Fallout Are the first two Fallouts still considered the gold standard for reactive worlds?

[Nutmeg]

See title.

Or have any of the clones surpassed them e.g. Age of Decadence, Underrail, Atom etc.?

Any games from leftfield e.g. unrelated cRPGs, adventure games, JRPGs etc.?

 

[Modron]

Exile 3 and Witcher 1 should be part of such a conversation. Exile 3 spend too long doing stuff and the monsters damage and invade towns which at the extreme results in people and quest givers dying. While you don't really stay in place to see the consequences of a lot of your actions you can carve your way through mutually exclusive routes depending on your choices.

 

[True Ukrainian]

Colony wars vengeance. Very reactive storyline with multiple mission paths and endings.

 

[True Ukrainian]

Also Fading Afternoon. Very reactive storyline with multiple paths.

 

[Grampy_Bone]

You would need to define your term.

If by reactive you mean quests with multiple outcomes, yes. If you mean a world that reacts to the player, then no. Fallout games are pretty static, outside a few cases. I also don't consider ending slides 'reactivity.'

Even something like Kenshi is more reactive, since you can change the balance of power in the world all sorts of ways.

 

[Nutmeg]

You would need to define your term.

If by reactive you mean quests with multiple outcomes, yes. If you mean a world that reacts to the player, then no. Fallout games are pretty static, outside a few cases. I also don't consider ending slides 'reactivity.'

Even something like Kenshi is more reactive, since you can change the balance of power in the world all sorts of ways.

My definition is broad.

Changes in the large (e.g. entire map layouts or the removal or addition of entire sets of enemies or NPCs) or small (NPC attitudes, individual quest outcomes) based on player decisions -- be it character actions or build choices etc.

 

[Geckabor]

small (NPC attitudes, individual quest outcomes) based on player decisions

Fallout: New Vegas is definitely the new gold standard here.

Changes in the large (e.g. entire map layouts or the removal or addition of entire sets of enemies or NPCs)

Best I can think of is Age of Decadence.

 

[Fink]

Fallout: New Vegas is definitely the new gold standard here.

new

FNV will be 14 years old this year. But, yeah, it's the gold standard for reactivity as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Serus]

You would need to define your term.

If by reactive you mean quests with multiple outcomes, yes. If you mean a world that reacts to the player, then no. Fallout games are pretty static, outside a few cases. I also don't consider ending slides 'reactivity.'

Even something like Kenshi is more reactive, since you can change the balance of power in the world all sorts of ways.

Exactly this.
The first kind of reactivity can be found in a good number of CRPGs and not only the "Choice & Consequence"-fags ones (Fallouts, Arcanum, Age of Decadence...) though they seems to put more emphasis on those.
The second kind, very unfortunately but also understandably (they are difficult and work intensive to implement in a CRPG), is almost unheard of on a larger scale. It is much more common (even standard) in strategy games.
Ending sliders is not reactivity, i agree very strongly here. They happen after the factual end of the game ("end sliders", duh) when gameplay is over. Those ends don't influence your play in the slightest after they happened. They just fun or interesting to watch. Or not.

 

[Serus]

Changes in the large (e.g. entire map layouts or the removal or addition of entire sets of enemies or NPCs)

Best I can think of is Age of Decadence.

What are those changes of "entire map layouts" in AoD? Granted, I played it long time ago but don't remember any such thing. Some NPCs or enemies might appear but that's more in the "quest outcomes" kind imho. OTOH I only finished it once so I might have missed it.

 

[Serus]

As i mentioned earlier, strategy games are very reactive (in the 2nd sense). Think of Paradox games or Civilization. A lot can change there and the player can influence most of those changes - not only changes to himself but others. Wars, ownership of territories, technology, even "NPC" behaviour (think Crusader Kings). But those are strategy games.

