’08 RPG Showdown: Fable 2 vs Fallout 3

9:37 pm Games for Fun, Gaming

Fallout3, Fable 2 360 boxes

RPG sequels. One by the renown Lionhead studios (led by the insatiable Mr. Molyneux) and the other by the stalwart Bethesda studios which is a… Zenimax Media company (what?). Two very big RPGs for the ’08 gaming season, both of which I just 1000pted. Which one will reign supreme?

Well, neither and both. While there are some similarities between the two, they are both very different RPGS. Fallout 3 is set in a post-apocalyptic wasteland in an alternate future with a 1950’s atmosphere. Fable 2 is set in the fairly tale-ish world of Albion where swords, magic and flintlock pistols deliver justice.

Good vs. Evil: Moral Choices

The whole good vs. evil choice thing has been around for a while in RPGs but it seems like moral choices are becoming a staple mechanic. Fable 2 and Fallout 3 both feature a fairly well done morality system. As you can imagine, killing innocent people, trespassing and stealing in either game makes you more “evil” while being selfless and assisting others makes you “good”. In both games, you get a visual representation of your moral standing. In Fallout 3, you get a 2D image and some text that shows your current moral standing and title. In Fable 2, you’re shown through your character model. For example, your avatar might sport a halo over their head, or possibly horns if you go the evil route. Your dog companion will reflect you play style as well by looking shinier or mangier.

There really isn’t a huge advantage or penalty in either game to go good, bad or neutral. Sure, there are some perks, for example in Fallout 3, if you’re more good you might get someone from the Brotherhood of Steel to follow you around and help you out. If you’re bad though, you can get a mercenary to follow you around once you’ve reached Megaton. In either game, there will be options that support you choice to be good or bad so you can play it however you want. I really think that’s the way to go design wise. I hate feeling like I missed out on something cool when I decide to go down a particular moral path.

Bugs and Ruined Immersion

The thing I’ve noticed with modern RPGs is that while the openness of the game leads to greater immersion than say, an action shooter might, that same big-game openness leads to all kinds of bugs and a lack of polish you’d expect in a more streamlined gaming experience. There are plenty of examples from both Fallout 3 and Fable 2 that broke immersion for me or were just plain buggy.

For example in Fable 2, why do crowds of people follow me into my house when I visit my partner and child? Why do they trap me in my house and make it tough for me to get out? Why is the dog walking around on top of a wooden fence? Why is the dog stuck in an AI pathing loop? Why is the input delayed on the mini-games? Why does the frame rate drop so terribly when there’s tons of experience orbs on the screen?

In Fallout 3, why do I get stuck in geometry so often? Why is Dogmeat trapping me in my house? Why am I seeing invisible geometry faces in a shipped game? Why does the AI look so herky-jerky when going in and out of animations and conversations in particular? Why does no one care that I have a giant super mutant following me around into civilized outposts?

Really, both games are so big and have so much content that a lot of these bugs are forgivable. I wonder though if the staff at Lionhead will ever stop getting last minute surprises that prevent their games from getting really polished? I wonder if Bethesda will update their engine on the next game so the same bugs and AI behavior I see in Oblivion and Fallout 3 won’t exist in their future games? I think if these game studios expect to continue receiving critical acclaim, they’re going to have to polish the experience more. Don’t get me wrong, I liked both games a lot, but those forgivable bugs will become unforgivable in a few more years.

Story

Fable 2 and Fallout 3 both have decent enough stories, but I think the draw to both games isn’t in their main story lines. The real joy in both games is doing everything except the main story (sorta like the GTA series for a lot of people). Fable 2’s main story is fairly predictable and forced in a lot of areas. You’re guided though the game by Theresa, and old blind woman whose is trying to reunite the heroes of Albion (one of which you happen to be) in order to vanquish the arch villain, Lord Lucian. So, you can stick to the main plot, find the heroes (in a linear fashion) and finish the game in short order. However, if you chose not to, you can do tons of side quests which are generally more interesting, buy up property and become a land lord, go treasure hunting with your dog, get into a relationship, get married (with as many people as houses you can put a family in), have children, play pub games, do some menial labor (jobs) for money and so on. There’s just so much more to do besides the main plot, that if you end up only doing the main quest line, you’re missing out on like 80% of the game.

Fallout 3’s story is less predictable, especially with regards to Justice Prime and Abraham Washington. You’re not pushed along in the story by any outside forces, it’s basically up to you to figure out what to do, who to talk to, and where to go. Fallout 3 is vastly more open and larger than Fable 2, which makes you want to see what’s out there. However, a lot of the optional content in Fable 2 such as buying up property, getting into relationships and so on isn’t available in Fallout 3. Fallout 3’s answer is that the world is so damn big you can basically do whatever you want. Some side quests offer (crucial?) rewards such as a house (you can only own one) that has more depth and interactivity than your house(es) in Fable 2 might have. Sure, you can redecorate your homes in either game, but in Fallout 3 you can store all the junk you find across the Capitol City Wasteland, buy a first aid station to heal you up, a work bench to craft custom weapons with, a science lab to make meds with, and so on.

The stories for both games are okay, but not ground breaking. Both games have characters that take actions which feel forced for the sake of advancing the plot which makes the game feel, well, gamey. I think both teams put a lot of effort into the introductions of their stories and games, but the emphasis on story drops off significantly in both games the more you play, more so in Fallout 3. Both games actually have a cool “middle” story point (The Spire in Fable 2, Tranquility Lane in Fallout 3) but both have mediocre (disappointing) endings.

As a side note, I thought it was interesting that both games show you “growing up”, starting as a child then turning into an adult. Both game I thought used it as a successful intro to the main story of the game, although I think Fallout 3’s came across a little stronger.

