Sorry but your figures are waaaay off base. You cant quote steam figures without a bit of knowlege of how they work.

It is worse than you pulling numbers out of your rear because for some false reason you think these numbers are remotely legit.


Lets quote a single other achievement to put your 7-10% in context.


First of all only 4.6 % of people finished the game in hardcoe mode.

Does that prove your point?? I think not, because guess what only 10.9% of players beat the game!!!!!

Yes thats right 42% of fallout new vegas players that beat the game did so on hardcoe.

That makes it a HUGELY POPULAR FEATURE.

Source:
https://steamcommunity.com/stats/Fallout:NewVegas/achievements/

No gods no masters is the final quest.

I would love to go back to the 50s, disguise myself as a substitute teacher, and play these S.P.E.C.I.A.L videos in class.

Um, No Gods No Masters is one of the final quests. Try running that again with Eureka!, All or Nothing, and Veni Vidi Vici.

4% of the 10% who completed the main quest played hardcoe, lets completely ignore the other 90% who didnt run the game all the way through. :3

even if you quadripled that 4% of playerbase due to incomplete playthroughs thats still 16% of players who played hardcoe.

lets take it further tho. 4 of every 10 players played hardcoe. they may not have finished it. thats 40%.

even at 40% its still a minority. it would be bad buisness to force a mechanic that the minority uses on the 60% without option.

Well only

40% repaired 10 items
Only 46% crafted 20 items yet crafting is a huge part of the game c

That's also only figuring PC users. I'm sure even less console users played in hardcoe mode

25.4% totaled up between them.

4.6% of that was hardcoe.

rounding the numbers for simplicity its:

25%

&

5%

that brings the numbers to 20% of players playing hardcoe.

again, for a feature that only 20% of players used, it make very little sense for it to be force on the other 80%.

the difference is its an OPTIONAL feature. you didn't have to do it if you don't want to, like with new vegas's hardcoe mode. (hence the low amount of people actually doing it)

people dont mind having a choice. it makes things better. but when you are FORCED to play a certain way, thats when people get rustled jimmies. (see all the complaints about voiced protagonist & pre-determined background for PC)

My mistake it has been several years since I played the game. This is the danger of quoting steam stats without proper knowlege. Makes you look like a [censored].

Still i achived all endings on one playthrough of hardcoe mode by just reloading a save prior to the split point. Despite that, fact I only accounted for one finish on hardcoe.

This also negates anyone who was not 100% dedicated to it the entire game. Simply not starting with it on or turning it off once during a particularly difficult part locked you out from achieving it.


Heck, under 50% of players recruted a companion. Does that mean they should not include them?

20% is still a pretty nice number for gauging what some people like. For me, the question becomes "how can Bethesda incorporate what people liked about hardcoe mode into a system that doesn't need to be optional"? Like, in pretty much every thread talking about hardcoe mode here it's almost unanimous that people thought the hunger/thirst/sleep meters were less than ideal. And that's coming from people (like me) who still used and enjoyed hardcoe mode. So the message I draw from that is, people enjoy giving those behaviors a purpose and being encouraged to eat/drink/sleep naturally (or they don't care either way, and enjoyed all of hardcoe mode's other features), but they weren't a fan of having to manage some arbitrary meters.

thats why you make the features optional, like new vegas did with its hardcoe mode. everyone wins.

you want to play with hunger/thirst then activate the hardcoe mode, and the rest can simply play the normal mode without the extra micromanaging.

and based off the track record since Fallout 3, its a very safe bet to assume endurance will make food heal more as the stat increases. survival was tied to endurance in new vegas, and with high survival food & drink gave you good amounts of health regeneration. if you were a good packrat and collected many types of food/drink you could even forgo using stimpacks for general healing and only use them for healing crippled limbs or limited emergency healing.

I certainly hope this is not the case, otherwise they would be better off not including food in the game.

We do not need heavy imitation stim packs. Food in fallout 3 was 100% useless.

It gave more radiation and less healing than drinking from a stream.

I never understood how a game based on surviving in a nuclear waste land has no survival elements in it.

because its more about "seeing" the world after the apocalypse the "surviving" it. at least thats how beth has done it.

I've never though of fallout as a survival rpg. Just doesn't make sense really. There's dozens of places we could go and not have any trouble "surviving". Right off the bat I could go to megaton, do some things, get my own "house" and just live there forever comfortably. At this point in time, civilization is reforming and there's less of survivial as there is rebuilding. Idk, maybe me. Just doesn't really take much to survive if you wanted to

I never played hardcoe mode in NV. I rarely use food in FO3, except to get the last few remaining health points. Why waste a blood pack or Nuka Cola when you only need 6 points or less?

I did however use the cooking system, or mechanic, in Skyrim. It could be exactly what we get in FO4. Grab some ingredients and make a meal that will get you more health points when eaten versus just a few meager points when eating the raw components of the same meal. Will I use it? Maybe, I used it in Skyrim because after all I did build a huge dining hall and kitchen. I do not however want the game to have a mechanic that I need to keep an eye on constantly as in "Oh I need to eat" or "I need to sleep" to maintain health in game.

