on many levels, this is one of the most impressive and significant games of its time. and, at the same time, i could not blame you whatsoever if you played this for 30 minutes and went "holy fuck this is unplayable". this has aged simultaneously like wine and like milk. it has mechanics that scream for QOL improvements, and overall simple things such as inventory management, movement with any number of companions, and seeing behind foreground objects are tedious beyond all reason. and yet, i can't remember the last time that i was given a setting so thoroughly explored and explained with a cast of interesting characters to complement it. there's more than just mechanics and narrative here, there's themes and philosophy worth dissecting. this game has meaningful layers to explore, and once you get into the right mindset, exploring them is fascinating.
fallout is a game about civilization, and what it takes to maintain one. a recurring theme is that isolationism is death, something lore argues lead to the war between the US and China. whether it be something like the inciting incident of needing to get the water chip, or needing to save a place like necropolis that would otherwise perish, fallout goes out of its way to stress the importance of compassion and mutual aid. it's fitting, in a sense, that the villain forcibly assimilates and "unifies" civilizations, as an antithesis to what fallout wants the player to prioritize. this isn't a "friendship conquers all" type message, but a more nuanced understanding on the debate of isolationism vs. globalism. you don't necessarily have to agree with where fallout falls on the debate, but i respect that not only does it subtly introduce this debate, but it voices a firm stance on it while exploring both sides.
speaking of the antagonist, i'm going to be saying approximately 0 new things in the universe by praising the master. not only is he a compelling and storied character, but he has a point of view that is compelling and almost persuasive (were it not for the sterility issue). it's strange, because he occupies such a small amount of any given playthrough, yet he's stood as this legend of gaming. one of the first bosses in any game you can beat in dialogue, and it has to be earned in advance (as opposed to modern interpretations in games like mass effect letting you just brute force your way through it with Good/Evil points). if nothing else, he's just a fascinating figure to end the game with, and helps fallout end on an extremely strong note.
i think if i had to use forceps and pick out one flaw from this game beyond the agedness of it, i would have to go with its tendency to contradict its own philosophy. fallout is a game that seems to deeply want to encourage pacifism, yet there's several encounters that can only be solved by force (i.e. tandi's kidnapping, gizmo, decker, etc.). obviously i'm not trying to be unfair and say that every single conflict should've had a nonviolent resolution to it, but it seems so quick to immediately discard certain characters or factions into the "irredeemably evil" pile and unwilling to let you engage with them unless you meet them on their level. why DO raiders have to exist in this setting? what is their motivation, what keeps them solidified as a community? what is their group dynamic? on the one hand, i'm being nitpicky and pedantic, but on the other, this 1997 game has answered these questions for multiple other groups, why not this one?
i don't have a lot more to say about fallout beyond that i'm extremely satisfied to finally have tackled this behemoth of a "you should play" game. at first, my goal was just to pad my resume as a fallout 3 hater, but playing this actually enriched my world and gave me a greater idea of how far the WRPG has come (and, at times, regressed) as a genre. i know i'm extremely interested in playing fallout 2 sometime in the near future, because i've heard that it essentially builds on what was already an extremely solid foundation here. if they fix only one thing, i hope like fuck it's companions. if i never have to play grabass with ian or katja to get them out of a doorway, it won't be soon enough.
fallout is a game about civilization, and what it takes to maintain one. a recurring theme is that isolationism is death, something lore argues lead to the war between the US and China. whether it be something like the inciting incident of needing to get the water chip, or needing to save a place like necropolis that would otherwise perish, fallout goes out of its way to stress the importance of compassion and mutual aid. it's fitting, in a sense, that the villain forcibly assimilates and "unifies" civilizations, as an antithesis to what fallout wants the player to prioritize. this isn't a "friendship conquers all" type message, but a more nuanced understanding on the debate of isolationism vs. globalism. you don't necessarily have to agree with where fallout falls on the debate, but i respect that not only does it subtly introduce this debate, but it voices a firm stance on it while exploring both sides.
speaking of the antagonist, i'm going to be saying approximately 0 new things in the universe by praising the master. not only is he a compelling and storied character, but he has a point of view that is compelling and almost persuasive (were it not for the sterility issue). it's strange, because he occupies such a small amount of any given playthrough, yet he's stood as this legend of gaming. one of the first bosses in any game you can beat in dialogue, and it has to be earned in advance (as opposed to modern interpretations in games like mass effect letting you just brute force your way through it with Good/Evil points). if nothing else, he's just a fascinating figure to end the game with, and helps fallout end on an extremely strong note.
i think if i had to use forceps and pick out one flaw from this game beyond the agedness of it, i would have to go with its tendency to contradict its own philosophy. fallout is a game that seems to deeply want to encourage pacifism, yet there's several encounters that can only be solved by force (i.e. tandi's kidnapping, gizmo, decker, etc.). obviously i'm not trying to be unfair and say that every single conflict should've had a nonviolent resolution to it, but it seems so quick to immediately discard certain characters or factions into the "irredeemably evil" pile and unwilling to let you engage with them unless you meet them on their level. why DO raiders have to exist in this setting? what is their motivation, what keeps them solidified as a community? what is their group dynamic? on the one hand, i'm being nitpicky and pedantic, but on the other, this 1997 game has answered these questions for multiple other groups, why not this one?
i don't have a lot more to say about fallout beyond that i'm extremely satisfied to finally have tackled this behemoth of a "you should play" game. at first, my goal was just to pad my resume as a fallout 3 hater, but playing this actually enriched my world and gave me a greater idea of how far the WRPG has come (and, at times, regressed) as a genre. i know i'm extremely interested in playing fallout 2 sometime in the near future, because i've heard that it essentially builds on what was already an extremely solid foundation here. if they fix only one thing, i hope like fuck it's companions. if i never have to play grabass with ian or katja to get them out of a doorway, it won't be soon enough.