Fallout 1 & 2
 

Recently I decided to go back and play more of Fallout. Yea, I was but a lad when I first endeavored to journey into the wastelands, and I did so with the help of a character editor. But finding the experience shortened significantly, I decided now to try once more and to do it with all claims to legitimacy.

I've only managed to get to The Hub so far, and I'm working on all the quests thereabouts (Just killed Decker, still need to find the deathclaws) before I stop by The Brotherhood and then take off for The Glow.

So, are these games badass or what?

Soooo badass! I just beat Fallout 1 for the first time a few days ago and I was suprised at how short it was. I beat it in under 14 hours over the course of a few days. It was an incredibly fun experience and really nostalgic. I had played it quite a bit a few time's, but always ended up restarting and making a new character a lot.

I remember playing this game years ago and dying quite a bit outside the front gates of the airlock. Never really could get into it.

Ah memories.

The only memories I have of this game is of Fallout 2, because my brother's copy of Fallout (1) seems to have disappeared. And his Fallout 2 disc is completely screwed, so I can't delete the HD unless I wanna ask other people for the game (yet again).

Anyway, my first completed Fallout game took me 13 years of gametime...and then after 2 months of traveling on the world map...THE END. =( Something doesn't like me.

But shit, I love this game. Especially when you meet up with that Pariah Dog that makes everyone become Jinxed. Funny shit.

Yeah, the combat system is pretty brutal, so it can seem almost like a liability to choose gifted and skilled as your starting perks. Also, contrary to common sense, it's usually good to choose a high perception rather than, for example, a high strength or endurance. You really have to rely on your ability with distance weapons to do well.

I remember having the same problem when I first started Fallout 2. I gave up after a while, but I suspect I just had a crappy character build.

Man, awesome game....but I'd say, the most important stat is your agility. With Agility 10, you get 10 Action Points, or in other words, the ability to shoot twice (with most guns) in one turn. I usually pump up endurance next, but after that, it's anybody's opinion.

Fallout 2 had a rough start due to you not being able to blast anything until the third town. The pea shooter doesn't count. But it gets genuinely fun and much deeper than the first after that point. I like the upgrade of the NPCs and some control over their AI.

Banking on perception was always the best route if you were building a combat monster. The idea was to jack up your small arms skill and have the perception to back it up so that you could hit people in the eyes every time to maximize your critical hit output. I'd always prioritize getting the sniper rifle, and after that it was pretty much Headshot City. Who needs action points when you're killing an enemy every single round?

Sometime I need to replay both games, and try playing through as a pacifist thief-diplomat. It's theoretically possible to beat both games without ever firing a shot, although violence often IS the best solution to a lot of problems. I really did like how there were three sanctioned ways to beat both games.

My only gripe about the first game is how it inevitibly penalizes you for NOT taking any points in energy weapons. You can rely on the sniper rifle for most of the game, but eventually you're going to have to invest in energy weapons so you can take advantage of the turbo plasma rifle. Man, did that thing make a mockery of the mutant base.

Lol, I remember that.

"Mutant was critically hit in the eyes for 438 damage. The pain is too much for him as he slumps to the ground."

"Mutant was killed."

It was also fun to shoot people in the groin.

How will you be able to beat the boss in Fallout 2 if you're being pacifistic. I haven't tried yet, but I estimate it's pretty difficult to just rely on your companions to beat the final boss.

A lot of guides say you should only put 6 points into Strength, since Power Armor is going to boost it up to 10 anyway. Still until you get the Power Armor, it's pretty hard to get by with just 6 points of strength, especially if you focus on melee attacks. Melee attacks can be devastating if you know what you are doing and are important in the early stages of the game. You sure want to save up ammunition and money for them. I even found them to be somewhat useful later on. If you can do 4 or 5 times critical hit with Super Slegde Hammer, no one is going to mess with you.

I haven't tried it but apparently putting 10 points on luck will give you "unforeseen" positive events. You also get some critical hit bonus and such later one with it. I should try to put 10 points on that elusive attribute some time. The guides recommend this.

I'm willing to bet that's just the interesting little positive random encounters they have. I remember last time I played, that was almost all I ran into, was the good random encounters, when I was...ahem..."enhancing" my abilities.

Is it just me, or do a lot of the skills seem kinda worthless? I mean, Science? I must have used that like, twice. First Aid? Why bother when you've got a stimpak and you're trying not to waste time?

First Aid is pretty worthless because you start at such a pitiful level for it that it's near useless, even against obscenely expensive stimpaks in the beginning. Science is pretty useless as well. I have never seen any use for Sneak either. I can't think of any more, but still.

Also, these encounters include random huge trucks of cash, UFOs, bunch of other stuff.