Character Customization

Again, two different approaches here. In Fable 2, you can pick either a chick or a dude- no character customization. However, the more strength you put points into, your character will end up looking buffer, the more magic you use your character will show magical slowing lines all over your character model and so on. I honestly wasn’t a big fan of this system. I made a chick but she started looking like a rave-partying, roid-raging transvestite by the end of the game. There are also a lot of options for clothing (hats, coats, shirts, pants, boots, tattoos) and you can dye your clothing and hair depending on what dyes you have found or purchased. Oh, and you can use dyes as often as you want, they never go away. Did I mention there’s no armor in Fable 2? An interesting approach and a ballsy one for an RPG.

Fallout 3 uses Oblivion’s character creation system which lets you modify pretty much any aspect of your character’s face. You can basically make the face and hair of your character look however you want, but that’s pretty much it in term of how you look initially. Since there’s an armor system, you’re sorta forced into looking a certain way depending on if you want to stay alive. At least Fallout 3 wasn’t taking direct control over how my character looked by adding crazy magical decals all over my body.

It’s weird. I was more attached to my Fallout 3 character less initially, but more at the end of the game. In Fable 2, I was super attached to my character early on, but couldn’t stand the sight of her by the end.

Dogs

Fable 2 has a better dog overall, although Fallout 3’s dog (Dogmeat) is more useful in combat. That’s the way it should be though; The dog in Fable 2 is a key part of the experience while Dogmeat is an optional follower that you come across and will probably end up dying if you’re not careful. In Fable 2, the dog has much more personality. You can tell Lionhead spent a lot of time giving the dog unique behaviors and animations. You teach your dog tricks, and he’ll find treasure for you in the world which is fun really early in the game, but sorta useless and annoying later in the game when you’ve made tons of cash from being a real estate baron. Dogmeat by contrast feel static and detached, more like a tool to use that can get in your way sometimes. I definitely cared more about my K9 companion in Fable 2, especially when he was injured and whimpering, or when townsfolk stopped to pet him.

Combat

The differences in the combat systems for Fallout 3 and Fable 2 are massive. Fable 2 is a third person game so the combat involves a lot of button mashing, locking onto your opponent, getting good at various button combos to be successful in combat, and so on. By contrast, Fallout 3 is primarily a first person experience (you can go third person, but I don’t know anyone who does) but combat includes a cool mechanic called VATS (Vault-Tec Assisted Targeting) which basically stops the game, allows you to pick parts of the enemy to fire at then carries out the actions. I think VATS proves that turn based-esque systems can still be really fun in modern games, especially when showing off your gruesome handiwork through cinematic camera angles and time scaling. Even towards the end of the game getting kills were fun to watch through VATS, especially with the Bloody Mess perk. That being said, the regular first person combat (without VATS) in Fallout 3 is annoying so you’ll want to save up those Action Points or run and hide until you get some more (or take some Jet!).

In general, Fable 2 tries some new and interesting combat mechanics out, especially with regards to shooting guns. Shooting feels somewhat over powered compared to melee and magic, especially when you’re allowed to aim at specific body part. Combat seems to be weight towards shooting and melee more than magic, although the time stopping and raising undead spells are pretty powerful as crowd control, which really just let you shoot and melee more effectively.

Once you max out your abilities and levels in both games, predictably, combat becomes more tedious. At least with VATS you get cool visuals with every kill, but towards the end of Fable 2 I just started running past encounters and into the next zone, which seemed to work fine (unless I was up against a Troll or a Banshee). In Fallout 3, the combat stays generally pretty fun all throughout, whereas in Fable it starts out frustrating and tedious but gets better as you play it.

Co-op

Fable 2 has co-op. Fallout 3 doesn’t. Fable 2’s co-op isn’t really that good (it’s actually annoying to play), so which is better? I’m not really sure. I always thought Bethesda style games would be amazing with co-op since they’re so open, but not if they implement co-op like Fable 2. In Fable 2, both players have to be on the same screen, even over XBL. That gives me the impression that someone in a powerful position said “Make Fable 2 have co-op!” and didn’t really think of the repercussions that might ensue. I saw Fable 2 introduced at GDC ’08, and co-op got me really excited about the game. Then I started hearing issues about online Fable 2 co-op on various gaming news sites. I mean, the way it shipped, you can’t even play as your own character if you’re the client. What’s up with that? My guess is that balancing, streaming, and network traffic bit them in the ass at the last second and they had to neuter the feature.

Who wins?

Fable 2 feels like a big game, where Fallout 3 feels like a massive game. Fable 2 feels like there are more systems working together bring the game to life, where Fallout 3 relies on the sheer amount of places to explore that you’ll always have something to do and something new to see. Except for the main hubs of activity in Fallout 3, you’ll generally never explore the same area twice, where as in Fable 2 I found myself going through the same sets of areas multiple times, but the dog would sniff out new treasures so it didn’t feel tedious (at first).

Both games are worth getting (or at last renting). I put about double the time into Fallout 3, so there’s more game there for sure. I think overall Fallout 3 was the better experience, since I love Bethesda style RPGs (massive open worlds) and I liked the combat system (VATS) way more. The atmosphere in Fallout 3 feels very different and fresh for and RPG setting as well. Who can resist blowing limbs off of super mutants with a plasma rifle? However, Fable 2 offers a unique take on the sword and magic type RPG. I felt like I was playing in a world that Tim Burton had a hand in creating- an adult themed (dark) fairy tale.

Plus, both games have dogs.

Leave a Comment

Your comment

Please note: Comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment.