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

[NecroLord]

Fallout 1 laid the foundation for other games to expand, do the same but instead of slides, make the changes appear during the actual gameplay, not after it. But the industry turned the other way

As long as it's hand crafted, at some point the reactivity would have to end. If it's a system, then it would lose the artistic merit which (many) players play CRPGs for.

Few per location would suffice. We can imagine how Shady Sands, Junktown, etc change depending on player actions

You help Gizmo - one change, you help Killian - the other

If you whack Killian for Gizmo, isn't the whole of Junktown after your blood?
Gizmo hands you your payment and then tells you to get out of town.

 

[NecroLord]

I guess that making environments and settlements change depending on your actions (whether they prosper or are destroyed wholesale) is all well and good, but I always thought that ending slides were implemented to show how your actions affect the world over the course of years, even centuries.
Even if you play through the respective game, passing years of game time in the process, should those changes, whether they be good or bad, occur during end slides or just some time after?

 

[Ol' Willy]

I guess that making environments and settlements change depending on your actions (whether they prosper or are destroyed wholesale) is all well and good, but I always thought that ending slides were implemented to show how your actions affect the world over the course of years, even centuries.
Even if you play through the respective game, passing years of game time in the process, should those changes, whether they be good or bad, occur during end slides or just some time after?

Short term changes during gameplay, long term changes in slides

 

[SharkClub]

Basically, slides are the cheaper cop-out to replace the real reactivity. This could be forgiven for Fallout 1 and 2 - the limitations of technology at the time, plus budget and time constraints (also applies to New Vegas with its 1 year of development). One has to remember that even Fallout 1 was considered a low key project and almost got cancelled when Interplay purchased D&D loicense

I am not blaming Interplay, Black Isle or 2010-s Obsidian for such design, they simply didn't have nor the time nor the resources to create an actually reactive gameworld, but for more well funded RPGs this is simply unforgivable.

Fallout 1 laid the foundation for other games to expand, do the same but instead of slides, make the changes appear during the actual gameplay, not after it. But the industry turned the other way

Yep, exactly. Nowadays you have RPGs like Shartfield or Dragon Age or whatever in development for an entire decade and not subject to any time crunches or budget constraints and yet not one ounce of creativity goes into them to bring game world reactivity to the people playing the game. Just coasting along on the bare minimum and relying on marketing hype to sell soulless games.