Poll time! Why do you like Fallout so much?

Continues from this thread. Basically, the question is what is THE MAIN reason why you prefer Fallout to Arcanum (or like Fallout a lot in general)?

I'm mostly curious to know how people see RPGs. Would a pure non-combat RPG, for example, be a good idea? What's more important to players: combat, which has been the main aspect of RPG for decades, or choices and multiple solutions, which are a relative newcomer to the genre? While I'm sure that most people like and appreciate multiple solutions, are they a fancy side meal between fights or anything more? Do they have what it takes to be the main course?

Your detailed opinion would be appreciated.

I'll kill your family.

Fallout is goode because it does videogaming right: art direction and music are top-notch (original, talented, tasteful, atmospheric, etc.), its gameplay mechanics' combo is very entertaining (character creation, combat, quests, etc.), and both are in direct relation with each other (HUD fits theme and is practical, quality writing makes questing much more enjoyable, death animations are rewarding and extremely gratifying, and the environment provides enough interactivity for some, albeit few, interesting manipulations).

Thus, the MAIN REASON is that Fallout does all of them right enough. Most others RPGs fail miserably at one or the other; a chain is as strong as its weakest link.

I voted C&C but I liked all 4 of those elements in Fallout. Setting & atmosphere pulled me in, combat kept me going, story got me hooked pretty soon and as soon as I realized that I could side with either Killian or Gizmo and I had multiple ways to take Gizmo down I was sold. Oh the sleepless nights... wish I could re-live that time again

1eyedking said:

Thus, the MAIN REASON is that Fallout does all of them right enough. Most others RPGs fail miserably at one or the other.

A chain is as strong as its weakest link.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Fallout is to RPGs what Casablanca is to movies.

Combat was what hooked me when I played it for the first time - I was only eight years old then. Later on, I appreciated it for other reasons.

fallout is so great bacause you can really roleplay

/thread

I like the combat because it's quick, interesting, vulgar and almost entirely atactical outside of a handful of (good) set pieces. I consider it the proud holder of least bad combat in an RPG with roleplaying in it, largely because it's probably about 5% of the raw time you're in the game compared to like 40-60% in typical D&Desqe garbage.

Haven't played it or Arcanum in a few years so I can't criticize head-to-head.

I agree with 1ek. Fallout does a good job of everything. It grabbed me from the start and lead me to replay it a dozen times. I have started Arcanum 4 or 5 times since it came out, but I have never managed to finish the game.

setting and atmosphere

I agree with 1ek. Fallout does a good job of everything. It grabbed me from the start and lead me to replay it a dozen times. I have started Arcanum 4 or 5 times since it came out, but I have never managed to finish the game.

Click to expand...

fallout is much, much shorter

I don't like fallout it sucks

I voted multiple solutions but it is also one of the things that makes Arcanum a superior game. Anyway I like Fallout because it combines the four aspects pretty well, and the combat isn't too annoying and omnipresent.

And yeah, I can understand that Fallout can be so easy to repaly when a typical playthrough mostly takes a big week-end, or at least a week if you are busy doing other things. Arcanum is much more longer; simply doing Tarant takes a lot of time.

RottingNaziSurfer said:

Fallout is to RPGs what Casablanca is to movies.

Click to expand...

Is that supposed to be a compliment for Fallout?

Setting and atmosphere are what got me (was bored of fantasy RPGs at the time). Second has to be combat; it was fun, simple, and hilarious. Multiple solutions is third. The story was good and it got me hooked, but for the most part I don't care that much for story in RPGs; they could be about you going to the store to buy booze for all I care.

Combat is a fucking left-over of old shitty games that couldn't do anything better for RPGs. It is NOT supposed to be the main appeal. Otherwise go play a strategy game, what the hell. I guess getting experience points is what a rpg is all about though, but this is silly. You gain power ups and stats to be able to do something - combat, or something else. Since I established very scientifically that rpgs are not about combat - then stats must influence something else. Combat is just filler. It can be fun filler, and hopefully it is, but it's not where the design is at. Role playing, playing a role, making choices that make a difference. This is what it should be about. Rpgs should be like interactive fiction. Most of the time they have a story, meaning a linear plot, and players will say that they're in rpgs for the story. But again story is meaningless, adventure games are supposed to be about a story not rpgs - story is just a crutch, because making a game that would be so non-linear it wouldn't require a main plot would be too difficult to make.

