Editorial Fallout revisited at RPG Watch

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Tags: Fallout; Interplay

Kawika at <a href=http://www.rpgwatch.com/>RPG Watch</a> has done an <a href=http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/article?articleid=16&ref=0&id=33>editorial piece</a> on Fallout, looking back at the game and reminding us of some of the things that made it so special. Here's a clip:
<br>

<br>
<blockquote>
<br>
Although they are essential to the success of any CRPG, it takes more than an engrossing storyline and engaging settings to make such a game truly “special” in the eyes and hearts of the CRPG community, and that’s where Fallout’s one of a kind SPECIAL character-creation system comes into play. SPECIAL is an acronym, indicative of the seven attributes used to describe Fallout characters: Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Intelligence, Agility, and Luck. Besides the attributes, the SPECIAL system also involves a long list of Skills (represented as percentages and any of which can be increased at anytime) and numerous Perks (which give the players the opportunity to actually bend the rules a bit). Exclusive to the Fallout series*, this system, coupled with Fallout’s non-linear gameplay, consequential actions and multiple choice conversations, makes revisiting the wastelands not only an unlimited prospect, but a genuinely pleasurable one as well.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>

<br>
SPECIAL was a fine system but I'd wager its implementation was its best feature.
<br>

<br>
<blockquote>
<br>
While the undeniably endearing quality of Fallout has inspired these sequels and spin-offs, each one reinventing its predecessors, it was the original which had so amply eased my uncertain transition from console gamer to PC gamer. It is upon that which I have reminisced most fondly in all my years of gaming and which I will continue to in all my gaming years to come. So, from the viewpoint of a self-professed post-nuclear Fallout Boy in disguise, I thank the creators of Wasteland whose original style made possible Fallout and I thank the creators of Fallout whose playable vision was the catalyst for my unhealthy, yet cherished, obsession for CRPGs. (...)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>

<br>
Nice article by the writer, but I can't help wondering why Fallout is getting this much love all of a sudden. Is true interest sparking anew or is this only due to the license falling into Bethesda's hands?
<br>

<br>
Spotted at: <A HREF="http://www.rpgwatch.com/">RPG Watch</A>

 

[Cthulhugoat]

I hope he is not using the word "reinventing" in a positive way.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I can't say if that is his intention but it doesn't really matter does it? The point stands, the follow ups did reinvent some or many aspects of the original. Wheter the writer found this to be good or bad is not explicit nor necessary to get the point across.

And thanks to MacBone as well for pointing me to this article. Good intentions don't go to hell just for being late

 

[MacBone]

Heh. Thanks, I think.

Anyone ever try Fallout: Warfare? Was it just a spinoff of the Tactics titles?

 

[Zomg]

I wish "War. War never changes." weren't the Fallout catchphrase. 'Cause it does, a lot.

 

[Seboss]

Fallout: Warfare is a table top game.

 

[denizsi]

Maybe they want to raise awareness of past Fallout titles so people who will play a F3 and a Fallout title for the first time, will have something solid to compare to, as far as the IP goes.

 

[mirrorshades]

Nice write-up, nothing extremely spectacular or revolutionary... but still, a nice retrospective piece.

I would be tempted to write something like that on the original Wasteland, since I spent a huge number of hours on that game several years ago. It seems that every article I read on Fallout just gives Wasteland a quick nod, then ignores it for the rest of the time. The parallels between the two games are really too significant to overlook, in my opinion.

 

[Zomg]

They're actually pretty fucking different games. The game systems are totally dissimilar (Wasteland is a full party game, with a compartmentalized phase-based combat system and learn-by-doing character progression, and minimal proto-RPG role playing and story). I think the character and development systems are probably superior to SPECIAL. The setting is post-apocalyptic but the style is much more overtly silly and random, as opposed to the fairly coherent '50s retrofuturism of Fallout.

They play perfectly distinctly. They are united by setting and by Brian Fargo.

 

[sheek]

I am surprised at seeing Fallout on the shelves each time I am in video game store. On the whole there are hardly any RPGs and of what's offered it's all MMO/action-RPG but the Fallout series pack is always there.

Definitely a popular game.

 

[mr nobuddy]

Funny, I haven't seen it here in ... well, never actually. Take note everyone: Belgium has 0 fallout.

