Fallout: great game after bad first impression

[Dzupakazul]

Playing with 5 points in Agility makes combat challenging.

Frankly, I'd question that sentiment. None of my recent chars had high AG, because you don't need high AP with early enemies. Punching/shooting rats, radscorpions and whatnot is easy even on a 1 AG/Bruiser cripple, you have plenty of downtime for healing between fights (especially since most critters aren't of the variety that sees you from half the map and engages) and healing is abundant. Enemy sequence is trash and they often let you punch them twice before they even move.

By the time you start getting into more difficult fights, you should be absolutely loaded with Buffout and Psycho - AG has 2 drugs that enhance it. F2 also adds Jet, and the possible Jet cure exploit. Barring annoyance from walking off addictions, there is no reason for you not to engage tougher engagements (especially in F2) with 10 AG (on top of higher Strength for weapon handling and thus better aim and/or +50% damage resistance) at all times, even with a cripple.

When Pope Amole did his superb Ironman F2 playthrough, he had pretty high AG and absurdly low EN. He gave good reasons for it, but I am not so sure about the approach (though he did complete the game). The thing is, enhancing EN through any means gives you precisely nothing (I think EN is only taken into consideration in requirements for becoming a pornstar). No temporary HP to be had. Pope alleviated this by going Lifegiver x2, getting +4 HP from levels 12-15 and +8 from level 15 on (bonus HP isn't applied retroactively). Lifegiver x2 is 1 more HP per level than a 10 EN char, but if you start with a 10 EN char, you will have enough HP before level 12 that you might forgo Lifegiver altogether. EN also gives you more leeway for surviving tough encounters than AG does - we know now drugs are easy to get in FO, but many encounters (particularly on world map) don't let you practice Pope's philosophy of never getting hit at all (no easy corners to abuse, high Sneak might still fail). You can still get wrecked by a bullshit lethal crit all the same though.

Even a non-drugged Sniper character will be still able to kill an enemy every second; you only have to resort to drugs when you can't clear enemies fast enough before they reach you and start hurting.

I'd envision that an optimized late game run just kinda goes "fuck it all" and runs Navarro and Enclave constantly high on Jet, for bonus AP on top of Psycho/Buffout.

With that in mind, you can also run lower PE; I'd say it's more consistently useful of a stat (enhances early Lockpick, improves aim to avoid some of the hassle), but you can still enhance it for tougher engaements with Mentats. If that's the case, about the only stats that you can't enhance this way are EN, IN (Mentats can be still used as reading glasses for higher skill outputs from books and more dialogue options, but you won't receive the skill points) and LK (NCR luck surgery is very risky for an Ironman character).

 

[valcik]

Decent agility is also needed for Bonus HtH attacks, or Bonus rate of fire. Much better perks than Swift learner.

Heh, according to Wikipedia killing The Master in combat is "an extremely difficult task".

Richard plucked out your eyeball, he sure didn't give up easily.
Good job anyway!

 

[Dzupakazul]

Decent agility is also needed for Bonus HtH attacks, or Bonus rate of fire. Much better perks than Swift learner.

You can meet requirements for perks by using drugs before level up. Arguably an exploit.

 

[octavius]

I must say this game really lived up to it's reputation after a bad first impression.

I think the game would have been better if you started inside the vault and got some minimum connection with the people who are supposed to save, and to avoid the lame situation where you can just re-enter the supposedly locked vault from the overland map.

Also, all in all I think the companions didn't really add much (I think they were a very late addition, though), compared to for example the companions in the Baldur's Gate games. In fact I think the companions made the game less tactical, and more clusterfuck, thanks to stupid AI. The best I can say about the AI is that characters can pick up new items in combat and use stimpacks to heal themselves.
After I lost all my companions the game got somewhat more tactical and "orderly", but still it suffered a bit from enemies not reacting to colleagues standing a meter away getting their brains blown away by a Sniper Rifle.
The AI has no concept of positioning, so often they would use up AP to get into range/LOS, not have enough APs to shoot and then close in to melee, making them easy meat for heavy guns like Mini Guns and Flamers.
But despite combat being tactically weak, it is still fun after the intial trash combat in Vaults 13 and 15, due to the excellent combat text, graphic(s) and sounds generated by different weapons and criticals.
But it becomes rather too easy once you get the Power Armour. Even with untreated PA the only time my character died was from a critical hitting in the eye.