So yeah, 95% of the content of rpgs are not what rpgs are about. I know it makes no sense. Rpgs make no sense as a genre and should be dead by now. They're just adventure games with stats and combat and limited simulated dialog. Fuck it. Hopefully AoD will change that. Wait this is the developper of AoD asking the question... hmm... well we're fucked

Edit : I change my words, combat is not only filler, it can be a choice the player can make, but that's about it. The problem is making the other choices as involved and complicated as combat - not obvious. Clicking on dialog options is not all that involved. But then, this is really a question of killing the player's time in a fun way. It's still killing time. If you do it right it's a good game, if not you have a piece of shit like DA with some minor cool moments and then pain. Not a good idea. Needs some fucking revolutionnary thinking, and not Bioware

Edit 2 : Since 90% of rpgs didn't make the 'killing time part' any fun - what makes it fun is experience points. Who would play an old dungeon crawl like Wizardry if your characters didn't level up? It would be fucking tedious. I claim that it's still fucking tedious, because I don't care about levelling up, it doesn't bring me any satisfaction on an intellectual level. So rpgs are about levelling up, or choices. That's the two options. Gameplay is barely a factor. Most rpgs have shitty gameplay. Either you have a game with shitty gameplay or no gameplay and choices. I prefer the former. Fuck it. Well this is an extreme of course, Fallout had decent gameplay, some choices, it made a good game all around, so yeah. Still, could be better.

Fallout, to me, will always be about shooting people in the face. This is what Bethesda missed out on, really. Game needs MORE FACE SHOOTING. Because who doesn't want to shoot someone in the face with a plasma rifle? Travel the wastelands, meet new and interesting people, and then shoot them in the face.

The combat isn't why I like Fallout than Arcanum, but it is why I like Arcanum less than Fallout, if that makes any sense. Arcanum combat is just horrible.

Vault Dweller said:

Would a pure non-combat RPG, for example, be a good idea?

Click to expand...

For me, no. Though not as hardcore as Mondblut, I also come from the dungeon crawling days, and I love combat. Still, I'd rather not have "nothing but", even in strategy games, X-Com and JA2 being my favourites in great part because of that.
But no combat at all ? Doesn't appeal to me. I'd be very curious about it, but not aroused.

Vault Dweller said:

What's more important to players: combat, which has been the main aspect of RPG for decades, or choices and multiple solutions, which are a relative newcomer to the genre?

Click to expand...

Both are important. That's why I love Fallout. Even if when I say "Fallout" I really mean 1&2. The multitude of "non combat related stuff" that you discover in Fallout 1&2, based on your skills, characteristics and choices, is where the game really shines when you play it multiple times.

Arcanum probably does that also, but I just finished it once as a tech dwarf, and gave up on my mages tries as soon as I reach Tarant. I really don't like that city. I don't like Arcanum much tbh, but it has nothing to do with the game's "quality", I just don't enjoy the setting and atmosphere. Being quite the standard fantasy lover when it comes to CRPG, I wasn't crazy about post-apoc either, but Fallout changed my mind about that. Arcanum didn't.

Serious Business is the new hivemind locus get to it

Serious_Business said:

Combat is a fucking left-over of old shitty games that couldn't do anything better for RPGs. It is NOT supposed to be the main appeal. Otherwise go play a strategy game, what the hell. I guess getting experience points is what a rpg is all about though, but this is silly. You gain power ups and stats to be able to do something - combat, or something else. Since I established very scientifically that rpgs are not about combat - then stats must influence something else. Combat is just filler. It can be fun filler, and hopefully it is, but it's not where the design is at. Role playing, playing a role, making choices that make a difference. This is what it should be about. Rpgs should be like interactive fiction. Most of the time they have a story, meaning a linear plot, and players will say that they're in rpgs for the story. But again story is meaningless, adventure games are supposed to be about a story not rpgs - story is just a crutch, because making a game that would be so non-linear it wouldn't require a main plot would be too difficult to make.

So yeah, 95% of the content of rpgs are not what rpgs are about. I know it makes no sense. Rpgs make no sense as a genre and should be dead by now. They're just adventure games with stats and combat and limited simulated dialog. Fuck it. Hopefully AoD will change that. Wait this is the developper of AoD asking the question... hmm... well we're fucked

Edit : I change my words, combat is not only filler, it can be a choice the player can make, but that's about it. The problem is making the other choices as involved and complicated as combat - not obvious. Clicking on dialog options is not all that involved. But then, this is really a question of killing the player's time in a fun way. It's still killing time. If you do it right it's a good game, if not you have a piece of shit like DA with some minor cool moments and then pain. Not a good idea. Needs some fucking revolutionnary thinking, and not Bioware

Edit 2 : Since 90% of rpgs didn't make the 'killing time part' any fun - what makes it fun is experience points. Who would play an old dungeon crawl like Wizardry if your characters didn't level up? It would be fucking tedious. I claim that it's still fucking tedious, because I don't care about levelling up, it doesn't bring me any satisfaction on an intellectual level. So rpgs are about levelling up, or choices. That's the two options. Gameplay is barely a factor. Most rpgs have shitty gameplay. Either you have a game with shitty gameplay or no gameplay and choices. I prefer the former. Fuck it. Well this is an extreme of course, Fallout had decent gameplay, some choices, it made a good game all around, so yeah. Still, could be better.

Click to expand...

Also, that poll should allow for multiple selections. Fallout does more than one thing well and it's fairly meaningless to look at the results after being forced to pick only one.

All of the options presented. There really is no main reason because fallout's strength comes from the sum of its parts.

