Fallout has impacted my thoughts on violence mostly as a counterpoint to Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. I didn’t really get San Andreas. I was *interested* in the game and the context it immerse the player in. In the end, I really didn’t have much fun playing it and uninstalled it in favor of other games. There were configuration issues (I couldn’t get the camera controls to work on my controller and I can’t drive using the keyboard and mouse) but I think really just don’t care for the GTA games. I had a similar experience with Vice City on the PS2. Fallout 3, however, I really enjoyed. The original Fallout games were iconic games that I played in my late 20’s and along w/ Betrayal at Krondor, the Dark Forces/Jedi Knight games, and the NOLF games made me realize that I was a gamer.
Thinking about why I prefer Fallout 3 to the GTA games, I’ve come up with three features or aspects to Fallout that add to my enjoyment that GTA lacks. First, Fallout 3 provides options and encouragement for acting generously or against one’s immediate self-interest. Second, Fallout 3 offers multiple paths to success against certain challenges. Third, Fallout 3 engages me in role playing deeply, so that I’m more interested in being my character than I am in beating the game.
Fallout made a counterpoint to the GTA games in that it (Fallout) provided certain rewards for selfless or “good” behavior that GTA didn’t. In Fallout, one can choose not to be a bastard. This means that when one chooses to play an evil character, the evil is the result of one’s choices. What do we make of a world in which there are no good options? So while I enjoyed the fuller range of options that Fallout offers, GTA raises more interesting questions about the nature of choice, free will, and individual responsibility. So while Fallout may not cover new or interesting ethical ground, it makes my character’s choices seem more significant. I get that being thrust into a world were characters are condemned to violence and there are few or no good options is a useful and ethically interesting expereince. Some of Socrates best insights came when he was asked whether it was better to actually be good or better to be though of by others as good while doing what one pleased. GTA immerses us in a world where simplistic morality and piety are of little use and it teaches us something about ourselves as we navigate a dark and violent world. The fact that this world is based on the recent past in the United States only drives home the lesson more firmly.
A second feature of Fallout that makes the game fascinating is that it gives different kinds of players different avenues of success. One can choose to become proficient with weapons and fight one’s way out of every situation. Players also have the option of gaining clues from the environment and conversations and negotiating solutions that work for all sides. There are other paths to success as well. (The following example is a bit of a spoiler)
The Tenpenny Towers scenario is a great example of this. Ten Penny Towers is a luxury high-rise that survived the nuclear apocalypse largely intact. Inside, rich humans live a life of secure luxury that few others in the wasteland enjoy. A population of ghouls (radiation ravaged former humans) have the money to live there, but prejudice keeps them outside. As a player, one has the option of just killing one side or the other (or possibly both). Else one can convince either side to compromise. One also has the option of tricking the sides and finding another solution to the issue. One problem of the violent content of most games is that seeing most NPCs (non-player characters) as enemies or targets gets a bit stale after a while. Photo-realistic graphics and new gameplay mechanics don’t always spice up the action enough to combat this boredom. Having the choice of who to fight, of whether or not to fight, and of how to resolve a thorny issue with many aspects is interesting. It also creates the desire to replay the scenario to see what would happen if another choice were made.
Another big success of Fallout is that it encouraged me to play a role. Many so-called role playing games come with an irresistible urge to “game” the system. In some games I find that I’m much more interested in finding the “right” answer to puzzles or the story and so instead of making choices based on my character, I find myself trying to “beat” the game. In other games I find myself so wrapped up in stats and strategy that my in-game experience becomes reduced to a level-grind in search of the perfect spec and the best
loot. In Fallout I found the game guiding me to make choices that were right for my character and not based on getting a stat advantage or finding a certain path through the story. Fallout isn’t a perfect game
and the story is probably no more than mediocre. However, interactive entertainment are more than just another way of telling stories. This particular interactive entertainment succeeded in drawing on my
imagination and creativity to “write” a character and a story that took place on the canvas designed by the game designers. So, despite the temptation to see how Tenpenny Towers would play if I chose other methods, I’m not doing that for now. I have chosen a character and his motivations and I’m playing the game from that single perspective rather than looking to see every option.
This, I think, is the significant challenge of interactive entertainments. We are quite used to seeing the entire story in films or books. Games give the authors a chance to write multiple resolutions and players the chance to choose their path. Unfortunately, if we as players try out all the options to choose the best one, we end up in a paradox built out of Nietzsche’s theory of infinite return and Milan Kundera’s take on that in The Unbearable Lightness of Being. If we want to make the best choice in a given situation, we really need to see the consequences of every possible choice in order to know which one is best. As humans, we don’t have that option, so our choices are significant and their impact unknown. Game players have the option, by saving and re-loading, of playing out every possible option and choosing the one with the most rewards. The problem with that is, playing like that is a lot less fun and immersive than making a choice and living with the consequences. However, as a player I rarely have the self-discipline to live with the concequences of my choices without going back to see if another option would be better. Fallout 3, by making playing a role rewarding, makes it easier to give up on “winning” the game (or “gaming” the system) by rooting the player more firmly in a chosen role. I think this feature is key to making an interactive entertainment truly work.
So Fallout 3 is a big success in my book. While it lacks the troubling perspective of the GTA games, it is more fun (for me) to play and it uses advances discovered by other great games to make an interactive entertainment that pushes the games medium forward. In the end, it may get my vote for Game of the Year. I don’t think it is as groundbreaking as Portal or The Witcher were last year and it has its flaws, but the overall package is quite good. It is highly derivative (explaining this would be another post, but the best things about Fallout 3 were previously done in The System Shock series, Deus Ex, The Thief series, Oblivion and the Elder Scrolls games, and Fallout 1 & 2) but it does an awful lot of things really well. There is nothing wrong in creating a highly polished game and breakthrough games have their own unique frustrations when one’s experience is crippled by bugs or other issues. Fallout 3 does most things well and a few things spectacularly.