A 3D version of Arcanum would certainly be interesting. There are not many Sorcery/Steampunk games available. Dishonored is close, but it seems too much like Assassin's Creed than a sandbox RPG. Although, my favorite Sierra series has to be Quest for Glory. Hero's Quest is probably my first RPG.

"Perception." You know what I meant. Lets not be ridiculous.

At least you recognize your negative demeanor. In other words, having an "intelligence" stat in a modern BGS game doesn't make any sense. It's just unnecessary clutter that adds little value. Much like athleticism and acrobatics, it's is overburdensome red tape that should be removed and stream lined for a more engaging and better experience.

On the bright side, BGS finally tossed out skills. It's still somewhat ridiculous that "intelligence" increases exp gain, but at least the level cap has been removed.

My first playthrough will be a 1 intelligence character. Bethesda did a pretty good job at writing in Fallout 3 but a terrible job at dialogue in Skyrim. Here is to hoping that they are like Microsoft and are good every other time.

It would be bad to hear your character speak the low INT lines if they are sparse. "You wanna come with me, boy?" and "Me want ask thing" can only come from two people with distinct levels of language comprehension. A person would not switch between these types of statement unless they were having a stroke. It should be fully available, eliminated altogether, or turned down to blend with the normal dialogue. Half-assing this mechanic would break immersion.

Honestly, with voice acting, there is little to no chance for low intelligence dialogue being in the game to begin with, so whatever. Also, @Redguard King, you need to chill out, friend. Maybe go find a monastery somewhere and meditate for a few weeks, or until fallout 4 comes out.

Yay, I figured out my password!

Anyway, it might come back. I can see a low level int character having lines close to, say, Joey Tribbiani. However, I highly doubt we're gonna get normal voice dialogue and sudden bouts of subhuman.

Me: "How do you do good sir?"

Them: "Fine, thank you! How about yourself?"

Me: "I HAVE THE SHINIEST MEAT BICYCLE!!!"

Maybe I missed it, but you still have not properly explained how Intelligence is less valuable than the other six stats. If you are talking about usefulness, then I would have to disagree. Seeing as it appears that intelligence affects XP gain, Medicine, Science, and Energy Weapons crafting in this game, it would be wise to invest in that stat if you are building a character with those characteristics.

Also, all the stats block the ability to choose perks if you do not have the required level. With that logic, all stats should be removed.

One could argue that about a few of the attributes. Perception seems far less important in a (more or less) First person game, you should just look around. Endurance is essentially difficulty level based on BGS definition (bullet sponge). etc..

Charisma is the measure of Leadership and Influence, Intelligence is the measure of Knowledge. They are two different things both can be related to speech, one the ability to hold the attention of people, the other to actually have content. Example: Look at any Science vs Creationist debate.

I totally agree that the xp bonus on Int isn't a good idea, this might be my first mod to try and remove it.

I wonder how much IN even modifies the XP gain. If it was 1% or 2% per IN, then we'd largely be riding on the perks to give it purpose. If it were like 5% per IN, though, I dunno. That must be a hard number to balance.

And I will do away with 'Bethesda's Fallout' if they do away with SPECIAL. It's the best system in a CRPG. If the developer cannot implement in well, it's their own fault, not the system's.

Charisma cannot govern all dialogue options, that's "unintelligent". Intelligence, perception etc all can govern different dialogue options. Smooth-talking is different than intelligent talking or perceptive remarks, etc.

Intelligence as a stat, in general, doesn't make a lot of sense. It's an interesting idea, but people do not become "more intelligent" over time and certainly the way the game is designed encourages you to invest points in intelligence because of leveling. As far as "usefulness," we don't know enough about the stat yet to know what it does (you are using FO3 and FONV as your measure). We know it affects expeience gain and likely affects areas it did previously.

Removing all stats would probably make more sense and just having trees, similar to Skyrim, in which you can invest points and simple progression through the tree would allow you access to certain perks with pre-requisites.

That's certainly the case now with Fallout 4 as the shooting mechanics were overhauled. Endurance is intrinsically tied to game play so I disagree with that explanation. Speech in fact certainly works that way, but in Fallout it has been much more simplified for certain benefits. Experience gain, in general, is just a dumb thing that any stat should provide.

It's an antiquated system from an era long past. I'm aware of real life ramifications, but too many checks and you make a game virtually playable if you have a specified approach. This won't be as much of an issue with the removal of a level cap.

