Nothing... but don't expect any detriment from low stats. Bethesda titles seem to implement stats as minimum ability for common tasks, with higher stats giving an added bonus... That means that a low stat won't indicate inability; or even just inconvenience anyone. It means the game is designed not to play differently for PCs with different stats, but to play as a gated experience where the player is expected to raise their stats over time to eventually unlock all of the content.

*Special has no meaning anymore; it's all just a transient reflection and the PC's boundaries change like the wind.
It no longer defines a PC; now it practically defines only their current mood; which they can easily change.

One always hurts their position with insults; it implies desperation and a lack of strong points to one's argument.
[Personally I view it as a clear admission of defeat... but we aren't arguing, you asked a question.]

As for the game... innovation... It's the same game they've made for twenty years. They just keep polishing it; and now have painted a copy of it with the trappings of an acquired IP. There is no innovation there.

You wouldn't struggle if you had (or would) play the series first game through to latest.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

I've almost finished researching the various perks available on the chart, the full descriptions of which should be up on here within the next couple of days. After what I've found out to do with how the perks are put together and how diverse they are, I wouldn't worry too much about levelling. For the record, my research has been incredibly thorough, involving careful anolysis of each icon, as well as tying together hundreds of notes and references to the footage and other sources, from other games, and even comments made by the devs during interviews. And so I can confidently say that I have a fair idea of what's on offer, and the full line-up of perks is nothing short of incredible.

One thing that I have discovered is that there seems to be a huge variety of possible builds compared to previous games. And I really do mean variety. Some of the perks give us options that would seem to change the way that the game is actually played, others give multiple ways of achieving the same thing in order to match different play styles. And so, given this diversity, it would not make sense that we could simply max out our character as easily as we could with previous games. To put this another way, by the time you even begin to reach the maximum possible level, you would have long since completed every quest and most likely have visited every location on the map. From what we understand, this is something that not even the devs themselves have managed to achieve yet.

Inapplicable. (... and often over-broadly applied.)

*Also... I have personally seen members with opinions similar to that expressed by SofaJockey, return here after playing the series [presumably with "know your enemy" intents], and post an apology outright, and express an understanding of the disappointment of FO3, that they couldn't understand before.

Obviously not, EVERYONE is reporting that it's 400 hours long. All the gaming media outlets as well as all the Youtubers I follow. I would be if this game wasn't 400 hours long.

I don't believe there will be a soft cap because they always told us that Skyrim would have a soft cap and they didn't say anything about a soft cap for this game. With an intelligence attribute of 9 all i need is 3 points to balance my character. The 3 points I essentially lost by taking my character over 6. If there is a softcap then it's fool's gold to take those 3 points, but if there is no softcap then those 3 points aren't a big deal at all.

I appreciate everything you are doing.

I would just say that the consequences of your SPECIAL choices don't seem nearly as severe as they were because you can always boost up an attribute a couple points if you find that it has become a weakness. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but I just don't have the compulsion to keep replaying the game when I can sort of balance a couple different playstyles in one character.

Not even Bethesda is reporting the game is 400 hours long, only that they have found new stuff in the gameworld even 400 hours in. But that includes everything up to "Ohh some dev made this gnome or teddy bear holding a cigarette and having some whiskey next to him, how funny!". Its not actual quest content or w/e.

Actually, the fact Skyrim had a soft cap wasn't very well publicized. IIRC, Todd only mentioned it once or twice himself.

It is applicable based on how you worded your comment. The statement that "You wouldn't struggle if you had (or would) play the series first game through to latest." directly implies that anyone who does play the older games will automatically see the basis of disappointment in Fallout 4. Which is objectively false as many who have played the older games see no such thing.

So? Some people changing their minds doesn't change the fact that not everyone who has played the older games agrees that there is a basis for disappointment. Once again Gizmo, you have provided "evidence" that does nothing to back up your original claim, only "evidence" of ever shifting goalposts. you have gone from "you will change your mind" to "you might change your mind".

Bethesda's not saying much about anything. They wouldn't let every media outlet report that the game was 400 hours if it wasn't. No BGS dev would say something that misleading. This isn't Lionhead Studios.

I knew Skyrim had a soft cap. It spread fairly quickly.

Except, again, they DID NOT SAY the game was 400 hours long, only that they found stuff in the game world even 400 hours in. Its not misleading, as no one I know, except you, has taken it in the way that you are.....

