Poll time! Why do you like Fallout so much?

[Jaime Lannister]

5555 snipe

 

[Malakal]

I like the setting, I like freedom of going wherever and doing whatever I want. I like turn based combat with nice and diverse weapons and enemies. I like locations ranging from decreipt military bases thru vaults to post apocalyptic cities. I even like some of the humour, plot ain't bad too. Overall Fallout 1/2 is an excellent game in many areas. And it definitely beats Arcanym/Torment, but I can accept that it is only my provate opinion.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

See above. For me personally I doubt it. If I want good fantasy stories I'll read a good fantasy book. C&C isn't that important to me. A world that makes sense, npcs that make sense, motives that makes sense and all that leading to C&C that make sense are more important than the mere existence of c&c just for C&C's sake. And in all newer games that threw C&c in my face at every opportunity it simply felt forced, not to mention a lot of it wasn't satisfying because it often didn't make sense, it was rarely possible to look for better solutions that the binary ones, which were presented.

2 cents

Yep... FO is an example of a game that had the integrity, realism, and consistency to carry an already underused setting. I do agree with JarlFrank though that while I dont mind time limits FO combined time limits with really uninformative NPCs. The waterchip was in the last place I would have looked.

 

[Dele]

Combat and multiple solutions, specifically the ability to target groins and eyes.

Awesome setting too.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I like Fallout much more than Arcanum, because I prefer it's character development and combat system.

The Vault Dweller doesn't start out several levels weaker than an average commoner and there are more options on every level.
Choosing skills is kept separate from choosing attributes. Amount of skill points depends on PC's intelligence, there are perks every 3 levels, etc.
I like it much better than assigning 1-2 points to skills or attributes on each level.

The combat system is much less broken than in Arcanum. Also, groin shots and eye shots and critical hit descriptions are nice. Not getting killed by critical misses is nice too.

Also, I like that Fallout is much shorter than Arcanum. I rarely get past Tarant anyway.

 

[hiver]

I like Fallout for all the reasons you mentioned in the poll, and isolating a single reason is impossible. If any of the elements mentioned in the poll was worse, it wouldn't be the same game.

Fallout's post-apocalyptic wasteland setting is interesting by its own merit, and it was implemented very well. Visuals, sounds, plot themes, characters and locations blend perfectly, creating a highly cohesive, logical and atmospheric world. Only the best games pull this off. The way that the story of Fallout is being told (or rather, more shown that told) fits the setting perfectly (so I think of Fallout's story as an integral part of a setting, rather than something independent). Slowly piecing together the puzzle of the supermutant threat, gaining an insight in the period immediately preceding the war and the FEV experiments by finding and reading the holodisks in the Glow was an unforgettable.

I liked combat in Fallout as well. Plenty of firearms to choose from, aimed shot, turn based combat, unique and flavorful opponents and short encounters that never deteriorated into grind (which almost every RPG is guilty of). The way that the character build and progression infuenced combat was almost perfect. There was a clear sense of progressing, becoming more experienced and adept in combat. What is there not to like?

Concerning character build and progression, the way that character skills and stats were tied in dialogue and exploration (though the exploration aspect was lacking in quantity - more use for non-combat skills would have been more than welcome) was revolutionary and is now a model that I think every RPG should follow, but, unfortunately, more often than not they don't.

Multiple choices with different outcomes are what make a game an unique experience. Being pressed for making a high impact decision, especially with incomplete information (and even better, with the amount of information depending on previous exploration and choices that were involved, with everything tied into character stats) and witnessing the consequences of your decisions unfold immensely enriches gameplay experience, and is an imperative for replayability (which separates great games from good games) and Fallout did it well.



RPGs are about conflict. However, not all conflict is resolved by using physical force. A non-(physically) violent RPG needs to set up the scene for other kinds of conflict, like political conflict, industrial espionage, etc. In order for this to work, the choices need to be strong enough to make the player think carefully and weigh his decisions. However, this would not be enough. Such a game would need to have a well written story with multiple arcs, an intriguing setting and a well developed exploration aspect. A good stat and skill system that influences gameplay and gives the player a good sense of progression would have to be under the hood, of course.