As to cannibalism, I likely won't ever take that perk unless I get so deep into the game that I have no other perks to choose. I never ate human flesh in any BGS game, and I don't think I would now. To me resorting to cannibalism is an absolute last resort when there is no other viable food source around. There has always been plenty of food in BGS games, and the thought of eating a person never crossed my mind.

So after reading the thread of comments, this is one of a few that stuck with me, due to what I think could be incorrect information (I could've also quoted gkk7z, earlier post similar to this one), and that is the average number of levels per perk. Gkk7z, as well as most people assume that the average will be approximately 4, but I do not think this. I think the average is around 2.93 levels/perk, the reasons why are from two sources, one I can link and one I cannot (partially, because it is fairly hard to find outside of a few screenshots on google images search or contacting someone who can p2p it to you). The first inkling that the average levels/perk may be lower came from this interview with Pete Hines, http://www.idigitaltimes.com/fallout-4-gameplay-news-update-270-perks-confirmed-pete-hines-466632, and how when he's talking about raising perks he mentions 70 and then changes it to 270 (likely rounding). I will admit that this isn't much, but it got it into my head that the total number of things to raise while leveling was 275 different things (Perk or Special). There is just something in the way he corrected himself from 70 perks to raise to 270 different options, makes me think he was talking about the whole Perk Chart and not just the Perks (and their specific ranks), but including the Special stats as well. His comment about there being about 270 at the outset also, seems to indicate how many total options available on the perk chart.

The second reason and far more compelling, but also based on the few screenshots I have and my memory of the video, is from the leaked Gamescom footage. In the footage we see that all the Perks and Special stats have stars under their description. Special have ten, where as the Perks range from 1 in VANS to 4 in Gun Nut, we actually don't get any hint that there are any Perks with more than 4 levels. They end up going through the entire Charisma list and the highest confirmed perk level was 3, with only one being 1. This stuck with me particularly, because I was comparing the placement of the stars of the perks to the specials. So for Charisma the average seems, to me, to be 2.9 levels/perk.

This, admittedly hard to back up due to site restrictions, information then leads to why I speculate that the 275 number thrown around includes Specials. See, before with the Pete Hines it was just a little prickle at the back of my neck, something odd I heard in his voice, but after seeing the Gamescom footage it became a decent probability. The reason being is that the number being thrown around is probably based on the total number of stars on the Perk Chart. It's an easy number to count up and is a lot easier than saying that the total number of purchasable things are 275 perks plus 42 additional Special increases. Additionally, if the average was higher then Charisma would have a significantly lower amount of perk levels to buy than most other Specials, thus making Charisma a worse stat to super-charge earlier in the game. At approximately 3 levels/perk Charisma is not as far behind.

Why bring this up, because with the possibility of Cannibalism being a perk with 1 or 2 levels is much more likely if there are an average of 2.9 levels/perk than 3.9.

EDIT: Saw the video again and the upper average of the stars we've seen from the 15 perks that were visible in the Gamescom video was 3.07.

Huh. It almost sounds like food will have an effect on how much endurance affects you. Maybe food will give us DR/RR benefits, with those benefits decreasing the longer we go without eating?

Edited my above post to reflect a recent viewing of the Gamescom footage.

i agree they are fun to watch

BUT what i really want is some real information about the game itself and not some other vifeo about that stupid dog

i mean real information like is this truly a open world rpg or just another linear story driven shooter

how much freedom do you have to do what you want and not a game where the only thing you need to do is point your gun in the right direction

what are the requirements for pv

the lack of this information is making me pissed of at bethesda and very sceptical about tis game

That's a bit too easy to spot. You want to break up the year and put the century after the day.

As for Sundays. Yeah, They exist in the super happy place known as "weekend".

To get the most out of Fallout 4 once it releases, you may want to invest in a new keyboard.

I just had a thought pop in my head. Remember the E3 demo when the SS meets Codsworth after emerging from the Vault 111? Codsworth tells him he is 200 years late for dinner, and the SS then accepts the invitation for food. Food must play a more significant role in Fallout 4 then it has before. The latest video re-enforces this idea by focusing so much on food.

I think the food mechanic is explained when you accept the meal from Codsworth. In the demo it cuts to SS going to the garage, so we don't get to see how food will work. I'm betting in game we get the usual pop up info that tells us exactly what food is going to do for us, and how cooking our meals will give us more benefit than just consuming raw ingredients, stimpacks and drugs.

I'm taking my info from a video interview that Todd Howard did a little after E3. He said that there were exactly 275 perk ranks, and that most of the perks had 4 ranks, with a few exceptions. Sorry, I'm heading off to work soon, so no time to track down the source.

I took that to mean that almost all perks had 4 ranks, since 275 is only 5 ranks short of all of them having 4. I don't think any have more than 4, but I suppose it could happen. I haven't seen the Gamescon details well enough to comment on how many Charisma perks have less than 4, but if a bunch of them really do, then maybe raising SPECIAL stats is included in the 275 total (I think Gkk7z is thinking along those lines).

EDIT: Today's new video on Bethesda.net sheds some light... there are perks with 5 ranks!

Excellent point. This also ties in with the PC's reaction when viewing Sugar Bombs during the tutorial.