Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Fallout Underwhelmed by Fallout :(

roshan

Arcane
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,445
FO 1 is hands down the scariest fallout ever, but part of its charm was that it was 1996 ( ? ) and we were much much younger. A young or not adult that has seen so many games till then or a kid that grew up with facebook and iphones might find it difficult if impossible to get swallowed by its atmosphere in 2015. Specially if you heard so many praises for it. Plus issues that were already mentioned by others.

FO 2 is more entertaining and stupid at the same time but I love it, "theme-park" design means separating towns in boxes in your mind while playing plus more content plus it had Cassidy who is one awesome motherfucker.

This is a big part of the problem. I played Fallout 2, Diablo and Baldur's Gate when I was 13 years old and went on from there to play other games, I played all the late 90's and early 00's RPGs when I was 13-17, and I can see how that dialogue with the raider leader would have seemed awesome TEH AWSUM to my 12 year old self, but at 30 it just seems uninteresting, inconsistent and poorly written.
 

t

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,303
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
tumblr_lm5hqd7KPy1qk6wp4o1_500.png
Dat brofist harvesting.
 

roshan

Arcane
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,445
Fallout hit me in a lot the same way as Baldur's Gate did. At the time, there had been no other game quite like it, only a distant prequel or ancestor that never quite handled the genre like it did. Fallout burst onto the scene with a legit post-apocalyptic setting, in isometric, 3D graphics, and it wasn't just some gimmicky little vault sim or something. It was a full world. All there to explore and to get radiated in.

Baldur's Gate came in and brought before my eyes the first real simulation of playing D&D on my computer. Sure,there were the Gold Box games, and those were great (I played every one of them), but BG promised to deliver more. It had more freedom. It allowed for so many more choices.

These games just weren't that great; we have to admit that. The writing was p. bad at times. There were plenty of holes. Both of them could have sat and baked for another year at least to have fleshed them out more. But I still loved them. Fallout in particular blew my mind because it just seemed like a post-apoc RPG for grownups. I know that sounds stilly but even the manual made me want to eat the thing in huge bites. It was all-consuming in its stark atmosphere and it'll always be one of my favorite RPG's of all time.

Radiated warts and all.

This is exactly what FO1 feels like to me, or at least the early areas that I have played thus far, it has a strong BG1 vibe. Lots of empty areas, NPCs spouting one liners, poorly written and inconsistent dialogue, boring content, etc. More like a platform for better things to come (Fallout 2, Arcanum) than an achievement in itself.
 

t

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,303
Codex 2014 PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Serpent in the Staglands Divinity: Original Sin Torment: Tides of Numenera Shadorwun: Hong Kong Divinity: Original Sin 2 BattleTech A Beautifully Desolate Campaign Pillars of Eternity 2: Deadfire
This is exactly what FO1 feels like to me, or at least the early areas that I have played thus far, it has a strong BG1 vibe. Lots of empty areas, NPCs spouting one liners, poorly written and inconsistent dialogue, boring content, etc. More like a platform for better things to come (Fallout 2, Arcanum) than an achievement in itself.
Excuse me, but Arcanum is a pretty good example of a game with a lot of empty areas or at least houses.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
Nothing to explain, they are just retarded. As you rightfully pointed out, the FO 2 story is basically the same as FO 1: Save your Vault/tribe by finding water chip/GECK, then find and destroy the evil masters/president HQ. Biggest difference is the abduction of your tribe, since Vault 13 gets only destroyed if you wait too long.

I do understand that some people do not like the abundance of cultural references and silliness but that's just personal taste.

That abundance of silliness sort of undermines the setting which doesn't feel as coherent, Fallout 2 could have expanded upon the original without the inclusion of fedora wearing gangsters, aliens, ghosts, San Francisco (mostly everything in it) and similar stuff. While it certainly has a number of advantages over the first one (the amount of quality content, C&C, faction play between towns, much better follower system etc.), it's quite worse in regards to atmosphere and setting consistency.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
It's a great game with a lot of flaws. Extremely enjoyable to pick and go for a new playthrough (hell, even looking at some SS posted earlier here I already felt the need to reinstall FO1), but honestly a big shame to call this one of the best cRPGs ever. It tells you a lot about the genre and its crowd of fans when a lot of people name FO1 its best specimen. In a sensible world, it'd have been a good game that opened the gates for much better stuff, but humanity doesn't work with logic and we never got much higher than that.

The best doesn't mean perfect, just better than the rest.
 

roshan

Arcane
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,445
Excuse me, but Arcanum is a pretty good example of a game with a lot of empty areas or at least houses.

