Adventures After The Bombs Fell (Fallout Thread)

[Jubal]

Other equivalently big franchises of games have their own thread, and I'm playing Fallout 4 now thanks to Tuco, of this parish (or at least of this parish's pub) who kindly got the game for me.

I think I'm about at the halfway mark for the main quest, though I've hit level thirty by doing slightly more "radiant" quests than I probably needed to (that's the quest design system where you get formula quests with randomly assigned locations to clear/do things at: Skyrim does similar with its barrows etc). Of the game's four main factions, I'm working for the two least authoritarian ones, as you might expect, and my character is dating the nearby post-apocalyptic "city"'s foremost and indeed only journalist and is best friends with a robot in a synthetic human body who is a medical nerd.

Things I've been enjoying with Fallout: I'm definitely liking the capacity to build and design settlements and their defences. I have a few quibbles about the system but generally it works really very well. I think the main drawback of this and the Minutemen parts of the game is the spiralling micromanagement: rather than feeling like I'm building a bigger and more successful volunteer army and overall system, instead I'm feeling more and more stretched as I, personally, get asked to run around building yet more machine gun posts for every small farm in post-apocalyptic eastern Massachussetts. It'd be nice to be able to feel like you're more in a command role with some of that stuff (the castle mission and sections were good on that front but the rest has gotten a little grinding on occasion). But anyway, designing the buildings themselves and making rooftop bars for my post-apocalyptic citizens is something I enjoy a lot.

I think there's enough lightness in the setting for it to work, whereas I think I'd feared it would all come across a bit darker. I'd probably slightly tone down the gore in places by personal preference but I accept I'm at the low-tolerance end of the market there. Things like the occasional chasing down cats quest definitely help break up the shooty gameplay, and I'd probably have liked a ratio further in that direction with if anything less combat and more dialogue. I love the fact that companions are more fleshed out than in Skyrim (which, as the other Bethesda game of that generation, is the obvious comparison), though I'd have liked even more there probably. That said, I accept that combat is in a sense much easier to produce more of than interesting quests, so there's that.

I also actually think that the thought put into post-apocalyptic society is interesting in places (though really lacking in others). On the minus side the usual raider/civilian ratio being miles off thing is present, and it does repeatedly strike me as weird how the whole setup is visibly not more than a year after the bombs hit but in game it's actually two hundred years (in which time nobody has moved any of the dead bodies and there has been no soil erosion whatsoever). I think the game would feel like it made more sense if it was more like a hundred than two hundred years, or if there'd been a bit more of an attempt to think about what 200 years looks like. But if we handwave that, the society stuff I like, in particular the thing of people retreating to live in more densely packed centres within older buildings: "Diamond City", which is built in the ruins of a baseball stadium, is doing precisely what people actually did historically in periods of stark de-urbanisation: in Arles, this even happened with an amphitheatre and I wonder if this was a historical nod. I have some thoughts on how one could have made some of this more interesting, especially since if you do have 200 years to play with then you start getting into questions of whether e.g. some raider groups might actually have ended up with hereditary leadership etc (and it'd be interesting to contrast the cosplay-knighthood of the very very unfuedal Brotherhood with a situation where an actual warrior leadership class was emerging in parts of the game world). So that's all something I've found interesting to mull over.

Anyway, there's a good amount still to do (for those who know, I'm at the "go to CIT" stage of main quest) but I'm away this week so I'll report on my feelings on the ending sometime in May probably! And I'll share screenshots then if I have time too.

[Jubal]

It is now sometime in May and I can report on my feelings on the ending! My feelings are... the game doesn't make you feel great about winning, does it? But it's a good and really interesting ending nonetheless.

Tons of spoilers below in tag:

Spoiler

Having the Institute run by Shaun was a very smart stroke on the part of the devs, I think that was an extremely well played plot turn. That said, I think they needed to play up Shaun's attachment to you as family more to humanise the Institute, whereas it felt like that was a bit too expected from the player. Shaun's familial attachment is plot-crucial, because it's the reason he puts stupid amounts of trust in you despite that being obviously daft, but it doesn't come through in the acting as well as it could I think.

