So seeing as how it's both the 20th anniversary of this series and I'm kind of sad at analysing these sorts of things, I've decided to do a series of in-depth looks at different topics in the games. This is the first of hopefully many (I have a few ideas rattling around), and I hope you all enjoy.
Fallout 1 vs Fallout 3: Creating an Antagonist
Fallout is highly regarded as being one of the profitable and highly regarded game franchises out there. With five titles in the main series and two spin-off titles (with varying degrees of success) it has become a staple of Two Generations of Role-Playing Games.
With the 20th Anniversary of the series now upon, I thought I will look at the series entire, writing up these sort of essays for the next few months, celebrating the highs and lows of the series before closing it off by the end of the year.
The first of these is looking at how Fallout 1 and 3 create an Antagonist, and why I think Fallout 1 does this perfectly and Fallout 3 fails to set-up any tension with the antagonising force.
Before I can get into depth with this essay, we should first take a look at the Studios behind the games.
Fallout was developed by a number of devs at Interplay during the mid to late 90’s. The game was seen as becoming a failure to marketing departments and so work on it wasn’t seen as a priority. However, the developers themselves set out to tell a story, one of Post Nuclear War, how society works years after the grand destruction of society itself. It was a tale which told the tale of corruption via shady settlers, Capitalism from a Company that promised to protect society, only for them to advertise products to help them survive the Wasteland, Prejudice and how to avert future wars and the abuse of Technology, and how man must not have the means to destroy the World again.
All these themes wrap around the antagonistic force in Fallout 1, being the Master’s Army of Super Mutants. There we see a solution to a numbers of these issues, created by these very themes. The game doesn’t tell us that the Master is the villain, instead we feel it. His words are one of hope, he wants to do more good than bad and rather than just see a means to end the World, he sees Genocide as being an antidote of saving humanity.
Fallout 3 on the other hand was created by Bethesda after Interplay was forced to sell off most of its titles. There, the studio set out to develop a game, one set in the Fallout Universe. They set out to make a sequel, bringing back Fallout 2’s antagonists, the Enclave and setting them up as a seemly unstoppable force. The problem is, outside of a few nods to the previous games, Fallout 3 doesn’t feel like a continuation at all, more of a cynical reboot.
The themes of the game, one of survival and Science are dropped the minute the Player meets Enclave. The game set the Player up to feel lost in the World and that not everyone was meant to be trusted, but this is hindered by The Brotherhood of Steel as from the second half onwards, they take the driving force of being a protagonist with the Player being a supporting character.
This feels like a nod to the first game, where the Player was just another outsider who happened to save the Wasteland. Yet that was done out of fear of Vault 13, the Overseerer saw of the Mutant Threat and thought it would be best if the Player takes them out.
All of a sudden, this one group of Villains the Player met half way through the game has become a major threat to the safety of the Vault. Where they became the most threatening was when they were downplayed.
All of a sudden, the very survival of the Vault and the Water Chip became the Survival of Humanity and the Super Mutants and it changes swiftly. This change feel natural as one feels like a continuation from the other.
Fallout 3 slaps us with the Enclave’s return as they start attacking the Player for seemly no reason. The Player is then given backstory on a war they may not have much interest in. All of a sudden, we are thrown into a war between two factions and not allowed to pick a side. We have to side with The Brotherhood or we are simply wrong.
The Brotherhood were a supporting force in Fallout 1, they helped the Player on one mission which took hours until they said yes. The Brotherhood weren’t a part of the story, they were a part of the World. If the Brotherhood weren’t in Fallout 1 then the only thing that would change is the World dynamic. This secretive yet major force has disappeared yet their presence of the overall story arc would be untouched. The story flows through without the Brotherhood.
Yet Fallout 3 needs the Brotherhood, without them the game wouldn’t go nowhere.
It’s this relation between the Player and Antagonist which is ultimately why Fallout 1 has a great antagonist while Fallout 3 has a poor antagonist.
In both games, there are essentially two major characters filling the role of the big bad, both have the same roles but can be met at different times.