Some people here consider Space Rangers 2 to be a CRPG. It is not, but if it were it would be an exemple of the second kind of reactivity.
Another Example might be Star Control 2 - another non-RPG considered by some as one. In this case it happens through hand-made "quests" so is even more similar to standard CRPG. Many of the changes you can do are not of the c&c kind unfortunately, there are no alternative outcomes. However a few are IIRC. The galaxy map can change in significant way to the point of some races basically disappearing from the map which makes some areas safer to travel to, amount of time you have to save everyone increases, some additional planets become accessible, etc...

Those two games share two things in common. They are not CRPGs but multigenre games with rpg elements. It seems much harder to achieve true reactivity in pure CRPG. In addition they are space games. It is easier to just flag a planet as belonging to X and add some ship of X in the vicinity than add unique NPCs with quests and backstories and a, sometimes drastically, changed environment. But even in those mentioned games the changes are either mostly without alternative (SC2) or very schematic (a few fractions, result depend on repeatable tasks in SR).

What's the moral of all this? Only that I want CRPGs with true reactivity:

Reactive Game:
I get a quest but I fail to defeat the dragon because I was drinking. Town that was attacked becomes desolate and open to exploring once dragon goes away to new hunting grounds. Or Important-NPC1 (if he wasn't drinking with me) kills the dragon and becomes a new ruler who has a new agenda and quests to give. If i work for him his rival might hire a magic-monster-assassin after me, depending on how badly i annoyed him. I can go to another kingdom to find an "anti-assassination-magic-gizmo" but if I do and then not return it, their King will be murdered and Minor Evil(tm) will be able to invade his land and occupy it. It will change many opportunities depending on whether I join the invader or not. Alternatively I can defeat the dragon or loot the town he destroyed and perhaps find "magic-gizmo-of-opening-new-opportunities" and never hear of any assassins. Minor Evil(tm) is defeated because King lives. His kingdom looks and plays very different because it was never occupied by Minor Evil(tm)...

"Reactive" Game:
I can defeat the dragon in 3 different ways (=3 different end sliders) but if i don't then dragon stays there forever and nothing changes. Unless it's a main story quest then i have to deal with it no matter what. Then i choose the work for one of two rulers, one is woke and good, other is less woke and evil. I got a Sword of Bears or an Axe of Sex as reward depending who i work for (different end game slider). Eventually I get the same final reward "boring-magic-gizmo-of-endgame-choice" which I use to defeat evil... or join it (more sliders). The end. Sliders.

I might have exaggerated and the story is of questionable quality but this i want - except made by someone competent.



TL;DR: Screw you. This is a forum. If you don't want to read then don't.

 

[jackofshadows]

Changes in the large (e.g. entire map layouts or the removal or addition of entire sets of enemies or NPCs)

Best I can think of is Age of Decadence.

What are those changes of "entire map layouts" in AoD? Granted, I played it long time ago but don't remember any such thing. Some NPCs or enemies might appear but that's more in the "quest outcomes" kind imho. OTOH I only finished it once so I might have missed it.

You did. First of all, there're Teron changes after you've done things in Maadoran, depends on faction choices and maybe more than that, don't remember that well myself. Then:

• there's option to fucking nuke Maadoran.
• you can count the bridge (turning it on) before the ziggurat
• park the ship
• blow Al-Akia
• probably was something else

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

They're reactive as roleplaying games, not as "worlds" that are simulated. Everything is scripted and even then, we're talking about first order consequences for your actions, not second order or anything specially sophisticated. That is, people will react to you if you're a child killer or slaver, or if you kill a crime boss, but your actions won't generate their own unforeseen consequences and so on. You quickly run into limits when you try to accomplish that in a scripted game, hence Iron Tower's famous gating of content in chapters with points of no return. If you want deep, unscripted reactivity, you need complex simulation of the Dwarf Fortress variety.

Fallout is still a gold standard for RPGs because of its fortunate mix of RPG elements. You have a large variety of roleplaying options, you make meaningful choices, the world building is stellar, it has a timeless aesthetic, and it avoids many of the pitfalls of other games. For most of its component parts you'll find other games that give you more options, but you won't get the complete package the same way you do with Fallout. It'll probably be a long time until one can say Fallout is obsolete, if that ever happens.

