There is no comparison. Isometric camera is a technology limitation. If Interplay created Fallout with 3D graphics in 1997, then it would look terrible and take much longer to release. Devs have to create a game within the limitations set by the time. So that means crappy 3D or decent isometric.

Removing SPECIAL from Fallout would be like D&D removing dice or some other form of probability device from their games.

I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. I'm glad that Bethesda is at least adopting and maintaining SPECIAL - and based on their marketing they certainly enjoy using it to promote the game (SPECIAL videos).

Frankly there should be NO Int 1 Dialogue playthrough. If you have an Int 1 dialogue you should have a Cha 1 dialogue and if you have Int 1 and Cha 1 shouldn't you have a luck 1 where your luck fails at the worse possible times?

Gamers as a rule suffer from unreasonable expectations. It is extremely unreasonable to expect a company to voice act a normal playthrough, then do separate and complete dumb voice acted playthrough with this one expectation you expect a developer to double their costs of voice acting the protagonist. That is unreasonable to expect a company to do especially when it it their first venture into such waters.

There is nothing that states that INT 1 has to mean idiot. It simply could be redefined to represent someone who doesn't pay much attention to academic studies. Many pen and paper games ALSO have low stats that represent just slightly below average vs significantly below the mean. Nothing to say that the Special system can't be changed to do the same thing.

Frankly just because a past game did x in a franchise is no reason to blindly adhere to x in the future. Games evolve, games change and the blind expectation that what was done in the pass should be done in the future is the chant of the unimaginative and hidebound.

I think the main thing that people are forgetting is that fallout, in the end, is a ROLE-PLAYING game franchise, and so all the Stats have a RPing aspect to them as well. Want to play a science-type of character? Well that character should be intelligent, not just the player.

Yes. I understand the sentiment that those who are more intelligent are faster learners, thus greater exp boost. However, that in no way undermines the fact that an exp boost for maximizing your character with a level cap gives those who don't slot points in intelligence a huge disadvantage. Again, you'd be an idiot not to invest in intelligence, meaning the stat is more or less mandatory. When something is mandatory, that contradicts the point of a BGS game, meaning player choice. The fact that we have a thread about players making a character who has low intelligence and should have accommodating "low intelligence" dialogue proves that many see having a low intelligence character as a mockery and a non-serious playthrough.

There are ways BGS could make the hacking mini-game more difficult for those with a lower proficiency or lower "intelligence." For example, make more of the text unreadable as to make it that much more difficult to decipher the correct answer. Give players only two chances instead of three before the computer is locked out. I don't have an issue with the idea of expertise playing a role in doing something. What I do have a problem with is features being entirely restricted based on not meeting some arbitrary number in the game. Why should I be unable to hack a computer that requires a skill of 100 when my skill is at 99? Again, there should be varying degrees of expertise with trial and error.

This is really when this intelligence check has become more of a novelty to have rather than something that actually adds depth, which is my problem. I like the idea of having alternate ways of achieving goals, I just don't approve of the execution. Again, if you were to perhaps solve something intelligently by your actions, such as successfully saving a failing nuclear power plant from a meltdown, rather than just failing to save the facility and telling everybody to clear the area, that should provide different results (not contingent on just some number). I just believe actions instead of just dialogue checks would be far more compelling and not necessarily based on "oh your intelligence is a 7, sorry, you are too dumb for this choice."

You missed the point entirely. RPGs were historically character sheet-driven because of technology limitations. That is not the case today, which is why RPGs are allegedly no longer RPGs, according to the "hardcoe RPG niche." It's similar to me being a fan of the F-35, stating it is the latest and most advanced aircraft in human history, yet you are arguing "oh no, planes built at the turn of the twentieth century are the right way to do it and planes today aren't legitimate."

SPECIAL or not, Fallout is still Fallout. It may not be what you perceive as "Fallout," but all the franchise needs to be Fallout it is setting and themes ultimately. Any kind of game mechanics are subject for alteration or removal.

