If SPECIAL is gone I'll cry. Maybe the attributes didn't mean much to the team for TES, but they play a damn important role in Fallout to me. I'd also like it if it was trivialized a bit less, so you can't just go "near perfect" or surgically alter yourself into a 10 in every stat.

If SPECIAL is gone, don't buy.

Well, yeah.

This is not streamlining.

The heavy weapons themselves still exist. The skill seperating smaller guns from bigger ones is what got streamlined, with a new skill (survival) even taking place so that we didn't actually lose out on the total number of skills. Weapon diversity in FO:NV was also vastly superior to anything Bethesda's ever produced, with almost every weapon being fully viable.

If Bethesda had bothered to make a decent sum of perks tied into the Big guns skill, then you might have more of an argument as those would fall apart a tad; even if they became guns perks instead, it'd mean there was far less demand to achieve those perks and guns would become that much stronger. This was not the case however, as Big Guns itself was a cadaver skill with no actual perks attached to it.

That's really only because the DT armor system doesn't work against like 2/3rds of the weapons in the game.

Its not hard to make basically any gun viable when your armor system doesn't really negate the damage of most of them in the first place.

Run Project Nevada...turn DT down to 1% bleedthrough

Panic like all hell against something that resists your gunfire.

Still be able to use 75% of weapons with AP rounds and skillful shooting despite that.


If fallout 4 produces an AMAZINGLY immersive Damage threshold system where essentially every component has its own variable DT I will be thrilled. (As that would allow modders to create armor sets with modularity such as shin guards and such with their own damage resistance variables allowing for a depth no real other game can offer.)
Skill>>raw power in such a scenario.

I am apprehensive but hopeful.

No, every gun is viable because it's your character's build that determines what's a good gun vs. what's a bad gun. Example, a Brush Gun won't be so hot on a low agility character, Lucky will be a godsend for a high Luck character, the CZ57 Avenger has a huge strength requirement but is an amazing gun in and of itself, etc etc.

Honestly, I think the DT system is perfectly fine as-is. The 20% bleedthrough is such a pathetically small amount that I don't see how anyone can feasibly die when taking only 20% damage, and I think it'd just be downright boring if you resisted any higher. If enemies could use some higher DT amounts...? Perhaps, though I think this was probably avoided because it would've basically had the effect that weapons like the Medicine Stick would suddenly take priority over guns like the All-American, where beforehand both were considered to be about on even ground in terms of strength. I think it would just diminish weapon diversity without actually doing a whole lot to increase actual difficulty of the game.

It's been mathematically shown to be fundamentally flawed at both the low damage range, and the high damage range.

Getting armor above light armor offers no effective increase against either low tier weapons, or high tier weapons, because a straight subtraction system allows one to negate the maximum damage possible from low tier guns with stuff you can buy from Chet at Goodsprings, and when it comes to high tier weapons, such as basically any DLC enemies weapons, DT's straight damage subtraction method removes so little damage you can wear enclave power armor, and are still only able to survive as many hits as Sierra Madre security armor.

There's no curve in it, getting armor above high tier light armor, or the lowest medium armors, offers no effective increase in damage resistance. To make matters worse, medium and heavy armors slow your movement compared to light armor, and cost several times more to repair, making them totally useless. Its the core reason behind why so many guns are so viable in NV, armor simply doesn't do much of anything in the game.

Hell, its so flawed Sawyer actually had to give medium and heavy armors DR in his mod to actually make them a viable means of play. the game's own creator admitted it doesn't work.

DT is objectively more flawed and less balanced then DR is. Its turns the entire game into a dress up simulator because armor doesn't mean jack besides appearances.

The problem with DT alone is diminishing returns: When you get hit with a weapon that does 100 damage, a DT of 30 isn't much of an improvement over a DT of 24. Thus, in New Vegas, Power armor ended up being comparatively underpowered for something so difficult to gain access to (not to mention all the light armor perks). I'm not suggesting DR alone, however; having both DT and DR I feel is the best choice.

Just mod it and adjust the bleeds...problem solved. If they keep and enhance the armoring and allow easy access to modders so they can change things, then I can call it a win.

I can make a chem character in FONV that with remants armor is all but a God...
(Medx, slasher, battlebrew)
But THAT Requires me to CHOOSE to do so, there is nothing FORCING me because damn near ANY build in NV is viable.

