The flaws of Fallout

[Lumpy]

In my opinion, Fallout was not as perfect as some of the fans portray it today. Sure, it beats most RPGs today by far, but nevertheless, it could be improved at certain points.
For one thing, many quests don't have that many ways to be completed. Save Tandi is an example of quest freedom, but besides it, were there that many choices in other quests? Another dumb thing was having forced combat. If they allowed the player to complete 70% of the game with diplomacy, why should they have forced combat in the other 30%, making diplomacy nothing more than a cosmetic option, since you have to have combat skills anyway.
The skill system was pretty fucked up. You had combat, speech and stealth skills as useful, but the rest were crap, and only useful for some abstract form of role-playing without actual in game consequences. In a high tech post-apocalyptic gameworld, there should've been many more uses for Science, Repair, Doctor, Outdoorsman, etc. However, they were quite useless. Not to mention how dumb splitting up a barely used skill (Tech) into two subskills which will be even more useless (Science and Repair).
And lastly, the main plot was underdeveloped and cliched. It's cited as an example of nonlinearity, but there weren't as many events - basically, 4-5 main ones and 2-3 misc, the main ones being more or less forced. So you had 2-3 things you had the option to do or not to. Big fucking deal.
I hope AoD will deal with those issues, and from what's been said, it will. How good it will actually turn out is another story.

Discuss.

 

[Sander]

In my opinion, Fallout was not as perfect as some of the fans portray it today. Sure, it beats most RPGs today by far, but nevertheless, it could be improved at certain points.
For one thing, many quests don't have that many ways to be completed. Save Tandi is an example of quest freedom, but besides it, were there that many choices in other quests?

Ehh....yes. Necropolis, Decker, Junktown, Boneyard.
It makes no sense to have an opposite way of completing the Radscorpion quest, for instance, but even that one had two ways.

Another dumb thing was having forced combat. If they allowed the player to complete 70% of the game with diplomacy, why should they have forced combat in the other 30%, making diplomacy nothing more than a cosmetic option, since you have to have combat skills anyway.

...
Huh? You can complete the game without fighting. Ever.

The skill system was pretty fucked up. You had combat, speech and stealth skills as useful, but the rest were crap, and only useful for some abstract form of role-playing without actual in game consequences. In a high tech post-apocalyptic gameworld, there should've been many more uses for Science, Repair, Doctor, Outdoorsman, etc. However, they were quite useless. Not to mention how dumb splitting up a barely used skill (Tech) into two subskills which will be even more useless (Science and Repair).

Yep, the skill system was unbalanced. Although not as unbalanced as you claim it to be.

And lastly, the main plot was underdeveloped and cliched.

Eh...yeah, it's real cliche to have a 50s sci-fi post-nuclear world where a mutated adventurer attempts to repair the human race forcefully.
What the fuck?

It's cited as an example of nonlinearity, but there weren't as many events - basically, 4-5 main ones and 2-3 misc, the main ones being more or less forced. So you had 2-3 things you had the option to do or not to. Big fucking deal.

Here's how the plot starts: 'Go find a water chip. Start looking in vault 15.'
That's it. You can do *whatever you want* from there on. That is pretty much the definition of non-linearity.
Whether or not you then focus on the water chip is your choice. You can also attempt to destroy the Super Mutants. Hell, you can actually join the Super Mutants if you want.

There are *no* forced events. You can choose to do nothing.
Of course, this means that you don't complete the game. But that's hardly the point. You're allowed that choice.

Discuss.

You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Zaron]

I agree with you on the skill system, there is only a few that is actually useful.
This is the only plus FOT has, because pretty much all of the skills are useful one way or another, but everything else is pretty much fubar'd.

About the main plot, which is one of the best in gaming history, I do not fully agree. Sure, there could be more events to the game; but you don't want to go to 'deep'; the risk to loose' the story increases that way. See 'Lost' as an example, where too many elements of the plot has over time become un-answered.

Overall, FO3 has much to get from all the games (well, maybe not FO:BOS) but also much to improve, but things should pretty much be the way they were in FO and 2.

Please notice that I'm NOT to well-educated in the subject, and my post will, probably, be shattered into pieces by 6000+ posters.

 

[Brother None]

My comments from the same thread:

And lastly, the main plot was underdeveloped and cliched.

That really was intentional, the cheap use of McGuffins. If there was kind of "threading", story-telling plot like, say, in Planescape: Torment, it would've been a lot harder make the game as open as it was. It isn't perfect, but it's nearly if not completely impossible to do both, you have to make a choice. PS:T chose one, Fallout the other, is either game worse for wear because of it? I don't think so.

