Even Though Special are sort important to get perks I think they should have other fuctions or actually abilities you could unlock.
I think in the future fallout game, the special attributes should determine if you can use the weapons or certain armours or not, I know this was in previous fallouts, but perhaps Intelligence attribute could be important to determine if you can use Power armour or any other type of weapons.
Perhaps some weapons are too technical in order for a normal person to use, so they need X Intelligence.
Another thing would add special abilities onswe you hit a certain level on each attribute, for example at X strength you can kick normal doors open and with endurance you have the ability to push the enemy way from you when he is next to you.
Now I am posting this because I wanted to hear each one?s opinion?s over specials, so what do you think the future fallouts should do?

I'm sure other people will comment more extensively. But this discussion has been done many times over.

Without listing any 'I wants' etc, I'll just say that I would prefer a return to form with a more meaningful S.P.E.C.I.A.L, with improvments to that end.

I disagree that S.P.E.C.I.A.L should interfere so much with the skilldex, as you suggest with your example. That is why the skilldex exists afterall. An idiot could still be fanatical enough about weapons to determine how best to use one. But on the same token, the less intelligent the character, the less skill points they'll have to invest, which still creates a situation in which a less intelligent character wont figure things out as quickly as science-boy, but they will undergo that learning process nonetheless.

Simply put, a more meaningful S.P.E.C.I.A.L will be most welcome. Every point in every stat needs to count, or there is not point in its existence.

I actually defend the fact that SPECIAL should interfer greatly in the skilldex, whereas in fallout 1 and 2 you had requirements in order to use certain weapons, I think the same should be applied to the future games and the thing is, I think Bethesda should have gone deeper than the older fallouts and actually added more to the SPECIAL.

The big problem with SPECIAL is that some stats end up being more important than others, and that tends to reduce roleplay. Intelligence is already too powerful in terms of generating skill points, so I don't see the need to amke it any more important. If we are going to go down the path of making SPECIAL more meaningful, the stats need to be somewhat balanced against each other.

SPECIAL is an anachronistic fossil. It's an ancient remnant from a time when people were thick enough to think stupid design was a good way to make a game difficult. The further Bethesda stray from it, the better.

You're supposed to play a game, not just pick a few numbers you think look nice and hope those numbers turn up on the dice as often as possible.

Skills are the same thing then, so I'm not sure what the alternative would be.

Naw. Status are part of what makes a Roleplaying Game; particularly, the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. fit well quite well into the Fallout franchise.

Remove those status, and what ya got is an Adventure Action or FPS. Not a route that is preferable, as the Fallout Seires is a RPG.

I liked it when stats actually meant something...was the system biased towards intelligence? Sure, but if your strength wasn't high enough, then you couldn't aim guns...if you perception wasn't high enough, then you'd never be able to hit anything...if your charisma was too low, you'd never be able to get what you wanted though conversation...and if your luck was too low...well let's don't even mention the pariah dog...BEWARE!

Y'know Lcars, I, for one, cannot understand why you ever picked up an RPG in the first place.

PFW, there are many who were not happy with how SPECIAL was handled in F3. Spread the word! We want SPECIAL to mean something, not to be a bunch of numbers that have little impact on the game!

This is a ROLE PLAYING game, not a FIRST PERSON SHOOTER. Your character's performance should be based around HIS or HER stats, not YOURS. If your character doesn't has a low perception they shouldn't be able to hit jack, but in Fallout 3 they can as long as you know how to aim... and even then there's auto aim. A lot of stats in Fallout 3 simply have no point because their effect is minimal. To give you a little bit of irony... they made it so even thick folks can play the game. So yes SPECIAL should be restored, you may not like the system but then you shouldn't be playing RPGs now should you?

Says who?
It's me playing the role, not someone else, I'm the actor, shouldn't my acting have an impact on the character?



Yes, because it is a game. I can hit stuff, so if I'm the one playing the game, I should be able to hit stuff.



...and here we have the heart of the problem for folks like you; you thought the RPG genre was your domain, and now you're upset because it has been made accessible to a wider audience.

Deal with it!



I have an idea, how about I decide why I play games, and you shut your mouth about it?

How about this; "You may not like the current incarnation of the system, but then you shouldn't be playing Bethesda's games, now should you?".

Seeing as how Fallout 3 was a much bigger hit than any of the previous games in the series, I doubt that you've seen the last of their unique way of doing things.

