The original Fallout.

[Cyan]

Well, I've never been into Fallout series, and I have the game in several stores, but I never played the original Fallout for more than a couple of minutes. Some friend gifted me Fallout 3 GOTY Edition, but I play it and I don't know what's special about it. I mean, I am not saying Fallout games are bad, it's just that I don't know much about them and what makes so special.

So, for Fallout gamers, what's so special about Fallout games? Specially to help understand players like me why the game is a gem.

As of recently, Todd Howard talked about why he isn't thinking about working on a remake of the original game.

Todd Howard says Bethesda won't be remaking the first Fallouts because 'some of the charm of games from that era is a little bit of that age'

Todd Howard says Bethesda won't be remaking the first Fallouts because 'some of the charm of games from that era is a little bit of that age'

"As long as you can download it, as long as it loads up and runs, I think I'd like people to experience it the way it was."

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Riddlewire]

Fallout 1 and 2 versus the ones that follow:

It's like reading a great novel versus watching the film adaptation of it.
The mind plays a significant role in filling in the details.

 

[Cyan]

Fallout 1 and 2 versus the ones that follow:

It's like reading a great novel versus watching the film adaptation of it.
The mind plays a significant role in filling in the details.

do you mean that Fallout 1 and 2 had a more complete lore but the games of the franchise published after them made a decent adaptation of it and could be better than the novel?

I am used to read novels that are better than the films, like say, the novel of Dracula. It makes you feel more fear than the movies. On the other hand, I watched the Twilight movies before reading the novel, which I ended up reading a year (or so) after of watching the movies....

 

[Riddlewire]

I meant precisely what my last sentence was.
Playing the first two games allows the imagination to play a larger role in the mind's perception of the world. Whereas playing a 6DOF game in first/third person shows you only what the developers were able to visually create.
I'm not sure I can be any more explicit than that.

 

[Davros]

But playing a game in isometric somehow doesn't only show you what the developers were able to visually create ?

 

[neckthrough]

To me the storytelling in the original Fallout felt like more of a simulation than an authored experience. Not a simulation as in the moment-to-moment emergent gameplay in a Rockstar game, but more along the lines of "I wonder how the game's characters will react the next time I talk to them if I did X instead of Y". If you can pull X off the game world reacts in logical and sometimes delightful ways. I think the limited scope of the game world + simplistic art allowed the devs to spend a lot of time crafting how the world responds to player choices. And these choices aren't triggered by carefully-curated Mass Effect style dialog wheels, they are more organic. It could be something as simple as doing things in a different order. Or discovering a place you weren't "supposed" to discover yet. Or even creating a character with hilarious stats just to see what happens. Oh, it happens! And all of the dialogue is really well written, yet grounded without being filled by grandiose pseudo-intellectual preachery. The UI is clunky and hasn't aged well (and I *like* turn-based UI), but if you can get used to the clunkiness it's a rewarding experience.

F:NV appears to carry over some of that DNA. I do agree with @Riddlewire that the 3D perspective and unattractive engine (which weren't Obsidian's fault) neutered the magic somewhat. I saw that spark but I just couldn't get myself to finish the game because the visuals just weren't pleasant and the combat system wasn't for me either. @Cyan if you can play until you meet the Legion for the first time you may be inspired enough to continue.

The Bethesda-written Fallout games are cut from a completely different cloth. They're *really* not my cup of tea.

 

[Albuquerque]

But playing a game in isometric somehow doesn't only show you what the developers were able to visually create ?

I think what Riddlewire is trying to get at (and if I'm getting it wrong, I apologize) is the old games spent far less time on making "glorious" graphics, simply because the capability simply wasn't there. Instead, you got a ton more "game" with what we would currently consider as very inferior graphics, because they spent so much more of the dev time creating the world and the lore rather than trying to get the world built, items populated, sound samples created and edited, lighting and textures right, etc.

Think about how enormous Morrowind was, in comparison to the later Oblivion and then eventually Skryim. The graphics are arguably better in Skyrm, but you also lose the immensity of the world, and absolutely lose some story and character depth in the process. So much more development time had to be spent getting the visual representation "right enough" which ultimately takes away from the rest of the worldbuilding that isn't linked to the visual or audible.

Edit: LOL, yeah, what neckthrough said.

Edit 2: So many of the really old side scroller "open world" games were so good not because of any specific focus on the graphics, but just the feeling of participating in such an enormous, interactive, thoughtfully designed open world, as much as "open world" existed on a 2D scrolling plane anyway.

 

[Cyan]

To me the storytelling in the original Fallout felt like more of a simulation than an authored experience. Not a simulation as in the moment-to-moment emergent gameplay in a Rockstar game, but more along the lines of "I wonder how the game's characters will react the next time I talk to them if I did X instead of Y". If you can pull X off the game world reacts in logical and sometimes delightful ways. I think the limited scope of the game world + simplistic art allowed the devs to spend a lot of time crafting how the world responds to player choices. And these choices aren't triggered by carefully-curated Mass Effect style dialog wheels, they are more organic. It could be something as simple as doing things in a different order. Or discovering a place you weren't "supposed" to discover yet. Or even creating a character with hilarious stats just to see what happens. Oh, it happens! And all of the dialogue is really well written, yet grounded without being filled by grandiose pseudo-intellectual preachery. The UI is clunky and hasn't aged well (and I *like* turn-based UI), but if you can get used to the clunkiness it's a rewarding experience.

F:NV appears to carry over some of that DNA. I do agree with @Riddlewire that the 3D perspective and unattractive engine (which weren't Obsidian's fault) neutered the magic somewhat. I saw that spark but I just couldn't get myself to finish the game because the visuals just weren't pleasant and the combat system wasn't for me either. @Cyan if you can play until you meet the Legion for the first time you may be inspired enough to continue.

The Bethesda-written Fallout games are cut from a completely different cloth. They're *really* not my cup of tea.

thanks for the recommendation and the hints. The first game of the series I played was Fallout 3 GOTY Edition for the Xbox 360 which I friend gave me. I didn't like the art style. Also maybe I was just tired of playing games on the same engine, although I ABSOLUTELY loved Skyrim, who knows. The post apocalyptic setting and the dark graphics didn't help either.

Fallout is a bit like the original Baldur's Gate games for me. Since I didn't play them at the time, I got lost in the lore, and starting from the 3rd game didn't help either. I have those Baldur's Gate games and even the HD edition, which has some QoL improvements and better graphics are challenging for me to get going, since I am not in the lore.