there was one. Or, at least, if it was made clear the courier was likewise constrained by their environment, so the reason a post-post-apocalyptic spartacist movement isn’t possible is because the courier and like individuals can’t think like that. The red scare has long tendrils.
Or at least a yes-man ending that wasn’t going all “great man” theory about the courier, where everything revolves around them and their presence.
Yep, the writers are progressives, but not commies. If they had written an explicitly communist path, it likely would have been a “good in theory, bad in practice” type commonly seen in western writing.
I’m convinced they did it in purpose to highlight what a dumbass Caesar is. He verbatim says dialectics makes it inevitable that the NCR is destroyed by him, which is just so incredibly stupid. If you read enough of Hegel to write Caesar talking about Hegel as he does, then you’ve read enough to know that would be about the dumbest you could say.
Fair enough, intentional or not it works well narratively.
Look the only critique I can leverage at new Vegas is that there isn’t a communist or anarchist ending where the courier unites the disparate communities and makes something that lasts until after the courier dies. I want to be the Stalin of the wasteland.
Edit: After getting the Lee Kuan Yew speeches on my Instagram reels I also realise Houses “give me 20 years” speech is taken from there. The people behind the game were very politically aware.
Also apparently fallout 1, 2 and new Vegas are based on a tabletop game the designers played? Arcade Gannon was Josh Sawyer’s character
Yea, sadly I feel that the writers just didn’t want to write a meaningfully left ending.
Having seen a documentary about the production the designers wanted the game to be about “letting go of Old World Blues”. All the factions cling to the past, to systems that led them to where they are today. I take it they were a bit better than regular US radlibs, which is why there isn’t any left-bashing, but they probably see communism as part of that old world blues too. It would also go against their goal if there was an obvious “good” ending.
That said it would have done wonders for the political awakening of a bunch of people if there was one. Or, at least, if it was made clear the courier was likewise constrained by their environment, so the reason a post-post-apocalyptic spartacist movement isn’t possible is because the courier and like individuals can’t think like that. The red scare has long tendrils.
Or at least a yes-man ending that wasn’t going all “great man” theory about the courier, where everything revolves around them and their presence.
Yep, the writers are progressives, but not commies. If they had written an explicitly communist path, it likely would have been a “good in theory, bad in practice” type commonly seen in western writing.