Yup. One of my biggest criticisms of the game, and the main reason I stopped playing was how empty and obviously unfinished everything after Tarant is.
 

MRY

Wormwood Studios
Developer
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,717
Location
California
The only thing I'll add is that Fallout is full of non-highlighted ways of interacting with the world. For a weak player like me, a lot of that gets missed, and I think that's going to be especially true for anyone going back and playing the game now for the first time. Rather than doing things like having a popup that says, "I see some boulders here. Maybe there's a way to cause them to collapse? 1. Use strength. 2. Use dynamite." etc., the game expects you to think of this as a viable solution, figure out mechanically how to do it, and then execute. Hell, there's an entire mechanism for talking to people (the key word system) that is both optional and even halfway hidden. Throughout the game there are lots of things like this, from fairly large systems that you can more or less opt out of all together (stealth, addiction, and radiation) to non-obvious puzzle mechanics (like wearing the robes). I'm not sure that the way the game works is better than having options be more obvious and systems more integral, but it is still pretty remarkable and kind of mind-boggling, especially when you tie it with other things like open world, time limit, and intelligence-based dialogue options.

As Arcanum later proved, the consequence of this approach is bugs, emptiness, etc., but I actually thinking FO feels better crafted than Arcanum -- more unique graphics, unique characters, tighter plot, etc.
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
Yup. One of my biggest criticisms of the game, and the main reason I stopped playing was how empty and obviously unfinished everything after Tarant is.

Wouldn't say everything (Caladon is pretty awesome for example) but yeah, elven village and mage town feel pretty lackluster/rushed.
 

Forest Dweller

Smoking Dicks
Joined
Oct 29, 2008
Messages
12,232
Oh my God, you are right. How blind we were? Dragon Age 2 perfected Fallout, just as Fallout 3. And let's not talk about Mass Effect, it improved Fallout in every regard!
Good job cherry-picking the worst offenders from our modern generation and somehow expecting that to disprove my point.
 

roshan

Arcane
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
2,445
Wouldn't say everything (Caladon is pretty awesome for example) but yeah, elven village and mage town feel pretty lackluster/rushed.

I don't think I have been to those places yet, Wheel Clan was so disappointing that I lost interest at that point... Is there better content later on? I still have my game and can pick up where I left off (dungeons below wheel clan).
 

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
I don't think I have been to those places yet, Wheel Clan was so disappointing that I lost interest at that point... Is there better content later on? I still have my game and can pick up where I left off (dungeons below wheel clan).

I'd say Caladon mostly, it has a lot of good content. Some of the quests there are quite complex/long and connected with Tarant, there's also some personal stuff with Virgil.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,917
Read OP, didn't see anything too outrageous.

It'll be great when Underrail is released and Fallout can be relegated to the dustbins of antiquity, an experimental curiosity.
 

Vault Dweller

Commissar, Red Star Studio
Developer
Joined
Jan 7, 2003
Messages
28,038
I don't know, why should you save Vault 13 when there's actual civilization rebuilding everywhere?
Where?

A vault is a technological marvel, a place where people enjoy safety, pre-war level of comfort and technology. Arguably, it's more important and appealing than places like Shady Sands, Junktown, etc, where people are trying to survive and not doing that well. There is no actual rebuilding going on. The only tech-savvy place is the BoS bunker that's basically another vault where people hoard and preserve technology.

In other words, you come from a highly advanced place and visit crumbling towns and relatively primitive places. In Fallout 2 you come from a primitive place and visit highly advanced, "what the fuck is this shit?" places like the Vault City, NCR, SF, the Enclave, etc.

Doing your best to preserve one of the last remains of civilization makes a lot of sense and is hard to question. Doing your best to save your shitty village when the world IS rebuilding and GECK is no longer a Thing Of Great Importance doesn't make as much sense.

Overall, Fallout 2 setting makes as much sense as Fallout 3 setting, maybe even less.

Fallout 2, for starters.
First, a "more of the same" sequel hardly counts. Second, it doesn't do anything better. It simply piles up more shit (moar guns! kung-fu! a kung-fu city! gangsters in suits and fedoras! aliens! scientologists! ghosts! giant robots! Yakuza with katanas! talking deathclaws!), while breaking everything that could be broken (the setting, the character system, balance, etc) and calls it a bigger game.

Arcanum IS an attempt to take the Fallout design and crank it up to 11 but the aim was too ambitious and quality suffered. Planescape had better writing but it was linear and had craptastic combat. Bloodlines was too actiony. ToEE was a simple module with great combat but no substance. Witcher 1 - too story-driven to give you even the slightest resemblance of freedom or meaningful choices. None of 2014's darlings come even half way close to Fallout's level of design quality. BG? lol. What else was there?
 

