Fanboy time!
It's no great secret that I'm something of a fanboy when it comes to Fallout: New Vegas. I used to expand that to the wider Fallout universe, but after replaying New Vegas again earlier this year I was reminded how no other Fallout game really compares to what it had to offer. I mean sure, they may look the part and Fallout 4 has world's better gameplay and visuals, as one would expect; but New Vegas was something more special than the usual Fallout. It was the purest distillation of the Role Playing fantasy that this franchise has ever achieved. And no, when I say 'The Role Playing Fantasy' I'm not referring to stat sheets and special skills and all the mechanical hallmarks of the RPG genre, because those are all just the tools through which to facilitate how a Role Playing Game is supposed to make us feel. Like we've been transported to a new breathing world where who we choose to be and what we choose to do has genuine consequence in the space we travel.
Actions having consequence is like the rallying cry of the gaming industry these days, every game and their mother wants to present some form of 'consequence' in play such to the point where it's seen as rudimentary and disappointing to have a single ending to the main campaign. Even Call of Duty had it's hand at multiple routes for one game, before they remembered that their core audience never even loads up the campaign and subsequently came to their collective senses. Then there's the game's that believe having certain flags hanging from certain buildings depending on binary choices made at a specific time constitutes meaningful world reaction to the level of high concept RPGs. (Looking at you Saints Row 3 and Dying Light 2!) And then there are some games, the special few, that struggle painfully and exhaustively to create a malleable yet reliable world that any player can stamp their individual mark into, and that level of craft and dedication makes me giddy everytime.
Perhaps from an amateurish psychological view, we can see the appeal in this style of game by comparing it with the comparative lack of consequence and purpose in our own lives? I wonder, perhaps if a more fulfilled and professionally actualised human would have a harder time keying into the special essence of a well made RPG; because they feel that thrill of changing their world and circumstance so easily in the real world. (A difficult hypothesis to check as those people tend not to be video gamers.) Maybe my own lack of self worth is what drew me to games who's specific selling point was allowing me to be anyone other than myself, which is why I appreciate the freedom to change the world how I wish, yet the rigidity and push-back to feel the impact of fashioning the world that I want. Maybe psychoanalysis is best left in the hands of those with degrees and training in the field; I just know a great RPG when I see one.
What inspired me to really talk about this was a couple of Fallout New Vegas videos I found on Youtube which just slapped me silly for the ways they explored a game I still fool myself into thinking I know everything about. One was a person trying their hardest to get the worst possible selection of ending slides leading to the worst state of the Mojave; and the amount of choices that went into making that were just insane to consider. Siding with the Legion is a no-brainer, they're literal mysgonist slavers, but it was the many tiny choices inbetween the cracks; many of which with clever knock-on effects. Slaughtering all of Jason Bright's flock in order to prevent their journey to the 'Promised Land' also ends up dooming Novac to being overrun by Legionaries without any aid. Intentionally foul any chance the Kings have of reconciling with the NCR by murdering the Californian missionaries and assassinate their second in command to ensure that the Kings turn into brute thugs after the events of the game before being rounded up and executed by the Legion. Choice upon reaction upon reaction, spiralling all the way down.
Another video came across my feed no so long after that, more of a novelty sort of challenge vid then a serious exploration of the game's systems, but no less intriguing: "Can you beat Fallout New Vegas without breaking the ten commandments?" Now this goes back to the malleability of all the ways one can play Vegas, even in ways that I'm sure the developer's never intended. Because on top of the very obvious commandments; don't kill, don't steal, don't commit adultery etc. the key of the video revolved around never lying. Which essentially meant not just avoiding dialogue options with the [lie] tag, but also avoiding committing to any actions that you might later have to take back, or being misleading with the way you communicate, even just to save your reputation in front of someone potentially dangerous. One honestly perplexing challenge and fascinating to watch, and watching it really defined how truly massive the scope of player choice in Vegas is.
Now in comparison to this, Fallout 4 seemed to learn nothing from the scope of their beloved sister game developed by Obsidian and decided to sacrifice malleable scope for favour of spectacle. Every faction was wound tightly into the main plot in a manner that ensured all of their potential got squeezed into the exact same explosive ending slide, eliminating the branching consequence that players had become used and attached to over the years. During my last playthrough of Fallout New Vegas, I deftly danced around the favour of every faction to create a atmosphere unique to my specific playthrough, wherein I was considered a chaotic agent playing every side against one another until such a point where I could flip on the entire Mojave and drive out all the invading nations. In Fallout 4 I get told to definitively pick a side. No nuance to be found.
Bethesda's next game Starfield has some potential to learn here, because despite the fact that New Vegas was Obsidian's Baby and Fallout 4 was Bethesda's; the studio know well how their games have been compared and contrasted and recognise their own short comings as well as we do. We know that Starfield is aiming for a universe full of contrasting factions who weave together in some significant way to the overarching plot, which sounds like it could be touching on the same sort of merits that New Vegas rode on. However, Todd Howard has this supremely self-defeating mindset when it comes to directing consequence-responsible Role Playing Games. He pushes for Bethesda games to allow for all content to be playable to every player, which inherently disqualifies the possibilities of meaning choices with differing stories. If he can temper that desire, and recognise the give he needs to relinquish in order for Starfield to really meet the potential it has, we may have an exciting future rushing towards us. It's all a question of if.
But this isn't a blog to bite nails about the future; this is a blog to venerate the accomplishments of the past for one of the greatest games ever made. Fallout New Vegas is one of those titles that somehow stands the test of time and teaches salient lessons to everyone in the development industry, even today. Wild for a game that was burst developed in about a single year, recycling and cannibalising assets and cello-taping them together inside of a leaning tower of a game engine. Imagine what would happen if Obsidian had to the time to actually make a fully fledged game now, with everything they've learned, and without papa-Bethesda leaning over their shoulder and tapping their watch every few weeks. Well now that they're at Microsoft together- we'll still probably never know because both companies are off doing their own thing. Sucks to be a Fallout fan, sometimes. Guess I'm stuck with 76 for the foreseeable future.
No comments:
Post a Comment