One of my favorite characters never went past 357 weapons with gecko backed leather armor. Such a build in 3 (leather armor Sith starter weapons) would be tough without being a drug addict...

More options, so long as viable, is always better than easier more obvious options imo.


I personally would like to see LESS reliance on sneak as THAT is why we overvalued light armor and all its related perks...with sneak and a crit build character, 1-3 quick headshots with the TERRIBLE detection and AI responses in the vanilla game, means that sneak is always more efficient than a build revolving arounding SURVIVING return fire.

Shouldn't have to mod it IMO.

Unless Bethesda puts out multiple starts with varying settings (think toggles like hardcoe mode but for combat, loot drops etc) then we will always need mods to customize the game to our own unique flavor.

Games HAVE to cater to the lowest denominator, it is an annoying but unavoidable truth for any large game company. With mods I can actually get the experience ibwant out of the game, so long as the devs enable the tools to do so.

THIS is why I fear streamlining as by having many varied and different fields through which developers spend time, modders can then take and tweak those developed fields down paths they like, whereas if everything gets streamlined there exists the capacity that the modders would effectively have to build from scratch an entirely new system rather than just tweak or add onto an existing one.


And honestly, sans power armor being just pure garbage, I could live with NV sole DT over that abomination that is pure DR. Best outcome is we get both back, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if we did and I'm hopeful we do. (And vats stays good and nerfed, FO3 vats was just stupidly easy, and no sponges either to dumb down DT mechanics...)

And I will eat your other shoe.

why would you think that? he might do that for obsidians next fallout game but todd howard is gonna be walking out at this E3

Like the old saying goes. You can't please all of the people all of the time. At the end of the day, for every 2 people screaming 'streamlining' or 'dumbed down', there will be 10 others who are enjoying those games, at least 5 of them for the first time. Perhaps some of these gamers will go on to appreciate the predecessors in the series and agree that past games offered more immersion and depth.

Despite some well articulated in-depth points about false customization ruining replay value, we must remember Bethesda is a business above any thing else. They may listen to critiques to a certain extent as evident to Dragonborn DLC being aimed at nostalgic Morrowind players, but in this day and age, they will never over-complicate character statistics to a point where you need a degree in calculus to mathematically plan your character.

It's amazing the way some of you have taken the time to crunch numbers and break down stats pros, cons and flaws and calculate what works and what doesn't work. Unfortunately, thinkers are in a minority. If I wasn't a Fallout / TES player, new to these boards, the way some of you converse in depth about stats and numbers would read like a foreign language to me, lol. Most gamers nowadays will never even bother to dive that deep into crunching numbers with stats unless they read a wiki page or see a mod that is proven to grant them a better experience. Bethesda knows this and so do most other devs. The fact that graphics seems to take priority over gameplay nowadays speaks volumes about where the gaming industry is headed.

I wouldn't be surprised for example, if Bethesda did choose one kind of defense stat for Fallout 4 to replace both DT and DR stats, where a new fan might have wondered 'what the hell is the difference?' When I first played New Vegas, it even took me a minute to understand the difference between Damage vs Damage Per Second.

If Bethesda streamlined this stat into one damage stat, it doesn't necessarily mean Fallout 4 has been 'streamlined' or 'dumbed down' for casual gamers. It could mean that Bethesda could want players to spend more time actually playing the game on their own and less time googling and watching youtube pro tips on how to play the game.

That means you'd have to go on faith that, while those 10 others might enjoy the streamlined version for what it is, they'd definitely not enjoy the more complex one, let alone enjoy it more. You'd have to assume the worst of your majority audience.

"naysayers" seem to be making the mistake that not streamlining will somehow prove for the worse in some shape or form,

believe that no one AND their grandmother had narry a thing to say about the Attribute/Special systems that were in previous games until they were removed with the flawed reasoning of Todd & Co of which said naysayers repeat to this day with little else in the Bucket.

Skyrim would have sold JUST as well had it a more robust and malleable system to define my character vs the world and NPC's they interact with.

Bring this to FO4 which by and large requires a Character Definition System -even more so- than any TES game for the simple fact of the range

of weapons and "Mounts" available this time around nevermind the cripple/damage/consumables system.

