OK so, Fallout is retro futurism. Starting in the 1950, their timeline diverges from the real world. Firearms made prior to 1950 or around that time can be found in the games, but examples of newer firearms are almost non-existent. The reason why is because somewhere along the line, they became obsolete and were replaced by energy weapons. Here's the thing though, by the time we get to see this world (between 2102 in F76 and 2287 in FO4, the earliest and latest ones respectively) guns are between 150 and 337 year old technology. To the people living in the world of Fallout 4, traditional guns are about as old and obsolete as late 17th century firearms (that is, roughly speaking, smooth-bore, flintlock muskets) are to us.

Leaving aside the fact that some of these are way too old to properly function (because you could repair them and bring them back to working condition), doesn't it seem bizarre that guns are the preferred, most widespread kind of weapon in the wasteland?

It leaves us with two options. Either:

A. Energy weapons were introduced shortly before the bombs fell, without having the time to become widespread. Meaning people in this universe spent roughly 100 years without any improvement in their weaponry.

or

B. Energy Weapons were introduced shortly after the 1950s, and that's why gun improvement pretty much stops around that time. But if that's the case, why are guns so widespread? They should have been left behind ages ago.

Honestly, I think a lot of world builders need experts on many different topics for their worlds to make sense. The firearms in Fallout are.... fun, but a bit off at times.

my favorite in fallout 4 is the fact that the g3 uses 5.56 and the lmg in fallout 4 uses 45.acp despite it's mag size clearly meant for 5.56 ammo not forgetting the ak in fallout 3 that uses the same caliber as the g3 overall the weapons are memes.

My canon guess is that distributing energy weapons to the entire United States Armed Forces wasn't cost effective.

From a game play perspective my guess is so that they could make plasma weapons and the like a treasured find (Fallout 3 and New Vegas didn't have the legendary system, which is for the best in my humble opinion).

@Goldencoley OK, but go back to my original argument.

If energy weapons were introduced shortly before the bombs fell (which is what I think the creators intended), then that makes sense. New technology takes a while to adopt, it's expensive, the manufacturing methods are not optimized for it, a lot of people stick to the old simply because they know how to use it... BUT if that's the case we should be able to see some advancement in firearm technology. People wouldn't just sit and spend 100 year using the same weaponry.

If energy weapons were introduced during the 50's or shortly after (which would explain the lack of improvement), then that argument works for a wile, but not for 100 years.

And when it comes to game play, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't poorly designed.

gavin gold wrote:

@Goldencoley OK, but go back to my original argument.

If energy weapons were introduced shortly before the bombs fell (which is what I think the creators intended), then that makes sense. New technology takes a while to adopt, it's expensive, the manufacturing methods are not optimized for it, a lot of people stick to the old simply because they know how to use it... BUT if that's the case we should be able to see some advancement in firearm technology. People wouldn't just sit and spend 100 year using the same weaponry.

If energy weapons were introduced during the 50's or shortly after (which would explain the lack of improvement), then that argument works for a wile, but not for 100 years.

And when it comes to game play, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't poorly designed.

I agree that inconsistencies and poor design were the ultimate deciding factor behind the prevalence of firearms despite the games setting.

gavin gold wrote:

@Goldencoley OK, but go back to my original argument.

If energy weapons were introduced shortly before the bombs fell (which is what I think the creators intended), then that makes sense. New technology takes a while to adopt, it's expensive, the manufacturing methods are not optimized for it, a lot of people stick to the old simply because they know how to use it... BUT if that's the case we should be able to see some advancement in firearm technology. People wouldn't just sit and spend 100 year using the same weaponry.

If energy weapons were introduced during the 50's or shortly after (which would explain the lack of improvement), then that argument works for a wile, but not for 100 years.

And when it comes to game play, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't poorly designed.

I don't know, I can kind of see why ballistic firearms or energy weapons don't have any major improvements.... setting. We've got groups like gun runners and Van Graffs manufacturing old pre-war designs... so manufacturing tech at acceptable levels. We've even got groups like the brotherhood (parts of it)/Enclave/Institute designing and manufacturing new weapons.

