Fallout revisited
 

"Friends, Romans, countrymen -- lend me your ear. I have come to bury Caesar, not to praise him."

I just finished Fallout last night. I had first played it about five, six years ago, so I really didn't remember much and could approach it pretty much as a fresh game. These are my impressions of how it stands against the games of today, and perhaps give some food for thought in the "will F3 suck" discussion and "I haven't played it, should I?" discussion.

To get the obvious out of the way, yes, it is an awesome game, a true CRPG classic if there ever was one, and yes, if you haven't played it yet, you should beg, borrow, or even steal a copy and start now. I enjoyed it much more than NWN2 and at least as much as S.T.A.L.K.E.R., to name two games I've been playing recently.

Freedom Of Choice… With Consequences

Fallout strikes a perfect balance between free-roaming and directed gameplay. Other than FO2, I don't remember playing any game that does this quite as well. You can really go anywhere and do anything at any time, although some of it will get you killed if you do it too early. Yet, even though it gets tenuous at times, you're always motivated and working towards some greater goal.

Consider the first main quest of the game: the water chip. In any normal RPG, you would have a series of "storyline quests" that bring you closer to the water chip, eventually you have some sort of "boss battle" or its equivalent, and then you get it. Not in Fallout. Here, most people just look at you in a puzzled way when you ask about it, until eventually someone drops an aside in a conversation that gives you a hint on where to look, when you get there, you see evidence of one, and when you finally do get it, by force, cunning, or stealth, you really get a feeling of having done it *yourself* -- not by following a script written by the game writers. The entire game is like that: you're presented with a situation, and it's up to you to decide what to make of it. There is a feeling of complete freedom of choice, but the choices always have consequences, often unintended ones. It's an illusion, of course -- it takes utterly brilliant design and writing to create that feeling in something as necessarily limited as a computer game -- but FO manages it like no other game before or since.

This, in my mind, is the essence of Fallout: the illusion of freedom, choices with consequences, sometimes unintended. Almost everything else is subordinate to it: the brilliant dialog trees that play very differently depending on who you are and how you play it, the communities with fleshed-out characters with their own agendas (all done with those selfsame dialog trees), the myriad side quests (hell, the whole game is one big side quest), the massive selection of guns, ammo, and other, often pointless items, and so on. Situations are there, whether you "have the quest" or not -- walk into the wrong house and some bodyguards will attack you; after the dust settles you may end up with a jewel necklace and a feeling that it all means something although you don't know what (but could perhaps find out, if you look into it).

Just Say No To Isometric…

A'ight, so much for the high praise. Time for some bashing.

I hate the isometric perspective in FO. It means that lots of important stuff that your character would see, you can't. Like, a big ol' bruiser of a chaingun-wielding supermutant just because he happens to be standing next to a front-side wall. Not to mention smaller stuff dropped by these critters as they die, or left there by the game designers. A NWN-style, full-3D isometric perspective would work, where you could rotate the camera according to where you stand. That would still put some significant constraints on the types of environment you can construct, though, so I'm not a huge fan of this type of camera either.

…And Turn-Based Combat

In 1997, well-done real-time combat wasn't easy to do in computer games. There were the Prince of Persias, Microsoft Close Combat was just out, and there were some street fighting games, some with guns, most without. It would certainly have been a pretty tough call to demand that *in addition to* the marvelous role-playing elements, the FO team would have managed a ground-breaking new real-time combat mechanic. So they made the best of what they had, and I don't blame them.

But the combat is still tedious as hell, yes, even speeded up. Your party members are suicidal idiots with automatic weapons, the only maneuver the AI does is the newbie rush, and fighting mobs is a *grind.*

Turn-based, abstract combat can work. Consider chess, for example -- two thousand years old and still fun. However, turn-based games need a strong tactical element to remain interesting. FO doesn't have it beyond a couple of very simple maneuvers you can attempt. To qualify as tactical, combat should include the triad of "pin, flank, and ambush," and ideally different types of pieces (the tank, the sniper, the grenadier, for example).

What's more, tactical combat in computer games works great in real-time. Microsoft Close Combat did it brilliantly around the same time as Fallout, in a style that would have suited the FO environment wonderfully.

