This topic isn't about the writing though. Its more about character creation. SPECIAL, Perks, Traits and the use of skill points.

Really it wouldn't be that much "radical" about it. what they would have to do is:

1: get rid of the minigames, and use skill checks. (compare your skill with lock difficulty and get a chance of success as a %)

2: Move away from first person and keep it 3rd person. fully controllable rotation and zoom, So you can get an Iso view or go down to over the shoulder like you get in third person now.

3: Combat moves to a more traditional RPG standard like you see in games like DA:O (click target you attack until it dies or you swap. this method could support both RTwP and a true turn based mode. So now the characters skill with weaponry determine the hit or miss. Armor returns to having DT and DR. Weapons return to having set range of damage.

4: Leveling and stat calculations return to the original set up. SPECIAL 1-10 Skills 1-300% Hopefully with the extended skills that where not merged like in FO3.

5: Map node system like the originals. Each node would be like a DLC sized NV map depending on how big you want it. set piece exploration within the surrounding area and settlement, random generated wasteland outside. Takes days/weeks to travel between towns possible to walk it and not use the originals style fast travel, perhaps randomly generated "lairs" with loot to reward those who want to travel the long way.

Did I miss anything?

Same here. It was very rare that I ever reached even level 20 in Fallout 2.

Additionally...
I never reached the level 30 in NV before the DLC's. I was always at about 28 when I felt I've done enough sidequests and need to finish up the character (part of the reason being that I didn't feel too intrigued to play it as an FPS, and wanted to have it over before I reached the point where character progression stops) -- and when the DLC's came and I started them with pre-existing level 28 character, I did Dead Money, HH, and one third of OWB and got bored due to having to put points in skills I didn't feel I was supposed to progress anymroe as I was already starting to feel bored at the eventual everything-man build (I've yet to finish the rest of OWB and the entirety of LR due to that).

That said, I do feel that there would've been incentive for me to go on and liked it, if the skillpoint economy (while being quite adequate for NV) was even less frugal and allowed me to level up more without creating an almost all-specialist.

And hence, I keep suggesting the slower character progression method. With games this large, the character progression should be designed to support most of the existing and pre-thought (!) additional content instead of needing the additionals to include hamfisted skillcap raises. The cap isn't really the problem here, but the pace at which one reaches it and the pace at which the skills are capped. You could well have a cap at 99 like in Fallout 2, if the levelingspeed and skillprogression pace support it properly (having that said, though, I do contradict myself a bit by saying that the level 50 cap would be perfect if it meant reaching 100 in 4 or so skills at max).

So changing these things would be a moderate change? Basically taking everything that has been established and getting rid of it, nope there is nothing extreme about that, there will definately not be lots of people who complain about it, that would never happen.

I thought I'd already pointed out to you that I haven't played the originals, if not here then on another thread, but I also don't think it would change my opinion to any real extent. It doesn't matter how they did it as long as the result is that characters don't become overpowered; this has little to do with perks in the form they took in New vegas, and more to do with overall difficulty.

hey it's what they did with FO3......Also it's nothing new for anyone that has played any other RPG's outside the TES....

Of course it wouldn't happen lol, Fallout in its current form is an FPS-RPG, and most people love it that way.. While I also have moments of nostalgia with games (deus ex and Crysis) I also know I'm in the minority and it'll never go back to how it was.

But, fallout had been gone for a long time, and it was virtually a new game to many people. They would take the game and destroy it for the couple million fans of the game in its current form. They would lose sales and then have no money to make another Fallout, or just enough to make a crappy game. What if then they decided to sell the rights to it because they made one to much like the originals, so a handful of people could enjoy it more, then Activision bought the rights. Then they decided to make it strictly a FPS game with a linear campaign, and multiplayer. And its sales were enough to ensure that Activision made one each year and changed very little, all because they made Fallout 4 like the first two.

That would be a disappointing outcome wouldn't it?

But it can get closer. Which, I think (and at least for me), is the goal of the complaints and suggestions against Falluot 3. I don't think anyone honestly believes that Beth suddenly drastically changes their views and methods (not that I'd complain if they did) even if they, by any logic, should.

I think the very best thing that Bethesda could do is keep most things like New Vegas, and work out SPECIAL, and the skills and perks. Changing other things would be too much, and not changing anything would not be good enough.

I disagree. To an extent. I think - aside from what I'd consider optimal at this given situation, which, along with other things, would include map nodes and worldmap trave (which people do not seem to think completely through, as why commets like "there's no exploration in there" and "that's so last gen" emerge - the best thing would be if they kept their style in detailing gameworlds visual presentation, but with everything else, look very closely at what NV did and push forward in that direction. I highly doubt it would be too much, as - aside from bugs and glitches - the worldbuilding seems to be the prime complaint against New Vegas within the Beth-crowd.

The thing is, you can make a really powerful character in Fallout and Fallout 2. But you can't become great at every single skill, like you can in Fallout 3 or New Vegas. Perks given out like candy is one of the reasons for becoming a god at every skill in Fallout 3 and in Fallout New Vegas.

Well, a simple answer to that is to add more attribute requirements to perks; at least that way you'd have to waste multiple perks raising your attributes if you wanted to be good at everything.

Yes, but if you get 50 perks thoughout the game or more, the end is still the same.. You become uber god with every skill maxed out. Having perks every 3 levels keeps that from happening. And yes the better perks have things needed to get them.

meh, I don't see the problem with being uber powerful by lv50 tbh. The bulk of the game is played by level 30; that's why I prefer perks every level. If you have perks every other level then obviously a higher level cap is necessary with this perspective..

