I used to play D&D Basic 1977 edition and I dont remember any skills. I'm sure it was considered an RPG, though.

Your statements about you wanting your character being able to do things early on based on your own ideas of progression gives me an impression that you are more concerned about power gaming and that form of play is, typically, frowned upon in RPG circles.

If you have a personal problem with the game, just say it as such without the pretentiousness. Your opinion will be more acceptable and subject to less scrutiny.

24k reviews at the moment on Steam. 79% of them is positive. So well if we go by stastistics, you lose.

Fo3 and FONV were FAR, FAR Easier then this game, by miles. the skill/perk system allowed me to be hilariously OP very fast without trying. and cost? nope, just put some points into the skill and in, like a level or 2, if you chose decent perks, etc, you could pretty much do whatever you were intending.

Perks in that game were also either dumb, useless, or VERY niche, most of the time, the best perk to use was literally the increase special perk.

Does FO4 have problems? yeah. do i wish skills were still in despite my complaints? yeah, probably? does not having them make F04 bad, no, if anything it has been made more of a RPG in terms of having character limits. If i want to start getting good at hacking, i not only needed a certain int score, but also the perks i need, which means it took longer to do so.

@icedrake707

Right. Because I bought the game means I disagree with the OP. Wait... that's not right. 750 million people bought a game based on a TITLE and FRANCHISE. The same way people bought Mass Effect 2 and 3 only to get the crap they got from those two titles. People bought Fallout 4 with expectations BASED off of Fallout 3 and NV. Those expectations fell short. Fallout 4 is now a shooter game set in the wasteland; no RPG to it. There is no leveling of skills that make a difference other than lockpicking and hacking. Oh wait, you don't NEED those either to play the game and finish it. You need no skill input to use big guns, energy weapons, etc, or to get more proficient in them. Yes, you can up the damage of your preferred weapon, but, that's not a necessity either. So I put points into perception to up my VATS accuracy. There is no skill, no perk, to make that accuracy increase. Stealth is all but useless as mobs spawn from the ground in front of, or around you, whether you're stealthed or not. It's a shooter game, plain and simple. It's not an RPG by any means anymore. The only "cool" function they added to the game to make it different than Call of Duty was settlement building and they screwed the pooch on that one with mobs spawning INSIDE the settlement area making your defenses (not to mention the hours your spent building them) useless.

Yes, 750 million people can buy a game, but, that doesn't mean they LIKED it.

One of the problems that we face in these debates is the sharp contrast of how different people define "roleplaying" differently. To some (mostly gamers from the late '90s onward), "roleplaying" means creating a task-focused character that can do what they want it to do. That usually boils down sacrificing nearly everything else to awesome in the chosen niche: an outstanding Rogue or an unbeatable Warrior or a brilliant Wizard, etc. And usually ugly as sin (who needs Charisma really?), and low values in the non-occupation related Attributes. So the Wizard is as weak as a puppy and the Warrior is as dumb as a brick. How "realistic" are those character design choices? Especially in a place like the Wasteland where a weakness in any Attribute WILL get you killed early on. ["But "realism" doesn't apply! Because this is just a game!" I hate that argument. It's so shallow.]

Going back to the earliest RPG, D&D, the "proper" way to roleplay was to take the numbers the dice gave you and the player became that character; not the other way around, where the player demands that the character be the character that he wants. [Naturally, it took umpteen sets of dice rolls to get a tolerable set of numbers, but that still ended up with the player having to be what the dice decided he should be.] (I should know about this because I used to work for TSR back before AD&D first appeared.)

When we have debates about what is an acceptable RPG, most players are speaking that first definition of roleplaying. That's because developers for the most part chose to give the players what most of them wanted.... because that guaranteed larger sales volume. High Attribute values, a solid set of Skills to start with, and rapid advancement. ["I want it ALL, and I want it NOW!"] It also had the element that most games were short-lived as the challenge evaporated as the characters rapidly approached godhood. ("Just in time to get our latest-and-greatest game ever!") Occasionally/rarely some Old School developers use retro design elements to make a game closer to what a RPG was meant to be. Which quickly results with complaints like the one that you were Replying to. All I can suggest to such complainers is that there is no shortage of other games that are more directed towards the kind of design you want. Your time will be better spent playing those than it will spouting bile. I know it's disappointing when you've spent $60 on a disappointment, but how do you address similar disappointments elsewhere in your life? Do you demand for your money back every time you go to a movie that proves to be not as entertaining as you hoped? Ever try to get your money back 30 days later when your new car doesn't perform to your expectations? Or walk out on the check in a restaurant when the meal wasn't up to your standards? Rarely, if ever, I should imagine.

