Fallout 1: Harbinger of the Decline?

[Crooked Bee]

The Fragile was a pretty cool album.

 

[felipepepe]

I'm late, but is still valid.

- Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' double-album ended prog/art rock.

I vote for YES Tales of Topographic Oceans, as a weak album from one of the eras greatest bands that show everything that was wrong with the genre.

You could also say that Godspeed You! Black Emperor killed Post-Rock with Lift Your Skinnny Fist like Antennas to the Heavens or that Metalica killed Thrash Metal with Metallica (the black album, was a double vinyl)...the genres lives on, but it simply has nothing more to offer anyone but the fans.

 

[Surf Solar]

I'm late, but is still valid.

- Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' double-album ended prog/art rock.

I vote for YES Tales of Topographic Oceans, as a weak album from one of the eras greatest bands that show everything that was wrong with the genre.

You could also say that Godspeed You! Black Emperor killed Post-Rock with Lift Your Skinnny Fist like Antennas to the Heavens or that Metalica killed Thrash Metal with Metallica (the black album, was a double vinyl)...the genres lives on, but it simply has nothing more to offer anyone but the fans.

 

[shihonage]

Is this thread about Metallica now or something

 

[PorkaMorka]

Is anybody really playing Gold Box games and withdrawing pipe from corner of mouth and saying, "This combat is good. This combat is interesting." There are like 3 mildly interesting set piece fights per game.

The combat was pretty darn good for 1988-1992. The dungeon exploration wasn't bad either, 1st person has a lot of advantages over isometric in terms of dungeon exploration.

Two decades later, it might seem a bit simple but I can say without hesitation that the combat is still better than a number of the tactical RPGs being released today. (Due to solid difficulty, clear mechanics and quick play speed)

Popularity isn't proof of quality but somebody had to be having fun with them considering that they sold enough to produce 13.5 games in that engine, not counting ports. (And FRUA soldiered on for a good long while).

I played them in the day and I played them to grind mindlessly and feel false accomplishment stimuli. There was only one MMORPG at the time and it cost way too much. What is the excuse now?

* Opens strongbox, withdraws Champions of Krynn manual, consults level limit tables*

Yeap, the level cap is still 8 (9 for thieves).

I can think of a lot better games for autistic grinding. Especially, since I recall reaching many of the level limits through normal play.

I guess you were only playing the two high level games? I certainly do not recall grinding in the lower-mid level games. It would be boring and it would ruin the challenge.

 

[MMXI]

I played them in the day and I played them to grind mindlessly and feel false accomplishment stimuli. There was only one MMORPG at the time and it cost way too much. What is the excuse now?

* Opens strongbox, withdraws Champions of Krynn manual, consults level limit tables*

Yeap, the level cap is still 8 (9 for thieves).

I can think of a lot better games for autistic grinding. Especially, since I recall reaching many of the level limits through normal play.

I guess you were only playing the two high level games? I certainly do not recall grinding in the lower-mid level games. It would be boring and it would ruin the challenge.

Don't you know that the meaning of grinding has changed? It now means combat that the the player does not wish to engage in but is forced into.

 

[Sceptic]

I only just saw Zomg's post at the top of this page.

What?

Then I saw the quote from the previous page.



(or maybe I failed a sarcasm check again?)

Don't you know that the meaning of grinding has changed? It now means combat that the the player does not wish to engage in but is forced into.

Well... if you're forced to say do and win the same encounter over and over again, for say 20 or 30 times, is that still considered grinding? or maybe just grindy? Think of something like the identical encounters in Deep Roads in DAO. It's not grinding per se but in terms of the repetition/boredom, isn't it a similar situation?

 

[Zomg]

Two decades later, it might seem a bit simple but I can say without hesitation that the combat is still better than a number of the tactical RPGs being released today. (Due to solid difficulty, clear mechanics and quick play speed)

Popularity isn't proof of quality but somebody had to be having fun with th[em considering that they sold enough to produce 13.5 games in that engine, not counting ports. (And FRUA soldiered on for a good long while).

But my thesis was essentially that "gameplay" is a fake rationalization for why people play or pay for RPGs at all. Therefore the GBs were not popular on the back of gameplay, just like Fallout wasn't. I'm not trying to compare GB vs. like uh whatever people play now - but playing card games with a slow child has about the same gameplay depth as one of the less awful RPGs, except compacted into ten minutes instead of 30 hours.

I played them in the day and I played them to grind mindlessly and feel false accomplishment stimuli. There was only one MMORPG at the time and it cost way too much. What is the excuse now?