Item management was a pain in the ass, since the last items you used or added to inventory is at the bottom of the list, which means you need to scroll down every fucking time you need to open the inventory. It's unbelievable that none of the play testers vetoed this design.

But apart from combat, companions and item management, Fallout is definitely one of the best cRPGs I've played in other regards.
The art direction is superb, as is the whole audiovisuals of the game. Even the voice acting is good.
The writing is good.
The story is good.
The characater system is excellent, with the stats being meaningful, and with the skills and perks. I already want to replay the game with a very different character.
It's the only CRPG I've played that really got the "R" in CRPG right. It's not perfect; NPCs could react better to your actions, but it's still miles ahead of any older CRPGs and probably most newer ones.

If ever I play Fallout 3 it shall be interesting to see how Bethesda supposedly managed to screw it up. In theory at least it should translate very well to a real time FPP game.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

If ever I play Fallout 3

Don't.

 

[Wayward Son]

If ever I play Fallout 3 it shall be interesting to see how Bethesda supposedly managed to screw it up. In theory at least it should translate very well to a real time FPP game.

Uhh... It doesn't. I'm sorry.

 

[Marten Broadcloak]

Also, all in all I think the companions didn't really add much (I think they were a very late addition, though), compared to for example the companions in the Baldur's Gate games. In fact I think the companions made the game less tactical, and more clusterfuck, thanks to stupid AI. The best I can say about the AI is that characters can pick up new items in combat and use stimpacks to heal themselves.

Yeah, they really have bad AI. They were added really, really late into development, as you mentioned, which prevented anyone from hardcoding their AI - they had to do it via scripts, which is a horrible way to program an AI. This is why they are clumsy at best. It ends well though, since in Fallout 2 they will be much, much better. Will you play it now that you have finished the first game?

 

[ghostdog]

At some point you should replay the game. A second playthrough will lift the game even more in your eyes. I really liked FO the first time I played it, but It was the second time that made me realize what a magnificent game it is. The roleplaying opportunities and the incredible solidity of the setting are what make this game a true masterpiece and I could only really see this in my subsequent playthroughts.

 

[Goral]

octavius

At some point you should replay the game. A second playthrough will lift the game even more in your eyes. I really liked FO the first time I played it, but It was the second time that made me realize what a magnificent game it is. The roleplaying opportunities and the incredible solidity of the setting are what make this game a true masterpiece and I could only really see this in my subsequent playthroughts.

You should also use the "Ask about" button to learn some interesting things. You write a keyword (usually a name of a person or a place) and you suddenly see some hidden content. Absolutely brilliant if you ask me.

 

[pippin]

I think the Fallout Bible has the keywords for FO1 if you're interested.

 

[Endemic]

I think the game would have been better if you started inside the vault and got some minimum connection with the people who are supposed to save, and to avoid the lame situation where you can just re-enter the supposedly locked vault from the overland map.

If you try to go straight in they tell you they're having technical issues and to come back later. As I said, it opens back up after an in-game day or so. I do agree on the opening though. Facing 20 rats in a cave is unoriginal and tedious.

 

[pippin]

You can easily avoid the rats, so if you fought them then it's your fault. It's kinda like in BG1. You only kill the rats in the cellar because you talked to the dorf.

 

[Ivan]

If ever I play Fallout 3 it shall be interesting to see

 

[Excidium II]

Do play Fallout 3.

 

[Azrael the cat]

Have to agree - the Codex's denial that FO1 has a shit start is a side-effect of the general recognition of it being a great game (for some reason, FO2's shitty-but-no-more-shitty-than-FO1's start is well-recognised as bad).

There are a few things I'd say in its defence, though:
1. Most crpgs have shit starts. It's a problem of the genre - trying to make enough of the mechanics available at the beginning to make it interesting, without the information overload you used to get when you started the Wizardry games (which was awesome, but even people who loved those games are no longer in the habit of 'learning' a game before 'playing' it, and I doubt most Codexians would get past that kind of mechanics dump today).

2. In particular, the question of 'how should we design the start of an isometric combat-light or non-combat-alternatives game' continued to be a work in progress for many years after, and arguably still is. Ask any of the developers of the isometric crpgs of 1998-2004 what part of their games they are least satisfied with, and they almost always say 'the start' (even the Mortuary in PS:T, which is one of the better ones, is a constant on MCA's shit-list).

 

[Excidium II]

FO1 does not have a shit start. You're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective.

 

[Unkillable Cat]

Because now maybe octavius can appreciate this gem: Rat Diplomacy.