 

[cutterjohn]

...and the Bethesda hype team, starts to kick into gear...

I just wonder how they're going to explain away that FO3 is nothing like or 2, and, likely, yet another non-RPG marketed as an RPG...

 

[Baphomet]

Over Thanksgiving I played Fallout a bit on my laptop. This was my first time playing. I made a character, got outside of the vault, and then killed a bunch of rats with a knife. I took the Bloody Mess feat so stabbing a rat caused it to blow up, which I thought was funny. Anyway, something I have to point out - the Codex always makes fun of killing rats in RPGs, but for some reason Fallout is given an exemption. Why?

 

[VenomByte]

Because fallout doesn't really have a level grind in the same way that many RPG's do, and the experience from killing rats is so low in any case that you might as well just ignore them most of the time.

 

[Claw]

Anyway, something I have to point out - the Codex always makes fun of killing rats in RPGs, but for some reason Fallout is given an exemption. Why?

Really? Where does the Codex say "Killing rats in RPGs is silly - except in Fallout, where it's super awesome"? It just isn't worth mentioning.

 

[sheek]

Because most of the time you can ignore the rats.

This is not the case in Fallout 2 where you are forced to deal with millions of stupidly annoying fights - from the very beginning. Honestly F2 is not a very good game.

 

[Cthulhugoat]

Funny, I haven't seen it here in ... well, never actually. Take note everyone: Belgium has 0 fallout.

Brazil has 0 Fallout as well, but who cares? Download it and be happy.

 

[Baphomet]

Really? Where does the Codex say "Killing rats in RPGs is silly - except in Fallout, where it's super awesome"? It just isn't worth mentioning.

I haven't been around too long and I have already seen plenty of instances of the Codex making fun of rat killing. (It's an easy target, so why not?) I've never seen anyone say anything crappy about the original Fallout around these parts. So when the first enemies I saw were a bunch or rats, I found it odd. Sheek and VenomByte gave some pretty good explanations as to why no one deplores post apocolyptic rat slaying as presented in Fallout I.

 

[Human Shield]

I can't say if that is his intention but it doesn't really matter does it? The point stands, the follow ups did reinvent some or many aspects of the original. Wheter the writer found this to be good or bad is not explicit nor necessary to get the point across.

I wouldn't call cutting stuff out and then putting in half-assed copies of other games as "reinventing". More like Name Raping.

 

[Dhruin]

Thanks for the comments. I thought it was a nice nostalgic piece with an easy style, although I probably would have given more emphasis to the gameplay.

Nice article by the writer, but I can't help wondering why Fallout is getting this much love all of a sudden. Is true interest sparking anew or is this only due to the license falling into Bethesda's hands?

What exactly makes you wonder?

...and the Bethesda hype team, starts to kick into gear...

I guess you lost some forum contest to be an ass?

 

[Claw]

What makes you say that? It looks like he's winning from where I'm sitting. :D

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What exactly makes you wonder?

Not the article itself, nor anything the writer said in it. Fallout has remained a somewhat forgotten franchise over the years, and not even the console spin offs, nor the prospect of a MMOG really helped sparked interest in it. It only seems to have entered gamers' collective memories after the possibility of a sequel at the hands of Bethesda, and I tend to stumble on all kinds of comments across several forums of how good Fallout was - where there were usually none.

 

[Nicolai]

Maybe you're just seeing dead gooks in trees again. Better start popping them pills.

 

[Jinsai]

2 and 2

I loved Fallout. I also loved Fallout 2. I've replayed both more than any other game (and at my age, I've played a lot of games).

As the years go by it gets harder to enjoy them - the UI starts to get in the way more (inventory. Ick.), you can see where some really half-baked gameplay got shoved in (the conversation window with the "search box" - totally useless), and you just know the game so well it's hard to lose yourself in playing so much as losing yourself in memories of playing.

I've also come to realize that some of the things I really enjoy about Fallout (and Planescape: Torment) are their violations of (c)RPG genre conventions. And I think those violations are some of the reasons why those games won't be/can't be mainstream successes: ambiguity, lack of easy choices, real trade-offs, NPCs that you don't have total control over, etc.

Having just finished Neverwinter Nights 2, I find a lot of parallels in the design and UI.

I wonder if people would bash both Fallouts for being "too linear" today.

 

[Volourn]

FO is DEAD.