As for the "multiple answers for a quest"-philosophy. It was there, paths between speech and violence almost always there, "thief"-paths often added and occasionally science too, though very limited. It might be because of time constraints, but it was only there in major quests.

Is that wrong? You're saying that no matter if you choose CombatBoy, SpeechBoy, StealthBoy or ScienceBoy, you should be able to solve every quest. Isn't that the opposite of Fallout's philosophy, though?

That said, there's a lot wrong with Fallout 1 (and a bit more with Fallout 2, though it works away some original flaws too), a few bits:

- Fairly badly balanced combat system. A problem with turn-based combat is that it's hard to make opponents that'll match the NPCs skills, especially on higher levels. Once you got to three normal shots/two aimed shots turbo plasma rifle hardened power armor, you were basically done with any and all opponents, 'cept maybe the Master.

- Badly balanced skill system, like you said. And let's be honest here, it was *really* bad, some combat skills (unarmed, throwing) being all-but useless, some skills (doctor, first aid, outdoorsman) being completely useless

- The faction and reputation system was pretty badly designed. Why did a whole town decide to turn on me because I missed the raider and shot the hooker? Intent doesn't matter to them? And why are bums reacting to it since they have no reason to care? There were some unclear splits between factions in towns, and how things influenced your reputation could be odd.

- Some choices really needed more consequences, or more that made sense. The whole Necropolis thing was not that well-designed. I guess less bugs would've made a difference here.

 

[Sander]

That really was intentional, the cheap use of McGuffins. If there was kind of "threading", story-telling plot like, say, in Planescape: Torment, it would've been a lot harder make the game as open as it was. It isn't perfect, but it's nearly if not completely impossible to do both, you have to make a choice. PS:T chose one, Fallout the other, is either game worse for wear because of it? I don't think so.

This is much more a comment on an underdeveloped plot, though, and not how cliche it is. Personally, I don't think it is cliched.
On that note, it isn't really underdeveloped either. If you looked around, you found tons of information about the plot. Including the Master's diaries, Harold's stories, Zax and the Master himself.

Lumpy made a comment on the Codex about the plot of Fallout being 'big baddy wants to take over the world.'
This really just shows that he didn't actually get the plot. Just like his 'you have to have combat skills' comment shows he hasn't actually tried to play the game differently.

 

[Lumpy]

In my opinion, Fallout was not as perfect as some of the fans portray it today. Sure, it beats most RPGs today by far, but nevertheless, it could be improved at certain points.
For one thing, many quests don't have that many ways to be completed. Save Tandi is an example of quest freedom, but besides it, were there that many choices in other quests?

Ehh....yes. Necropolis, Decker, Junktown, Boneyard.
It makes no sense to have an opposite way of completing the Radscorpion quest, for instance, but even that one had two ways.

Then, don't have the Radscorpion quest in the first place. The dynamite thing was too hard to figure out anyway, considering that most players probably didn't even know that dynamite existed in the game, or that it could be used in that way.
And yes, many of those quests offered some choices, but not too many.

Another dumb thing was having forced combat. If they allowed the player to complete 70% of the game with diplomacy, why should they have forced combat in the other 30%, making diplomacy nothing more than a cosmetic option, since you have to have combat skills anyway.

...
Huh? You can complete the game without fighting. Ever.

Yes, but what are the chances to achieve that in the first play through? And is that style of play as rewarding as combat? How many quests do you have to avoid, how many random encounters to run away from, etc.

And lastly, the main plot was underdeveloped and cliched.

Eh...yeah, it's real cliche to have a 50s sci-fi post-nuclear world where a mutated adventurer attempts to repair the human race forcefully.
What the fuck?

It's still a story about defeating a bad guy. There was some moral ambiguity, but it was worthless considering that you couldn't join the Master. Well, you could, in a way, but it was about as much of an ending as death was.

It's cited as an example of nonlinearity, but there weren't as many events - basically, 4-5 main ones and 2-3 misc, the main ones being more or less forced. So you had 2-3 things you had the option to do or not to. Big fucking deal.

Here's how the plot starts: 'Go find a water chip. Start looking in vault 15.'
That's it. You can do *whatever you want* from there on. That is pretty much the definition of non-linearity.
Whether or not you then focus on the water chip is your choice. You can also attempt to destroy the Super Mutants. Hell, you can actually join the Super Mutants if you want.

There are *no* forced events. You can choose to do nothing.
Of course, this means that you don't complete the game. But that's hardly the point. You're allowed that choice.

