What makes fallout "Real Fallout" to you.

W

woo1108

Vault Senior Citizen
It would be important to think about defiition of Fallout.
For me.
1. Quest based RPG
One of most improtant thing of Fallout. without quest, there's no reason to stick with Fallout: Jagged aliance has better combat. but for quest there's too little game which has better quests than Fallout
2. Post apocalypse
8-)
3. Rebuild of civilization
Not only destruction but also people find how to survive, how to rebuild and how to begin again. This makes me impressed. PA is meanigful because of this.
4.SPECIAL and skills
The methods to solve the situation(quest) not just doing stupid minigame or only for combat.
5.Perks
6. Ending
Fallouts(not for 3 I guess? and don't know about POS) has awsome endings that shows your journy chages the world.

Without these 6, I can't call fake fallout a Fallout.
 
You've basically said it all. It's primary features are the rebuilding of civilization (but not succeeding), rpg character system, dialogue system, perks and traits, quests with choices and consequences and a non linear main quest, retro futurism, gory and tactical combat, followers and ending slides
 
1. Story

2. Interactivity

3. Any system that can offer variations on interactivity, whether it be story or character builds.

4. Uniqueness. Black and white stories are a dime a dozen but a story that runs the entire gamut from morally ambiguous, chaotic evil, lawful evil, neutral, lawful good, chaotic good. A true 'mainstream', game would try to interest fans not by ignoring but catering to individuals sensibilites. Luddites that blame scoieties evils on technology, corporate oligarchs who believe economics is the key to saving the world, military dictators, theocratic governments, etc, etc.

5. Danger/desolation/etc. One of the coolest things about Fallout was that the PC was NEVER truly safe. Sure powered armor made you safe but the occasional massive critical would kill you nonetheless. The cities never felt truly safe and the only high tech areas were run by borderline crazy mutants or a bunker run by a technocultic authortatian regime.
 
The contrast of misplaced optimism/sentimentality (often stemming from the pre-war soundtrack but also from some characters' love of their homes) and desolation/grimness.

This is an integral part of the atmosphere for me. It's perfectly characterised by the Vault Boy cartoons whose lighthearted depictions of everything from carefree living to gruesome horror contrasts starkly with the gritty reality.

It hovers between comforting and unsettling - it really speaks to that part of the human condition that can just embrace the devastation around them; whistling in the dark, if you will. A scream dressed in a smile, if I might wax poetic.
 
From Top (Most Important) to Bottom (Least Important):

1) Detail into the whole "50's Culture Futurism" culture which Fallout provides

2) Post-Apocalyptic RPG (That means no tactical bull-shit like FO:BOS or FO:T).

3) Story of human survival in a harsh wasteland (preferably Fallout 1 style, New Vegas style is kinda "post post-apocalyptic". I know you I may be criticized for this, but one thing I felt Bethesda delivered on-par in Fallout 3 was this).

4) Not necessarily being a turn based shooter (although it would be nice), but having something like VATs at least.

4) Decisions - Cause and Effect (Something Bethesda is notoriously good at doing, but for some reason left it out of Fallout 3 [I feel Fallout 3 was rushed, and couldn't been much better if Bethesda gave the production team the time they wanted (and needed])

5) A Great and Common Enemy
The Master, The Enclave, etc. etc.

Sadly I couldn't think of much. I will revise my list at a later date when I can think of more.
 
BigBoss said:
1) Detail into the whole "50's Culture Futurism" culture which Fallout provides
Click to expand...
I didn't find much about 50's from 1,2, NV.

BigBoss said:
2) Post-Apocalyptic RPG That means no tactical bull-shit like FO:BOS or FO:T
Click to expand...
Actually FOT is not bad game for tactical RPG. it is criticised because it isn't quest RPG like fo3(poor dungeon "fps")

BigBoss said:
3) Story of human survival in a harsh wasteland (preferably Fallout 1 style, New Vegas style is kinda "post post-apocalyptic". I know you I may be criticized for this, but one thing I felt Bethesda delivered on-par in Fallout 3 was this).
Click to expand...
Actually even Fo1, Surviving isn't that much important since they already survived. for Shadysand, they already successfully grow food to eat, built house to living and organize guard to protect. Even without your help, they can survive but without your help they fail to become nation though. but fo3, they still don't have way to living. it is different from other Fallout. even FOT has better story and better feeling of Fallout than fo3.
 
