There is nothing fundemnatlly superior to doing it your way or bethesda's way. Skills don't make an RPG, D&D did fine for years without any skills.

Skill points added ZERO complexity to the experience because it was impossible to screw up a character skill point wise. Yes they could have tweaaked the system but there is nothing inherently wrong with them going to the "perk" approach instead of tweaking it.

The only thing that matters is how the system plays and that can't be judge as a success or failure until you actually play it.

Wow. We're still only speculating on how the system will work in FO4 and you're already thinking about about how Bethesda will ruin FO5?

While i do understand where you are coming from, i think the evolving mechanics of games are mostly good and not bad. We are way to focused on how things used to be contra to what they are. I don't like dumbing down, but i like systems that are easier to handle and give me the freedom to play the game more. Some see character level up as a mini game, i find it rather annoying. Been playing roleplaying games since way back when, but i am very happy with how it is today and the way Bethesda approaches it. I don't think making the skills into a skill-perk set is dumbing down, it is just easier to control. It will give more detailed info on what each skill-perk means. You will still use it for crafting, medicine, lockpicking and all of the other bases it handles. That is just my take on it.

Sure it can be judged as a success or failure before playing it. Hell, people did it before the game was even announced.

I gotta see more of it to have a more of a input on it. Because the system in now of what I'm looking at waters down the system of Fallout is built off of from it's weapon damage, healing, dialogue, protection, dialogue, etc. Sure it can be modded in at a later time, but to rip a system that makes Fallout Fallout is worrisome in the vanilla game. It works for the Elder Scrolls series because your skills aren't actually impacting the story / quests dialogue and is meant to be open to use with in how you play your character freely, besides the usually speech type skills ( Granted that they used the speechcraft skill in Skyrim to impact some quests and dialogue ). Fallout skills are used in dialogue to make certain quests easier, are used for random XP gain, and what potential items you can get. In short I want to see more of it before completly jumping the gun.

If it makes my stats mean more then im all for it. Skyrim was a good step towards having stats mean more, although every Beth game since after the Morrowind days have had characters be relatively proficent in everything they do. My Fallout 4 character will be putting a lot of time into learning and mastering everything about firearms, much like my New Vegas character. How to use them, how to repair, modify, upkeep them. If I can have a lot of gameplay centered on not just shooting with my trusty rifle, but on treating it right and taking great care in how it operates aswell as making ammunition for it, ill have a lot of fun. The ammo crafting in New Vegas did a great deal to make more more merchancially-incined characters feel like they are putting time and effort into what sustains them in the post-nuclear world. Im expecting Fallout 4 just with its weapon mod system to make it more personal, and I hope that spending time back at my compound tinkering with everything is just as deep as the whole wasteland wandering stuff.

OK, call me crazy and perhaps I am totally missing something, but it seems logical to me that since it's just a tweaked version of the same engine used for Skyrim that skills and perks will work just like, or pretty similar to what we had in Skyrim.

Skills were still in the game and they mattered a lot in my opinion. You just didn't get to pick the skills you wanted to put points into when you level up. But to add points to a skill you actually had to USE the skill in game to add points to it by actually PRACTICING THAT SKILL, or pay a trainer to train you, or read a skill book. Once a skill is past a certain level you unlock more perks that enhance that skill and you can pick those when you level up. But you still had to put points into a skill, but the only way to do so is actually using the skill.

Bobbleheads and skill books could still add points to skills like they always did.

Unless I'm totally stupid, which is entirely possible, I still see skills as an integral part of the leveling system.

What am I missing?

You are missing the point, the change fundamentally adjusts how Perks are actually handled in Fallout games, and it is not really for the better (or the worse as you pointed out) - but it is still a direct divulgence from what Fallout has been historically to a number of people. You argument about lack of complexity is something that was introduced by Bethesda to begin with, Fallout 1 & 2 both used skill checks with their Skills - Bethesda introduced the tiered system to their application. This in turn made them feel more like perks, but in an excessively bland way, which has in turn resulted in them being axed as Skills and convered entirely into Perks. That is never what Skills were designed to be with this game, but it is what they have become.

