While it has been quiet on the pen & paper role playing front (still
have not managed to get a new group together to continue the SW game), luckily
I've been able to get my fix from Fallout 4 and its DLC. I've just finished Far
Harbor and it inspired me to do a short retrospective, and since I can't help
myself, to look ahead where the series may be headed. All of this is my opinion
of course, feel free to comment and disagree. :) Naturally, spoilers ahead!
Fallout 1
First and still the best Fallout game. Sure, the graphics are dated by
today's standards (and already were in 97 when it came out), which may turn off people new to the series, but I find the isometric view and sprite art have an
enduring charm about them; that is partially nostalgia speaking, to be sure, but
now, 20 years later, the retro graphics fit perfectly with the retro-futuristic
aesthetic of the setting, however unintentionally.
Turn-based combat was a staple of crpgs at the time and is in full swing
in this game and its sequel. It works fine, I think, and again it holds up to
the test of time. It's there to serve a purpose, to have enjoyable combat
within the limitations of the game engine. I'm however not a purist who believes the new
games should mimic this ancient system just for the sake of it. It's not
realistic to expect this from a triple A game these days. Many of the design choices which are now 'vintage Fallout' were often less deliberate decision than
necessity. Combat being one of them; the lack of any pilotable vehicles
another, quite unusual for a post-apocalyptic setting (the engine couldn't handle it). Again this is something that usually
puts newcomers off. I have to admit it takes getting used to, and if I'm
overall happy with the system, that's in part since I've replayed these first
games so often. The inventory system was quite poor, but since you didn’t yet
have to worry about picking up a billion items, it was still manageable.
So what makes the first installment the best one? It introduced of course
the setting, a post-apocalyptic America which diverges from our history around
the 1950s, where robots, nuclear fission and advanced weapons abound, but
computers are big and clunky and wireless is something unheard of. It's a
future as envisioned by the optimistic 50s, a Jetsons-light, bombed to
smithereens and left to accumulate dust for a hundred years.
All the classic Fallout elements are here: the iconic enemies
(Deathclaws, Ghouls, Super Mutants), the power armor, factions like the BoS,
Followers and NCR, Vaults (before the rest of the series ruined them). Little
of the story and dialogue was voiced, but this did mean you have more dialogue
options to choose from, and you can actually play widely different characters
based on Intelligence scores, something that has sadly fallen by the wayside in
recent installments. You could also have multiple companions rather than being
arbitrarily limited to one, though in truth the companions had little dialogue or
personality (except maybe gung-ho Ian. Screw you Ian.)
Now Fallout 1 was the shortest game by far, but that works to its
benefit. You don't get a plethora of side quests that are just filler; most of
them work to enhance the main story. You have a creepy, believable antagonist
in the Children of the Cathedral and the Master, and a final boss fight where
you can talk the boss to death and it actually makes sense (I'm looking at you,
Lanius).
Fallout 1 for me was also the only game to really nail the right level
of humor in the series. Pop culture references and generally juvenile content
got out of control in the next game, which brings me to…
Fallout 2
The favorite of many, Fallout 2 always leaves me with mixed feelings. It
introduced some great concepts, and it featured the dumbest stuff of any of the
games.
Regarding the mechanics, I can be brief, since almost nothing changed
from the first game. Fallout 2 was released just a year later, and does feel
like a giant expansion pack at times.
So what’s my beef with Fallout 2? Let’s start with the good things: some
of my favorite locations are introduced here (Vault City, The Den, NCR). The
game introduced great new villains in the Enclave (who unfortunately stuck
around too long). A greatly improved assortment of armor and weaponry provided
more options for different playstyles. Companions have a bit more personality
(notably Sulik, who gets his own talking head) and use, since you can order
them around and outfit them properly.