Deal with it!

It always comes back to the definition of roleplay. Any system is going to ahve to deal with these differences, so that the greatest possible number of roleplayers can, at least, find something they can live with. Arguing from a place of fancaticism is going to be a losing argument, as it always is.

I think I'd like to see SPECIAL mean more, but I don't think we have to go back to the earlier days of SPECIAL meaning too much.

That is, I can instruct anyone to shoot. My daughters, when teens, were able to effectively shoot all the weapons we have. You don't need to be verys trong, very smart, very quick to be effective with small arms, and no matter how beefy you are, you won't likely be effective shooting an M60 from the hip. What I'm getting at here is some degree of stats makes sense, but stats differentiation for the sake of game mechanics doesn't make sense.

Once again, RPGs aren't shooters... if you take away the stats then that's all they are, look at BioShock.





It's always been accessible to anyone. Whether or not anyone wants to take the time to learn the system is another story.




No need for flaming. Statistics are a staple in RPGs, if you don't like stats not playing RPGs is a fairly good choice. That wasn't intended as an insult, but rather friendly advice. I don't like professional sports and cars, so I don't play sports and racing games. Seems like common sense to me. :shrug:

I'd just like them all to be equally useful. PER to be just as important as INT, for example. How they go about this is not something I really care about too much (whether it means a return in some instances to the original system, or coming up with something totally new - or even stepping fully away from the SPECIAL stats and coming up with something totally new.) I have my preferences in that I like it when my Attributes play a vital role in describing my character and what options are best served for that character - but that's just my own preference. I don't at all see how more impact in Attributes would limit my roleplaying experience - if I'm playing a certain character I pick certain Attributes that describe that; so I don't really see the problem there. But again, that's just me. If you're playing a game and having fun, then it works for you. I'd just like to see it better.

My thing is that a streamlined ruleset doesn't always equate to an elegant ruleset. You can have a simple system that's easy to understand while still being effective and well-balanced. The old 1st D&D rules, for instance. Or White Wolf's "5 dots" system come to mind. Frak, even Elder Scrolls isn't exactly hailed as the "deepest" of rule systems, but I do find it elegant with each Attribute balancing out well against the other and playing an important role.

Stuff like that actually adds to my roleplaying experience. I, as a human being, have certain limits. There are areas I've focused on more in life than others. Without getting into what my own real-world Attributes would be - I think it's safe to say my INT is higher than my STR, for example. That's the sort of character I am. These strengths and weaknesses describe who I am as a person. I'm not going to be winning any arm-wrestling matches any time soon, but (I would hope) I have other strengths that make up for those deficiencies.

I'd like the characters I make to have that same sort of descriptive abilities in their Attributes. If all impact from Attributes are lost, then I'm losing all those adjectives that go with them. Making a less distinct character than I otherwise could have (in my opinion.) I have full freedom to make any character I want and roleplay them however I want - and that descriptive process begins at character creation when I pick my starting characteristics.

Sure, there's no inherent reason why Bethesda's Fallout games have to cater to my preferences. I can just support those games which do provide the quality of roleplaying that I most enjoy. But I'd still like it if they took the extra step in any future iterations of their series and make something I'd have liked better.

People don't want to do that anymore, heh, it's a game! Why should they have to learn a system or anything to enjoy it. Heh.

Way to miss the mark. Have you ever considered people liked have comprehensive rules with their RPGs? That makes you think? It's the lost of that which has people annoyed at the changes to SPECIAL (and in RPGs in general) If you took a pen and paper game that had lots of rules, and cut it down to rock paper scissors, people who play the game would be upset. Same concept here. It's just that there's a large market of people who are easy to attract via marketing.

There have been several games over the last few years that really had no business in being called RPGs, but because they sell well, they end up being the 'bar' for which any following RPGs aspire to, and thus RPGs become more dumbed down.

It also doesn't help that the industry can't seem to make up it's mind what the hell an RPG is. Take this http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/207777/the-26-best-rpgs/ for example. From that list? I would only say 6 meet what an RPG is. Some people seem to think that as long as you have a story, you can call it an RPG. Which is silly. Adventure games are not roleplaying games, they're adventure games.

When it comes down to it, at least two things are needed for a game to be considered an "RPG". A story that you have an impact on, and a character stat system.