 

[Serus]

They're reactive as roleplaying games, not as "worlds" that are simulated. Everything is scripted and even then, we're talking about first order consequences for your actions, not second order or anything specially sophisticated. That is, people will react to you if you're a child killer or slaver, or if you kill a crime boss, but your actions won't generate their own unforeseen consequences and so on. You quickly run into limits when you try to accomplish that in a scripted game, hence Iron Tower's famous gating of content in chapters with points of no return. If you want deep, unscripted reactivity, you need complex simulation of the Dwarf Fortress variety.

Fallout is still a gold standard for RPGs because of its fortunate mix of RPG elements. You have a large variety of roleplaying options, you make meaningful choices, the world building is stellar, it has a timeless aesthetic, and it avoids many of the pitfalls of other games. For most of its component parts you'll find other games that give you more options, but you won't get the complete package the same way you do with Fallout. It'll probably be a long time until one can say Fallout is obsolete, if that ever happens.

The question in title however asks for interactive "worlds". I also disagree that those two (true reactivity through simulation and "roleplaying") things are separate. Good simulation and world reactivity would be great for CRPG purposes in certain sub-genres. It simply is too hard to achieve, as you said, but it isn't unwanted.
I agree that to get a world truly reactive to player action you'd have to simulate it not just script it. The latter becomes more complex exponentially as the amount of elements you can interact with and can interact with each other increases. However i believe that even scripted reactivity still has untapped potential. At least potentially, lol. It just requires a lot of work, work that isn't rewarding financially. VD's studio is one of the few that really tried to advance this a bit - with mixed results. Scripting combined with limited resources means limited success no matter how enthusiastic one is to the idea of reactivity. So what's left is either a different approach or an AAA game (="unlimited" resources) - the latter will never happen. Or just games like we have now ("fake C&C games" i call them) but slightly better, at best.
My biggest hope is, in the future, the AI. However it might be a false hope and it simply can't be done that way. Or it can but no one will ever do it. That or some super-autists like the Dwarf Fortress'' guy. People who can work on a single game for decades.
However one thing that should be said is that both methods, scripting and simulation could be combined to good effect. Then again maybe not.

As to Fallout 1, it is still very good as a game and not obsolete. The question however was about a golden standard not just as a CRPG in general but as a CRPG with reactive world specifically as per the thread's title. In that regard there are better choices, Fallout's world is very static. Even Arcanum, possibly a worse game* in general, has more reactive world even in not by much. Then AoD. People mentioned F:NV, never played this one. What abut Colony Ship? Several more games were mentioned in this thread but i never played them.

*JarlFrank, please don't kill me.

 

[NaturallyCarnivorousSheep]

*clears throat*

Remove storyfaggots.

 

[Serus]

*clears throat*

Remove storyfaggots.

Reactivity != storyfaggotry. You could have a highly reactive world with minimal story if you wanted.

 

[smaug]

AoD is the gold standard in terms of C&C. That being said, AoD is also a CYOA novel where Combat is it’s only *gameplay*. Fallout has good stat mechanical reactivity but also actual interactivity in its gameplay which is what makes it great. So, you can have shittons of C&C but it doesn’t really mean much if it isn’t integrated into the gameplay in the proper way for CRPGs which is Character Skill-RNG-Player Skill formula.

Reactivity is a bit broad and different games do that very differently

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

They're reactive as roleplaying games, not as "worlds" that are simulated. Everything is scripted and even then, we're talking about first order consequences for your actions, not second order or anything specially sophisticated. That is, people will react to you if you're a child killer or slaver, or if you kill a crime boss, but your actions won't generate their own unforeseen consequences and so on. You quickly run into limits when you try to accomplish that in a scripted game, hence Iron Tower's famous gating of content in chapters with points of no return. If you want deep, unscripted reactivity, you need complex simulation of the Dwarf Fortress variety.