* Opens strongbox, withdraws Champions of Krynn manual, consults level limit tables*

Yeap, the level cap is still 8 (9 for thieves).

Just playing them straight through and pacifying all the maps while stepping on most tiles is grinding in itself. It's grinding right out of the box. I really defy anyone to play through one of them and with it still fresh tell me it's not press button get behavioral reward minus like 2-3 set pieces. How many times do you register a new thought while playing them? I could play through a lost GB game they pulled out of the SSI time capsule completely drunk, sleep deprived and distracted. If I tried that in a competitive game I'd get my shit pushed in by a novice, there's absolutely no comparison if you're going to jump on the gameplay horse. I am internet enraged that people even use the same words to criticize these dissimilar thingssss

 

[Daemongar]

The OP misses a pretty big point. Althought Fallout 1 was released for DOS, it was also released around the time that games were being dedicated to Windows 95 solely and the release of Direct X. While FO1 had it's problems, the dedicated Windows 95/Direct X game had more to do with the decline. What DirectX fixed, and Windows 95 made simpler, made games more accessable, watering down games being made for nerds only.

 

[Phage]

The Fragile was a pretty cool album.

That's my favorite album of all time! :D

 

[MMXI]

The OP misses a pretty big point. Althought Fallout 1 was released for DOS, it was also released around the time that games were being dedicated to Windows 95 solely and the release of Direct X. While FO1 had it's problems, the dedicated Windows 95/Direct X game had more to do with the decline. What DirectX fixed, and Windows 95 made simpler, made games more accessable, watering down games being made for nerds only.

I've always wondered why the mainstream gamers seem to only know about Windows cRPGs and not DOS cRPGs, while the decline of the genre happened between those two eras.

 

[Orgasm]

Two decades later, it might seem a bit simple but I can say without hesitation that the combat is still better than a number of the tactical RPGs being released today. (Due to solid difficulty, clear mechanics and quick play speed)

Popularity isn't proof of quality but somebody had to be having fun with th[em considering that they sold enough to produce 13.5 games in that engine, not counting ports. (And FRUA soldiered on for a good long while).

But my thesis was essentially that "gameplay" is a fake rationalization for why people play or pay for RPGs at all. Therefore the GBs were not popular on the back of gameplay, just like Fallout wasn't. I'm not trying to compare GB vs. like uh whatever people play now - but playing card games with a slow child has about the same gameplay depth as one of the less awful RPGs, except compacted into ten minutes instead of 30 hours.

I played them in the day and I played them to grind mindlessly and feel false accomplishment stimuli. There was only one MMORPG at the time and it cost way too much. What is the excuse now?

* Opens strongbox, withdraws Champions of Krynn manual, consults level limit tables*

Yeap, the level cap is still 8 (9 for thieves).

Just playing them straight through and pacifying all the maps while stepping on most tiles is grinding in itself. It's grinding right out of the box. I really defy anyone to play through one of them and with it still fresh tell me it's not press button get behavioral reward minus like 2-3 set pieces. How many times do you register a new thought while playing them? I could play through a lost GB game they pulled out of the SSI time capsule completely drunk, sleep deprived and distracted. If I tried that in a competitive game I'd get my shit pushed in by a novice, there's absolutely no comparison if you're going to jump on the gameplay horse. I am internet enraged that people even use the same words to criticize these dissimilar thingssss

Your scale has not enough resolution.
You assert GAMEPLAY(GB)==GAMEPLAY(FALLOUT)==GAMEPLAY(RETARD). While you or actually even me would make the argument that it is the same quality ("quality" here as in fundamental concepts of gameplay as it is defined by the word "game") wise, it is not true on the quantitative side. Puzzle with 100 pieces is not the same as a puzzle with 10 pieces.
And the second paragraph about grinding is defining "grind" too sloppy and wide.
Just playing chess/go/fapgame/doctor is grinding out of the box... and so on.

 

[Daemongar]

The OP misses a pretty big point. Althought Fallout 1 was released for DOS, it was also released around the time that games were being dedicated to Windows 95 solely and the release of Direct X. While FO1 had it's problems, the dedicated Windows 95/Direct X game had more to do with the decline. What DirectX fixed, and Windows 95 made simpler, made games more accessable, watering down games being made for nerds only.

I've always wondered why the mainstream gamers seem to only know about Windows cRPGs and not DOS cRPGs, while the decline of the genre happened between those two eras.

This may be better suited for another topic, but what DirectX gave for expedited development, efficiency and a standard set of drivers for hardware, it took away in that people programming for DOS were able to do anything they damn well pleased.

If one were to do a timeline from this point onward, one would see that games went from a programming team of hardcore nerds to less of a focus on the programmnig aspect, and more focus on graphics, sound, and other peripheral items. This is oversimplification, but I don't have a lot of time now to work on this.

In answer to your question, though, it takes some effort to get non Windows games going. Dosbox makes it easier, but it still takes a little effort. Also, I'll bet a lot of the mainstream Windows cRPG players came from consoles, where the development environment was always locked. They may not be aware of the different limiations of Dos v. Windows.

 

[PorkaMorka]

If you cared about gameplay you would be playing a competitive game instead of grinding.

But my thesis was essentially that "gameplay" is a fake rationalization for why people play or pay for RPGs at all. Therefore the GBs were not popular on the back of gameplay, just like Fallout wasn't. I'm not trying to compare GB vs. like uh whatever people play now - but playing card games with a slow child has about the same gameplay depth as one of the less awful RPGs, except compacted into ten minutes instead of 30 hours.

I'll grant you that virtually all single player RPGs have extremely shallow and simple gameplay compared to good competitive multiplayer games.

And I'll grant you that RPGs don't rely exclusively on gameplay to attract players.

But that doesn't mean that the differences in depth and complexity of gameplay between single player RPGs are irrelevant. Nor does it mean that people aren't playing some RPGs in large part for the gameplay.

Both Fire Emblem 11 H5 and Final Fantasy Mystic Quest have extremely shallow and simple gameplay compared to pro Star Craft (or whatever). But there is still a very significant difference between the depth, complexity and challenge presented by the gameplay of those two games.

Further, it is misleading to characterize multiplayer games and single player games as perfect substitutes for each other. Multiplayer gaming may be unavailable, inconvenient, or not desirable at the time, at which point you may wish to substitute a single player game.

For example I mostly played single player RPGs as a young kid back when you couldn't easily play multiplayer games online and then recently when I got a full time job and could no longer live the pro gamer lifestyle. (I can still play multiplayer games, but only as a shell of my former self.)

This makes your idea that nobody played the Gold Box games for the gameplay especially flawed. Multiplayer games at that time were not as widely available as today and could be really expensive (500$ credit card bills for NWN). Plus you might have to take up your only phone line if you wanted to get your multiplayer gaming on.

Honestly, the Gold Box games had some pretty solid gameplay relative to other games at the time they were released. They were only competing with other games from 1988-1992, after all. Later RPGs really failed to keep up with games of other genres, I'll grant you, but then we have a word for that, decline (or failure to sufficiently incline).

Just playing them straight through and pacifying all the maps while stepping on most tiles is grinding in itself. It's grinding right out of the box.

Disagree, grinding is when you go out of your way to fight extra fights to power up. If you explore everywhere and have just enough fights to keep your characters at the proper level, that means the Devs designed the difficulty curve correctly and there is no need to grind.

I really defy anyone to play through one of them and with it still fresh tell me it's not press button get behavioral reward minus like 2-3 set pieces. How many times do you register a new thought while playing them? I could play through a lost GB game they pulled out of the SSI time capsule completely drunk, sleep deprived and distracted.

Granted, there isn't a lot of heavy thinking involved and it's not as tactical as the best tactical RPGs. But the difficulty was pretty solid, especially compared to a lot of the games coming out today. I remember having to replay plenty of fights and having a lot more where I only barely won with a lot of guys unconscious. At least you felt challenged, even though the mental challenges involved were relatively limited. And there were plenty of fights where you could get wiped out on your first go and then wipe out the enemy without losing a guy on your second attempt.To some extent it's a dice game (heh). I really think there are better examples for your RPGs = autism argument.

If I tried that in a competitive game I'd get my shit pushed in by a novice, there's absolutely no comparison if you're going to jump on the gameplay horse. I am internet enraged that people even use the same words to criticize these dissimilar thingssss

You're the one who started comparing single player games and multiplayer games. I would never have made that comparison. I think it's generally accepted that they're not comparable and mutiplayer is way ahead in terms of challenge/depth/complexity.

 

[Zomg]

Disagree, grinding is when you go out of your way to fight extra fights to power up. If you explore everywhere and have just enough fights to keep your characters at the proper level, that means the Devs designed the difficulty curve correctly and there is no need to grind.

I guess I have a pragmatic definition of grinding as doing mindless shit. If you are doing fights purely to power up but they are fuckdamn interesting that is not grinding by my book

Granted, there isn't a lot of heavy thinking involved and it's not as tactical as the best tactical RPGs.