RPGs are loosely defined by its technology limitations. However, the rules of the RPGs are not defined by technology limitations, but by the developers. The SPECIAL system and character sheets can be used in PnP games, JRPGs, trading card games, apps, video games, or VR games since it is not dependent on technology, but on the developers.

As far as the setting and theme goes, a post-apocalyptic rpg set in America where some people live in fallout shelters and humans and animals are mutated by radiation currently exists called Wasteland and more games with a similar setting and theme as Fallout can happen. Wasteland is the game where the Fallout devs got some of their inspiration for Fallout. There is also Sheltered where you play a family trying to survive in a Fallout Shelter by going on expeditions into the radioactive wasteland and expanding your shelter. So Fallout's setting and theme is not unique. What makes Fallout special is the SPECIAL system. The only other games that use the SPECIAL system is Lionheart which is an unpopular fantasy game and Exodus which was originally Fallout Pen and Paper d20 before Bethesda threatened legal action due to licensing problems caused by Interplay which resulted in the name change.

I would contend that it's more than just the SPECIAL system which defines Fallout. Mechanically it's defined by the SPECIAL system, but creatures, characters, themes, setting, etc, all come together to create the universe. Fallout is an extension of the low-fi sci-fi genre.

Is this satire?

Out of curiosity: Does Bethesda have a copyright on SPECIAL? Or just the Vault Boy artwork and Fallout IP? Like, if I made a fantasy grand strategy game that used SPECIAL (lol, not that I would), could Bethesda come down on me? Would I have to license it?

Even though Intelligence determines XP gain, I still don't see it as mandatory. It's not as if there is some race where the person who reaches the highest levels fastest earns some sort of rewards. The only real benefit to that is that players simply level up more quickly. I would not think that gaining XP at a lower rate would ruin anyone's ability to complete the game.

Also, Intelligence was never the only stat that required certain prerequisites to complete tasks. All the other six stats and skills such as lockpicking, explosives, and speech required specific levels in order to complete dialogue and task checks. However, I do like your idea of making it so that having your skills or perks at lower levels makes it harder to complete tasks instead of making them impossible.

For the first part. High exp isn't mandatory, unlesss you want to make a build with high int and everything that comes with it. Likewise if you want a low Int build, accept what comes with it, which should include dialogues. Couldn't be any simpler.

As for the hacking. I don't know what you want. I've already said it could have been better, that i do see why they did it though, but also that it will likely be a bit different this time. But again, that's a mini game having an issue, not the stat.

Sure Fallout is more than the SPECIAL system, but it is what makes Fallout unique. Well that and the 1950s technology style. Settings and themes are fairly generic. The setting for Fallout is post-apocalyptic America where pure humans, mutant humans, and mutant animals exist and the theme is trying to live in post-apocalyptic America. It is only in the details where the differences between Fallout and other games like it emerge. After all, there is not much difference between ghouls in Fallout and mutants in another post-apocalyptic game. They are both humans that have been hideously disfigured by radiation and are shunned by pure humans.

I would eat a block of the most awful French cheese if I could make a character with level 1 int, char and luck and just have every conversation end up with me somehow conversations blowing up in my face or if my equipment would malfunction in humorous ways with a luck of 1.

And yes according to Fallout lore if you have a low intelligence you are in fact as dumb as a brick. Did you ever actually read the descriptions on the Vito-matic or Fallout 2 character creation menus?

I will have my int at 1 no matter what even if there is no dialogue because I want the levelling process to be as slow as possible. My favorite part of these types of games is the early game when every bullet counts and I am eating all that crappy 200 year old food and drinking radiated water to stay alive.

Never really made a lot of sense to me in FO1.

"We have a really important job to do, who should we give it to?"

"Hmm. I know! There's Billy. He can't even walk and chew gum at the same time. He's perfect!"

Wrong. Intelligence was absolutely necessary with a level cap if you wanted to maximize the potential of your character. You only gimp yourself and progression by having a low intelligence character. Anyone with half a brain would not neglect intelligence.

I told you what I want. This isn't rocket science. We already know the mini game isn't changing. It's not difficult to see the systemic issues with the game and what needs tweaking. You are just making excuses to the benefit of no one.

I laughed at this because this is a valid point. Haha Unless everyone else in the vault was equally lacking in intelligence?

You never played Fallout 3 then, or you had no idea what you were doing. There was a level cap in that game. Intelligence allowed you to level faster and there was a perk that gave you more skill points per level. If you did not have intelligence, you would always have a gimped character by the time you reach the level cap. A player with intelligence could master everything. It led to a major imbalance as intelligence characters were just better.

I'm aware all skills had checks of some sort. I just find that to be an incredibly lazy and ineffective way of providing alternatives. I think BioWare's morality checks make more sense. I'd rather we see alternatives built on player actions and npcs reacting to you rather than numbers. BGS absolutely needs to dump the idea of locking features because you don't have a certain number. You should be able to do everything even if you are bad.

Just because someone played the game in what you consider a non-optomized manner does not mean they must not have played the game at all. Frankly, putting your INT above 7 or 8 was a waste of a stat point (I usually go 6 and get the INT bobble head ASAP). There is no reason for any player to pursue getting 100 in all skills (or 10 in all stats fro that matter) as it makes the game rather boring and lack challenge, but that's just how I play...you do what you want.

Now on the issue of Stat based conversation checks; they had their place and BGS might have overused them, but what they did followed the existing Fallout Lore to some extent.

Your claims that BGS should throw out all Fallout 1 & 2 conventions due to "rebooting" the franchise with Fallout 3 is just your opinion on the matter. While Fallout 3 certainly changed the game's overall formula, the fact that named it FALLOUT 3 (THREE), kind of discounts your "reboot" theory in my mind but you feel free to delude yourself in whatever ways you find most pleasing.

Right, so if you want to max out your character, then it means you want a high Int build.
No one is forcing you to max out your character. And if you want to max out your character there must be SOME aspect of your build that allows that to happen. Int is the most logical choice, as it handles your capacity and the rate at which you learn.

Its like you're saying you want to wear shoes, but you feel it's ridiculous you have to have feet in order to wear them. illogical.

It's still a problem with the minigame and not with Int. If you want to blame the minigame, do so- I've already agreed that hacking could have been handled better. But it's still not the fault of the Int stat. It isn't rocket science.

I actually did play Fallout 3, four completed playthoughs in fact. I made one character with high intelligence while the other three were of either average or low intelligence. Never in any of those four playthroughs did I have any difficulty completing the game. There were some instances where I was unable to complete certain checks due to lower skills or stats (hacking, lockpicking, ect.), but I never found that as a problem since I prefer to play as characters with specialized skills rather than complete master of all trades.

The most you get from a high INT build is the ability to be a bit more versatile in whatever situations you come across. I don't even recall a time where I was not able to effectively play the game just because the majority of my skills were not at max level. Even with my high INT wastelander, I only distributed points in only a few skills as I wanted my genius to be proficient only in EW, Science, Repair, Speech, and Medicine. For a while I was unable to pick the hard or very hard locks, but they never got in the way of me completing questlines. Some players do like to reach the highest level of all skills, but that to me defeats the goal that Bethesda has been trying to accomplish which is encouraging players to create different characters for different situations.

You act as if being able to level up all skills to their apex is the only way to play the game and that any other build is inferior. That is simply not the case. When you put point into Intelligence, you also take away points that could be used for Strength, Perception, Endurance, Charisma, Agility, and Luck. A high INT build may give you the opportunity to become very versatile, but at the same time, you effectively become weaker in other aspects. You won't have as much physical prowess as the person who focused more on strength. You cannot obtain situational awareness as much as someone who focused on Perception. Your mistakenly confusing your playstyle preference with what is and is not viable. INT is effective, but it is not the one stat that triumphs over all. It's like with Skyrim where you can smith and enchant weapons to overpowered levels. With your logic, anyone would be a fool not to max out and take advantage of smithing and enchanting. Even in that game I never needed to enhance my gear to those levels. I had the choice to do so, but I wanted the game to be more challenging and I preferred a different playstyle.

