Smiffy said:
That FO is not perfect seems beside the point. I think anybody who has played FO can list at least half a dozen things which could "really be done better".
I don't know why FO is considered a somewhat proverbial good game here, but I know why that is so for me. Because everything in FO seems a means to and end, which is: to make a good game.
This, for me at least, sets it apart from so many other games which are catered towards making good profit. I don't at any time have the feeling that a feature in FO has been included or not included because it might raise or lower the sales. I don't at any time feel manipulated to act in a certain way or to feel in a certain way. FO seems delivered as if the devs had said:"This is our game about a post-nuclear world. It's the best what we with our time, ressources and talent could come up with. We hope you like it but make of it what you will."
You can say the same about so many games in the 80s and 90s though. Origin lived by their mantra of making worlds rather than products right up until EA bought them - every Ultima game from 1-7 is a labour of love, and given the work that went into it, the shenanigans with making their own memory system just to fit all the stuff they wanted into the game for hardware that really wasn't ready for it, U7 probably tops FO for the 'we want to make the best game we can' mentality. The Wizardry games were labours of love as well - if nothing else, you can't say that anyone would have made Wiz4 a compulsory mention whenever 'hardest crpg/computer-game ever' gets mentioned (with really only one crpg challenger, being that Ultima-clone-in-Japan game) because it would sell the most copies that way. If anything, the early Wizardry games fell into the trap of the designers going 'lets have fun making this as hard as we can, with as many completely unfair bits requiring fuckloads of playthroughs (to even realise there's a map oddity there, let alone working out what it might be, and what the trick to get in is) to have a hope of getting the ultimate Wiz4 ending', where they're having fun more for their sake then the players, but that in itself tells you what a labour of love games were in those days.
In terms of games akin to FO's spirit of 'make a good game', I'd include also include the run of Thief, System Shock and Deus Ex games. PS:T can't be explained in any other way - just flew under the radar and so had creative freedom.
There's always been the money-grabbers as well. Even in the 80s they were there, taking 20c after 20c of kids in arcade parlours with absurd sub-level time limits designed to ensure that the game can't be completed without a fuckload of extra credits, or levels designed to be deceptively difficult to suck in the 'one more credit' mentality. I remember loving those places, but realising even as an 8 year old that they were ripping me off - you could clearly contrast a game like Double Dragon that was beatable by a skilled 2-player co-op team on one credit each (solo was tougher) if you played well vs most games (including the DD sequels, sadly) that were designed to eat coins.
If there's a difference, it's that in the early days of home computer game tech, there were (entirely predictably) a disproportionate number of 'labours of love' out of the hit games. But it really wasn't until around 2002 that you really struggle to find games with a clear 'make a good game first and foremost' design.
Even in second part despite improved party interface and some quests no NPC was esential to game. 
