You're clearly trolling.

It would not take ANYTHING FROM THE CORE GROUP OF PLAYERS. IT WOULD ONLY ALLOW MORE REASONS FOR OTHER SORTS OF PLAYERS TO PLAY THE GAME.

IT WOULD BE A FEATURE EVERY SINGLE PLAYER COULD CHOOSE TO:

1) OPT IN AND BE A PART OF

OR

2) STAY OUT OF IT. (AND THUS NOT AFFECT THE GAME ONE BIT)

There is a completely different feel to it if it's an actual part of the game. I have had to resort to such 'self-challenging' for personal satisfaction. But if a game catered to such wishes, it would make the game feel that much more realistic. And again, considering the amount of MMORPG players that play specifically to hoard wealth/levels and the such, why not cater to their needs. Or the massive competitive playerbase out there. Why not make the game feel more 'real' to them with such a feature.

Yes, you are right in that features take time from the game developers. However, as previously mentioned, this does not have to be released together with the main, core game at its release date. That's one. And two, this would, again, give many other players 1) more reasons to play the game 2) make the game feel as of a higher quality and more enjoyable, having catered to their specific needs (competitive/or achievers).

If such a feature won't be added in, I'll simply have to find a way to delete the console out of F4, and restrict myself to one save game, of course. However, that would take away from the sandbox experience and in a way the immersiveness of the game. It's one thing for you to try to play the game in a way, and it's another for that playstyle to actually be there.

And as previously mentioned, Dark Souls also has quite a wide following. Such a 'hardcoe' mode would appeal to such players as well; further evidence as to how such a suggestion is, thinking logically, likely to appeal to many sorts of players. With the trade running, outpost building, etc, Bethesda has shown a desire to appeal to many different players. I intend to capitalize on that to pitch this suggestion to them as it would draw in more players, or make the game feel more real and higher quality to people who would appreciate such a feature.

And again, this suggestion is, objectively from the point of view of programming(IN MY OPINION), not all too effort-demanding. I specifically wanted it to be relatively simple, so as to allow for little resources to have to be diverted towards such a feature, even though it is a feature that could hugely improve the game experience of a variety of players. So if you truly think that this would be hard to implement, and if you are a programmer, and really think you know better, please let me know.

Relax Caius. Good lord.

So you somehow don't think it takes any time or resources to implement the system you're proposing? Time that could be spent on making quality DLC at this point? Or getting ready to patch any potential bugs in the main game? hahaha ok

Because it would obviously appeal to more people. It would be good for sales, and reviews. It would increase the fan base. The feature was made to be minimalist and not require a lot of effort. Read above.

Past games haven't really had any really hard/unnecessary achievements. They've mostly been quest/karma/level related achievements with nothing unnecessary that you couldn't get simply by playing the game.

New Vegas was the first to throw in completely unnecessary achievements. Way too many of those in my opinion.. They were the "cause 10,000 damage with [insert weapon here]" type and pretty hard to achieve in a single playthrough. Skyrim really only had one that was unnecessary and that was the 'get 1000 gold bounty in each hold'.. It wasn't a hard thing to do but it wasn't something you'd probably do in the course of a normal game.

The only real competition there is with Fallout/TES games are speedruns.. and there's really no way to do that without the proof of a video showing you doing it.

This should have been a poll. Maybe then you'd get a count of some people's opinions on whether they really want this. Again, first I'm seeing anyone ever want such a thing. People have suggest multiplayer plenty of times before but not as a means of competition. And even less so in an open world, single player rpg. Beth doesn't need to change anything to sell their product, and they certainly don't have to change the kind of game it is to pull in a minority of people that need a sense of accomplishment because just enjoying the game isn't enough. Sad really

Lests start with one. The achievements in any beth game arguably do not matter at all. Because achievements are shoehorned into all games because people thinks its expected, but it doesn't always fit the game.

Now two: You keep using different games to illustrate different examples, like how darksouls is hardcoe and how MMO's reward hard work. But your not fully understanding that this is a different type of game too.

The "achievement" you get from playing any BGS game is amount of hours your put into it, and the creativity by which you play. Thats your badge of honor around here, people love sharing their character stories and weird/unique playthroughs. Modding BGS games are another achievement on their own, that in my humble opinion outweigh any kind of "I had all these caps and EXP". The kind of things people have created with skyrim is just amazing, and those really high quality mods are the true achievement.