So where did they go wrong? They made a game at least twice to thrice
the size of the first, and boy does it feel padded at times. Sure the first
game had some dungeon/shooting galleries as well (Necropolis, Mariposa come to
mind) but they overstay their welcome in part 2. Raider caves, gecko sewers,
the military base again, Vault 15 again; sometimes less is more. The lower
levels of the tanker are filled with wanamingos for no other reason than to
have something there. The result of the increased size of the game is that the
quality varies dramatically in places. While the Hubologists are an obvious
reference to Scientology, they have been given enough background and attention
to actually work as a believable faction, and not just a one note joke. The
same I cannot say for the Shi, pretty much all of Reno and some of the horrendous
stuff in Broken Hills. Talking plants and chess playing scorpions? Keeping
Deathclaws like chickens? No thanks. Finding a sex doll for a lecherous Ghoul
in the old Ghouls home? Great stuff. Oh, you can act in a porno now. (Reno
feels like it was designed by a horny 15-year old who just binge-watched 90s
gangster movies). Fallout 2 is also guilty of coming up with Project Safehouse,
which, while it didn’t feature prominently in part 2 itself, would ruins the
Vaults in all following games.
Oh, and after the morally gray, cerebral Master we get bullet
sponge Frank Horrigan as our adversary. I think it
stops being a reference if you literally copy/paste.
So while Fallout 2 in places expanded on what made Fallout 1 great, it
brought with it too much chaff for me to consider it the best entry in the
series. If they had cut 50% of the game, spend the available time and money on
polishing what remained and released it as an expansion for Fallout 1, it could
have been so much more.
Fallout 3 + DLC
We had to wait 10 years for the next game, and you immediately feel (and
see) that much had changed in the intervening years. As I said before, a major
studio in 2008 would not have released a turn-based, isometric game. Fallout 3
was the first 3D Fallout game for PC and set us on the path to Fallout 4, a
scenic, slightly regressive detour through New Vegas not withstanding.
Fallout 3 is easily the least favorably received by die hard fans, and
while I don't agree with their assessments on all accounts, it's easy to see
why it's often reviled. the TLDR version is: Bethesda tried to do something
(partially) new, thereby getting rid of mechanics people liked and generally
following a (depending on who you ask) simplified/dumbed down design
philosophy. I say partially new, because at the same time it kept (too) many
things from the first games, which didn't make a whole lot of sense in the new
setting (East vs West Coast, the 'core region' of Fallout).
Fallout 3's graphics by now fall in that unfortunate uncanny valley
area, not good enough to convincingly portray the game world as realistically
as it would like, and thus ending up looking worse than the more 'abstracted'
graphics of the 2D era. Combat is real time, with VATS picking up the slack of
the turn-based mechanics; though the gunplay is rather subpar. Inventory
management took a turn for the abysmal. Hope you enjoy hours of sorting through
lists to drop random junk because you've once again hit your encumbrance limit.
Fallout 3 and following games wouldn't feature a world map anymore,
instead having one big open world, for the most part taken up by a big city
(DC, Las Vegas, Boston). This put a greater emphasis on exploration, but also
forced the designers to put something interesting on the map every few minutes.
As a result the world feels packed to the gills with loot and untouched marvels
for a world which by now has gone two centuries since the apocalypse. The
advancing timeline is a weak point of Fallout 3. At which point does the
post-apocalypse setting become unsustainable? Personally, I very much doubt
there would still be food to be found in every supermarket and vending machine.
Nitpicks, perhaps, but in an RPG this matters.
Another lore rant: I complained earlier about the implications of
Project Safehouse: in Fallout 3 it really kicked in. Sorry, but I find it
impossible to believe that in wartime the government would have spent hundreds of trillions of dollars to basically run a bunch of social experiments not fit for
a junior science fair. Six hundred billion to study the effects of a
white-noise machine? Perhaps information that would have a) been more relevant during the
actual war rather than after it and b) easily tested with a few subjects for a
fraction of the cost in some military site? If there's one thing in the Fallout
universe that I'd like to see changed, it's this. Just make the Vaults normal fallout
shelters again, I'll close my eyes to the retcon, I swear.
