Was the original Fallout an open world game?

[JarlFrank]

What's the definition of open world then, if Fallout doesn't fit it?

Fallout allows you to go to any location at any point in the game.
You can go straight to the Cathedral at level 1 if you so please.
You can even attack the military base at level 1 but you are unlikely to survive.
You can spend hours just walking across the world map and getting into random encounters.
No location is closed off to you, everything is open from the start. Speedrunners go straight to the Master and finish the game in 10 minutes.

The fact that world map travel is abstracted doesn't change the fact that every location is open to you from the start, with zero plot gates to lock them off until a later point. Compare that to Baldur's Gate which keeps its biggest location closed off by an invisible wall (inability to travel north until a certain plot point is reached).

A non-linear game doesn't have to be open world, sure. Dragon Age is non-linear but not an open world: you can choose the order in which to tackle all the different areas, but you have to tackle them eventually, and there's a plot structure that determines which content can be accessed at which point.

Fallout has zero restrictions on your movement across the world.
It is, by definition, an open world.

 

[Arbiter]

Note that Oblivion and Skyrim aren't exactly seamless - larger cities and most dungeons are separate cells with loading screens. Yet no one denies that they are open world games.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Whoever split this thread did a poor job and only brought over some of the open world posts.

But yeah, the reason they added the qualifier "seamless" was to distinguish it from previous open world games that had annoying loading screens.

The "openness" of the game world is a separate issue from how it is represented graphically (or whether or not it has zone lines / loading screens).

 

[Nifft Batuff]

When Arena and Daggerfall were published the first time I think no one called them open-world or non-linear. They were just RPGs. RPG were expected to be open world and non linear, it was a tautology.
I think open-world and non-linear became terms commonly used years after, when scripted and corridor shooter game design started to be the norm.

 

[Agame]

Fallout has zero restrictions on your movement across the world.
It is, by definition, an open world.

Boom, end of argument motherfuckers.

Thats my definition: the ability to travel to any part of the game from the beginning, no reason to complicate it any further.

Unfortunately we now have legions of Bethes-tards and Ubi-shit-heads who equate open world with the "theme park" design philosophy. Whereby all locations have to be collected into a single level/world space, creating the ridiculous immersion breaking scenarios of a capitol city in Skyrim containing no more than a dozen houses. And being a 5 minute horse ride from every other city.

'Open world' as a terminology has been hijacked into meaning this very specific design of AAA cookie cutter games. Hence we see something like Elden Ring adhering to the same parameters to get those dumb normie dollars.

 

[Robotigan]

What's the definition of open world then, if Fallout doesn't fit it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connected_space

 

[agentorange]

I always called it a "segmented open-world." Games like Fallout, Geneforge, Stalker, Arcanum etc where you are traversing between interconnected hubs or points of interest, but the world between the hubs isn't navigated in real-time. It is certainly distinctly different than open world games where the world is one seamless area. I suppose Fallout/Arcanum are a bit different even within this because you technically could traverse the areas in between the hubs in real-time (I think, not sure about Fallout 1 but I believe in Arcanum you can technically walk from one area to the next, it just takes forever) but that clearly isn't the developer's intention.

 

[Roguey]

Note that Oblivion and Skyrim aren't exactly seamless - larger cities and most dungeons are separate cells with loading screens. Yet no one denies that they are open world games.

I already addressed this.

Loading screens are fine, the issue is the abstraction of traveling great distances.

 

[Morpheus Kitami]

Fallout has zero restrictions on your movement across the world.
It is, by definition, an open world.

Something to think about, most of the games now known for "starting" the open world revolution limit the amount of space you can go through at the beginning. Vice City locks off half the map, its rare for a Ubisoft title to not also lock off half the map or more. And basically ALL of these titles have a highly locked off questline so you can't just go straight to the end boss. Kind of amusing to think that a game whose open world status is being argued over is more open than the games who aren't getting questioned.

 

[Gilius Thunderhead]

I'd say Fallout is "open", but not "open world", that's just a confusion in terms.

It's an "open" game--generally speaking--because, as others have stated, you're not restricted in where to go. It's also non-linear because there is no predetermined sequence of events for the most part. These are usually correlated but are not the same thing.

An open world is, to me, a seamless (as far as technical limitations can be forgiven) world with no abstraction of space. If 99% of worldmap space is abstracted, has no discrete existence, can't be visited, how can it be open world? In certain JRPGs like Final Fantasy VII you can also traverse the world at your leisure, but locations are simply generic backgrounds for random encounters (much like in Fallout). I don't remember anyone calling them open world.

