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

[Nutmeg]

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.

The things you listed are characteristics of a game more reactive than Fallout? All of these things are true for any SaGa series JRPG.

Not challenging you, just surprised.

 

[Beans00]

Fallout 1/2 are the best rpg's of all time regardless of how many walls of text people write.

Only arcanum is on their level .

 

[Nutmeg]

Fallout 1/2 are the best rpg's of all time regardless of how many walls of text people write.

Only arcanum is on their level .

But are they the most reactive?

 

[Beans00]

Fallout 1/2 are the best rpg's of all time regardless of how many walls of text people write.

Only arcanum is on their level .

But are they the most reactive?

Probably not but it depends how you define reactivity. Which is hard to fit into a mold.

I see people posting AOD, which has a lot of choices and consequences but the game world doesn't react to you in an organic sense. You do things, and you go down paths, and maybe that's reactivity or maybe it's not.

jackofshadows , if nuking a city is reactivity then fallout 3 is also reactivity.

In fallout 2 if I join the bishop crime family, the mordinos/salvatores/wrights are how hostile. Is that real reactivity? although it's still somewhat limited and more along the lines of 'faction reactivity' like you see in new vegas or games like that.
Same thing in underrail choosing the black eels or later the jkk or protectorate ect.
In baldursgate 1 if you help the druids in cloakwood later on some guys brother tries to kill you, or you can help him do some quest if you keep him alive.

When I played might and magic 8 and joined the dragons and wiped out the knights at garrot gorge is that reactivity? If so then might and magic 8 has about as much reactivity as any of the games above.



To me the gold standard of reactivity is fable. You can choose your name, I liked chicken chaser. People in the game world react if you fart next to them, no other game offers that type of reactivity.






Those are real reactions, not playing make belief like some people in this thread

 

[Fink]

@jackofshadows , if nuking a city is reactivity then fallout 3 is also reactivity.

Reactivity would be if when you nuke the city, anybody actually cared.

 

[jackofshadows]

@jackofshadows , if nuking a city is reactivity then fallout 3 is also reactivity.

And why wouldn't it be reactivity in F3? You nuke the city, you're no longer able to walk in it, to use its services etc. The fact F3 is one of the most abhorrent games in existence doesn't negate its properties.

 

[Shaki]

Fallout 1/2 are the best rpg's of all time regardless of how many walls of text people write.

Only arcanum is on their level .

But are they the most reactive?

Probably not but it depends how you define reactivity. Which is hard to fit into a mold.

I see people posting AOD, which has a lot of choices and consequences but the game world doesn't react to you in an organic sense. You do things, and you go down paths, and maybe that's reactivity or maybe it's not.

Reactivity is simply narrative elements changing depending on of your character build and decisions. If NPCs dialogues react to your choices or class you took it's reactivity, if you get access to different quests/areas or can solve them in different ways because of what you picked in char creation, or what faction you joined, etc. that's also reactivity. AOD has the biggest amount of narrative changes that can happen based on what character you play and what decisions you take, therefore it's the most reactive game.

 

[Beans00]

Fallout 1/2 are the best rpg's of all time regardless of how many walls of text people write.

Only arcanum is on their level .

But are they the most reactive?

Probably not but it depends how you define reactivity. Which is hard to fit into a mold.

I see people posting AOD, which has a lot of choices and consequences but the game world doesn't react to you in an organic sense. You do things, and you go down paths, and maybe that's reactivity or maybe it's not.

Reactivity is simply narrative elements changing depending on of your character build and decisions. If NPCs dialogues react to your choices or class you took it's reactivity, if you get access to different quests/areas or can solve them in different ways because of what you picked in char creation, or what faction you joined, etc. that's also reactivity. AOD has the biggest amount of narrative changes that can happen based on what character you play and what decisions you take, therefore it's the most reactive game.

Well in AOD there's only like 20 npc's to talk to in the entire game.

In fable every single npc you come across will mention me being a chicken chaser. Every single one.

 

[Cologno]

Reactive my ass. Influence what combination of ending slides you get. *fart* still great games.

New Vegas did it right.

Arcanum did it right. The world is like a mirror for your choices as you play.

 

[NecroLord]

Fallout 1/2 are the best rpg's of all time regardless of how many walls of text people write.

Only arcanum is on their level .

But are they the most reactive?

It is a blend of reactivity and atmosphere of the setting the player finds himself in.

