Edward_R_Murrow
Arcane
Fallout 1 is an interesting game.
A lot of the critiques in this thread, and elsewhere are pretty spot on. The atmosphere isn't as good as the ardent fans paint it to be. Writing isn't too shabby, but it's not going to floor anyone who is moderately well read (and I'm extrapolating a bit here, being a product of the wonderful Kwanzanian publik edumufication system). The systems leave a lot to be desired; in many ways Cain/Boyarsky/Taylor reached a bit too far...how were they every going to make Gambling feel useful among 20+ skills given their budget/scope? And some of the areas, particularly the earlier ones, are barebones. There's simply not a lot of interesting content in many of the initial areas. How many people skip Vault 15 on successive runs? Oh....that's a lotta hands up, I see.
But Fallout 1 does something special...and I don't mean the attribute system. It's one of the few games to allow the player to create a non-combat (ok, low-combat, because Rat Diplomacy outside of the Stallonian school IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE according to a discussion held by erudite Codexian elders) character and play them through to the endgame without undue metagaming. The only required areas in the game (Mariposa and the Cathedral) have scripted speech/stealth/science solutions provided the player is crafty enough to acquire the proper items, make of disguises, and explore the areas thoroughly. No other game really does this, forcing the player into the combat role at numerous points throughout the game.
-Fallout 2 has everyone's (least) favorite Clint Eastwood reference standing between the player and the endgame. Sure, characters versed in Science and Speech could reprogram some turrets and recruit a mutinous squad to their aid, but combat was inevitable, and an Endboss Gun was likely to be trained upon the player character unless they did both and were lucky. It's a far cry from the "cleaner" solutions presented in Fallout 1.
-Arcanum forces oodles of combat upon the player. Certainly, a character completely inept in any sort of scrum can get by with the aid of allies, but it doesn't exactly *feel* different. The person playing as a dumb-as-nails debutante, with some ogre and canine bodyguards, is going to face a pretty similar gameplay scenario as the Harm-spamming mage in most cases, with the manner in which they resolve the combat scarcely different in any meaningful way. Sure, the game did offer many unique opportunities depending on race/sex/attributes/aptitude, but they tended to spread out and the game was well-marbled with filler combat (e.g. P. Schyler & Sons, Black Rock Clan, Vendigroth Ruins, Path to You-Know-Who), diminishing their impact.
-Bloodlines hits players with the one-two-three punch of the sewers, Hallowbrook Hotel, and the the final area(s). Enjoyed your charismatic Toreador, stealthy Nosferatu, or cunning Ventrue? No more, as the House of Infinite Ninja Vampires is here to screw you over. That, or a fleshcrafting menace. Really sad, given that they had designed 2/3rds+ of the game to be compatible with non-combat playstyles.
-Alpha Protocol....welp, here comes a stupid boss fight, high on coke, to murder your stealthy tech expert.
It's simply sad that in almost two decades since the release of Fallout 1 no dev, save a plucky ferrous indie, has decided to drill down on the idea of multiple solutions to areas that allow for different character types to have heavily divergent experiences within any one content piece. Basically, taking the idea of Mariposa and the Cathedral, but making them the blueprint for every area in the game. Maybe there would be less locales than the typical RPG, but they would sure be a lot more fun.
However, I suppose none of us should be surprised. Doing such would require a control of scope that is anathema to marketers/publishers. "What do you mean this only has X hours of gameplay? Skyrim has over 9000!" "Why does your skill system have all these complicated and different skills? Players want Fightan', Magickin', and Roguein'...like those Peter Jackson movies and Game of Thrones!" Even "core" gamers voice discontent with titles that are meant to be highly replayable, when individual playtimes tend below a certain par. "This gaem suxz, itz only 3hrs!"
*Ignores the fact that each three hour tour is wildly different from any other, with tons of different avenues and choices/consequences available ro the player*.
And, in a roundabout way, that's why Fallout 1 is special; it did something no other game has yet to do.
