5 replies to this topic

[Azkyroth]

I know one thing I REALLY appreciated about the Fallout games was the lack of censorship (I believe Fallout 2 and possibly Quake 4 may well be the only games ever made where the word "fuck" is verbalized) and the politically relevant commentary (well, sort of; the Enclave is actually COMPETENT after all). Unfortunately, Fallout 2 suffered from two major problems: first, Interplay wandered away and left it partly finished, then released it (and failed to adequately patch it, resulting in the necessity of FAN-MADE PATCHES to fix some of the major bugs and loose ends, as well as the I-wish-it-was-unprecedented problem of bugs being INTRODUCED by patches and never corrected); and second, the sizable population of idiots who drooled out whole paragraphs of vapid, virulent criticism when they could have saved us all a lot of time by simply typing "SOME THINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FALLOUT 1! CHANGE IS SCARY! " and were never incinerated by lightning bolts.

Other than that, I tend to prefer older CRPGs for a number of reason including my distaste for online multiplayer play and for third-person action games and anything that looks like them (the camera angle problems in V:TMR on their own very nearly ruined it for me, and that experience has stuck with me). Having my access to a modern computer limited to staying after-hours at the office doesn't help much either.

Edited by Sir Kalthorine, 01 June 2007 - 09:50 PM.

[Delight]

What I like about RPGs are:
-Character creation that really influences the gameplay and allows me to play a "different game" when playing different character types.
-Quests with multiple paths.
-Non-linearity.
-Logical, interesting and coherent setting.
-Good, stat dependant dialogue trees.
-Choices and consequences that really matter.
-Multiple endings.
-No censorship.

Unfortunately, Fallout 2 suffered from two major problems: first, Interplay wandered away and left it partly finished, then released it (and failed to adequately patch it, resulting in the necessity of FAN-MADE PATCHES to fix some of the major bugs and loose ends, as well as the I-wish-it-was-unprecedented problem of bugs being INTRODUCED by patches and never corrected);

I would add Interplay managament messing with the game (adding the temple of trial for example) and Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson leaving Interplay long before the game got finished.

and second, the sizable population of idiots who drooled out whole paragraphs of vapid, virulent criticism when they could have saved us all a lot of time by simply typing "SOME THINGS ARE DIFFERENT THAN FALLOUT 1! CHANGE IS SCARY! " and were never incinerated by lightning bolts.

Strawman argument. These "idiots" as you call us, are people who actually cared to do some research about the stylistics and the Fallout setting, and didn't like compromising the integrity of the Fallout setting by adding a irrelevant and inappropriate things - it had nothing to do with "change" in itself.
Now I strongly suggest you to apologize. Unless you wan't to start a flame war, of course.

[Azkyroth]

I would add Interplay managament messing with the game (adding the temple of trial for example) and Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson leaving Interplay long before the game got finished.

This I'm not familiar with but it makes sense.

Strawman argument. These "idiots" as you call us, are people who actually cared to do some research about the stylistics and the Fallout setting, and didn't like compromising the integrity of the Fallout setting by adding a irrelevant and inappropriate things - it had nothing to do with "change" in itself.

I was referring to an argument in one or more gamenet channels over three years ago which centered around the fact that several people felt it was unreasonable to show an attempt at rebuilding civilization more than a century and a half after the war. I don't remember all the criticisms that were brought up, but most of them were at the level of comments one of the participants made about "Die Another Day" ("LIEK OMG TEH CAR SI INVISIBUL LOL" as a dismissive parody of the intended effect) and "The Matrix Reloaded" ("LIEK OMG WHAT IF WERE ALL IN A MATRIX TOO" as a similar dismissive parody). The gist of the argument stuck with me because of the rather mindlessly critical attacks and the standard of "irrelevant and inappropriate" being employed essentially being "stuff that wasn't in the first game", as if it was unrealistic to expect the world to have changed somewhat over the course of a human lifetime. If you hung around #medic in 2003 and were present for that argument then I apologize, and if you care to make some more substantive criticisms of Fallout 2 than those I remember I'm happy to hear them.

[Delight]

I would add Interplay managament messing with the game (adding the temple of trial for example) and Tim Cain, Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson leaving Interplay long before the game got finished.

This I'm not familiar with but it makes sense.