Both the Lieutenant and Colonel Autumn are second hand men to the main Villains schemes. Both are rather similar in their role but are presented differently. The Lieutenant’s presence can be felt much earlier on when talking to Harry, a Super Mutant in Necropolis. He isn’t seen or heard in these scenes, but the Player is aware of bigger things to come. The Lieutenant is very adamant in following The Master, yet he feels like a much more sinister threat in that he is essentially The Master’s end goal. However, he can be avoided if the Player just sneaks into the base and blows it up before they get a chance to meet him.
We first meet Autumn when he confronts our Father during the Enclave’s first ambush. This could have been a good moment to set up a Lieutenant like character in the game, have him felt in the opening and then have his shadow lurking in the background. Fallout 2 did this and it worked.
Instead, the game pulls our Father sacrificing himself to stop Autumn, which was in vain anyway as we find the Villain to have survived later in the game.
All the game had to do was kill James with Autumn pulling the trigger. Than we have a Villain’s whose motivations are clear, do what is best for the Enclave at all times.
However, we get a muddy character, one of who doesn’t have much motivation outside of disobeying the orders of the President.
Both characters are handled differently, one is powerful and influential force in the Wasteland, who doesn’t appear until the very end and is a major force for the game.
The other is someone who doesn’t actually kill anyone in game with characterisation that feels muddy.
Both are second to the real Villains of each respective game, those being The Master and President Eden.
Once again, both are the Master minds behind their respective faction, both are the oppressing force in the Wasteland and both can be persuaded to kill themselves.
However, where Eden fails at being a compelling Villain, The Master Succeeds.
As I mentioned earlier, The Master is a combination of the Themes of the game. He is the very downfall of humanity who wants to bring a new species into the Wasteland. He isn’t a Villain as he is misguided. We get backstory from an old friend of his, Harold who ponders on what happened to him. However, Harold’s old friend, Richard Grey is long gone and a new mind has taken over.
The Master’s goals are clear, turn everyone into Super Mutants.
He can’t be reasoned with or talked down, instead the Player has to present evidence of why the Plan won’t work.
The Master’s logic and mind has completely gone and we get a part of Richard Grey back, realising what he has done and ending it before it escalates.
Without being given much, the Player has successfully completed the backstory to a character who was mentioned by a side character just by completing the main quest. The Player has not only saved Humanity, but also potentially brought Richard back only to be killed.
The final scene with The Master is sad, and it takes a long battle to reach him (or you could just sneak your way in) yet the end result is worth it.
You look back and reflect at the end of the adventure over all you have accomplished as you’ve beaten the game’s antagonists.
Fallout 3 gives us a computer A.I and tells us to wipe out the Mutants. This could have been a nice contrast and call back to the original game. Eden seems to be influenced greatly by the Master yet is ruined by a number of issues.
For one, the journey to Eden is nowhere near as difficult or as exciting as the journey to the Master. Fallout 3 gives us aid that we can’t refuse. The game wants to make the walk to Eden as easy as possible so the Player doesn’t miss anything.
Second, The Enclave aren’t shown to be as much of a threat. We understand their goals where to purify water, yet this is going to in some way help humanity for the better. The only way this could make them antagonistic at all is if they either sell it for a major profit or hoard it for themselves, leaving the Wasteland to die of thirst.
There is no nuance to their role in the Character’s story, instead they are just shown as another force to fight against.
Eden’s introduction was given to us in radio snippets which is a good way as setting up a background, and the reveal was given to us in a dark room up a flight of stairs.
However, the journey didn’t beat the destination, and so that destination feels lacklustre, leaving an underwhelming feeling.
Eden’s ultimate grand plan comes to the Player as an order of wiping out any radiated life, yet the Player hasn’t been given a good enough reason to throughout the game.
One could technically say that Player didn’t have a reason to join the Master’s Army in Fallout 1, yet there was conversations throughout the game that could have left the Player to that conclusion.
But here we are given a plot device to work with and it instead feels cheap and tact on.
The Player can then tell Eden to self-destruct, of which he does so, taking the Enclave base with him.
There was no reasoning or why the plan wouldn’t work, instead it comes down to asking nicely and asking someone to kill themselves.
With that out of the way, I should point out that I don’t hate Fallout 3, in fact, I have an idea in one of these essay things to actually say something positive about the game that it had and has over other games. But with that being said, I hope you enjoyed the first of these and read any more of these ramblings that I have in my head.