You sound like an Oblivion fanboy. "You can do the main quest, or not do it." But you have to do it, because otherwise there's no point in playing.
You had to go to Necropolis to get the water chip. You had to destroy the Cathedral and the Military Base. That's not non-linearity. A truly non-linear game would give you 5 places to find a water chip, while still not punishing you for not finding one and the Vault Dwellers leaving to found a village. It would allow you to find out about the Master in multiple ways, to influence the final confrontation through several events, or to join the Master and actually play as a Super Mutant.

Discuss.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Perhaps. I only played Fallout once.

 

[Lumpy]

Lumpy made a comment on the Codex about the plot of Fallout being 'big baddy wants to take over the world.'
This really just shows that he didn't actually get the plot. Just like his 'you have to have combat skills' comment shows he hasn't actually tried to play the game differently.

All right, it was a story about a big neutrally who wants to save the world by taking over it. End result is the same. I still have to kill him.
As I said, they could have done much more with a post-apocalyptic world.

 

[Angrim]

I still have to kill him.

No you don't. You can join him, too

 

[Lumpy]

I still have to kill him.

No you don't. You can join him, too

And in Oblivion, you could also let yourself be killed and allow the Evil God to rule the world. OMG multiple endings.

 

[Sander]

Then, don't have the Radscorpion quest in the first place. The dynamite thing was too hard to figure out anyway, considering that most players probably didn't even know that dynamite existed in the game, or that it could be used in that way.

...
What the fuck? Are you this dumb or am I that smart?(name that quote)
If you examine the wall it says something along the lines of 'Hey, this spot looks weak, an explosion could probably collapse it'.
Think, buck-o.

Also, your solution of 'Put only quests with lots and lots of choices' in the game is actually a very silly proposal. Not every quest needs to have multiple possible paths.

And yes, many of those quests offered some choices, but not too many.

It's impossible to fit in infinite choices. To put it simply: Fallout had more choices than any other game.

Yes, but what are the chances to achieve that in the first play through?

If you want to do that, it isn't that hard. Most people don't try.

And is that style of play as rewarding as combat? How many quests do you have to avoid, how many random encounters to run away from, etc.

Ehm, not that many, really. Go try it.

It's also part of the setting. If you don't want to fight a bunch of *raiders* you'll probably have to run away from them.

It's still a story about defeating a bad guy.

As opposed to what? Defeating a good guy?

It's a roleplaying game, Lumpy. What would the fun in a game be if you didn't actually have to defeat, you know, something.

There was some moral ambiguity, but it was worthless considering that you couldn't join the Master.

And how does that make the story cliched?

Well, you could, in a way, but it was about as much of an ending as death was.

True, but at least it was present. And you got a cool ending movie.

You sound like an Oblivion fanboy. "You can do the main quest, or not do it." But you have to do it, because otherwise there's no point in playing.

Nice going nitpicking one bit from my entire piece of text.
Try again, pal.

You had to go to Necropolis to get the water chip. You had to destroy the Cathedral and the Military Base. That's not non-linearity. A truly non-linear game would give you 5 places to find a water chip,

Why?
What's more non-linear about that? There are tons of different ways to end up at Necropolis, or the Military Base, or the Cathedral.
Now think logically. There's an enemy army. It has two bases. Gee, would you perhaps have to visit these bases to stop them?

Also, here's some more non-linearity for you:
- The BoS could help you destroy the Military base, or not.
- There is no set order in which you have to do stuff. You can destroy the Master first, then find the water chip and then destroy the Military base.
- You can use the Followers, or not.
- There's a ton of options on how to handle things in the Cathedral and Necropolis. Fewer in the Military Base.
- Little specks of information are left in lots of places. The Super Mutant/Deathclaw encounter. The Children in the Hub. The problems the Brotherhood is having with raids to the north. The raided caravans.
- If you carefully collect information, you can find out about the sterility of Super Mutants, which is very important in the endgame.

while still not punishing you for not finding one and the Vault Dwellers leaving to found a village. It would allow you to find out about the Master in multiple ways,

..
You could.

to influence the final confrontation through several events,

You could.

or to join the Master and actually play as a Super Mutant.

And degrade the game into a 'wee shoot everything' game. Good going!
Yeah, they could've put that in, though. But that's not nearly a huge gigantic flaw.

Perhaps. I only played Fallout once.

...
Bwahahahahahaha.

All right, it was a story about a big neutrally who wants to save the world by taking over it. End result is the same. I still have to kill him.

No, you don't.