By the way, just how much do you have to 'max out' your character before you don't consider them to be gimped?
A game where we easily max out, every time, without actually trying/planning to build them as such seems like a crap idea.
There is no incentive for making differing builds if they can all just be maxed out every single time.

The less likely we are to max out, the better.
This makes what you choose to spend stat points and perks on actually mean something.
You know the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none"?
The idea is to choose something to master in.

Some of us prefer to have characters that svck at something At level 30 3 skills at 100, other 3 around 75, and the rest at initial levels, if i even reach level 30 by the time quests run out. Takes mods and then some to achieve that in F3

It was a poor balancing on BGS' part that everything could end up to 10 or 100 on a single character. Hopefully some though that was put into this new system, though i fully expect to need a gameplay overhaul mod for it too. I hope the people behind FWE and Project Nevada are still around.

The point of a BGS game is to do what you want and go wherever you want. Part of this philosophy is to play the game as you like. That means, it's about as much player choice as possible. Restricting me to have a high inteligence just to have a well-rounded character without gimping myself is taking away player choice. I'd actually argue BGS has always encouraged players the capacity to do almost everything in one playthrough. They don't necessarly encourage making alternate characters like a BioWare game to see different choices. Virtually all of the content is able to be completed on one playthrough. BGS made it possible to master everything in Skyrim and they are continuing that philosophy in Fallout 4. This isn't Oblivion or Morrowind where we had to either choose a pre-determined class or create our own custom class. We can do as little as we want and as much as we want, but it's our choice.

You are also mistaken about gimping your other stats. They are actual perks that allow you to almost maximize all of your attributes before you hit max level. Thus, if you choose intelligence and get the perk early on that increases skill point gain each level, you can actually master everything by the time you reach level 30, including attributes. You would never be able to do that effective with a low intelligence character, which is my point. You are absolutely right I'd say you are a fool for not partaking in smithing in enchanting. That is the most effective and best way to craft the best gear and to maintain it with the best enchantments. Otherwise, you are at the discretion of the game and whatever it throws at you. That's not smart playing, but that's what's great about BGS games. They allow you to play smart or to not play smart. Fallout forces you to go for intelligence if you want efficient progression. TES never did that.

You are more than capable of your "characters . . . svck[ing] at something" without intelligence being a crutch for the rest of us. It's very easy to be bad at a game or to want to just specialize a character. That's perfectly fine. I don't want to necessarily master everything. I didn't care at all about skills such as small guns, melee, explosives, sneak, etc. Thankfully skills have been tossed out entirely. I just do not like that intelligence affects experience gain and provides perks that make it the quintessential way of maximizing character potential. Get rid of the progression imbalances and I wouldn't have a problem with intelligence as it would be as valuable as everything else.

I'm sorry, but making it so you must think and plan to max out your character (if that is what you choose to do) is much better than- "duh, let's just make it so everyone will max out naturally"
That would svck.

And what's more, you still have the option of doing so- no one is stopping you from getting 10s and 100s. So, I don't see what the big deal is. You're already maxing out your character, so wouldn't you be maxing out your Int anyway? I mean, if you didn't that character would be "gimped". Right? Right?

Your choice of not having a "gimped" character is the reason you needed a high INT. Your idea of a "gimped" character is what appears to be the main issue here as the game certainly does not require ANY skill to be 100 in order to be completed. Your over-achieving attempts to make an uber-character is why you need a high INT as the game is perfectly playable with a mediocre INT.

The idea that the game is "forcing" you to min-max your character is laughable.