Inspired by, prehaps, but based on.... Nah. Yes I know it was in the original fallout plan, but as someone who's read GURPS 3 and 4 cover to cover, I dont see a lot of similiarities myself.

I'm not sure where the rights are, but the non fallout special games from what I hear havent been much to write home about.

You must mean Lionheart, the fantasy game by Reflexive and Interplay, back when it still held the rights to Fallout but was putting off making an actual Fallout game.

I played it way back when, and I appreciate how it incorporated magic into SPECIAL. The early stages were okay, but once you had left the second town it suddenly turned into a pure Diablo-style hack and slash all the way until the end, and all those points you put into Charisma and other non-combat skills were for naught.

Personally, I think the game had potential and just suffered from poor level design and an identity crisis as to whether it was an RPG or a hack and slash. But that's not to say that SPECIAL can't work in a non Fallout game.

This, in my opinion, was one of the weak parts of Fallout 1. I didn't like it how with 4 Strength you can wield basically only pistols. This was fixed in Fallout 2 somewhat with the inclusion of more lower level Strength guns, but it pissed me off when i had to restart my game when i figured out there was a Strength limit for guns.

Back to the point, i do agree that the SPECIAL system is not implemented enough. I liked how in Fallout 1 after going through a withdrawal of Mentats all i could manage to say to a guard was "Urg?" Perception has lost its value near completely, only relating to how well you can detect enemies, and Endurance is no longer that all around skill that you can't ignore. And why the hell do they have the SPECIAL related answers in speech? You know those are the right answers immediately, so there is no challenge with Charisma. Also, i want to see traits back again, because those really shaped who you were in the wasteland. I think Bethesda tried to find the right balance of RPG and FPS, but Fallout 3 was not it.

Agreed. Yeah, I think it was started out with that in mind, but as I understand it SJG pulled out of the deal and Interplay had to alter some stuff from their original game plan to accomodate not having the license anymore. So, yeah I'd say inspired is the word.

...Though hey, if you're going to rip off a rule system, you could do a lot worse than GURPS.

by accident i have that game once brougth it for what 10/20 euro's, on a scifi con back in '04 i don't think i really played it that long, the game on it self was quit intresting (i love this parralel earth stuff), but it didn't work out for that while, probaly the 'hack and slash' and the 'instant healing', i never could grip to .... sorry for the offtopic

I think bethesda has gone for an only positive system, everyone starts at the same level, so while having a low intelligence has no effect, having a high intelligence does have positive effects unlocking dialogue options. This also applies to perks, having dropped the traits system with negative effects as a trade off to your perk, while they help flesh out the character a bit they can also lead your character down a path of become unplayable. It's not the same as Fallout 1/2, but it's different, that doesn't really make it better or worse really, just different.

Is this actually true? All I've seen is a higher intelligence modifying the percentage for a sucessful skill check which is a joke since somebody with a lower intelligence merely has a smaller percentage to make it, but they still have a chance (and really all they'd have to do is re-load until they get it right, no?). It doesn't actually unlock hidden dialog options like the original Fallouts did (and many attributes other than Int. would also unlock dialog options in Fallouts 1 & 2). You are right about one thing though: Bethesda really seems to have created a game that is a glorified hand-holding event and really feels like it's gameplay (not it's content) was made for an all-ages crowd. Something your kids can play and not easily die and become frustrated or something Granny can play when she comes to visit (time to decorate the house, Grandma!). Everybody starts at a positive place and before long every single character can accomplish anything. No room for failing anywhere because there's no room for individualization or specialization for your characters.

Edit: I do now seem to remember that sometimes even a rudimentary schooling in certain areas would give you the brackets around an option [science] or something but never did it actually look like the writers choose an answer which was something only a very intelligent or scientific person would say. They simply put brackets around a very generic response, such as the infamous: [Intelligence] So you say you fight the good fight? Now is that something a highly intelligent character would respond with? The exact same thing the NPC said to them? Horrible, just simply horribly implemented.