A world that makes sense, npcs that make sense, motives that makes sense and all that leading to C&C that make sense are more important than the mere existence of c&c just for C&C's sake. And in all newer games that threw C&c in my face at every opportunity it simply felt forced, not to mention a lot of it wasn't satisfying because it often didn't make sense, it was rarely possible to look for better solutions that the binary ones, which were presented.

- These two quotes say it pretty much correctly as far as im concerned.

The poll really should be a multiple choice poll rather then this since this one makes it impossible to choose one feature over the other.
Fallout games create a gestalt of goodness that cannot be found in one feature they had separated from others. The whole of it was... is - greater then the mere sum of its parts.

 

[SCO]

...
Arcanum doesn't have the same level of atmosphere that Fallout is able to achieve. Sure the mechanics reflect the tech versus magic theme, but it's discarded for the save the world crap as the game ends, only to be deconstructed in an incredulous way. It would have been nice if all those choices for your build would end up influencing the future of Arcanum: would it be a future of technology, or a return of magic?

Did you ever see the "god" ending slides? They were so awesome...

Aren't part of the normal game unfortunately:

"

Upon returning, you assume the role of a dark god, with arcane forms of worship and sacrifice. Arcanum became a place of pain and shadow where men were afraid to speak their minds or follow their dreams. The world you made was a hard place where the only laws were those of survival. You were worshipped, but you were also hated and feared.

Upon returning, you assumed the role of a just god, and all of Arcanum revered your benevolence and wisdom. Old grudges between the races were forgotten, and a new code of honor and morality was adopted by all. Your reign ushered in a Golden Age, where both magick and technology were accepted and used to build a better world.

(Yeah, another god one. Obviously the good-aligned variant, possibly only neutral-aptitude though I'm not sure.)

Upon returning, you assumed the role of a quiet god and slowly faded into memory. Arcanum continued to prosper, and many legends were told about your battle with Kerghan in defense of the world. Using your life and your virtues as an example, the races of Arcanum entered into a new and enlightened age, devoid of fear or darkness.


(I'll be honest, I have no idea what could trigger this.)

Upon returning, you wandered Arcanum for many years, indecisive as to exactly the kind of god that you wished to be. You lived among many peoples, speaking with them and learning their hearts and minds. The world waited expectantly for your words and your wisdom. They waited a long, long time.

"

 

[Xor]

How would you become a god in Arcanum, anyway?

 

[SCO]

The complete great circle quest.

To make sense it would have to have something else i think.

 

[Ion Flux]

I chose "Setting and Atmosphere", but that's obviously not enough to make a great game (e.g., Fallout 3). It was the combination of a great atmosphere, an interesting and fun story/backstory, rewarding tactical combat, and dialogue that wasn't written by morans for morans. You feel me?

 

[Excidium]

Setting and atmosphere + Multiple solutions.
And I like the combat, even though controlling only one character kinda makes turn-based useless.

Something I really liked too is that you could inspect anything from people to random shit and you would always get some info or a joke. I miss that when i'm playing other games.

 

[denizsi]

Fallout is a whole. A complete game. I can't think of picking any of those over the others.

Another poll with the question "what SINGLE thing would break Fallout for you, if it were done badly?" could help further with the subject, I guess.

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I pick options a, b, c and d.

 

[Cassidy]

All of the above, although if the combat mechanics were a bit more complex, not as complex as those of JA2 but more complex than how Fallout 1 and 2 combat is,and if the skills were slightly more balanced so throwing and melee weapons would have at least some usefulness, it'd be even better.

 

[Demnogonis Saastuttaja]

What originally drew me in was that you were a law unto yourself in a savage world, that it was so liberating to be able to murder anyone in a few various ways, that you could really do anythign and it wouldn't break the game. It also had terrific music and graphics, and the system felt very intuitive and comfortable unlike the AD&D based games I didn't know anythign about and frankly didn't care about since they featured faggy swords instead of manly guns. Fallout didn't really have any crippling flaws.

To compare it to Arcanum would require me to actually play them again, because I can only remember that something about Arcanum's gameplay was so awkward that I never liked it as much as Fallout, but I don't know exactly what was it.

 

[Xor]

Oh there are plenty of ways to break the game. Kill Min'gorad and Nasrudin, for one.

