Unfortunately it's a bad idea to patch in mid-game. Killap's Patch is best applied before starting a new game. Otherwise it can come to problems and glitches. Saves after patching are unusable in the vanilla version.

If you want to fall back to the vanilla version, you have to use an older (pre-patched) savegame. The broken quest might anyway derive from a corrupt savegame, so I'd suggest to go back to a previous point in the game, anyway.

I have f2se, which allows one to alter the GVARS. I've played around with the value for Frog Morton with some success: I can advance the Sheriff's questline to the point of getting the quest to kill Frog Morton, but not past it. There's an also the entry for the Morton Brothers and one for the sheriff, but figuring out the correct values for them is especially difficult because:
1. Alt-Tab isn't working properly for Fallout 2, even though it worked flawlessly for Fallout 1.
2. My understanding of GVARS is limited to simply knowing that it's short for "global variables."

Edited to add: barring a way of fixing this quest, I think I'm done with this game. It's not because this quest is important, because it isn't. It's the principle of the matter. I simply don't wish to put myself through further agony in (my failed attempts at) playing this game.

Video games, no matter how beloved, should not be a chore to play. Fallout 1/2, with their clunky, obtuse, and, at times, downright illogical combat, have each been an uphill battle.

Sorry, can't help you on the editing. It might work, but may be a time consuming effort.

To circumvent Alt+Tab you can run it in windowed mode:

Go into ddraw.ini and find the [Graphics] section near the top.
Change Mode=5 to run it in windowed mode.
Then, scroll down to GraphicsWidth and GraphicsHeight and change those to your desired resolution.
Now, go into f2_res.ini and change SCR_WIDTH and SCR_HEIGHT to the same values that you have in ddraw.ini.

EDIT: Should you decide to start over one day, make sure to install Killap's Patch before you start. It is well done and will spare you lots of bugs.
I agree btw, Fallout can be tedious. Even though many people love it, I think it's not for everybody.

True, figuring out the GVARS will be time-consuming, as would starting over. The major difference is that figuring out the GVARS will be a learning experience. Starting over...well...I don't want to be treated for high blood pressure at the age of 30.

Knowing how to run in windowed mode will help my efforts immeasureably, so thank for the info.

Having read through the patch notes for Killap's patch, I am truly astounded that so many problems were neither fixed before release nor addressed with a patch post-release.

Also, thank you for understanding that this game may nor be for everyone. There's a guy on a forum that I frequent who seems to defend anything from Black Isle tooth and nail, Fallout 1 and 2 being no exceptions. Sadly, he's too blinded by nostalgia to go so far as too admit that either FO 1 or 2 are tedious to play. I suppose it doesn't help that he's also a bit of a gaming elitist.

With that being said, I appreciate your empathy in the matter.

Edited to add: looking at the status log in the Pipboy, the quest is marked as completed. Odd.

I think Black Isle created a level of difficulty in gameplay that is yet unsurpassed. Dark Souls, eat your heart out.
I'm amazed that I'm in the minority in thinking of Fallout 1/2's gameplay as a trainwreck.

Difficulty? You're doing something wrong if you think that. Both the Fallout games are really easy, for the most part. By the end they become a cakewalk.

What exactly is it that makes you say they're difficult?

I think Killap was also astounded. Actually I think he's still astounded to this day, since even with his very latest (and possibly last ever) release, people still find vanilla-game bugs! Well personally I think there's no such thing as a game for everybody. No matter how good a review a game gets, the genre may not be to one's liking, or the setting, or something else. Additionally, even when those things all gel with me, I often find that the most highly-rated game in a genre I like in a setting I like is still a game I don't like, while other times the reverse will be true.

Not quite sure I agree that the whole games are tedious to play though. Apart from the clunky interface, the many clicks often required for basic inventory management, the fact that inventory management between NPCs in your own party somehow requires one to choose between STEALING from/to someone (!) or bartering with them (without first adjusting it properly, so that you have to ACTUALLY barter as opposed to just taking their objects!) AND the fact that they didn't bother improving this when they released a new game based on the same engine (although to be fair the publisher didn't give them time to finish what they had anyway), the fact that bartering doesn't account for weight properly but stealing does, the way you have to hold the mouse button and drag to the icon to get a proper description of something, the fact that the previous thing doesn't work properly in the barter interface, the fact that objects have a size as well as a weight which is only used for the car trunk but you're never told how big an object is or how big the car trunk is so you only find this out when something doesn't fit, the annoying right-click menu thing for actions/looking/etc. (luckily there's often an alternative way to do this - but not always!), the often inconsistent ways in which interaction with scenery/objects works from one area to the next, the inconsistent ways the shopkeepers (and how they store their wares) are implemented, and the bizarre combat design decisions (such as the way burst fire works).

Apart from all of that, the only thing wrong with the game is all the bugs it has. ;)

Seriously though, what about it is tedious? The only things I can think of, apart from the interface operation in general, are the "dungeon-like" levels - the crappy temple at the start comes to mind. Out of all the RPGs out there, this game has far less of those levels than most, and they're pretty short. Also, no grinding required here - if there were, I would totally hate this game. I don't think you're in the minority if you're talking about the combat - in both games it was buggy (moreso in the second one I think), but that was somewhat addressed with F2RP combined with YAAM. At least in my opinion - I know there are lots of people who don't like to use YAAM for some reason, which is why it's off by default in F2RP.

Not sure where you get the "level of difficulty" thing from. The combat may be buggy as hell, but it's certainly not hard. Even on the hardest level.

