On becoming a "Master of All Trades".

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 8:48 pm

A game about giving people options should remove options ? Such flawless reasoning.

Based on how powerful you could be in FO3 and Skyrim, they don't seem to mind players being OP

Besides they do balance it anyway. If you take Almost Perfect (or whatever equivalent perk/method) and play on Very Easy, you'll be super OP. If you make a specialized build with weaknesses and play on Very Hard, you should have balance and challenge. Both sides get to play how they want, everyone's happy. Except apparently, people who only their playstyle to be available.

User avatar
Misty lt
 
Posts: 3400
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 10:06 am

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 3:38 pm

True and I've always said you will be able to mod it the way you want.

So how many play throughs did you do for Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas?

User avatar
Emma
 
Posts: 3287
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:51 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 4:29 am

Here is the reasoning: A game without limits is like the http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/images_zpsrzmc6bll.jpg. Kids want that; and they don't understand that wanting it is actually better than getting it. For those unfortunates that actually get one, they grow tired of it, and get sick of it. Worse yet, they can't look at it in the window and want it anymore.

A game is better with boundaries; gambling is more fun if you don't always win... A game should END while the player still wants to play, rather than let them play until their love of it withers away, and they quit in disgust.

User avatar
John N
 
Posts: 3458
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 5:11 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:56 pm

Well hopefully I'll be able, eventually, since I'm getting it on PS4

Of FO3, several, like 10+ probably. Of FONV, 2 I think

Except I got the lollipop in FO3 and I thought it was awesome and I never got tired of it

User avatar
Jessica Lloyd
 
Posts: 3481
Joined: Fri Aug 25, 2006 2:11 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:02 pm

Never felt that way about my OP playthroughs of Fallout.

User avatar
Sarah Evason
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2006 10:47 pm

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:29 am

Yes but it should take a lot of effort. It takes a lot of hours to build a character up, and instead of starting a character over I'd like to experience it all in one or two go's.
User avatar
Tiff Clark
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:23 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:46 am

Sounds like A nice place to visit.

____________

I lose respect for RPGs that ensure (or just allow) that any single PC can access all of it.

User avatar
sarah simon-rogaume
 
Posts: 3383
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 4:41 am

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:03 pm

Agreed.

I think players should play the way they want to.

I like the carry weight limits but after the first play through or so, I don't really need them making busy work and I use a mod to lift the limit.

But there are some deep division on the Fallout 4 forums.

I've been trying to figure out how to say this for a week.

I think the issue is that some of us are hoping Bethesda will take the high road.

The more challenging route.

To reach high.

Because if they do and do it well it is wonderful.

It could be a master piece like the Witcher 3.

It sets the standard.

And even if they don't do it well, at least they tried, and who knows maybe they can patch it.

The easy route would be to leave the protagonist a blank slate.

To put no limits on Sole Survivor.

To not try to make a deep and personal story for the Sole Survivor.

And it is so much easier to mod or pretend a master piece is a blank slate than it is to mod or pretend a blank slate is a master piece.

Bethesda has created some of the best open world games out there as far as what they allow you to do and how much they can be modded.

But the open world is only part of the equation.

I want the Whole Enchilada!!!

User avatar
Marine Arrègle
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:19 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:45 am

Ten play throughs!

With no mods?

Well we both got our money out of Fallout 3.

Was your Lone Survivor basically the same each play through or different?

User avatar
Sharra Llenos
 
Posts: 3399
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:09 pm

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 6:48 am

I can tell you right now, you wouldn't sell very many copies of that game, and a lot of what you did sell would clamour for a refund.

I lose respect for RPGs that only allow the player to experience a fraction of the game each playthrough.

As for the whole arguement, I voted yes. It should take effort, but it should most definitely be possible.

User avatar
Genocidal Cry
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Fri Jun 22, 2007 10:02 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:04 pm

Fallout (and TES) aren't the same kind of game as The Witcher though. TW might be a masterpiece of it's kind, with a fixed character that you merely guide, but Fallout is the kind with a (mostly) blank slate character. Maybe it could be made into a masterpiece of the same kind as TW but then it wouldn't be the same game anymore, it would be better if FO was a masterpiece of the blank slate type and TW remained a masterpiece of it's kind.

I always started with 10 INT, and the rest varied around high or maxed STR and END with moderate PER and AGL, or the opposite, or all 4 even. CHR and LCK were always left at 1. I did my variations with personalities and themes. Like an asian who used chinese items and sneaky methods, a psycho bat[censored] raider, a terminator, a knight in shining armor, a knight in sour armor, a pragmatic survivor I intended as neutral but ended up good, a sociopath, etc

User avatar
Tiff Clark
 
Posts: 3297
Joined: Wed Aug 09, 2006 2:23 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:42 am

I voted yes. I never measure my playthroughs by my character's skill level but by the quests I have completed.

Completionist at heart.

User avatar
P PoLlo
 
Posts: 3408
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 10:05 am

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:37 pm

And I wouldn't care; my audience would not be the ones put off by that. That's not why I would make a game. I'd make it because I'd want to make it. I'd never compromise it with advice from survey results.

*Though there would be no refunds. The product is digital, and would be as described.

___________

It's pointless to offer X number of abilities, and the finite choice of ~all of them. :bonk:
User avatar
Steph
 
Posts: 3469
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 7:44 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 1:09 am

My Beth characters are always determined by the content in the game and not by skills, perks or leveling.

