Yeah, I really don't get where he was going with that. Either you use VATS or you depend on your aim with a controller or mouse. VATS is not the problem.

That is singly the most egregious problem in FO3's combat.

I see. So you are saying you want it to be 100% stat driven. BGS seems to be taking a significant step in the other direction with this game. You are just torturing yourself hoping they will go back to the roots of the franchise.

Gizmo just nailed it!!
On to the perk system itself I believe this will be closer to skyrim with all games now going as casual and easy as possible but I do believe it will be a bit different to. Beth has been trying to update recently as seen with this game and skyrim. If anything this will be an updated(hopefully better) skyrim system. Not just the skyrim system. Or at least I'm hoping

Of course ~it is supposed to be a Fallout sequel ~is it not?

In every Fallout game, and the Tactics spinoff, the PC was the one to pull the trigger, and the one to aim the gun... and if they were terrible shots, they would miss ~because they are terrible with the weapon.
FO3 lets the player *cheat* by aiming for them.

How? Maybe if the enemy scored a direct hit with a Fat Man enough damage would bleed through the 90% reduction to kill you, but that would be about the only weapon capable of doing it. And with a high level character with the Almost Perfect perk, you might even survive that blast.

I don't think I ever died once in VATS in Fallout 3. OTOH, I can think of countless times I entered VATS, lined up a shot that had a 1 percent chance to hit, and took it anyway because it allowed me to tank a rocket or a grenade that was just about to hit me (or explode at my feet). At that point I could run for cover after exiting VATS, and wait for my AP to recharge before the enemy could follow up with another shot. Or just take them out while they reloaded.

For all the talking up on these forums, I was really underwhelmed with the character systems in the older Fallout games. Complex as they are, I still can't really say they're "smarter" than Bethesda's, with how wildly imbalanced SPECIAL is, the amount of worthless skills and perks, and then how game-breaking other perks and traits are. And the idiot-specific dialog is really the only thing about old-school Fallout dialog that isn't kind of eh.

Personally, it's not essential to my Fallout experience that the focus be purely on character skill and dice rolls. I prefer Bethesda's system of having stats weigh against player actions; they also do a very nice job cleaning up worthless stats and making every choice feel worthwhile.

Has some new information become available that reveals that conclusion to be false or in error? It may ultimately be the case that skills are still present but I've seen nothing that confirms them.

I have.

This is so horribly wrong with the game.

Maybe I died in VATS too, but it was such a rare occurrence that I can't be sure.

I do remember dying numerous times in VATS in New Vegas. You just couldn't treat it as some kind of magical ward to make you virtually immune to all damage.

Skills are there in plain sight. Skills will have ranks as Perks will have ranks. And so what. Where most Perks will have 1-3 ranks, Skill ranks might go up to 10 or 20, with each rank allocating for maybe 5 of standard skill points. How do I know this? I just know.

It is a fallout sequel, they are just trying new things, so that game-play doesn't get stale, by being pretty much the same thing every game. They, in the business of making money off the game, are also trying to get the widest audience, while still trying to respect the source material for the older fans (yes I know there has been some failure there).

How is doing the action yourself cheating? If you are good a shooting in a game, why is that a bad thing? I would much rather shoot the gun myself, than tell the computer to do it for me via a roll. I try to avoid using vats as much as possible, as my primary attack (unless I am doing a baby-sitting quest). Half the time I use vats to check for enemies. I'd much rather play the action out, like shooting, lock-picking, or hacking, than letting the computer so if for me (and no, not all skills need a play it out option). Not having some skill tell me how much damage I am going to do with a gun, is actually an improvement, imo. I see the perks as just specializing or knowing how to craft more complex things. I really hope they bring back the lock-picking from Skyrim, as I should be able to pick any lock, but a Perk would make it easier. Basically, cutting down on barriers to experiencing the world and offering a way to reduce the cost of your actions.

First time I've ever heard playing the game described as "cheating"....

This forum gets funnier every time I log on.

I can see where Gizmo is coming from and i always believe a franchise should honor it's roots but i also believe Fallout can function with both player-driven and stat-driven functions if balanced properly. I personally would dislike playing the game in 1st/3rd person but with the original Fallout system, but if they moved it back to that far back view point/control method then it fits. It however will never return to that, i do believe someone said long ago that gamesas does not like the original Fallout viewpoint/control system

They changed it in New Vegas; it no longer gave such a high damage shield.


That's called a Spin-Off; a new thing for the original audience.

Well... because it's an RPG, not an FPS.

*In an RPG, when you make a character ~that is not supposed to be a costume to wear in the game world; it is supposed to be some [other] person that lives there; and the stats and skills are their stats and skills. So... hypothetically, imagine an unskilled PC that is suffering of palsy, and that PC finds themselves in a situation where they have to use a pistol to hit a small target... They should be able to hit that target because you can aim well?
(No, they should not be able to hit that because they cannot hold the gun straight, and they are a novice shot anyway.)

If a professional locksmith was playing a novice burglar in an RPG, their own skill at locks should never apply to their unskilled character as the PC tries to pick open a lock.

