That's what I mean, not many perks could mean some serious agonising over choices, and taking something that is less useful overall but more 'interesting' for want of a better term could lead to the feeling of a chatacter that is truly yours rather than the min/maxed ready for everything generic that these games usually eventually allow.

21 to assign plus the base point in each stat, for a total of 28 points.
The other thing in Fallout Shelter is that all the level 1 vault dwellers start with low SPECIAL stats. When you get those FO3 dwellers, they are high level and have high SPECIAL stats. I think this reflects how things will be in FO4. One way or another, we'll have higher SPECIAL stats by the time we get to higher levels.

Hopefully raising our special higher will be optional, I hate being MOATS and like Choice.

Yeah, I hope they don't let us increase our SPECIAL too much beyond what we start with. There would be no reason to set an attribute to 10 in F4 at the start if we had something like the implant perks or 3's bobbleheads.

Exactly, that's why I named it. I remembered thinking "man these guys have garbage SPECIAL scores," then I remembered that past Fallout games gave you a starting Special average of 5.72 whereas this one gives you a starting Special of 4. I wonder if the idea isn't that you naturally increase SPECIAL over time.

The fact that Intelligence says 'experience points' and not 'skill points' is hard proof imo.

If you can't increase special with the use of cybernetic mumbo jumbo I'll eat my shoe.


It's pretty much begging to be a feature with MIT and androids obviously being a thing from the gameplay footage.

That bobblehead doesn't mean that there is an Explosive Skill unless it actually modifies the Explosive Skill. It is conceivable that all or most of the bobbleheads are in game just as collectables and do nothing for stats (Snow Globes anyone?)

At the same time, there are like 88 perks that are hopefully base game. If perks are tiered in this game, then multiply that.
There were far fewer base perks in F3.

I doubt there would be this many in the base game if "skills" (or whatever they've morphed into) weren't going to be a somewhat robust system.

We'll see, though.

there are 70.

One for each rank of the 10 ranks of the 7 special stats.

This is the most complete list that I know of

https://i.4cdn.org/vg/1434589817326.jpg

I'm more surprised why people think that a bobblehead equals skills....During the crafting you also see that it doesn't require the sciece skill but simply Science rank 2 which probably mean that they changed it to be perk based.

I'm still waiting for my special snow skills to go up....

So it doesn't kill you anymore....hope that's not the case for FO4

So? Doesn't mean there isn't a Science skill. They might be doing a similar perk tree system that was used in Skyrim. In Skyrim, there's even (for example) Conjuration 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 perks in the skill for Conjuration.

There's honestly no proof that skills are gone but proof that they still exists.

You're right. Dunno why I counted 8 across, but didn't see (on the pixelated image) that the top row is just the SPECIAL header.
Still have to wonder, if they are leveled perks, then it would seem we still have a lot of depth to the system.

Pretty big [censored]in stretch, but it's possible - I just hope SPECIAL is no longer soft-capped.

The genre began on pen and paper, where you could literally fail a roll, to meet basic tasks overseen by your skills. Even perma-die for being unlucky, stupid, or both. That's your confirmation.

Also, arbitrary means choice or variable.

bobble heads for perks. 13 perk cap confirmed

Allowing a character to do everything there is to do in a single play through ruins the game for everyone. Some people may think they like that, but everything you end up doing doesn't really mean anything if there aren't consequences for doing it.

If I don't focus on science perks, why should I be able to do content that focuses on science? That doesn't make sense. Opening it up devalues the effort put in by people who actually do focus on science -- why bother at that point when they could just focus on whatever they want and do everything without a care in the world?

It's supposed to be a role playing game. Opening up all content regardless of player action pretty much removes the "R" from RPG.

Thankfully genres evolve and change. Rts games made in the 90s aren't like rts games made in 2015.

Holding the genre back because of what it started as is silly.

As for the above post: that is a very strict set of role playing rules. Most people don't enjoy hardcoe RP, nor making multiple characters to do the same content with a slight twist.

If you think picking science perks and getting the same quest as someone who didn't is somehow taking away from your achievements in a single player game, I'm not sure what to tell you.

You've got access higher tier crafted weapons, I don't if I don't choose to go down a science-y route.

It also raises the problem of quest writers writing quests that people may not see. I imagine these people want players to experience what they worked on, instead of a few who decided to make a character specialized in stealth and explosives.

You could liken that to the introduction of LFR in wow, large swaths of the population never saw max level raids because they weren't very good at the game, so encounter designers spent all this time designing amazing fights, only for a small % of the players to ever see it, and it bothered them.

Artist generally like sharing their work, and more eyes on it isn't going to cheapen your experience unless this become a multiplayer game. Or you just really care what other people spend their free time doing, which is another issue altogether.

That's not an evolution we're talking about. Change, yes. Not all change is good. What is this grand ideal having weighty consequences - good and bad: they can be two-sided, you know - hold the genre back from?

On the plus side, dude, you've built a sneaky character who's great with bombs. Saboteurs are awesome to role play. Roll with what you build, and if you really hate your crappy character, try again next time.

Well, yeah. And pen and paper had humble beginnings from stone tablets, chisels, and wall painting.

I don't mean to be crass, but I really dislike it when people bring up pen/paper rpgs and try to say this is how things should function. We have moved beyond dice-rolls in rpgs.

Instadeath because you didn't know what a reflex save was when you started playing a game isn't a fun weighty consequence to most.

The interest is there for some I'm sure, but such a system is not something that fits with a AAA game. This isn't a niche market.

Not everyone enjoys rerolling, especially after having invested a few days of play time. I've got no problem with it, but I don't have anything to gain by imposing a playstyle I know a lot of people won't enjoy.

Well the implements have changed, but the argument was rpgs are built, with arbitrary lockouts and consequences, for player actions to mean something. Sometimes the consequences are good, btw.

I don't think enjoying the negative is the point. I'm not a masochist. I take the negative of a skill system in stride, because I believe the positives outweigh them. My two cents.

Oh yeah definitely. For me it really comes down the line to what kind of consequences we're expecting. Things like limited character function don't bother me at all because I recall the numerous play throughs in Skyrim where I played one build and didn't really touch other ones. Same deal with FNV. It was either guns or energy.

I'm all for losing out on a quest because I did this one, or killed this guy in this quest so he can't give me a reward for killing the guy who wanted to kill him.

These quests in fallout are often all lumped into one though, and are a choice at some stage of the quest.

Losing out on said quest because I have 1 rank in barter instead of 2? Who wins here exactly? Certainly not the guy who wrote it, and not the player who is probably going to invest that point eventually, so why have that block in the first place?

In general, I'm opposed to removing things like skills and/or attributes, as they did in Skyrim. However, Skyrim actually played incredbily smoothly compared to Oblivion and Morrowind, in my opinion, specifically regarding leveling, of course. I still hope they don't completely remove skills and would prefer to see attributes return to TES (just handled differently from earlier releases), but since I have enjoyed each iteration of TES and Fallout that Bethesda has made thus far, I'm not ready to freak out yet. I fell in love with Morrowind and thoroughly bought into all the hype surrounding Oblivion's release, which cured me of game-fever, and certainly prevents me from ever pre-purchasing or buying on release day. I have high hopes for Fallout 4 and more than my share of anxiety that some features, or lack thereof, could disappoint. I'm a big boy, though, and I can take it in stride if there are massive game design changes from Fallout 3 so long as it is integrated as well as before.