Fallout Fallout review

[TomParker]

I know that it has been quite some time since the last post, but I figured I'd throw in my two cents after playing Fallout 1. I really didn't like some combat sequences (I played a gunslinger with 10 agility and 10 intelligence) because sometimes an NPC on one corner of the map had to slowly shamble towards his intended target, which took ages. Maybe there's a skill/perk combo that makes combat flow faster, but I didn't find it. Moreover investing in some skills seems pointless e.g. stealing where one can endlessly quickload till they get the desired result. I was able to purchase Tandi from the great Khans for eight throwing knives stolen off various personalities in the camp including Garth himself (so keep this in mind for future dating, Codexers. 8 Throwing Knives = 1 nubile young girl). Then I stole required ammunition from all sorts of people including Hub city guards, gun runners, etc all through the quickload magic. Another two skills I found a bit useless to invest much in were Science and Repair given that you could endlessly roll and fail without no consequence (aside from the BoS power armor repair quest) and there are many way to boost said skills ingame through books.

Although I enjoyed my time overall, the above paragraph contains most of my major gripes, and I even grew so tired of the pace of combat to the extent I used a script editor to increase my crit chance and cut down the 'chaff' enemies so to speak (as I was already wiping them out without taking much damage, if any at all.) Yes, feel free to boo me for being an ADHD addled script kiddie from the current console generation who has no patient for his granddad's games. (that part is an exaggeration, as I do not have ADHD).

 

[Butter]

You can increase the combat speed in the settings.

 

[Flying Dutchman]

All I remember is the Boneyard sucked and was a huge letdown for being "los angeles."

Also those fucking raider caves, killing the raiders took forever.

Correction: Raider caves was Fallout 2, but it still sucked.

 

[Pentium]

Moreover investing in some skills seems pointless e.g. stealing where one can endlessly quickload till they get the desired result.

By the same logic you can try to kill NPCs in combat from a distance with 10% hit chance and endlessly quickload till you get the desired result and claim that investing into weapon skills is pointless. It all comes down to how much of a quickloadfag you are. But yes, qloading steal attempts was the favourite strategy. Obviously the probability of success needs to be 0<P<1, perhaps the formula could have been done better. I think I'd prefer some caps with respect to NPC's attributes that you would need to reach before you are even able to steal anything from them (the game would warn you if you didn't), then the probability would calculate. I think the speech skill was done in a similar way - some additional dialog options only appeared with high enough speech? Anyway the point being you can't judge skills by the possibility to qload your ass out of trouble.

You can increase the combat speed in the settings.

Always discovered when fighting junkies in Den. :D

 

[Serious_Business]

Well, I agree with the critical sentiment, but I disagree that what it did well was present "immersive world to explore with unique locations and memorable characters". That means little ; every crpg does that to an extend. What Fallout does really well, in a word, is give the player a kind of freedom that is entirely antithetic to modern design : it never holds you by the hand beyond very simple objective-based gameplay. Meaning, it gives you objectives but never tells you how you should do them. But as I've said elsewhere recently, there is still very precise ways you have to accomplish objectives - as the OP said, this is reminiscent of adventure games. The game doesn't have an integrated system where every option would be very clear in how they're supposed to be used ; the systems are very loose and poorly integrated - which most players realize when they figure out that "most skills are useless" and that there are optimal character builds (characters which can do everything). Saying that you can "roleplay" by gimping your build willingly isn't exactly a strong argument here. I would say that the systems of Fallout are meant to be something that come out of a pnp game, and that they're applied to adventure-type video gameplay. It doesn't work all that well to be honest. If Fallout was a "rpg" - to go back on the meme of what is an rpg - you could play it as an engineer that fixes the water chip instead of running around trying to find a new one alone in the wastes. This is just an example in how the game isn't "free", per say, or rather, how it doesn't allow the kind of improv a pnp rpg do.