Fallout is still a gold standard for RPGs because of its fortunate mix of RPG elements. You have a large variety of roleplaying options, you make meaningful choices, the world building is stellar, it has a timeless aesthetic, and it avoids many of the pitfalls of other games. For most of its component parts you'll find other games that give you more options, but you won't get the complete package the same way you do with Fallout. It'll probably be a long time until one can say Fallout is obsolete, if that ever happens.

The question in title however asks for interactive "worlds". I also disagree that those two (true reactivity through simulation and "roleplaying") things are separate. Good simulation and world reactivity would be great for CRPG purposes in certain sub-genres. It simply is too hard to achieve, as you said, but it isn't unwanted.
I agree that to get a world truly reactive to player action you'd have to simulate it not just script it. The latter becomes more complex exponentially as the amount of elements you can interact with and can interact with each other increases. However i believe that even scripted reactivity still has untapped potential. At least potentially, lol. It just requires a lot of work, work that isn't rewarding financially. VD's studio is one of the few that really tried to advance this a bit - with mixed results. Scripting combined with limited resources means limited success no matter how enthusiastic one is to the idea of reactivity. So what's left is either a different approach or an AAA game (="unlimited" resources) - the latter will never happen. Or just games like we have now ("fake C&C games" i call them) but slightly better, at best.
My biggest hope is, in the future, the AI. However it might be a false hope and it simply can't be done that way. Or it can but no one will ever do it. That or some super-autists like the Dwarf Fortress'' guy. People who can work on a single game for decades.
However one thing that should be said is that both methods, scripting and simulation could be combined to good effect. Then again maybe not.

As to Fallout 1, it is still very good as a game and not obsolete. The question however was about a golden standard not just as a CRPG in general but as a CRPG with reactive world specifically as per the thread's title. In that regard there are better choices, Fallout's world is very static. Even Arcanum, possibly a worse game* in general, has more reactive world even in not by much. Then AoD. People mentioned F:NV, never played this one. What abut Colony Ship? Several more games were mentioned in this thread but i never played them.

*JarlFrank, please don't kill me.

It was necessary to make a distinction, as there's no single standard for what a "world" is or does in a computer game. It's completely possible to have fleshed out roleplaying gameplay without interacting with simulationist systems and vice-versa; altough, to be fair, not even Fallout is completely devoid of those elements. Its combat system can lead to many chaotic outcomes, for example.

It's also worth noting that adding systemic reactivity is not merely a question of work, but design. Not every game would be improved by adding Dwarf Fortress style reactivity. Less is often more, Fallout itself is proof of that.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Ever since it came out, Alpha Protocol has been the gold standard in character reactivity, since so much can change from your actions. It doesn't really change majorly though, as you still end up going to mostly the same places.

In the major scale would Mount and Blade count? Characters react to your actions, and different people can become rulers of the same town over time. TBH, not a lot of games offer truly major changes to the game world, since you have to put in a lot of effort for that for something that few people would see even in a place like this.

 

[Serus]

They're reactive as roleplaying games, not as "worlds" that are simulated. Everything is scripted and even then, we're talking about first order consequences for your actions, not second order or anything specially sophisticated. That is, people will react to you if you're a child killer or slaver, or if you kill a crime boss, but your actions won't generate their own unforeseen consequences and so on. You quickly run into limits when you try to accomplish that in a scripted game, hence Iron Tower's famous gating of content in chapters with points of no return. If you want deep, unscripted reactivity, you need complex simulation of the Dwarf Fortress variety.

Fallout is still a gold standard for RPGs because of its fortunate mix of RPG elements. You have a large variety of roleplaying options, you make meaningful choices, the world building is stellar, it has a timeless aesthetic, and it avoids many of the pitfalls of other games. For most of its component parts you'll find other games that give you more options, but you won't get the complete package the same way you do with Fallout. It'll probably be a long time until one can say Fallout is obsolete, if that ever happens.

