Not directly, but indirectly for years ya basicly been [censored]ing about wanting Beth to backpeddle until they basically made Van Buren.

Yes I have, but I've also talked about many other things about keeping true (or adhereing back) to the core while still keeping up with the new [censored]. There were never really a perfect "middle ground" to be had, but there was something still.

And thats the point, that core is dead, it died with Black Isle, Beth owns the IP now and its now there core to make.

The loss of skills doesn't bother me much. It's the possibility of BOTH the loss of skills and the lack of a good SPECIAL system what might ruin the game for me...

In Bethesda's previous RPG games (Fallout 3, The Elder Scrolls series, etc), usually only one, of these two, things help determined a character (while the other is extremely useless in the long run), thus making them highly unique and great to roleplay as and play out. The Elder Scrolls series barely did it, due to how skills worked within said series, until Skyrim really made skills shine out greatly with the amazing perk system and such. Fallout 3 (and New Vegas) did the SPECIAL stats amazingly, while making the skills pretty dang bad...

From the looks of it, Fallout 4 might just have a terrible SPECIAL system, combine with the lack of skills... Ye'h. That's worrying me quite a bit. Perks can only be so useful to the roleplaying aspect of the game.

How so?

Yeah, and I voice my objection to decisions that I deem bad or questionable.

You start off with every SPECIAL stat at 1 and then can contribute 21 points as you wish in character creation, as shown at E3. Compared to the previous games of 5 in every stat with 5 to contribute and ability to remove points from the already "5s" to change things up a bit. Basically, 21 points to contribute VS 33 points to contribute is a huge difference (You will always have at least 1 in an SPECIAL Stat). With the 33, you could've easily created a great and interesting character, without need of increasing SPECIAL stats (and if you do, it's very rarely). With 21 though? Not so much at all. I've done the possibilities and it just... No. Which means, they must've done something to make SPECIAL points easy to earn, rather be you always getting one to contribute every level-up (or every other level-up) or something...

This is pretty bad and it means that they are going back to making the same mistakes they've done with the older Elder Scrolls titles, like Oblivion or Morrowind.

What mistakes are you talking about? Chances are, if we get to raise our SPECIAL it will be by way of spending a perk point, like Intense Training. And if not, they've definitely balanced SPECIAL to account for the lower total; it wouldn't be like going through the older games with only 28 SPECIAL points.

I wouldn't mind increasing the SPECIAL via perk points, since that means it is optional. (I never used Intense Training myself) but having the lowered SPECIAL is gonna ruin the game badly. They shouldn't have changed them that much at all. 5 should be the "average" while 1-4 is below average and 6-10 is above average. With only 28, most of your stats or even all are gonna be stuck at being below average, which makes no sense for a character at all to have.

Which makes me fear that we will have forced SPECIAL increasing, which is the same mistake in the games I previously mentioned... Making the attributes (SPECIAL) useless and unable to really define your character in the short and long run. Meaning, only about the middle point of your process would your character actually be who he should be (or she).

Like I said before, I can't wait for a mod to fix this mistake (if Bethesda isn't doing it themselves).

My view is, it'll make it so that your character will need to specialize. If anything it makes the character more interesting stat-wise, IMO.

No. It's unnecessary "balancing" (weakening, in this case) that ruins the roleplaying experience.

Is this going to be the most bland leveling process of any BGS game yet?

Just pick a perk? Like in Farcry or other "rpg-light" games?

Eh, agree to disagree

Yeah... it destroly my roleplaying experience if every character is overpowered in a short time... No. I have to disagree with you too.

I disagree. Previous games were so deep that you forgot that you were playing a video game, and were instead svcked into a spreadsheet simulator. They were so deep that you were completely immersed in accountant mode.

Lot of disagreeing going on in this thread.

When they were showing off the pipboy edition, they had a lvl 24 character on screen with 31 special points. So 3 special gained, which if forced would be every 7 or 8 levels. And at that rate you could just as easily argue bobbleheads being the cause for the increase.

As for my opinion on the subject, I'm interested in what info we get out of Quakecon this saturday and won't be judging the system itself until I have a basic confirmed understand of it.

It would be extremely unwise of Bethesda to throw away ability progression. People love ability progression, to the point that you can find it in games that are not even RPGs (action adventure games like GTA, third person shooters like Tomb Raider 2013, or even straight beat'em ups like Devil May Cry). In RPGs ability progression allows your character to stop being incompetent (+20% accuracy when shooting with guns), while in non-RPGs it allows your character to unlock extra moves or powers that make him look awesome (bullet time). I think it's clear which version of ability progression the average gamer prefers. And precisely because of that (and because we know that Bethesda is trying to cater to the widest possible audience) I believe we will see a transformation of the RPG experience in which players will be able to use their own skill more or less undistrubed and character progression will be repurposed as a way to unlock new mechanics to make the game more spectacular.

Why not to do it in one push if this is the end goal? Well because as a company you logically don't want to make your old fans (the traditional RPG enthusiast) feel totally alienated. So you keep throwing them bones and reassuring them that the game is still an RPG. Gradual change is easier to accept than radical change. Give it a couple more installments if you want to have trouble distinguishing a fallout game from any other shooter (mechanics-wise, not world-wise).

the thing is none of the arguing will make a damned bit of difference in the end.

The thing that matteres the most is the one and only thing that should be the only consideration at the end of the day.

That's the story, the one that brought you here, the one that keeps you going through the game, and at the end of it all makes you say Yes. MY character went through all of that.

Suggesting Bethesda games aren't deep is like saying Bonby Kotick cares about the future of gaming...it just doesn't make sense.

There is no need to remove what was awesome in the old games.

Used to be.

But Skyrim certainly wasn't deep. No NPC ever reacted differently after you did a quest, they might as well never have happened. Your race didn't matter one bit. NPC disposition was removed etc. etc.

Statements like this are permissible, yet if I was to say that fallout 4 will be the worst fallout game I'd be called a dinosaur...

Nope. Disposition still exists internally in 9 different tiers, and it's modified by completing quests, among other things; it certainly does affect dialog ("you're nothing but trouble", "Gods watch over your battles, friend"), it's used in checks for any NPCs designated as potential spouses/followers, and there are radiant encounters where an NPC that likes you can give you a gift (or if they die, send you a letter of inheritance); Dawnguard also added radiant quests where NPCs that like you can get kidnapped.

NPCs also have relationships with each other defined in the CK, which are used in other radiant encounters; an NPC might hire you to assault someone they have a low relationship with, or send you a thank-you letter if you killed one of their enemies. Or someone will send thugs after you for killing one of their relatives.

As for race, that has never mattered in an Elder Scrolls game beyond starting stats and racial bonuses. Which have arguably grown less significant and distinct from one another, but I feel it would be antithetical to an open-world game to make a permanent choice at chargen have an extremely significant effect on gameplay. They give gender significance with Black Widow/Lady Killer in Fallout, but race (in TES) and gender (in any Bethesda game) should only open up shortcuts and offer minor advantages where applicable.

I still don't understand how Skyrim is any less "deep" than Morrowind or Oblivion. It's deep in different ways, if you want to argue semantics. Same for Bethesda's Fallouts; and Fallout 4 looks to be adding way more depth to the gameplay mechanics, in spite of (or maybe because of) removing skills.

That's exactly what I scream at my monitor every time someone throws that word out like it has some sort of value.

You do realise those "hindrances" came from your special stats not skills?

Skills are only a damage modifier, which I might point out they have altered not gotten rid of, plus we don't even know how they changed it this is all speculation at this point.

And can someone explain what a game with good "depth" is?