Lost opportunities for Fallout 3
Much ado has been made recently over the long anticipated post apocalyptic role playing game, Fallout 3. After all, it has been just over ten years since the release of the last game in the series, Fallout 2. (This is not counting Fallout Tactics, which was not a roleplaying game as such.)
Fan expectations for such a project are inevitably high. Just as inevitably, fan complaints have been legion, especially from the die-hards who remember the original games with a fond sense of nostalgia. There has been a great deal of worrying from these types that the new Fallout, which is being developed by Bethesda rather than the original developer Black Isle, will lack that special magic that made the first two games great.
Undeniably, a part of that magic was the mature nature of the games. The original Fallout series featured many adult topics, including sex, prostitution, drugs, and drug addiction. Unfortunately, times change, and many of these topics are no longer considered fit for video games, at least if they want to avoid the instant death sentence that is an “Adults Only” (AO) rating. Games with this rating will not be sold in most brick and mortar stores, which means there is little hope of AO games achieving the kind of sales that less harshly rated titles often do.
Because of this rating stigma, there are a number of things from the original games which will not be included in Fallout 3:
- Nudity - While you may not have even realized it while playing because the graphics were so primitive, in Fallout 2 if you played as a female your character would be topless for the entire opening sequence. (Actually, male characters were topless too). This actually fit in well with the fact that you were a member of a primitive tribal society.
- Prostitution - Sure, there will be Prostitutes in Fallout 3. But will you, the main character, be able to pursue a career in making porn, like in Fallout 2? I doubt it. Also, in Fallout 2 seduction could be used to further a quest or just for your own amusement. It seems unlikely that these options will be present to the extent they were in previous games.
- Child Killing - In Fallout 2, there were these annoying little pickpocket urchins in one of the major cities. While I personally never actually killed one of them, you could attack them, and killing them was on the table. It takes away from the atmosphere of the game if going in you know that some characters will be invincible for no apparent in-game reason.
Some might argue that none of the above are really essential ingredients to a good game, and they would be right. However, the sorts of mature scenarios outlined above are what make Fallout what it is. Removing them takes something away from the experience. I am not blaming Bethesda for this. (I reserve the right to blame Bethesda once I have actually played the game!) I am simply saying that it is sad that a great game like Fallout 2 could essentially not be released today - it would have zero marketability due to the AO moniker.
A more general rant about the evils of game censorship is for another day and another column. Just remember that when you are blasting Super Mutants to tiny bits with Rocket Launchers that you could, in a slightly different world, also be making porn.
Better yet, don’t remember that. It will only make you miss something that would hopefully otherwise go unnoticed.
Fallout 3 will see North American release on the 28th of October and release in other markets shortly thereafter.
October 20th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
That screenshot is so delightfully violent that I can’t help but feel that Fallout hasn’t missed too many opportunities.
Also, baby-killing is alive and well in Spore, a game with a decidedly more lenient rating than Fallout 3, so … I suppose that tells you something about how self-obsessed human sensibilities are.
October 21st, 2008 at 10:54 am
Really? You would consider child killing a “mature” scenario?
There is nothing mature about aimlessly killing anyone. Grotesque, perhaps, but not mature.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:04 am
hox: But it’s not aimless child-killing, they deserved it!
October 21st, 2008 at 11:07 am
hox: The majority of games involve a lot of aimless killing. Although, I don’t think the situation I am describing is necessarily “aimless”.
I think we are really just quibbling over the definition of “mature”, though. According to the definition I am using throughout the article, anything not suitable for a child is mature.
October 21st, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Whereas I would argue that a much more useful definition of mature is something that is emotionally or intellectually complicated and, thus, hard for a child to understand. In fact, I find the things outlined here, as well as pure violence, to be particularly juvenile (though that doesn’t stop me from enjoying them sometimes). I never really got a kick out of the nudity or the child killing or a lot of the random stuff that seemed to make its way into Fallout 2 and that some people make a big deal of. If I were to make a sequel, I would focus on the post apocalyptic schtick, on the blending of “wilderness”, dungeon and town (i.e. nowhere is really a non-combat zone), on the crazy societies people built after the End and on the odd remnants left behind by the previous civilization. Clearly not everyone would agree with me and I don’t expect them to. Similarly, Bethesda will focus on the parts of the Fallout universe that they enjoyed most and that can’t be the exact same set of parts that everyone else enjoyed, too.