Also, if you want, give me suggestions on topics to talk about, like what would you like to read what I write about.
Fallout 1 vs Fallout 3: Creating an Antagonist
Fallout is highly regarded as being one of the profitable and highly regarded game franchises out there. With five titles in the main series and two spin-off titles (with varying degrees of success) it has become a staple of Two Generations of Role-Playing Games.
With the 20th Anniversary of the series now upon, I thought I will look at the series entire, writing up these sort of essays for the next few months, celebrating the highs and lows of the series before closing it off by the end of the year.
The first of these is looking at how Fallout 1 and 3 create an Antagonist, and why I think Fallout 1 does this perfectly and Fallout 3 fails to set-up any tension with the antagonising force.
Before I can get into depth with this essay, we should first take a look at the Studios behind the games.
Fallout was developed by a number of devs at Interplay during the mid to late 90’s. The game was seen as becoming a failure to marketing departments and so work on it wasn’t seen as a priority. However, the developers themselves set out to tell a story, one of Post Nuclear War, how society works years after the grand destruction of society itself. It was a tale which told the tale of corruption via shady settlers, Capitalism from a Company that promised to protect society, only for them to advertise products to help them survive the Wasteland, Prejudice and how to avert future wars and the abuse of Technology, and how man must not have the means to destroy the World again.
All these themes wrap around the antagonistic force in Fallout 1, being the Master’s Army of Super Mutants. There we see a solution to a numbers of these issues, created by these very themes. The game doesn’t tell us that the Master is the villain, instead we feel it. His words are one of hope, he wants to do more good than bad and rather than just see a means to end the World, he sees Genocide as being an antidote of saving humanity.
Fallout 3 on the other hand was created by Bethesda after Interplay was forced to sell off most of its titles. There, the studio set out to develop a game, one set in the Fallout Universe. They set out to make a sequel, bringing back Fallout 2’s antagonists, the Enclave and setting them up as a seemly unstoppable force. The problem is, outside of a few nods to the previous games, Fallout 3 doesn’t feel like a continuation at all, more of a cynical reboot.
The themes of the game, one of survival and Science are dropped the minute the Player meets Enclave. The game set the Player up to feel lost in the World and that not everyone was meant to be trusted, but this is hindered by The Brotherhood of Steel as from the second half onwards, they take the driving force of being a protagonist with the Player being a supporting character.
This feels like a nod to the first game, where the Player was just another outsider who happened to save the Wasteland. Yet that was done out of fear of Vault 13, the Overseerer saw of the Mutant Threat and thought it would be best if the Player takes them out.
All of a sudden, this one group of Villains the Player met half way through the game has become a major threat to the safety of the Vault. Where they became the most threatening was when they were downplayed.
All of a sudden, the very survival of the Vault and the Water Chip became the Survival of Humanity and the Super Mutants and it changes swiftly. This change feel natural as one feels like a continuation from the other.
Fallout 3 slaps us with the Enclave’s return as they start attacking the Player for seemly no reason. The Player is then given backstory on a war they may not have much interest in. All of a sudden, we are thrown into a war between two factions and not allowed to pick a side. We have to side with The Brotherhood or we are simply wrong.
The Brotherhood were a supporting force in Fallout 1, they helped the Player on one mission which took hours until they said yes. The Brotherhood weren’t a part of the story, they were a part of the World. If the Brotherhood weren’t in Fallout 1 then the only thing that would change is the World dynamic. This secretive yet major force has disappeared yet their presence of the overall story arc would be untouched. The story flows through without the Brotherhood.
Yet Fallout 3 needs the Brotherhood, without them the game wouldn’t go nowhere.
It’s this relation between the Player and Antagonist which is ultimately why Fallout 1 has a great antagonist while Fallout 3 has a poor antagonist.
In both games, there are essentially two major characters filling the role of the big bad, both have the same roles but can be met at different times.
Both the Lieutenant and Colonel Autumn are second hand men to the main Villains schemes. Both are rather similar in their role but are presented differently. The Lieutenant’s presence can be felt much earlier on when talking to Harry, a Super Mutant in Necropolis. He isn’t seen or heard in these scenes, but the Player is aware of bigger things to come. The Lieutenant is very adamant in following The Master, yet he feels like a much more sinister threat in that he is essentially The Master’s end goal. However, he can be avoided if the Player just sneaks into the base and blows it up before they get a chance to meet him.