"Get used to disappointment." -- The Dread Pirate Roberts/Man In Black/Westley

OP, here's a question for you: if the higher ranks of each perk didn't have any level requirements, would you be okay if the rest of the system was as-is? Because to me, it's only the fact that higher ranks of each perk are level-gated that is angering you, but you insist on attacking the entire system as a whole. If you want to convince us that the entire system is bad, you need to give us more than just "Level-gating perks destroys build freedom". Sure, it's a valid complaint, but it's only evidence that one aspect of the system is broken, not the entire thing.

I love the new perk system. And there is role playing, and you still build your character the way you want. Its just different than the previous two games and i like it.

Stated credentials aside, are you so sure that the Wizard and the warrior are not opposites for the simple reasons that one is the infantry, and the other is the artillery; each with opposing strength and weaknesses... For who would play the warrior if the wizard could use plate mail and a battle ax in addition to spells?
Are they not archetypes... The 15 year combat veteran and the 15 year academic occultist? (Who has scarcely left the library...)

*No. I don't believe, or mean to imply that role-playing means job-playing.

**Also: Would you agree that class based implies the character's life experience and their aspiration towards a profession; IE. studied trade skills ~in cases where the class is taught.

To me, skills only makes sense if you check them against dice rolls. Morrowind tried that, and it wasn't very well handled - missing failure animations and whatnot (understandable from a dev POV I guess). Some call it roleplaying when you create a character that is clearly OP at like level 2-5. We used to call this abusemant of a faulty system (in dice tabletop games), and rest assured the GM would strike hard against such attempts. A computer based GM is unlikely to be able to check and counter such behaviors.

I miss skills, and I'd like to have tons and tons and tons of them, see example http://www.google.no/url?url=http://torsjoha.tihlde.org/rpg/RM/Rolemaster%2520SS%2520-%2520Standard%2520Rules%2520-%2520OCR.pdf&rct=j&q=&esrc=http://forums.bethsoft.com/topic/1552748-perks-are-not-a-replacement-for-skills/s&sa=U&ved=0CBkQFjABahUKEwibgoXXtJTJAhXHmw4KHYqvC6E&sig2=UDM0XK2ovb2u08lemUh-VA&usg=AFQjCNEwa4bM81LGIqxdNB7ThomsC46wyQ (pdf), but they have to be made in a sensible way. Previous incarnations of skills didn't make sense at all much of the time. Even now, some of the perks are kinda off in the sense of trying to be like "skills". I have no objections trying to do something different than having a faulty skill system.

The first 5-10 levels you level up ridiculously fast. I wouldn't call it leveling up, but refining your character in game rather than during character creation. With the bonus that you get to try it out before actually choosing. Part of "streamlining" I guess, but doesn't really break anything.

For RPG, I want skills and diceroll checks against those skills, but with a decent visual result on the screen (unlike Morrowind). If that is even remotely possible, I don't expect such a computer based system to offer enough skills. In the end, I think the perk driven approach to abilities suits well as a replacement, and appears to prevent abusemant (even if I would like to abuse system later on).

So what is so different between the skill perks and skills? Having Lockpick 49 or Science 49 still means that you can't unlock Average locks or terminals. The skill points might as well not exist between 0-14, 16-24, 26-49, 51-74, and 76-99 since they are completely useless. The only skill points that matter is 15, 25, 50, 75, and 100. It is easier to just make each division into a perk and not have people complaining that they can't hack an Average terminal because they just have Science 49.

Games have seemed to be more simplified over the years instead of being the numbers game that some rpgs were due to D&D's influence. Don't think I ever saw a single stat number in King's Quest.

Isn't it that what matters [in a threshold based system] is where you put the finite amount of skill points that you have, and not that last point that actually passes the threshold?
The skill point at 15 doesn't matter if there is no skill point at 14.

But prior to FO3, skill points were the PC's measure of influence; an abstract rating of their confidence and experience at the task. The great thing about it is that they can fail even if they are a consummate expert; because nobody is perfect; and no situation is perfect.
It meant that nothing could be taken for granted ~unlike FO3 and now 4, where it's all taken for granted, because perks unlock actions as a result of getting them.

I've faced no trouble switching up my playstyle and specializing. The new system is more Skyrim-like. It took me a bit to get used to, but I really have no problem with it.

Same for me, I think it's more balanced this way and gives you a chance to explore more perks.

