Should Fallout 2 really be considered a roleplaying game?

[Dynamite Adams]

It seems to be pretty unanimous that Fallout 2 suffers from a severe lack of balance when it comes to stats, skills, and perks.

While roleplaying games tend to encourage varying playstyles and themed characters by nature, FO2 does the opposite - Urging the player to focus on a narrow set of skills, while also demanding that they branch out into a handful of others as the game moves on. From the very start, players are punished for picking most builds outside of a single archetype - Sure, it gets better once you hit Klamath, but it's certainly not great.

Possibly the most telling part is that you'll allot your SPECIAL stats based on mechanical requirements, much more than your skill choices.

While you -can- play with skills like throwing, gambling, and stealing, or with low int or agility, there's really no reason to, given limited usefulness or general redundancy (Or even extreme difficulty).

Even then, the majority of useful skills are intended to be picked up for practical reasons in mid or late game; Not as a character choice. This "master of all" syndrome is something Bethesda were widely criticized for in Skyrim, being considered a symptom of them abandoning the RPG format.

I feel like Black Isle/Obsidian were very, very aware of this after they released FO2, as New Vegas is starkly the opposite. Few skills, if any, are useless, as most have practical applications and skill checks.

I get that some RPG's aren't intended to stick as strictly to roles as others, while others encourage wider skill paths; But FO2 takes it to an extreme. Even though it has a RPG foundation with a lot of potential, it plays far more like a tactical adventure game.

[kud1]

To summarize. You think Fallout 2 ( by the way one of the best crpg games of all time) is not an rpg game because some of the skils are more useful than others...? If we were to categorize crpg games this way we would probably have to cross out some 90% of them....

[Ignis Imperia]

Being balanced is actually not a requirement at all for RPGs. Baldur's Gate 3 is not balanced. Witcher 3 is not balanced. Skyrim is not balanced. I'm pretty sure almost any SP RPG you'd name is not actually balanced.

There also doesn't need to be a "reason" to play a specific way. There's no reason to specifically play intelligence 1 build, yet so many people did because they wanted to. RPG is about allowing you the choice, not pushing you into specific choice.

[Johnny Casey]

The thing about role-playing game is nobody has the slightest idea of how one shall conclude what is role-playing game and what isn't. Each people have their own definition and conclusion for role-playing game, and they're never the same.

[kud1]

I would say that the concept of "CRPG" is so broad that everyone will find something for themselves here. However, I find it quite funny to say that something is not an RPG because it lacks balance.

[Dragonzord]

Originally posted by Dynamite Adams:

While roleplaying games tend to encourage varying playstyles and themed characters by nature, FO2 does the opposite - Urging the player to focus on a narrow set of skills, while also demanding that they branch out into a handful of others as the game moves on. From the very start, players are punished for picking most builds outside of a single archetype - Sure, it gets better once you hit Klamath, but it's certainly not great.

No, this is wrong and inaccurate. There is a fundamental confusion on what an RPG is about in your post.

You are not punished for having a narrow set of skills (there's no 'disadvantage' to taking any specific set of skills): you are punished for lacking the right skills for the tasks at hand. You are supposed to survive the Wasteland, not 'role play' a person succesfully beating a video-game.

The game has specific dialogue options for when you have no intelligence: everything about your analysis is just wrong.

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

The thing about role-playing game is nobody has the slightest idea of how one shall conclude what is role-playing game and what isn't. Each people have their own definition and conclusion for role-playing game, and they're never the same.

Also wrong.

The definition is in the compound word you yourself are using and we ourselves are understanding: role playing game. You play a role, usually determined by you at the start of the game using statistics and pre-determined rules.

Just because you can look at the code of Super Mario 64 does not make Super Mario 64 a Role Playing Game. No discourse about video-games has developped such that 'everyone has their own definition and conclusion'. We all know what can be categorised as an RPG and what cannot. Even if we use different words it all winds up with the same unified concept of RPGs.

If you want to talk about how modern games play with traditional RPG mechanics, then that's a separate discussion "from what an RPG is".