I have actually relied on First Aid a great deal in the beginning of the game, but it's more of a supportive skill rather than anything decisive. If you run out of other healing methods and you are pretty low on health, it could save your life in some critical moments. Later on Doctor skill is much better, but I still liked to use First Aid. Sitting out a few days to regenerate was something I simply had to do a few times. Also you can use it to heal some minor wounds for your companions.

Science is only useful later on when you are supposed to use this skill to handle some computers. It also has some various good effects but I don't remember anymore. In any case, it's not a worthless skill, albeit not specific.

Even Sneak is not useless. I maxed it too 100 very early (80 is already enough), and could sneak my way into almost anything. It was also good to sneak up on people and turn on combat mode, you had a considerable advantage due to more actions points and the initiative.

The best skill is Steal though. Beside stealing stuff you could use this skill to level up like mad. Just encounter some defenseless homeless people, use steal/give back 3-4 times to rack up insane experience points.

There's a couple things you can do besides just rush head on against the last boss in Fallout 2. I can't say for certain since I'd built my guy more combat oriented, but it's very likely you can talk him out of fighting you if you have a godly diplomat skill. Alternately, you can get backup from the gun turrets by sneaking over to the computer terminal, using the president's key card, and turning the turrets on him. He'll destroy them all, but it keeps him from attacking you for a while. Might be possible to sneak out the door while he's busy, too.

First Aid was indeed useless, as you got more hit points back from Doctor anyway. Science was handy for pulling information from the computer terminals you found, but saw more use in Fallout 2 than 1. Sneak was vital to playing a pacifistic character, since you use it mainly to bypass certain encounters. You needed Steal to go along with it, though.

My favorite use of Steal was the Slappy Squirrel tactic. "Here, have some dynamite down your pants." Somehow they always know it's me.

Actually, doesn't Doctor take like six more hours than First Aid? I can't remember, but I thought this was the case.

I've always started with the game with 9 (or 8, if your using skilled) agility, with the Increase Agility perk in mind. I don't think its ever worth dumping 10 points into an attribute mainly because of this. You could also get those stat enhancing items later on in San Francisco, although there were only like 4 different ones. I always thought that the one that gave you +20% (Skilled) was a bad trait. If you get perks for every four levels, that means you're losing one perk for every twelve levels. So yeah, I think that the Gifted one is better. Just because you're an attribute that can't (easily) be increased is being increased.

And I thought Lifegiver was important. But that's probably because I always just fought people.

EDITED because I'm a dumbass.

You can also get a squad of Enclave marines to help you out in the final battle, and the president can be killed with Super Stimpacks.

I've always loved Fallout, and for good reason: most role-playing games rely on hack and slash (typically in a medival setting) with ranged weapons as a distant afterthought.

Not so in Fallout. The game has GUNS, baby, and a combat model to back it up. It's one of the few true science fiction RPG games out there. Combine that with its intricate character system and plot, as well as the twisted humor and Wasteland spirit, and you've got a real winner.

I always played a diplomat, myself--Fallout is one of the (very) few games where your dialogue options change significantly based on your intelligence. But it's also fun to play someone with an intelligence of 1; the programmers actually coded quite a bit for that.

I actually went back and looked at the manual, and it turns out there are a few added perks (pun lol) for having a high luck skill. You can have better chance to find money or ammo, better chances for criticals, or massive criticals, but the best one sounded like it would be the "mysterious stranger" perk. Apparently with this one a mysterious guy would turn up out of nowhere sometimes and help you out in combat. I seem to remember this happening once or twice, but I can't remember what weapons he was using or how effective he was.

It's not that great. The stranger has an SMG and is only really effective at the beginning of the game; plus, if he's killed, you don't get a new one.

Indeed he sounds more interesting than he really is. Here are his/her stats, which I took from a guide, depending on your level:
9-14: 50 HP, leather armour.
15-18: 70 HP, combat leather jacket.
19-22: 90 HP, metal armour mk II.
23-26: 110 HP, combat armour mk II.
27-99: 130 HP, power armour.

9-13: Hunting Rifle, FN FAL.
14-19: Assault Rifle, Combat Shotgun.
20-26: Laser Rifle, H&K CAWS.
27-99: H&K G11.
The chance for this stranger to appear is (30 + 2*Luck)%. Just get a reliable companion instead I guess, but it's fun to try him/her out.
Apparently you can beat Fallout 2 in 30 minutes... but I mean, these guides are just crazy and possibly spoil all the fun, when you haven't played the game before.
I am toying with the idea of creating a pure dogder. You can easily reach Armor Class >70 with it, so basically you just avoid most of the attacks before any damage reduction modifier comes into play.

That reminds me, I've gotta track down Fallout 2. Didn't buy it on release because I'd read it was silly with bugs.

Fallout 1 was classic. The production values are just so key, such as the opening B&W film, and the instruction booklet that comes with it, etc.

