not really, since again combat can be fluid and stat driven at the same time, todd already confirmed 4 has number crunching under the hood.

Edit: NV is a good example of this and one case where I suspect beth has taken insperation from Obsidian.

This struck me oddly too. It's weird that it wasn't enough that containers were pre-tagged [empty] (which was already ridiculous); now you don't even need to open them, the PC has an infallible hunch on what's there and he can svck the pile o' loot with some strange power, but needs to get his hands dirty for individual pickings. Weird.

Why not? What do you need the stats for? I know what I would, but that's too much for nigh everyone here. And fluid in what way? If it is stat driven, then it will most definitely not be fluid since the stats distort the fluidity away if they are made to be worth anything. If it is fluid then it's not really stat driven to any respectable measure that would actually be worth anything. If it goes straight to the middle (which it won't), it only does both ways poorly because they try to cancel each other out - like Fallout 3.

...double post...

I want Counter-Strike FPS mechanics, gotta get my 144 fps accurate spinning headshots through those damn crazed ghouls

check my edit, NV is a good example of fluid yet stat driven combat and most likely the model beth has now adopted for 4

Completely false. Even Morrowind's engine was able to handle up to 1,000 cliffracers on the screen at once before crapping out.

Also false. "The great battles of Skyrim" videos shows NPC vs NPC battles between hundreds of NPCs, and it worked FINE. Todd Howard actually commented about the video in an interview, saying he and his team had never even tried to put that many NPCs in a battle, and he wondered how the AI would even work in that situation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2DshotexMU

New Vegas' stat drivenness wasn't really all that much (a bit more than Fallout 3, but nonetheless). You were fine if your skill was around 40. (Obsidian's goal was to improve the FPS aspects of the combat, and that they did)

The problem was that Bethesda tried to implement an RPG element to the shooting. So even outside of VATS your shots had a chance to miss even if you were aiming straight at the target. This was mostly an issue with single shot guns like the hunting rifle and sniper rifle. It would get a bit frustrating when you were aiming right at an opponent and kept missing. This made controller aiming even worse than it already is compared to mouse aiming. You played on PC so maybe you had a mod that fixed the aiming in general.

no but it was there and tho you where fine with 40 there was still incentive to have more if you wanted to do great rather then fine.

And that's good? "It's there if you want to"? As opposed to "if you need to".

Not an insult to you, but rather dismay as to some of the changes...... (Don't shoot the messenger and all that...)

Mhm, good case of player freedom, freedom Obsidian of all people gave us.

It sounds like you're upset just because he has a different opinion from your own. To be honest, this forum would be quite boring if everyone just praised what Bethesda is doing. His opinions are quite refreshing on a forum board where most people aren't willing to be critical of what Bethesda is doing, adds a bit more color here.

Personally, I'm fine with their improvements to the combat system, and I would prefer they continue to pour more focus in the system considering how bad it was done Fallout 3 and New Vegas. At the very least, if they go a certain direction, I hope they can at least do it well. So far it looks to be an improvement.

Yes. That's what I meant with "what do you need the stats for?"

This is pure speculation. This has only ever been mentioned with regards to corpses, and it makes sense that we can see at least some of what bodies have on them.



And here you're building a straw man. I haven't seen a single post by someone expressing the opinion that stats should make no difference. Again, it makes sense that my character's proficiency with weapons affect his/her accuracy with them (although not the damage dealt - that makes no sense). What I don't need to see are the numbers behind all that.

Personally, I like seeing them because it helps me get a better understanding of how further I can tailor my character for what I need. Numbers are a great thing, I don't see why they couldn't make it optional for the player to see, maybe an option to turn either on or off. Baldur's Gate did that.

I personally would like to know how my stats are affecting me. I want to know the numbers behind my applicable abilities.

I am playing through FO3 again as I wait for FO4 and the only issue I have with shooting in 3 is that I do more damage in VATS than I do outside of VATS. Aiming and the rest does not bother me much, perhaps I have just gotten used to it after 7 years. To me the only fix needed was to make it so I can do the same level of damage either way. I'm hoping this will be the case in FO4 and not just making it so that there are lots of things to shoot coming at me quickly like a FPS. I tend to play slow and methodical and lure enemies into areas that are advantageous to my PC.

I was skeptical before, but now I'm really excited about the new perk system. While Fallout 3's system felt a bit diluted, this system sounds as if it's really going to have a strong impact on choices and how you play the game. The combat also sounds like it's going to be insanely fun!

to reflect the character

To each their own, but for me it takes me out of the game world. How many time have you trained at something in real life and been able to say "Yeah, I'm definitely 13 points (on a 1-100 scale) better at that than I was"? I should be able to tell I'm better at it from the results.

Is it any less weird if it's just corpses? I'd say it'd be even more weird if it is actually selective like that; that you can svck the belongings from a carcass but not from a box.

I was kinda referring to the sentence above that post talking about "minimizing the rules to maximize roleplay". It was a polarized example, but I think it was apt; can't minimize much more than that.

Yes it makes sense that accuracy is affected by governing skill/stat, but what doesn't make sense is that the effect is negligable.

To reflect as a number, but not so much as an effect?

The system was very clunky. It's a first-person RPG with real-time combat using guns for the most part. In a way, the combat is that of an FPS. The problem is, it's not fluid. You can't take cover. I believe you had to switch between your grenades to throw them. For the most part, the combat seemed like a bad version of Unreal. I believe even Todd admitted that combat wasn't done all that well, which is why they had Bungie on board to give them some tips.

I also do believe that they could make the combat just as fluid as other shooters, but completely STAT driven as well, perhaps more STAT driven than Fallout 3, but it would require a certain amount of tact to pull off. They could issue a cover-based system, which would be more realistic. How well you throw your grenades is of course based on your stats, accuracy. Whenever you point the reticle, the game would slow down, and a series of percentages would pop up on limbs or body to determine your accuracy, just like in VATS.

to reflect some effect but not all, because the very nature of the game makes the later 100% impossible.

But I wouldn't be able to tell just from results unless the change is very significant. Why should I bother investing points in a skill(now perk?) if I don't know how much it will actually improve my ability? or even simply know what my ability is at the moment without having to practice that action over and over again to get a decent judgement of it?