A lot of the gameplay today has to feel tedious because it really forces you to try and error dynamics ; so players feel pushed to look at a guide instead. This is the case with a lot of old games of course. But looking at a guide will destroy the fun these games allow. Really, a lot of it isn't very strong : the character building elements are minimal, the combat is quite bad, the quests are good but when you know what to do, they play in a fairly linear way ; the writing certainly doesn't carry anything on its own. In my opinion, Underrail is an infinitely superior game to Fallout, because it's all about systems and very little about C&C or quest design ; it's all about combat, builds and exploration, which is really perhaps the meat of what makes these games interesting if they're not going to be pure tactical challenges. I have abandoned C&C, narrative or quest design as the markers of quality for crpgs.

 

[TomParker]

You can increase the combat speed in the settings.

Well, shit. This would have been good to know. Thanks anyways.

 

[laclongquan]

:shake head:

Options should always be checked, just in case there's something funny or adult hidden there.

 

[Sweeper]

Balance is abysmally lopsided. You're straight gimping yourself if you don't max AGI, INT is essential, CHR a dump stat even for speech; STR/PER/END/LCK form the actual basis of a build. Unless you go melee/throwing you're railroaded into Small Guns early, Big or Energy Guns late
Combat is shallow, and there's not much else to the gameplay besides really awful inventory management. I challenge anyone to describe any character roleplaying beyond "do quest the normal way with combat, do quest the speech way, or play a stupid character for the funnies"

Based as fuck.
Underrail is clearly the superior RPG.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Fallout C&C was kind of lackluster, to be honest. I only remember a few different places where you could pick sides, mainly the Hub and the Boneyard, and they were both cliche good side vs. bad side. When there's a vault rebellion, your only choice is to help the Overseer or do nothing. Most quests aren't mutually exclusive, so you can do everything for Decker then turn around and help the police take down Decker with no consequence.

I like C&C but i also like the freedom Fallout gives, what would be great is to be allowed to follow multiple path like in Fallout as long as you stay discreet and no one is going to rat you out.
It could also allow lead to moral choices like letting a witness go or eliminate him to keep a low profile.

 

[sebas]

Where Fallout excels is worldbuilding: the Intro, UI, in-game esthetic, bloody mess animations, special encounters and overall new world order structure. It just burns an everlasting memory of what a post-apocalyptic Nuka Cola pin-up world would be.

And it is a roleplaying game, you can roleplay exactly 3 different Vault Dwellers. It ain't much but still.

Otherwise the combat is shit, the game mechanics are barely functional, half the skills are useless and there is pretty much no build variety. In all these regards even Fallout 3 does a better job. But that does not matter, because that's not the strength of the game.

Which brings us to Underrail, which is THE best post-apocalytic RPG to date. It's better than the Fallouts and Wastelands in every possible way.

 

[Jigby]

No build variety in Fallout. LOL. Fallout 3 does a better job. I don't even.

Edit: One of the prerequisites for joining the Codex should be reading Driackin's F3 LP.

 

[sebas]

Another could be to actually play Fallout1. Which you clearly haven't if you can't wrap your head around build diversity.

 

[Shadenuat]

Giants don't care for people nibbling their feet.

 

[Jigby]

Another could be to actually play Fallout1. Which you clearly haven't if you can't wrap your head around build diversity.

Play a 3AP character, then play a char that has 13 attacks per round then I don't know, play an alien blaster char, then a dumb INT<4 char. Now compare it to F3 where the RPG layer is completely superfluous and the only thing that matters is how high your INT is for skill points.

F3 is better xDDD. I don't even ....

 

[Goldschmidt]

Fallout is just a mediocre game but the truth could never be told when folks like Vault Dweller were still roaming this place. (I dwelled long before my creation date on these fora, mind you)

What Fallout does really well, in a word, is give the player a kind of freedom that is entirely antithetic to modern design : it never holds you by the hand beyond very simple objective-based gameplay.

That is why I loved Might and Magic 6 so much!