 

[vazquez595654]

Fallout and Arcanum were okay with respect to their time. It doesn't make sense now days to use the vast power of computers to make glorified choice and consequence book simulators.

Both games have some depth, but are pretty difficult to get into because their main draw are the dialogues, and they both have relatively terrible looking graphics (and I don't mean art - Arcanum had beautiful and detailed item art).

While I hold Betrayal at Krondor as my favorite game, Daggerfall was the direction RPG's should have taken, even though the game was broken. A Daggerfall type game, made by talented and competent developers could be hugely successful. Mind you, Morrowind barely touched on what could have been done, and Oblivion was the most shallow implementation of such a type of game. Might and Magic 6 is the direction Daggerfall should have taken minus the terrible combat system and AI.

 

[shihonage]

Fallout and Arcanum were okay with respect to their time. It doesn't make sense now days to use the vast power of computers to make glorified choice and consequence book simulators.

 

[Jim Cojones]

Oh there are plenty of ways to break the game. Kill Min'gorad and Nasrudin, for one.

It doesn't break the game. You end sent to the Void, some endings won't be possible for you (you don't have the weapon to kill Kerghan) but hey, C&C.

 

[space odyssey]

and they both have relatively terrible looking graphics (and I don't mean art - Arcanum had beautiful and detailed item art).

Fallout has sweet graphics, especially today, I prefer 2d especially in Fallout style and to me not much looks better, sure could be improved I guess like Fallout Tactics, but 2D isometric fucking rules.

This brings up something that always confused me with Arcanum, I was slobbering all over it from the moment I heard about it, desperately waiting for it to come out and looking at screenshots I just thought it looked a bit crappy, why couldn't they just make it look as good as fallout? But it'll still be sweet I thought, and fantasy done right where I can shoot some gay elf in the face, but wait... tech users fucking suck, and even if they didn't the combat is so god damn shit that even if my gun rocked it doesn't matter because the combat plays out so awkwardly theres no pleasure in it at all. Then it would crash.

None of the dialogue especially early on drew me in to the game world, taking enjoyment out of all transactions, quests and exploration. Though talking to Virgil as an idiot was pretty funny. As a retarded Fallout fanboy eagerly awaiting what would could be its creators latest and greatest masterpiece I was let down in every department, it didn't have to completely live up to Fallout, but it wasn't even a decent game god dammit.

In recent years I've tried to go back repeatedly but just can't get past the GAMEPLAY, it fucking sucks, not just combat but all of it. C&C are not all of it, a fucking flow chart 1 mile long isn't worth shit when your whole game sucks.

In short:
Arcanums graphics are fucking shit, both in quality and art directions. I never understood how it could be technically proficient but just look so damn crap(and my god the animations)
The combat is beyond shit though everyone knows this
The whole world is bland and boring as hell, and thus most of the the quests and dialogue are
And its character system is pretty crap too.

Fallouts graphics are fucking awesome
The combat is not the best, but good and very satisfying, love the animations too
Cool world to explore, good dialogue\quests\characters
SPECIAL system is good, progress is well balanced but feels significant every level, like you can notice levels difference while in that enjoyable combat.

Fallout just does it all right and is actually fun to play, Arcanum just has god awful gameplay, which I think is pretty critical in a.... game

 

[Bluebottle]

What makes it better, for me, is that Fallout is a reminder that there's nothing that necessarily means we have to endure a whole load of shit to get the goodness of a well produced RPG. It doesn't force a shitty combat system on you, it doesn't make you endure reams of bugs, it doesn't rely on filler dungeons, and it remains consistent right through to the end game.

While there have been games since FO that, at points, hit similar highs, there's nothing that is as consistently good, that doesn't force you through parts that require you to simply grit your teeth and bear it. In short it seems to be made just for me, without having to cow-tow to anybody else's tastes.

 

[Derper]

I played it last night, and it still kicks ass. Just looking forward to any progress they have on playing F1 in the F2 engine ("take all", "move" and "change armor" ftw).

 

[Gwendo]

Back in the days, Fallout's setting AND combat grabbed me instantly.

My wish would be a Fallout version of Silent Storm.

