This is for the people who've played the other fallout games.

You really should post how you feel about it, and why too. Unless you havent playeed the game, in which case you can explain why you're asking...

Word up, :grad: <--- Cameo hat inclded

With Fallout 3 turned to an FPS/RPG, SPECIAL doesn't affect the game the same way F1 and F2 did.

Low Intelligence does not affect dialogue, you can carry an infinite number of equipment whatever your strength is, Perception now only affects your, erm, "compass".
It's a different turn they took, and personally, I don't like it. Perception no longer affects how well you shoot (unless you do it in VATS, then again, the percentage is rediculous. I have 5 in big guns, yet I have 50% chance to hit when the target is at about 15 feet).
Strength no longer affects what weapons you can use. Get 1 in Strength and you're still able to load and fire a minigun.

So yes it affects the game, but much differently.

I voted option #4 since I have yet to have any proof that any character build is different from another while the replayability of the first two games in the series were enhanced by this quality greatly.

Can you be "stupid" in FO3?

Nope, low Intelligence does not affect dialogue. I liked it in Fallout 1 when the Overseer tells you that

Yeah, I was overall pleased with Fallout 3, except in this area. It felt more like they were struggling to fit the Attributes into the game they were trying to make, as opposed to making a game based around how they wanted the Attributes to work (which is what they did with the original system.) There's no real need to get particularly high scores in any of them, really.

With the exception of course of Intelligence, since everything is now run by skill levels. So it seems to me that it's even a bit unbalanced. Ideally, in a good RPG system, one point in one attribute should be of the same advantage as in any other attribute. So a 10 in STR or PER should be every bit as useful as a 10 in PER or CHA. Which I don't really see in Fallout 3 to the same extent. Players should really be deliberating over which attribute scores they want (or if they don't want to worry about that stuff, that's what pre-made characters are for...) if the system is to be considered "succesful" to me.

Yes, exactly right. I had a weird feeling about it early on with my first character so I experimented by creating a few different character builds and testing them simultaneously. I found out that adding points to a few different areas had no bearing on the success of the character I created. If my character can somehow just luck out on an Intelligence check during speech with a stat of 5, why add to it? In Fallout 2, for a brief example, you needed Int, Per, Lck all at 9 in order to successfully complete the citizenship test in Vault City. Pretty extreme in this example but a pretty healthy-sized reward for building up points in those areas. Now this is just one example in FO3 where I found that most of the SPECIAL stats were sort of arbitrarily modifying things that didn't really make your character specialized, just enhanced already existing qualities.

Like, perception. Let's look at a comparison from The Vault wiki:

Regarding Fallouts 1 & 2:

"Modifies: Sequence, ranged combat distance modifiers and the First Aid, Doctor, Lockpick, Traps and Pilot skills. A player character with higher Perception may notice things that allow them to open up new dialogue options on occasion. It also determines how far away your character starts from hostile critters in random encounters.

A high Perception is important for a sharpshooter"

Regarding Fallout 3:

Modifies Explosives, Lockpick and Energy Weapons skills. Perception also determines when red compass markings appear (which indicate threats).

I don't think I have to explain how much more dynamic and useful Perception is in games 1 & 2. I just can't state enough how much I would beg on my knees for Bethesda to fix this system for Fallout 4. Give me a reason to dump my points into stats and skills, let me be a character who can solve something one way but never another. If I am role-playing I want to be equally rewarded and punished for choosing to build the type of character I build.

In that case, FO3 SPECIAL is a disaster.

Given the state of the game market, I doubt that Beth is going to make FO4 in such a way that casual players can create gimp characters. I would like to see SPECIAL stats have more impact on game mechanics, but I don't think it's going to be like FO1-2.

Sad but true.

Which makes me wonder, and I'm hoping some FO fans can answer this, is SPECIAL exclusive to the Fallout series, and thus, to Beth? Like what if some small company (which nowadays seem like the only ones interested in making old-school RPGs), wanted to make an RPG using SPECIAL? Can they go ahead and make it? Or would they have to obtain rights from Beth first?

That would svck because Beth cut out a lot of what made SPECIAL, special. And if they're the only ones who can make SPECIAL based games, then I fear the old SPECIAL is lost forever. After a dozen playthroughs. I don't feel like I'm playing different characters at all.