Except I have played a LARP-styled RPG, in which physical capability (even with picking locks) was included. The GMs wanted the players to experience the actions as close to reality as they could (while being safe). They had skills, stats, and other special abilities that could be used if they didn't or couldn't do the action itself, but trying to unlock a chest (yes they even created locks to unlock) yourself was worth more experience, as it was considered being more dedicated to the role-play aspect of the game. This may sound offensive, but your definition of RPG is over twenty years old, as I have played in many different styles of RPG, some of which chance is closer to reality than a roll of the dice.

As for the palsy example, there are definitely ways an RPG could work that into the controls. Wobbly aim, delayed shot via a held trigger, having you account for recoil at worse value than if you were a Navy Seal. It just depends on how much the developers want to change the controls to fit the stats/defects/skills/luck of the PC. As an example, there are points in Heavy Rain, where the developers put in parts that you could try to get through, but they made the mapping on the controls pretty much impossible to do with one person (not sure if more would actually help) so as to demonstrate an option was likely to hurt you.

After all, an Action-RPG, is still an RPG, you just don't seem to like the sub-genre. That's fine if you don't, but continually declaring it less an RPG because it includes action elements, even significantly, is just incorrect.

That doesn't sound like roleplaying to me, that sounds like cosplaying, or attempts at simulation.


It's not offensive, but I see it the same as telling someone that their definition of Chess is twenty years old.


But why on Earth should they? This leads to player's handicapping their PCs. Look at The Witcher series; game 2 and 3 have the ridiculous problem that Geralt can aimlessly flail about with his weapon, despite being an accomplished swordsman; he can die from this too... Geralt would never act so foolish in a fight... and yet it happens when the player is the problem.

RPG (unlike any other game genre) allow the player to play someone they are not; allow the player to have skills they do not; limitations they do not. By making the PC hamstrung on the player's faults, or by allowing the PC to bypass their own limitations due to player help, you rob the player of the roleplaying experience... All they get is to be themselves.

In the case of perks, perks are not supposed to be skills. They can't compare to skills. Perks in the Fallout series are intended to be rule benders [minor changes to the rules for the player's PC]. Perks in FO3 were an awful change that resulted in devaluation of perks in general, because they became so commonplace as the PC leveled up. Because of this crude change to the elegant ruleset of the series, SPECIAL became of negligible meaning in FO3; as the players could increase their character stats every level ~instead of never.
Special used to be important. It shaped the path of the PC, and it was carefully integrated into the combat system and skill system ~~both of which were discarded by Bethesda, and yet they still call it a Fallout sequel with a straight face.

PC stats define the character these things are supposed to change much in so small a time as a few weeks. Strength could change with acquisition of an armored exoskeleton, but it didn't really change; it was the suit doing the lifting, and the PC's personal stat was unchanged out of the suit.
In Fallout 2, several stats could be raised by one point, but these were full adventures that required gaining items to allow the change, and each took days or weeks to complete.

1: It is role-playing (see: Mind's Eye Theater), and aren't you simulating chance by making a RNG check in Fallout 1 or 2 and thus playing a Post-Apocalyptic simulation? A dice roll, is just a simulation of a real effect, modified by stats/skills to represent familiarization with a task.

2: Chess is a specific game, where as RPG is a genre, very different things. One of the things that they do share is an (currently) incalculable number of different ways to play.

3: So does taking 1 in Charisma or Intelligence? You are playing a role and in that role you might be disadvantaged in some areas.

4: I have never felt robbed of my role-playing experience, because I could aim a gun in FO3 or NV. For instance I have never shot a real gun in real life, but I have done tons in games, I feel like I am playing something I don't know how to do. The thing is, the PC will always be hamstrung by the player if the player doesn't know what skills or perks to take or does the wrong thing in Fallout 1 or Morrowind, the game could be lost or unbeatable. Also, as a player of many RPGs, I know a ton about some of the worlds I play in, but I as a player choose to role-play as if don't. I really think, this is more a problem with the player not investing and less a problem with the game.

5: Trust me GURPS (the RPG Fallout's SPECIAL is based off) is not the most elegant role-playing system, I've played it and there are a lot more fluid RPGs out there. Additionally, many RPGs have stat increases in their base rules, almost certainly even GURPS. I don't know why you advocate limitation, especially since it's quite realistic that a person could easily improve their strength, mental acuity, or social skills (luck is harder to explain, but I would just with, 'you got lucky'). Every level does seem kind of stupid (especially the perks Almost Perfect and No Weakness'), but again that is a players option, the game doesn't force you to do it. Many RPGs have a saying, munchkinism or min/maxing are a problem with the player, not the game.

6: SPECIAL is again important, as there are likely no skills. Having played many build point system games, perks and skills are just one of many options to purchase at character creation, to the point where there a few games that have them basically being the same thing. Many of those game have lots of respect and introduce a level of character building and developing that more rigid systems lack.

