Undecaf

The role of speech skill should be somewhat redefined anyway. Every time you appeal to someones sensibilities (persuade, decieve, intimidate, seduce, barter, etc), it should be a non-deterministic check (a roll of the dice, if you will) against the NPCs disposition or a correlating stat, that the player can try… well, let’s say 1-3 times. Every success means the skill goes up a bit, but also every failure means it goes up, just a bit less. Those checks (Speech checks specifically; not Sneak or Energyweapons checks; those represent knowledge) shouldn’t be the only keys to quest completion anyway, but rather they should be opening doors towards otherwise unreachable opportunities. I’d make it so that Speech as a skill is just an underlying logic behind the intent and pair the skill with different attributes depending on what is tried (something like: -Speech+Strength: Intimidation/Coercion; -Speech+Intelligence: Persuasion/Deception; -Speech+Charisma: Seduction/Barter; …and so forth). If you can actually try those checks more than once, it makes it an active attempt (there might even be a simplistic minigame of sorts for trying with different methods if the first one fails, but I’m nit going into that) that grows your skill, and through that makes the whole dialog situation much more interesting and engaging than the simple gated checks. I’d go even as far as there being only little dialog, that isn’t behind or affected by a check of some form. Anyway, nondeterministic ”multichance”skillchecks make the dialog more dynamic and open up a lot of possibilities. You could - for instance -try your luck aggressively pushing for something, but then have to back down to not stir a fight and try to regain the previously good relations. As for barter… The same princible applies. Morrowind already had good system for bartering. You stack the things you want to buy on the table and then you ”suggest” a price other than the nominal (or accept the noninal price; that grows your skill too, but less than a haggled price). If you want to game the system and haggle 200+ times in a row, go for it. You’re able, but that doesn’t mean you should (especially if you find it unfun). I mean of course the system should work more through how much value is at play during the interaction rather than just if an interaction is made.

Yes, there us that, but… From off the top of my hat, Sneak is the only skill you could probably do that with Fallout (no skills for athletics or acrobatics, no nonhostile spellspam, no armorskills, no alchemy…), and even that can be offset with how worthwhile of the players time it is made (e.g. the frequency of increments, how static The NPC’s are in terms of their situational awareness). The degeneracy of it is kinda a TES staple and comes from its very systems design. That’s part of the experience in that series, but Fallouts systems don’t really lean towards that kind of gameplay (nor should they).

Since the game will in all likelyhood mirror Fallout 4 in many aspects (I hope it won’t, but it is what it is), I kinda hope they’ll still manage to renew the concept a bit towards a more systemic side of an RPG than the current staple of how these games are made. Instead if… you know, just making a Fallou 4 2. For instance, they could take a page from Wizardry 8 and Might & Magic 6 for how party and combat work (with current technological sensibilities in mind of course, those examples are probably older than some people posting here). VATS is there so the trappings are already in. In that vein, for and open world game, a learn-by-doing system for skillprogression is more rewarding than adding a couple of points every now and then, so there too a good way would be a 50/50, where the player and companions *slowly* get better through the actions they perform, and during levelups, you get the slightly faster progression through allocating skillpoints and perks. I’d also like to see more traditional skillchecks (rolls) instead if simply gatekeeping. Even if there were minigames, those games can withold action nodes where a roll decides success or fail, and even what kind of success or fail. This holds also in dialog. Persuasion, intimidation, bartering, decieving, seducing, and other checks that try to influence the NPC’s sensibilities should nearly always be weghted rolls against the NPC’s disposition. Bordeline cases where - for example - the NPC already cowers in fear before you, no roll for Intimidation is needed. Other than that, more interactive and reactive world (through skill-/statchecks) would enliven the experience. I’m not talking about crafting or basebuilding here, but rather discovering things through being able to try things out outside the box. E.g. Maybe your small frame trait allows you to access places you otherwise couldn’t, but it also puts other places outside your access, since you’re just too small to reach them. Stuff like that.

That rant meaning, that Obsidian should do what they do best, and leave other companies work to their own faculties. Obsidian’s talents aren’t in the shooter industry, this should be obvious by now. They should do something else. And Fallout New vegas fans aren’t actually looking forward to FNV2: The another open world FPS. They are looking forward to a world they can immerse themselves with like they did with FNV. They do not care about the gameplay as much as Bethesda fans; that is partially the reason why TOW or Awoved did not sell. That audience cares about gameplay only, if it affects their worldbuilding. And you can not have good, wolrd/storyaffecting gameplay in Bethesda-kind-of-world without it being ****, ****, ****. Gameplay, that’s where their balls should be right now. They koe the woldbuilding, but thei aren’t a gameplay designer.

Yeah. I mean, given the few recent years and the current situation (layoffs and all), now would be the time for Obsidian to give it all they’ve got. Not just do what the Fallout 4 modders (and other Bethesda game modders) are also doing, and try to outBehesda Bethesda for its own fanbase and with their own tools. That wouldn’t even make sense anymore unless they go at with the sort of ”hope it’ll bring a few bucks - I’d love to see what the modders come up with after release” mindset.

I do wonder, after all this time, if Obsidian’ll actually try something new with this opportunity, or if they’ll go (or perhaps are forced to go) the New Vegas route and make total conversion of the last existing game in the series. I mean, I’d rather see a fresher take than another clumsy Bethesda-shooter just written with some better sense of the franchise. Let Bethesda do the **** they do, and Obsidian do simethibg they do better than those clumsy FP-shooters. TOW and Awoved weren’t really top notch in that regard either, so do something else.

Since everyone’s making their games as first- or thirdperson action titles, how would it fair for Obsidian to make a game whose graphics were of today, but gameplay of the likes of Daggerfall (or even Morrowind), B.A.T.2 The Koshan Conspiracy or Dreamweb? Kinda like emulating a PnP experience with a good storytelling element.

Here’s a suggestion: Try to find ways to implement combat and non-combat activities in a way that attempts at merging modern and oldschool mechanics and systems. Think a bit outside of the box with that. There’s plenty of modern straightforward action games, first and third person, that already fill that ”void”. Something a bit different mechanically and systemically might not be such a bad idea even if it might sound a bit unorthodox on the outset. Also, the character systems themselves (skills/stats), there’s plenty of room to strive outside the normal fight/sneak/speak setup. Try to explore those avenues and spice up the experience woth things outside that trio. And hete I mean things actually outside them, not just ”here’s a alchemy skill; it’ll let you create potions and beveragies buffing you up to be a better fighter/sneaker/speaker”, or ”here’s crafting skill; it’ll let you create items that’ll help you become a better fighter/sneaker/speaker”. E.g. how about learning languages so you can interact with certain people at all, or cartography to keep up to speed in the wilderness and dungeons, for two examples. Also(2), varied utilities for skills. Perhaps your doctor skill allows you to learn the human anatomy that can help both in healing and in combat (knowing where the vitals are); perhaps there’s a biology skill that helps learning from the flora and fauna of the land. And so on, and so on. Stuff like that. Bits of added intrigue among the usual killing and persuading.

That Eora is located in the Serpens constellation.

Indeed. Combat rolling is a cancer of the combat design these days.

I'd hope they step away from the PoE system and instead, whilst going fo open classes still. Where you have an advantage if you build your character according to your class choice; where you can build a potent fighter even if you are druid, but put those limitations on how far skills (actual skills, none of that PoE "specialization" stuff) can advance. And move on from there.

I'm not objecting to crafting and all that, but what I would want first an fromest, before even thinking of those, is rich character systems that create the feeling that that what ever you're doing, matters some how. One of the good things about TES games of yore, was precisely that. Even moving aroung affected character progression somehow, and the systems therein seeped into other systems, e.g. fatigue affecting chances of success in locpicking, spellcasting and hitting your targets, succesfully creating your potions, etc. That's the sort of feeling I miss in todays games. The feel of playing a PnP session where the GM means business when it comes to systems and character progression.

It really has a bad rep for a reason. What I'm after is much more systemic, and less player driven even though player input is (obviously) required. The point would be to create a situation where the dialog feel like it is occupying the player more whilst retaining the stat driven nature. What that would be in practice in up for debate and requires more thought, but the core idea would be to (with help from other features) make non combat gameplay more interesting and involving so as to step away from the basic cycle in which these games normally operate... which is walk-talk-kill, rinse and repeat. E.g. what would it require to make the walking part interesting aside from combat encounters, what would elevate the talking sequences from simply picking lines, and, well, the killing part could use some systemic flavor too because we've already seen the basics of it in dozens upon dozens of games. Push the envelope on mechanical and systems design. People are not shy anymore of more systems driven gameplay. Creating a "superb" story whilst keeping all else simple and fluid doesn't do anything good anymore, only lukewarmth. But yeah, this is starting to veer off from "speech skills discussion" so that's where the point is.

I would prefer if Obsidian used their current system for skillchecks (that all stats can produce them, and they only drive the discussion towards a certain direction and don't work as "win-buttons"), but I would also like if there were actual "speech" skills like persuasion, intimidation, deception, mercantile, seduction, etc, that were actually put in more "hands-on" use. So that for example, you would actually have to do something to haggle - even if it was something as simple as in Morrowind on choosing how much discount you wanted. Gamify those options that cater to the "opponents" senses and good will, so that the situations in dialog was more... interesting than simply picking tagged lines.

Depends. They might (should?) give the characters looks a gameplay function. Size and ”beauty” and shape (athletic, chubby...) can be used to create large anounts of in-game reactivity and functionality. Synergize that with an actually broad and comprehensive skill system and you might have something that actually pushes the genre forward in some respects.

If only... I'd love myself a good blobber here.

I don't understand. Are playing games not because of the experience they offer, but because of their sequels? What if there are none to be had? Also, I do not think this game is a "sequel" to Deadfire.

Only if they managed to pull off broader systems for characterprogression and interactivity. Better narrative design is almost a given.

Same. Get creative with one thing and design around what that one thing offers.

I don't really care about how they handle the animations. If there are robust systems underneath that gradually improve the gameplay through the progression elements (skills and attributes) so that the player actually feels the progression from **** to good, I'm more than fine.

😄 Ok, sure. Let's just hope the design here becomes a bit more than what is the standard simplicity for first person games in general.

I wouldn't say so by default. It's the gameplay design that decides that.

I don't know anything about that TT game of his other than it being in the works. There any merit in it, or is it all still shrouded?

Now just hoping they are able (and willing) to design broader and more multifaceted gameplay & charactersystems than most of it, either directly or indirectly, dealing with combat.

The game looks artistically very busy and vibrant, overcharged even, but I can't help that it also looks very lifeless and static, even staged. All that colourful and confined emptiness to run through with an occasional predictable fight sequence or dialog. No interactivity or things happening at a distance, nothing. All just set there at steady intervals waiting for the player to come about to trigger it. Perhaps it's just Monarch (or what ever the planet in the video is called) or WIP thing, but it looks... barren, boring and claustrophobic. Combat looks shootery and generic. I don't know how much that sway or reloadspeed in the skill description affects the actual gameplay, though. Hopefully enough for the player to actually feel it, so that it actually makes a difference in gameplay and isn't there just for the show. Dare to make it have an impact. Dialogs seem fine enough, and what the mission design promotes, it sounds good. But... gameplay... that's a bit of a sore spot as presented.