The way it works in Fallout 3 and Skyrim is that each location has an "encounter zone", which sets the minimum and maximum levels enemies will scale within at that location. For instance in Skyrim, Dragon Priest ruins have a minimum level of 24, which means the game won't spawn enemies under that level no matter when the character reaches that location. Whereas a more beginner-oriented location, like Embershard Mine, would only scale between levels 6-10 or so. And most enemies have a set level; level scaling in Skyrim mostly decides which version of the enemy spawns (Restless Draugr are level 6, Draugr Wights are level 13, Draugr Scourges are 21, etc).

The way they've described scaling in Fallout 4 doesn't sound any different to how they handled it in Skyrim, but they've been getting much better at it with each game so I'm optimistic. The only problems with scaling in Fallout 3 was Deathclaws appearing in random leveled spawns, and a lot of what Broken Steel added. Skyrim's only problem, even after all the DLCs, was they had to scale dragons to keep the challenge consistent and that made the world a little less consistent.

Do MOATs even exist? I don't understand how the smartest man alive finds the time to be the most agile, strongest and be able to take a punch better than any MMA fighter

The entire idea of someone able to get a 10 in all SPECIAL and 100 in all skills is absolutely ridiculous and should never have been a thing in the first place aside from abusing cheat codes.

Edit: Especially since everyone has been going on and on about "immersion" lately.

I'm gonna say no. In tes games, u had the choice to be master of all by either doing everything to raise the skills up or by training them. Tes u level by actually doing things with ur skills, fallout will use the exp system where u level up by getting exp. the difference is that Tes us can actually stop ur leveling at a point by focusing on certain skills and keep on playing the game. In fallout u don't have that option because playing the game and doing things will met u exp and even when ur at a place u wanna stay, to stay there u have to stop playing and doing things.

Even the power gamer in me says being maxed out is no fun. Where I'm at in New Vegas, I'm almost maxed out on all of my skills. So not being able to max out, without cheating, would be great.

Valve's refund policy is much better than their original cop-out of "letting the market decide." As for the uncertainty, there's always uncertainty when releasing a product. Even if you release a great game, there's always the chance not many people are going to buy it. But feeling uncertain about your game being refunded en masse speaks only of two things two me. Either a lack of confidence in your product (in which case I don't think you should have put it up for sale yet) or a lack of confidence in consumers, treating me, the potential customer, as a thief who will buy something and return it out of spite or some confused attempt at causing the developer anguish (in which case to Hell with developers who are treating me so contemptuously).

I'd say if absolutely nothing hooks the audience in the first two hours, either in the form of gameplay, story, graphics, voice acting, music, whatever, then there's probably nothing that's going to be hooking them in the last few hours. That doesn't mean huge Michael Bay explosions or anything like that. It just means that you've got to have something in the game that makes people to want to keep playing it after that two hour mark. Do you honestly think that hooking your audience is such a daunting task that it requires more than two hours? Especially if you've already had to hook them enough for them to buy the game in the first place?

Anybody putting out a product in exchange for money should always effectively have a gun to their head. If it's not a good product, it shouldn't have been put up for sale, and that mistake should be corrected in the form of a refund. The developers of good games will flourish while the ones who make trash will fall to the wayside and go extinct. Mostly. Good games weren't likely to be returned anyway. The bad games made by bad developers are the ones that are going to suffer for this, and frankly, why should I give a damn about them going under if they can't be bothered to make a good game?

Is there potential for abuse of the system? Absolutely. But I'm happy that consumers are the ones that now have the power to abuse the system rather than game developers and publishers, who have been abusing the system to their own ends for years. The lack of allowing for refunds gave developers no all the power and screwed the customer.

Instead of the one goal (maxing everything out) powergamers would have many optional goals (cancelling each other out).

I don't see how the possibility of making a moat makes the game any better. It makes it worse. I want to be able to carefully choose my perks instead of knowing that I can take the other desired alternative anyway if I grind enough.

Due to the removal of skills as part of the dumbing down process, i imagine you'll naturally be closer to being an all-rounder regardless of whatever easy peasy system is in place.

Whose definition of good & trash?

Unfortunately that is an environment that could kill off excellent games that are unappreciated by the majority audience. That environment could have killed off Fallout and countless other gaming gems. Studios will gravitate toward the generic/simplified ~safer concepts.

I would absolutely love to see these guys put Steam's return policy into their game as an additional hazard, and see how it plays.
http://www.greenheartgames.com/2013/04/29/what-happens-when-pirates-play-a-game-development-simulator-and-then-go-bankrupt-because-of-piracy/

The contention (that seems to be getting lost) was that pressure to avoid returns may lead to increased servility in all products across the industry. MOATs perhaps becoming the only accepted option in games, or risk returns.
This means that we may all be drowning in digital 'yes-men' titles from every company, and I do not look forward to an even lower low in the future; the present is too low as it is..

