Fallout 3: The Wasteland of Forking Paths
Bethesda’s Fallout 3 provides an experience different from many other role-playing games. It gives the player the ability to create their own path through its world without a pressing main quest.
In Borges’ short story, “The Garden of Forking Paths,” the author describes a book that attempts to contain the infinite labyrinth of possible realities. The book, which the story is named for, is explained: “In all fictions, each time a man meets diverse alternatives, he chooses one and eliminates the others . . . [but in this one] the character chooses—simultaneously—all of them. He creates, thereby, ’several futures,’ several times, which themselves proliferate and fork.” The ever forking potential paths through life suggest realities closely nestled beside our personal experience—the possibilities we’ve left behind are lost to us, but still exist. Fallout 3 attempts a simulacra of the labyrinth on a smaller, interactive scale, allowing players to experiment with these paths without the true fear of lost potential—in a world that doesn’t pressure a character down a pre-determined path with only the illusion of choice.
In games like Mass Effect and Bioshock, as well as traditional Japanese role-playing games, players are confronted with choices that appear to define their character, but the choices are an illusion. If the characters could look in a mirror, another of Borges’ favorite symbols, they would expect to see themselves altered by their choices, but they would not. Fallout 3 does not provide a revolutionary leap in the potential of role-playing, but the way the narrative is structured removes responsibility from the player regarding the central quest. This allows the player to pick a path for their character that truly forks, though each character’s story may not end with credits.
The central narrative thread in the game beings with the character’s abandonment by his or her father. Though this narrative expands fairly late in the story arc, the player is free to rebel against the father’s abandonment and explore their own self-created story.
Does Fallout 3 create truly developed choice? No, of course not. After all, even Borges’ fictional book mapping the labyrinth wasn’t able to capture the intricacies of infinite reality. The game does, however, succeed in creating a world where the player’s choices have an impact on the interactive space that confines the character’s development. Early in the game, or more appropriately, close to the player’s starting point, the player has an array of choices to make regarding the town of Megaton.
The town is built around an undetonated nuclear warhead that defines the town and also serves as a sort of metaphor about Fallout’s gameplay—the ever present threat of danger. The player, through the role he or she plays, can choose many paths: detonate the bomb, disarm the bomb, ignore the town completely, use the town for its potential and then destroy it. The impact of these choices results in the loss of playable space for the player, but also, the destruction of people in a world that has already seen so much loss. These choices may have been unbearable in real life, but the player does not destroy the potential of another choice for themselves, only for the character they play. And truthfully not even the character, since loading a saved game permits the character to make another.
The idea of choices in a role-playing game, their weight and their ability to fool the player into believing the loss of potential is interesting. The ability to experience all possible paths is the great strength and pleasure of role-playing games, but without the significance of choice, the genre would be meaningless.
Fallout 3 gives weight to player choice using loss and benefit. Choices will always gain the player something, whether experience points, wealth, or a more subtle in-game benefit (like finding a certain Stradivarius), but also a corresponding loss, if only the loss of another choice. Since the game doesn’t weight the choices from the start by placing the character on a world-saving quest, the player feels the freedom to truly explore the gameworld, making choices based on the role they want to play.


I just commented about this on Versus CluClu Land, but the only was I was able to cope with the myriad of decisions available in Fallout 3 was to plan for multiple play-throughs, making decisions based on how I thought the character I was trying to play would ask. I even went as far as “saving” some of the major side quests for the second go, so I’d still have some entirely new places to see and experience. While some of the consequences of your decisions didn’t go as far as I’d hoped (especially in terms of the game’s epilogue), the fact that there so many meaningful decisions that I want to play the entire game twice, even when there are so many other awesome games out there right know, is a testament to how much Bethesda really hit this one out of the park.
Reply to Nels AndersonThe idea of choice in videogames is very interesting to me, particularly the illusion of choice. I’m still on the fence about the implementation. The choice options in Bioshock regarding the little sisters is sometimes criticized because it doesn’t ultimately have that much of an effect on the game. The same can be said for many of the choices in Mass Effect. But if, as I am playing the first time, I THINK they are significant, isn’t that good enough?
Also, even in an RPG, there are moments I can imagine where there could be too much choice. Beyond making a player feel overwhelmed, too many choices may dilute the character’s motivations in comparison to the players and you could lose the sense you are role playing as a unique individual. There are also many interesting constrains on choices for individuals. But when choices are constrained in an RPG in which there is an expectation of free choice, it may frustrate the player. I’m not yet sure if that is the player’s or creators fault, if it is one at all.
Reply to Jorge AlborThe illusion of choice is enough for me, usually. I still love playing Mass Effect and Bioshock, even though I know my choices aren’t earth-shattering, at least they provide different content. I think the presentation of both of those games lets them get away with a lot, at least in my eyes.
Too much choice is a problem for me as well. When I first started playing Morrowind it was too overwhelming for me, and I never ended up getting very far the first few attempts. There’s definitely something to be said for the comfort zone that exists with a game you know isn’t going to drastically alter depending on whether you take the left passageway or the right.
For me, Fallout 3 works well because it feels very compartmentalized. You can access the content in any order you wish, but there aren’t many opportunities to drastically alter the story in a way that can’t be reversed. The ending, like Nels commented on, leaves something to be desired, but when the journey is so engaging I’m not looking forward to the ending anyway.
Reply to Travis MegillBelow there be some mild spoilers. Yarr.
To clarify, it wasn’t the ending specifically (which I actually quite liked, at least the way it played out the first time). What I didn’t like was the lack of epilogue that made the endings of Fallout 1 and 2 so satisfying. In the first two games, the epilogue was quite lengthy, taking its time to discuss your influence in each area of the game and what the consequences were. In Fallout 3, the epilogue is painfully short only barely touches on just a few areas. Had there been an epilogue like 1 or 2, I would have been totally satisfied with the ending.
It’s entirely possible you got that’s what I meant to say, but in case you didn’t, clarification presented.
Reply to Nels Anderson