Fallout and Elder Scrolls writer Emil Pagliarulo has explained the difference in writing between the two series and why Fallout may be a bit harder to deal with.
In dense RPGs like Bethesda's Fallout and Elder Scrolls games, there are a ton of decisions to be made, and in cases like the Obsidian-published Fallout: New Vegas, there are a ton of potential outcomes and different factions vying for you to help them out, and it's never exactly clear who is the right choice to side with for the good of humanity (well, maybe not Caesar's Legion that one's pretty obvious).
Speaking to GamesRadar+, Pagliarulo explains, "I think it's easier in a fantasy game like The Elder Scrolls, where a lot of fantasy tropes are 'there's a big bad evil.'" He adds, "the differentiation between good and evil is pretty distinct sometimes." But with the likes of Fallout, Paglarulo notes "there are a lot of shades of gray".
Paglarulo, saying, "I think in Fallout 4, especially with the Brotherhood and Institute, no matter what they do, you have to sit back and go 'maybe they have a point'." He elaborates, for the Institute "Are the synths just really toasters? Are they just machines? We created them, do they deserve to have freedom?" While "The Brotherhood is a bunch of hard asses, but does humanity really deserve to be in control of this technology that they are clearly not using responsibly?"
Although those questions are perhaps what makes Fallout such an engaging series, I say as I start up my fifth New Vegas playthrough.