No, it's actually lazy developing and makes the system simpler, easier and generally less interesting. I mentioned earlier in this thread how I experimented with Bethesda's implementation of the SPECIAL system by creating simultaneous characters and making them what would have been very different characters using the original SPECIAL system. Nothing really seemed to matter, none of my characters were really any better or worse off than others because of the stats or attributes I chose and I felt then that there was about as much reason to replay the game as there was any other linear story-based game (only this game had a fairly short and very under-developed story).

I'd just like to see them implement a rule system that fits the game they want to make, instead of trying to shoehorn a different system into it. I mean, they've changed enough other things about the game, I don't see anything but a purely arbitrary reason that they'd need to keep only the surface of the SPECIAL system.

If they don't want to penalize players for having low attribute scores, then in game design terms I don't see the need to have a 1-10 system where a 5 is meant to describe an Average score and anything lower would imply penalties. If they want each character to be at least average in all respects with no drawbacks to low attributes, then I think a proficiency system would just do a better job here. Instead of Attributes being rated 1-10, just go with say 5 proficiency levels in every attribute. Level 0 would be equivalent to a 5 in the current system, and those 5 points you get to spend at character creation would go towards simply deciding which advantages you wanted to have. It would basically work the same way, but would better fit the style of gameplay they're going for.

Honestly, you could do the same thing with the skills - just have 5 proficiency levels each. This would certainly fit their usage of skills like Science and Lockpick, where your score only matters as a check to see if you meet the minimum requirements - having 74 Science means nothing if the console you want to hack has a minimum requirement of 75. If you just have 5-10 levels of proficiency, then again it would seem a better fit to the gameplay they want to have. Really, the gameplay reminded me the most of System Shock or Deus Ex, and that's the system they used and it worked perfectly well there.

And really, many of the attributes seem to be purely arbitrary in this game. I get the feeling many of the uses for these attributes were something they had to work on coming up with. Especially now that success is purely skill-based. Perception arguably has only a limited use in the game, I say just get rid of it and give everyone the same radius to detect enemies - personally I've played a character with PER 1 just to see the effect, and it wasn't really any different than playing a character with higher Perception. Ditto with Charisma - if Speech covers essentially the same thing, then do you really Charisma in the game at all? Agility isn't even really Agility anymore in my mind. Why not just call it Reflexes if it only describes how quickly you can make aimed shots?

Or again, not even having Attributes at all could work just fine. If skills are the only factor in success, then why bother with Attributes? Get rid of Attributes and re-implement Traits to serve the same function.

Really, I'd just rather they went with their own thing and made a system that fit the game. If they're not trying to replicate the gameplay of Fallout 1, then SPECIAL isn't really necessary, and frankly I find it sticks out more as a poor implementation in that it doesn't do what it used to. The sytem is more than just having the same Attributes so it spells out a fitting word - and that's really the only thing the two systems have in common. It's not a new version of the SPEICAL system, it's an entirely different system all together - and if it's a new system then there's no reason to keep the same attributes.

Too true. I really do see what you're after here and I agree in that if Bethesda cannot come up with a meaningful way to implement SPECIAL so that it actually makes a significant difference in how you play the game or how specialized/stylized your character becomes, then they need to come up with something entirely new which does allow you to feel like your character has a specifically forking path in how he/she can and will be able to accomplish every quest in the game (not to mention just random exploration). I did get the feeling Bethesda were sitting around going "People are going to kill us if we don't incorporate the SPECIAL system but how can we make any of it relevent in our game? I guess we could say that Perception lets you see the little red dots? Thats...kinda...seems...guys? Anyone? Ideas?"

I think that in the long haul, Nu Clear Day is correct. They looked at Special and interpreted it as a vehicle to plow into a skills based melange of TES and pre FO3 special. That is, I think the devs may have fundamentally misapplied Special in FO3. Tehg ame does feel very skill based, with stas having reduced impact on gameplay. One could arguen that the seame is true with the TES series after Morrowind.