See there I disagree with you - it is about as tactical as the best tactical RPGs. Unless you are talking about some Japanese shit I never heard of.

 

[Oesophagus]

I did not even read this thread. Fallout 1 is incline, and whoever thinks otherwise is a mad fool only worthy of being shot

[/thread]

 

[Surf Solar]

Thought that it would fit in here..


"The end of roleplaying as you know it!"

 

[Wyrmlord]

Good find, Surf Solar.

 

[Monocause]

Thought that it would fit in here..


"The end of roleplaying as you know it!"

Funny how the guy is bandaged, dirty and didn't bother to clean up his armor but he did find the time and inclination to get a good, clean shave. Breaks my immersion.

 

[Johannes]

Disagree, grinding is when you go out of your way to fight extra fights to power up. If you explore everywhere and have just enough fights to keep your characters at the proper level, that means the Devs designed the difficulty curve correctly and there is no need to grind.

If the game throws trash mobs at the player that he cannot avoid (to waste his time and to gain levels), that feels like it's a grindy game. Often even more than a game which allows me to advance quicker through the game but might need me to occasionally kill some shit purely for xp/gold (unless I'm really smart at the game).

Yeah, pretty much all RPGs should cut a lot of their repetitive combat and focus on fewer, actually interesting battles. Really many gmes have a handful of truly interesting encounters, just don't keep them as the exception. Unless the trash mobs are raelly fast to deal with, and provide some sort of meaningful resource drain on the player. A resource drain that'd be hard to handle optimally.
Then again RPGs are a lot about just feeling awesome and trying out new spells and new guns in a non-stressful manner. Though too much easy combat does get boring for that too.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Disagree, grinding is when you go out of your way to fight extra fights to power up. If you explore everywhere and have just enough fights to keep your characters at the proper level, that means the Devs designed the difficulty curve correctly and there is no need to grind.

If the game throws trash mobs at the player that he cannot avoid (to waste his time and to gain levels), that feels like it's a grindy game. Often even more than a game which allows me to advance quicker through the game but might need me to occasionally kill some shit purely for xp/gold (unless I'm really smart at the game).

Yeah, pretty much all RPGs should cut a lot of their repetitive combat and focus on fewer, actually interesting battles. Really many gmes have a handful of truly interesting encounters, just don't keep them as the exception. Unless the trash mobs are raelly fast to deal with, and provide some sort of meaningful resource drain on the player. A resource drain that'd be hard to handle optimally.

I agree with you that slogging through tons of repetitive trash encounters is pretty unrewarding compared to fighting a lower number of carefully designed encounters.

I'll even grant you that it's fair to complain that a game like that is a bit "too grindy".
(IE: the constant trash fights make it feel too close to grinding)

But it strikes me as revisionist to claim that exploring the dungeon and fighting the encounters that are put before you, then moving on to the next area immediately is grinding.

Because there is still true grinding in games, where you intentionally and repeatedly trigger extra battles and fight them purely to power up your character(s).

Then again RPGs are a lot about just feeling awesome and trying out new spells and new guns in a non-stressful manner. Though too much easy combat does get boring for that too.

Yeah, this is really the part of RPGs I don't "get". To me, easy RPGs are a pretty unenjoyable activity, as the core gameplay doesn't have much to it once you take the need to choose wisely out of the equation.

I end up pretty disappointed with most games though, so I may be an outlier.

 

[sea]

Dumb thread is dumb. Yes, Fallout initiated certain trends in RPGs which many might take as the birth of the decline in both quality and complexity. The problem has nothing to do with those ideas, however - Fallout's execution wasn't flawless, but it was excellent, and we've had few games since then really take hold of those strengths and refine them. Arcanum is the only game I'd say that even comes close to emulating Fallout, and it has even more issues in terms of balance and bugs.

You might want to say that Fallout started the focus on story and presentation in RPGs (you'd be wrong, but whatever), and simple single-character gameplay (again, wrong), but the real problem isn't those ideas, it's just inferior implementation of them. The same could be said of something like Half-Life - it might have started the road towards heavily-scripted, story-driven, linear first-person shooters, but Half-Life is also pretty fucking excellent at what it does. The problem isn't those ideas, it's those ideas being latched on to by inexperienced developers who don't have the talent to use them effectively, and meanwhile publishers killing off any other alternative styles of gameplay by insisting only games stealing ideas from Half-Life get made in the first place.

So no, in short, Fallout wasn't the problem. It may have been a catalyst, but you'd be pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

 

[likaq]

Epic thread.