I should start assuming that people mean what you mean when they say that skills are gone. It's too much work figuring out how to discuss it if they mean that skills are gone gone.

Fallout 4 looks to be going in the direction you predict. I can't find anything solid enough yet for me to call it good or bad.

It doesn't have to be a 100% reliable "I Win" button ~to still be one.

That's a cheat.

In Fallout, the PC lived and died by [careful use of] their APs.

In FO3 APs were an optional free gift.

In Fallout, an aimed shot indicated using more time than usual.

In FO3 VATS gets more done in less time; and affords free protection while doing it.

VATS is horrible

I personally never use it because it feels so over powered

Not in that sense. They've taken the lore and made a Bethesda Game Studios game from it. That's pretty much it. The game you want can't be sold to console gamers and be profitable. That's why XCOM 2 isn't coming to consoles at all.

Obsidian was your last hope and they will probably never do a Fallout game again. Even if they did one it wouldn't be anything like what you would want in a Fallout game.

I think you are going to be drowned out completely by all the cries from people who wanted Fallout 4 to be more like Fallout 3 and New Vegas. No one will even think of taking the series back to what it was with Fallout 1 and Fallout 2.

The thing about Obsidian is that they are capable of creating a superb Fallout game without using a single reference to Fallout... Westwood Studios did the same thing when SSI took over the "Eye of the Beholder" series, and produced EoB3.
Westwood simply made the game over as 'Lands of Lore', and hit all the targets that mattered. (To the fans, Lands of Lore ~is EoB3.)

InXile is doing the same thing as well, with Torment. All they have is the name; nothing else... They've even set the game in another universe, and yet they may well hit all the targets, and produce a superb sequel to Planescape :Torment.

(*Though it's odd as hell that they would choose turn based combat for a Planescape sequel. )

No one here expects Bethesda to change a thing. (But we can still point out why it's so terribly wrong for an official sequel, to for instance... remove the skills, and co-opt the perk system as a replacement for them.)

I think that you will see differently when Wasteland2 Directors cut releases on console.

IMO WL2 is the finest Fallout game to ship in 15 years ~and they know it.

(Unfortunately, it's not the best Wasteland game; but how can a Fallout fan complain about that... )

The new VATs looks considerably better than what was presented in Fo3. The concept of vats from Fo1/2 into Fo3 is good, it just needs some TLC so the 90% DR modifier doesn't bleed over into making combat easier.

It could be; and I hope it is. But I doubt they've really fixed its worst flaws. For one thing VATS did not exist in Fallout 1 or 2 except as a visitable location ~a map. That's why they picked the name, and made a backcronym of it.

In the Fallout series, aiming at targets was effectively gambling for bonuses. Targets were ranked by area mass; so eyes were harder to hit than legs, and each target had it's own critical hit table of various effects... These were why the player would spend the APs to aim a shot. Shots could kill, knock out, or knock down opponents; as well as cripple their limbs ~imposing combat penalties on them.

VATS in FO3 was just a fixed chance at bonus damage. Targets in VATS were assigned percentage by proximity ; it meant that whatever was closest was easiest to hit.

VATs in Fo3 is a representation of said targeting system where FPS gunplay was not doable in an isometric game. You're still gambling for bonuses, as shooting at the head in real time makes for a more difficult shot, whereas a VATs head shot has a lower chance of hitting the head than the torso. Then again, there are a lot of people who svck at the FPS in Fo3, and rely heavily on VATs.

Fo3's problem with VATs was giving an inherent 15% crit chance bonus (and stopping time), and expecting that the weapon degrading 4x faster would be enough of a drawback. **Thinking about it more though, the 15% crit bonus existing in VATs was most likely there to make up for people overtly relying on the mechanic, where as an FPS wiz who has no problem pulling off headshots in real time, shouldn't have an additional 15% bonus to crit when he's pulling headshots out of his ass.

Bonus damage aside, there is absolutely nothing wrong with increased accuracy based on proximity.

Technically no, but the point of it was progressive difficulty for commensurate gains. The whole point is lost in FO3; gone.

Misconception. FPS gunplay was not needed, and is indeed counter to PC agency. When a PC fired at a target, they aimed the shot; they were responsible for the miss, or the hit ~because it was them shooting, with their weapon skills. FPP aiming gets really awkward with a PC centric system, as any who played Morrowind can attest; and you even see some of that in FO3.

I really don't understand what you mean by progressive difficulty for commensurate gains. A close up head shot is definitely easier than a long range headshot with a pistol, but shooting a larger area like the torso is still a better chance of success than both LR/SR headshots.

