Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Fallout 1: Harbinger of the Decline?

Fallout 1 represents:

  • Incline

    Votes: 39 86.7%
  • Decline

    Votes: 6 13.3%

  • Total voters
    45

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
While I do enjoy Fallout (though it's probably not in my top 10), I also agree with the first post. So many people (outside of the Codex) claim that turn-based sucks in RPGs while pointing at Fallout as a reason why. Sure, none of them have played any other turn-based RPG outside of JRPGs, but Fallout's poor single character turn-based combat seems to be the main reason why the masses don't want turn-based combat in their modern shit.

In my opinion RPGs declined after 1993. If you look through a list of RPGs that came out for each year you'll see a massive drop in quality (and number) in 1994. Fallout did incline things somewhat, but at the same time I truly believe that Fallout contributed just as much as the Infinity Engine to the decline of turn-based combat (and thus the rise of the action RPG). After all, most modern gamers haven't even heard of any western RPGs older than Fallout. Fallout started the genre in the west according to most, while at the same time having terrible turn-based combat that is both slow and not tactical in the slightest.

If Fallout did combat even half as well as Jagged Alliance 2 did, and of course giving the player control over multiple characters, I'm almost certain the masses' opinion on turn-based combat in RPGs would be very different today. They would actually have knowledge of a western RPG with good turn-based combat. When the topic of turn-based versus real-time RPGs pops up they can quote Fallout as an example in favour of turn-based instead of an example in favour of real-time.
 

Wyrmlord

Arcane
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
28,886
MMXI, clearly you are being unfair, when you say "rise of action RPG" during a supposed decline era.

Many action RPGs pre-1998 have been good games, heavy on statistics and number-crunching, along with a heavy role of those stats during combat. By comparison to either today's PRT games or today's action RPGs, they had a greater emphasis on their rulesets and were challenging games. Even Diablo was a fairly meaty game compared to today's stuff.

It's partly relevant to your point. ARPGs didn't kill TBS combat; bad TBS combat killed TBS combat.

Besides, action RPGs have always been there, have they not? Was Ultima Underworld not a 1991 game? They have coexisted for long alongside TBS combat RPGs.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Wyrmlord said:
MMXI, clearly you are being unfair, when you say "rise of action RPG" during a supposed decline era.

Many action RPGs pre-1998 have been good games, heavy on statistics and number-crunching, along with a heavy role of those stats during combat. By comparison to either today's PRT games or today's action RPGs, they had a greater emphasis on their rulesets and were challenging games. Even Diablo was a fairly meaty game compared to today's stuff.

It's partly relevant to your point. ARPGs didn't kill TBS combat; bad TBS combat killed TBS combat.

Besides, action RPGs have always been there, have they not? Was Ultima Underworld not a 1991 game? They have coexisted for long alongside TBS combat RPGs.
I never said that Fallout created action RPGs. I said that the likes of Fallout and Baldur's Gate showed those gamers who had never played any pre-existing western RPGs that turn-based may not be the way forward. For example, those Baldur's Gate fans who had never played the Gold Box or Dark Sun games, or those Fallout fans who hadn't played an actual party-based RPG with turn-based combat. This is directly related to why you hardly ever see any pre-1997 cRPG talked about in mainstream places outside of perhaps Daggerfall (purely because of its relation to Morrowind and Oblivion) and Ultima VII (which is actually a far more decline RPG than both Fallout and Baldur's Gate even though I love the game).

Of course there were action RPGs before Fallout was released. And you are generally right in that they tended to be more meatier in terms of statistics and even non-combat gameplay (Ultima Underworld) than the RPGs we get today. But the way I see it, those games coexisted with proper RPGs. I mean, Ultima Underworld came out the same year as Wizardry VII, and 5 years before Fallout was even released. It's just that if you look at the later part of the 90s when the Infinity Engine and Fallout games were released, you can trace the shit we get today back to that era. The loss of confidence in fun and tactical turn-based combat (Fallout, Baldur's Gate), the increase in C&C and storyfaggotry (Planescape: Torment and Fallout), the shift over to recruitable party members with banter (Baldur's Gate II) etc. This period is generally the limit to how far mainstream journalists (and thus gamers) go back to when talking about RPGs in the west. Someone in another thread mentioned that it's because of the shift from DOS. That's a possibility. But it means that this period is the one that needed to leave the best impression possible in order to influence the genre positively. It didn't do a good enough job I'm afraid.
 
Self-Ejected

Excidium

P. banal
Joined
Aug 14, 2009
Messages
13,696
Location
Third World
The decline has nothing to do with Fallout, it happened with almost every genre at the late 90s and early 2000. The video game industry just expanded a lot, and that includes PC getting much more attractive as a gaming plataform.