It spread quickly, by word of mouth from forums and the like, but Bethesda only said it once or twice themselves.

Just me? https://www.google.com/search?q=400+hours+Fallout+4&oq=400+hours+Fallout+4&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60.6682j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8#newwindow=1&q=Fallout+4+400+hours is saying it's 400 hours not just me. I read the quote first and I thought the same thing you did, but after you've heard it in so many podcasts, reports, and previews you have to think that BGS would have corrected them by now if it wasn't true.

I'm really having an issue with perk availability being directly related to SPECIAL scores. Every character I make is going to be designed for perks. Ever SPECIAL score is going to be just high enough to get the perks I want and very little else will matter. Just can't say I'm real happy about that. Plus, like always, there are certain perks that everyone is going to find useful so everyone is going to set certain SPECIAL scores to get it. I just feel like character creativity is going to suffer for it.

That's their own failing I suppose; it's there to be seen.

Much as I dislike the notion of "let mods fix it", I'm hopeful that this can be fixed by a mod.

*It would be very nice if most of the gameplay can be re-written/fixed ~excepting the hard-coded stuff.

I've never heard anyone say the game is 400 hours long, only that you can find stuff in the game world even 400 hours in.

Which, again, isn't the same thing. No one says Fallout 3 is 400 hours long, but many of them will admit to still finding stuff in the game world even after 400+ hours of playtime.

It's not the same thing, and you are the only person I have seen who doesn't seem to get that.

No TTTTRRRRRUUUUEEEE SSSSCCCCOOOOTTTTTTTTSSSSMMMMAAAANNNN!!!!

http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/Gizmojunk001/TomBaker_zpshw9cap4w.gif

No, https://www.google.com/search?q=Fallout+4+is+400+hours+long&oq=Fallout+4+is+400+hours+long&aqs=chrome..69i57.6715j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=0&ie=UTF-8 is saying Fallout 4 is 400 hours long.

http://gamingbolt.com/fallout-4-gameplay-length-could-be-more-than-400-hours

http://www.pushsquare.com/news/2015/08/fallout_4_will_take_you_over_400_hours_to_fully_finish

http://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2015/08/03/fallout-4-length-will-be-over-400-hours/

http://www.psu.com/News/27249/Fallout-4-is-over-400-hours-long

Nobody says that Fallout 3 is 400 hours long. The estimate for Fallout 3 is 50 hours.

I recall that 10 years later, I found stuff in Fallout 2 that I'd not found before.

I also recall that FO3 ballooned to 200 endings... for inclusion of excruciatingly minor variations as ~different endings.

And, once again, total length to see everything in the game world =/= total quest content length, and those articles you posted dont say the actual quest content is 400 hours either. Again, there is a difference between doing every quest, and seeing every little gnome put in a stupid position. No one is treating those as the same thing. I honestly don't understand why you can't tell the difference.

And Ive never seen anyone say Fallout 3 is only 50 hours long, and if you are going to say Fallout 3 is 50 hours long, then Fo4 would be the same length. Fallout 3 can take up to 400 hours to see everything, but no one actually considers that how long it takes to beat the game.

>Reaction gifs

Did we fall into 4-chan?

Y'all can't keep it in one thread, can you?

No, I understand what you are saying, but there are some outlets spreading around the idea that it's not just trivial non-quest related content. There's no reason to cling on to the idea that Fallout 4 will be the same size as Fallout 3.

I don't know what you mean.

I agree that there's no reason to assume that Fo4 is the same size as Fallout 3. I do disagree however that the sites you linked to suggest that the 400 hours mentioned is anything more then just "look at this funny gnome" stuff. One of them even specifically mentions "Now, exactly how much of that content will actually be worth seeing remains to be, er, seen,"

I do believe he was talking about my conversation with Gizmo. We are known to dislike each other greatly, and we often point out failing of each others points.

Actually I get what you're saying its just folks have different tastes and likes and dislikes. You remind me of those guys on the TES boards who say every TES game after Daggerfall was horrible in dozens of different ways. I get that for them it was because the newer games from Morrowind on are very very different and liking one style doesn't mean you like the other..

Now I guess I'm lucky that I way way prefer Bethesda's new style but I get you're on the different wavelength. I honestly don't think one is objective better than the other but I do much prefer Bethesda's Approach. I'll admit I tried Fallout one but just could not get into it. Its not because I'm young ( 57 young thank you) or only used to a certain thing ( started on original Doom ) but just not my taste.