You also seem to think that my derision is an automatic sign of failure of the new system. I was very clear that this is not the case in my post, and there are a number of ways that an RPG can be approached, but we do also have gaming generes such as Action Adventure that people seem to ignore and that is what Bethesda is building towards. The thing is, people do grow attached to lines for many reasons, and my point remains that you don't need to mold a line with a historical setup into something else.

I agree with you, and said as much myself. FO3, NV, and FO4 each have had their strides in making the game line evolve forward. They have also slipped into the habit that I describe though, as well. Again, there is nothing technically wrong with this, but it does mean that fans of what Fallout was will be upset with some of the things they see happening. You are correct as well that the argument made by those upset with the change of it getting "dumbed down" is inaccurate. The technical dumbing down happened back in FO3 when we went to the tiered Skill system to begin with (that is actually reducing the effect of what Skills can do, and is thus a dumbing down of what had originally been presented). What FO4 has done is actually logical for the direction that Bethesda is going, but as I point out it is that direction that so many seem to be taking issue to (myself included).

I also admit that neither side is actual right or wrong with this. It is a matter of personal preference and opinion, and no one is allowed to tell anyone else they are wrong about what they personally feel. Simple as that.

In closing though, I do find it amusing how some have already tried to twist my wording into declaring FO4 an epic failure before it has even been launched, simply because I pointed out criticisms of what is being done. This is the real problem I see budding in this community, people just trying to push things into slanted arguments rather than taking the sentiments for what they are. By simply broaching some of the arguments made for this change with a reasoned layout of why I disagree with them, I am already being declared a decryer of the game and Bethesda as a whole.

The actual history of the game is that Fallout did not have Perks (or NPC companions, but that's a different story). So Brian Fargo was given the beta game, and he took it home to play for a few days. When he came back, he said he loved it, but that there was not enough to do when he leveled up. So they invented Perks, and it was well received.

Either I am misunderstanding you, or you are misunderstanding me; but we both seem to agree that scarcity can make something valued.

I did not see perks as the highlight of leveling up; in fact one could easily forget they were due, and it was often a pleasant surprise to be awarded a perk; as occasionally happened.

Perks every level devalued them, and made them demanded, instead of awarded. I saw it as Bethesda buying friends.

I just want leveling to be more than just pick 1 perk as your entire character building.

That would be at the level of what some action games have.

I hadn't even thought of that. leveling up will be pick your perk.

(Probably perks ~plural.)

I wouldn't mind if skills were streamlined into perks, so long as they keep the same number of effective perk levels as the skills had.

For example, in past TES games, the bonus to melee damage you got from STR only really ever mattered once every 20 levels or so, and since the STR range was 1-100, that means we had 5 levels of STR that mattered. In Skyrim, they changed that to one +damage perk every 20 levels of your melee weapon skill, and the skill went 1-100, thus leaving us with 5 perks that increased melee damage. The difference was that since it wasn't spread out over those 20 levels, you actually got a noticeable increase in melee weapon damage every time you got one of the perks, rather then having to spread so far out over the 20 levels you basically didn't notice it. On top of that, they filled the new gaps in leveling with perks/powers that didn't exist in past games, which allowed for ever more increases in power then past games had. All it did was stop pretending it was more then it was, took out the fluff, and left us with what actually mattered.

For a Fallout example, the lockpicking and science skills really only mattered every 25 levels, due to the 25/50/75/100 skill lock on locks and terminals in the game. So as long as they give us a perk with 4 ranks to it, it wouldn't be any different then what was in the game before. As for things like weapon damage, they had a similar "only really useful once every 20 levels" problem like past games did with thier STR value, so as long as they give us 5 perks that increase the various weapon type damages..... I wouldn't be bothered by the change.

I don't see anything wrong with just displaying the value of your skills and perks for what they actually are, rather then trying to make it appear like its more complex then it is by hiding behind a 1-100 skill system where 95% of the skill levels don't actually mean anything.

Can't give an opinion because we don't know enough information, maybe at BethCon or if Fallout 4 is the Game informer's pick for July we'll get more info on this.

I think you touch on the main reason there's so much arguing going on here, whether or not Bethesda should stay true to Fallouts roots. I should preface this by saying I am a huge fan of the first two fallouts, aswell as the more modern iterations. They are vastly different games, and they all succeed (I think) at what they do - the earlier as classic RPGs and the modern action-RPGs.

The thing is, like it or no, Bethesda bought the Fallout IP from a dying company, and so I think it's almost foolish not to expect huge changes. It's not as if they were handed the IP and told "go, child, and continue this great legacy" you know? If FO5 turns out to be a 2d platform-puzzler, sure I'd be a little bummed but if it was a good puzzler I'd still buy, and enjoy it. I don't see why or how Bethesda has any obligation to keep FO a strict RPG, to old and new fans alike. And since they did not create the IP, I don't think they hold the old games in any particular sentimental reverence, and why should they?

What I'm trying to say is I don't see how they have any artistic, ethical or financial reason or obligation to make FO games like they were ~15 years ago. The modern way of doing things is obviously much more financially viable, looking at sales figures. And if you do not enjoy the types of games added, the solution seems simple - don't buy them! As consumers, the only way we have of affecting a companies way of doing things is through our wallets.

I didn't mean this as ascribing all these viewpoints to you personally, more as an argument against the traditionalist view of Fallout. Apologies if it did!

Anyway, on topic: I don't see the streamlining of skills as a bad thing, as they were quite meaningless in FO:3/NV. Seeing the "skill-perk-ranks" requirements for crafting leads me to believe that they're not totally gone though, we'll have to wait and see.

I would rather 20 lock difficulties than 5, and rather than that, I would prefer that they chuck the threshold system entirely, and restore the Fallout [1&2] skill system intact.

*It'd be very interesting if either of these could be done via the GECK.

I would prefer something more along the lines of Skyrim's rather then the dumb threshold system myself.

I would also prefer % based speech checks rather then a threshold system there too.

If it's anything like Skyrim's streamlame skills/perks hybrid then it's gonna be awful.

Just have to wait for the modders to fix things, if that's the case.

Why? I thought that it felt totally natural to me. You only improve in a skill if you actually use it, just like real life. Then, as you get better you enhance the skill with perks that add nuances to your improving skills. A good real life example could be a golfer. When you start out you just want to try and hit the ball straight. As you learn to make better contact with the ball your swing speed gets faster and you hit it longer. (Length perk) As you practice you learn to manipulate the trajectory of the ball by hitting it higher or lower, and then learn to draw and fade the ball. (Direction perks)

You might argue that the perks were not what you think they should be, but that doesn't mean the overall system wasn't sound.

Of course it wasn't sound. Most of the perks were passive benefits that should've applied anyway from improving the skill e.g. more damage, stronger enchantments, spell cost reductions.

All they did was transform the expected benefits of skill increases into perks, and in doing so created an uninteresting perk system. Which was pointless.

Here is an idea [another free one]: NPC's that have speech (or other checks) in their dialog, could adopt a temporary behavior that actually reflects a change in the difficulty of their checks. For instance, an NPC could behave a bit distracted one morning, or even show signs of a headache; and these tells would make their checks more difficult, because they don't really want to listen, or they are just not very agreeable at the moment. Of course this could also be good moods, humming a tune; smiling a lot; a lowering of certain speech checks.

This implemented (subtly, not heavy handedly) would actually convert the simplistic threshold system they seem to love, into one rivaling the weighted percentile system... Their mood shifts (which could be scripted, random, or from emergent events), would noticeably depict and act out what the percentile system only implies. It could be close to functionally the same, and could mean (for instance) that the PC comes into town to question a merchant about something, and finds the merchant in an irritable mood. Her bartering is less than generous, and she doesn't want to talk to anyone.