 

[Ol' Willy]

Fallout 1 and 2 are fairly static, as well as Arcanum and Underrail

Age of Decadence, New Vegas and Alpha Protocol are ranking very high for reactivity

Deus Ex applies too, but mostly in the first half and of smaller things

Hammer and Sickle, it is quite short, but consequences of choices are fairly big

Honorary mention to the first Xenus, factions that you pissed off will ambush you in the jungles at random points

Kenshi, Mount and Blade and similar games apply too, but those are sandbox games and will always have a different kind of reactivity to story driven ones. Similarly, you can say that reactivity in Crusader Kings is very good

 

[Ol' Willy]

In general, reactivity is a kind of indirect C&C where consequences either don't happen instantly and may remain purely cosmetic - like characters making comments on your actions or locations changing their appearance. And such consequences concern more not the player, but the gameworld itself. But in general, the actual consequences rank higher

Both Fallout 1 and 2 have some good reactivity, but only episodic. For example:

- letting deathclaw out in Modoc is a proper reactivity - it will kill everyone on location
- but killing Slags is followed by no reactivity - Modoc will remain unchanged, and its fate will appear only in ending slides

The proper reactivity will be for Modoc to change into the dead town during the game, with only few people remaining on location if player has chosen to kill the Slags or don't intervene. This happens with Flagstaff in Sonora - if you kill the slavers, the place will turn from a safe city to the one riddled with junkies and crime, all during the game

The transformation of Teron in AoD is another finest example, especially if you side with Guards

I would say that Sonora has the best reactivity compared to all 2D Fallouts and other mods

 

[thesecret1]

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.

I don't think either Fallout is known for world reactivity of this sort. To be honest, few RPGs aim at this.

New Vegas and Kenshi usually limit themselves to new NPC spawn and the like. Rarely do they change more, which is kind of weaksauce. AoD has a couple BIG changes, but there's only a couple of them, and at predetermined points in the story most of the time, so it's kind of cheating.

Maybe Witcher 3 Blood and Wine DLC? I recall cleared bandit forts getting occupied (and even semi-restored with banners and shit like that) by state troops once cleared, fields overran by monsters having peasants work them once the monsters are gone, etc. I recall being pleasantly surprised by it after the static main game.

 

[Arbiter]

Fallout's ambition in terms of reactivity was never realized. If you took too long to eliminate the mutant threat, the Master's army was supposed to slowly take over settlements. This feature could not be implemented due to time and budget constraints.

Bloodmoon took this concept further and actually delivered by allowing you to influence construction of a new colony, including the location of your estate. I was impressed with that feature in 2003.

 

[NotSweeper]

*clears throat*

Remove storyfaggots.

BASE...

Location EGT Tower 14th floor, Tirana

I am now a storyfaggot.

 

[NecroLord]

Fallout's ambition in terms of reactivity was never realized. If you took too long to eliminate the mutant threat, the Master's army was supposed to slowly take over settlements. This feature could not be implemented due to time and budget constraints.

With the Fixt mod, you can bring those back.
I have the 500 day limit before the Mutants invade Vault 13 and 300 before they take over The Hub, last time I checked.
I might do another Fallout run and see.
But, yeah, I have the time limits on the settlements. One of the things I like about Fixt (this and the NPC mod which improves Ian, Tycho and Katja), though Fixt does have its issues.

 

[Arbiter]

I have the 500 day limit before the Mutants invade Vault 13

What happens if mutants invade Vault 13? Instant game over?

 

[NecroLord]

I have the 500 day limit before the Mutants invade Vault 13

What happens if mutants invade Vault 13? Instant game over?

I would assume so.
However, you would really have to travel a lot on the World Map for that to happen.
500 days is more than enough to accomplish everything in the game, unless you are grinding XP for "Sniper" perk.

 

[Arbiter]

I have the 500 day limit before the Mutants invade Vault 13

What happens if mutants invade Vault 13? Instant game over?

I would assume so.
However, you would really have to travel a lot on the World Map for that to happen.
500 days is more than enough to accomplish everything in the game, unless you are grinding XP for "Sniper" perk.

The fastest way to level is to grind Deathclaws next to Gun Runners and that does not require much ingame time. I have never exceeded the 150 days time limit for finding a water chip.

 

[NecroLord]

I have the 500 day limit before the Mutants invade Vault 13

What happens if mutants invade Vault 13? Instant game over?

I would assume so.
However, you would really have to travel a lot on the World Map for that to happen.
500 days is more than enough to accomplish everything in the game, unless you are grinding XP for "Sniper" perk.

The fastest way to level is to grind Deathclaws next to Gun Runners and that does not require much ingame time. I have never exceeded the 150 time limit for finding a water chip.

Right. I forgot about the respawning Deathclaws.
Bit cheesy though.
I find that Sniper is more of a Fallout 2 perk. A lot more opportunities for XP there.

 

[Nikanuur]

Fallout 2 sucked. It's buggy and boring.

Have you tried debuffing yourself all the way down to IQ 1? Five to three is not enough, you know. Everything changes to something inconceivable afterwards.

 

[Nikanuur]

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.

Far from me criticizing one of the best RPG surprises of the year for me, except that both initial Fallouts had exactly that and usually in larger amounts.

E.g.
https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Fallout_2_endings

 

[JarlFrank]

No, Arcanum is.

 

[Nutmeg]

No, Arcanum is.

Any specific examples from a playthrough which showcase the reactivity?

 

[Arbiter]

No, Arcanum is.

Any specific examples from a playthrough which showcase the reactivity?

Newspapers referencing player's actions.

NPCs reacting to your choice of race, for example racism toward half orcs.