Fallout Features

For:PC Release Date: 26 March 2006

We look at how things have changed since Fallout 2.

With Fallout 3 almost upon us, we thought that now might be a good time to compare how the game plays with the two original, Black Isle developed Fallout games from the late nineties. We've not played the full thing, of course - but having clocked up seven hours of exploration we've now seen enough to make some general comparisons. For the sake of simplicity, we're going to focus on the previous Fallout RPGs, rather than the squad-based Fallout: Tactics or the frankly embarrassing Fallout: Brotherhood of Steel.

Combat / Perspective

While fighting is by no means the be-all and end-all of Fallout, we're going to start with a combat comparison because of the way hardcore fans have responded to the VATS system. In the original Fallout games everything was viewed from an isometric perspective, giving you a fairly generous view of your character and the surrounding environment. In standard play you'd be free to move around as you wish, but whenever a fight broke out the game would shift to a turn-based system. Depending on your character's Agility rating, you'd have a number of action points (AP) which could be spent on moving, firing weapons and accessing your inventory. Now, this setup may sound totally archaic to some modern gamers, but the fact is that it resulted in a high degree of tactical consideration. It was important to make every point count, resulting in situations where you'd have to weigh up whether you should go for an easy torso shot, or a riskier but potentially more damaging attack to the eyes.

As you probably know by now, Fallout 3 is primarily a first-person game; a third-person perspective is available, but we can't see many people using it for any length of time. While you can choose to play the whole game as a real-time shooter, you'll find it much easier to use the VATS system, which allows you to pause time and queue up a limited number of AP on targeted shots. There's certainly a degree of similarity to the old games here, with an emphasis on blinding or crippling your opponent - but you'll rarely have enough points to end a battle using VATS alone. We've found that in practice we tend to soften the enemy up with a few manually-aimed shots, before switching to VATS to make a few decisive hits. It's not exactly old-school Fallout, but it's not Doom either. It is, however, very satisfying. We were a bit worried that VATS might get old quite quickly, but we now believe the balance of its use is just about right.

New stuff to check out

Comments

To add your comment, please login or register

User Comments

matt's Avatar
Delete Post

matt

I love Fallout 1 and 2. I mean, I LOVE them. When I heard the Oblivion team was taking over fallout, something in me died. Oblivion was alright, not a real RPG by any means (that is, a game with a legitimate awesome story--which is what rpgs should be, awesome stories that you play) but a damn fun game... But for them to turn my beloved fallout into an oblivion with guns?

Well, I bought it anyway. And it's a good game. I know it's not like old times, no Bozar, sob, no real Boss, too much oblivion, but... That's tough for bethseda. Those are huge shoes to fill, even Black Isle would have a tough time topping 1 and 2. I think they worked really hard and did a good job. I hope a Fallout 4 comes out, and it's less oblivion and more fallout. I think fallout can do well first person, as much as I hate to say it. I saw a lot of potential in FO3, but... Not quite...
Posted 05:01 on 16 November 2008
John's Avatar
Delete Post

John

The one thing not mentioned, which is so incredibly surprising, is that Mr. Burke is voiced by the same NPC who invites you into The Brotherhood in Oblivion! The voice isn't even disguised! How can a game be immersive if the same voice actors are used over and over? In the same bar there is a Ghoul. It uses an Argonian voice! That to me is the opitamy of dumbing down - and for that one thing alone, Fallout 1 beats Fallout 3 hands down!
Posted 15:03 on 06 November 2008
Darpaek's Avatar
Delete Post

Darpaek

Well...

Back in my day, the RPGs were third person and the stories were so good that it was the stories that immersed you, not the view. Don't expect some 1st-person liker to understand something like that, though...


lol
Posted 03:30 on 28 October 2008
bob dole's Avatar
Delete Post

bob dole

How is it dumbed down? The moral issues are still there, choosing the skills you want, the perks you need, the equipment, all thats still there. In what way is it dumbed down?