I don't see why they didn't. They can easily allow premade characters that fit a certain archetype, describe it well enough that any casual player can get a grasp of it, but allow custom creation so you can gimp or enhance your character however you like. Seems like a mix of laziness and underestimating their audience.

To be fair to Bethesda though, there seem to be a very significant amount of Elder Scrolls fans completely content with the fact that they can decorate their houses. :shrug:

The SPECIAL system is based on GURPS by Steve Jackson. I believe Bethesda only bought the license to make the games and with it, its SPECIAL system. So other games wouldn't be able to use SPECIAL.
Although I still wonder if the system was really exclusive to the Fallout series. The PnP RPG uses the Simple system.

We'll have to wait until a larger company buys the Fallout license to get a re-work on SPECIAL I guess

It could be implemented in many different ways without being exactly the same or the "SPECIAL" system. Most good RPG material uses distinct character building like this.

If you re wondering why there are negative reactions to some anti FO3 posts on this forum, well, throwaway comments like that one is the reason.

I'm an ES fan AND a Fallout fan, and I like this game. Attacking people like me with snide comments like that isn't going to advance your cause, or this discussion.

How was I attacking you? It's a truth. There are people out there who couldn't be bothered to complain about things like SPECIAL because they're into completely different aspects of the game.

I'm not going to play these NMA word gams with you.

I don't get what that means but fine, I'd rather not continue this with you either. :shrug:

Damn it Brother Aqualamb, you have failed in your mission from the NMA High Council....

Heh, Jesus.



Hm, I'll give you that much. Most people wouldn't care about specializing your character, over all the cool stuff - like dismembering raiders, dressing up, etc. But still, there's no reason "accessibility" means that you have to coddle the player and make sure he can't screw himself over (heaven forbid he LEARN from it..). I still think it's laziness and assuming the audience are all morons that led to SPECIAL getting neutered.

Heh, indeed!



Oh, I completely agree with you I just think Bethesda really were catering more to their crowd rather than the Fallout crowd, unfortunately for us sometimes. To a Bethesda developer it makes sense that they'd keep all these elements from their series. It's not only what they know and do best but they get to convert and keep fans from the Elder Scrolls. I do agree it was a very lazy approach though, pretending to implement SPECIAL and having it really just be a decal and not truly working.

I'm going to have to disagree with this. I fail to see where you get your information from, unless you have a poll up somewhere.

Back on topic, I agree SPECIAL is not the same. Skills should matter and impact interactions and abilities. At the very least make intelligence matter when really low or really high.

People all over the forums discuss how much time they spend on decorating and the like. Even my gf can't find anything better to do with the game than arrange weapons on her table.

I'd agree, I doubt that we're going to see the exact same game mechanics from F1-2 in a hypothetical Fallout 4 (though I think it's safe to assume we'll at some point see an F4.) What I would like to see is some more attention payed to this aspect of the game if they do choose to go forward from there. I think a lot of this is just growing pains. They have basically made a completely new game with Fallout 3, and there's going to be a lot of room for refinement your first time out (Oblivion is what... the 4th or 5th Elder Scrolls game? And they're still refining that system and trying to get it work out how they want to...) And that's not saying "Oh, Bethesda never gets anything right, and their rules system always svck." This is something you run into anytime you do something from scratch, the first iteration of a system like this. Dungeons and Dragons is still in a state of refinement, after all.

Anyway, back to the point. I don't think a "good" rules system necessarily needs to allow you to create "gimp" characters. Low INT dialogue was neat to play around with, but not essential. Your PC is always going to be Star of the show, after all. This means that I don't find fault with not being able to make a character that is too weak to get out of bed due to a low STR score, or completely blind (low PER) or so ugly that no one wants to give them a quest ever (low CHA.) I can see a 1 in any stat as being somewhere around the "average" mark, if you balance the game out that way. (Wouldn't really work in a tabletop system, but you can make allowances for a videogame, I should think.) But being able to "hand-hold" casual players doesn't have to mean "dumbed down." I think that's insulting to the intelligence of the average "casual" player. I think they're a lot more capable of understanding concepts than they get credit for. I mean, the Sims is like the ultimate "casual" game, and that actually allows for quite a complex and deep range of interaction within the game. My sister is a "casual" gamer, and it took her a day or two to really get the hang of that game, but the interface was intuitive enough, and the gameplay compelling enough that it was able to keep her interest through the end of the learning curve.