Just to add...you don't have to do everything in the Temple of Trials. It's perfectly acceptable to take the shortest route to the end, in which case you only have to punch a couple of ants that get in your way, avoid the traps, blow up the door, and get past Cameron. Ignore all the scorpions and ants in the side passages. Or, if we're talking about Fallout 1, you can run or sneak out of the cave without fighting a single rat if that's what you want.

Very true that. Unfortunately I feel I have to always wipe out all enemies in an area, and since by wiping them all out you can usually get your first level up (or close to it), I always kill everything in the temple. Even though it might take a while with the hit, run back, repeat technique.

Even more stupidly, on my very first run through I methodically used my traps skill on every single trapped tile I could find, because I thought that those 25 XP for each one could be useful at the beginning. Yes, every one I could find. You can imagine how long that took, since my build didn't put any points into traps. I've since learnt that the time/payoff ratio isn't worth it to do that though... ;)

Complaining about the Temple of Trials is nothing strange to me. I've played Fallout 2 enough times that I wish for an option to slaughter everyone in Arroyo at the start.

Most people seem to prefer Fallout 2, but I'm one of those people who likes the first one better, in part because the beginning and the ending of 2 are both quite poor, IMO.

Well I enjoy playing Fallout 2 much more than the original, because it has much better party management, more potential party members, it's much longer, and most of the stats are actually useful for something. And you have a car! Actually that mobile storage locker was one of the most useful additions in a game of this type IMO, because I love carrying lots of stuff. However, the plot and general atmosphere I always found to be much better in the first one. It seemed a bit "grittier" somehow, which I can't quite explain since FO2 definitely had its fair share of nastiness.

Naturally I'm not counting the "Temple of Trials" in the positives for FO2 here. Come to think of it, it always bothered me that supposedly the Vault Dweller provided all this "scientific knowledge" and showed people how to "create buildings", and yet in a space of 1-2 generations they've devolved into some pseudo-native tribe living in tents with freaky legends. Handy that they settled right next to an ancient temple that they can use for their "trials" though...

I think everyone has tried to slaughter the Arroyans at least once, only to find out you can't wipe out your own tribe (it would break consistency after all). At least you can insult the elder about the stupid "trial", which is better than nothing.

I don't agree with you about the ending in FO2 though, as I personally didn't really find anything wrong with it. Did you not like the whole area where the ending takes place, or just the final fight? To me it didn't feel that much different to the ending areas in FO1, albeit with different enemies (and only one area instead of two).

That's because you haven't get the Power Armor yet. Or the Gauss Rifle. :-)

I dislike everything about the Enclave, from their uber weapons and armor to their part in the story, which is farcical. The Master was never farcical. Fallout 2 would have been better without tribals or the Enclave, IMO.

I definitely agree with you on the tribals - that society can devolve to that point (especially when the vault dweller supposedly trained them with this knowledge) doesn't make much sense. Even without the vault dweller (as there are other tribals) you'd think that they wouldn't simply turn into the kind of tribals we see here. Europe had the Dark Ages after all, and although a lot of technology may have been lost (e.g. from the Romans etc.), people didn't revert to something like the "tribals".

I have to disagree about the Enclave though. Since the US Government in the Fallout Universe was indeed leaning more towards the evil, I think they make sense. It also then makes sense that the remnants of the Government, which was already kind of evil, and which was comprised primarily of top Government officials and military personnel, would become increasingly militaristic and lean toward fascism and elitism given the circumstances.


** SPOILER WARNING BELOW **

Basically, it's what I'd imagine could potentially happen after the conclusion of Doctor Strangelove. ;)

One would also imagine that any remnants of the Government left behind would have ensured that they had the expertise and the equipment to continue further research, both of which were protected from the carnage. Hence, one gets the improvements on the power armour, further development on plasma weaponry, etc.

As for their arrogance and plot points: due to the need to survive, they adopt a more militant/absolute leadership style as opposed to a democratic one. Due to them being the only "official" survivors, who aren't affected by radiation etc., they become more elitist and arrogant towards "lesser" people left in the wastes. Since the Govt already created the "Vaults" more as a study than to actually save anyone, this progression isn't that infeasible.

Even without all that, remember that in RL Hitler was technically elected in a republic, and look at how quickly the Nazis/SS evolved and dominated everything - all without something as catastrophic as a nuclear war to spur them on. They too wanted to wipe out all "lesser" life as they saw it. I'd imagine that the Russians under Stalin wouldn't have been that different either.

Although I have to say that the whole idea of the vaults in the first place (as experiments) seems to be going a bit far. Seems kind of strange to take advantage of an upcoming war just to experiment on your own people in such a way. It kind of fits with the nature of the Enclave, but at the same time I would have thought they'd have more important things to spend their money on given the state of the world at the time.

** SPOILER WARNING **

Actually one thing that definitely makes little sense about the Enclave: if they do indeed have the plans they do, why do they then recruit wastelanders (even tribals) for their bases? And then give them crazy armour and weapons right off the bat? I think you know what I'm talking about here...

Surely a bunch of wastelanders in power armour, protected from the poisons in the air, and seeing all their friends/family/etc. die, is a revolution waiting to happen?

Man, did I forget about this thread...lol

My comments about the difficult combat mostly have to do with the nonsensical things that occur:

I shot at a feral dog (25/25 HP) directly in front of me, with a brahmin (35/35 HP) to my right.
The brahmin was killed 7 times out of 10. The other 3 times, it still took more damage than the dog.
Apparently, ejected brass is more damaging than a stream of 10mm slugs.

"You critically miss and lose the rest of your ammo."
Mind you, I didn't just lose the JHP rounds remaining in the magazine: I lost all of the JHP ammo I had in my inventory, as well..


(using a knife) "You critically missed and took 3 hit points and hit yourself."

I "throw" a grenade, and it falls to my feet.