Also, how does first person suck for RPGs? Seems like thats really the best when you think about the fact that RPGs are about being immersed in playing a part. Personally I think first person is more immersive than third because you can feel like you are the character.
Posted 22:47 on 13 October 2008
mk's Avatar
Delete Post

mk

when will anyone understand that FIRST PERSON for RPGs suck?!?
Posted 13:58 on 12 October 2008
tykjen's Avatar

tykjen

fo3 is so dumbed down i dont wanna feel like im 5yr old picking this game up.
im ashamed.
Posted 10:48 on 12 October 2008
Anonymous's Avatar
Delete Post

Anonymous

"Eh not that balanced actually. He still took a shot at the Fallout fans for being "closed minded""

If you have read the comments posted about this article at certain sites you would see it's not wholly unwarranted. There are some people who will hate this game no matter what. That's the epitome of close-minded.

I thought this write up was quite fair. Good for those people who may have never played the originals. And it's really okay to not have. Anyone in 18-25 (which is pretty much the prime market for gaming) may have been too young to have even heard of them. Us who played them fresh are old.. the market stays the same, we don't. ;)

Good read anyway.
Posted 23:08 on 11 October 2008
sgtinvincible's Avatar
Delete Post

sgtinvincible

Thanks MDD. I seem to be somewhat of a rarity, I am someone who *LOVED* the first two games (I even really liked Tactics), yet I am looking very forward to FO3. I know it will never be the same without Feargus and the rest of the Black Isle guys being involved, but I think you are very on to something when you alluded to the franchise taking on new fans not being a bad thing. As it is, I think FO3 will contribute well to the series, and while I am certain that it will never take the place of the originals, I think it will stand well enough on its own.

Also, I just want to mention that the general elitism of many of the old FO vets (NMA is a bloodbath these days) is rather embarrassing. No it isn't Van Buren (which saddens me greatly as well) but at least it's closer than we have had in 10 years. Just try to get past your preconceived notions. Play it and then decide. If you still hate it then great, move on, none the worse for the wear. Just imagine that it didn't happen. That's what I did with Highlander 2, Episode 1, and Indy 4. *shrug*
Posted 17:41 on 11 October 2008
mydeaddog's Avatar

mydeaddog

Hi there Dr Jones,

I'm not sure where you got the idea that i've not played the first two Fallout games; I'm a big fan, as it happens. I've not had much truck with Tactics, but I finished both the RPGs multiple times. In fact, i've still got the Killaps Patch version of FO2 installed on my home pc.

If you're simply arguing that the comparisons aren't massively in depth.... well, then yes I concede your point. However, my objective was not to provide a complete like-for-like analysis, but rather to offer some general observations from what i've played of the game so far.

And though it goes without saying, these views are clearly just my opinion...
Posted 14:17 on 11 October 2008
Delije's Avatar
Delete Post

Delije

Eh not that balanced actually. He still took a shot at the Fallout fans for being "closed minded" but at least it's not a vicious hateful attack like the pricks at Kotatku, Gamespot, etc. Doesn't matter if Black Isle is doing the game or not. Whoever takes over has to remain true to Fallout. And yes you can still have TEH AWESUM 3D GRAFIX in the game. We're not technoigcally backwards like some redneck states.
Posted 08:47 on 11 October 2008
Ben L.'s Avatar
Delete Post

Ben L.

Actually a refreshingly balanced article tha goes beyond the whole "FALLOUT 3 IS AWESOME SO THERE" mindset.

And I suspect a great majority of mainstream gamers and reviewers haven't played the original Fallouts which might explain the hype levels we're seeing.
Posted 21:58 on 10 October 2008
Dr.Jones's Avatar
Delete Post

Dr.Jones

Whoops -- in my first line, I meant really surprised the writer has NOT played the original games back in the day.
Posted 20:42 on 10 October 2008
Dr.Jones's Avatar
Delete Post

Dr.Jones

I'm really surprised the gaming journalist writer of this article has played the original Fallout games back in the day -- being that they are considered to be the some of the very best CRPGs ever made.

You call yourself a gamer?

Not a bad article. But I'm surprised you can make comparisons after playing both Fallout 2 and 3 only a few hours. That's pretty silly.

And if you went back and played Fallout 2 now, 10 years later, of course they are going to look dated. For the time, the graphics were equivalently good as Fallout 3's graphics are today.
Posted 20:40 on 10 October 2008

Game Stats

Genre: Unknown
Rating: TBC
Site Rank: 9,179 123