Fallout's Place in 1990s Computer Game History


Fallout's Place in History



This article is an overview of Fallout's place in 1990s computer game history as it pertains to technical prowess in harnessing machine-specs; that is, this article places Fallout in history as it pertains to Interplay's ability or willingness to harness available software and hardware technologies in 1997.

I recommend that you read my 1990s computer game history, which stands as the best tech-lite overview of 1990s computer games on the internet.

Fallout was developed by Interplay and officially released on the 10th of October, 1997.


Fallout was not only the cRPG Formalizer, it was technically impressive as well.

Fallout was released for IBM PC Windows 95 and MS-DOS 5.0 DOS/4GW -- unlike its contemporaries, Baldur's Gate or Diablo. And Windows-exclusivity made neither Baldur's Gate nor Diablo more advanced than MS-DOS Fallout.

Thus, points go to Interplay for supporting tri-platform in 1997 (there was also a Mac version).

In Windows 95 with DirectX 3.0a Fallout ran well on Pentium 100 MHz CPUs and 16 megs of RAM. The MS-DOS version of Fallout required 32 megs of RAM.

Fallout was one of the few 2D MS-DOS computer games that displayed in square-pixel SVGA 640x480 256-colors. Notable others include:


Fallout was technically more impressive than the above. And note how three of the above are sequels; that is, they broke no rock-hard ground; they merely built upon the originals. But Fallout? It was the first of its kind.

Fallout was like the best adventure game you had ever played, multiplied by 100.

Moreover, for those that played Fallout before Baldur's Gate (real cRPG veterans), BioWare's Infinity Engine was not technically impressive in comparison. You knew that within seconds: when the game had to load a completely new area just to show the interior of the Candlekeep Inn (no seamless transition).

Diablo needed Pentium 60 MHz CPUs and 8 megs of RAM whereas Baldur's Gate needed Pentium 120 MHz CPUs and 16 megs of RAM.

Fallout and Diablo were distributed on one CD-ROM, Baldur's Gate five CD-ROMs (6 with the expansion). Baldur's Gate graphics explains why Baldur's Gate "needed" 5x CD-ROMs.

Fallout's Technical Case


  • Assuming equivalent hardware specs in 1996-8, Fallout's screen-drawing routine was faster and smoother than those of Diablo or Baldur's Gate. Diablo ran at a pathetic 25 FPS max whereas Fallout and Baldur's Gate ran at 60 FPS max. But Baldur's Gate was drawing from gigantic TIS files as the screen scrolled, making the engine chug hard even on high-end PCs of the day. Whereas Fallout's tiles had much less overhead -- more efficient and more functional.
  • Fallout's trimetric perspective is superior to Diablo's isometric and Baldur's Gate's "whatever" perspective.
  • Fallout's turn-based combat system is superior to Diablo's real-time combat system and Baldur's Gate's round-based real-time pauseable combat system. The slowness of Fallout combat was not a technical limitation, as sfall proves.
  • Consider also Fallout's aimed shots via its tactical targeting system.
  • Environmental interaction in Fallout far exceeds environmental interaction in Diablo or Baldur's Gate. Consider how much is added to adventure-game mechanics via Fallout's mouse-over feedback. And consider the tactility of placing an inventory item onto or into a placeable (item-placeable-combining).
  • Some doors are destructible in Fallout. You can only bash open doors in Baldur's Gate. Fireballs do not impact placeables, f.e.
  • Fallout and Diablo feature precise movement and positioning, Baldur's Gate does not.
  • Fallout's character building system (SPECIAL) is far superior to those of Diablo and Baldur's Gate.
  • Fallout features seamless transition, Diablo and Baldur's Gate do not.
  • Fallout and Diablo feature better pathfinding than Baldur's Gate.
  • Fallout's overworld is mechanically superior to Baldur's Gate's worldmap.
  • Fallout's scripting system is far more advanced than those of Diablo or Baldur's Gate.
  • Fallout's user interface is superior to those of Diablo and Baldur's Gate. Fallout's UI is more functional and employs animated panels, rotating paperdolls and bitmap overlays.
  • Fallout's sprite animation system is superior to those of Diablo and Baldur's Gate. Fallout has death anims, ladder-climbing anims and other incidental anims that Diablo and Baldur's Gate don't even bother with.
  • Fallout's dialogue system is superior to those of Diablo and Baldur's Gate.
  • Diablo and Baldur's Gate do not have talking heads.