But a more functional issue kind of throws everything off.... cost. The average wastelander is properly served hunting or defending their little homestead with a heavy revolver, shotgun, or high-caliber bolt-action. Sure they could commission or build something with higher performance/tolerances like a bozar (in theory how it works, not how it works in NV).... but that's very overkill for their average use-case.

Outside of elite NCR units, elite BoS units, etc.... these crazy complex guns don't really have a place, thus have lower demand. They are going to require more maintenance, expensive ammo with higher tolerances, and be expensive. If demand is low, Gun Runners and Van Graffs aren't going to bust their kiester to design cutting-edge designs, when their average customer just wants a rugged pump-action or service rifle.

@DrumstickBrainTickin246 You're missing the point.

Imagine a story where the apocalypse happens today, and we as the players get to see the world roughly 150 years later. That society would either be: A. Using the kinds of weapons that were commonplace before the apocalypse, because the people that survived and started rebuilding would carry that knowledge with them. Or B. Back to pre industrial weaponry (bows, swords, spears and the like). But it would be very strange to see them using flintlock muskets, wouldn't it? Just about no one these days knows how to use one, let alone make one, so why the hell would they suddenly become common in the post apocalyptic world?

The problem is not that wastelanders aren't going around wielding the most powerful weaponry. Obviously wealthier and more powerful individuals would have access to better weaponry. The problem is the weaponry they use is 1950's technology which shouldn't be around by 2077, let alone 2287.

If you think about it, the world of Fallout is full of these inconsistencies. You don't even have to look too hard for them. If you do, it kinda falls apart. Before I say anything else, I love Fallout! Let's start with that.

Just a few days ago I had the same coversation with my girlfriend. The subject was not weapons though, but the music. Different topic, same issue. I mean, I get it, it's a 50's style world set in the future. That alone is kind of weird, since our world changes it's "style" every decade, but let's just go with it. But why the Hell are people still listening to Peggy Lee, Billie Holiday, Dean Martin and so on? I mean it's okay if their music is still popular, I like to listen to them too ocasionally, even though it's 2020, but really, not a single new singer or band existed, until 2077? Hell, I can believe super mutants, and ghouls, but I'm having a hard time believing that. I don't blame Interplay, if I'm not mistaken you couldn't actually hear these real world songs within the game's world itself, only in the intros, to set the mood. There was no in-game radio. But Bethesda should've hired some bands to write and perform new music in 40's, 50's style and put those on the radio along with the ones we already have. You know, at least a few songs from the past 100 years... Sometimes in Fallout games, it feels like the bombs didn't actually fell in 2077 but an alternative 1950's with robots, and laser guns. That would actually solve all these problems with guns, music, setting, and so on.

The only thing you can do, is just not thinking about it too much. Fallout is not a dead serious franchise anyway. It does have a serious TONE, it can be pretty dark in many ways, but the setting itself is not too serious. It's not trying to be completely believable, otherwise half of the games would've been cut. Fallout to sci-fi is what Star Wars is to....well, sci-fi. Meaning, it's not. It's fantasy with lasers, power armors, and radioactive cola drinks . Now of course, I don't think a fantasy can just do anything and not explain it, it should have it's strict set of rules and deep lore and stick with it consistently. Lord of the Rings is a good example of that. I guess in that regard, Fallout is more like Harry Potter.

Like I said I love Fallout, anyone who answers just keep that in mind. But I think we should be able to criticise things we like. Blind fandom can be harmful in my opinion. Makes the creators not even try anymore. Otherwise feel free to argue with me, or correct me.

@Drutar Yeah, I mean, it's not something to take too seriously, but Bethesda has definitely gotten lazy. You could fix those inconsistencies simply by hiring someone to make a soundtrack for the game and come up with a few new weapons. I mean think about it, that's largely what the Bozar is, a modern automatic rifle made in a 50's ish style. I don't know if they never realized it's supposed to be retro futurism, or they just thought it was too much of a hassle so they just decided to make it exactly as the 1950s.

gavin gold wrote:

I don't know if they never realized it's supposed to be retro futurism, or they just thought it was too much of a hassle so they just decided to make it exactly as the 1950s.