Also people saying Fallout is less complex than earlier RPGs, are you fucking serious? Most RPGs from that time didn't even have a grid to position the characters.
 

JaySn

Educated
Joined
May 14, 2011
Messages
350
I'm rather curious, Awor, what were the main differences between GURPS and special, other than an extremely short development time and age of existence?

I don't think Fallout sold well enough to be attributed to a decline. Look at titles that sold over 100,000 and you'll find your evil, I suspect.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Excidium said:
Most RPGs from that time didn't even have a grid to position the characters.
Nor did Fallout. Just a grid to position a character.

:smug:
 

Machocruz

Arcane
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
4,377
Location
Hyperborea
The saving grace of Fallout 1/2 compared to Fallout 3, is that the former enforce their rules/system. Fallout 3, and every RPG Bethesda will make since, and including, Oblivion, treat the player with a soft touch. Bethesda doesn't believe in restricting or hurting the player in any way, hence things like:

Being able to get regular headshots with a mediocre guns skill and low to hit %(25 for instance) in Fallout 3, from a distance even.

Being able to max out a large percentage of your skills instead of being forced to specialize more (this is not counting skill books and other boosts)

Giving perks every level (or was it every 2, I don't remember), instead of spreading them out more so that a PC is more specialized.

Being able to cure drug addiction quickly and easily.

No permanent negative statuses

Being able to acquire a nuke cannon early, through un-spoiled play. Hence large threats are practically non existant even at low levels.

That's my problem with RPGs today. They don't make you carry out a "role", because they put little to no limitations on you, and a person's role , in society as well as in games, is defined by limitations/restrictions as much as it's defined by abilities.

Basically, modern RPG developers think players should be Batman.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
JaySn said:
I'm rather curious, Awor, what were the main differences between GURPS and special, other than an extremely short development time and age of existence?
Combat in GURPS:
1. Damage - weapon damage higher than in Fallout, much lower HP, unpleasant stuff happening at negative HP.
Crippling damage based on damage thresholds - more than two damage points at an eye and you're blind, damage over HT/2 cripples leg, etc.
More subtle hit locations - you get stuff like distinction between head and brain, torso and vitals, which allows skilled characters to aim for more damage instead of depending on luck on critical hits.
Location based damage multipliers - brain hit is 4x basic damage (after going through skull's DR) with automatic knock-out roll, vitals is 3x damage.
Working AP/JHP ammo types.

2. Attacking - default attack is snapshot - it gives -4 to hit. You need to aim for one round to not get that penalty and get accuracy bonus from a weapon. There's opportunity fire.

3. Generally the game is manoeuvre based. Look at this screen:

http://www.duckandcover.cx/official/gur ... fall11.gif

http://www.duckandcover.cx/official/gur ... fall05.gif

http://www.duckandcover.cx/official/gur ... fall07.gif

Note how in the right part of the interface there's a field with name of manoeuvre:
"Aim", "Move" and "Step and Attack".
They have different effects on what you can do in a turn with various modifiers.

GURPS also has stuff like various positions but I doubt Fallout would have it, taking in account the limited amount of space for animations. Generally, GURPS is a semi-realistic system which is based on tons of research while S.P.E.C.I.A.L. is pretty arbitrary.

4. Character creation - it's point-based with lots of points and advantages and disadvantages - the first take points while the latter give points. The advantages and disadvantages were implemented in game.

Here's what Vault 15 was like in GURPS: Fallout according to a design document published in Swords & Circuitry: A Designer's Guide to Computer Role-Playing Games:

Interesting stuff:
Radscorpion may appear only in the night if the player is unlucky.

It was possible to fall down ladders with a failed Dexterity roll and suffer damage, characters with fear of darkness would have to do Will rolls to go down. Characters with a fear of height would get a negative modifier to the roll.

Level1:
There are additional messages and rolls for the characters that fear darkness.

All the comments about the functions of various rooms were displayed after passing an Area Knowledge (Vault) tests.

Main entrance tunnel caved-in due to natural reasons (the PC will determine that the collapse looks natural and no explosives were used after passing an IQ test).

Airlock was opened (not destroyed)

There are six flares in a compartment in the Airlock.

There's one mole rat near the airlock (I won't list ordinary rats, but they are there)

There are two "stimpatches" in a wall container in the Emergency Medical Lab. There's another wall container that is empty.

Elevators don't work - there are ladders and the character needs to climb up them (which makes much more sense than descending on a rope - in Vault 13 Command Centre is on the top). It's possible to fall down with a failed Dexterity test - putting a flare at the base of the ladder makes the test easier. A character with Intuition stat that passes an IQ test will get a hint about it.