Under the hood, it means that the threshold for success is upwards from normal, and it's not a good time to broach any subject ~which might be persistent, and binding, even later. Yet perhaps the PC has such a silver tongue, that they can pull off broaching the subject anyway, and get a positive response; where not every PC could have.
Other times even those PCs that have trouble talking to others, wouldn't spoil her good mood, and they'd have a chance to converse even with lower tact and skill, due to greater a tolerance that day, or the NPC's general happiness. Obviously punching someone would lower their mood towards the attacker ~and possibly others as well; and affecting their speech checks in conversation.

This is effectively what's missing from the threshold system, but quite possible in the weighted percentile system that Fallout and Fallout 2 had; possibly better... if applied to more than just NPCs.

There were a lot of interesting perks IMO. I played as an archer most of the time, and there were some great archery perks - eagle eye, ranger, quick shot etc come to mind. I didn't have a problem with it, but apparently you did. But you made my point for me that it was the perks themselves you didn't like, not how the system was structured.

While I like the idea, that sounds far to overly complicated to actually try to program and explain to the player in a way that most people would get it.

Also, that turns speech checks into a waiting game for the player, they would just find ways to goof off until the point in which the threshold would be lowered would occur. the more "negative" raising of speech check thresholds would never occur, people would just find ways to "game" around them until they lower. It really wouldn't change anything.

With all due respect, that's just nonsense. If Bethesda deemed the IP or it's fans not worthy of respect then they wouldn't have bought it at all, it wasn't cheap. What you're doing is like saying that it would be fine for the new Star Wars movie to not have the force, energy weapons, or space battles... Just ludicrous.

If you take an established IP, there are some expectations attached to it that have to be met. If you don't feel like doing that it's better to make a new IP altogether, or end up with something like DA:2, that's stuck doing nothing well and alienating the original fans as well as being unable to pull in new ones.

Some of the attitudes here to me seem really selfish and self-centered. As a person that got into the series with the modern Fallout games, I consider my opinion of the direction that the series should move towards as having inherently less value, and that is in fact the reality of it. I haven't been supporting the IP and the people behind it for such a long time and the people that have, really deserve more than to just be ditched off to the side. What is it.. almost 20 years now, since the first one? Just think on that for a few moments, before you go on with your selfish tirade of how some people are feeling unsatisfied about the direction the franchise is taking, while still hoping for all the best, mind you. And, you've what? Played 1 game and liked it. If you don't agree, then that's perfectly fine, but please at least have the decency to respect the opinion of this person that has been involved and supporting the franchise for as long as you or I have lived.

Personally, I like shooters, it's also the genre that I play the most, I have 3k hours on cs:go but I also don't understand the obsession of making every game similar in that respect, for me a lot of the value in gaming comes from the different experiences, I've never asked for every other genre to take after shooters, I'm not sure why publishers are assuming that's something us shooter fans want.

I'd really like to try out some of the things from older games, like experiencing the story of Planescape torment, or the reactivity and in depth customization and role-playing aspects of some of the isometric classics but on a modern platform. Hence, I thought that NV was actual evolution to Fallout 3, where we're getting more things and more customization, but why is it that when things are being taken out it's not being called what it is but evolution instead? Change is change and it's not good in an of itself, if your diet consists of lemons and bananas replacing those with [censored], doesn't actually help anyone, does it? What I see is regression. This is my view as a person that got introduced into the franchise via Fallout 3, and continued on into NV. All of the concerns I've read so far are completely understandable, and I hope Bethesda can find a way to make the fans of the franchise happy.

There were some interesting perks, outweighed by the majority of pointless ones, which undermined the skill system.

You have nothing.

I will wait to learn more and see the system in action before judging it.

But after the initial shock I felt when attributes where removed from TES, anything else seems so miniscule.