Then put quest givers somewhere safe or have alternatives, if it's information then put a note on them with the info, then if they die the player can still get the info. Personally I think Bethesda introduced indestructible NPCs to save going to the effort of offering alternatives, Obsidian offered them and it's possible to complete the main quest killing everyone on the way with the exception of the Yes Man who respawns, something that can be explained by him being an AI on a network who is able to jump between units.

That would imply its logical that every quest giver would be in a safe location at all points of the day, or that everyone writes down every little thing they could possibly want, or every little minor detail for every favor, large or small, that they could want.

They do not.

NV only managed to get away with it by reducing every NPC to a Morrowind tier static help desk, especially the faction leaders like Kimball and Caesar, who apparently spend years in their embassy/Tent without ever going outside.

There isn't always a contrived situation like Yes Man to serve as a backup.

@Crimson Paladin from the previous thread:

The evidence for SPECIAL can be found in http://i.imgur.com/JeBQ1wU.jpg image, at the Vault-Tec poster, taken from the protagonist's garage/hideout/base of operations. The images at the top of the poster are SPECIAL, with the attribute names listed over their corrsponding icons, while the rest appear to be perk icons. I've also been told that a SPECIAL book appears in the trailer, but I don't know exactly where it is.

Again, while I "hope" that SPECIAL will be in place, I have to ask if this pic is from gameplay, or a promotional video? Is it the same place where the protagonist spoke and people think that is "proof" that the protagonist "will be" voiced? This could be just a "hat's off" to the previous games' use of SPECIAL, could it not?

I do apologize for my skepticism, but with the furor over the trailer, I thought a bit of cynicism may help a bit to calm it down

This is what I'm contesting. Big time.

Not needing much DT to resist smaller firearms, I don't see how this is an issue. Even if, for example, Power armor reduced the damage of a varmint rifle down to 2 per shot whereas light armor reduced it to 8, neither of those amounts are life threatening to begin with. It's impossible to balance for the lower-grade weaponry at all.

Higher-grade weaponry? It should be noted that any DT point can easily resist up to four points of damage. Being headshot doubles incoming damage, and if you play on very hard, that doubles the damage again. So while the gap may be Light armor resisting 23 while Power armor resists 33, that can easily become 40 less damage taken for the power armor guy.

Furthermore, Sawyer's mod by no means replaces DT entirely. No, it combines DT with DR. Very limited amounts of DR too.

Let's take the above example of an anti-material rifle being shot at someone with 20 DT and 30 DT respectively. On the Light armor target, 90 damage gets through while with the Power armor, 80 gets through. The gap can result in a max of 40 damage less for the Power Armor guy. Now add 10% DR alongside the DT. Suddenly the Power Armor target is getting hit for only 69 damage compared to the 90 from Light armor. 21 difference on a normal hit, 84 in a worst case scenario. Crank it up to 20% DR, now it's hitting for 58 damage vs. the 90 from Light armor. That's a sizeable gap.


The moment you start exceeding small amounts like 20% though, that's when the game becomes too simple. DR has the flaw where, if it's the main form of defense, the game is doomed to become stupidly simple the moment you max it out. Best example to highlight the flaws of DR is explosives. You could step on a mine that does 350 damage, and even amazing DT (best in New Vegas was around 50 iirc) will do very little for you. If you have the maxed DR though....? Maxed DR in FO3 was 80, and it would mean you could dance around in a mine field and only take a measely 70 damage per mine. These are mines that could oneshot kill some characters, and now the same character can step on 5 of them before the same effect is felt. You will never conceivably play so poorly as to warrant this amount of defense.

If there's anything I'm praying gets changed in FO4, it's DR as the main form of defense. It's too overpowered and makes the game stupidly boring once you get a certain amount of it.

Because there is no balance or logic in it. Power armor should logically reduce more damage then some leather armor does, yet it does not.

I never said it replaced DT entirely.

