Posted December 08, 2008
Fallout, while like much of the future work of the minds behind it (i.e. inventive, but somewhat poorly constructed), stands as a paragon of what a CRPG should strive to be. The game was thematically strong, and despite some intentionally caricatured elements, it brought about a sense of verisimilitude in the way its populations and communities were portrayed.
While the dialogue could be a little awkward at points, for the most part, it felt mundane and reasonable. Also, the violence didn't exist in its quantities or qualities to be shocking or comedic, but rather it existed to be excessive and gritty, and make it feel commonplace and cheap, as reflective of the attitudes and conditions of such an unregulated world.
And the last words are on some of the game's fundamental mechanics - specifically, the way Fallout handled statistics, leveling, and morality. The subject is closely tied to the success of Fallout's other elements, as these mechanics can affect the tone and tempo of the game, and fall out of sync with it as well. Perhaps the greatest part was the elimination of grinding as a primary or even reasonable method of character advancement - most experience could be gleaned simply by playing your character through the course of the game. This allowed a much wider set of options for viable styles of play. Without having to grind for experience, combat-oriented characters, while still effective in their own way, were not the only characters that could be reasonably effective.
As for the way Fallout handled morality, I found this feature to be pivotal to the experience (perhaps that's the existentialist in me). Perhaps another way to phrase my point is the way that Fallout lacked the handling of morality. There was no dualistic morality system (e.g. Fable, Oblivion, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, etc.), there were simply actions and the resulting consequences (which were at some points a little buggy). I believe this opens up - again - more varied styles of play without the game shoehorning the player into a role by a series of arbitrary moral value judgments. I just don't believe dualistic morality systems work well in many games, simply because they either push a player down a path and restrict him or her, or in trying to offer concessions for a more open style of play, they ultimately render their own morality system next to useless (Fallout 3, I'm looking at you as the most recent example).
While the dialogue could be a little awkward at points, for the most part, it felt mundane and reasonable. Also, the violence didn't exist in its quantities or qualities to be shocking or comedic, but rather it existed to be excessive and gritty, and make it feel commonplace and cheap, as reflective of the attitudes and conditions of such an unregulated world.
And the last words are on some of the game's fundamental mechanics - specifically, the way Fallout handled statistics, leveling, and morality. The subject is closely tied to the success of Fallout's other elements, as these mechanics can affect the tone and tempo of the game, and fall out of sync with it as well. Perhaps the greatest part was the elimination of grinding as a primary or even reasonable method of character advancement - most experience could be gleaned simply by playing your character through the course of the game. This allowed a much wider set of options for viable styles of play. Without having to grind for experience, combat-oriented characters, while still effective in their own way, were not the only characters that could be reasonably effective.
As for the way Fallout handled morality, I found this feature to be pivotal to the experience (perhaps that's the existentialist in me). Perhaps another way to phrase my point is the way that Fallout lacked the handling of morality. There was no dualistic morality system (e.g. Fable, Oblivion, Knights of the Old Republic, Mass Effect, etc.), there were simply actions and the resulting consequences (which were at some points a little buggy). I believe this opens up - again - more varied styles of play without the game shoehorning the player into a role by a series of arbitrary moral value judgments. I just don't believe dualistic morality systems work well in many games, simply because they either push a player down a path and restrict him or her, or in trying to offer concessions for a more open style of play, they ultimately render their own morality system next to useless (Fallout 3, I'm looking at you as the most recent example).