Editorial Five Things We Learned From Fallout

[VentilatorOfDoom]

Tags: Black Isle Studios; Fallout

<p>Joystick Division compiled a list of things we learned from Fallout. Unfortunately "we" doesn't include most RPG developers but anyway, <a href="http://www.joystickdivision.com/2011/03/five_things_we_learned_from_fa.php" target="_blank">here's the list</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p><span class="mt-enclosure mt-enclosure-image" style="display: inline;"><em> Fallout</em></span> subverts conventional RPG standards in several senses. Instead of the typical sword, shield and spells, you have machineguns and grenades. Instead of orcs and goblins, you face anarchists and irradiated scorpions. But maybe the biggest departure from the norms of past videogames is that <em>Fallout</em> doesn't have a mandatory final boss battle.</p>
<p>That's right. It's in there, if you want to do it. And it's as tough and intense as any final boss battle you'll ever play. But if you don't feel like taking on a twin-gatling-gun-wielding mutant-goo psychopath, you can do a couple things (spoiler alert!). You can:</p>
<p>A.) Talk him down. Convince him of his folly. That's right, you can actually use <em>diplomacy</em> to prevent the <em>final boss battle</em> in this game.</p>
<p>Or you can:</p>
<p>B.) Just walk past his lair and nuke the entire fucking base. Boom. Goodbye.</p>
<p>Imagine if Mario got to the final stage and encountered his arch-nemesis Bowser, and instead of fighting just reasoned with him until Bowser agreed he had a point and gave up the princess? Or what if Link from <em>Zelda: a Link to the Past</em> was transported to the Dark World, but instead of freeing maidens from crystals and engaging in a final confrontation with Gannon, just hooked up a nuke and blew the entire place to hell?</p>
<p>Sound crazy? Sure. But that type of crazy is what makes <em>Fallout</em> a classic.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Spotted at: <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com/news/102174-five-things-we-learned-from-fallout.html">GB</a></p>

 

[Commissar Draco]

Shame that cosoltards sheeple and their gnomish pupetmasters can't learn a thing from this. The latter I can underatand the gold is easier to obtain that way while the former are just prroving Nietche/nazis/Stalin were right.

 

[Xor]

Decent article, actually.

 

[Vibalist]

I remember I had a discussion back in the day with some people on the Bioware boards. I brought up Fallout 1 as an example of how one could handle a final boss fight without simply throwing waves of enemies at the player. They argued that the only way of making a final boss fight tense and exciting was to do this. Options such as a diplomatic or stealthy resolutions simply weren't as immersive. I mean, fighting through a horde of enemies is the only way to truly immerse the player, right?
This is what they thought. And that is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Blasterhead]

...really? I think this article is a bit shit.

Bar the point about multiple solutions to problems, it's about lessons learnt from larping rather than lessons we've learnt from Fallout about games. The humour doesn't redeem it.

It... It was supposed to be funny right? I started to imagine it being spoken by an excited and obnoxious voice and now I'm just irritated.

 

[DragoFireheart]

I remember I had a discussion back in the day with some people on the Bioware boards. I brought up Fallout 1 as an example of how one could handle a final boss fight without simply throwing waves of enemies at the player. They argued that the only way of making a final boss fight tense and exciting was to do this. Options such as a diplomatic or stealthy resolutions simply weren't as immersive. I mean, fighting through a horde of enemies is the only way to truly immerse the player, right?
This is what they thought. And that is why we can't have nice things.

People don't want to be diplomatic because that requires talking. They talk all day in real life, why would they want to do it in a game? Stealth isn't as a neat an option unless you are a kung-fu ninja: consletards don't like real stealth where timing and non-hostile actions are the focus as oppose to doing 1337 sneak attacks. The average persons IQ is 100, which means that 50% of the population is likely dumbfucking stupid and don't have the attention span to appreciate the more subtly means of resolving conflicts in a game. All they want to do is press the button of awesome and watch their screen explode.

It's like my professor at my college was talking about in regards to many people not liking programming and instead opting to do graphic design in the game industry: they want that instant gratification. People want results now and you don't get that by being sneaky or by being talky. Its true for jobs, entertainment and the general mentality of human culture in our era. Most people don't like delayed gratification, yet the irony of it all (as you many esteemed codexers know) that the delayed enjoyment of seeing the result of a dialog option you selected in PS:T or by being sneaky and setting off the nuke in Fallout can be even MORE satisfying and simply smashing everything in your way. I know for myself that while I enjoy fighting things in RPGs, I at times get much more enjoyment AVOIDING fights ala sneak, instantly-killing a boss and than sneaking out with no one the wiser.

 

[Mastermind]

Instead of orcs and goblins, you face anarchists and irradiated scorpions.

And orcs. Only they call them supermutants.

And it's as tough and intense as any final boss battle you'll ever play.