Fallout 4 is going to be what its gonna be and just coming to the boards to constantly say how inferior its going to be isn't making you or anyone happy IMO. I bet you could come up with some pretty nice constructive ideas if you wanted.

You are right, they are qualifying their comments for the most part.

So we agree to agree?

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but I just wanted to expand a little on the idea of 400 hours as mentioned by the devs. During my quest to uncover the secrets of the perk chart, I have uncovered a great deal of information that suggests highly expanded gameplay. For example, one area that has barely been discussed is the aspect of underwater exploration. As you will see once I post my full update, the actual origins of our protagonist couple means that they are both trained in underwater survival, and so this will feature heavily in gameplay. What I have found essentially proves that the husband is a Navy SEAL, and the wife is a Marine. By the very definition of Navy SEALs, this means that whoever we choose to play as, we will be extensively exploring SEa, Air, and Land, as has already been hinted at in both footage and concept art. Again, this will all make sense once I post the full update.

What this means in relation to the 400 hours is that the map for Fallout 4 is going to be HUGE. If we look at https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/US+Army+Garrison+-+Fort+Devens/@42.5371685,-71.6175924,38312m/data=http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1530622-completed-perk-chart-speculation/!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e3eb75d050e27b:0xaa3ce0930ece76b4 image of Fort Devens, as well as https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Boston+Harbor,+Boston,+MA,+USA/@42.3387162,-70.975523,38434m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x89e36561b7075467:0x54d350088341b9e7 one of Boston Harbor, we can see that the two map markers are over 40 miles apart, and this does not even take into account the extended area around the harbor. I have uncovered very strong evidence to suggest that both of these locations will be included on the final map, and will be fully explorable. This means that the sheer number and diversity of locations in between will be unlike anything we have seen in previous games. It also means that the main quest, which will include full-scale dynamic warfare, will be playable over a very long duration. There will of course be those who will rush through and complete the game in 'record time', but I have a feeling that even this will take a great deal longer than previous games. To play through the game properly, including all side quests and miscellaneous quests, as well as the main quest itself, will likely take the full 400 hours quoted.

Finally, I just wanted to mention that I have added a small update into the OP tidying up a few of the descriptions, as well as explaining some new information. One thing I have discovered is that there are actually five different types of perk, each with different features and benefits. Also, every perk that has more than one rank (which includes 66 out of the 77 perks on the chart) also has at least one unique bonus feature, which is usually available at the highest rank, and will give us an incentive to take further ranks and not just the first one or two. One example of these bonus features is the additional information seen in V.A.T.S. during the E3 demo, as shown https://youtu.be/D5esyZPt5Jo?t=29m39s.

The rest of the perk descriptions should be up within the next few days, either in batches or in one hit if I can get them finished in time

Not to throw a spanner into your comment but

-The distance from Quincy, which is mentioned in Preston's dialoge, to Devens, is around 37 miles IRL.

-The distance from Rivet City, to Raven Rock, is around 35 miles IRL.

If we assume Quincy and Devens are the south-eastern, and north-western, most locations in the game, you could include Quincey, Devens, and a good portion of Boston Harbor, and not take up much more IRL distance then the Fo3 map covered. What you suggest is not really an indication that the map is going to be massive, at least no more massive then Fallout 3's.

Not saying those are the south-eastern and north-western edges of the map, just that all of them being on the map isn't that difficult, even with Fallout 3's map size. And Todd has said the map is about the same size as Skyrim, but with less mountains, so it would take up a greater x and Y distance, but have a lower Z distance, and Skyrim was about the same size as Fallout 3, so..... Fo4 would all fit with the same "around 15 square miles" map size they used for Fo3 and Skyrim, even with those locations.

I agree that they are reporting the 400 hours comment with tapered expectations. The guy who made the original quote qualified his comment by saying that he was getting a lot of extra hours out of the weapon modding and settlement building because you have to actually track down parts as well. So BGS can't be held to that 400 hours. However, I still believe the game could have 400 hours worth of fully fleshed out quest content.

It would be amazing to have that much quest content in the vanilla game. By the time I had my character the way I wanted it the game was essentially over. It would be nice at that point if I had another 250-300 hours of gameplay.