This is Beth's first Fallout. Let's see what would happen in the nest.

Very much agreed. Some games come out and I can't wait to see what improvements will come out with the next installment. I like the game, but I'm very much interested in the potential it has. (Peter Molyneux being a good example for me - each game he puts out seems to fall just short of what he was going for, but is impressive in the scope of what he was trying to achieve. Each new iteration - whether it be Fable or Black and White, etc - leaves me with high hopes for the sequel to see if he can finally pull it off. Unfortunately I don't think he really ever has, but perhaps one day...)

Like a number of very good Television series take a season to really hit their stride, sometimes sequels are a good thing if you see the first game as something of a learning experience - a foundation on which to build upon.

That's how I feel about Fallout 3. I have a lot of fun with it, certainly. But I just don't think they're quite "there" yet. If I point out anything that I feel are flaws in the game design, it's only because I think they're capable of doing much better the next time around. (Attributes, skill balancing, and a workable level cap being my main ones.) If I thought they had no potential to really bring the Fallout franchise into new and exciting territory in a compelling and meaningful way, I wouldn't still be posting on their official forums.

Couldn't have said it better, though I'd personally replace "workable level cap" with "better writing and voice acting". I'm playing Bioshock right now and in comparison it seems that nobody involved with Fallout 3 even wanted the story or voice acting to be done well since after hiring a few celebs and spending all their time compromising game mechanics they had no money or energy left. I actually can't think of a game off the top of my head with more embarrassing dialog and voice-acting. :shakehead: I think they've got it in them to do it if they only become humble enough to admit where they went wrong and admit they need help, with their current team, to handle dialog properly.

In the other games, you could not make your way through the whole game as a scientist with CHA at 10, no one dare tell me otherwise. It is necessary to go through a conflict because combat is necessary in the first two, and the main point in tactics. FO3 doesn't utilize the SPECIAL system as much as the originals but even those weren't close to perfect.

But that's just a pessimistic point of view, the SPECIAL system seems to pull it's job off and I never really complained, no one's perfect.

Actually, you could go through the entire game without killing anybody, even the master.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree. My very first playthrough of FO1 was a scientist. I tagged Science, Repair, and Speech, and pumped up Charisma and Intelligence. Mostly due to ignorance on my part but also because I was more inclined towards roleplaying. And I wanted to roleplay a charismatic scientist.

I found it very rewarding, because my character started out as a non-combative loser but his strengths in other areas made up for that. Because of the high charisma, people showered me with the best stuff, and because of the high intelligence, I was able to max out my tag skills early and was still able to build up Small Guns and Energy Weapons to a decent degree. True, I had to rely mostly on my companions during the early stages of the game, but near the end game, my nerdy character had become a full-fledged warrior of the wastes.

I agree the old SPECIAL wasn't perfect. Some perks were useless, others were bugged. But the stats meant more, and influenced more factors than, let's say, the red blips on your radar. As such, every subsequent playthrough I had was an entirely different experience. Which unfortunately, I can't say the same for FO3.

Still, I agree with what the posters above said. This is Beth's first run with SPECIAL. And the character development system was lacking but decent. I'm looking forward to any improvements they can make in future games.

It was very hard to make it through F1-2 without combat (I never really tried, even with a character that preferred to talk their way out of situations I'd still find myself in combat.)

True, there was plenty of room for refinement in the first two games. (I rather think their streamlining some of the skills into broader skills - like First Aid and Doctor into Medicine - was a step in the right direction. Where I think they fell short there was in terms of rebalancing skill points after the changes they made.) But that the original system wasn't perfect only means that this was something I'd hoped they would improve on, instead of starting over from scratch again.

That the previous games weren't perfect doesn't mean that any criticisms I level at Fallout 3 are any less valid.