To answer a few lingering questions: The backpack/bag do nothing but bug out the game. Any items beneath them in the inventory get "glued" there, so any quests that call upon items being removed from your inventory will succeed without the items being removed. This can have Unforseen Consequences, so I recommend you ignoring those items.

Yes, the 14mm pistol makes a hell of a noise, along with the .223 Pistol (one of the most powerful weapons in the game). They only make this noise in F1, however. F2 changes the audio file and modding attempts to restore it have failed for some reason. (The .223 Pistol still remains a bad-ass gun, even in F2.)

Play Fallout 2 (as it's upcoming on your To Play-list) but for the love of God stay away from Fallout 3. It will ruin your memories of playing F1 and F2. I'd put Fallout: Tactics on the "maybe" list as it's a squad-based shooter using the Fallout combat system and not really a RPG.

 

[octavius]

Too bad you can only do the rat dipomacy if you don't kill any rats on your way out, but return with 10 Charisma, Speech 100+ and Animal Friend perk.

Spoiler

 

[Azrael the cat]

FO1 does not have a shit start. You're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective.

No, you either kill, sneak or run past 20 or so rats in a linear corridor that serves no purpose (i.e. the 'start'). Then you're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective. If you counter-intuitively turn straight around and return to the vault, you get a background/motivation/filling out of your objective that you should have got at the start. Instead of a corridor with 20 rats.

 

[Excidium II]

FO1 does not have a shit start. You're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective.

No, you either kill, sneak or run past 20 or so rats in a linear corridor that serves no purpose (i.e. the 'start'). Then you're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective. If you counter-intuitively turn straight around and return to the vault, you get a background/motivation/filling out of your objective that you should have got at the start. Instead of a corridor with 20 rats.

wow whole 3 minutes of shooting rats, which is quite satisfying with the sound they make when they die. "Shitty start" in the average CRPG is like a few hours.

 

[octavius]

Some more random thoughts about Fallout:

Baldur's Gate was obviously inspired by Fallout, and together they spearheaded the New Wave of CRPGs, after the dark years of 1994-1996.
I can't help comparing with the music industry and compare the Golden Age of CRPGs (1987-1993) with the Prog era (1969-1974) of music. Then there was the Punk era which can be compared with the 1994-1996 when most of the few good CRPG were indies (Aethra Chronicles, Nahlakh, Aleshar:World of Ice). Then there was the New Wave of British Metal, where Judas Priest was first but Iron Maiden appealed to more people, just like Fallout was first, but Baldur's Gate appealed to more people.

So it's natural to compare Baldur's Gate with Fallout. Fallout is more uneven; it does some things badly, but more things very well, while Baldur's Gate is more even. Baldur's Gate also has the huge advantage of being moddable, so taking on the Bandit Camp with SCS installed is vastly more interesting than taking on the Raider base in Fallout.
Companions are much better in the BG games; they are more active and you can control them. In Fallout I think the experience will actually be better if you just ignore the companions, or just bring Ian with you while you're still a wimp.

The character system is superior in Fallout. Even with the added skills (compared to the Gold Box games) character development was never that exciting in Baldur's Gate, and there's far more "cheese" than in Fallout.
Also role playing is a joke in Baldur's Gate. You are supposed to play a good character. The only exception I can think of is how you can influence Anomen. There is actually a meaningful "evil" way.
Fallout showed that it's actually possible to have role playing in a CRPG. It could have been more similar to Fallout, but with no real role playing possible, Baldur's Gate with SCS is much more rewarding as a combatfag game. One moddere managed to make BG1 an excellent combatfag game. Too bad most of the rest of the modders were focused on those sad romance mods.

Both games are unlinear, and have some similar locations.
I was a bit disappointed that Fallout didn't have a real fog of war, and it could be hard to distinguish friend and foe in combat (another reason to ignore companions). Also, if hidden by a wall you can't Look at an enemy, but he will show up in combat mode, but that also highlights all other enemies on the map, which is rather lame.

One encounter that could have been quite epic in Fallout was the entrance to the Military Base. I was expecting and hoping that radioing for help would send out a big force of Super Mutants and then we could have had an epic fight with three Paladins on my side. Alas, the trickery just resulted in there being no welcoming comittee inside the gate.

I can't recall having read anything about Baldur's Gate being influenced by Fallout, so either I must have forgotten it, or else I'm seeing some connection that is not there...