I think the Fallout devs tried to simulate an open world effect with the traveling system but it was simply not feasible to recreate a world of that size. It's clear they had some ambitions in that regard. Case in point: Arcanum. That game is a bit more ambiguous, as everything in the world has a discrete existence, can be visited by simply walking, yet there's no point in doing so. A few quests invite you to go off the beaten path next to a couple of towns, but apart from that you're obviously expected to use the world map. It's very easy to imagine Fallout with such a system, where you could walk from location to location but it'd be just empty desert. Technically it'd be open-world, but it'd still be lacking proper open-world design.

 

[<3sRichardSimmons]

You can dislike it all you like, “open-world” very clearly denotes a certain characteristic of (largely AAA) games at this point. Bethesda, Ubisoft, CDPR, etc.

Faery Tale Adventure was the first Open World CRPG, and it was made by one person in seven months. Admittedly 3D Open Worlds tend to require a considerable amount of expenditure, but it is possible to create successful ones with a relatively small team, as with Kenshi or Outward.

Dude. You’re one of the good posters on this board, but I have no idea what to make of it when you post this sort of shit. Bluntly, it seems like a bad-faith argument. FTA, Mid-series Ultimas, Darklands and even BaK are obviously much more “open” in their approach to design than any modern game.

That still doesn’t change the fact that “open-world” is a label slapped on any AAA game with non-linear elements and has largely come to define them; you can dislike that language evolves, but it will not change the fact.

 

[anvi]

and it was made by one person in seven months

Back when programmers were based. Truly the best of the times.

They could actually program too. Now they just piece together other peoples stuff in Unity like big fat phonies.

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Daggerfall is open world. Witcher 3 is open world. Fallout is not open world.

The difference between Daggerfall and Fallout is that one randomizes all the terrain between the content areas that matter and the other abstracts it and reuses the same generic levels for random encounters. That is enough to make a difference, but it is a gray area.

It's not a gray area.

Well it is because by your definition Arcanum is an open world RPG whereas Fallout isn't. And is there really a substantial difference between them?

 

[Modron]

Arcanum is fully open world you can run across it from one end to the other without opening the map, with exception to Rivers which have marked crossings/bridges/shallows and mountain ranges nothing bars your path, takes less time than you think it will.

 

[Alphons]

Original Fallout is Hub based.

 

[Wulfric Pinewood]

Lads, no point in arguing better start on playing games ! And yeah, Fallout is open as fuck.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Dude. You’re one of the good posters on this board, but I have no idea what to make of it when you post this sort of shit. Bluntly, it seems like a bad-faith argument. FTA, Mid-series Ultimas, Darklands and even BaK are obviously much more “open” in their approach to design than any modern game.

That still doesn’t change the fact that “open-world” is a label slapped on any AAA game with non-linear elements and has largely come to define them; you can dislike that language evolves, but it will not change the fact.

The term "Open World" has been increasingly abused in recent years, as referenced in my second post in regard to confusion between non-linearity in structure and being "Open World". You might point to a different misuse of the term "Open World", where it is applied to high-budget AAA games without proper regard as to whether they fulfill the requirements, and perhaps this is further misleading people into limiting application of the term to AAA games on the grounds of their larger quantity of content, or their advanced graphics, or some other irrelevant notion. However, it behooves us, as posters on a prestigious RPG forum, not to follow popular misconceptions of terminology but instead to insist on proper definitions of concepts, whether Open World or RPG itself.

XLIII
There are also Idols formed by the intercourse and association of men with each other, which I call Idols of the Market Place, on account of the commerce and consort of men there. For it is by discourse that men associate, and words are imposed according to the apprehension of the vulgar. And therefore the ill and unfit choice of words wonderfully obstructs the understanding. Nor do the definitions or explanations wherewith in some things learned men are wont to guard and defend themselves, by any means set the matter right. But words plainly force and overrule the understanding, and throw all into confusion, and lead men away into numberless empty controversies and idle fancies.
- Novum Organum, Francis Bacon

 

[rusty_shackleford]

FO3 isn't even a seamless open world game, did you guys not pay attention to the subway system?

Yeah, Fallout and Fallout 3 are just FUCKING IDENTICAL, both open world games. Completely identical design!
I can't tell if this site is even serious anymore honestly.


I get it, Fallout is literally every genre ever made whatever.

 

[koyota]

Man, that open-world article sure can give you the argument that anything is an open-world.