We first meet Autumn when he confronts our Father during the Enclave’s first ambush. This could have been a good moment to set up a Lieutenant like character in the game, have him felt in the opening and then have his shadow lurking in the background. Fallout 2 did this and it worked.
Instead, the game pulls our Father sacrificing himself to stop Autumn, which was in vain anyway as we find the Villain to have survived later in the game.
All the game had to do was kill James with Autumn pulling the trigger. Than we have a Villain’s whose motivations are clear, do what is best for the Enclave at all times.
However, we get a muddy character, one of who doesn’t have much motivation outside of disobeying the orders of the President.
Both characters are handled differently, one is powerful and influential force in the Wasteland, who doesn’t appear until the very end and is a major force for the game.
The other is someone who doesn’t actually kill anyone in game with characterisation that feels muddy.
Both are second to the real Villains of each respective game, those being The Master and President Eden.
Once again, both are the Master minds behind their respective faction, both are the oppressing force in the Wasteland and both can be persuaded to kill themselves.
However, where Eden fails at being a compelling Villain, The Master Succeeds.
As I mentioned earlier, The Master is a combination of the Themes of the game. He is the very downfall of humanity who wants to bring a new species into the Wasteland. He isn’t a Villain as he is misguided. We get backstory from an old friend of his, Harold who ponders on what happened to him. However, Harold’s old friend, Richard Grey is long gone and a new mind has taken over.
The Master’s goals are clear, turn everyone into Super Mutants.
He can’t be reasoned with or talked down, instead the Player has to present evidence of why the Plan won’t work.
The Master’s logic and mind has completely gone and we get a part of Richard Grey back, realising what he has done and ending it before it escalates.
Without being given much, the Player has successfully completed the backstory to a character who was mentioned by a side character just by completing the main quest. The Player has not only saved Humanity, but also potentially brought Richard back only to be killed.
The final scene with The Master is sad, and it takes a long battle to reach him (or you could just sneak your way in) yet the end result is worth it.
You look back and reflect at the end of the adventure over all you have accomplished as you’ve beaten the game’s antagonists.
Fallout 3 gives us a computer A.I and tells us to wipe out the Mutants. This could have been a nice contrast and call back to the original game. Eden seems to be influenced greatly by the Master yet is ruined by a number of issues.
For one, the journey to Eden is nowhere near as difficult or as exciting as the journey to the Master. Fallout 3 gives us aid that we can’t refuse. The game wants to make the walk to Eden as easy as possible so the Player doesn’t miss anything.
Second, The Enclave aren’t shown to be as much of a threat. We understand their goals where to purify water, yet this is going to in some way help humanity for the better. The only way this could make them antagonistic at all is if they either sell it for a major profit or hoard it for themselves, leaving the Wasteland to die of thirst.
There is no nuance to their role in the Character’s story, instead they are just shown as another force to fight against.
Eden’s introduction was given to us in radio snippets which is a good way as setting up a background, and the reveal was given to us in a dark room up a flight of stairs.
However, the journey didn’t beat the destination, and so that destination feels lacklustre, leaving an underwhelming feeling.
Eden’s ultimate grand plan comes to the Player as an order of wiping out any radiated life, yet the Player hasn’t been given a good enough reason to throughout the game.
One could technically say that Player didn’t have a reason to join the Master’s Army in Fallout 1, yet there was conversations throughout the game that could have left the Player to that conclusion.
But here we are given a plot device to work with and it instead feels cheap and tact on.
The Player can then tell Eden to self-destruct, of which he does so, taking the Enclave base with him.
There was no reasoning or why the plan wouldn’t work, instead it comes down to asking nicely and asking someone to kill themselves.
With that out of the way, I should point out that I don’t hate Fallout 3, in fact, I have an idea in one of these essay things to actually say something positive about the game that it had and has over other games. But with that being said, I hope you enjoyed the first of these and read any more of these ramblings that I have in my head.
Also, if you want, give me suggestions on topics to talk about, like what would you like to read what I write about.