My fandom for Fallout doesn't need to be repeated, but a few things:

Mutants didn't wear armor, so the difference between small arms and energy weapons wasn't that great a divide if you had high perception to begin with. Energy weapons were most effective for making snap shots on Super Mutants and fighting deathclaws, but tagging energy weapons makes the early game seriously difficult, as it should be. Besides, nothing tops the .223 pistol, in my opinion.

It's more accurate to call Fallout a true post-apoc RPG, since the science fiction aspects are a bit suspect. Fallout's design was made from a retro sci-fi perspective, in that the world was designed using the future vision of a 1950's sci-fi writer. While a lot of the principles behind the world are scientific, Fallout is ultimately a human morality play set against the backdrop of a dead world as opposed to one which thrives on scientific knowlege.

It's also Skilled which removes a perk, not Gifted. Gifted is practically a must-have with all those extra stat points, and you're only going to level certain skills in a character build anyways, so the skill point loss is mostly secondary.

I generally chose Gifted and Finesse when I was making a sniper build, Gifted and Fast Shot when making a burst-weapon user (lots of fun with that one), or Gifted and Sex Appeal when playing female in Fallout 2.

I also loved the Science skill. Interacting with doodads in the world was almost like creating a sense of arcane power as the player character accomplishes tasks using forgotten knowlege. Most every skill has a social impact, as well, save First Aid, and a few others which really were completely worthless.


Something that makes Fallout and Fallout 2 an endless classic, which Troika continued to use in Arcanum and Vampire was the myriad of individual character-specific and community-specific endings that came about due to the player character's actions in-game. When I finally played a Fallout 2 game where Vault City and Gecko ended up being forced into a symbiotic relationship as opposed to Vault City riding roughshod over the Ghouls, it filled me with a sense of satisfaction that most games have failed to live up to.

It's also impossible to talk Horrigan out of a fight. You have to get Granite's squad and activate the turrets on Horrigan to go through the game without fighting a shot, but unlike the original Fallout, it isn't exactly a non-violent means to an end.

I've always thought of post-apocalyptic as a sci-fi subgenre. Besides, it doesn't matter what the design principles were if the game lets you hack computer terminals and use laser weapons. When I say "true science fiction" I'm contrasting Fallout to games like Star Ocean (which bills itself as a sci-fi franchise but then goes out of its way to put its characters in castles with swords).

Science Fiction with castles and swords doesn't exactly keep it from being "true" science fiction. I mean, Dune had lasguns, but the advent of shield technology meant that hot lasgun on shield action meant split atoms and nuclear explosions. I haven't really played any Star Oceans, though, so I couldn't tell how ridiculous it is.

The Post-Apocalypse is considered by many to be a sub-genre of Science Fiction, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Take the Postman, for instance. What part of the Postman was very science-fictiony? Does the inclusion of energy weapons also automatically make something a science fiction story?

In my opinion, true science fiction is that which uses the prevalence of science to play out its effects on humanity and society as a whole.

I'd rather not drop names, but to give an example, Star Wars isn't a "true" Science-Fiction because of the inclusion of the mythical Force. Babylon 5 wouldn't be "true" Science Fiction because ultimately it's a Space Opera. A character play that highlights the interaction between seperate races and political agendas. The focus is on how diversity affects people, not science or technology.

A Science Fiction setting can be used for any genre, which is why I think it's a bit asinine to throw around claims like "true Science Fiction." Was Blade Runner more Science Fiction or Film Noir? The same can be said about Fallout, but I would say that Fallout is much more post-apoc, since the focus is on how people interact in the post-apocalypse and not how they interact with technology or the lack thereof.

No, but it does kind of spoil the mood.

In the book, supercomputers, genetically-engineered viruses ("bad measles" or something like that), nano-enhanced soldiers, and EMP pulse weapons are all involved, though to be fair they're not the focus per se.

No, but it helps. The proliferation of melee-based combat engines in fantasy-style RPG's makes me pine for something with big futuristic guns.

Fair enough, though I would say that Fallout does that in spades :)

Again, I'm not really looking to split genre hairs here. As far as gameplay goes, I'm more interested in the trappings of science fiction as a gameplay mechanic than neatly pigeonholing a given game into a subgenre.

I guess we'll have to settle for Fallout's retro-futuristic. :)

Incidentally, there's a former Black Isle member who plans on releasing an X-COM style special forces tactical RPG over Steam. Not sure exactly how much roleplaying is involved, but you're basically the omniscient squad commander and you communicate through NPCs via communicators that your squad members hand them. Branching dialogue trees and all that business. (plus the boom boom)

I wouldn't either. I'm just saying that when you get down to the nitty gritty, things change.

And I suppose a better non-science fictiony example for post apoc would have been all the Mad Max movies and Threads.

I would say that post-apocalyptic fiction falls better under speculative fiction than science fiction. ;)

Interesting - I'll have to check out Arcanum and the Vampire games...