Aja on 19/1/2009 at 10:04

---

If you haven't reached the Oasis quest yet, better stop reading now, unless you don't enjoy surprises.



I spent an hour and a half tonight to do this quest start-to-finish; here are some thoughts:

Harold is a brilliant character, in no small part to Stephen Russell's wonderful voice (at a few points it slips tellingly close to ol' Benny). But apart from the excitement of exploring a different looking area (ironically, a look that Oblivion was criticised for overusing), the best part of Oasis is the choice presented to the player. For the first time in this game the morality of the situation is not entirely clear: do I allow this monster to live, against his will, because he could potentially save the wasteland? (if this aspect somehow factors into the ending would you kindly not spoil it for me!). Or do I save him solely for the villagers, who clearly couldn't function without him? Or do I follow his wishes, condemning the wasteland and the villagers in order to give him respite?

Well what I actually did was take out my fire sword and burn him down. And the results were horrifying, the sun was setting and I watched him writhe until he locked into an agonizing death-pose (and when I investigated I received the creepy message "Harold can no longer speak with you"). I actually felt bad; Nicely done, Fallout.

But of course I must maintain my role as the Patron Saint of The Wasteland, so I reloaded and opened a further dialogue with Harold. And he told me that if he tried hard, he could somehow see through each of his leaves; that's how he anticipated my arrival. So I reasoned that if I can propagate him across the Wasteland, I'll be doing everyone a favour -- he won't feel stuck in place, and the Wasteland, well, it won't be itself anymore. But the game never makes this reasoning entirely clear, even after I've chosen. It simply drops the hints and leaves the decisions (and to an extent, the consequences) up to me. Finally the game presents me with an actual moral dilemma, with results that aren't cut-and-dry, regardless of the path I take (again, if this somehow factors into the ending, please keep it in blue tags, or to yourself).

Don't get me wrong, I've enjoyed the fifty-odd hours spent in the Wasteland so far. But had Fallout 3 stuck more to the moral and character (not to mention theatrical) aspects of Oasis, it could've been a masterpiece.

Aja on 19/1/2009 at 10:17

---

You surprise me, BRnumbers! wait, no... what is the exact opposite of surprise?

Aja on 19/1/2009 at 10:36

---

Thanks, I couldn't find a sample on Youtube. But I wouldn't agree that Adler's rendition is "much much better". It's practically the same, only Russell's version is more tormented (and rightly so, as you point out). Seems like a natural progression. Russell mimics his predecessor well, and adds a nice touch with his own personalised inflections. Plus, he does that angry growl really well (experience from SS2, I guess). ;)

Rogue Keeper on 19/1/2009 at 12:26

---

I think it was somebody's review at Duck and Cover forums where the person said that Harold doesn't sound like he used to and now after I've been to Oasis I must agree. I'm not saying Russell's voice acting is bad, afterall he's one helluva voice actor, but this time he's emulating somebody specific and it's only about 50% success.

icemann on 21/1/2009 at 18:58

---

The overall "good" moral path seemed pretty clear to me. While it was one of those "do the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one?" type questions, to me the thought of him being stuck as a tree / forest for all of eternity seemed like hell when you really think it through. So I followed his wishes and went into the cave and destroyed his heart. The druids completely were fine with it afterwards as well.