I would go with the first one. They never realized, or at least they misunderstood the specific retro futurism of Fallout. There's a video about this on YouTube, I think the title is "Bethesda never understood Fallout". The guy is talking about this very same problem for at least 20 minutes or more.

Personally I wouldn't say Bethesda (as a whole) doesn't understand Fallout at all, sometimes they nailed the vibe, or a faction, or whatever completely, other times, there are some really stupid moments, or bad writing, or plot holes. I guess some people at Bethesda understand it more than others. That's why it feels inconsistent.

@Drutar I've seen that video, but his point about the retrofuturism was actually wrong. He's right about the fact that Bethesda didn't set the game properly, but for the wrong reasons. The 50's aesthetics, all that stuff about pompadour haircuts and letterman jackets, all that is fine, because 50's retro futurism is still pretty much the 50's, just like any other kind of retrofuturism largely reflects the society that imagined it. The problem is there is nothing to suggest any time has gone by. It's not a 50's style future, it's exactly like the 1950's as if it was frozen in time. If you take away the purely fantastical elements, people live just like they did in the 1950's. That's what I'm saying. Hire someone to make a soundtrack and come up with 1950's style songs. Create some new guns with that old bulky look, and you're golden.

It's not just Bethesda though. People praise Obsidian, and there's no denying that in terms of RPG elements, they do things better, but in every other aspect, Fallout NV has the same problems as all the Bethesda games. The world seems to be frozen in time (you arrive in the Sierra Madre, one of the most advanced and luxurious pre war hotels and what do you find? The automatic Rifle, a 1917 machine). Settlements don't look like settlements at all; people live ankle deep in trash. The game's economy makes no sense...

I can't really argue with your points, not that that I wanna. We're on the same page here.

My example with the music, is pretty much the same as yours with the guns. We're saying the same thing. Basically, it feels like the war started in an alternative 50's, not an alternative 21st century.
Not because of the aesthetics, I agree with you on that topic too. That was one points I also didn't like about that video.

I personally take firearms in the series with a grain of salt, as they tend to vary in appearance from game to game. The classics have an arsenal you'd expect from an 80s action flick from the Desert Eagle to the FAL, and Tactics, canon or not, went even further with real life weapons like the M16A2 (technically the game says its the A1, but the model/sprite is based on an A2) and Beretta M9. Meanwhile modern Fallouts can have retro-futuristic firearms like the 10mm pistol or Fallout 4's assault rifle, then in games like New Vegas we have the Marksman Carbine despite the Sierra Madre being home to the BAR like you mentioned earlier.

marksman carbine:

Whenever I see that modern weapons can't be lore friendly, I always say the Marksman carbine disagrees. Does it fit the retro 50s sci-fi aesthetic? Probably not, but it is in a game that's canon. But yeah, the series as a whole is very inconsistent when it comes to firearms, I'm not going to argue that.

Chinpoko117 wrote:

I personally take firearms in the series with a grain of salt, as they tend to vary in appearance from game to game.


Whenever I see that modern weapons can't be lore friendly, I always say the Marksman carbine disagrees. Does it fit the retro 50s sci-fi aesthetic? Probably not, but it is in a game that's canon.

That's mostly a creativity clash between Bethesda and Obsidian, Obsidian made 1950s firearms relevant. Also about the Marksman carbine, that's not too much of a stretch as the AR platform was designed in the 1950s, here's a photo for reference.

Service Rifle:

Mounting rails aren't really that complicated, it's kind of a "Why didn't I think of that?" advancement.

Dewderson wrote:

Chinpoko117 wrote:

I personally take firearms in the series with a grain of salt, as they tend to vary in appearance from game to game.


Whenever I see that modern weapons can't be lore friendly, I always say the Marksman carbine disagrees. Does it fit the retro 50s sci-fi aesthetic? Probably not, but it is in a game that's canon.

That's mostly a creativity clash between Bethesda and Obsidian, Obsidian made 1950s firearms relevant. Also about the Marksman carbine, that's not too much of a stretch as the AR platform was designed in the 1950s, here's a photo for reference.

Service Rifle:

Mounting rails aren't really that complicated, it's kind of a "Why didn't I think of that?" advancement.

Oh no I agree, they can fit in lore just fine. Some though might argue against it lore-wise, even though the marksman carbine and assault carbine are canon. Personally my only issue with the AR style weapons in New Vegas is not that there are AR-15s in Fallout, but more of the way Obsidian modeled them.

gavin gold wrote:

@DrumstickBrainTickin246 You're missing the point.

Imagine a story where the apocalypse happens today, and we as the players get to see the world roughly 150 years later. That society would either be: A. Using the kinds of weapons that were commonplace before the apocalypse, because the people that survived and started rebuilding would carry that knowledge with them. Or B. Back to pre industrial weaponry (bows, swords, spears and the like). But it would be very strange to see them using flintlock muskets, wouldn't it? Just about no one these days knows how to use one, let alone make one, so why the hell would they suddenly become common in the post apocalyptic world?

The problem is not that wastelanders aren't going around wielding the most powerful weaponry. Obviously wealthier and more powerful individuals would have access to better weaponry. The problem is the weaponry they use is 1950's technology which shouldn't be around by 2077, let alone 2287.

I'd have to disagree; in some circumstances 1950's tech would make perfect sense. WW1/WW2 saw a number of firearms that were revolutionary in how they had simple internals and could made from 90% pressed/bending processes. These would be the ultimate wasteland gun, as almost anyone with machining experience could whip one together in no time.

Especially when taking the flintlock or slam-fire shotgun design into effect.... there's no reason to resort to bows, when a slam-fire or diy break-action rifle is incredibly simple to make.

@DrumstickBrainTickin246 OK, let me elaborate, because maybe the point it's not getting across.

Nobody is saying that 1950's weaponry didn't have a lot going on for it. The issue is the amount of time that has passed. The great war happened in 2077, that's 127 years. By comparison, If you go back 127 years today, you get the year 1893. How many people do you see carrying 1893 weaponry? How many people do you see carrying 1950's weaponry for that matter? Yeah, some gun enthusiasts, history enthusiasts and old timers still use it, but the overwhelming majority of firearms produced, bought and used today, are modern firearms, because as good as those weapons were when they were first invented, time and technology move on. And yeah, we still use old technology to a degree, I mean revolvers are centuries old technology and they're still around, but even then, you see some improvement, it isn't exactly the technology as it was when it was created, as if we were frozen in time. And ultimately that's the issue. It's not that you can't see some old weaponry in fallout is that the world seems frozen in time, like there's no technological advancement, except for the fully sci fi ones, beyond the 1950's.

I'm sure that 1950's weaponry could be effective within the circumstances of Fallout. The problem is that, by the time the apocalypse happened, the world that experienced that nuclear apocalypse should've left those guns behind a long time ago, in the same way we have (in a shorter amount of time btw). Thus, it makes no sense that the people that survived and have been left to inhabit the wasteland would use weaponry that existed such a long time before they were alive, the normal thing would be, if they can't improve on what they have, they would at least carry on using the most common weaponry that was available at the time.

@gavin gold

Yeah exactly. Imagine a post apocalyptic scenario in our world, and no one walks around with Glocks, AR-15s or AKs, but instead Henry rifles, and Single Action revolvers. It makes no sense. I mean sure, people would use those as well. Why the hell not? You would use whatever you can find. But no sign of anything from the past 130 years?

Personally I think that Energy Weapons might have been too expensive to be used as the standard weapons of the US army.

Another issue might be the complexity of manufacturing energy weapons, large armies need to keep their supply lines streamlined and simple to ensure that every soldier is properly equipped. Expensive and experimental laser and plasma weaponry probably could not be easily mass manufactured to the scale that would have been needed to equip the US army of the Fallout universe.

The best equipment, power armour and energy weapons, were likely reserved for the best of the best of the US army in the Fallout universe.