What I would like to see is a greater importance on the stats, if you're even going to decide to have them. As it stands, I think F3 could have worked just as well without them at all. All you really rely on are skills anyway. Maybe a couple traits to choose from at the start to individualize your character (Smarty-pants trait gives you more skill points each level, Charismatic trait opens up dialogue options, Bruiser trait gives you extra damage, or whatever.) But you don't really need Attributes in Fallout 3 - it feels to me like they designed the game and then shoehorned the Attributes in there. As opposed to coming up with the rules system, how the Attributes work, and then building a game around how those interact. So if we see a Fallout 4, I'd just like them to decide which way they want to go. Either make Attributes mean something and design from the ground up a game that makes them have a point - or just do away with it altogether. I don't think that would be an inherently bad move, either. Even from a "hard-core" tabletop gamer - I've played plenty of deep and involving games that only used skill levels to define success. If it doesn't bring anything to the game, then why even put it in there? It's notable to me for how it doesn't work in Fallout 3 - without it I not only wouldn't have a leg to stand on with criticizing the system, I also wouldn't personally find any fault in their exclusion.

I mean, look at all the impact Attributes have in a small thing like deciding which gun you want to shoot your enemy with in Fallout 1:

STR determines whether or not I want to use a heavier weapon. I can get by with lighter guns or just handguns, even - but I don't get the bonuses that a huge heavy weapon like a Missile Launcher is going to have. I still have a choice, I can choose to shoot a Bazooka with a STR 1, I just have to make up for that negative modifier with a higher skill level. STR lets me do more damage, but likely I'll have lower points in another Attribute to even out that bonus.

PER tells me whether I fight enemies at range, or if I need to get up close and personal. Maybe that high PER is countered by a lower END score, so I need to keep out of range in order to survive. Or maybe my PER is so low that I'm better off just closing the distance and going melee. Perhaps I put more points into END to counter a low PER so that I can take a couple more shots in closing the distance to my enemies. Or even a higher AGI so that I can get closer quicker.

END tells me how long I can stay in a heated battle. With a high enough END and some good armor, I don't even really need very high weapon skills - I can keep missing my shots because I can just soak up the damage. With a low END, I have to alter my tactics. Every Action Point counts when I can only take a couple shots before going down. Low enough END and I might not even last until my next round - high enough and I can take a full round of enemies shooting at me before I need to heal myself.

INT determines what my options really are. Maybe I have a low INT because I wanted better scores somewhere else. The character still works just fine with fewer skill points per level, I just need to focus my efforts more than others might. I have enough bonuses in other areas that more specialized skill selections aren't that much of a drawback. And with a high INT, the extra skill points are the reward for sacrificing myself in other areas.

AGI is all about what I can do in a combat turn. Do I go for a slower weapon that might do more damage? Or something that fires quickly so I can afford to miss a shot or two? If I have low PER, I might raise my AGI a bit so that I can close the distance. Or maybe I have a low INT, but with a higher number of Action Points, I can fire an extra time or two so that while I miss more often I can still have a chance to do some damage each turn. Or I counter a low AGI with a high PER so that while I might only get off one shot a turn, I have a good chance of making that shot at distance.

Or maybe I just put all my points in CHA so that I might not even have to get into combat.

There's just a whole range of options with the old systems. You can put a lot of thought into how you want to define your character. And your character stats will help to determine which tactics are more succesful than others. I do believe that there needs to be a chance to "fail" in a game. You really can't make a character in F1-2 that can't make it through the game. You just have to focus on your strengths. If there's no chance of failure, if every character you make has the same chance of being efficient with any mode of play - then what's the incentive for actually being succesfull? What's the reward?

I don't see this same level of depth in Fallout 3. And I don't really see the advantage to their system. Sure, not all players want to put that much thought into their characters. But that's what pre-made characters are for in the first place. You could have completely solved any chance of the player picking the "wrong" Stats in Fallout 3 with pre-made characters.