3) Story of human survival in a harsh wasteland (preferably Fallout 1 style, New Vegas style is kinda "post post-apocalyptic". I know you I may be criticized for this, but one thing I felt Bethesda delivered on-par in Fallout 3 was this).
Click to expand...

I actually echo bigboss on this.

Even sleeping in a room in Megaton, knowing that under 20 people lived there (about), with nothing more than a cheap barrier made of airplane parts separating me from the mutant and raider infested wastelands, was scary.

But it was also my first FO, so...
 
I am surprised the "Isometric turn based" people haven't posted yet.

All the points have already been said, except I don't like the Idea of a common enemy, even if 3 out of the 4 main line games did it like that, the way New Vegas postulated it, with different branching paths, would be the bes course for the series, but of course with equal focus on all the factions.
 
Walpknut said:
I am surprised the "Isometric turn based" people haven't posted yet.
Click to expand...
Actually, for me, I don't care Isomeric or turnbased if there's good function to use skill and items without idiotic arrows that show where to go what to use. but it would be better to use turn based isometric since it's better to use rule to combat.
 
I like (in general) isometric turn based combat for RPGs because it abstracts the player character's abilities from the player's abilities, but I don't consider it a defining feature, since anyway there is a basic skill you can not abstract, which is the intelligence (even though you can abstract a part of it). I agree about the branching paths motion. I think that's the way to go in RPGs in general, as long it doesn't become consequences-less.
 
Well Iso Turnbase is kind of a given considering the alternative is fps, TPS or real time with pause in fps or tps.
 
1. Quest based RPG? That describe most of RPG out there.
2. Post Apocalypse. now this is more like it. I will make amends to that as "post Apocalypse of a known region." PA of an imaginary and arbitrary world is no fallout, now is it?

3. Rebuild Civilization. It's the strongest theme of F1 and 2, but FNV show another aspect. In FNV, the world is well on his way to recovery. NCR come to mojave with a stable base back west, full of people with work. legion come to mojave with a (possibly) stable base back east, full of slaves and the heavy yokels of security. And although the whole mojave is full of prewar ruins they contain one of the biggest tourist trap in the world. So it's hard to say rebuild civilization in mojave.

3.4. SPECIAL and skills and perks: Well, duh~

5. Endings. True. Personalized endings and local endings for each region to show the effect of our gameplay.

-------
Anyway, I will add my own falloutesque points:

6. Real world weapons. Or at least, based on real weapons. A game that is only e cells and mf cells with no bullets is no fallout, i say.

7. Consequences of your gameplay. Based on our actions and quest-results, the region will have changes. our character will shwisssssssh through the place like a strong wind. The world will change because of YOU.

8. Wacky humour. And I consider the aspect of "50s imagination of the future" is one such.
 
laclongquan said:
"50s imagination of the future" is one such.
Click to expand...

This may be the biggest one for me. This is an aspect I really liked about the game.

woo1108 said:
BigBoss said:
1) Detail into the whole "50's Culture Futurism" culture which Fallout provides
Click to expand...
I didn't find much about 50's from 1,2, NV.
Click to expand...

Not "just" 50's culture. Also the 50's futurism aspects. The computers. The basic technology. The energy weapons. Etc. Etc.

Read this article: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Divergence. This is kinda what I am talking about more-or-less.

laclongquan said:
BigBoss said:
2) Post-Apocalyptic RPG That means no tactical bull-shit like FO:BOS or FO:T
Click to expand...
Actually FOT is not bad game for tactical RPG. it is criticised because it isn't quest RPG like fo3(poor dungeon "fps")
Click to expand...