[JustSmile]

This post is so hilariously wrong on so many levels I'm not even sure what to say. The OP has some REALLY extreme misconceptions of what role playing games even are.

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by MoaM:

Originally posted by Johnny Casey:

The thing about role-playing game is nobody has the slightest idea of how one shall conclude what is role-playing game and what isn't. Each people have their own definition and conclusion for role-playing game, and they're never the same.

Also wrong. (...)

lol

[CloudSeeker]

Just so you know. If everything is perfectly balanced, you also have everything being the exact same thing.

When you balance you are not supposed to making option A=4 and B=5 equal each other. You can't make them equal to each other as they need to still be options.
Your job when you balance things is to not make A=4, B=5 and C=10 unless there is a really good reason for why C=10. You can't make C a starting option for a good reason.

[The Great Cornholio]

lol gambling and steal have no use

you're trying to critique a game you haven't played enough to understand

yes there are optimal combat builds like every other rpg that ever existed, but all combat is optional in the first place

did you know you can complete the game without killing anyone except the final boss, and you can hack turrets or convince a squad of soldiers to do that for you?

did you know that you can run from all random encounters?

did you know you dont have to kill or get hit by anything in the temple of trials, and can just run to the end and pass a speech check or pickpocket his key or sneak by? so how are you being punished for your choice of build?

skill issue

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by The Great Cornholio:

lol gambling and steal have no use

Steal is kinda useless (in the sense of raising the skill), as the game checks the odds of failing at pickpocket attempt by checking the victim's own Steal skill, rather than players' skill. So raising Steal skill on your own barely ever helps not getting caught.

It's why I said earlier that your skill guide is misinformed.

[AC Denton]

Originally posted by The Great Cornholio:

but all combat is optional in the first place

did you know that you can run from all random encounters?

lol nope. The game regularly spawns you in the middle of an encounter with no way to escape. If you run, you'll likely die before you can get away. If you fight, you'll die because there's so many of them - just now I died because it spawned me in a random encounter again 13 bandits lmaooo I wasn't getting away or winning that.

[Johnny Casey]

Originally posted by AC Denton:

lol nope. The game regularly spawns you in the middle of an encounter with no way to escape.

Start the combat at the beginning of an encounter to get the initial turn, and toggle sneak.

Get out of their line of sight either by getting far away enough or sneak past their line of sight during your turn.

Then you can end combat and exit the encounter without them starting any fight, as most enemies stay still unless during combat.

[The Great Cornholio]

Originally posted by AC Denton:

Originally posted by The Great Cornholio:

but all combat is optional in the first place

did you know that you can run from all random encounters?

lol nope. The game regularly spawns you in the middle of an encounter with no way to escape. If you run, you'll likely die before you can get away. If you fight, you'll die because there's so many of them - just now I died because it spawned me in a random encounter again 13 bandits lmaooo I wasn't getting away or winning that.

Most bandits with guns will try to close to point blank range before shooting. If you have bonus move and 9+ action points you should be able to escape. I can't think of a bandit encounter that can't be escaped.

[ureaditwrong]

People get really salty when you point this out, but even by 1997 standards, the first two Fallouts are garbage role playing games. You're absolutely correct when you say F2 railroads you into choosing a specific set of skills.

On top of that, the core mechanics don't even work. Even if you max out small guns for example, you still miss 1/3 times despite it saying you have a 95% hit chance. Meanwhile in Pokemon, a childrens game that came out the same year, most moves also have a 95% hit chance and barely ever miss. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Pokemon understands probability better than Interplay devs.

[JustSmile]

Originally posted by ureaditwrong (xigg/xer):

People get really salty when you point this out, but even by 1997 standards, the first two Fallouts are garbage role playing games. You're absolutely correct when you say F2 railroads you into choosing a specific set of skills.

On top of that, the core mechanics don't even work. Even if you max out small guns for example, you still miss 1/3 times despite it saying you have a 95% hit chance. Meanwhile in Pokemon, a childrens game that came out the same year, most moves also have a 95% hit chance and barely ever miss. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Pokemon understands probability better than Interplay devs.

2/10, trying too hard. I've seen better trolls in youtube comments.