King Crispy

Too bad I have no queen.
Patron
Staff Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
1,876,790
Location
Future Wasteland
Strap Yourselves In
It's not. How many RPGs that are actually better than Fallout (i.e. do the same things Fallout did but better) can you name?

None. I can't. Like I said in my main post, I have a deep affection for Fallout because it brought to me exactly what you're talking about at exactly the right time, in exactly the right manner, and with exactly the right amount of conviction it needed to in order to cement it into my brian as a special segment of my RPG existence.

But now, today, if you go back and scrutinize the game, which is not a good idea if you truly value those memories, you do come to realize that a lot of what OP is stating is true. There are a lot of blank spots. Lots more detail and filler could have been added to the game. Would that have made it "better"? It's actually irrelevant, because RPG's were just not that "complete" back then. Part of Fallout's charm was its... emptiness.
 

Perkel

Arcane
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Messages
15,925
So does that mean that if they could get more shitty pop culture references it would be better ?

There are obiously amazing things in FO2 but problem is that at the same time you have fucking boxer night with fucking mike. Even designers of FO2 agreed that putting so much references was a mistake of young designers.

FO1 feels like actual post apo game after very fucking mean nuclear bombardment.
FO2 feels like nukes payload wasn't enough and it established bunch of shitty cannon lore.

Even mechanically it changed a lot. Sure ton of guns is awesome but in Fallout 1 when you found your first shotgun it felt like christmas and birthday at the same time to only realize that ammo cost more than your life.

In F2 it is basically "meh"
 

NotAGolfer

Arcane
Patron
Joined
Dec 1, 2013
Messages
2,527
Location
Land of Bier and Bratwurst
Divinity: Original Sin 2
OP:

You're right, the game doesn't actually have that much going for it compared to modern rpg sensibilities. It hasn't, in fact, aged well in regards to what has come after it. It was, in many ways, a prototype.

Here's the thing about Fallout.

It deserves credit for what it did at its time. This was the first crpg to bring true pnp sensibilities into the game. By this I mean, mainly, the relatively equal application of skills to progress through the gameworld, allowing diplomatic and stealthy solutions to problems. Previous rpgs were combat-focused. In many ways, this game gave birth to what we regard as C&C now. It was revolutionary, and as such is deserving of praise.

Another big feature is the lack of handholding and unspoken assumption of the player's intelligence. This wasn't a new feature, but a carry-over of design sentiments present in the gaming area that it emerged from. Something that got eroded away in the following years.

It is the marriage of these two elements, I think, that makes Fallout so "special" in the eyes of many Codexers.

But like all prototypes, many things were poorly implemented, such as what you've already pointed out. This is only to be expected, as its almost impossible to achieve perfection when trying something new for the first time. But as it set the stage, it allowed for better implementations in future games, such as - "gasp" - Fallout 2. It has been improved upon. This is something that many Codexers have a hard time accepting.

When something is groundbreaking, respect for what it has achieved can often morph into an artificial "gold standard" that all other entries - past, present, and future - become measured against. Flaws are overlooked. Differences are dismissed. This is a common phenomenon in all art forms, not just games. Never mind what these untested new entries may have to offer, what's come before has already been proven. The biggest casualty that occurs as a result of this is the belief - and assumption - that art should progress. This in turn can lead to stagnation. Thankfully, these misplaced beliefs are often not the majority opinion, and so aren't a real hamper on further progress.

Perhaps I'm being too harsh on the Codex. Still, last I checked, Fallout still ranked number one on the "Best RPG" list, so perhaps not.
Felt tempted to brofist because I also prefer FO2 and think that the 1. game indeed is a bit empty regarding quests and general content density. Only because most modern RPGs tend to use fetch quests and such to fill the gaps doesn't mean that this was good design. Then again I understand that the consequent implementation of C&C was detrimental to having high content density in the game. Quality over quantity, I appreciate that, but that doesn't mean that I don't feel a bit bored by half of FO's areas.
But "modern RPG sensibilities"? Niggah please. You're trying to troll here? :o

@OP: Do yourself the favor and don't overanalyze the game. Try to absorb the atmosphere/mood and take it as a pulpy, self-ironic, Mad Max like play on cultural tropes. And ignore every FAQ or hint guide you find, this game either explains itself or you're fucking retarded.
 
Last edited:

ZagorTeNej

Arcane
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
1,980
It's actually irrelevant, because RPG's were just not that "complete" back then.

And they are now? If Fallout as it was came out right now, which today's game would count as a better overall experience for old, jaded 30 something Codexers?
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom