orcishgamer: Fallout is extremely short. If you explore everything you'd still be done in under 20 hours maximum. I'd say on a second playthrough you'd complete it in under 8. Fallout 2, on the other hand, is pretty long. Arcanum is likewise pretty big.
EDIT: And yeah, I never bumped up against the time limit. I actually fail to see how you could if you weren't actively trying to. HINT: Don't even try to keep Dogmeat alive, he's really dumb and wants to run into laser fences.
I don't really like to replay games; I know that replayability is a big factor for a lot of gamers, especially with RPGs, but I don't enjoy it, especially
not with RPGs. But if you say it's unlikely for me to bump up against the time limit, I'll give it another try, thanks!
Btw, does the time limit define the whole game's length or is finding water just a first goal and the game will still continue for a while afterwards? If you think this is a spoiler for others, you coould tell me in a PM.
SimonG: The time limit in Fallout is no problem. It adds a nice "plot pressarue" on the main char. If you take the longest time possible, and visit every location twice, you hardly need more than a hundred days. And there is even an option to extent the days for a hundred days. Fallout is surprisingly short, once you come to know it. The most "time loss" is on the travel map, but even if you clean out every "dungeon" and drag every knife to a merchant, you will hardly run into a time limit.
I actually liked the time limit, because it was "real" in a sense, but never really an issue that made me take shortcuts.
Thanks to you, too. In that case I might actually enjoy Fallout despite all. It's mostly the uncertainty on the technical side that put me off. It's not that uncommon that games allow you to fail halfway through them (I'm glad I still managed to complete VtM: Redemption with a little bit of luck, after commiting one fatal error early in the game without realizing it), although the better ones try to avoid that risk.