Fallout 3 barely qualifies, since SPECIAL is so bloody useless. That's all there is to it. I hope some day RPGs can go back into the realm they should be in, and not have to conform to other genres expectations.

Vitrol aside for a moment, all you say here I can agree with. Unfortunately, the reality of the situation marginalizes the financials today even more than in the late 90's. Very few "pure" roleplaying games will ahve a chance of making a reasonable amount of money these days. Argue all you will, but the financial situation is clear.

And becasue of that, these games need to bring more of the market than a pure RPG can ever hope to do, and that means simplifying systems (unfortunately). As long as RPGs remain niche, there won't be many.


So, yes, Fallout 3 disappoints to some degree when compared to the RPGs of the 90's, but this isn't the 90's anymore. Could it get better? Perhaps, if someone is willing to push back a bit. Perhaps F:NV will be that push back.

You must be one of those who say "Come on, it's just a game!" when people voice a rightful complaint. Of course games are supposed to be fun, but simplifying working systems to sell out to wider and more shallow audiences doesn't fit my definition of "fun". Just because you (or 10, 1000, 1000000 people) don't comprehend its tactical merit and contribution to the roleplaying & character development system doesn't make SPECIAL an anachronistic fossil.

And I love the irony when people can call a whole generation "thick" or worse for appreciating this system and get away with it, while saying ANYTHING negative about next gen games or their audiences is "Boohoo!!! Elitism!!!".

QFT,

And that also goes for pretty much anyone involved with defending the core aspects which identify with the original coining of the term "RPG"

Oh, I know I'm in that niche market. It's just a shame gaming is all about the money instead of the games. It is possible to develop games for niche markets, you just have to keep your budgets within reason, and not expect huge payouts. And sometimes you'll get lucky and strike gold.

Sadly, many developers seek only the big payouts it seems at times, which leads to games reusing the same formula over and over again, in an increasingly downward spiral.

So my response is I know financials is a big part as to why games are not made the way as I would like them to be, I think it's sad, and I sure the hell don't have to like it . I'm kinda hoping that if the Fallout Trilogy continues to sell well, developers might be more inclined to consider that market a little more. My options for turn based tactic/RPGs are very slim lately, although that http://sots.rorschach.net/Category_talk:NorthStar game sounds like it would be down my alley.

I think it's unfortunate to argue that players are shallow, incapable of understanding, or otherwise inferior to what is, in effect, elitist view of personal likes and desires. Aside from it being generally inaccurate, it obfuscates the real problem, which is a lack of market for the product you desire.

There was a game called Harpoon I used to play. This was a highly complex, generally realistic sim of mid tactical modern naval warfare. A game could easily last dozens of hours, and i ahve concluded that, from playing this game, one of the most complex command and control issues facing any military organization is the management of an air strike package. Well, I just don't have TIME for that any longer, nor do I feel like dealing with the complexity of it all after a hard day of herding cats at the office. Does that make me shallow or unable to comprehend? It just means I want something DIFFERENT.

And yes, I do want something different then I did 10 years ago.

There's a difference between not having the time to deal with a "complex" game, and then there's just outright aversion to ANY complexity just because it's complex One you have a reason, the other...well..you don't want to work your mind a bit. Was funny to read Vegas players try Raven Shield or RS then [censored] about the planning stage being hard or too difficult. Generally this is just a problem with people just flinching when everything's not simple.

Let me try again.

I'm not totally against the idea of casual "chill out" games which require less time and effort. It would be rude and unwise. Besides, I also enjoy some of them personally. But in my previous post, I wasn't talking about games in general, but the context of RPG's, and particularly Fallout series and the SPECIAL system. And with all due respect, trying to simplify and remove certain gameplay elements is a bit disloyal to those who especially enjoyed tinkering with these mechanics. I don't know, couldn't there at least be an option to alter their effect?

If you're playing Fallout to relax after a tiring day, maybe you should try moving onto other titles? Because no matter you, anyone, or even Bethesda tries, it's not meant to be that kind of game.

Well, if we use your standards, it's not YOUR kind of game. I like it just fine when I'm in the mood for it. When I feel like it, I prefer FO1.

Disloyalty has very little to do with this. You know, they still make horse drawn carriages, but they don't quite sell as many as Ford sells cars. Riding in a carrage is pretty nice, but I'm glad I don't have to take one to work.

That's hardly a fair comparison. It would be better to liken it to ATVs. There's a market for them, but it's smaller then the rest of the automobile market.