 

[pomenitul]

F1 is a very good game, an important game, a prestigious game, but I've never loved it and likely never will. Same goes for F2.

 

[madhouse]

In my opinion, Underrail is an infinitely superior game to Fallout, because it's all about systems and very little about C&C or quest design ; it's all about combat, builds and exploration, which is really perhaps the meat of what makes these games interesting if they're not going to be pure tactical challenges. I have abandoned C&C, narrative or quest design as the markers of quality for crpgs.

One of the most intelligent posts I've seen on Codex. Basically what you've said in different words is that gameplay in games is the most important thing. To me that is self-evident, and always has been, but I see many who have not yet come to the most obvious conclusion even after wasting greater part of their lives on video games. After it comes the storyfaggotry and everything else; I think graphical design, soundtrack and everything that enchances gameplay (and story if you consider atmosphere, etc. tying in with it) is priority over story. Underrail is light years ahead Fallout and most of the classic RPG's people use as benchmarks for the genre.

 

[Yosharian]

In my opinion, Underrail is an infinitely superior game to Fallout, because it's all about systems and very little about C&C or quest design ; it's all about combat, builds and exploration, which is really perhaps the meat of what makes these games interesting if they're not going to be pure tactical challenges. I have abandoned C&C, narrative or quest design as the markers of quality for crpgs.

One of the most intelligent posts I've seen on Codex. Basically what you've said in different words is that gameplay in games is the most important thing. To me that is self-evident, and always has been, but I see many who have not yet come to the most obvious conclusion even after wasting greater part of their lives on video games. After it comes the storyfaggotry and everything else; I think graphical design, soundtrack and everything that enchances gameplay (and story if you consider atmosphere, etc. tying in with it) is priority over story. Underrail is light years ahead Fallout and most of the classic RPG's people use as benchmarks for the genre.

But that's as it should be, is it not? Underrail was made with all the knowledge and experience that comes with 25 years of iteration on the RPG formula.

Meanwhile Fallout was released in '97.

 

[madhouse]

I never disputed that. I only dispute fags who pretend games haven't gone anywhere since 1997.

 

[Pentium]

t's all about combat, builds and exploration, which is really perhaps the meat of what makes these games interesting if they're not going to be pure tactical challenges. I have abandoned C&C, narrative or quest design as the markers of quality for crpgs.

One of the most intelligent posts I've seen on Codex. Basically what you've said in different words is that gameplay in games is the most important thing. To me that is self-evident, and always has been, but I see many who have not yet come to the most obvious conclusion even after wasting greater part of their lives on video games. After it comes the storyfaggotry and everything else; I think graphical design, soundtrack and everything that enchances gameplay (and story if you consider atmosphere, etc. tying in with it) is priority over story. Underrail is light years ahead Fallout and most of the classic RPG's people use as benchmarks for the genre.

If you guys are after "pure gameplay" you might as well be happy with a command line random events generator with value #1, value #2,..., value #n + combination rules and then just "play" it by typing in the right combinations of value IDs to get the desired result (and optional GUI to "enhance" the "gameplay" ). Obviously gameplay is the core element of any game and I really doubt anyone on Codex would want dispute that but claiming that C&C, story, lore, quest design etc. are fairly inferior to core gameplay and not to be considered as relevant criteria is outright hipster bullshit. It's more of a staircase with very low steps rather than your toilet bowl above and cesspit all the way down below. Setting, immersion, visuals, ideas and other nongameplay elements are in sum equally important to the extend they can even compensate for shitty gameplay in terms of creating an enjoyable experience and they're those aspects that uplift games to a whole new art level from a basic inetraction. Game that has either one can be good, game that has both is exellent.

(Of course, if you're prone to superficial claims based on unsubstantial ethymology like Mr. Edgy here, do the galaxy a favor and impale yourself on a daulphin penis.)

 

[madhouse]

t's all about combat, builds and exploration, which is really perhaps the meat of what makes these games interesting if they're not going to be pure tactical challenges. I have abandoned C&C, narrative or quest design as the markers of quality for crpgs.