In any case, I think you’re worrying too much.
October 21st, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I think they should release two versions of this game:
One censored, rated Teen by ESRB and the other version Mature (your A.O.). I think the Mature version will sell better, and kids can buy their own too…
October 21st, 2008 at 1:17 pm
They shouldn’t ban child killing, it’s fun! Because of them I can’t have nudity in the game!
October 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
It’s not just ratings (although of course an AO rating would kill sales), it’s also more direct censorship laws. Fallout 2 had problems in some locales where depicting child-killing in a video game was illegal. The last-minute hackish solution was to remove the child sprites so that some local versions of the game had invisible children running around. Bethesda says they want the game to be the same in all locales, so they’re avoiding things they would legally have to censor in one region or another. Not sure I agree with that rationale, but I recognize that localization is challenging enough as it is, and I can’t blame them for following the law in locations where such laws are in effect.
Of course, I’m against censorship. But I think this will be a minor issue gameplay-wise.
October 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Friendly Fire: For Consenting Adults Only
Don’t know if there is ‘friendly fire’ in any form in B-soft’s FO3.
‘Friendly fire’ may not be suitable to FPS combat simulations for the present market, nor may it be technically possible.
The coding may be too hard, (FOT had some supernatural trajectories for the 50 cal. mg), and the target audience may be too immature for Real Life ballistics.
Friendly fire in FO1+2 could kill innocent bystanders. Fire fights in Den, the home of the Dickens’ like little thieves, could hit any one, including kids.
(How these little thieves deserved death, when the dirt poor PC stole everything not nailed down to get to the Den, … well, karma different in your time zone?)
A little planning, a little patience, a little maneuvering to spread out the fire team, paid off in fewer friend inflicted casualties.
Guess that sort of ownership of responsibility can’t be as big a unit sales accelerator as the kills per second per second of nex gen FPS’s.
Maybe in B-soft’s FO4? Some fire arm safety skills — sponsored by the NRA?
4too
October 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
I dont see how those three things were really elemental in the Fallout series
October 21st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
To all the people saying that none of these things is really necessary, I largely agree. None of the things I mentioned in the article are necessary. It is just unfortunate that they were unilaterally removed for reasons that had nothing to do with the gameplay experience. They might enhance the game, or they might detract from it. In Fallout 1 & 2, I believe that these sorts of things did enhance the game in many cases. It is a shame that they are not even an option for Fallout 3 because of essentially political reasons.
October 21st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Of course you know there was no nudity… The author is mistaken.
~ http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/scr00043.gif
October 22nd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Man, I had forgotten how … pixellated that game was. And even if she wasn’t wearing that top, you wouldn’t really call it eye-popping nudity.
Now Grand Theft Auto’s Hot Coffee, on the other hand!
October 22nd, 2008 at 3:05 am
In Europe, Fallout 2 was already censored with child killing. On some version they were invisible and it created bugs on some quests and floating text from anywhere. On others, children were invincible, when we shot them down they only fall on the ground and they woke up 30 sec later. Sorry for my english, I’m french
October 22nd, 2008 at 5:44 am
I’m glad Gizmo pointed out the authors error, because I distinctly remember the silly tube top females in the chosen’s tribe wore. As for the rest, I’d say Prostitution and Child Killing are not going to be missed too much. While Child Killing was a quick path to evil, it truly was more of a pain in the ass then anything else. Even while playing as an evil char. I’d generally avoid killing children, usually it only happened during a battle in town with one of the NPC’s killing a kid with a critical miss.
October 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
[...] Lost opportunities for Fallout 3 [...]