With the advent of having to grind just to max out, wouldn't it be safe to say that those decisions you made from early - late game (end of all quests/story material) have already served there purpose? You won't be experiencing those same quests as a jack of all trades in the metagame stage.

I don't think you need to look far beyond Steam's early access to answer that question yourself.

1: The consumer should be the ultimate person in deciding what is good or trash, developers who design games that only a handful would like should think twice (and realistically the ones that care enough, would) about releasing their games on the market. If they feel confident enough to release, then they are joining a market, where they are now bound to stand by their product and take pride in their decisions. Return policies like these are put in place to prevent developers from predatory practices and to hold developers accountable for the product they release and to the general games market so that the Atari crash doesn't happen again.

2. Achieving MOAT in the first two hours would actually be something in which the player would likely return the game, as it would way too boring to continue the rest of the game.

Additionally, to the actual topic.

I know plenty of people who never play to the point of MOAT. One guy replays to play different sides (FNV) or races (Skyrim) and with many different restrictions and replays the games over and over again. Another plays the game straight through at least once, doing very few side quests and then replay based on that and actually look around for the additional content and he never goes out of his way to power game. They generally don't end up MOATs, while I tend to play with access to the entirety of the content, and being somewhere close to MOAT helps me achieve that. Neither of our play-styles interfere with the others style.

I also think that the definition of MOAT is not entirely accurate to how I play, I play to see everything in one go and hopefully make everything I want, I actually don't need all 10s and 100s to do that. Before Broken Steel, I would easily sacrifice Unarmed and Melee, but that's because my interest is closer to Master of All Quests and Crafting.

This should never be possible in an RPG; the point of such games is to unfold a path relevant to the PC ~personally; and the PC should have strengths and weaknesses, These dictate what they can and cannot do. If the PC can max their stats and skills... where are the weaknesses? There aren't any.

That of itself should not be a legitimate reason for a return... If the game performs as advertised, it shouldn't matter if the player gets bored with it. The seller offered it, the buyer accepted, the seller delivered.

If the game is designed not to allow a master of everything, and the player freaks out and returns it, that's an abuse... that's... this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JvtlB_NzI8
(And the reverse is also true.)

The mentality I see seems to be one that would return ice cream after a bite for not liking the flavor they themselves chose off the shelf.

I'm thinking that developers will start to shy away from anything that could set off the minefield of whim in the customer... This results in an "as you wish" product, and that is a bad thing. Getting everything you want, and having to live with it, is the worst kind of mental https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQ7bqfFswgU; and is certainly bad for gaming.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does any player purchase a Fallout or TES title under the grandeur illusion that they can and will achieve a MOAT character? Or, is it simply a side affect that tends to happen when players focus on doing everything under the sun in one play through?

The entire argument that a player would freak out over not being able to do this or that in a in play through is unfounded rhetoric. Going back to what you said (a game performing as advertised), Skyrim was sold under the tag-line "be anyone and do anything." It's wordy, and implies a lot, but the thing to take away from a statement like that is this: "be anyone and do anything...within the confines of the game's narrative and design." Even with that statement, it doesn't imply that you can become a jack of all trades despite being able to (and that was not even offered until a patch [which came much later] added in the Legendary skills option).

Here are some snippets from Skyrim's steam page:

You thinking that developers will shy away from expanding into new horizons is unfounded superstition, to be entirely honest. The steam green-light and early access programs allowed a lot of good indie developers to make it into the market, but it also allowed shovel ware to weasel it's way through the cracks. So, naturally, barriers went up in the form of Steam refunds. Again, we double back to the whole notion that if you can't stand by your product then why try to sell it at all to your target demographic. The gems of Steam early access could not have achieved generally favorable consumer reviews if they didn't offer a good product.

There's always going to be that one guy that doesn't like this thing about that thing - you can't avoid that. If he played the game for less than two hours and wants to refund it, then he should have every right because it's within the Steam policy. Same reason why ice cream parlors have rules to stop jerk offs from licking the ice cream in their cone, hating it, and trying to get a refund. You get what you pay for - chocolate is chocolate, not vanilla. Parallel this to the digital market of video games and what you have is a problem that is far more complicated than ice cream.

I'd say that's a guarantee; Bethesda makes sure of it, because that's a segment of the market; that's sales; and empowerment fantasy is unlikely to be returned by that segment.

What argument? (No seriously what argument?)

That's a slippery condition. First off it's impossible; secondly, 'within context ~of the design' leaves a mile wide hole to say no to anything.

Bethesda games (of late) generally say 'yes' or 'not yet'; never 'no' (afaik). "Do anything" basically means, "we won't stop you"; and in practice, that includes maxing out character skills and stats even in a series quite adamantly against about maxing out skills and stats.