And you keep attacking my person instead of attacking my arguments of it bringing more satisfaction to players. Of course F4 will sell well and there will be plenty of people selling it, but with a relatively simple feature they could attract even more players with more varied tastes, increase their fan base further, and further increase their revenue. As said before, Bethesda is a business. It would be in their favor, and the game's favor, for it to be better received by more people, and be bought and played by more people. And what I find sad about you is that lack the ability to reason; you only really default to whatever idea you had initially, not really engaging your brain in any way, and ignoring arguments you can't counter.

I do understand Fallout is 'one sort of game'. It is a first person, story/quest-driven post-apocalyptic game. They did not have to include trade runs, or outpost building.

If there can be a simple feature implemented that would attract more players, with more varied tastes in gaming, while NOT STEPPING ON THE TOES OF ANY OTHER PLAYER (Note: one can opt out very easily from this 'hardcoe' mode), there is no logical, objective reason to be against it. The trade runs and outpost building did not have to be in game; they were, I'm sure, quite complex and difficult to include into the vanilla game. Why did they do it? To appeal to more people, make the game more intriguing and more complex, and increase its sandbox feel. EXACTLY what this suggestion would do. People can bypass the outpost building and trading; so could they bypass this game.

Again, I don't see people whining about the increased variety of the vanilla game with the outposts and trading. However, to me, that really increased the appeal of the game, because I love these ideas. I'm sure there are many of you that also love that idea. The feature I'm suggesting would be easier to implement, and would make other people want to play the game, or if they already wanted to play the game, then play the game and enjoy it even more.

Bethesda might be a business, but game developing is about reputation as well. If everyone who plays the game really enjoys it and loves it, the business does well. This is no obscure, tiny factory building crappy quality electronics in a country without consumer protection. It is directly in Bethesda's interest for the game to appeal to as many people as possible, while alienating as few people as possible. This would be a feature appealing to a wide range of people (a large quantity of them) while allowing people who do not like the idea of it, simply ignore it and opt out. Benefit: more people enjoy the game more, no one likes the game less because of the added feature because they can disable it. How can I possibly put it more clearly?

The optional things you're mentioning were modded in by players and have been some of the most popular things in their games (using mods) So it makes sense that they included it when looking at the modding community. And makes even more sense that it is optional, given not everyone uses mods. Once again, you're using examples that have nothing to do with what you're asking for. You're asking for a score system but you don't have a clear aswer on what to score. Xp, level, "wealth" can easily be duped on a non modded vanilla play through. Like I said, you could rack up all of those things easily by just killing everyone you meet and taking their stuff to sell. So now the guy with the most xp and caps is the guy that didn't do quests and just killed everything? That sounds pretty useless.

Might sound to you, but to others it might sound like something to try on their next playthrough; or maybe as a challenge (rather than make a self-challenge that would not be part of the game and feel crap as opposed to it being a feature in the game). There is little reasoning behind you opposing such a feature.

If you don't like the idea of someone killing everyone and taking their stuff to sell to be the richest on the leaderboard, then don't pay any heed to the leaderboard, or don't opt in into the leaderboard in the first place.

See thats my point though you realize is a story driven sandbox, you interject and say that outpost building and trading doesn't fit but the irony is that absolutely fits.

Go through and ask everybody on this forum two question about outposts

1. Do you like it/would you use it?

2. Do you think it fits in the type of games they make?

The answer to question 1 around here is pretty split between curiosity, dislike, and like. Everybody has an opinion on it some like it, some don't. But regardless of how they feel about I can almost guarantee you that they all think it fits (or just works) with the game. There is a difference.

I'm done talking to this wall

You should make a mod for it if you like or you could even create your own game and fit all your demands into it.

Glad I don't need an achievment to tell me I had a good time

I still don't understand how "I got through the game without reloading a save" and "I got through the game without reloading a save because the game made it impossible" could feel any different. (Actually, I could see the first one feeling better because it's a testament to your self-control, rather than the mere flipping of an option toggle at the start of the game.)

That's the thing though - there's no time limit in the game. It doesn't end after an in-game year, it doesn't end after the MQ is finished.... people can infinitely farm for caps (or damage done, or bullets fired, or enemies killed, or....). Having the most caps means literally nothing other than "I played the game longer". This isn't like a pre-set scenario where you have 100 years to establish your dynasty and take over Europe (or whatever).

Thank you.

Yes, you do raise a very fair point.

But, if I may, let me raise the point of certain games having, say, 'troll' modes. As in, I think, Red Dead Redemption with its zombie DLC. I don't think it exactly fits the game. But then I can choose not to buy that expansion pack, if I somehow feel it doesn't 'fit in'.