What's really the difference between 30 and 50 perks? You may say 20 perks, but the point is that the more you get perks the lesser they need to be valued as. If the game is balanced towards level 50 cap, 50 perks are going to be either too much or mean nothing worth mentioning. Think about the functionality and how much it rewards the player for picking the given perk, and not just the reward some feel from being allowed to pick one despite the effect -- they used to, and should, be exceptional way to bend the ruleset, not something to be taken for granted with little to no effect.

The only thing I'm gonna disagree with is point 3. I found the combat in DA:O rather tedious. They can keep the combat the same in the game just make vats based more on skill and make enemies harder to hit when using iron sights especially at a distance.

You have a point there, if the perks were done in a way which made them neither necessary or useless, but a way of gaining a cool bonus, then I for one would be totally fine with only getting one every few levels. That being said, the way FO3 and new vegas are made, the perks are either pretty useless, or damn near necessary to play a certain way because they're features which should have been in the basic game.. I'm actually slightly apprehensive that we'll end up with the Skyrim system, which makes perks into essential gameplay features, rather than actually being a perk.

But the point is exactly about the "coolness" of the effect. Consider that you have all the money you need for the near future with all spendings accounted from that sum in your bank account (say, 50,000,000€), how cool would a constant 100€ in a month more feel? That's an intentional exaggeration, but you're a bright guy so you get the point.

If a perk does nothing really worthwhile in practice (like cannibal in Fallout 3), how much of a reward will it be, or a case of gaining 5% critical hit chance with the current gameplay?

Bethesda takes the 'candy' approach when it comes to skills and perks. Most people will enjoy lots of candy, especially when it is the first time they taste it, for a short time. This represents initial sales figures being boosted by 'candy'. Unfortunately all that candy being tossed at the player results in a feeling of indifference leading to disgust after prolonged exposure. After the initial sales period there will be the upset stomach phase when players realise how having too much 'candy' ruins the long term entertainment of the game. Unfortunately, it is hard to calculate the long term effects on sales of 'candy' overdose since the majority of sales occur around the time of initial release. They probably won't see any negative effects until the next game is released and I guess by that time they calculate the average player having enough time to 'detox' and can look forward to more 'candy'.

This in effect means that they will sell more games. There is no way to convince Bethesda that stuffing our faces with candy is going to hurt sales. I guess if there are fewer return customers (easier to track since they use Steam now) this philosophy may change.

I forgot that BGS designs games where the player can 'do what they want to do and be who they want to be'*.
*DISCLAIMER: The player must be able to easily perform every possible action and experience every possible outcome with 1 character. So characters must be able to max all aptitudes and quests can only interacted with in a binary manner, do it one way or not at all.

In my opinion, cannibal should have been a trait. It has no bearing on skills at all.

I agree to what you say. However, keep in mind that f1 and f2 weren't published by Bethesda. As i explained in another post i expected the "trasfer" to a 3d sandbox rpg world -Bethesda style (since i was a both TES and Fallout fan) - to be way worse than it was with FO3. This is why maybe i did not mind these things too much, but you still do make a point.

What i want to avoid and achieve by making this topic? Heh... Every old TES fan could understand. While Skyrim was improved in many aspects, some of them were oversimplified and some features which were considered trademarks of the series were excluded (fewer types of weapons, no spell making, simplified character development and many more). Keep in mind that TES was published by Bethesda since Arena, the first of the series.

I love fallout even more than TES and this thought of what oversimplification could do to FO4 terrified me. Things can get worse and more streamlined. Example: How attributes are handled is not the same in these 2 series but entertain the thought for a while

- attributes excluded from fallout with the excuse that all of them govern skills.
- because not every attribute is about only skills - having consumables govern these details (beyond skills) that attributes governed.

What i'm trying to say is that a workaround like the one above for the sake of simplification would be absolutely terrible and we should let Bethesda know we don't want it. If you think FO3 has crapped over everything then you would really be concerned about even more fundamental changes in the series - which i hope they will never happen.

I just want more fallout and less TES in my fallout. If they can start down the road to any of my points I listed while keeping the branching quest and storyline and choices and consequences and black humor of fallout I'm a happy man.

I know Fallout and Fallout 2 were not made by Bethesda.

Fallout: Interplay

Fallout 2: Black Isle

Tactics: Micro Forté

Fallout 3: Bethesda

New Vegas: Obsidian.

I also don't get why people think Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are not open world. Once you leave Vault 13 and Arroyo, you can go and do what ever you want! How is that not open world? I think the problem is the games end and Bethesda fans for the most part don't like that. The games are real RPG and they give a ton of options.

Seriously people are complaing that New Vegas has to many options! WTH?!

What I want is for Everything in Fallout and Fallout 2 (game play wise) other then Turned Based Isometeric play, placed into a modern Game with modern graphics. (In truth I don't care about graphics)

It would have been nice too if the ability to shoot certain body parts was taken out from the originals...

VATS is optional, you don't have to use it. But I didn't like how almost every FREAKING time the bullets hit the enemy like bulls eye (except Big Guns, I ALWAYS miss! :/). Then if I move an inch, a 16% turns into a 95%. WTF?! Yeah, that part of VATS I didn't like (I miss attacking the eyes and groin areas ). I really want Bethesda to update it (the success of VATS should have requirements like weapon condition, skills, distance, enemy DT, ammo type ect...). However, the weapon degradation as a result from using VATS all the time should be increased and like in New Vegas, you should take a lot more damage from enemy while using VATS.

Get rid of VATS, no. Add Sprinting...HELL YEAH!