Actually, it adds

35 DR to Enclave power armor

30 to the T-51b

25 to the T-45d

20 to the NCR salvaged power armor

Most of which manages to reduce more damage then the DT was against higher level weaponry.

So what you are saying is that DR allows you to resist most damage when you either get high DR from power armor, or obtain and equal DR as power armor from a variety of perks/effects? Like logic dictates it should? That's literally the WHOLE POINT of power armor, to basically make you a god.

Also, T-51b power armor only had at 60DR in Fallout 3. I wasn't using any +DT sources in my original explanation, only base armor DT. Theoretically one could stack tons of DT from various sources on top of Enclave power armor and achieve roughly the same effect in NV also.

Without the stacking one would take like 140 damage from those mines, which is still quite a bit.

It's probably a good idea to start finding other systems and solutions if the one in use is so volatile and out of control that it can't be arranged to have NPC's not murder each other off screen or when such an occurence is not desired as a random effect.

Nah. I think it's more about not letting the player make mistakes that might cost him a questline or break one in progress than it is about AI programming. Either way, though, it's pretty bad (at least for a series that's known to strive for responsibility and reactivity for your actions, like Fallout).

And Skyrims NPCs weren't "Static help desks"? all they did was give you a task and add a waypoint to your GPS, that could easily be done from a safe area. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make about Kimball and Caesar, the game isn't set in medieval times where kings led on the battlefield, Caesar is where I expect him to be, in the tent with the maps on the table, Kimball doesn't go anywhere near the embassy, you only see him in the open on the dam. And yes, you can kill both of them, you have the choice.

If you are going to put NPC quest givers somewhere safe, why make them killable to begin with? I suppse it will be different with fallout unless they walk under a vertibird and get crushed. Radiant A.I sounds good on paper but in reality its a nightmare to code.

Big difference between undying monstrosity from the nether realm and death by face diving off a cliff/bravely fighting a DRAGON because I was somewhere nearby in the cell....

Duly noted =)

I'll run and swin my way to LA just to hug him and shout ''IT'S DA WRITING MASTAH''

Skyrim's NPCs didn't behave like informational brochures, though; In fact, a lot of NPCs had character to them and extended beyond just spewing copy/pasted information.

The alternatives you state in another post are either a step backwards or just plain bad alternatives. Putting NPCs in safe locations devolves into Morrowind's static, radiant-less system. Placing notes on NPCs that act as pseudo-quests is just, what in the [censored]? Can you imagine finding the body of Delphine along her route to Kynesgrove, with step by step details of what the DB should do next in the event she dies?

And the Delphine -> Kynesgrove situation is a good example of precisely why essential NPCs exist - it isn't possible to create dozens of A-Z alternatives for a single NPC in a world with radiant/roaming AI. What happens if Serana (one of the main plot points in the Dawnguard x-pac) dies before she even makes it out of the tomb you find her in? What if Farkas dies on his way to Dustman's Cairn? What if Neloth dies on his way back to his magical mushroom hut?

There are some examples of situations where NPCs take-over for other NPCs (Like Hulda is replaced by Ysolda in the event the former dies), but these are minor NPCs and not critical to various quests that the DB will ultimately embark upon. Skyrim's concept of exploration is reliant on quests that encourage the player to get out there and explore locations on their way to said quest. Critical quest NPCs dying randomly are detrimental to this pairing.

If we ever go back to NPCs that sit inside all day and so absolutely nothing, then sure, we can have non essentials back.

It just seems funny that people who want to be able to kill anyone for immersion and less dumbing down would want such a thing.

I guess it's more realistic and immersive for all quest givers to sit inside somewhere safe. The wood cutter who wants you to go rescue his son will remain indoors forever, and never cut wood.

Wow. Much immersion. Such realism.

Meanwhile the game that has essential marked NPCs to protect them from the dragon attacks or vampire raids, such things that would probably occur in a world plagued with such things for all you immersive folks.