This is exactly right. The only thing lost in FO4's system is that granularity of having 100 ranks instead of 5. But if only 5 of those 100 ranks are really significant, then what's the point?

Having two characters be different because one has a skill of 49 and the other of 39 is not deep and it's not meaningful, because the difference doesn't really make... well, a difference.

I have to agree with OP on certain things such as not being able to freely Roleplay as whoever you want; i.e OP's example of a sneaky explosives master or some [censored] Bufflord who just smashes things (1 INT, MAX STR and Melee).

However, disagreeing with OP, we cannot see this game with shaded lens and say that "I want it this way, because I'm the customer". FO4 is a refreshing new change because:

They added a heavy background to the main character: a parent looking for his kidnapped son. Plus, that peson is either an Army veteran or a Lawyer. This effectively removes a lot of the roleplaying elements we want, i.e we can't create a [censored] female Bufflord anymore because she is a Lawyer! Although this narrows the roleplaying element by a huge factor, it opens up other elements like letting us create and GROW a character with some sort of realistic progression. That's quite role-playing to me; I mean, the level caps on Perks are so that one doesn't immediately master the wasteland as soon as he steps out of a cryogenic deep sleep. Bottomline: don't judge this game based on YOUR expectations of it. Bethesda marketed it as such on E3 as they DELIVERED.

There is a whole new element of building your own home. That itself is quite RP. I believe this element was taken from Minecraft? To be able to build your own Fort or settlement just like the stories of Vault Dwellers who founded great nations like NCR.

Removal of skills does make it slightly more realistic. I mean, how does a personal attribute affect the damage of an explosive or how does it allow a gun to do more damage when the damage is dependent on the hit area, caliber and weapon attribute. Of course, this is my take on how Bethesda is trying to make the game more "realistic". I could be wrong because breathing underwater ain't realistic (Aquaboy/girl) LOL. Level caps on perks are not new to RPGs as most RPGs (almost all) have that.

Nevertheless, we should see this as a game on its own and not take any expectations of previous titles into the game. From an objective point of view, this game is really good if we don't put our expectations onto it! Subjectively speaking, its a refreshing new change (aside from bullet sponging enemies )!
Kudos to Bethesda

No one has every been able to explain why I could pick up a .50 sniper rifle and aim it at an mosquitoes head for a clean headshot from miles away but with the same character I can't hit a car right in front of me with a laser rifle simply because I didn't put anything into energy weapons. A gun is a gun no matter what it shoots. If I can expertly handle a ballistic rifle then I shouldn't be a complete incompetent with an energy rifle.

Yes they are.

The perk system has been hugely improved.

I think the new perk system works well with the game. So far I've been able to roleplay a sneaky, charisma based character just fine without feeling too restricted in my skill point usage.

Clicking on a star in the perk chart is functionally identical to manually assigning 25 skill points into one skill. Perks are so much better than skills since there can be so many more of them, and therefor so many more character development choices.

the Perk Chart is 10x better for me then the skills , i have no problem with the change

I was basically going to write this. I prefer the new system. And to reply to another post, 750 million people bought fo4, huh? That's like a tenth of the world's population lol

I've played for about 20 hours so far and can't say that I have missed the skills at all. I'll agree with the OP that FO4s perk system is NOT the same as FO3s system but I'm not sure being unable to potentially abuse the system at lower levels (SNEAK = 100 @ LVL 4) is a legitimate complaint to make.

Obviously the OP is quite opinionated about the lack of a direct input skill system, so nothing anyone says here is going to pacify him. Frankly, I like the new system and find it a refreshing change from pumping up numbers to 100.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

People are also forgetting that the base perks were pretty boring when fallout 3 and new vegas launched and they were later fleshed out with DLC and mods.

They're also forgetting how worthless the specials were, compared to this game.

the palladium role playing game encompasses over 10000 individual skills, magic spells, superpowers, abilities, psi powers, talents, occupational classes, weapon systems ranging from a child's sling shot to starships carrying multiple wavemotion guns, and player species ranging from literaly a field mouse to a supernatural rediculously powerful Dragon that as part of its skill set and racial abilities can cast spells, summon powerful weapons from nothing, and transform humans into super powered persons of mass destruction who are literaly that player characters mind controlled puppets, in a games setting that spans multiple realities.

Based on you criteria THAT game is multiple orders of magnitude better than than fallout can EVER be even if everyone who ever worked on any version of it could come together in one company.....

My point being that many of the fans is paldiums system will admit that it can be a god awful mess with you needing up to dozens of rule books to explain just what your character can do, assuming that he is basicaly just Hawkeye in hunting camo.