Well, Tim Cain was the lead programmer and producer of Fallout 1.
Leonard Boyarsky was the art director - he came up with the idea of the "future of the fifties" setting and idea of Vault Boy and Pip Boy mascotts.
Jason Anderson was the lead artist.
It's good to read the interviews, because they tell a lot about their vital role in creating Fallout and it's setting.
More on the history of Fallout and why it was created the way it was: The History of Fallout

Basically, Interplay started making Fallout 2 because they were running out of cash and Fallout was an unexpected success:

Ah...ok, here's my multiline response (Tim Cain story hour time)...When I finished FO, I was exhausted and tired of FO. After all, I worked on it for 3.5 years! So I gave the whole thing over to my assistant producer and started thinking of a new RPG. Well, things weren't working out. Fargo wanted me to take over. I said no. He said I owed him, for the opportunity he gave me to do the first one. So I started FO2. But things were still bad. People secondguessed what was good for the game, and they wanted in on it, since it looked like a "big thing" now, not some grade B product, which was what FO was viewed as. So I got tired of this whole thing. I felt like I was in a dark hole.

When asked who were those people Tim Cain responded:

Nah. They threaten to sue.

Source
Leonard Boyarsky and Jason Anderson left with him, so basically the project got beheaded (i.e. lost its leads and original creators of the Fallout setting.).
Later these three created Troika.

Strawman argument. These "idiots" as you call us, are people who actually cared to do some research about the stylistics and the Fallout setting, and didn't like compromising the integrity of the Fallout setting by adding a irrelevant and inappropriate things - it had nothing to do with "change" in itself.

I was referring to an argument in one or more gamenet channels over three years ago which centered around the fact that several people felt it was unreasonable to show an attempt at rebuilding civilization more than a century and a half after the war.

If you hung around #medic in 2003 and were present for that argument then I apologize,

Oh. I suspect that they were some other people then. I was thinking about the guys from NMA. They are some of most inteligent people I met in the Internet and I learnt a lot about Fallout from them.
On the other hand, they rather like Fallout 2 despite its shortcomings so I doubt it could be them.

The gist of the argument stuck with me because of the rather mindlessly critical attacks and the standard of "irrelevant and inappropriate" being employed essentially being "stuff that wasn't in the first game", as if it was unrealistic to expect the world to have changed somewhat over the course of a human lifetime.

Of course saying that all the "stuff that wasn't in the first game" is irrelevant and inappropriate is as silly as saying that all the stuff that wasn't in the first game is relevant and appropriate for the Fallout universe.
By irrelevant and inappropriate I mean both things that don't fit the Future of the 50s idea and those who aren't appropriate because they don't fit the atmosphere of the Fallout universe.

if you care to make some more substantive criticisms of Fallout 2 than those I remember I'm happy to hear them.

Ok.
First I have to say that I like and respect Fallout 2 as one of the best cRPGs ever made, but I have to say that it's not that good as a Fallout game.

Simply, Fallout was made to pretty high standards when it comes to atmosphere and universe. Some stuff was rejected because it was inappropriate:
For example there were plans for "Burrows" - a settlement of intelligent talking mutated raccoons that fled the West Tek research facility. It was well thought out and had a beautiful story but Tim Cain didn't approve it, because wasn't appropriate for Fallout universe.

Tim Cain: This location was written by an early designer associated with the project. While it was well written, I felt that its content was not appropriate to our Fallout universe, mainly based on its style and feel in the game and not on its artistic merit. So I did not approve its addition to the game, and that Glow holodisk is all that remains of any reference to that area.

Source

1. Talking Animals - Despite that Tim Cain didn't allow a settlement of talking animals into the first game, Fallout 2 lead designer - Feargus Urquhart (the lead designer of Fallout 2) didn't care - he added talking Deathclaws, allowed talking Rats, an intelligent Radscorpion and even a talking plant (!!!).
Later he changed his decision:

Oh, and I would have taken out the talking Death Claws - that was bad idea that I either came up with or championed (my bad).

2. Overdosed humour - Fallout 2 contained a lot more (and more blatant and more vulgar) pop culture humour. Both of them (i.e. talking animals and too much blatant pop culture jokes) made it closer to South Park than to the original Fallout (As someone said: Fallout contained South Park references - Fallout 2 was like South Park) - while both dark ironic social commentary and subtle pop culture references are appropriate and are a significant for Fallout atmosphere, the latter were overdone in Fallout 2.

3. Weapons - As an alternative reality Fallout has its own fictional weapons and ammo types. The weapons are heavily stylized and are generally clunky or have archaic elements like wooden stocks and grips or on other hand are very futuristic (some of them look like certain movie/comic weapons, .223 Pistol, Shotgun or 10mm Pistol for example.).
The only RL modern firearm is the Desert Eagle which made into the game because "Interest in late 20th century films made this one of the most popular handguns of all times." - so is a blatant pop culture joke.
Creators of Fallout could have put in M-16, AK-74, Pancor Jackhammer, Steyr AUG and other typical modern weapons, but didn't. They have invented their own weapons for their alternative universe.
We have AK-112 instead of M-16, 10mm Pistol instead of Colt1911, 10mm SMG instead of MP5, Combat Shotgun instead of Pancor Jackhammer, etc.