Its somehow less immersive that the game wants to protect these people from its on random encounters, but NPCs that never leave their homes or do anything that remotely hints at them having their own life in their world is less of an offender.

Seems to me people will claim the older games were "less dumb" no matter what, even if they must ignore any semblance of a logical argument. If this is the case you may as well be trying to convert someone's faith.

It's probably funny because you don't think about it further than that and think the only alternative is to have those NPC's be eternally at house arrest.

What if you killed the wood cutter and as a result, you doom his son too and have his wife turn into an abused prosttute because she can't make a living on her own otherwise anymore? What if you stumble upon his son by accident afterwards and get him home to find out that his dad has just been buried and his mother is taking it in the ass in an alley by a drunkard with puke in his beard carving his initials on her back with a broken bottle, and he ends up killing himself after a certain while. You just destroyed a family. What if people find out it was you who killed the woodcutter and they decide to save the son themselves and put you on a permanent shoot-on-sight [censored] list. What if the woodcutter dies by an accident because you lured a monster to the village and the fight takes a few lives. There are loads of possibilities that could be done to give these things reactivity and consideration, and if it's not a "big time" quest giver, why care at all if he doesn't get to provide his quest. Apparently it's just easier to tag the woodcutter immortal and have him provide a banol fetch quest while the twitchy AI guides him to get continuously mauled by a bear.

It's easier to do so because that's the most efficient way to design a quest.

Unless you are implying that every quest in a game must have 7 different outcomes, and can't be a simple "do this for me quest" which is kind of the basis for any western RPG.

At some point (the examples you gave) the system becomes a convoluted mess, and it isn't lazy to protect the NPC, it's the most efficient way to solve the problem.

Skyrim had the ability to complete quests on accident by the way.

It also had NPCs that did more than sit on houses, which is a lot more than most RPGs, as well as random attacks by whatever monsters walk around tamerial.

A consequence (and solution) of such a system is to ensure that these quest givers aren't killed without player intervention. It certainly isn't to write a multitude of different variables for every single quest, and certainly none that involve sadism or whatever odd fetish you seem to have.

You could also outright remove radiant AI, but NPCs that have no life is much less immersive than those who do have a life, but won't have it taken by the 17th dragon attack.

Of course not, that's just a few examples for the possibilities. But if the quest is of the more significant kind, it should have at least a couple. If it is a simple "find my saltshaker will you", it shouldn't even matter if the player misses it due to his own carelessness or impulsivity. The consequence is missed reward and a bit of story.

There are ways to protect the NPC's without shackling them between four walls or putting them in the god-tier. A dose of self preservation over suicidal tendencies might already do a trick or two.

Skyrim's NPCs in a nutshell "Hey look! A dragon! I'm going to stab him to death with my spork!"

I keep seeing people say this but yet they offer no alternative. It's easy to sit and criticize a game for appealing to casual gamers when all they are really trying to do is give you a hassle free experience. If you dont want them restricted to four walls or made immortal then by all means share your solution with the rest of us. The fact is we'd all love the radiant system but without safeguards in place it becomes too unpredictable.

Thats a playstyle choice vs the utility of these perks lacking. I more than once use speech and lockpicking perks because I didn't need a whole lot of combat perks once I picked my weapon tree. I also let Role play dictate how I spent my perk points.

The game is made there is zero likelihood of anything thing said on the forums today will impact the game simply because Bethesda's development model is to develop the game in sercret then when the game is done and they are just bug fixing and tweaking, they announce the game for release later in the year. There just isn't any time for them to respond to feedback and put it in the game. They watch the forums during release to see what players are saying as they play. They have zero desire to listen to the demands of players during development.