It's an old, yet unsurpassed system. Many tried for a better one, all failed. They don't even try anymore nowadays so you end up with mongrel 'systems' that are mere placeholders so they can be called a RPG.

The dialogue checks aren't there to just "solve a quest by pressing a button" but might give some info, trivia, a funny line, etc. That's how dialogue should normally work. The approach to the dialogue as solely a means of "bypass the kill quest if you pump 10 CH" is wrong. It should be organic.

It's all there to give different experiences, not advance quest checklists. It's on Bethesda to work that out. Not the system.

In my opinion it makes sense. E.g. someone with a higher intelligence should be better at crafting because he has a better unterstanding of the science behind. And you can raise (or lower) your intelligence in real-life by training your brain (or not). Not much but still.

It makes sense to have stats to e.g. restrict skills. Someone with low intelligence should not be able to understand nuclear physics. Sure you can all map it to a tree and the progress in the tree is a representation of how high your skill is in that area, but then the developers are missing a simple metric they can use for checks.

I disagree with you here. If you are role playing a character that is good at talking to people then there should be an option to convince an NPC to let you bypass something (and the game needs some easy metric do decide that your are good at talking to people). If you make a build that focuses on charisma you need to get some benefits out of it, and disadvantages in other areas. That's what an RPG is about.

The low intelligence dialog options in previous Fallouts were a really nice and funny gimmick. But I don't think they will return in Fallout 4 because there are too many lines of dialogs, and the number of players using low intelligence build will be too low.

I'm not against that. I'm against the notion that approaches dialogues solely as that: A way to short-cut a kill/deliver quest. Somebody who doesn't want anything except CH working in dialogue is approaching the matter from the standpoint of power-play only. I'm against that.

I agree that dialogue should be organic, but I don't believe arbitrary checks based on "oh wait, your intelligence is 5, but it needs to be 6 for you to be able to have this option" make even remote sense. Again, "intelligence" isn't something that can truly be measured. You are either smart or you are not. You can't "become" smarter.

In all fairness, I think optional dialogue via any kind of check is a sloppy and lazy way of providing different ways of completing a quest. I believe actions rather tha dialogue should be the major focus as this is an interactive experience. It should be through my good deeds or bad deeds that my choices are altered and provide me with new alternatives.

Being "intelligent" does not mean you have a better understanding of science. People are specialized creatures and typically have strengths in some areas of education rather than others. You can be incredibly smart and be a lawyer, able to write briefs, make well-reasoned arguments, and do extensive research, but be poor at simple math and science application. I've seen plenty of doctors who are horrific at basic grammar and have a terrible understanding of the English language. "Intelligence" is a very flexible thing and isn't nearly as black and white as Fallout makes it, which is my point and why it should be removed.

No, training your brain does not make you "smarter." It makes you more efficient with what you are already capable of, but not smarter.

The whole point of restrictions is a way of providing variety, replayability, and limitations in the experience. There are many ways this can be achieved without a simple check based on some arbitrary number of "intelligence." Especially now that the level cap has been removed, players will be able to master everything, making the SPECIAL implementation even more pointless.

Every check is arbitrary if you view it like that. There are ten different levels of each stat. It's a fluid yet meaningful transition. Intelligence can be measured no worse than charisma, perception or agility. Not to mention that "either smart or not" claim is totally baseless. You can't become more perceptive, agile, charismatic as well with the same mindset. Not to mention you cannot increase your "hitpoints". It's a game.

Dialogues are also an interactive experiences if done correctly. There are both old and new games that do it rather well. Your 'deeds' shouldn't alter what you 'want' to say. It should alter the way the NPC reacts to you.

My point, and that you are agreeing with, is that the stats are not even remotely realistic. This is a role playing game that is somewhat meant to emulate a real world experience, which is why we deal with stats like intelligence, strength, and charisma to start. It offers different play styles and allows players to personalize their own characters. The problem is intelligence really has been mandatory for progression purposes in previous Fallout games, thus it's bad game design as it's not really a choice.

There is nothing "baseless" about being smart or not. It is pure fact. Intelligence cannot be measured in the same way that charisma or strength can because those have to be practiced and learned. They are not natural, but intelligence is. That's a large reason why intelligence doesn't make any rational sense as a stat. Dialogue is fine as long as it's not the sole way of showing these altering paths, which is largely the case in BGS games. There needs to be more variety and as the system is currently implemented is limited and largely worthless.