The question in title however asks for interactive "worlds". I also disagree that those two (true reactivity through simulation and "roleplaying") things are separate. Good simulation and world reactivity would be great for CRPG purposes in certain sub-genres. It simply is too hard to achieve, as you said, but it isn't unwanted.
I agree that to get a world truly reactive to player action you'd have to simulate it not just script it. The latter becomes more complex exponentially as the amount of elements you can interact with and can interact with each other increases. However i believe that even scripted reactivity still has untapped potential. At least potentially, lol. It just requires a lot of work, work that isn't rewarding financially. VD's studio is one of the few that really tried to advance this a bit - with mixed results. Scripting combined with limited resources means limited success no matter how enthusiastic one is to the idea of reactivity. So what's left is either a different approach or an AAA game (="unlimited" resources) - the latter will never happen. Or just games like we have now ("fake C&C games" i call them) but slightly better, at best.
My biggest hope is, in the future, the AI. However it might be a false hope and it simply can't be done that way. Or it can but no one will ever do it. That or some super-autists like the Dwarf Fortress'' guy. People who can work on a single game for decades.
However one thing that should be said is that both methods, scripting and simulation could be combined to good effect. Then again maybe not.

As to Fallout 1, it is still very good as a game and not obsolete. The question however was about a golden standard not just as a CRPG in general but as a CRPG with reactive world specifically as per the thread's title. In that regard there are better choices, Fallout's world is very static. Even Arcanum, possibly a worse game* in general, has more reactive world even in not by much. Then AoD. People mentioned F:NV, never played this one. What abut Colony Ship? Several more games were mentioned in this thread but i never played them.

*JarlFrank, please don't kill me.

It was necessary to make a distinction, as there's no single standard for what a "world" is or does in a computer game. It's completely possible to have fleshed out roleplaying gameplay without interacting with simulationist systems and vice-versa; altough, to be fair, not even Fallout is completely devoid of those elements. Its combat system can lead to many chaotic outcomes, for example.

It's also worth noting that adding systemic reactivity is not merely a question of work, but design. Not every game would be improved by adding Dwarf Fortress style reactivity. Less is often more, Fallout itself is proof of that.

World in a game is what the word suggests: everything that surrounds the player character. There is no question of standards here to my knowledge. I assumed we talk about all kind of reactivity not just the "short range" one since the OP didn't specify and used a general word = world.

I never said that you can't do a good crpg without strong reactivity, on the contrary. Only that reactivity (of the 2nd kind, long term, wide area consequences of your actions) can greatly improve the formula for CRPGs that claim to be about C&C. A linear combatfag or storygag game can work without it. Combat is mostly the simple kind, short term, reactivity. And story are easier to write as linear as possible.

I disagree about the last part strongest. Fallout would definitely, 100% certain, be better if some of the major consequences of your actions could be observed and had impact during gameplay and not afterward (=sliders). Assuming of curse that it could be done with same quality as the rest which is problematic.

 

[Serus]

Ever since it came out, Alpha Protocol has been the gold standard in character reactivity, since so much can change from your actions. It doesn't really change majorly though, as you still end up going to mostly the same places.

In the major scale would Mount and Blade count? Characters react to your actions, and different people can become rulers of the same town over time. TBH, not a lot of games offer truly major changes to the game world, since you have to put in a lot of effort for that for something that few people would see even in a place like this.

M&B is good exemple. Also because as my examples is not really a RPG justy has elements of it.
The effort part is spot on as well. That's another reason why long term reactivity and large scale alternative game elements aren't made. First was technical/financial. The second is that it is best if the game is to be played more than once or twice and most CRPG are not.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

They're reactive as roleplaying games, not as "worlds" that are simulated. Everything is scripted and even then, we're talking about first order consequences for your actions, not second order or anything specially sophisticated. That is, people will react to you if you're a child killer or slaver, or if you kill a crime boss, but your actions won't generate their own unforeseen consequences and so on. You quickly run into limits when you try to accomplish that in a scripted game, hence Iron Tower's famous gating of content in chapters with points of no return. If you want deep, unscripted reactivity, you need complex simulation of the Dwarf Fortress variety.