I felt that Fallout 3 was very light on content and quests and was quite happy that it had a 30 level cap and worked quite well. In Oblivion and Skyrim Beth added (IMO) twice as much game content so I was happy to keep playing with one character and have fun seeing just how high in level that I could get.

Fallout 4 is bound to have heaps more content than FO3 (fingers crossed) so I am more party to the idea of not having a cap and aiming for the jack-of-all-trades.

User avatar
Lauren Graves
 
Posts: 3343
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:03 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:16 pm

No, but with a lot of time and effort we should be able to at least come close to that.

User avatar
rheanna bruining
 
Posts: 3415
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2006 11:00 am

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 5:12 pm

My point being, Bethesda wants to sell games, so that they can make more games. Therefore, nothing that limiting will ever make it into a Bethesda game.

How is it pointless to offer X number of abilities and then give the player the ability to work their [REDACTED] off in order to acquire all of said abilities?

If that's pointless, then so is adding hundreds of locations and giving the player the ability to visit all of them in a single playthrough, or offering a massive crafting system and allowing the player to use it to create whatever gear he wants to. I mean, we need to limit the player so that he can't experience everything in one go, right?

User avatar
Eduardo Rosas
 
Posts: 3381
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:15 pm

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:10 am

Yes. :wink:

This is unfortunate too. Doubly so that it's the Fallout series they work on. It means that the series' name & reputation has lost all that was important in it, and has kept all that was the local decoration on the West Coast. It's unabashedly devolved into an "as you wish" simulation of the Fallout landscape; instead of a cause and effect engine that holds the player accountable to their commitments, and their character's actions in game...[the core aspect of the Fallout series].

User avatar
Hussnein Amin
 
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 2:15 am

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:45 pm

I answered yes because I figure if somebody puts tremendous time and effort into building a character, then that character should be able to acquire an incredible amount of skill and power lending them a master level comprehension in certain areas, and at the very least, a high level of proficiency in many others as well. Maybe not 100% mastery of everything with all available perks taken, but long hours of work, effort, and discovery should ideally get us pretty damn close.

User avatar
mollypop
 
Posts: 3420
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:47 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:13 am

The idea that your character can't grow past a certain area comes across as pretty inorganic to me. Especially the idea that "Welp, you picked Science, so you're stuck with it!" If we were going to try and curb it so that you couldn't have a Master of All build, I think a better (though in my mind, very annoying) way of doing things would be similar to Final Fantasy II's clunky, fairly unintuitive level up system, where your stats grew the more you used them, but you had to use them or lose them (e.g.: casting magic improved your Magic and MP stats, but could cause your Strength stat to lower). I don't particularly care for the system, but if we were going to be forced into not being amazing in everything, I'd like it to be because our skills deteriorated if they weren't maintained.

Personally, I'd rather they just give us the ability to bank skill points/perks so that those of us who didn't want them didn't have to use them while those that did are free to do as they please. I don't see this as a zero sum situation. You don't lose if someone can do max their skills and S.P.E.C.I.A.L. if you can elect not to.

User avatar
Horror- Puppe
 
Posts: 3376
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 11:09 am

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:15 pm

If there is a way to get everything to max with some effort i always feel as if i am playing the game wrong if i dont. No.

User avatar
Lori Joe
 
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 6:10 am

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 12:11 am

If the game is designed to expect maxed abilities, doubtless either the difficulty or the utility of those abilities are balanced for that whether one spends the points or not. In FO3 the points had to be spent or you could not continue the game. :bonk:

In Fallout and Fallout 2, you could bank skill points up to 99 [I think], and you could pass on perks and traits entirely.

User avatar
claire ley
 
Posts: 3454
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:48 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:23 pm

Yes, i want the choice in my game to do so, with a lot of effort and time involved, i don't want limitation's personally.

User avatar
Steven Nicholson
 
Posts: 3468
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 1:24 pm

Post » Sat Nov 28, 2015 4:17 am

There's a difference between allowing it and designing it with that in mind. Skyrim's difficulty wasn't designed to expect your character to max out all stats and hit the level cap. And I'd say that neither was Fallout 3 or New Vegas. You certainly could do it if you wanted to explore everything/grind a whole lot, but the games didn't seemed to be designed with that as the standard to set the difficulty.

User avatar
Soku Nyorah
 
Posts: 3413
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 1:25 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:25 pm

people who say no really frustrate me. level cap yourselves. limit yourselves. don't limit me. uncapping the level is the first priority for me. i want to constantly progress throughout the game, i don't want to slowly wind my way throughout the game, get half way done and be at the level cap. this has only been a problem in fallout, never had that problem in TES.

User avatar
dav
 
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 3:46 pm

Post » Fri Nov 27, 2015 9:16 pm

Voted no, but I'm more for soft level caps. I'd rather the game lean more towards a more limited experience per character. Mods will allow you to become a one character god, and I'm all for allowing you to do that, but a more limiting base game also allows mods to build upon that. Shoot for the middle of the road so mods can grow in both directions rather than start at one end of the spectrum and have mods only able to grow one way.

I wouldn't want the story to render all my choices redundant in the end, and feel the same way for my character.

User avatar
Marquis deVille
 
Posts: 3409
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 8:24 am

PreviousNext

Return to Fallout 4

cron