A lot of the critiques in this thread, and elsewhere are pretty spot on. The atmosphere isn't as good as the ardent fans paint it to be. Writing isn't too shabby, but it's not going to floor anyone who is moderately well read (and I'm extrapolating a bit here, being a product of the wonderful Kwanzanian publik edumufication system). The systems leave a lot to be desired; in many ways Cain/Boyarsky/Taylor reached a bit too far...how were they every going to make Gambling feel useful among 20+ skills given their budget/scope? And some of the areas, particularly the earlier ones, are barebones. There's simply not a lot of interesting content in many of the initial areas. How many people skip Vault 15 on successive runs? Oh....that's a lotta hands up, I see.
But Fallout 1 does something special...and I don't mean the attribute system. It's one of the few games to allow the player to create a non-combat (ok, low-combat, because Rat Diplomacy outside of the Stallonian school IS TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE according to a discussion held by erudite Codexian elders) character and play them through to the endgame without undue metagaming. The only required areas in the game (Mariposa and the Cathedral) have scripted speech/stealth/science solutions provided the player is crafty enough to acquire the proper items, make of disguises, and explore the areas thoroughly. No other game really does this, forcing the player into the combat role at numerous points throughout the game.
-Fallout 2 has everyone's (least) favorite Clint Eastwood reference standing between the player and the endgame. Sure, characters versed in Science and Speech could reprogram some turrets and recruit a mutinous squad to their aid, but combat was inevitable, and an Endboss Gun was likely to be trained upon the player character unless they did both and were lucky. It's a far cry from the "cleaner" solutions presented in Fallout 1.
-Arcanum forces oodles of combat upon the player. Certainly, a character completely inept in any sort of scrum can get by with the aid of allies, but it doesn't exactly *feel* different. The person playing as a dumb-as-nails debutante, with some ogre and canine bodyguards, is going to face a pretty similar gameplay scenario as the Harm-spamming mage in most cases, with the manner in which they resolve the combat scarcely different in any meaningful way. Sure, the game did offer many unique opportunities depending on race/sex/attributes/aptitude, but they tended to spread out and the game was well-marbled with filler combat (e.g. P. Schyler & Sons, Black Rock Clan, Vendigroth Ruins, Path to You-Know-Who), diminishing their impact.
-Bloodlines hits players with the one-two-three punch of the sewers, Hallowbrook Hotel, and the the final area(s). Enjoyed your charismatic Toreador, stealthy Nosferatu, or cunning Ventrue? No more, as the House of Infinite Ninja Vampires is here to screw you over. That, or a fleshcrafting menace. Really sad, given that they had designed 2/3rds+ of the game to be compatible with non-combat playstyles.
-Alpha Protocol....welp, here comes a stupid boss fight, high on coke, to murder your stealthy tech expert.
It's simply sad that in almost two decades since the release of Fallout 1 no dev, save a plucky ferrous indie, has decided to drill down on the idea of multiple solutions to areas that allow for different character types to have heavily divergent experiences within any one content piece. Basically, taking the idea of Mariposa and the Cathedral, but making them the blueprint for every area in the game. Maybe there would be less locales than the typical RPG, but they would sure be a lot more fun.
However, I suppose none of us should be surprised. Doing such would require a control of scope that is anathema to marketers/publishers. "What do you mean this only has X hours of gameplay? Skyrim has over 9000!" "Why does your skill system have all these complicated and different skills? Players want Fightan', Magickin', and Roguein'...like those Peter Jackson movies and Game of Thrones!" Even "core" gamers voice discontent with titles that are meant to be highly replayable, when individual playtimes tend below a certain par. "This gaem suxz, itz only 3hrs!"
*Ignores the fact that each three hour tour is wildly different from any other, with tons of different avenues and choices/consequences available ro the player*.
And, in a roundabout way, that's why Fallout 1 is special; it did something no other game has yet to do.