So, I'm not one of the people pining for the glory days of turn-based combat. Good riddance, I say, and bring on the real-time stuff -- whether it's first/third-person hero/squad based, or isometric RTS-style. If it's well done, I'll take it.

The Spirit Of Fallout

I would love to see the spirit of Fallout live on. For me, this means that delicate balance between directed and free-form gameplay, the choices that preclude other choices and sometimes have unintended consequences, the fully fleshed-out characters and communities that live through the lively and genuinely branching dialogs, the dark humor, the retro-futuristic graphic design. Take all this and drop it into a fully modern game design that's viscerally fun to play, and I'll be ecstatic.

Will Bethsoft do it? So far, they've been making mostly the right noises, and if they've found the talent to be able to pull it off, I will be mightily impressed. And if they don't, somebody else will, although it won't be called Fallout. Don't mistake the design choices forced by the state of the art at that time with the design choices that truly make it great. Because as great as it is, Fallout is still a 1990's game.

Nice post - I'll reply on some stuff when I have more time. :)

I agree, the biggest strength of the Fallout games is that they allow you to, more or less, role play your character and approach situations however you see fit and using whichever strengths you've assigned to your character.
Add in the great dialogue, an engaging setting and the fact that the game never becomes overblown with absurd "boss" encounters, huge waves of enemies and other RPG standbys and you've got a great game.

I do agree that the fixed perspective is, by today's standards, a bit rough, I find it doesn't take long to get accustomed to. My biggest complaint that I have now, after playing through "post isometric" games, is the inability to see far ahead. But, as to your issues…. You can actually see pretty much everything as nearly every item and detail in the game has a descriptive tag attached to it. You just have to search around a little bit sometimes. And characters are outlined in yellow, green or red, which you can see "through" obstacles. So you can in fact see that big supermutant.
I don't think it's quite fair to judge the quality of a ten year old game by using criteria from newer games.

In FO1 yeah, NPCs weren't very well handled. I still have horrible memories of Ian with a submachine gun! I also can't argue against the "newbie rush", this is true of both games, with the AI too often going for the PC no matter how ludicrous such an approach might be.
I didn't find fighting large groups a grind though, I actually liked the bigger fights, they seemed a bit more dramatic than just killing off a couple of raiders here and there. You can also save the game during combat, which in a big fight is a good idea.

Can't argue that Fallout with stronger AI and more positioning maneouvers wouldn't be a bad thing. The ability to duck, crouch, go prone and such would be superb, and an AI (both for party NPCs and enemies) that fight to their strengths and equipment would really add a lot. I never played FO: Tactics, did that add any of these things?

I really don't care for real-time combat, I find it extremely annoying and even more devoid of any tactical approaches than even the barest-bones turn-based. I will step outside of the "Turnbased Only!" camp, however, and say that I don't mind a real-time with pause set-up if it's done right (ie like the Infinity Engine games).

And that's about the best we can hope for with FO3, I believe. I'm cautiously optimistic over it. Though it's gonna be a long while before I can actually play the danged thing, the system requirements for it are going to be brutal I suspect.

I'll agree that it's not turn-based gameplay that makes Fallout what it is, but I'll also say that just because something is old does not mean it doesn't stand up or remain strong today. Newer is not always better after all, and I find that too many games seem to have that approach which ultimately weakens the final product.

FO3 will be quite different from 1 and 2, even if they maintain a lot of the Fallout touchstones. The very nature of the first/third person perspective will make a significant difference. While I have nothing against that, the isometric perspectives of ye olden days do give you that sense of overall immersion, while first and third person (first moreso) tend to provide a corridor confinement feeling.
But at this point, without seeing anything of the gameplay, it's not really possible to make any solid judgement calls in that regard. What I'm hoping for is a fully interactive environment, where walls, roofs, piles of junk, ladders etc are all useable and not just walls to keep you on a path. The hallmarks (eg Pipboy, 50's retro futurism etc) aside, to me a Fallout game has to be completely open and accessible to any path I may choose to take. Remove that and all the other stuff is irrelevant.

Good review, PJ. It's always interesting to see what people make of Fallout. I think the reason it arouses so much controversy and partisanship is that it is unique in itself, like PS:T. It is a work of ..I don't know.. art? passion? vision? It sounds silly to use those terms regarding a computer game, but how else can it be explained?

