FONV isn't as extensive as FO 1 and 2 as far as reputation goes, but, when you made enemies, they were always your enemies, which is also true in NV, if you make a group hostile, they are going to remain hostile(for the most part). FO 1 and 2 obviously did it better, as there were global reputations that were not part of faction reputation, so the fact is, it isn't "impossible" to have global reputations, as this was accomplished 20 years ago. It would not be impossible to have this in modern Fallout games. FONV was a start and it COULD have been improved upon, instead of scrapped.

For example, a reputation one could gain for playing an evil character in the older Fallout games was Berserker. Problem was it wasn't used all that much(there are a couple places where this can come into play). Again, all of this could have been improved upon and the end result would have been a lot more fun. IMO, the game should have faction reputations and global reputation, pick say roughly 6 global reps your character can acquire, a low enough number to not complicate design and high enough to offer variation and fun.(FONV didn't have global reps like FO 1 and 2 did, hence why it wasn't as good as the originals but still better than 3 and 4).

If you remove features/choices that were present in previous installments people are going to be upset..simple as that. You know how peeved I was that Skyrim had no acrobatics or spell crafting? To people who never used/cared for those the game was amazing.

You clearly don't know a thing about what you're talking about. "Give us your crops or die" is not standard BoS practice, it's a choice the Sole Survivor can pick and doing so is entirely on you, not the BoS. The BoS don't attack friendly mutants, no games actually show that besides one ending in tactics and you can walk with Fawkes and Charon in 3 around the BoS and Outcasts and they don't shoot first, you can walk with Lily and Raul and the BoS won't attack them, hell even in 4 you can walk around with Hancock, Strong AND Nick and the BoS still won't attack you. They only go after HOSTILE mutants and on synths, to the BoS the synths are nothing but a weapon and tool, they don't see synths as anything more then a high-tech version of a mister handy.

The BoS aren't "evil" in design, they actually have a lot of good sides to them. Teagan wants to protect trade by using vertibirds, the BoS attack raider dens, super mutant lairs and areas infested with ferals. The BoS also don't attack settlements with non-hostile ghouls as the Slog and Goodneighbor in the game. That's just stuff in 4 by the way, in Fallout 2 the BoS regularly traded medical supplies and technology in exchange for food, in 3 the BoS provided water to the wasteland and fought to protect them, in tactics the BoS worked with settlements and in one ending would provide protection but wouldn't rule directly over settlements, they worked on a tribute system where the BoS provide protection and assistance with problems in exchange for supplies.

That is true, the only exception being if a game replaces omissions with something new and improved, which then people may not be so pissed. Problem arises when things are just flat out cut with no suitable replacement. When they do that I think it is justifiable that people are pissed and have every right to express their dissatisfaction.

Nothing new there.

Now spell crafting, that was useful and svcked it was gone. Now acrobatics? That was beyond useless and mattered very little, leveling it was extremely annoying because it took stamina and there was really no reason to use it, so leveling it was just "Look at me jump up and down the road like an insane moron who thinks they're a rabbit"

Now let's move on to one of the complaints people have that got removed that is valid for this thread, karma. Karma was beyond useless and hurt role-play. I know this may be astonishing for you to hear but again, good and evil are not hard definitions not to mention karma had little to no use and was all around a stupid system.

Good and evil have no hard definitions, it is a philosophical viewpoint that is entirely subjective on one person. We spent a good deal of this thread talking about it so I'm not even going to bring it up.

Just because there isn't some stupid scaler to tell you what your morality is doesn't really effect the choices in the game.

"Karma" was not a good reflection of consequence. It was just stupid and clunky. Good riddance.

The fact bos doesn't react to companions is bs, they turn hostile to strong if hes left at the airport. You're confusing bethesda's sloppy attention to lore and npc interaction with design.

This.

Oh but they do react through dialogue, it's not "sloppy attention to lore" it's proving your bad barely researched point as wrong.

What does his post have to do with Karma? He talking about a consequence, and doesn't mention Karma.

Karma was an effort to accumulate the consequences of good (prosocial) versus bad (antisocial, evil whatever you want to call it). But it was nonsensical.

Until they are somehow 'outed' some of the most evil individuals in history have been regarded as scions of goodness. Thus, the fact that it was impossible to be cryptically evil in the games where karma was a factor was nonsensical.

I know what it was, but he, and others, are talking about actual consequences for being evil, and he, and others, are not talking about Karma. Yeah, Karma in FO 3 was broken, nobody debating that. What actually works best for consequences of being evil is reputations. Like Slaver, Berserker, etc, and NPC reactions to said reputations.(which imo is what he asking for in his post, not Karma).

I think you are missing my point: whether I'm "evil" or not is no one's business in the Commonwealth. Meaning, if I choose to be cryptically evil, and ostentatiously good then I damn well should be able to be. The karma system in the older games made this impossible. The reputation system in FONV attempted to make this more possible by operationalizing sneak kills, but it was still buggy and never seems to have worked fully.