As things career towards conflict, I did get strong senses of "I am surrounded by idiots and I cannot explain this fact to them". Every faction is supposedly pretty good at intel, but every faction is nonetheless underestimating all of its opponents' capabilities to a ridiculous degree, and the endgame is nowhere near worth the risks taken. I think maybe the Institute's master-plan needed to be much more destructive to the surface or something? Not sure. But the Institute's need to control synths is not really very well explained, it just ends up seeming like a cult-obsessive feature which ultimately brings an immense amount of destruction. The Brotherhood make more sense in this regard since they actually are a mad cult whose hubris knows no bounds, but the Institute's arrogance and blinkeredness hangs together a little less well.

The minutemen/railroad side is also a bit odd and the relationship between the two feels unresolved (though shout-out to the Radio Freedom broadcaster who does a very earnest job trying to rehabilitate the railroad's image post-game). It's weird that the railroad occupies tons of open checkpoint locations post-game: it makes zero sense for them to do this rather than the minutemen, and it might have been nice to have a "deciding the future" quest/scene where you have to sit down with Des, Z1-14, Preston, and maybe the mad explosives minutemen lady, and thrash out a plan, assuming you're sufficiently pro both minutemen and railroad (part of the oddity here being how much the minutemen are a True Neutral faction). I did keep wishing that, as the Minutemen's literal leader, I could get my teams working together better (I used Minutemen to get into the Institute the first time, then switched to the Railroad plans for destroying the BoS and Institute).

I'd also have liked to have a bit more show-not-tell on the Railroad's achievements after: unlike the other factions just showing them at checkpoints seems weird, and it'd be conversely good to have a bit more visible contact with the supposedly many synths who are being transported out. I guess the achievement feels impersonal, whereas the costs feel extremely personal, especially Liam's suicide which definitely felt a majorly jarring gut-punch. Not an unearned gut-punch, mind you, but it felt to me like there was a mismatch in that the punches landed heavily but the rewards felt thin.

Anyway, definitely enjoyed Fo4, will be up for playing more Fallout games at other times though it's a fairly long game series so probably won't do that immediately. I'd like to pick up the DLCs for Fo4 too, my guy Hannibal still has some story left in him I think (though he's one of my more generic protagonists by and large, just a smart and somewhat charismatic military leader really).

[Jubal]

I have finished playing through Fallout: A Post Apocalyptic Roleplaying Game (or, as it's more commonly known, Fallout 1).

I very much blundered through it, and it definitely lacks a few things, but it does hold up despite its age (except for the lack of an autosave which is just horrible). I got really quite bad endings for settlements the most part, because I dragged my feet far too much for major parts of the game and didn't realise there was still a ticking clock after the water chip section, so I wasted a lot of time waiting for healing and suchlike. I also found that I stumbled across too many bits of major plot when I had to look up minor details to sort out sidequests I couldn't find completion points for, and got spoilered.

That said, there's a lot to like. I think one of the really interesting FO1/FO4 comparisons is that they're trying to do such different things with the setting. Fallout 1 feels like it's much more about trying to talk about what life would be like after an imagined apocalypse, whereas 4 feels much more driven by contemporary anxieties and reflecting pre-war (implicitly, our) society in the post-apocalyptic world.

I think the core plot is pretty good, too: it could have had better supporting dialogues, but I think the Overseer is well played and the logic of it broadly works. The transition to part 2 is a bit odd because I really hadn't seen a huge number of the things you're sent out to stop by the time I got back, but nonetheless, I think it works well as a whole.

Spoilery bits:

Spoiler

I did the Cathedral before the Mariposa base, and this felt slightly anticlimactic as an order of operations. I had been captured at the base and reloaded once I got stuck in a cell I couldn't lockpick, but when I did the base "for real", I just sort of ambled in, used my high science skill to set the computers to blow, and wandered out again.