I really just don't understand why being able to 'train' yourself to be better is such a problem, playing a character with defects and having a decent in game effect to represent it, or why there needs to be a specific element (like skills, especially if there is a comparative element) in a game to make it a an RPG. They're not your preferred style of RPG, but they don't necessarily make it a bad RPG. I'm not a huge fan of D&D, but I do have a respect for how it has a rich history and has tried new things out.

• Simulation in this case means live simulating of the actions in the environment; IE. pretending to be picking a lock in full costume. In Fallout, the die roll does not simulate ~it dictates probability.
• RPG is a specific genre; an horribly abused term also... even DOOM RPG gets away with using it... that doesn't make DOOM-RPG an RPG.
• Not at all. Fallout didn't allow that kind of aimlessness. The player could only suggest valid targets, and the PC would do their best to strike them.
  A stat score of 1 is not a role.
• I, I, and another I, and another. All you've said was "I" ~who was your character, and were they your clone? (A genuine question.)
• Fallout did not, and the game is labeled a Fallout sequel ~that's more that enough by itself.
• You will probably be surprised at the extent of it; I think it will be worse for having played those other RPGs.
• How could you know my preferred style of RPG? My contention is that it's not a Fallout styled RPG.
  And a big giveaway is that they gutted the Fallout skill system ~this time, and co-opted perks to fill in the void as an ersatz replacement mechanic.

Perks are better than skills because... (anything radically else as reply should be PM I think; or a new thread.)

Looking back at the e3 footage and just noticed hacking is it's own skill.

Bethesda has freely admitted that F3 and FONV had issues as a shooter.

I think Fallout 4 can be a GOOD FPS and still have VATS.

And since VATS is based on Perception, even if you are a weak FPS player, you can use VATS with a high Perception Sole Survivor and be good to go.

Another sign that F4 can be both a good FPS and make no apologies for being a roleplaying game.

Where else can you see people being so serious, so eloquent and so obtuse at the same time? Good Lord, some of these guys take games so seriously, and react with such furious condescension at attempts to make them fun for the maximum number of players.

I laugh, then I feel a little sad for them. The first couple Fallouts were masterpieces of writing and design. It's great that the No Mutants Allowed crowd is still around to champion them. I wish they found it easier to roll with the times, though.

You know, even in a 'pure' RPG the player intrudes. I've played characters with low intelligence but I wasn't suddenly illiterate, or prone to getting lost or forgetting where I put my sword.

I think Beth just realizes that allowing players to use their own skills doesn't kill the experience of playing the game. I hope there are statistical limitations on abilities because I enjoy leveling and improving. But to go pure stat-driven in this day and age would be a poor decision on their part.

I'm okay with this hypothetical system we're discussing.

Yes, I have played through Fallout a few times, but I haven't done much in Fallout 2.

I meant to say that aimed shots give you an advantage and to imply the advantage is circumstantial, hence my naming shotguns and baseball bats as other things that can bring you an advantage. Sorry if my meaning was unclear.

VATS is not always advantageous. The advantage is circumstantial. Depending on the character build and the combat conditions, using VATS can be detrimental to the PC's health.

Were VATS truly an "I win" button, then the fight would end with you victorious every time you use VATS. It doesn't. PC's are routinely defeated in combat even when you employ VATS. VATS is but a piece of combat, not its entirety. Saying what happens inside of VATS doesn't explain how VATS affects the overall fight. So, yes, VATS allows you to take multiple shots during which time you are afforded a 90% resistance to damage, and what of it?

I meant not that you can die in combat while using VATS, but that you can die in combat despite using VATS.

Not everything that happens in VATS is unfair. Some of VATS is fair, and even much of VATS may be fair. If you ask someone who dislikes VATS why we enjoy a 90% damage resistance inside of VATS, he probably cannot tell you. If you ask him why we are allowed one or more attacks against our enemy while he is not allowed to make any effective attack against us, he probably cannot tell you.

I am unaware of any new information. The old information makes it probable that the conclusion is false.

Does our character possess developed abilities comparable to real-life skills, abilities that are acquired and improved through training and experience? Are each of those abilities represented in-game by a unit of measure that allows us to state, "This is my character's level of proficiency in that ability, and with it he can do x, y, and z?" http://i.ytimg.com/vi/unji5X-zl8o/maxresdefault.jpg and the one on http://www.gamesradar.com/fallout-4-world-editor-revealed/ indicate that he does have such abilities and that those abilities are quantifiable (Science and Local Leader).

Oh, I have no doubt that there will be a system to reflect player character knowledge, I just strongly suspect it will look more like a perk system, dispensing with skill points and the old 1-100 based skill system. Instead of having a lockpick skill with lock difficulty thresholds of 25, 50, 75 and 100 for lock difficulty, for example, it will be a lockpicking perk and locks with ranks 1-4. I imagine weapon 'skill' perks that effect damage much like the Skyrim 'armsman' perk where each rank increases your damage by 20% or so until you max out at double damage to reflect your proficiency in a system that plays like a shooter. Stuff like that.

When I say skills will be gone, I mean the old 1-100 system we are used to, not the concept of character knowledge.

Edit: Oh, and I wasn't able to look at your links as the linked page appeared to be down as of the writing of this post. At least, they timed out trying to load on my browser.