In a way, Fallout 3 stuck too close to the original game's template. You
are again a Vault Dweller, forced to leave your home. Raiders, Ghouls and Super
Mutants abound. The Brotherhood are there, and so are the Enclave. The game
contributed little original material to the series. I liked the Children of
Atom, who featured more prominently in Fallout 4 (and who would make a great
main villain I believe). Liberty Prime was visually impressive and felt right
at home, a nice The Iron Man/Giant homage. Running through DC was impressive,
though it was broken up into too many isolated sections, separated by
(annoying) loading screens and (horrible) Ghoul infested subways. Some
inspiring moments on the Mall, Washington Monument and Science Museum could in
the end not save the grey and dreary city from becoming too repetitive. Rivet
City, while an interesting locale in theory, lacked scale to really sell me on
the idea. This is my main complaint about the game: it all feels a bit samey.
There's only so many ruined factories, supermarkets, disposal sites, etc. you can
explore before you get the been-there-done-that feeling. The lack in enemy
variety made itself felt acutely. The game also had its dumb moments (the fighting superheroes anyone?), but nothing stooped as low as Fallout 2.
Fallout 3 uncomfortably straddled its past as an RPG and its future as a
FPS/action adventure. New Vegas would suffer from this problem even more,
trying to reconnect with its roots but constrained by the Gamebryo engine.
Fallout 4 resolutely chose the latter option and in the end became a better
game for it.
Fallout 3 DLC
Operation Anchorage
Squandered opportunity. You take part in a simulation of the reclamation
of Alaska, an important event in the setting's divergent history. Unfortunately
it's a 2 hour underwhelming slog, involving little more than shooting a steady
trickle of Chinese troops. If it had the sense of scale and visceral gameplay
of your triple A FPS game, your CoDs, MoHs or whatnot, it may have worked, but now when it's over,
you'll just feel disappointed. I guess its main selling point is that you got a
T51b out of it. Neat.
The Pitt
You get to go to Pittsburgh, which is a hellhole, but not as bad as it used
to be (kidding). You are taken prisoner and all your gear is confiscated, an
old, annoying trick of FPS games, but it works as for the first time in a long
while you're actually somewhat vulnerable again (Fallout notoriously suffers
from reversed difficulty curves). The setting feels properly post apocalyptic,
some fun new weapons and enemies, but it's over in a few hours and you have no
reason to go back. Could have been more.
Broken Steel
Continues the main story, addressing some of the inanity of the original
ending (why not send the impervious mutant into the reactor, huh?). I remember
little of this DLC, which I guess is not a good sign. You blow up more Enclave,
then some more, look for some MacGuffins, then make the Enclaves base, a giant
crawler, which was cool I guess, 'splode. Little more than some action set
pieces which Fallout 4 would go on to do better.
Point Lookout
You take a boat to a faraway location, work for different factions,
fight some unique local monsters and go on a psychedelic trip. Perhaps the best
DLC for Fallout 3; Bethesda must have thought so too because the same synopsis
can be used verbatim for Fallout 4's most recent DLC, Far Harbor. Anyhow. The desolate coastal town was
atmospheric, the swamp provided some variety. However it also continued the
annoying habit of substituting intelligent AI for enemies with more hit points.
I don't mind if a mutant monstrosity survives a rocket barrage. But unarmored
swamp folk shouldn't take ten shotgun blasts to the face to bring down. Bullet sponges do not equal challenge, they just pad the game's running time artificially.
Mothership Zeta
Like Operation Anchorage, but on a UFO. Many didn't like the 'official'
addition of the aliens to the setting, as they had before always been limited
to hidden encounters. Personally I don't mind, the flying saucers and bug eyed
aliens fit in with the 50s theme. Unfortunately this DLC did little with the
fact that you're in space or an a strange, technologically advanced ship. You shoot
your way through a few new enemy types with a few new weapons, have an
uneventful spacewalk and you get to shoot a deathray at Earth. Hasn't she
suffered enough?
As this is turning out to be a longer rant than I thought, I'll finish
up the remainder at a later time!