Had the reputation system in FONV worked without fail, and allowed for relatively predictable (if challenging) means to both: a. engage in ostentatious 'good' while also b. engaging in cryptic 'bad' then I would agree it would have been a step in the right direction relative to the karma system in the predecessor games. But given it was basically broken and could malfunction completely at unpredictable times, it was like 1 step forward and two steps back and effectively no different than what we have in FO4.

There are certainly deficiencies in the system in FO4, but at least they are not ever present nagging problems like karma, red-hand items or a broken reputation system. You CAN be evil, but you don't get a meta-trait that tells you how evil you are and which magically changes how NPCs in the game world relate to you. If you want them to relate to you in a negative fashion, then you have to get caught committing an offense and sadly, their aggro is (reportedly) ephemeral.

There are games that handle this sort of thing much more effectively but they are mostly strategy types of games . . . I'm drawing a blank now on which one I'm thinking of, and no not Civ. The "relationships" dynamic in those are even more comic and silly.

I once brought Nick with me on the Prydwen and a random BoS NPC muttered something akin to "I can't believe you are hanging around that Synth...". So, they do react, they just don't try to kill your companions when they are with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrXAZy9jyGQ

Yep, lol, that's what I was mentioning. Ah, Nick... XD

Thank goodness not everyone in the BoS is necessarily like that. But Maxson is a bit of a [censored].

First off, Karma in the older games didn't really do anything. Was really only there for the player, and didn't effect gameplay for the majority. It wasn't until FO 3 that tried to turn Karma into some gameplay feature.

Also, a broken Rep system in FONV is better than FO 4 zero rep system. Also, it worked well in FO 1 and 2, and there were global reputations, which is something the newer games need, and it makes sense, ie if you are a slaver or a murderer for example. Obviously, if you do this "sneaky" evil type character you may not gain those reputations, that isn't the question, nor are we really debating some "sneaky evil" option as not being an option, that is fine and dandy. But, there are also people who don't want to be "sneaky evil". If I want to be a slaver, a murderer, a raider, then give me the options to do this along with reputation as being such that NPCs react to. That is what people are talking about.

Being evil also doesn't mean you have to draw aggro, not when you have a reputation. Rep doesn't rely on magic.

So, nobody is saying you can't be "cryptically evil". But that is only one way of being evil, the game really doesn't take into account either, and people saying there all kinds of evil options in the game are full of it, as I have asked repeatedly for examples of such and received no answer from anyone, which tells me there is no "evil" option besides mass murdering people for no apparent reason that the game doesn't even account for(Ie people don't fear the big bad murderer and treat you the same if you kill innocents or if you don't, with the only exception being your companions if you bring them along, otherwise they don't care either).

The BoS didn't ask me to do that, it's just an option my SS has. Hell I can kill innocent in missions for any faction, if I want to.

The only real evil faction currently is the RR. Rescuing synths and then wiping their minds, thus killing them, then reprogramming the empty shell synth body with a personality that they, the RR gets to pick. Filling the Commonwealth with these rescued synth that they only they know about and can identify. Yeah nothing bad going on there...

You can be so tiresome bastrd . . . read a couple pages ago for my list of evil behaviors.

Really do not understand the constant fetishization of all things pre-Bethesda. It grates on the nerves really, and I know I'm not alone. If those older games are so wonderful they why are you even here in this particular child board? FONV has it's own child board and the other games have their dens of die hards.

Most of us just do not give a [censored] to hear for the 400th time how "FO4 bad: pre-Bethesda good." We just do not [censored] care.

Ofcourse this Mission is optional but thats how they roll. Give us Food and Support us or get a Bill with a Bullet. Its a kind of Evil. Reminds me on Stalin/Mao or?

So the Shortcut is: You dont like it so piss off, but when you people like that Game so much why you must defending it all the Time? Some People are more in the Forum instead if playing their God given Game. You dont have to be here, nobody can destroy your Game while your playing at Home. When your Opinion is the only Truth why you have defend it all the Time? Iam getting tired too of hearing "just leave". The Opposition has the same Rights, maybe even more Rights to be in this Thread as you. But ofcourse we have all the same rights and i never would say Things like that. I dont have to and i dont need to.

I solve that conundrum by simply not asking Teagan for those quests. I'd rather keep my customizable settlements operational, even if I never visit them again. Teagan would LIKE to have some more food stocked up for the troops, but nothing bad happens to the BoS if I don't even do those radiant side quests.

I just Quote him because he said BoS is not evil, but forcing Settlers to give food or killing them doesnt sounds to me "good" in some Ways.

But you don't even have to kill them. Heck, you can buy the crops from them. And Teagan does state (if I remember correctly) that the settlement will receive protection by the BoS if they give crops.