Streamlining in of itself isn't bad and folks just don't understand the distinction and why it draws such ire, much less the reason they defend it

I mean how would you feel if all weapons where just turned into one Skill? GUNS and Melee? wouldn't that float your kibbles and bits in the fire? maybe folks disassociated themselves with regards to the TES series because hell who swings swords anymore right? perfectly reasonable to stack Knives and Longswords in the same category

But lords Hold thyne process if someone -HONESTLY- believes the equivalent would be A OK in FO4.

because you know, Pistol handles just like a Rifle. and a Chain machine gun handles just like a RPG.

Possibly yes, at first. Though also you can bet a fraction of those 10 players may slowly adapt to the the more complex min / maxing and character building of the previous games.

For example, I'm sure there are many TES players who started out with and loved Skyrim, went on to try Morrowind and hated it. Later they decided to give it another shot, got past the learning curve and now enjoy Morrowind more than Skyrim. Whereas if they started out with Morrowind first, in this day and age, they might have been turned off to the series completely.

I watched a video on YouTube a while ago talking about Skyrim being dumbed down. Two things he mentioned stood out to me. The first was the fact that there were no consequences for joining multiple factins. Now to me, if you were the role playing type, why would this bother you as you wouldn't be doing it anyways I would imagine. Unless you saw two groups as having similar alignments or goals.

His second point was that you couldn't fail. Why would you want to? Remember, not everyone roleplays and it would be quite annoying if you are forced to backtrack 3 hours because a dragon murders your quest giver. If failure was constant, you would never achieve much.

It's the games response and reaction to what you do that people are after. It svcks a whole level of intrigue and excitement out of doing things when there's no precaution required for doing things, when you are just told "Go, do as you please" instead of "Go, do as you please. But think before you act, and live with what you do." It's still a game, not an actual sandbox to playpretend everything in.

Where's the joy of winning or even trying to, if there's no risk of losing? This also ties in heavily with the upper part about reactivity.

Why streamlinging works....

1. Not having to spend 10 minutes in menus dealing with being handcuffed by obsessive statistical micromanagement for every 10 minutes of actual game play

I initially after Morrowind found myself boycotting Oblivion. The really stupid part of this is I really can't remember what I was so adamantly mad about, but my boycott actually lasted till after FO3 which strangely I picked up FO3 a few days after it's launch just because I needed something to play. I didn't really have a pre-existing interest in FO3 and then I was pulled in all the way. Well after 300+ hours or so FO3 was mostly completed and I picked up Oblivion and realized I was a massive ignoramus for avoiding It. Then FONV and well that game is it's own thing and frankly it's better and worse all at the same time. Lastly Skyrim came and blew the roof off everything before it. Skyrim came out 11/11/11 because it is goes to 11 Spinal Tap style. Bethesda is smart and FO4 will be simply, perfectly, simple.

Exactly. Why should there be consequences of joining multiple factions when not everyone would know who you are? Even if they've heard of you, they wouldn't all know what you looked like.

Check out the rebuttal video to the one you saw, made by a Morrowind fan, debating that TES is not dumbing down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEI4yS7sFEw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHa8c2EPFNY

The risk of loosing is fine and dandy when it's a fair fight or something you can control like making a bad decision. If you can fail quests because an essential quest giver was killed beyond your control, via a dragon or a vampire raid. Sounds more like reloads and frustration than excitement to me. Which is the main reason why modders quickly added a mod to turn off random vampire raids after Dawnguard was released.

That was just Bethesda's patented Poor Design^tm, which they tied to cover up by making everyone essential Like they covered up the Skyrim memory leak by making the game able to use more RAM

The quests, by design, are fail safe. The entire game is. You can die in combat if you try hard enough, but there's no other possible way to fail.

Allowing quest givers to be killed before you even receive the quest would break the radiant AI engine Skyrim uses. If NPC's are 'living their lives' off screen from you, and are suddenly murdered before you receive or complete your quest, I don't see that going over well with many players.

Morrowind had no radiant AI system for NPC's. They mostly just stood there in one place waiting for you to engage them in conversation. I can understand their essential status being removed after all their quests are completed.

Couldn't agree more with that second video. Also, land of the talking vending machines haha!