I also didn't say that FPS gunplay was needed in Fo1/2. The principle is the same going from Fo1/2 into Fo3, you're every bit as responsible for aiming your shot in VATs as you are for aiming shots in Fo1/2. When you miss a shot in VATs, you have expended action points and ammunition (and you've damage your gun condition by a multiplier of 4). You're also equally responsible for missing a headshot in real time because now it defers to player skill/error.

So, what, the gameplay mechanics are more essential to Fallout for you than the setting and lore?

Hold on there. PC agency is fictitious. The game can have chance, and program agency, and player agency, but not PC agency. The game generates a portrayal of the PC's life. The PC is the agent in the fiction, and only in the fiction, regardless of who or what is the agent in the game. The PC is never the agent of the fiction.

I see. So why not make a petition for Bethesda to allow Inexile to continue their work on the series under the name Van Buren? They can publish it under Bethesda Softworks and you will get your Fallout and the people that want something different will get their's as well.

Fallout 4, New Vegas 2, and Van Buren. A different Fallout every year.

I love how being an FPS means a game can't be an rpg.

Games with dice rolls are the only games that have 100% character reliance.

And they sell horribly. That combat system is ridiculously outdated and the audience such a small niche that making a game based off it is a terrible idea.

The beautiful think about capitalism is that what works sells, and guess what doesn't sell.

If you guessed turn based combat, you are correct! What contains turn based combat? Video games. Who makes video games? Companies do. What do companies do? They make money. Turn based combat isn't around anymore, so what can we deduct from this? It does the opposite of make money.

People vote with their wallets in this glorious system and guess what came up short?


But PC skill still makes an impact. You have sway when using a gun with less skills, and my all time favorite, less damage!

Sure, you can hit a mutant with an light machine gun with no perks dedicated to it (it isn't had to spray and pray), but in true RPG fashion, you'll do next to no damage to represent having no skills. It's a perfect failsafe.

I can play through NV using an sniper rifle with 14 points in guns, but I'll burn through so much ammo with my misses and lack of damage that the play through would take ages, and if I play through any dice roll combat game the same way (using a weapon with no feats), I'll be at it for quite some time. I'll die a lot in both games, but any other comparison isn't fair due to two extremely different styles.

I'm not sure where this misconception of player skill being the deciding factor comes from. Saying something like that is just willfully ignorant of the entire combat system. You're cherry picking to make a very poor argument.

I like turn-based combat in some games, but hit/miss shouldn't be the deciding factor. That's just frustrating.

Fallout 4 is an RPG by any conventional definition. That a small sliver of the gaming community who defines what constitutes an RPG in far narrower terms than does the industry or the overwhelming majority of gamers doesn't seem to think Fallout 4 will qualify as one is hardly important. They aren't exactly authorities on the matter.

This is the only forum I can find that laments improvements to certain aspects of a game, whether they be crafting related or fps related.

I was mostly saying that out of humor. It's an incredibly stupid thing to say.

I'm still playing a role in a game and this the RPG "quota" is satisfied.

If you're looking for another forum that does it, check out no mutants allowed.

That place is full of grown men crying.

A.k.a:comedy gold.

I'm worried about the stats but more so when it comes to skill checks than combat. Fallout 3 and NV are both terrible RPGs when it comes to combat mechanics and there is no way to really fix them. I've already accepted that combat in this game will be nothing like an RPG.

You seem to be forgetting about the jprg market. Also fps is just as old as turn based video games.

Yes, he has said as much in other threads many times.

By that same logic a Star Wars movie isn't a Star Wars movie unless it exclusively uses bad effects.

The new batman and superman movie? Nope, doesn't count because they are using special effects.

A Godzilla movie isn't a Godzilla movie unless it makes use of a man in a rubber suit.

The industry isn't allowed to change at all.

That isn't the same logic at all and it makes no sense. An RPG is defined by its rules, not its special effects.

Its not defined by that small sliver of the community. It's defined by the games that were created in its name. People today misuse the term RPG.

And the rules have remained the same.

Character skill/perks determine how adequately they use weapons or preform checks.

If I have no perks invested into energy weapons, I'll burn through ammo trying to kill a mutant doing negligible damage the entire time. The same thing would have happened in 1-2, and it continued to happen in 3 and NV. With perks taking the place of skills it'll continue to happen in 4.

It makes perfect sense if one is claiming a fallout game requires turn based combat. The industry has evolved past that, just as the movie industry is past rubber suit monsters.

It worked at the time, but why use something so ugly when you've got something that feels better and makes more money?