I found Fallout dark and frightening and far too serious for me, but as a concept, as an interactive/literary entity, I could still recognize its excellence;how it stands apart from and above the average rpg.

I think it would be almost impossible for any large commercial game dev to make a game exactly like it today. Though, as you point out, that doesn't have to happen to produce a viable successor, it seems to me that today's "teams" of level designers, animators, scripters, coordinators, marketers and pr men would have about as much of a chance of producing any game that has such a high level of individuality as Danielle Steele would of writing a decent sequel to Wuthering Heights. :)

@magerette -- I'm not as pessimistic as you are about that. Movies with a lot of individuality get made with far bigger budgets and teams than games. A few of the "blockbuster" games currently in development look like they have a lot of personality -- Bioshock for example. So IMO there's hope.

Another cool and rather unique thing in FO is the way the quests are written. Most CRPG's give you tasks. FO gives you objectives. Your average game would tell you to "go to X and talk to Y about Z," then Z would tell you to go to L and slay the Might M of N, and so on. FO hands you an objective -- "Find a water chip" or "Get the dirt on Gizmo" and leaves it up to you how to actually do it, while dropping a few hints on possible approaches. It's a subtle but important difference, and I'm a bit surprised that more games don't do it.

Here's to hoping F3 gets this bit right. IMO it's quite central to the soul of Fallout.

Ditto.

And to the OP: Fallout is just an old game - there is no reason they couldn't make Fallout 3 in the same 2D isometric style today and still make a great, visually appealing game with a well designed TB engine using today's technology.

I just hate the fact that "cutting-edge" or "next-gen" has to mean 3D 1st Person. The TOEE engine looked great and so did BG2 in it's day (still looks good today).

This isn't to knock the 3D 1st Person view which I think is perfect for shooters. Even adventure games can work in 1st person, Metroid Prime is proof of this. They managed to keep the same gameplay and spirit of the game even in 1st person. But you know what? I still would have preferred a side scrolling 2D game with really souped-up effects and artwork because to me Super Metroid is still more enjoyable than Prime.

I think perspective IS an important part of a game experience, as much as graphics, combat system, stats, etc. The Elder Scrolls were always 3D real time combat so I don't mind it. But it wouldn't be Elder Scrolls if ES IV was some side scrolling, TB game. Or some world sim like Civ.

As for F03 they should have just kept the spirit AND the style of the game similar to it's prequels. 2D and TB should never die.

@Junta: in your opinion, any of your main gripes with FO1 addressed significantly in FO2? Also, did FO2 come up short compared to FO1 in any way? Or was it an improvement on all/most fronts? Getting curiouser and curiouser about this one, I am… ;)

If the were going for a real pen&paper experience, how isn't TB right?

And what year did Darklands come out?

I think that the only good RTw/P comvat system has been the Alter's UFOs, but I'd still take crappy TB. Unless you are saying combat in the IE games wasn't even more of a boring grind, in which case your bias is apparent and we can just chalk it up to a matter of you just don't like TB, and I actually like actual Tactical combat.

But anyway, good post.

@roqua:

(1) Were they going for a real P&P experience? If so, why is it a good idea to go PnP on a computer?

(2) I'm not familiar with darklands.

(3) I dislike Infinity Engine intensely. Some great games have been made on it, which means that it probably was a great platform to develop for, but it's certainly not a great platform to play on.

In fact, IMO turn-based papered over to look like real-time (à la NWN, KOTOR, NWN2, IE) is the worst of both worlds.

If I had to put my preferences in order, they'd be something like:

1: tied between good first-person real-time and really good tactical real-time. Think Half-Life 2, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Close Combat, Myth, or Medieval: Total War.

2: Good third-person real-time. Jade Empire, for example. Even Oblivion was OK in this respect (although poorly balanced, but that was a problem with character development, not combat mechanics). (Elveon looks interesting.)

3: Well-done, honest turn-based with at least a moderately good tactical element. Think the Warlords series. Or, hell, chess or Go.

4: Bad turn-based. Think Fallouts.

5: Turn-based papered over to look like real-time, with pause. Think IE, NWN, KOTOR.

6: Bad real-time. Think Morrowind or Gothic 3.