I mentioned the self preservation. Don't make these "important" NPC's charge in to a certain death; have them avoid combat either altogether or where the odds are not in their favor (eg. a level check). The world design itself also helps; if the NPC wanders around his home and its surroundings, those surroundings need not be inhabited by a load creatures that will certainly snuff him right away. Not all the NPC's need to nor will they travel around the whole map on a constant basis, thus being a in constant threat of annihilation.

Hassle free shouldn't mean care free; and a certain amount of unpredictability is only a good thing.

Quoted for truth.

It is Nostalgic Bias. They mix up their emotions of enjoying a game of the past with the actual experience of playing the game so they associate all the possitives feelings with the game itself, not two seperate things. This makes the "game" always seem better then any current game because current game's don't have their experience mixed with the emotions of playing the game, because these havent merged in our memories yet.

All the talk of dumbing down and the shift towards casual is actually just word play to try snd present their opinions as more important than the plebs (read: anyone who's subjective opinion disagrees with their subjective opinion.)

This same comment by you has been correctly refuted by another member already. Does this term apply to me and the many other members that started off with Fallout 3 and decided to play the other games only to realize Bethesda did an atrocious job of continuing the Fallout franchise?

I like Fallout 3 and I had a lot of fun playing it, but in comparison to the other games in the series? Sorry to say, but I felt Fallout 3 was as other members put it: A sandbox to play pretend.

Fallout 3 got me and many other members here, as many of those you write off as nostalgic bias have actually started with Fallout 3 or New Vegas, into the Fallout series. Your coining of terms like "QQ" and "Nostalgic Bias" are unwarranted and hypocritical. I would love to see the response of those that don't care for Fallout but love TES if their beloved franchise were to be reduced to a clone of another series.

I can't make heads or tails of the first sentence, must be reading it wrong.

But what I am saying is go play FO3, go get Power armor and get your DR to 60-80%. I don't know about you, but I get bored to death at this point because nothing can possibly kill you. And no, the lore never said "Power armor makes you Jesus Christ." If I recall correctly, power armor could stop small arms, but could still be penetrated by something like an AK-47. I also, again, do not see a purpose in making Light armor and Power armor function differently vs. the small arms. It'd be flavor only. All that would add is some immersion points, but a realistic impact on combat....? That fight was won regardless of if they both reduce damage to 20% or one of them reduces it to 10%. I wouldn't mind a difference for immersion points, but realistically speaking I don't see them bothering to dedicate time to such a feature with no realistic impact on gameplay.

I enjoy New Vegas more though because regardless of how strong I get, I can still feasibly die. This is not the case in FO3 because the armor you're allowed gets TOO good.

My point was that pure DR is both boring as hell to play with, and it has another issue in that it resists stupid amounts of explosive damage. Whereas your complaint is that DT only provides limited protection vs. larger weaponry (still helps, just not immensely), a counter complaint is that too much DR means a nuke can be set off directly under your feet and wtf you're alive. Aside from that, jesus it's boring. In New Vegas Deathclaws are something to worry about. In FO3? I would groan when I saw Deathclaws because it just meant I was about to waste stimpacks and ammo on them, not because I was realistically afraid of dying. The deathclaws are functionally identical in both games, it's the defense type that's different.

I also feel it's worth mentioning that J. Sawyer's mod eventually did what...? It stagnated armor. He nerfed how much HP you got from Endurance and HP per level, but Power armor got quite the increase. The end result was that the difficulty was functionally identical to how it was before....if you wore Power armor. Suddenly deathclaws on very hard difficulty hit you for only 150 per swing (compared to the ~280 in the vanilla game), but you only had about 170 HP instead of the 340 you'd normally have anyways. In the end, all this meant was armor stagnated and every character wore power armor. Very disappointing.

