Fallout, Freedom, and the Perils of Player Choice

(This is another edition of The GOG Box, Jim Sterling’s weekly retro PC column on GameFront. Check back every week for more. The opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not reflect those of GameFront.)

I came to the Fallout party quite late. In fact, I never played the original game until after I’d played Fallout 3, despite years of having it shoved down my throat by friends and family members alike. Praised for its boundless freedom and sense of humor, Fallout is still considered by many to be up there among the very best RPGs ever created. Having come to it so late in the day, it is difficult to escape just how much this venerable RPG has aged, but one must nonetheless be forced to admit that it tried to do many wonderful things, and succeeded in many of them.

To me, Fallout presents a very interesting jumping point for discussing player freedom, and more importantly, how much freedom a player should have. In Fallout’s world, there are very few rules. You have a character who can be morally upstanding, or brutally sociopathic. You can solve your disputes with heavy firepower, or you can talk your way out of almost any dangerous situation. You can be a pacifist, a warmonger, and you can make big changes to the people you meet and the land you roam.

The freedom present in Fallout puts the touted “choices” available in most modern games to shame. However, is too much freedom a bad thing? The more options you give a player, the more opportunities you give the player to screw up, and the opportunities to do that in Fallout are huge. Due to playing one interaction the wrong way, I ended up killing someone early in the game who I believed to be an important threat. Turns out, he was crucial for not one, but several quests that were now completely inaccessible. I didn’t find this out until it was far too late. Thanks to the lavish levels of freedom, Fallout had given me as much rope as I needed to hang myself, and I dangled like a sucker in minutes. It was one of many mistakes made. The problem is, these mistakes aren’t easily avoidable. Sometimes you have no idea how your actions will play out, and they could thoroughly screw you over.

The irony of this situation is that, at some point, many players will become too scared to experiment, and many will find refuge in walkthroughs and FAQs, finding out what their decisions will do in order to make sure they don’t ruin the experience later on. The freedom aspect is undermined when your players start to mistrust the game and end up following exact instructions from another source. Certainly defeats the object, wouldn’t you say?

There’s a balance to be struck, I feel, between allowing players opportunities to make mistakes and allowing players to feel like they can trust the game. Make a player too paranoid, and he or she won’t want to pursue half the choices present. Fail to have enough punishment for making the “wrong” choices, and the player stops agonizing over decisions and starts to pick options without thinking. That middle ground between paranoia and complacency is a very, very difficult one to accomplish. Consequences that don’t completely ruin the experience, yet are harsh enough to lend a sense of gravitas to the situation, are hard to create, and I’m not sure any game has gotten the balance exactly right. Mass Effect probably comes pretty close … at least for the most part.

Of course, Fallout was a product of its time, a time when PC gamers were happy to let their hobby chew them up and spit them out. Nowadays, with so many games to play and so much “real life” stuff getting in the way, I doubt a game can afford to be quite so damning as Fallout was. Nevertheless, I have to give Fallout my utmost respect for providing that experience in the first place, even if it does allow you to be hoist by your own petard. So many games promise lasting consequences and agonizing decisions, yet come up short. As brilliant as BioShock was, its “morality system” was a complete no-brainer, with a very clear reward for doing the right thing and nothing but scorn and punishment for the “bad” choice. Not even Mass Effect was able to deliver the advertised freedom of choice, given the legendary outrage over Mass Effect 3′s triple-vanilla ending. In Fallout, you truly could do as you pleased, even if that meant you fucked yourself in your urethra without knowing what you’d done.

That deserves a round of applause. Nowadays, especially, it’s probably slightly too much freedom. Still, it was ambitious, and I am glad it exists. After all, it’s great for discussions like these, if nothing else.

Fallout and its sequel are available on GOG.com, and are currently on sale for a paltry $2.99 each thanks to a 50% off Interplay sale. If you make one choice this weekend, that’s one that definitely won’t screw you over!

Join the Conversation   

* required field

By submitting a comment here you grant GameFront a perpetual license to reproduce your words and name/web site in attribution. Inappropriate or irrelevant comments will be removed at an admin's discretion.

5 Comments on Fallout, Freedom, and the Perils of Player Choice


On April 13, 2012 at 10:09 am

While I understand the point you’re trying to convey, you have also outlined exactly what is wrong with the younger generations: ACCOUNTABILITY (or lack there of)

You want to reap the rewards without the consequences of the risks.

Stating that a game will push players towards walkthroughs and FAQs because it forces accountability on their actions is just ridiculous to me. If anything, it points out a character flaw in the PLAYER, not in the game.


On April 13, 2012 at 10:53 am

I agree with you to some degree, but I think it is important for a game not to close off too many options based on unclear choices. There should be consequences in the story and even the gameplay, but those consequences should open other possibilities that let the player continue to have a fun game. It isn’t true freedom if one choice results in a crappy boring game, that is the developer leading you to the choice they would have made.


On April 13, 2012 at 1:51 pm

Well real world and gaming world are two different world unless you believe in provvidence or divine will. Problems with taking unclear choices are linked with rewards: if fallout -i dont understand what precisely happened to you but i will take it as i read it- as a consequence of a dialogue close you several quests, then Fallout is broken, or ill-designed. In fact it is not an issue of too much liberty, but of equally distributing “rewards” (that in this case come in the form of “several other quests”) for each choice you take.

Mass Effect 1 and 2 are pretty balanced on this respect. You get an even number of rewards (again, i loosely consider “rewards” any form of positive outcome a game can give, insluding subquests, game time, or even simple fun) both choosing renegade or paragon choices. Maybe it is lacking for a midway kind of behaviour, so if you dont take a decisive path toward one of the two poles you dont get as much fun as you could.

Real life is really random if not on some very short time kind of cause-and-effect chains. You cannot predict what kind of long term effects a certain choce can give you. Games shouldnt copy thins kind of pattern because they are a limited universe, with limited characters and limited choices, invented for only one purpose: entertaining. Balancing a game on this respect is also a way of showing care for the player that will play it. (and i wish mr. Hudson and Mr. Walters did care about their customers when they wrote ME3 ending)

Shiggz RocketSurgeon

On April 13, 2012 at 3:26 pm

Seems to me an area where, what you do wouldn’t make the news or mass communication doesn’t exist, the game would be better of splitting up into loose regions. Based off your actions, one area may know you as a good and helpful the other as a violent and evil. Then have a slow spill over time/reinforced boosting for any areas bordering regions where your views are opposite/similar. This would simulate intervillage gossip and trader tails etc.. Frankly I don’t think a base system would be that hard to implement, then color the map for loved, hated, feared, neutral etc.

Also enough with the dumb one dimensional morality systems, D&D solved that years ago by making you able to be a lawful-evil or chaotic-good etc.. type axis. Again this axis much more simulates real life reactions and thought. Anyway just some quick jots of recurring lines of thinking, hope it was worth your time.


On April 16, 2012 at 3:12 pm

It seems to me the problem with games of this ilk is not so much the level of freedom given but more the flexibility of the narrative structure that directs it.
Say a game has a mission with a critical NPC (quest giver or target) but you happen to kill that character; it should be the job of the narrative engine to have a contingency for this, not a mistake of having too much freedom. If it is the quest giver you could have someone attack you randomly out of revenge that has information on them that leads to the quest. If it is the target you could get to the designated combat destination and find one of their lieutenants has taken charge and gives you what you want as a reward for progressing their “career prospects”.
In the end, freedom of choice only breaks games because it is shoe-horned into games directed by rigid mission progression.