This is simply a matter of opinion. I hated Fallout Tactics. I didn't provide the things I liked about Fallout for me. However, I liked Fallout 3 and considered it a "Fallout Game", I just considered a spin-off and not a part of the main Fallout story line.

laclongquan said:
BigBoss said:
3) Story of human survival in a harsh wasteland (preferably Fallout 1 style, New Vegas style is kinda "post post-apocalyptic". I know you I may be criticized for this, but one thing I felt Bethesda delivered on-par in Fallout 3 was this).
Click to expand...
Actually even Fo1, Surviving isn't that much important since they already survived. for Shadysand, they already successfully grow food to eat, built house to living and organize guard to protect. Even without your help, they can survive but without your help they fail to become nation though. but fo3, they still don't have way to living. it is different from other Fallout. even FOT has better story and better feeling of Fallout than fo3.
Click to expand...


While they are doing their best to survive in FO1, you still get the general sense and feeling that the scars left by the Great War are still present, and living the wasteland (and life in it) is still a dark, hellish thing/place. Even in Shady Sands, the people there talk about how life is no picnic, and dealing with radioactive monsters (RadScorpions), raiders (Great Khans), and even a struggle to grow their crops (drought, etc), life gets harder by the day, and death because of the wastelands harsh life has become a common thing.

Both Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 managed to depict this in a good way. Fallout 1 (for the reasons I explained above), and Fallout 3 obviously provided the feeling that the Wasteland wasn't exactly "re-settled", and it was a struggle for daily survival, even to find simple, clean water.
 
BigBoss said:
[

Not "just" 50's culture. Also the 50's futurism aspects. The computers. The basic technology. The energy weapons. Etc. Etc.

Read this article: http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Divergence. This is kinda what I am talking about more-or-less.
Click to expand...
What I mean is it wasn't that important things for Fallout to me. Technology would improve even AP. and another culture rises. if thouse two are reasonable, I will accept that even it won't be 50's feeling.


BigBoss said:
Both Fallout 1 and Fallout 3 managed to depict this in a good way. Fallout 1 (for the reasons I explained above), and Fallout 3 obviously provided the feeling that the Wasteland wasn't exactly "re-settled", and it was a struggle for daily survival, even to find simple, clean water.
Click to expand...
For 3, I don't think so. and acually for surviving, shady sand is the most harsh place to survive at Fo1 since too little amount of guard to guard the town, Khans and Scolpion. but for other place, I don't think there's much things about survival against harshness of wasteland but conflict between humans(enclude ghouls and supermutants). and for Shady sand, even it was harsh place compare to another places, only thing they concern was enemy not like fo3 that people done nothing but eat 200 year old trashes to survive.

And for player, most challenging thing and most enjoyable thing isn't survival but solving situations by choice, action and dialog.
unlike fo3 that is most important thing is to explore shitty dungeons to grab trashes.
 
BigBoss, why the hell do you create the whole post about what I supposedly said above? One, I didnt say them in this thread. Two, if you post it from somewhere it really is needful that you correctly quote them, cause otherwise it mean you invent them on the spot. And get the original link while you are at it.

I have never mentioned F3. it will always be f1, 2, tactics, and fnv for me.

As for your point in that post, you need to play F2 more carefully. Life as a slave is hard, but at least life in Vault City is much better than in the wasteland, just from what the 'servants' said in VC courtyard. Slavery everywhere in F2. Cannibal tribes in westcoastal wilderness. Droughts that threaten communities (arroyo, modoc). Raiders.

Scars of the Great War? In F2 that's the main theme. you discover the FEV, a preWar weapon get loose. You discover many preWar military bases filled with inhuman tales (mariposa, the depot near New Reno...). An evil organization with roots from preWar... It's everywhere, and much better depicted than in Fallout 1.
 
1: post apocalyptic.
2: a setting that runs on Twilight Zone and 50's B movie SCIENCE!
3: a grey vs. gray morality system.
4: no best options.
5: multiple endings.
6: SPECIAL, VATS and perks.
7: no direct 'real world' products or guns.
8: a good story.
9: immersion.
 
A convincing illusion of player freedom created by a blend of mechanics on micro level(contextual blurbs, combat, character depth(addiction, etc), item-skill interaction, descriptions) level, middle level (non-linear quest solutions, conflicting quests, only one invulnerable NPC in the entire game who you can still kill in the end), and macro level (modular settlement outcomes).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top