 

[Azrael the cat]

FO1 does not have a shit start. You're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective.

No, you either kill, sneak or run past 20 or so rats in a linear corridor that serves no purpose (i.e. the 'start'). Then you're sent out into the world with a gun and an objective. If you counter-intuitively turn straight around and return to the vault, you get a background/motivation/filling out of your objective that you should have got at the start. Instead of a corridor with 20 rats.

wow whole 3 minutes of shooting rats, which is quite satisfying with the sound they make when they die. "Shitty start" in the average CRPG is like a few hours.

Yes, I'll agree that its brevity is a saving grace. Nonetheless, it also highlights that it would have been better if they didn't have any intro section and just threw you into the world.

I'm quite amenable to the latter option. It was the default for the Wizardry and early Ultima games that I grew up with - more so, arguably, as you often didn't even get an objective other than survival for quite some time. Ok, the manual would tell you the objective, but it wouldn't be reflected in the actual game itself until you'd gained a few character levels and explored. Arguably, it would be better still if you weren't given the objective in the manual - it often felt like it was there as a necessary compromise for marketing purposes, whereas the games themselves encouraged an approach where you'd die a bunch of times until you developed a basic mastery of the game's fundamentals, i.e. learnt how to survive the general wilderness or early dungeon levels. Once you'd learnt that, much of it through trial and error, you'd be able to race over to the first town and start the objective within a few minutes of creating a new character. But that kind of game intro is really confined to roguelikes these days, so much so that it feels unfair to call its absence part of the decline, insomuch as just a direction not taken.

But judging FO as a game that does have a dedicated intro section - i.e. a sequence where your freedom is relatively confined in order to introduce the player to the basic mechanics, it's a pretty terrible intro, made tolerable by its brevity. Which is completely understandable, in my view. It was one of the earliest attempts at making that type of intro (though one could make an extremely negative comparison to Ultima 7's intro, which provides the same 'teach you the game mechanics before letting you loose' function, but by way of a detailed and interesting town with a number of well-designed quests that directly lead into the main objective).

 

[Azrael the cat]

the New Wave of British Metal, where Judas Priest was first but Iron Maiden appealed to more people, just like Fallout was first, but Baldur's Gate appealed to more people.

That analogy would require Bioware to have had technical skills that were the equal of Interplay, while being fronted by a lead designer who not only outshone every crpg lead designer before and since, and had such a range that he was capable of seamlessly transitioning between FPS, crpg, arcade shooters, platformers and pinball machines, sometimes all in the one game. His only superior would be a lead developer who mostly worked in a totally different and more lucrative genre, creating brilliant accounting software, but who had an even greater creative range and would sometimes throw brilliant bits of crpg design and FPS games into his accounting programs, before dying of AIDS. In the meanwhile, Interplay would be churning out a bunch of stuff that was considered hardcore at the time, and is still a lot of fun, but just feels a bit naff, what with all the camp graphics. After the company dissolved, they'd surprise everyone by admitting that the graphics were intentionally silly, because their lead designer was secretly a big fan of camp graphics.

Just saying, I do like a bit of Judas Priest, but you can't seriously put them on the same plane as Bruce Dickenson-fronted Iron Maiden.

Spoiler

And that's without taking into account that the guy's a 4-point polymath (music, fencing, airline pilot/mechanic and author), in an era where even 3-point polymaths are incredibly rare. And a genuine one too, not just a guy with one mastery who dabbles in a few hobbies - he was a world-class (top 50 ranked) fencer, and flies/repairs commercial 707 passenger jets (i.e. highest level you can be as a commercial pilot). I don't doubt that his book sales piggybacked a fair bit on his musical rep, but you could swap that one out with broadcasting and businessman.

(plus every time I hear the Judas Priest song 'Breaking the law, breakin the law...', I can't help but be disturbed by the song's lack of specificity. I just get this mental image of them all decked out in their leathers, going around breaking council by-laws by setting up unlicensed lemonade stands and jay-walking while looking tough)

 

[TOUGH GUY]

You take that back right now!

 

[Carrion]

80's Maiden is better than 80's Priest, but 70's Priest is better than everything. People need to understand this. Bringing up Breaking the Law when discussing Judas Priest is kind of like bringing up Fallout Tactics when discussing Fallout: it's kind of fun in its own way, but it's not really where it's at.

Also, as good as Dickinson is, he could never rival Halford in his prime. Hail Rob Halford.