I still prefer fallout 2 though, I guess that makes me some kind of heretic

But I don't like Fallout more than Arcanum. Arcanum is the GREATEST RPG EVA. EVA.

I love everything about Fallout and believe it to be one of the most finely crafted games around and a high benchmark for RPGs. But it was the game's atmosphere and setting I enjoyed the most.

Atmosphere in Fallout is incredible, and I loved the way it had the post-apoc environments and then also the heavy sci-fi environments that hadn't been heavily damaged during the war. For a large part of the game you're dealing with poorly equipped raiders, nobody peasants, working for/against crime lords, exploring a ruined city of ghouls, and protecting merchant caravans and can even hunt a highly feared deathclaw. Typical post apoc stuff.

And then you meet the Brotherhood. Big strong motherfuckers in huge electrical powered armor and high quality laser rfiles and miniguns, taking shelter in a highly advanced military station full of all kinds of high tech (and working) devices. You get to explore a large laboratory filled with mutants trying to morph humans with the vats. You have to explore a ruined research facility the Glow, and get to finally interact heavily with a lot of this technology to restore power there. Those places were a huge far cry from all the shitty run down villagess built out of junk and the blown-to-shit towns you'd explored the first half of the game.

Then the game takes you to the Boneyard where a faction war is stirring, and puts you back into the post apoc environment and out of the high tech one. And then throws you right back in when you get to the Cathedral for the finale with the Master.

It was awesome. Everytime you got to spend a good long while exploring your typical wasteland the game would keep you from getting bored by giving you a heavy sci-fi area that hadn't been devastated by war, a sense of wonder to explore and made you curious for what kind of high tech weapons/gadgets you'd find there.

I'd also say the combat system added to the atmosphere as well. It was very brutal and violent as fuck, and did a good job showing how hostile the world was and that nobody there fucked around.

Oh, and Mark Morgan is the fucking commander. His soundtracks really did a lot for Fallout and I hope Obsidian gets him again for New Vegas.

*EDIT*
As for why I like Fallout more than Arcanum. Well, I love both games, but Arcanum really had a lot of moments of disappointment for me, whereas Fallout was rock solid the whole way through, there was never a dull moment in that game imo. A lot of the worst places in Arcanum could have been great if Troika hadn't just made them dungeon crawls in copy/pasted corridors built like a garden maze.

BMC mines? Could have been a great exploration part, exploring the abandoned home a dwarven clan, gathering clues and lore about them, and then at the end discover the only living dwarf there (forgot his name). Instead it was just a piss poor, horribly unfair corridor dungeon run.

Isle of Despair? When I first heard I was going to a penal colony I was hoping for some sort of good old faction tension. Maybe the prisoners have formed their own communities and are fighting for control of the island. Could have had a lot of potential, with lots of backstabbing, going double agent, etc. Instead, we just got an extremely small location with four houses there, a few shit quests and easy arena duels with no good rewards, and an amazon tribe that supposedly hates the other colony there but nothing interesting ever really happens between them.

Thanatos...Shit, Thanatos could have probably been removed entirely, or just made into a tiny island with a hermit's hut on it. Would have been better than the dumb forest maze and its army of gorillas.

The Vendigroth Ruins was the biggest letdown in the game. Throughout the game you're always hearing about this civilization, you find lost Vendigroth artifacts and schematics, and learn about how advanced their civilization was. The city ruins had the potential to be another Glow: a devastated ruin full of strange advanced technology with all sorts of interesting things to find and learn about. I had really been looking forward to going there. And when I got there...Just another shit dungeon, built like a fucking garden maze with copy/pasted corridors, a few newspapers, and tons of trash encounters. After all that build up this is the best they could give us? Bullshit.

Void. Not sure what they could have done to make the Void good. By the time I got to that part I'd lost almost all interest in the game and didn't pay much attention to it, instead just let Chukka and Sogg Mead Mug cut a bloody swath through the place and to hell with the bad guy.

It does everything at least serviceably and does some things well.

It's weakest element is probably the combat, plenty of games had done combat better, but even that weakest element was fun for most players, for most of the game, especially back in 1997 when it first came out and our eyes were less jaded to that sort of animation.

After that, the other elements are even better.

A game which remains fun throughout is better than a game which has periods of fun interspersed between periods of suck (like for example the Arcanum combat). This seems kind of obvious to me.

Plus I give Fallout bonus credit for doing everything it did in 1997. Those were dark times, and while I'm sure we can point out earlier games that inspired a lot of what Fallout did, Fallout was still a breath of innovation and fresh air in a lot of ways, even if you want to claim it didn't invent certain ideas, it certainly rejuvenated a lot of old and desiccated ideas, ideas which deserved to be brought back.

Could we have an option for distinguishing efficient implementation rather than theoretical design? In theory, Arcanum beats Fallout hands down on everything but combat, but for many people (including myself) the implementation was horribly lacking.

Because when I read this I thought of you, VD