Level2:
There's a room with a pile of bones on level 1 - PC may notice a medi-kit under a bed after a passed Vision test.
In another room there's an empty opened wall container - a box of 10mm JHP ammo lies on the floor below that container.

A room farthest south has a chair that faces an empty wall. PC may notice that there's a key in a crack of that chair after passing a one time Vision test when entering the room.

Level3:
There are 3 mole-rats in a Meeting Room.
There's a tunnel in the wall through which rats enter the Vault which can be noticed after passing a Vision test. Blowing it up stops rats from gradually reappearing when the player leaves the vault and gives the PC one Character Point.

There's a mole rat and a single locked cabinet in the Storage room. It can be opened with a key from the living quarters. It contains four 10mm AP and four 10mm JHP ammo boxes.
There's an Uzi hidden behind a pile of rubble. Passing an Area Knowledge (Vault) test gives a hint about it to player.

Learning that removing the rubble that buried the way to the Command Centre is impossible requires passing an IQ test.
Determining that the whole Command Centre itself is buried requires a critical success at that test.
Two large mole rats guard the rubble.

It's possible to attempt to repair computers in the Central Core - trying to do it shows that the internal hardware has melted due to extreme heat and pressure. There are two mole rats in the room.
There's a holodisk with a log entry on the floor. It contains an information that the water-processing chip of Vault-15 has failed in the 2067 and that the Vault was abandoned when the water reserves reached 2%.



There was some accident when powering down the Vault which caused the log to end abruptly.

There's nothing of value left in the library which is communicated to player when PC passes a vison test.



There's a lot of mole rats there. Also, I like how they thought about stuff like fear of heigh and fear of darkness and how the stats and skills can give hints about where to find loot.

So, the game awards players directly with Character Points not with experience.
Increasing a skill may cost from 1/2 to 24 Character Points depending on its difficulty and skill level. The higher is your skill level the more expensive it's to increase.
 

Black

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
1,872,665
-single controllable character instead of a party

How is that a fucking decline for fuck's sake. I can only control one character, my character, in a fucking rpg? Unlike in terrible rpgs like bladder's gates?
Fuck this shitty troll thread.
 

Roguey

Codex Staff
Staff Member
Sawyerite
Joined
May 29, 2010
Messages
35,836
Wyrmlord said:
Many action RPGs pre-1998 have been good games, heavy on statistics and number-crunching, along with a heavy role of those stats during combat.
Many? All right there's Dungeon Master, the Ultima Underworld series, and Diablo which are all right games, but I wouldn't say any of them have particularly stellar combat systems. What else is there aside from poor clones of each?
It's partly relevant to your point. ARPGs didn't kill TBS combat; bad TBS combat killed TBS combat.
And yet there have been dozens of bad, poorly-selling action-RPGs and arpgs are still around. Publishers outright refusing to fund turn-based RPGs killed them, and they stopped making them out of some weird belief that real-time has the chance to sell more (never mind the popularity of those JRPG things).
 

Admiral jimbob

gay as all hell
Joined
Sep 29, 2009
Messages
9,225
Location
truck stops and toilet stalls
Wasteland 2
Black said:
-single controllable character instead of a party

How is that a fucking decline for fuck's sake. I can only control one character, my character, in a fucking rpg? Unlike in terrible rpgs like bladder's gates?
Fuck this shitty troll thread.

Yes, Baldur's Gate is a fine example of the kind of RPG the OP clearly prefers. What other pre-Fallout RPGs were there anyway??? xD
 

jagged-jimmy

Prophet
Joined
Jan 25, 2008
Messages
1,552
Location
Freeside
Codex 2012
You cannot say gameplay was shit because of combat. As someone pointed out, character building and different (stat-based!) approach to a quest is what was awesome gameplay-wise.
Different solutions and world reactivity and interactivity coupled with great art direction is what makes Fallout a massive incline forever.
 

Lightknight

Liturgist
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
705
releases a double album, that marks the commercial death of that genre of music.

For example:
- Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' double-album ended prog/art rock.
- Guns N Roses 'Use your illusion' double-album ended hair metal.
- Smashing Pumpkins 'Melon Collie and the Infinte Sadness' ended grunge.
- Nine Inch Nail's 'The Fragile' double-album ended industrial.
- 2Pac's 'All Eyez On Me' and Notorious BIG's 'Life is Big' (out around the same time) ended gangsta rap.

Any I've missed?
Um, yeah, the bands which actually did music, instead of kinda-sorta-noise or talking-in-kinda-rhyme you named.