On the other hand, Fallout and Diablo lose technical points for lacking Full Party Control. And Fallout would lose points for being un-networkable as well, but I don't care about multi-player.

Overall, Fallout is one of the most technically advanced 2D computer games of the 1990s. Fallout's engine was capable of things that no other engine-developers of the time even thought about.


Fallout rendered point-and-click adventure games redundant because Fallout was an adventure game, but it came complete with stats, reactivity and combat system as well: a pure cRPG.


And cRPGs are inherently superior to adventure games. There is nothing adventure games do better than cRPGs. "Adventure game" is just a label. Adventure games are NOT true adventure games, cRPGs are.

Adventure games only exist post-Fallout because of ignorance, inertia and the casual demographic that loves on-rails narrative and cinematization -- that is what most adventure games actually are.

And that is coming from someone who loved Secret of Monkey Island back in the day -- but who after Fallout never played an adventure game ever again.

Because Fallout was like the best adventure game you had ever played, multiplied by 100.

An example of adventure-game pedigree in Fallout 2:


Fallout 2 is even more advanced than Fallout in terms of UI and controls, but it is just a sequel built on the Fallout engine (incremental rather than ground-breaking).


That said, on a technical level Jagged Alliance 2 (1999) thrashes Diablo, Fallout 2 and Baldur's Gate: JA2 is the most technically advanced 2D computer game of the 1990s, no question.

However, Fallout has a better engine for role-playing a character than Jagged Alliance 2 does. And Fallout's dialogue system is far superior to that of JA2.

Relative to available software and hardware technologies, Fallout's engine is the best pure cRPG engine ever coded. No other pure cRPG broke harder ground than Fallout, not even Arcanum's much more advanced engine of 2001.

Fallout Tech-specs


  • Minimum CPU: Intel Pentium 100 MHz (x86, 32 bit)
  • Minimum RAM in megs: 16 megs (32 megs MS-DOS)
  • Video Memory (vRAM): 1 meg
  • Operating System: MS-DOS 5.0, Windows 95-11
  • API: DirectX 3.0a: DirectDraw (VESA MS-DOS)
  • Distribution Media: 1x CD-ROM
  • Resolution/Aspect Ratio: Square-pixel SVGA 640x480 4:3 ONLY
  • Color depth: 8 bit (256 colors)
  • 3D Hardware Acceleration (Direct3D, OpenGL): No
  • Audio: Sampled speech and full OST (audio is compressed)
  • Input Device: kb/m
  • Multiplayer: No
  • No. of players: 1
  • Hard disk space (full install): 600 MB
  • Framerate cap: 60 FPS
  • Graphics: Displayed in 2D, but 3D-prerendered
  • Playing field perspective: Trimetric
  • Movement: Point and click
  • Combat System: Turn-based (action-points) with targeting system and reviewable combat feedback monitor
  • Ruleset: Modularly-coded (which enabled Interplay to sub-out GURPS for SPECIAL)
  • Dialogue system: Dialogue trees, dialogue window is horizontally-centered in viewport, but not extendable
  • User Interface: Switchable modes, multi-layered display, click and drop, icon-based inventory
  • Marquee selection: No
  • Avatars: Pre-rendered sprites with 8-way rotation
  • Area Make-up: Tile-rigged area design, non-randomized (static, no RNG)
  • Playing field triggers: Tile-based coords
  • Seamless Transition: Yes
  • Environmental Destructibility: Some doors only (placeable)
  • Gameplay Verticality: Does not feature height-mapped terrain
  • Screen-scrolling: 8-way avatar-anchorless edgescreen autoscrolling (limited radius)
  • Fog of War: No
  • Automap: Separate UI mode, no real-time updating
  • Environmental Interactivity: Mouse-over feedback and examine feedback
  • Cinematization: FMV cutscenes, talking heads, end-slides

cf.:


No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.