One of the most intelligent posts I've seen on Codex. Basically what you've said in different words is that gameplay in games is the most important thing. To me that is self-evident, and always has been, but I see many who have not yet come to the most obvious conclusion even after wasting greater part of their lives on video games. After it comes the storyfaggotry and everything else; I think graphical design, soundtrack and everything that enchances gameplay (and story if you consider atmosphere, etc. tying in with it) is priority over story. Underrail is light years ahead Fallout and most of the classic RPG's people use as benchmarks for the genre.

If you guys are after "pure gameplay" you might as well be happy with a command line random events generator with value #1, value #2,..., value #n + combination rules and then just "play" it by typing in the right combinations of value IDs to get the desired result (and optional GUI to "enhance" the "gameplay" ). Obviously gameplay is the core element of any game and I really doubt anyone on Codex would want dispute that but claiming that C&C, story, lore, quest design etc. are fairly inferior to core gameplay and not to be considered as relevant criteria is outright hipster bullshit. It's more of a staircase with very low steps rather than your toilet bowl above and cesspit all the way down below. Setting, immersion, visuals, ideas and other nongameplay elements are in sum equally important to the extend they can even compensate for shitty gameplay in terms of creating an enjoyable experience and they're those aspects that uplift games to a whole new art level from a basic inetraction. Game that has either one can be good, game that has both is exellent.

(Of course, if you're prone to superficial claims based on unsubstantial ethymology like Mr. Edgy here, do the galaxy a favor and impale yourself on a daulphin penis.)

Gameplay > Visuals + Audio > Story
Genuinely don't give a shit about the story if the gameplay is non-existent or shit. If it's good, story it's a nice addition, kind of when a book is not only well written, but has also a captivating story. There are a few games I do commend for having an interesting settings and story, but not the greatest gameplay. Morrowind is one of them. I can only imagine how much greater it would be with proper gameplay, a more interactive, non-static world, better graphics and sound design, more things to do, better choices and options, etc... What I'm trying to get at is that I have some rough criteria for judging things, but it depends on the context how and why I apply them. Not all games with good gameplay have graphics that are that nice to look at, and so on.
BTW I think it's more of a hipster bullshit things to be a storyfag, look at walking simulator abominations as an extreme. :D

 

[TemplarGR]

I'll be the one to say it: Fallout is a REALLY GOOD adventure game... with mediocre RPG elements tacked on. Most of what's good about the game have nothing to do with gameplay, but rather how much agency you're given to interact with the nonlinear story progression.

You are not the first to say it kiddo. Any experienced gamer worth his salt already understands that Fallout is a mediocre game that was succesful for non-gameplay reasons. We mostly loved the setting, the relative matureness back in a time when video games were mostly kiddy stuff, the freedom of exploration, the gore.

As far as gameplay goes, Fallout 1 and 2 are trash. And anyone who claims they had good mechanics needs to be shot in the head with a careful VATS shot.

 

[Pentium]

If you swap "Fallout(s)" for "Elder Scrolls", your post suddenly starts to make sense a little.

 

[madhouse]

If you swap "Fallout(s)" for "Skyrim", your post suddenly starts to make sense a little.

yeah but can you be stealth archer in fallout? i think not, ergo skyrim is the best RPG ever

 

[Ryan muller]

Another could be to actually play Fallout1. Which you clearly haven't if you can't wrap your head around build diversity.

Do a throwing build based around the idea of using flares to criple your oponents and insta kill them after getting better crits

Play a jinxed sniper with 10 Luck and night vision, sniping enemies at long distances and avoiding hits by having higher AC

Or maybe a melee fighter with throwing skills so you can slam your hammer at your enemies to sent them away and combo at distances with grenades


Or just go for the classic burst builds focusing on getting bomus ranged damage as quickly as possible and destroying everything on your way

Theres plenty of builds you can go for in both fo1 and 2