>Implying intent for past game's design matter when making future games.

It doesn't.

Of course it does. That's how it's supposed to be. [Bethesda messed it up; as they did with every single solitary aspect of the game... When they converted it to TES, for the TES audience.]

Appeals to traditionalism are fundamentally flawed because they ignore that today is not yesterday, nor is it the day before. What happened then means nothing now.

Even within the context of the original game, what they intended to do has no bearing on any possible hypothetical changes made to the game, before or after release. Even if it goes against the original intent, it doesn't matter, as intent changes from conception to final product in every game, and even more so when taking in fan feedback on how to change things in patches for that game, and how to change things for future games as well. Even after all those changes, every game in the series remains equally as valid and true as it was before those changes were made, despite original intent for the first game, or even original intent for the sequels. By all accounts, even Fallout 1 isn't a true Fallout game, as it differs from the original intent of what the devs wanted to do when they first envisioned the game.

This is true of every long running series, be it Megaman, Metal Gear, Final Fantasy, TES, Fallout, you name it. Intent changes every sequel, and every sequel remains just as valid of a game in the series as the original game and previous sequels wer despite said change.

You will win no one's mind with the "intent" argument, because it hold no basis in reality, and has been fundamentally broken, and cast out, in every media series ever created, even long before the digital age of video games.

The ONLY thing that matters when desinging game systems is

A. Does it work

B. Do people enjoy it

OFC, I fully expect a responce of "but that's not what I REALLY meant" or "so?", or something similar, as that is what you always respond with whenever someone says anything similar in responce to this argument you have tired, very unsucessfuly, to use countless times before.

I don′t care if 20 years ago was that way. I want to build various types of characters and I need perks for it. I don′t want to be stuck in a PA as it was in the old games.

Desagree. Sure, 15 perks its all you need, but to be able to get some more perks you can vary your character.

I can for example make a tribal which is friendly to the land. He had 2 levels in animals friend. And home on the range. That sort of perk.

Or I can make a tribal raider, like the white legs. They are known for not knowing live for own account, then these two perks above no longer apply.

I just don′t want aberrations such as F3 characters with their over 30 perks.

-it is. It's doing something because "that's the way we did it in the past, and thus, that's the right way to do it now!" Also, your anology is flawed, as both systems are designed to achieve the same result, just in different ways. Its more like making a new item that is deigned to hammer in nails, but it does so differently then a normal hammer does, and calling it "the new hammer."

-No, but I wasn't there when they designed it. However, we do know it was originally intended to use GURPS, and then they had to change that. Just one of many changes in intent during Fallout 1's production.

-Then why post it if you don't think it will change people's minds, and thus be some sort of satisfying answer to their question/argument?

-By what logic? If the original creator of Monopoly came out and said this "Mouse Trap" clone was his authorized sequel to Monopoly, and exactly what he wanted to make Monopoly 2 like, what sort of argument can be made that he/she is wrong? The only person(s) who can define how appropriate a sequel is, is the person(s) who made the product in the first place. You may not like the changes to it, but that doesn't make it any less valid of a sequel. Even Megaman Legends and Battle Network, which had open worlds, and the latter had a trading card-like system for its power list, are still Megaman games, despite taking place elsewhere then the other games, and not featuring the same Megaman from the originals, becuase the guy who made the series says so. In Fallout's case, Tim Cain, Chris Avellone, and J. Sawyer have all said they liked Fallout 3, and while they may not agree with all of the changes, they haven't said its any less of a Fallout game for it.

I think this happens in 3. I got tired of taking perk without seeing what was in third because not needed one more.

Running out of perks you WANT to take was a problem in Fo3 and NV, because they forced you to take perks before you could exit the level up screen...... for lord knows what reason.

I really hope they make the level up screen able to be exited without taking a perk if you don't want to.

I don't particularly see how that makes the game "more casual". I honestly cant recall any other game that forces you to go through the ENTIRE level up process before exiting the level up screen. Even ones far more complex then Fo ever was.

Its also fairly dumb you are automatically forced into the level up screen right after gaining the needed amount of exp.

They should leave the perk selection open, but they should also make all of them, even the lower level ones something the player wants to pick.

Same goes for skills.