The problem is that we never got Fallout as it was originally designed (which would have combat somewhat closer to JA2 - including stuff like multi-round aiming and interrupts)
Show design document or GTFO. Everyone knows about the GURPS thing, but where is any sort of proof that the game was supposed to be any different ? Except the extra character models and voiceovers that they said a thousand times they wanted to do but couldnt.
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Lightknight said:
Everyone knows about the GURPS thing, but where is any sort of proof that the game was supposed to be any different ?
GURPS is different from SPECIAL. It's pretty fucking obvious.
 
In My Safe Space
Joined
Dec 11, 2009
Messages
21,899
Codex 2012
Lightknight said:
The problem is that we never got Fallout as it was originally designed (which would have combat somewhat closer to JA2 - including stuff like multi-round aiming and interrupts)
Show design document or GTFO. Everyone knows about the GURPS thing, but where is any sort of proof that the game was supposed to be any different ?
Take look at the screens:
http://duckandcover.cx/official/gurps/screen.html

Different interface, with separate punch/kick, weapons occupying 1 hand or two, manoeuvre button, fatigue and HP counters, much lesser HP, etc.

From the FAQ:

How true to the real GURPS will Fallout be?
Very close. As close as a computer version can be, we hope. We are paying close attention to the rules (the combat function alone is Huge!) We plan on fully supporting the reaction rules (in case anyone takes a Charismatic, Very Beautiful character with Voice and Sex Appeal.)

How much of GURPS will the game include?
We won't be able to use everything, of course. We are going to include all skills, advantages, and disadvantages that make a difference in the game. This is pretty much the way a normal, tabletop version would be run by a competent GM. Most rules are being implemented (especially in combat), with many side-bar rules be implemented as optional rules adjusted by the player.
 

bhlaab

Erudite
Joined
Nov 19, 2008
Messages
1,787
Totally! Also Ultima 5 was garbage and everything about Temple of Elemental Evil was great except for the combat system
 

nihil

Augur
Joined
Jun 11, 2006
Messages
490
Location
Sweden
Project: Eternity
Obviously incline.

Fallout has it's flaws. It's not a perfect game. Big surprise. Calling Fallout decline borders trolling, IMO.

PorkaMorka said:
While Fallout 1 was pretty fun back in 1997 ...

I guess it's just me replaying Fallout every now and then, still enjoying it a lot for its consistent and awesome atmosphere, great location design, cool dialog, fun C&C, satisfying (and somewhat tactical) combat, non-linear structure, etc.

And to add some bullshit analysis as to why it's NOT decline from a historical point of view, the legacy of Fallout can very well be said to include (other than the obvious Fallout 2) PS:T, Arcanum, V:TM:Bloodlines and other good (but also flawed) games.
 

Elzair

Cipher
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
2,254
Awor Szurkrarz said:
The storyfags came from Ultima IV+ and Baldur's Gate. Fallout was for descriptionfags, aimincombatistsattacktypefags, nonlinearityfags and charbuildstatfags.

Hey, Ultima (at least pre-SI) appealed to nonlinearityfags as well!
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
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. 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?
 

MMXI

Arcane
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
2,196
Zomg said:
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. 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?
That they are better games than Fallout?
 

Zomg

Arbiter
Joined
Oct 21, 2005
Messages
6,984
If you cared about gameplay you would be playing a competitive game instead of grinding.
 
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Messages
6,207
Location
The island of misfit mascots
Lightknight said:
releases a double album, that marks the commercial death of that genre of music.

For example:
- Pink Floyd's 'The Wall' double-album ended prog/art rock.
- Guns N Roses 'Use your illusion' double-album ended hair metal.
- Smashing Pumpkins 'Melon Collie and the Infinte Sadness' ended grunge.
- Nine Inch Nail's 'The Fragile' double-album ended industrial.
- 2Pac's 'All Eyez On Me' and Notorious BIG's 'Life is Big' (out around the same time) ended gangsta rap.

Any I've missed?
Um, yeah, the bands which actually did music, instead of kinda-sorta-noise or talking-in-kinda-rhyme you named.

The problem is that we never got Fallout as it was originally designed (which would have combat somewhat closer to JA2 - including stuff like multi-round aiming and interrupts)
Show design document or GTFO. Everyone knows about the GURPS thing, but where is any sort of proof that the game was supposed to be any different ? Except the extra character models and voiceovers that they said a thousand times they wanted to do but couldnt.

Care to list them? The double-albums leading to genre death, I mean. OBVIOUSLY there are other genres of music - fuckloads of other genres - but I kind of thought that was obvious from the context. I'm not listing my personal music taste there or anything (though I do like NiN), just the trend of 'lead band in a genre does double-album --> commercial death of that genre' that seems to have periodically repeated itself from the 70s. If you do have examples of other genres where there's been a major double-album shortly before the commercial collapse of that genre, then let me know - the geek in me is curious.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom