I will keep this short.
As a die-hard fallout fan i would like to express an important concern.

Don't, for the LOVE OF GOD, do the same thing you did with TES aka "simplifying".

Fallout's system works brilliantly with its attributes,perks etc and has worked like that for quite a long time.
Please keep it this way, please keep it true to FO3 and its predecessors.

Thank you in advance!

Agreed.

In an optimal situation, they'd move further away from ES not only regarding stats and simplification but gameplay too.

Many improvements have been made in TES V in general. On the other hand some things were oversimplified and others simply left out. Finest example is spell making which was more like a "trademark" for TES series since Arena. Imagine something similar happening to Fallout.

This concern might seem unimportant for FO4 especially at this "stage" - if you can call it like that since it hasn't been officially announced or anything - but it is very real. Very real and dangerous to the Fallout series. I know i sound dramatic, but better safe than sorry.

I'm of the school of though that that already happened, and even in far greater magnitude (skills and stats were already simplified, TB combat that could've been considered a trademark of the series was left out, similiarly the worldmap travel and hubs were cut out, the ISO perspective was left out, the point of the gameplay changed to looting random dungeons, etc.) and what there is to do anymore is repairwork. Things can still get worse (which I don't think anyone hopes for), but not in the same magnitude.



I agree.

But I do think I sound more dramatic than you. :laugh:

Hahahah! I avoid comparing 1 and 2 with 3 and NV. Keep in mind that the "transfer" to the Bethesda style 3d open world/sandbox rpgs was a tricky one. But to be honest i expected it to be far worse before FO3 came out. I was actually really excited to see this level of authenticity remaining in the game! I can't imagine another company doing this in a better way. But as you said things can get worse and hope that our fears do not come true.

I agree completely, I like Fallout being different and I want it to still require weapon repairing and stuff like that.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of VATS and being able to sprint though.

I really hope we get the ability to sprint lol.. I know it's not necessarily true to FO3/FO:NV, but it's so much more convenient..

I rarely ever use VATS, but to my understanding it is vital for many players so removing it would not be optimal. I could see replacing it with bullet-time like in Max Payne though.

There is just one problem with what you said OP.. Fallout 3 isn't true to the Fallout series. Fallout 3 crapped all over over levelling, giving perks every level, making it so skills max out at 100, and no traits.

So I agree that Bethesda should keep true to Fallout, Fallout 2 and I would include Tactics and New Vegas. New Vegas has some of the flaws as Fallout 3 but at least it tried to fix it. Perks every other level and traits came back.

So please Bethesda, don't make another Fallout 3. Make a game like New Vegas, but take more from the Originals. Perks every 3 levels, skills max at 300, but it takes more and more skill points to get to 300. Don't have some stupid cap of 50. Make it so you need more and more XP each time to level.

Lol, if they make perks every 3 levels I'll just add a new perk every level via the console. It was so annoying to only get a perk every other level in new vegas because of the stupidly low level cap.

Agreed on all accounts, but I would still (like in many other threads touching this subject) press on on the matter of 300 skillcap being way too wide a range to offer worthwhile feedback to the player across the whole of the range (even more so with the current gameplay we have) -- and propose the gradual increment in the skillpoint cost rate like how the originals had (which I remember you've suggested too at some point in the past) but with retaining a reasonable range for the skill (a cap at 100, or 150 at max).

Wait lvl 50 cap is a "stupidly low level cap" ? XD

The originals give a perk every 3 levels. There is a trait called skilled that makes it every four. The point of the originals is to have a balanced RPG character. So you don't become a super god able to kill everything without breaking a sweat. Fallout 3 you become such a god early on in the game. There is a scalling system so there is no enemy greater then your ability to kill.

Problem is todays games are dumbed down and made to easy, because new generations of gamers don't want to think. They don't want consequences to their actions, they don't want to have to think a head when making a character. They just want all their skills maxed and a crap load of awesome perks so they can shoot anything they they want all day.

I really don't get why companies market games to teens, I really don't. They don't have money! you know who has their own money? advlts, advlts that started playing games back in the day where you needed to use your brain.. and are now tired of playing "Rated M" games that are really for 12 to 16 year olds, so dumbed down a 4 year old could play it.

Not directed at you W1tcher, just went on a little rant.

50 is reasonable, but that's irrelevant as the level cap of Fallout:NV is 30.

DLC doesn't ship with the game..


I actually agree with the premise of games being dumbed down, I personally find it incredibly annoying. However I also find a low level cap and a perk every other level annoying.

Just FYI, I'm not a teenager, I'm a 21 year old law student who enjoys games which are intellectually challenging; I know it wasn't specifically directed at me but I thought I'd clear that up in case anyone wants to jump on your bandwagon.

Have you played the originals? If not you should go out and play them. They did it 100% right. That is how future games should be made. No I am not talking about going back to turned based, isometric, but everything else. Just take everything else and put it in a modern game.

50 isn't reasonable. You become super God by level 20 in Fallout 3 and by level 30 in New Vegas, so 50 is just insain over kill.

It soon does. :thumbsup:

And speaking of levelcaps.... I recall (correct me if I'm wrong) ToEE had a cap at something like 10 -- and it still managed to be rewarding and fun. :laugh:

I agree, Even with insane grind encounters I don't think I ever went over level 30 in fallout 2 In NV when I hit level 30 I only had like 3-4 skill that wasn't 100. When I hit level 36 recently I'm running out of skills to put points into. I think I'm goign to change the PN level scheme down to only 5% xp and perks every 3 levels because I'm almost out of "useful" perks to pick as well. Really with the leveling scheme they have implemented currently anything over 20 is over kill.

So you'd rather limit levels than simply make the game harder? Seems a bit non-progressive.

I agree that a person 18+ would, in general, get more out of the 90's style RPGs. Fallout and Baldur's Gate came out when I was 16 and I played the hell out of them, but I can not do that with most modern RPGs. Pre-Fallout there were a lot of extremely hardcoe RPGs, but I think that the late 90's was the tipping point where function and form coexisted wonderfully.. yet the publishers kept on tipping. There were always exceptions to the rule in both cases with shallow games in the past and DA:O, NV, etc. in the present. If only publishers would come to realise how a bit less emphasis on style and more focus on structure would net a larger audience for their products.

I guess that since shallow games will, in general, sell better than overly complex ones (talking in terms of entertainment per ounce of player effort) publishes will always err on the side of fluff.

That makes absolutely no difference to people who bought the game before the GOTY version, assuming one is actually released.. IIRC there isn't a GOTY version of new vegas

If they keep the same level balance as they have now? Yes, in the originals you effectively had no level limit, and it still worked wonderfully because the system was balanced. You did get powerful but you never were 100% unfalable. You could still suffer from a critical hit or critical failure and have the battle turn on you.

I wonder, if they do go back to a more original stlye of play, what kind of people would possibly join the forums to say how bad it is...? I think the most they should do is expand on New Vegas a little bit, add some a little here and take a little there, and slowly work from there. If it is successful for most people, then maybe if they do Fallout 5, they could do a little more.

If they drastically change it, I wouldn't be surprised if both fans, new and old, would be disappointed. Mainly because Bethesda would be doing it "wrong" and it would be far off from Fallout 3 and New Vegas. So like I said, take it slow if they are going to make it closer to the originals.

But still agree, don't dumb it down like Skyrim.

Have you played the orginals? Having it the way they did it, would make the game more of a challenge. It would also let us create a balanced character which adds to role playing. This is a far better way of doing things rather then filling the game with stupid bullet sponges.

I keep asking if you have played the originals because if you did then you would know what I am talking about.

The Orginals did it 100% right. They are awesome roleplaying games. Again not talking about going back to turn based isometeric, just take everything else and transplant it into a modern game.

sorry to be this guy but after playing skyrim just but that much effort into writing the story cause clearly may more effort went into oblivion/skyrim story writing than went into fallout new vegas and yes i played all the fallout games every one of them