Fable people vs Fallout people

There’s no doubt “Fallout 3” contains some incredible moments, more impressive and meaningful than anything in “Fable 2.” I haven’t even seen some of the best stuff yet, but my eyes were glued to the screen when I blew up Megaton and I got a thrill out of seeing the ghouls I let loose overrun Tenpenny Tower. What does “Fable 2” have to compare? Ten boring years in the spire?

The problem is that most of “Fallout 3” is the tedium in between: Conversations with dead faced Wasteland denizens in which I’m just trying to get them to give me information I need (My dog in “Fable 2” has more personality than any of the people in “Fallout 3”); difficult combat in which, once you run out of action points (yes, I figured out what they are) you’re stuck in a sub-par first person shooter; scrounging for ammo and supplies, managing my huge inventory, and worrying about radiation or drug addiction every time I use something I need. The overall experience is cold and dull. I’m just struggling to get to that next cool moment and worrying that if I make a wrong choice, I could miss one (no wonder “Fallout 3” players are constantly saving).

“Hang on,” the “Fallout” fans may be saying. “Isn’t preparation and stark choices and difficult combat a realistic version of life post-apocalypse?” Hell yes it is. But at that rate, why not make us dig holes and collect toilet paper to deal with our irradiated feces? I play games to be engaged and amazed, not reminded of how tedious and tenuous life can be.

“Fable 2” is realistic more through results than actions. Unlike the real world, you’ve always got something interesting and cool to do. But unlike “Fallout 3,” you have to face the consequences in the way people treat you, the resources you have, the skills you’ve developed, and so on. “Fallout’s” consequences are much more linear. You can do something or you can’t. You go down one parth of a branching script or another. In “Fable 2,” they’re dynamic. Which is why when I describe my hero and my version of Albion, they’re different than anyone else’s. With “Fallout 3,” the questions are more “Did you do this or that?” and “Have you found this cool thing yet?”

Personally, I’ll take phony, vibrant and dynamic over real, dull and scripted any day. Artificial as it is, “Fable 2” puts choices – and choices are what an RPG is all about after all – in the context of a living, breathing world. I know lots of numbers are being crunched, but they’re mostly out of sight and mind as I live my life and face the consequences. In “Fallout 3,” most of the choices come on the Pip Boy or in conversation menus, with time frozen, and the results are all scripted. I just can’t live my virtual life that way. Which is probably why I still haven’t figured out what “cnd” is.

The "Fallout 3" guy -- Chris Dahlen

But the whole game IS about finding five more bullets in some rusty tin can!  And then realizing you need six to take out the next radscorpion!  What's more exciting than that?

I hear all your points about "Fallout 3," and I agree: it's the polar opposite of "Fable II."  Peter Molyneux wanted to make "Fable II" enchanting and most of all, accessible; you'll recall the letter he sent to reviewers, asking us to find a non-gamer and bring them along for the ride.  You rarely break a sweat, so the skills and stats - basically, the numbers - don't matter much.  You can pass time any way you want, but the game has a big, rich story that's easy to latch onto.  I was actually more impressed than you by those ten years in the Spire: they felt heavy and awful, whereas in "Fallout 3," I would have been grinding my security skill so I could pick the locks and skedaddle.  "Fable II" is a children's storybook; "Fallout 3" is like breaking into a junkyard.

On the other hand, junkyards are fun.  Like you, I'm not a numbers wonk.  I'm a lazy generalist and a sloppy RPG player.  But I appreciate that "Fallout 3" pushed my nose right up against the details of my situation.  Exploring a cave could cost me precious ammo and medkits.  Wandering into that elementary school might lead me to resources - or get me killed.  This is true in any game, but with its slow pace and constant scarcity, "Fallout 3" made me pay attention to little details that I would normally brush over.

Same goes for the moral compass.  I admire "Fable II" for moving past the basic "are you a really nice guy, or a really bad one?" dynamic, by making you sacrifice to do the right thing.  But Fallout 3 was much subtler.  I rarely felt like I was doing something heroic or villainous.  I never ran into a simple, "Do you want to help the orphan or keep the candy for yourself?" scenario.  Most of the time, I was waffling over small questions - like, should I be a dick to someone who won't do what I want?  If I'm nice, are they going to push me around?  If I'm mean, then jeez, will that cost me some ammo later on?  This is a lawless place, and nobody's hanging around waiting to give you a medal. 

And that put the big scenes in a whole different light.  Late in the main storyline I found myself in Paradise Falls, which had been turned into a slaver camp.  I'd run into some slaves earlier, out in the wasteland.  I tried to unhook their explosive collars.  One of them blew up.  (I should've studied more science.)  So I knew about the game's slavery, but I couldn't do anything about it - until I found that town.  The only reason to go in is to free two or three slaves, and you can do that any way you like. 

I chose to barge in guns a blazing and kill every single person who was there of their free will.  I stacked up bodies.  I unlocked cages.  And when it was done, I didn't get anything special for my decision.  Unlike Fable II, I didn't get halo points floating by my head for every person I rescued.  I wasn't doing it for the game; I did it because I wanted to.

Funny thing is though, Fable II did a better job at one thing: describing my place in the world. I was immersed in the game, but I can't say I felt like I was "role-playing."  While I know you can play Fallout 3 from a third-person perspective, it's an awkward way to play.  That means you spend 99% of the time not looking at your avatar, which was a real waste after the sheriff's duster and chic blue haircut I gave mine.   And while I met a lot of fascinating people (and ghouls, and androids), I don't remember much of the chit-chat.  The conversations are skimpy, and the options don't reflect much personality: instead of thinking about how to persuade someone, you focus on making that successful roll on speechcraft.  If I could improve one thing, it would be the non-player character interactions.  Even in the wastelands, the characters should be more interesting than my ammo count.