@chamr: it's been at least as long since I played FO2 that I honestly can't remember very well. Certainly the problems with the 2D isometric perspective were still there, and to my recollection the combat was about as bad as well. As to the rest of it, to my recollection it was a bit of a mixed bag -- the world was a lot bigger with a lot more stuff to do, but I remember thinking that New Reno felt really seriously out of place, and the main quest ("find the G.E.C.K. to save your tribe") felt like a bit of a repeat of the FO main quest. I also remember getting insanely powerful pretty early on by tagging Big Guns and Steal, and then stealing a big gun from the guards near NCR; perhaps it's just me or perhaps the game really had some balancing issues.

@Relayer -- your idea is a bit like making a black-and-white silent movie now. Sure, it could work out fine. However, IMO it would in fact run counter to the spirit of Fallout: FO was about pushing the boundaries of what a game experience could be; an isometric turn-based 2D CRPG now would simply doing an outdated formula better. A true spiritual successor to FO should push the boundaries as much as FO did in its time; look forward rather than back.

Finally, I'm sorry I'm going to have to drop out of this discussion just as it was getting interesting: I'll be off on vacation for a month tomorrow and will have very patchy internet access. So have a good summer everyone!

First of all I wouldn't go as far as calling it Black and White silent film. You're under the impression (I think) that I would love FO3 with the old FO engine. No way, that thing is ugly to look at today. (And for the record a digitally remastered/restored old Black and White film looks just as gorgeous and detailed as a color film. B&W photography can actually be pretty stunning too).

Anyway, how is 3D forward and 2D backward? This is the mentality that is KILLING 2D.

Just like 3D has advanced (original Doom and Daggerfall look terrible by today's standards) so has 2D (TOEE looked great), albeit in a limited way since not many games are 2D anymore. Why can't the boundaries be pushed in 2D? Remaking any of the Fallouts (or Arcanum) using an even better looking/functioning engine than TOEE's would be just as awesome as a 3D 1st person version.

Viewtiful Joe was proof that a fun 2D scroller type game could still be made. It was actually a mix of 2D/3D but you get the point. It wasn't 1st person or full 3d.

And I'm not pushing entirely for 2D - it's more the perspective. I could certainly live with FO3 in a 3D zoomed out 3rd person view such as Dungeon Siege (which was visually impressive when it came out) or NWN where you can play around with different camera views and tweak to your liking.

It's really the 1st person view that I detest. I want to see my character and everything around it - that's how tactical combat should work. And RPGs have always been tactical. Even a game like Diablo which is clearly an action RPG benefitted from it's perspective. Diablo wouldn't work in 1st person - it would then be just another typical shooter.

Have a great vacation! :D

[QUOTE=Relayer;33907]Just like 3D has advanced (original Doom and Daggerfall look terrible by today's standards) so has 2D (TOEE looked great), albeit in a limited way since not many games are 2D anymore. [/QUOTE[
Actually, ToEE is a 2D/3D combo as well. The chars and monsters are 3D.

Yep. By nature of the size limit of monitors, 1st person is unnaturally tunnel-visioned, making the experience weird, at best. I find the best solution are games that let you toggle. 1st person can have it's purpose, but 3rd definitely lets you "see" more naturally.

I totally agree about the choices with consequences/world reactivity/multiple paths stuff. Not many games have even tried to match Fallout in this area. Nicely written post.

BUTTT… Time for the bashing :)

I agree about not being able to see some things that you should. But, I love the big picture element, you see what's going on around you, you see the context of things in a way that an over the shoulder/first person view couldnt deliver. This especially relevant during combat. Speaking of which..

Rpg wise, what about Arena, Daggerfall, Darklands, Balder's Gate (1998, and this and Darlands are puase equiped I think, but close enough), Diablo, etc? Haven't played all of those, but I guess I'll throw out of Kharn's favorite quotes by Tim Cain: "It also showed how popular and fun turn-based combat could be, when everyone else was going with real-time or pause-based combat."

Personally, it is one of my favorite combat rpg combat systems, so nah-nah-nah-nah ;) I'll agree that Fallout isnt uber-tactical, and that there are probably more tactictal realtime games, but what about more tactical/detailed realtime rpgs? Realtime Rpgs that maintain the same amount of character expression? Realtime rpgs that do both of these things as well as fallout?

edit: that is quite possibly the most disturbing wink emoticon I have ever seen.