As I said, you do not know what you are talking about.

As I said, they could have done much more with a post-apocalyptic world.

Yeah, they could've. The game was short. Whoop-di-doo.

PS: Don't double post.

 

[Angrim]

Lumpy, are you just fucking around or are you really that stupid? You don't seem to know a shit about what you are talking about.

I agree you with the skill system being bad at some points, but the things you say about the plot and the (non)-linearity is just some ignorant babbling.

Perhaps. I only played Fallout once.

...

I think this explains a lot...

 

[Sorrow]

I still have to kill him.

No you don't. You can join him, too

And in Oblivion, you could also let yourself be killed and allow the Evil God to rule the world. OMG multiple endings.

The problem is that the "Join" path wasn't finished/fully implemented. IMO it should be a legitimate way of finishing game - with narrator telling how it affected the world, etc.

 

[PaleHorseman]

Perhaps. I only played Fallout once.

that's the first problem, playing it only once. replay value is a big part of FO and FO2. The setup of the games allow for multiple playings in different ways. Sure, like pretty much all games that have a plot, FO and FO2 tell a story, the major plot points have to be set. What happens in between the plot points is up to the player.

 

[Goweigus]

That's not non-linearity. A truly non-linear game would give you 5 places to find a water chip, while still not punishing you for not finding one and the Vault Dwellers leaving to found a village.

If you weren't punished in some way for finding it it, omg that would be stupid. If you don't save your family and friends does not it make sense in some way to have a consequence? Maybe there weren't 5 places to find a WORKING water chip so long after the war and raiders destroyed the vaults.

And technically it didn't really punish you for not finding the waterchip, it gave you another neat video. Well maybe.... I can't remember, did you auto lose the game and cant play anymore if you don't save your vault?

 

[zioburosky13]

And technically it didn't really punish you for not finding the waterchip, it gave you another neat video. Well maybe.... I can't remember, did you auto lose the game and cant play anymore if you don't save your vault?

Yes Vault 13 is abandon if you don't find the chip.

 

[Goweigus]

oh my bad, i was thinking for some reason that if you didnt get the water chip than they all died and you auto lose the game and cant play anymore

 

[Sander]

oh my bad, i was thinking for some reason that if you didnt get the water chip than they all died and you auto lose the game and cant play anymore

...
That *is* what happens.

 

[Muff]

Fallout is a great game series an it is the most non-linear game i have ever played so I can make a comparison.

As for not being Perfect I can say that although its not perfect its as close as it can be, as I think that every ones idea of perfect is different from player to player.

If its got cliched plot lines so what? its a game the many people enjoy the world over an it has more than one story to keep the average player occupied for months. Like someone said early in this thread "I still play fallout an find new things every time I play it" - as do I just because the main plot is to Find the water chip an later find out about the Master an destroy him you can still have lot's of fun doing so and finding new ways to do it.

 

[entropomorphic]

There aren't many serious flaws that have bugged me about Fallout (1-2), but there are times when I wish the designers had taken a few more steps to enhance the gameplay.

There are some holes in the "do anything, with realistic consequences" game design... For one example, a sneaky player might think he could do some good by infiltrating the slavers guild and taking it out from within. However, killing your fellow slavers while on a slave run does not credit you for "freeing" anybody, and the unruly slaves still attack you. Even by killing Metzger and all his gang, you can never lose the "Slaver" reputation. There are other examples of this kind of thing, where proactive questing works against you, and you can't accomplish what you thought should originally be possible.

Also, I always thought related skills should be linked in some way. For example, having a vast discrepancy between related skill levels would allow the lesser skill to gain faster, like a Tag skill. This would mean expert snipers would find ways to apply their small guns knowledge to energy weapons and big guns. Expert hand-to-hand characters automatically learn knife-fighting faster, and good speakers would have an edge in learning how to barter.

 

[Sander]

There aren't many serious flaws that have bugged me about Fallout (1-2), but there are times when I wish the designers had taken a few more steps to enhance the gameplay.

There are some holes in the "do anything, with realistic consequences" game design... For one example, a sneaky player might think he could do some good by infiltrating the slavers guild and taking it out from within. However, killing your fellow slavers while on a slave run does not credit you for "freeing" anybody, and the unruly slaves still attack you. Even by killing Metzger and all his gang, you can never lose the "Slaver" reputation. There are other examples of this kind of thing, where proactive questing works against you, and you can't accomplish what you thought should originally be possible.

Ehm, you had the slaver sign tattooed on your forehead if you did that. It isn't surprising that people then think you're a slaver.