I think my biggest frustration with the ending was that I knew that the mutants were sterile from the Glow but hadn't found the bits you need to prove that to the Master, so that was a bit vexing.

[Jubal]

I have now played Fallout 2!

A lot of my comments about Fallout 1 also apply to 2: it also has the sense that it's talking about the setting on its own terms unlike the reflecting-the-past sensibilities of Fo4. Also, the lack of an autosave is still absolutely horrible, 0/10 for that design choice.

I got better outcomes than in Fallout 1, largely because there wasn't an invisible timer I was unaware of. I think 1 has the edge for characters and dialogues, for me: "you're a hero, and you have to leave" is one of the most inspired lines in the franchise, and Fo2's Elder and Shaman don't have quite the same resonance, and I like the Fo1 core bad guy better as a villain than the major villains of FO2. On the other hand, 2 has a significant edge on sidequests: the Vault 15 sections, Redding, the Den, Klamath, and Vault City were all really enjoyable.

Overall, very solid game. And I guess puts me over halfway through the series - still 3 and NV to play.

Spoilery bits:

Spoiler

Unsurprisingly, I have some fondnesss for the NCR, as they're pretty much the least awful option in the Wasteland - there's some individual decent leaders elsewhere but little that's a good general option. They did pretty well out of my endgame, picking up Vault 15, Vault 13, Redding, and Vault City (and presumably also Gecko which sadly got invaded by Vault City because the quest to get a good ending is bugged). The Shi flourished too so that's nice for them.

I didn't really bother with New Reno, so the jet-drug family expanded there, and Vault 13 and Gecko's good endings are bugged. There's no Klamath ending screen AFAIK.

[psyanojim]

Yes, I thought that FO2 was an objectively 'better' game due to mechanics, variety of quests/decisions etc.

But I preferred FO1s much tighter narrative, and the villains in FO1 gave it a much nastier 'horror/mystery' vibe which definitely fit my tastes better.

[Jubal]

Yes, I thought that FO2 was an objectively 'better' game due to mechanics, variety of quests/decisions etc.

But I preferred FO1s much tighter narrative, and the villains in FO1 gave it a much nastier 'horror/mystery' vibe which definitely fit my tastes better.

Yes, absolutely agreed. Which is interesting because I think in some ways the FO2 villains ought to be more up my street, I quite like having somewhat more political and human villains. But in the end the Enclave aren't actually very political - they end up as a sort of high tech doomsday cult, and all their negotiations and interactions in the Wasteland are actually sort of irrelevant in the end other than as foreshadowing for the final boss fight, whereas I think they might have been better if the tension between them wanting to ultimately wipe out the Wastelanders but also actually needing resources from the wasteland had been built up as more of a theme for them. I guess at the end of the day, FO1's villains are almost more political than FO2's as well as being more horror villains, in that they at least go to the trouble of having front organisations, conquest plans, etc.

And one other point on the Enclave:

(I also kinda wanted a chance to point out to their scientists that they've been enormously genetically bottlenecked for generations and given there's only a hundred or so of them on the oil rig they are by definition now horribly inbred, which makes an amusing mockery of their genetic superiority thing)

[psyanojim]

Yeah, the FO2 ending just seemed to culminate in a fairly boilerplate 'hahaha ultraviolence' type end-boss, despite all the variety leading up to it.

Whereas the FO1 bosses were just so damned... INTERESTING. Horrifying in appearance and nature, but charming, articulate, and just downright weird.

And I absolutely LOVED the pacing of the Cathedral, especially in a gaming era with far fewer spoilers. The descent into the Cathedral really did feel like some kind of descent into Hell or Madness.

[Antiquity]

I remember liking Fallout 2 more because it was quite a bit bigger: more equipment, more locations, more side quests and so on (plus better NPC management).  Looking back, though, I can see why it was criticized for being a bit too goofy and inconsistent compared to the first.

I couldn't get into Fallout Tactics at all and I did not like Fallout 3 very much, so I stopped there.

[Son of the King]

I've never played the original two Fallout games; this is making me think it might be a worthwhile experience.