As I said, best solution is a mix of the two where DR only gets very limited amounts. Anything above 30% is absolutely pushing it. If you have power armor with 20% DR and 30 DT though, then yes that absolutely helps, because that's reducing a deathclaw's damage down to 90, which becomes 180 after very hard difficulty. Compare this to Light armor getting 20 DT and no DR, and the Light armor counterpart is taking 260 damage. This is a gap between the two that's very much noticeable, but also close enough that Light armor is completely viable. In practical terms it means that the Power armor guy can tank two full hits from a deathclaw whereas the Light armor guy can only tank one. However, you might prefer the added speed and crit bonus of Light armor and prefer to just avoid ever getting into a situation where you need to tank two deathclaw hits.

Alternatively, I would expand all armor types with perks. The system from New Vegas could more or less remain with very minimal DR in place for Power armor (10-15%) if they added perks that, for example, completely negated the x2 damage multiplier for headshots if wearing power armor and a power armor helmet. Meanwhile, award light armor some offense orientated perks (speed and crit) while Medium gets general utility. (modest DR bonuses, bonus to explosive resistance, bonus resistance to torso being crippled, that kind of stuff)

Nostalgic Bias is the mixture of the emotions of playing a game with the actual experience of playing the game. This can happen regardless of the order you played the games. It can happen even if you are still playing the game now. There are papers on how memory creates nostalgic Bias. But yes I am sure gamers are the one group in all of humanity who are immune of to this form of cognative bias, cuz you know gamers are just the most rational group of people ever.

FO3 was indeed a sandbox to play lets pretend, that is the DESIGN PHILOSOPHY of Bethesda. If you don't like sandbox games then you really shouldn't play Bethesda games. I prefer strong narrative games vs Sandbox games, (Note I said prefer which does not preclued me enjoying sandbox games.) but i don't expect a Bethesda game to be anything other than a sandbox to play "lets pretend." Any player movement to try and change Bethesda from this is DOOMED to failure. THe only way Bethesda's design philosophy will change is from the inside not from gamer pressure. Especially not pressure from people against streamlining because as I stated before every major change to Bethesda IPs has been met with doom and gloom and those games has gone on to be market successes. If anything the past three games they have made after Morrowwind have told them they are doing the right thing because they have gone from a tiny studio to a industry leader over the course of Oblivion, FO3 and Skyrim. These games have been well recieved by fans, well recieved by critics. Their sales have been huge and this has made the games well received by their shareholders. If you are a gamer who doesn't like the direction Bethesda is taking that is bad luck because there is no logical reason for them to go backwards to satify a minority group pf gamers.

Nostalgic Bias is a real thing and it is a cognative bias that every human suffers from. I have nostalgic Biased for the original Star wars trilogy along with the Original battlestar Galatica and Nostalgic Biased for the orginal Master of orion game. Nostalgic Bias is not a "bad" thing it simply is something people should be AWARE of, but i know YOU and all these other gamers are immune to it because you guys are just well you know you. We plebs just don't know what we are talking about and talking about real measureable things like cognative biases is insulting to gamers cuz they are immune to such petty things don't you know?

As to your last point. You premiss assumes that you can't be a fallout fan AND an Elder scrolls fan. It also assumes that if you don't agree with you somehow you are not a FO fan and since both these premisses are utterly false no need to comment further.

And your premise about people looking for a Fallout game instead of a Bethesda TES game copied into Fallout? Your rosy retrospective BS is just that. I'm currently running characters on Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout 3, but I'm sure I'm incapable of forming an opinion about the games because of how fondly I remember the game I played 5 minutes ago vs the one I played an hour ago. Please.

Sorry to say, but I like the other TES games aside from Skyrim, but the fact remains when you have posters saying themselves they don't care for Fallout, but it should be like TES. The fact also remains that you'd have just as a defensive crowd trying to keep the game they enjoy with improving upon its premise rather than transforming it into another IP altogether. At that point why purchase the IP to begin with. Sure it's a Bethesda game, but they purchased the IP to Fallout instead of making a game in a similar universe to Fallout with TES sandbox gameplay and naming it something else.

Your argument falls in on itself anyways since the same can be said in reverse To me and others it's just insulting to fans of the franchise.