There has to be a clearer meaning of open-environment.
Aka plenty of games are huge massive open-worlds but your only verb to interact is attack / jump.
Whereas something like "Family Man" a game which offers just as much freedom in interaction as Skyrim, but places you in an village 1/1000th of the size.

Arcanum is fully open world you can run across it from one end to the other without opening the map, with exception to Rivers which have marked crossings/bridges/shallows and mountain ranges nothing bars your path, takes less time than you think it will.

 

[Nifft Batuff]

The Ultima games are open worlds.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

Man, that open-world article sure can give you the argument that anything is an open-world.

essentially every game ever made is an open-world game. If you happen to think of ubishit or similar when you read the word "open world", stop trusting your lying eyes.

Able to go right in a platformer? Totally open world! You can explore the whole game!

 

[Falksi]

BL2 isn't open world, at least it wasn't. I suppose it could be one now, which would be funny.

Perhaps it is open world not in the "big seamless world without loading screens" sense that is more about the technical and presentation side but in the "you can go anywhere" sense that is more about the world gameplay side, like in Fallout 1/2. BL1 wasn't like that since areas opened gradually but there isn't really much of a reason (aside from scripting) that it couldn't have been designed so you could visit all areas from the beginning of the game.

I swear I've never seen anyone conflate 'open world' with nonlinear until a couple years ago. When did this trend start?
Daggerfall is open world. Witcher 3 is open world. Fallout is not open world.

Witcher 3 is a sandbox games with cutscenes. Saints Row 4 without the fun.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

BL2 isn't open world, at least it wasn't. I suppose it could be one now, which would be funny.

Perhaps it is open world not in the "big seamless world without loading screens" sense that is more about the technical and presentation side but in the "you can go anywhere" sense that is more about the world gameplay side, like in Fallout 1/2. BL1 wasn't like that since areas opened gradually but there isn't really much of a reason (aside from scripting) that it couldn't have been designed so you could visit all areas from the beginning of the game.

I swear I've never seen anyone conflate 'open world' with nonlinear until a couple years ago. When did this trend start?
Daggerfall is open world. Witcher 3 is open world. Fallout is not open world.

Witcher 3 is a sandbox games with cutscenes. Saints Row 4 without the fun.

How is it a sandbox game in the least?
A sandbox game is inherently one where the player makes their own fun and typically lacks any kind of objective. Kenshi, minecraft, etc., Witcher 3 is the complete opposite.

If only there was a term we could use to describe what Witcher 3 is like. I mean, it's an open world and all... but I don't think it would fit!

If only we could have a definition that was the counterpart to Sandbox's "do whatever you want" that was "go where ever you want"... oh well!

 

[Bad Sector]

or Morrowind (2002), where the player-character moves directly through a seamless overworld environment

Morrowind isn't seamless, the overworld is separate from the various dungeons, buildings and other areas/zones (e.g. ship interiors). In later Bethesda games they become even less seamless, with cities being in their own zones. Though...

But yeah, the reason they added the qualifier "seamless" was to distinguish it from previous open world games that had annoying loading screens.

...keep in mind that if "open world" is something that many people associate with the free roaming big AAA worlds, thus not really having a rigid definition anymore (assuming it ever really had one), "seamless" is even less as here i'm using it to describe how the game works in a purely technical term (no loading screens, everything transitions seamlessly) - though this isn't me coming up with it, i read about it in a postmortem about -IIRC- Dungeon Siege - to differentiate it from my design-oriented use of "open world" as something independent from technical considerations.

Something to think about, most of the games now known for "starting" the open world revolution limit the amount of space you can go through at the beginning. Vice City locks off half the map, its rare for a Ubisoft title to not also lock off half the map or more. And basically ALL of these titles have a highly locked off questline so you can't just go straight to the end boss. Kind of amusing to think that a game whose open world status is being argued over is more open than the games who aren't getting questioned.

(IMO) GTA3 (and the same applies to VC IIRC) is fine as an open world game even though you can't access the rest of the city because there is an in-game reason you can't do that (some bridge is damaged or something - i don't remember exactly), not an arbitrary decision that exists at the game design level (see how you can't access Chinatown in VtmB from the beginning as an example of a game that places an arbitrary restriction in where you can go - as far as the game is concerned Chinatown doesn't exist before the game lets you go there). GTA's limitation here is basically more similar to a locked area in Fallout/Morrowind/whatever that you know it exists but can't access because the door can't be opened.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

I have decided to classify any game with manual saving as 'open world' because you can go back and traverse any point of the game. Infinitely open world.