Fallout is still a gold standard for RPGs because of its fortunate mix of RPG elements. You have a large variety of roleplaying options, you make meaningful choices, the world building is stellar, it has a timeless aesthetic, and it avoids many of the pitfalls of other games. For most of its component parts you'll find other games that give you more options, but you won't get the complete package the same way you do with Fallout. It'll probably be a long time until one can say Fallout is obsolete, if that ever happens.

The question in title however asks for interactive "worlds". I also disagree that those two (true reactivity through simulation and "roleplaying") things are separate. Good simulation and world reactivity would be great for CRPG purposes in certain sub-genres. It simply is too hard to achieve, as you said, but it isn't unwanted.
I agree that to get a world truly reactive to player action you'd have to simulate it not just script it. The latter becomes more complex exponentially as the amount of elements you can interact with and can interact with each other increases. However i believe that even scripted reactivity still has untapped potential. At least potentially, lol. It just requires a lot of work, work that isn't rewarding financially. VD's studio is one of the few that really tried to advance this a bit - with mixed results. Scripting combined with limited resources means limited success no matter how enthusiastic one is to the idea of reactivity. So what's left is either a different approach or an AAA game (="unlimited" resources) - the latter will never happen. Or just games like we have now ("fake C&C games" i call them) but slightly better, at best.
My biggest hope is, in the future, the AI. However it might be a false hope and it simply can't be done that way. Or it can but no one will ever do it. That or some super-autists like the Dwarf Fortress'' guy. People who can work on a single game for decades.
However one thing that should be said is that both methods, scripting and simulation could be combined to good effect. Then again maybe not.

As to Fallout 1, it is still very good as a game and not obsolete. The question however was about a golden standard not just as a CRPG in general but as a CRPG with reactive world specifically as per the thread's title. In that regard there are better choices, Fallout's world is very static. Even Arcanum, possibly a worse game* in general, has more reactive world even in not by much. Then AoD. People mentioned F:NV, never played this one. What abut Colony Ship? Several more games were mentioned in this thread but i never played them.

*JarlFrank, please don't kill me.

It was necessary to make a distinction, as there's no single standard for what a "world" is or does in a computer game. It's completely possible to have fleshed out roleplaying gameplay without interacting with simulationist systems and vice-versa; altough, to be fair, not even Fallout is completely devoid of those elements. Its combat system can lead to many chaotic outcomes, for example.

It's also worth noting that adding systemic reactivity is not merely a question of work, but design. Not every game would be improved by adding Dwarf Fortress style reactivity. Less is often more, Fallout itself is proof of that.

World in a game is what the word suggests: everything that surrounds the player character. There is no question of standards here to my knowledge. I assumed we talk about all kind of reactivity not just the "short range" one since the OP didn't specify and used a general word = world.

I never said that you can't do a good crpg without strong reactivity, on the contrary. Only that reactivity (of the 2nd kind, long term, wide area consequences of your actions) can greatly improve the formula for CRPGs that claim to be about C&C. A linear combatfag or storygag game can work without it. Combat is mostly the simple kind, short term, reactivity. And story are easier to write as linear as possible.

I disagree about the last part strongest. Fallout would definitely, 100% certain, be better if some of the major consequences of your actions could be observed and had impact during gameplay and not afterward (=sliders). Assuming of curse that it could be done with same quality as the rest which is problematic.

I wasn't talking about the definition of the word "world". Obviously the concept is obvious in each particular game, but still there's considerable variation in what constitutes a world across games. It can range from a series of descriptions to a fleshed out physics engine that accounts for all sorts of things. That's why you can't talk about "reactive worlds" without specifying what exactly you're referring to.

 

[Tehdagah]

Fallout 2 sucked. It's buggy and boring.

 

[Tavar]

Colony Ship has a lot of choices with consequences. You can:

• Miss party members (there are also two mutually excluding party members).
• Lose access to previous explored areas.
• Get locked out of exploring certain new areas.
• Lose access to quests.
• Gain access to additional endings.

It is much more "reactive" in that way than Fallout was. Hence, it is a lot of fun to replay.

 

[Shaki]

AoD is unmatched in terms of reactivity, the whole game is built purely around this concept.