I think the SPECIAL "pulls it off" in Fallout 3, because it doesn't really do anything. It's really just there for window dressing from my experience with it. Attributes don't describe the character to the same extent that it should in a more traditional definition of an RPG. This doesn't mean that low Attribute levels need to have severe drawbacks for the system to be "deep," only that Attributes should serve as vital a role in describing your character as any of the other actions you pick. I've heard some people say that they prefer their actions define their character as opposed to their stats. I say they should be equal in importance. If one is worried about making a character that doesn't "work," then I think that's something pre-built characters should provide.

And in a well-balanced system, any character build should be as successful in the game as any other. In an ideal Attribute system, each Attribute point is every bit as useful spent in Attribute as another. There should be no "winning" Attribute that you should always focus on if you want to be succesful in the game (which is what Intelligence does in Fallout 3.) Any bonuses for high points in one Attribute should be countered by a lack of bonuses in other areas. "Gee, I'd like to put all my points in Inteligence, but that means I can't raise my Perception to what I want. I wish there was a "correct" way to spend my points, but it's such a well-balanced system that there isn't."

One thing I loved about Fallout 1 and 2 was how, unless you SERIOUSLY butchered your stats, there was pretty much always a workaround. Certain skills and weapons weren't particularly centralized to only certain attribute setups.

I haven't played Fallout 3 so I'm not sure how much that applies to it, but it should follow FO1/2's in the sense that each character should have just as much freedom as the other.

My only real gripe is perks no longer having disadvantages and occuring on every level. Perks were meant to be special rewards, but you would have to choose wisely as they were rare and they had tradeoffs. Now it's just "ohai, you can take any one of these without any repercussions". Not really perks anymore, so much as ridiculous bonuses, practicallycheats in a way, given to the player.

I may be wrong, maybe I'm overthinking this, so don't take this post too seriously. Just my two cents however.

Aslong as you have 10 in Intellegence you have best char...
Best;
Melee, Science, Big Guns, Small Guns, Energy Guns, Speech, Explosives, unarmed...

SPECIAL is a pretty screen.

Exactly. And it was basically a part of the manifesto as this line from the interview Ausir put up recently would point out:

"Fallout was amazing because we had one stipulation from Tim. Every quest had to have three solutions: Fight, Sneak or Talk. Every one. And no RPG has done it since to that extent."



Are you thinking of traits? The perks didn't have negative sides to them (unless I'm having a complete brain-fart here).

Wrong

I recently finished Fallout 1 with 10 Charisma. My tagged skills were Unarmed, Barter and Speech. I finished the game without having to put a fight for the main quests. I did get in fight a couple of times for the side quests. The only problems I had was at the beginning. I once got a random encounters of 6-7 mantis. I was running in circles while Ian was shooting them up.
But then I became an unarmed master and I could destroy anyone with my power fist.

So yes, you can finish the main quests without fighting. But not every side quest. (I tried working for both Gizmo and Killian, but Gizmo eventually found out and I had to punch him to death. Oh well!)

I've now started a Fallout 2 character with Repair, Medical and Science and 10 Intelligence. I'll see what I can do. Sulik will be a great bodyguard.

You mean like 1 Agility + Bruiser?

It's hell, I can tell you that.

This is something i dislike about Bethesda, if you are going to make a SPECIAL at least give it some significance on the game. Or just take it out from the next fallout. I hate hipocracy.

Same. I would rather have a Fallout game with little-to-no ties to the originals than a game that tries to have ties with the originals but fails horribly at it.

I played Fallout 1 and 2, and the original Wasteland that preceded both of them.

SPECIAL may not have the same impact in FO3 as it did in FO1 and 2, but it certainly matters--lots of exaggerating to make a point going on here.

Exaggerating? Re-read my comparison of what Perception modifies in the originals compared to Fallout 3. Would you care to explain how it "certainly matters" in Fallout 3 or are we to take your word for it? It's a shell of an idea and implemented poorly. Discussion is one thing, busting into a thread to throw out empty claims is another.