 

[quasimodo]

and they both have relatively terrible looking graphics (and I don't mean art - Arcanum had beautiful and detailed item art).

Fallout has sweet graphics, especially today, I prefer 2d especially in Fallout style and to me not much looks better, sure could be improved I guess like Fallout Tactics, but 2D isometric fucking rules.

This brings up something that always confused me with Arcanum, I was slobbering all over it from the moment I heard about it, desperately waiting for it to come out and looking at screenshots I just thought it looked a bit crappy, why couldn't they just make it look as good as fallout? But it'll still be sweet I thought, and fantasy done right where I can shoot some gay elf in the face, but wait... tech users fucking suck, and even if they didn't the combat is so god damn shit that even if my gun rocked it doesn't matter because the combat plays out so awkwardly theres no pleasure in it at all. Then it would crash.

None of the dialogue especially early on drew me in to the game world, taking enjoyment out of all transactions, quests and exploration. Though talking to Virgil as an idiot was pretty funny. As a retarded Fallout fanboy eagerly awaiting what would could be its creators latest and greatest masterpiece I was let down in every department, it didn't have to completely live up to Fallout, but it wasn't even a decent game god dammit.

In recent years I've tried to go back repeatedly but just can't get past the GAMEPLAY, it fucking sucks, not just combat but all of it. C&C are not all of it, a fucking flow chart 1 mile long isn't worth shit when your whole game sucks.

In short:
Arcanums graphics are fucking shit, both in quality and art directions. I never understood how it could be technically proficient but just look so damn crap(and my god the animations)
The combat is beyond shit though everyone knows this
The whole world is bland and boring as hell, and thus most of the the quests and dialogue are
And its character system is pretty crap too.

Fallouts graphics are fucking awesome
The combat is not the best, but good and very satisfying, love the animations too
Cool world to explore, good dialogue\quests\characters
SPECIAL system is good, progress is well balanced but feels significant every level, like you can notice levels difference while in that enjoyable combat.

Fallout just does it all right and is actually fun to play, Arcanum just has god awful gameplay, which I think is pretty critical in a.... game

What he said.

 

[fastjack]

re

and they both have relatively terrible looking graphics (and I don't mean art - Arcanum had beautiful and detailed item art).

Fallout has sweet graphics, especially today, I prefer 2d especially in Fallout style and to me not much looks better, sure could be improved I guess like Fallout Tactics, but 2D isometric fucking rules.

This brings up something that always confused me with Arcanum, I was slobbering all over it from the moment I heard about it, desperately waiting for it to come out and looking at screenshots I just thought it looked a bit crappy, why couldn't they just make it look as good as fallout? But it'll still be sweet I thought, and fantasy done right where I can shoot some gay elf in the face, but wait... tech users fucking suck, and even if they didn't the combat is so god damn shit that even if my gun rocked it doesn't matter because the combat plays out so awkwardly theres no pleasure in it at all. Then it would crash.

None of the dialogue especially early on drew me in to the game world, taking enjoyment out of all transactions, quests and exploration. Though talking to Virgil as an idiot was pretty funny. As a retarded Fallout fanboy eagerly awaiting what would could be its creators latest and greatest masterpiece I was let down in every department, it didn't have to completely live up to Fallout, but it wasn't even a decent game god dammit.

In recent years I've tried to go back repeatedly but just can't get past the GAMEPLAY, it fucking sucks, not just combat but all of it. C&C are not all of it, a fucking flow chart 1 mile long isn't worth shit when your whole game sucks.

In short:
Arcanums graphics are fucking shit, both in quality and art directions. I never understood how it could be technically proficient but just look so damn crap(and my god the animations)
The combat is beyond shit though everyone knows this
The whole world is bland and boring as hell, and thus most of the the quests and dialogue are
And its character system is pretty crap too.

Fallouts graphics are fucking awesome
The combat is not the best, but good and very satisfying, love the animations too
Cool world to explore, good dialogue\quests\characters
SPECIAL system is good, progress is well balanced but feels significant every level, like you can notice levels difference while in that enjoyable combat.

Fallout just does it all right and is actually fun to play, Arcanum just has god awful gameplay, which I think is pretty critical in a.... game

What he said.

ditto