I never got the appeal for a master of all trades character. I personally like my characters not being perfect but to each their own.

I never purchased Skyrim or Fo3 under the guise of it being a guaranteed power trip... nor was it ever advertised as such

*Also, as an honorable mention, TES is a major culprit of jack of all trade characters, but Skyrim is the latest title that actually made it difficult to achieve a jack of all trades. Being that skills are tied into using them and the original hard cap of level 81 meant you could only have 80 perks. But, then again, when I play through Skyrim, I don't have the issue of my character being something he's not, unlike Fallout.

Ice cream parlors are a really bad example, as they let you try a flavor before you buy it generally. As for the example of being MOAT in the first two hours, I was merely pointing out the absurdity in being able to know you'll be a MOAT before 2 hours of game-play, because that usually means you're almost done with the game, and depending on the price of the game, could be a bad thing as well.

While it was cool to do in 3 (and I really enjoyed 3), I answered no. The point of any good rpg is to specialize and use those strengths to your advantage. Being able to make a godlike character just makes things too easy.

I never bought them expressly for that but it has been included in each one I've played so I want it to remain. And tbh it doesn't even have to be everything maxed per se, just everything I want to have. So not maxing Barter, Speech and CHR wouldn't bother me, say.

Thing is, I'm not challenged by anything irl so I sure don't want to be challenged in my leasure time.

Yes, but it should take a long, long time. After all, it's a single player game. How one person plays their game, should in no way affect how you play your game.

Gamers should stop demanding guidelines and restrictions be forced upon everyone to compensate for their own individual lack of self control. If a player is willing to put in the extra grind time, allow them max out however many skills they want.

That's no restrictions, that's about design. A design where you choose from some things to make your experience "unique" (compared to another replay, not another player) and interesting for an RPG.

That's no where near demanding guidelines as well.

Ice Cream Parlors weren't mentioned; I mean quarts of ice cream in the store, on the [freezer] shelf.

It would be safe to say so thank you for the comment.

You're right. The metagame stage would be the stage beyond endgame I suppose, possibly even https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZQHSxKcGpQ#t=2m29s. The 'nothing really matters' stage.

If this stage wouldn't only exclusively allow for a master of all trades, but also for the slow removal of specialization in general (which should be impossible to circumvent prior to this), then I'd be ok with the possibility.

Things like playing after the ending and attributes are different discussions.

The easy solution is have the difficulty level determine the advancement rate (or have advancement rate settings that the player can adjust).

If you are playing on Hard, I'm assuming you want a real challenge.

Having a character that can only master half or two thirds of the stats and perks is more challenging.

On the other hand If I'm playing on Easy, I want to advance much faster than when I'm playing on Hard.

Sorry if off topic, but perks mostly helped you in game.

Allowing you to do things other couldn't without the same perk.

In Skyrim, Eagle Eye let you zoom in with your Bow.

Power Armor Training lets you use Power Armor.

How is that different than skills?

With Perks you can chose what to take and where to specialize.

Many of the existing perks were very import to using a skill and must haves.

Mad Bomber for instance for explosives or Sniper and Rapid Reload for guns.

Also the impact of having the Gunslinger or Cowboy perk is much better explained than the impact of having +15 to guns.

So why not combine them?

Especially when Special Stats are so front and center in Fallout 4.

Gopher has a great Youtube video on his take for Fallout 4 skills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOOz_fHHt0o

Look at Science skill.

If you have a 100 in Science you can do anything that applies to Science.

It allow you to craft equally well advance gear, hack computers, brew chemicals, and understand scientific stuff.

There were only 10 skills in Fallout 3 but there are 70 perks (many which will be needed more than once) in Fallout 4.

If you check out this page, it shows what perks they have identified from the Perk Chart that was hanging in the garage in the trailer.

http://tamrielvault.com/group/fallout-character-building/forum/topics/perks-chart-news?xg_source=activity

You have computer wiz as a perk and we know that Science as a perk.

Right there you can create an Inventor with little hacking skill or a Hacker with little hardware skills.

Or any where in between.

Something not possible in F3 or FONV.

If I'm a gunslinger and have 100 in guns, why should I be able to pickup a mini gun and use it with the same skill as my trusty 44 magnum?

Put if I'm getting perks that let me handle recoil and spread better, than in game even through it is me doing the shooting my Sole Survivor will be better using a mini gun or other automatic weapon than using a sniper rifle or handgun.

My Sole Survivor will also be better with automatic weapons than any other PC or NPC in the game unless they have the same perks and stats.

And isn't that the purpose of having skills in a roleplaying game?

To make the PCs different and allow them to do stuff that other can't?

Definitely. I think the real issue with a jack of all trades is how easily achievable it was in the mid to late game, at least for Fo3 and in part FNV.

Fo3 sort of has a distinct level of the meta-game because you could continue after the story, but FNV lacked that distinct separation.