On the other hand Fallout 2 not only goes Monty Haul, but also has a lot of modern RL weapons like M60, CAWS, LSW, P90, Pancor Jackhammer, G11, etc. (ah, the laziness - why design new fictional weapons like the authors of F1 did when one can just add some RL ones?). On the other hand 1950s designs like Grease Gun or FN Fal would be at least 120 years old when the war started - not a good thing for a futuristic universe. People who write Sci-Fi where the weapon development lasts at least 120 years into future don't tend to expect the weapons from their time in any other role than unique "museal" items (just like the Gizmo's Mauser).
Also, they turned an unique, customized weapon - the .223 Pistol into a common weapon.
So, they didn't care much about the setting nor about logic.

4. San Francisco - A kung fu movie town - not very fitting the Fallout's america-centric future of the 50s setting. On the other hand one could argue that fascination with asian martial arts started in 50s during the Korean War... Still, it seems to be typical for 70s, 80s kung fu movies.

The modernlike hubologist shuttle instead of a classic 50s style rocket (someone forgot how vehicles in Fallout universe look...).
Absurdal tech level of both Shi and Hubologists - the first are just a bunch of submarine survivors and the latter are just a bunch of cultists. Also, since the first were the Chineese, it would be a good occasion to add some new fictional firearms - Chineese ones.
It's poorly thought out realismwise - it has stores that sell tons of high-tech equipment that they get out of nowhere (including a hardened Power Armor, energy weapons, etc.) - it's a blatant final town with a super equipped final store (Monty Haul! Monty Haul!).

5. New Reno - the "drugz and whorez" town - while the concept in itself is nice and interesting, it lacks the explaination of what people that aren't in gangs (several thousands of them) are living off.
The Hub had its fields, brahmin and the water tower, Shady Sands had a well, the irrigation system, fields and brahmin, Junktown had brahmin, Boneyard had hydroponic farms. (It's good to think what people do to live before creating a town. I'm pretty sure that several thousands of citizens of New Reno could do something to live rather than just standing around, taking drugs and watching porn. They could produce goods, food, export water etc. (and act like a gang-ruled version of the Hub) especially that NR wasn't hit.)

Edited by Delight, 01 June 2007 - 06:34 PM.

[Azkyroth]

I rather liked the Deathclaws, personally, aside from the fact that someone got lazy and/or brain-damaged and decided their story arc couldn't have a good ending . Other than that, though, I'm inclined to agree with a lot of this (as opposed to, say, arguments from #medic that New Reno didn't fit a post-apocalyptic storyline in any way shape or form because...well, just because! There may have been a reason cited, but the assumption seems to have been that society was destroyed and would stay that way FOREVAR ).

[EDIT]I think the Shi technology was explained by their retaining a functioning control computer from their submarine, along with a lot of technological data from before the war. How that wound up on a submarine, of all places, is of course not explained.

Edited by Azkyroth, 01 June 2007 - 06:54 PM.

[Delight]

I rather liked the Deathclaws, personally,

I liked the talking Deathclaws in themselves too. To paraphrase Tim Cain:
"While it is well written, I feel that its content is not appropriate to the Fallout universe, mainly based on its style and feel in the game and not on its artistic merit."
While they are cool and likeable in themselves, talking animals push the game into a more "modern fairy tale" direction.

aside from the fact that someone got lazy and/or brain-damaged and decided their story arc couldn't have a good ending .

That was the main problem with both Fallouts - some things were unfinished. Fallout 1 for example had unfinished Iguana Bob quest, the mutant invasion and the supermutant ending .

(as opposed to, say, arguments from #medic that New Reno didn't fit a post-apocalyptic storyline in any way shape or form because...well, just because! There may have been a reason cited, but the assumption seems to have been that society was destroyed and would stay that way FOREVAR ).

Heh ...
It seemes that they didn't play Wasteland, nor read "A Canticle for Leibowitz". The first provides an explaination for why New Reno was almost untouched - "it was because the "house" was betting against a missile landing -- and no one wins against the house" . The second shows how the civilisation rebuilds itself after the war and then destroys itself. I have an impression that Fallout would become a cycle of rebirth and destruction rather than stagnating (i.e. being a permament ruin) or creating a stable new world.

Also, the idea of Vault Dweller abandoning high technology and founding a tribe probably has roots in the "Simplification" from that book. On the other hand they should rather live in Shady Sands style simple cottages, instead of tents, because they weren't a nomad tribe.

[EDIT]I think the Shi technology was explained by their retaining a functioning control computer from their submarine, along with a lot of technological data from before the war. How that wound up on a submarine, of all places, is of course not explained.

Heh ...
It seems like they tried to create an excuse for all that ultra-tech equipment and multiple choices in tanker fuel and vertibird plan quests rather than a logical and believable location .

Edited by Delight, 01 June 2007 - 07:45 PM.