 

[J_C]

I remember I had a discussion back in the day with some people on the Bioware boards. I brought up Fallout 1 as an example of how one could handle a final boss fight without simply throwing waves of enemies at the player. They argued that the only way of making a final boss fight tense and exciting was to do this. Options such as a diplomatic or stealthy resolutions simply weren't as immersive. I mean, fighting through a horde of enemies is the only way to truly immerse the player, right?
This is what they thought. And that is why we can't have nice things.

If I can finish a game using diplomacy, that is a 100 times satisfying than an "intense" battle where the devs throw dozens of enemies at you, or create a boss with a million hit points, which you have to tear down in a long, boring fight.

 

[Vibalist]

I remember I had a discussion back in the day with some people on the Bioware boards. I brought up Fallout 1 as an example of how one could handle a final boss fight without simply throwing waves of enemies at the player. They argued that the only way of making a final boss fight tense and exciting was to do this. Options such as a diplomatic or stealthy resolutions simply weren't as immersive. I mean, fighting through a horde of enemies is the only way to truly immerse the player, right?
This is what they thought. And that is why we can't have nice things.

If I can finish a game using diplomacy, that is a 100 times satisfying than an "intense" battle where the devs throw dozens of enemies at you, or create a boss with a million hit points, which you have to tear down in a long, boring fight.

Of course it is. Which is why those people I was arguing with on the Bioboards came across as incredibly retarded. They seemed to think having dozens of enemies thrown at you and fighting a boss with 6 billion hitpoints is the one and only way to create a tense ending scenario in a game. The one and only way.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I remember I had a discussion back in the day with some people on the Bioware boards. I brought up Fallout 1 as an example of how one could handle a final boss fight without simply throwing waves of enemies at the player. They argued that the only way of making a final boss fight tense and exciting was to do this. Options such as a diplomatic or stealthy resolutions simply weren't as immersive. I mean, fighting through a horde of enemies is the only way to truly immerse the player, right?
This is what they thought. And that is why we can't have nice things.

People don't want to be diplomatic because that requires talking. They talk all day in real life, why would they want to do it in a game?

I was impressed by the idea of diplomacy when I have played Fallout for the first time. I have never thought that it's possible to resolve conflict without beating people up before I played it.

 

[DragoFireheart]

I was impressed by the idea of diplomacy when I have played Fallout for the first time. I have never thought that it's possible to resolve conflict without beating people up before I played it.

I was as well and have been enjoying it other games as well. PS:T does a much better job IMO but both games are very good in this regard. However, my point is that the average dumbfuck just wants to see cool shit and they don't perceive diplomacy as cool shit.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

And it's as tough and intense as any final boss battle you'll ever play.

In terms of number of reloads. You keep getting insta-kill critted by The Master until you finally reload and it doesn't happen and you win.

 

[Xor]

Or you stand behind a pillar in his room so he can't shoot you, using your AP to take pot shots at him without taking damage. You can get the robots that spawn to be hostile to him as well, and he won't attack them so you can basically hid behind a pillar and just let him be killed by his own minions. It's hilarious to watch.

The only real problem is the super mutants that spawn down the hall, and even they aren't difficult to deal with, and if you get lucky they'll bug out and just never move from the end of the hall.

Ah, Fallout was a buggy game. But I love it so much.

 

[Daemongar]

You are missing something that was important to the diplomacy route. If developers were to learn something from this, they might just add conversation options to the dialog to allow anyone to talk the Master down. While I loved BG1 & 2, dialog options were not reliant on INT either, lwhich I think was a mistake (but they did have some features that were alignment dependant, I'll concede.)

In Fallout, talking the Master out of his plan was a combination of Speech and Int. You just couldn't do it as a 4 INT guy. That's what made it special and made me play the whole damn game through again (amongst several reasons.) Even this way, it's different than FO3/NV where stats and speech were handled poorly.

But there has to be a tradeoff! In FO3, you could take high INT to start, and then buff your ST over the next 5 levels. That kind of diminished the importance of abilities, and kind of pissed on a lot of the games unique experience, but that's my opinion. If you aren't sacrificing ST or AG or some other majorly important skill to buff INT, then finishing the game as a diplomat is meaningless. That is, if you have 100 in guns, 100 in speech are wearing power armor, and you can choose how you finish the game, so if speech doesn't work, hey, you got a big gun.

In FO1, you put a lot of effort into being a diplomat and if speech doesn't work, you are up shit creek.
The diplomat route in FO1 was a little more unique because you had to give up Action points, Strength, and other things that would make that last fight a lot easier. The player put his trust that Black Isle was going to have a way for them to finish the game without rocket launcher skill, and damned if they didn't deliver.

It's too bad that games that offer unique experiences dependant on stats seem to be a thing of the past...

 

[Mastermind]

And it's as tough and intense as any final boss battle you'll ever play.

In terms of number of reloads. You keep getting insta-kill critted by The Master until you finally reload and it doesn't happen and you win.

I finished Fallout 3 times and never got insta-killed. In fact I don't remember getting killed at all. Not only that but the primary complaint i saw (that a lot of orcs spawn during the battle) never really happened because I was critting him to death in a few rounds. I went in expecting a difficult battle after curbstomping everything in my way thanks to the absurdly overpowered powerarmor only to find that the only "challenge" the master possessed was that he wouldn't die in one shot like everyone else.

 

[mangsy]

Five things I learned from FO 1 & 2 (keep in mind I was a youngster when I first played both):

1. What a Geiger counter is.
2. What Kama Sutra is.
3. What a gimp is.
4. One of the best places to murder someone is in a soundproof room.
5. With a few minutes to spare, you can outrun most explosions (even nuclear ones).

 

[Jim Cojones]

Five things I learned from FO 1 & 2 (keep in mind I was a youngster when I first played both):

1. What a Geiger counter is.
2. What Kama Sutra is.
3. What a gimp is.
4. One of the best places to murder someone is in a soundproof room.
5. With a few minutes to spare, you can outrun most explosions (even nuclear ones).

What cojones mean. :D

 

[Elzair]

That said, there is a place for Slamdunks. Haven't most BIS/Obsidian hits (F2, IWD, IWD2, MOTB, F:NV) been slamdunks?

 

[Black Bart Charley]

whats a gimp?

 

[J_C]

whats a slamdunk?

 

[Azrael the cat]

Five things I learned from FO 1 & 2 (keep in mind I was a youngster when I first played both):

2. What Kama Sutra is.

I learnt that when I found the book in my parents' bedroom draw. Oh the humanity.

3. What a gimp is.

Never saw Pulp Fiction? For Shame!

5. With a few minutes to spare, you can outrun most explosions (even nuclear ones).

Yes, but Predator taught me that you can survive at the absolute epicentre of a jungle-clearing explosion large enough to produce a mushroom cloud, so long as you duck behind a log.

 

[Kalin]

Was it possible to talk down the Master without Vree's holodisc? I remember that he/she/it wanted some actual proof, and handing over that particular disc from the creepy boy-girl Scribe seemed to be the only way in which to provide any.

As for hiding behind the pillars, it was cheap indeed. The Master should have gotten interrupts.

More seriously, why did the article have to slam Sean Bean's characters? In Goldeneye his character just wanted to avenge his family, and in the Lord of the Rings he wanted to save his kingdom. All in all, two perfectly legitimate hero quests.

 

[Crabtree]

Just walk past his lair and nuke the entire fucking base. Boom. Goodbye.

Imagine if Mario got to the final stage and encountered his arch-nemesis Bowser, and instead of fighting just reasoned with him until Bowser agreed he had a point and gave up the princess?

In fact in the very first Super Mario Bros. game, you could kill Bowser by not fighting him but instead walking past him and cutting the bridge he was standing on. Boom. Goodbye.

Fucking new kids who don't know any history.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I brought up Fallout 1 as an example of how one could handle a final boss fight without simply throwing waves of enemies at the player.

Aherm... The ending of Fallout has Super Mutants charging up the passageway as you fight the Master as well Floaters and Robot attacking you en mass (in fact I'm pretty sure the Super Mutants even respawn constantly until the Master is dead - and after checking, yes 12 Super Mutants spawn in succession to fight you as the Master has at you as well).

Was it possible to talk down the Master without Vree's holodisc?

Nope. According to per's walkthrough (built on knowledge from the game's files):

• "The "diplomatic" solution demands that you carry or have read Vree's autopsy report and that you have IN 7 and good Speech to get all the dialogue options (there's always Mentats)."

But hey, no-one said Diplomacy was easy. If you wanted the easy way, that's what combat is there for.

Also, niggers forgot you can join the Master for the invasion movie ending.

 

[Virtual Vice]

Being able to handle things diplomatically is great, and having it tied to an attribute and a skill worked well in the fallouts.

But still I wonder if a pure reputation system ( with many layers or different stats, and tracking NPC individual reactions as well) couldn't work just as well or better as that approach. You could still be forced to make many sacrifices in terms of opportunities and choices for your character, and it would require more developed dialog options.

For example should the experience gained by killing 400 rats ( or whatever) allow your character to develop a capacity for persuasion so great that seems close to telepathic mind control?

Or should your interacting with NPC's and the favor/disfavor you have with them ( and any factions they are tied to for example, or individual NPC's that they have strong feelings about), determine your ability to solve things diplomatically or not, to manipulate characters and factions etc?


The way fallout did it in terms of dialog options and the context, did not make it seem so absurd of course.

I just wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have deep and consequential interaction with NPC's on all levels, and all of that being proper roleplaying and character development, without relying on assigning points to skills or stats, but gaining and losing points on a system separate from the core stats.