Lol. Yes, by all means, let's get rid of the final RPG features of this open world shooter so we can just get on with gunning our way through the wasteland.

Dumb answers were some of the most fun exchanges in any of the FO games and getting rid of the most iconic Fallout feature would be suicide. I've also never in my life played an RPG, computer or tabletop, that didn't have an intelligence stat.

No, they're rather realistic as far as RPG systems go. They govern most critical inherent capabilities of a person that's relevant to the game's world. And intelligence already will no longer be as desired as previous games due to skill points being removed so what you asked for is already there without removing intelligence.

It's no fact, what are you talking about? There's a wide spectrum of intelligence levels. You also don't learn charisma and don't 'measure' charisma, there's nothing like IQ for that. Charisma is more natural than intelligence can ever be. You can also train intelligence, not to mention even curb it via certain practices.

It's up to Bethesda to play to the system's strengths which they failed mostly in FO3. They need to adapt themselves more to the system rather than adapt the system to themselves.

Arbitrary stats that offer little to the experience hardly are the "final RPG features" in the game. If you are so opposed to the "open world shooter" that Fallout 4 clearly is, why don't you go play Wasteland 2 or any "RPG" made before 1997?

"Dumb" answers are silly and are not practical for a game so reliant on dialogue and a voiced protagonist. As far as it being "the most iconic Fallout feature," that's entirely subjective and clearly BGS disagrees. I guess you've never played Skyrim, Dragon Age, The Witcher, or most modern RPGs or MMORPGs that have been released in the last 10 years. "Intelligence" as a stat is not as widespread among RPGs as you might think.

There is nothing remotely realistic about any of the stats, especially intelligence. You merely bolster my argument of how pointless these stats are with the level cap being removed as characters can be "perfect" now. It's pointless fluff that isn't actually adding anything of value to the experience.

You don't seem to get it. The way intelligence works in Fallout basically is deduced to being "smart" or "stupid." Even a more realistic level, there is a certain threshold where one is considered smart or stupid, regardless of IQ or any other imperfect tool to measure intelligence.

Charisma is something that is practiced. It is easier for some to use than others, but ultimately it's a skill that requires effort in order to hone and refine. It's just like public speaking. As far as intelligence in the mind, you are either born with book smarts and common sense or you aren't. They aren't something that can be learned as it apparent considering most people are stupid.

Wrong. BGS makes the system that works the best for their games. Their "failures" in Fallout 3 was not a shortcoming of their own, but a shortcoming over the very system they took from Black Isle. It needs to be revamped and overhauled to better fit a next gen open world RPG.

I doubt unintelligent dialogue will be in as it would (if done thoroughly) require a more significant amount of dialogue recorded by both protagonist voice actors. Plus it might not be that entertaining if the voice actors didn't portray it well enough.

Giving examples like Dragon Age, Witcher and Skyrim as RPG benchmarks just show that this is a pointless discussion. Those all are among the worst CRPG systems ever conceived, targeted at braindead audiences as the non-choices are about pumping strength/dexterity etc to increase damage. You also say you expect an open world shooter while I don't. Further arguing is unnecessary.

Someone's never played pen and paper D&D or Pathfinder. Intelligence can be a important stat sometimes.

You do realize that BGS, the studio developing Fallout 4, was also the developer of Skyrim? If Skyrim truly is "among the worst CRPG systems ever conceived, targeted at braindead audiences," then perhaps your interest in this game is poorly placed? Obviously as you are a highly intelligent individual and an expert in what constitutes an "RPG," I wouldn't want us lesser beings to "ruin" your experience of what a "true" RPG is. Fallout 4 is an open world shooter... The mechanics were overhauled with help from ex-Bungie employees and by id, who created the FPS genre. Are you really that clueless as to what Fallout 4 clearly is? This is not the "RPG" you want.

No. I don't play board games created forty years ago and I'm not interested in antiquated philosophies that don't make sense for modern games. BGS hasn't even made the kind of experience you are describing since as far back as Arena and Daggerfall. Honestly, this RPG elitism and the "golden age" of RPGs being in the 80s and 90s is absolutely ridiculous and absurd. BGS is one of the premiere and top developers in the industry and their games are as far from retro RPGs as a developer can go.

Yes, I agree. Dean Domino was a good example of this because hitting every speech check with him caused him to dislike you even further. The speech checks made you sound like a smart ass and he would double cross you for it (unless you managed to navigate the leaps and hurdles of the show room speech check after splitting up).