Such a feature would not affect the in-game lore like trading and outpost building and the sort. There is nothing to 'fit in' about this feature. It would simply be there for those that like being competitive, and it would not be there for those who don't like it for whatever reasons.

I ask you, do you not think this would appeal to a large number of players? MMORPG achiever sort of gamers, such as myself, and then the competitive sort? I don't see a reason why not. Can you give me a reason why not?

So then it offers more incentive to play the game more and more. IF you want to be 'one of the best'. And if you work towards such an achievement, it is bound to be fun (the journey), because you have an actual, real, 'tangible' (in-game feature-backed) objective to follow and get at.

Im about to hop on some games with some friends but before I depart I will respond once more .

It is a matter of fitting in as it would be a little bit of a time sink to implement properly and before i go on I must state that no feature is better than a poor feature. It would require resources but is it worth it? To answer this ill go to your last paragraph. I DO think it would appeal to the acheive crowd but heres the problem, the game by design and ideology does not pander to that type of demographic. Completionist ideas may play apart yes but enough to make a leaderboard and vanilla locked mode? I dont think so, to both question I have asked.

hardcoe mode is a great example of a seperate mod that fits thematically with the games, I have never played a single second of hardcoe in my 600-800 hour playtime of NV. I hate it, but......that doesn't mean I don't think it fits into the game.

Alright, fair enough. Can you think of any way in which this feature could fit in just like that hardcoe mode? I suppose that the only thing that does not 'fit in' with the classical fallout series would be the leaderboard. But then, the hardcoe ironman mode would certainly fit in with Fallout; make the game truly ruthless, in that you have only one life; you die, your play through is over. Coupled with save game encryption and corruption if modified, the disabling of the console code and the disenabling of hardcoe mode if the game is modified... would that not fit in?

I for one can't look through the lenses of 'conservative' people in the way of leaderboards. But if that's so terribly 'unconventional' to a fallout game, even if it can be opted out of, just as for Red Dead Redemption and its rather unfitting zombie DLC, why can it not be implemented as a CHOICE given to people?

But alright, despite me not understand the resistance to a leaderboard, I suppose that the core (and most important part) of this suggestion would still fit in, and that is the hardcoe ironman mode. It would fit in, but you can simply not use it if you don't like it, just as you have for so long with FNV.

I just know that I have about a couple hundred hours in FNV, and that I would have played for quite a lot longer just roaming around and use the game as an actual sandbox, if such a mode would exist. I'd always be at risk of dying and losing the entire character, so there would be times at which adrenaline might start coursing through my veins even after finishing the game and just being out for a stroll and encountering some powerful randomly generated AI. An example would be State of Decay. Single player, but lasting consequences: once a character would die... it would be dead for the entire playthrough. Even at the highest levels the game remained entertaining due to the constant threat. Coupled with 'legitimacy' with encrypted save games like in my suggestion, it could be a nice, rewarding feature for someone who completed the game and wanted a new, interesting and different opinion.

But fine, forget about the leaderboard. The base 'hardcoe ironman' mode would fit in without it then. So at least it would appeal more to the massive amount of achievement oriented people such as MMORPG players. I'm off to play some CK2 Enjoy your gaming session.

Unless there is some incentive (other than "achieving") that makes this suggestion a valid consideration for developers, no single player game developer is going to care about this as a feature. The bottom line is that this "Feature" is NOT going to drive any significant number of players to buy the game that would not have done so anyway.

Now, the competitive nature of MMOs and Multi-player games makes this type of feature something developers must strive to obtain, but in a single player game with no comparative aspects built in, it's just not needed. A LOT of work for absolutely NO return.

I'm sorry, but an arbitrary leaderboard showing "joe shmo has collected 3 billion caps" is not going to incentivize anyone to be "one of the best" and certainly won't make the "journey" more fun or encourage people to play the game more. It's just going to be a silly feature that people cackle at and say "wow that person is a loser for spending all that time on something that requires zero skill and only requires time investment." That's a waste of resources and something BGS isn't going to waste time on developing.

As much as you dont want to play with mods, but that's exactly what they do. offer incentive to play the game more.

This is what I find ironic. BGS has proven since Morrowind that supporting mods provides far more longevity and popularity to a title than anything else, including a silly leaderboard or achievements. The reason BGS has released their mod tools for every game since Morrowind is because they understand how much of an advantage modding gives them over their competitors. Not to mention, half the ideas BGS gets for new games come directly from the most popular mods. Kill cams, slower back pedaling, house construction, etc. all came from mods.