-
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 .
- Thread starter sigard
- Start date
I'm not reading that ^
With a few exceptions, most pre-fallout RPGs offered "a gazillion galaxies, all randomly generated, all distinct by 1 pixel color", unintuitive control schemes by making a ton of hotkeys that you needed to read about in the manual, and lacked in the story department. Other genres kept evolving and outselling RPGs, while RPGs stagnated for almost a decade and as a result, there was talk about the imminent death of the genre. Fallout is the thing that evolved from those poor selling RPGs into something that became accessible to all and was more fun. It wasn't a decline or incline, it was one of the select few games that saved the RPG genre. In short, it went higher than simply being incline. It was a jump 90 degrees upwards.
With a few exceptions, most pre-fallout RPGs offered "a gazillion galaxies, all randomly generated, all distinct by 1 pixel color", unintuitive control schemes by making a ton of hotkeys that you needed to read about in the manual, and lacked in the story department. Other genres kept evolving and outselling RPGs, while RPGs stagnated for almost a decade and as a result, there was talk about the imminent death of the genre. Fallout is the thing that evolved from those poor selling RPGs into something that became accessible to all and was more fun. It wasn't a decline or incline, it was one of the select few games that saved the RPG genre. In short, it went higher than simply being incline. It was a jump 90 degrees upwards.
Lord_Potato
Arcane
Lemming42
Arcane
Everything you say is true. Fallout is a storyfag game through and through - anyone seeking great combat and exploration need not apply.
It's been said on here before, but Fallout's greatness comes from the way it's arguably the first ever RPG where it feels like you're actually playing against a DM who's reacting to what you do. Successfully creating that illusion is at the core of any story-based RPG, and Fallout is one of the only games ever to succeed at it. You classify this as "entertainment elements", which comes across as kind of dismissive. It's fair to criticise Fallout's core mechanics (because they are a bit shit, for the reasons you pointed out), but it's equally fair to say that the game doesn't necessarily need great combat. And at least the combat is serviceable, rewards/punishes you for your skill point allocations as it should, and is over quickly. It's not like New Vegas, which might be the best Fallout game if it weren't trapped in the fucking Gamebryo engine, forcing you to endure the worst combat known to mankind.
Fallout's story and setting are also wrapped up in such a great package - the graphics are beautiful, the music is amazing (even if it's just a dark ambient CD which Mark Morgan found and decided to copy every fucking track off), the clay models for the talking heads all ooze character, boosted by top voice acting. You correctly mention these as the things people remember about the game, but again, they're such a success that they're all the game needs to be great. It's not a perfect game, but it sort of shows you the outline of a perfect game, which is more than most RPGs do.
Fallout's briefness is also part of its strength. Fallout 2 and New Vegas are both great games with their own strengths, but their length isn't one of them. Unless you just do the main quests in both and ignore 95% of the content, 2 and NV are utterly overlong and by the end you're just begging for it to end. Fallout 1, meanwhile, throws you into a snapshot of a fascinating world, shows you a glimpse of the lives of the people living there, sends you on a journey with a clear beginning and end, and concludes at the perfect point, where you've seen enough to be deeply invested in the world, but seen so little that you're wishing for more and your imagination is running wild.
It's been said on here before, but Fallout's greatness comes from the way it's arguably the first ever RPG where it feels like you're actually playing against a DM who's reacting to what you do. Successfully creating that illusion is at the core of any story-based RPG, and Fallout is one of the only games ever to succeed at it. You classify this as "entertainment elements", which comes across as kind of dismissive. It's fair to criticise Fallout's core mechanics (because they are a bit shit, for the reasons you pointed out), but it's equally fair to say that the game doesn't necessarily need great combat. And at least the combat is serviceable, rewards/punishes you for your skill point allocations as it should, and is over quickly. It's not like New Vegas, which might be the best Fallout game if it weren't trapped in the fucking Gamebryo engine, forcing you to endure the worst combat known to mankind.
Fallout's story and setting are also wrapped up in such a great package - the graphics are beautiful, the music is amazing (even if it's just a dark ambient CD which Mark Morgan found and decided to copy every fucking track off), the clay models for the talking heads all ooze character, boosted by top voice acting. You correctly mention these as the things people remember about the game, but again, they're such a success that they're all the game needs to be great. It's not a perfect game, but it sort of shows you the outline of a perfect game, which is more than most RPGs do.
Fallout's briefness is also part of its strength. Fallout 2 and New Vegas are both great games with their own strengths, but their length isn't one of them. Unless you just do the main quests in both and ignore 95% of the content, 2 and NV are utterly overlong and by the end you're just begging for it to end. Fallout 1, meanwhile, throws you into a snapshot of a fascinating world, shows you a glimpse of the lives of the people living there, sends you on a journey with a clear beginning and end, and concludes at the perfect point, where you've seen enough to be deeply invested in the world, but seen so little that you're wishing for more and your imagination is running wild.
yo mama was a harbinger of decline
Combat is kinda shallow, but not everything has to be DnD tier complicated.
The word you are looking for is "Ultima VII". Fallout wasn't a harbinger, it was only a bump on the long road down.
Lonely Vazdru
Pimp my Title
The fact that they don't love you back is probably the source of your dissatisfaction. I'm not sure playing CRPG and pissing people off on boards will ease it.
The Jester
Cipher
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2020
- Messages
- 1,470
Your mom was Hardener of my dick.
ciox
Liturgist
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2016
- Messages
- 1,298
While Fallout 1 goes from a party system to a single-character system, it also shows a way for such a system to work, through improvements to character customization.
There was either no such thing as feats, or they were not at all popular before Fallout's perks came along, instead RPG characters just gained new capabilities automatically at certain levels, and stayed locked to one path of development.
Fallout's perks then made it back into D&D as feats so that even a full party system could have more character customization, and inspired the character levelling systems for many other video games.
There was either no such thing as feats, or they were not at all popular before Fallout's perks came along, instead RPG characters just gained new capabilities automatically at certain levels, and stayed locked to one path of development.
Fallout's perks then made it back into D&D as feats so that even a full party system could have more character customization, and inspired the character levelling systems for many other video games.
Fallout's gameplay is mostly ass. Infinitron and I got a decent amount of hate for saying as much way back in the day, and Darth Roxor still hasn't forgiven me, the dear boy.
But core combat gameplay isn't really what Fallout is about, so you can't judge the entire game on it's half-assed customization systems or weak-ass combat. What it does in terms of C&C, sensation of scarcity build into the mechanics, building an outstanding atmosphere and having mechanics back up the roleplaying in each aspect of the game is where it truly shines.
It is meaningless to divide everything into "decline" and "incline" as if game design follows a binary up- or down-trend. If you actually think that way inside your own head, you've drunk too heavily from the Codex meme pot.
If the question is whether Fallout 1 is a good game, it most certainly is.
But core combat gameplay isn't really what Fallout is about, so you can't judge the entire game on it's half-assed customization systems or weak-ass combat. What it does in terms of C&C, sensation of scarcity build into the mechanics, building an outstanding atmosphere and having mechanics back up the roleplaying in each aspect of the game is where it truly shines.
It is meaningless to divide everything into "decline" and "incline" as if game design follows a binary up- or down-trend. If you actually think that way inside your own head, you've drunk too heavily from the Codex meme pot.
If the question is whether Fallout 1 is a good game, it most certainly is.
Last edited:
V_K
Arcane
Only if you never played Dragon Wars, Pool of Radiance, Dark Sun or Quest of Glory.
Here, he said it: Fallout IS decline.
"Perks" are garbage, basically skill trees sans clean presentation. The reason they are there is because every RPG needs some button:awesome abilities and they couldn't do it via spells and powerful magic artifacts as it is usually done. Cargoculting this crap back into games WITH spells and artifacts is plain retarded.
Last edited:
ciox
Liturgist
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2016
- Messages
- 1,298
Found the Fallout 4 fan.
DraQ
Arcane
Sratopotator
Savant
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2016
- Messages
- 149
Every game that has a lot of moving parts and has a big following (a "Great" game) can be considered as a harbinger of decline. Each and every one. Duh (even purely because of its popularity).
1. Obviously, Great games are imitated by other developers.
2. Even Great games are not perfect. In general, no games are. Developers imitating a Great game, often duplicate its faults. Every Great game has faults.
3. Even if a product is Great, people who like this product can be complete morons and have zero taste. Surprisingly, liking something that requires a certain level of "taste", does not mean that the person liking it has the chops to create anything worthwhile, or even that the person can differentiate good ideas from bad ones.
This is all even more true for games that can be considered "better than the sum of their parts", which Fallout certainly is (seeing how much of it is objectively mediocre).
PS: tldr
1. Obviously, Great games are imitated by other developers.
2. Even Great games are not perfect. In general, no games are. Developers imitating a Great game, often duplicate its faults. Every Great game has faults.
3. Even if a product is Great, people who like this product can be complete morons and have zero taste. Surprisingly, liking something that requires a certain level of "taste", does not mean that the person liking it has the chops to create anything worthwhile, or even that the person can differentiate good ideas from bad ones.
This is all even more true for games that can be considered "better than the sum of their parts", which Fallout certainly is (seeing how much of it is objectively mediocre).
PS: tldr
Last edited:
Ol' Willy
Arcane
Fallout's weakest point is undoubtedly combat.
To think of it, skill system isn't properly realized at all. I already wrote about this some time before.
But the foundation is great. And when we play Fallout, we can see the first use of this foundation and it is glorious.
The sad part that there was very few games based on this foundation. Fallout 2 grow wide, but not high. Arcanum is a different beast.
Things were in this sad state until 2015. AoD, Nevada, 1.5, Dungeon Rats, Sonora... all games built on this great foundation.
The legacy of Fallout, sans the horrible wannabes
To think of it, skill system isn't properly realized at all. I already wrote about this some time before.
But the foundation is great. And when we play Fallout, we can see the first use of this foundation and it is glorious.
The sad part that there was very few games based on this foundation. Fallout 2 grow wide, but not high. Arcanum is a different beast.
Things were in this sad state until 2015. AoD, Nevada, 1.5, Dungeon Rats, Sonora... all games built on this great foundation.
The legacy of Fallout, sans the horrible wannabes
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2015
- Messages
- 11,872
Dungeons & Dragons has always had fairly abstract, gamist combat, with the early computer adaptations increasing the complexity by making it as tactical as possible, in similar fashion to several early competitors developing more detailed, concrete combat systems .
ExposedBrainMatter
Educated
How much amphetamine are you using to write these?
TheHeroOfTime
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2015
- Messages
- 5,097
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.