Why It’s Fair Game to Criticize the Nukes in Fallout 76

Once upon a time, back in August of 2016, I wrote that Fallout is dead, and that Nuka World, the final DLC for Fallout 4, killed it. But folks, that was before I’d heard of Fallout 76. And even after hearing about Fallout 76, which I’ve been cutting some slack because it’s not a core entry in the series, I’ve been holding out hope. Who knows, I argued, maybe they could use this as an opportunity to observe some of the issues the players had with Fallout 4 and do a little course-correction before Fallout 5.
But I am a foolish little baby woman who does stupid things.
This past week, Twitter has been abuzz with criticism of Fallout 76 in the wake of their recent preview event in West Virginia. Gamespot posted footage collected from their demo showcasing a nuclear explosion, which is a playable feature of the open world MMO, in combat against other factions of players. Longtime fans of the series were upset, citing the material’s deviation from the core premise and values of Fallout, while others expressed disbelief over the objection in light of the game’s content, which includes many other ways to inflict violence on others.
Gamespot, who captioned the footage as “EPIC,” eventually deleted the Tweet, but the conversation has lingered. Is it fair for fans to take issue? In many ways it reminds me of the original controversy when Bethesda released Fallout 3, which many consider a farce compared to the tone of the first two games. The series’s themes of survival, cooperation and competing ideologies were almost entirely eclipsed by the change in setting and de-emphasis on groups and factions. While New Vegas was able to somewhat provide a path to bridging the gap between the two eras of Fallout, in the end, Fallout 4 only did more damage. It’s as if every subsequent generation of Fallout is meant for a new audience, with little thought to the existing fanbase.
Fallout 76 repeats this pattern by completely ignoring everything that people loved about it in the first place. Factions are replaced by your team, NPCs now consist of other players, and stories are removed to make way for the sort of tasks and goals you self-assign in some vain quest for arbitrary glory. The mystique of abandoned buildings undisturbed, of unique weapons with a story to tell: it’s all destroyed for the repetition of raids and loot drops and grinding. The stillness and loneliness of a world destroyed is gone, swapped for hostile strangers on your local server.
But more than that, there’s this business with the nukes. In Fallout 76, you can literally drop bombs on other players (or rather, in general widespread areas, where those caught in the path of destruction will receive some notice, so they can evacuate). And this is probably the most egregious departure from the original series of all. Granted, there are many ways to kill people in Fallout (though no-kill playthroughs are possible), but this is different. We’ve spent years and years walking through the decay and dust of Fallout games and seen the (fictional, but still impactful) results of war—the conflict, the murders, the discord, the opportunists, the misguided dictators and the path of destruction they leave behind. While some of us may have taken the most nihilistic approach in our journeys through Fallout 3, New Vegas, or Fallout 4, or took the neutral, self interested way out in the original games, in general, there is a loose sense of affinity. Most of us don’t want to harm others unless we have to.
There’s a difference, in ethics and philosophy, between dropping a nuke (effectively salting the Earth and killing many people at once) versus shooting someone in the face, in that the distance afforded by technology plays a role in how we separate ourselves cognitively from the results of our actions, making it easier to engage in violence. This goes to a meta level when you consider videogames are virtual environments with real people represented by digital faces.