Fallout: New Vegas

[Amentep]

Let's see:

 

I'll put all my stat points into charisma and perception, lower my endurance and agility to 1, not raise any weapon skills, and run around with the .32 pistol for the whole game while not wearing armor.

 

Wow, FO3 is now so challenging.

 

Unfortunately, roleplaying the village idiot in order to create a challenging experience isn't my idea of a fun or balanced gameplay.

 

Actually that's not the village idiot, its a attractive, eagle eyed sloth, innit?

[Amentep]

Let's see:

 

I'll put all my stat points into charisma and perception, lower my endurance and agility to 1, not raise any weapon skills, and run around with the .32 pistol for the whole game while not wearing armor.

 

Wow, FO3 is now so challenging.

 

Unfortunately, roleplaying the village idiot in order to create a challenging experience isn't my idea of a fun or balanced gameplay.

 

Yeah. "Don't use stims, don't pick up ammo, don't wear this or that. Fallout is supposed to be about choices." Curiously, no-one has suggested missing on purpose to make combat more challenging.

 

I just can't see the appeal in selfgimping.

 

I miss enough on accident to not need to make it challenging.

 

I remember at one point getting frustrated not being able to hit the broad side of the barn, so I pulled a sledgehammer and just ran in...and still missed...

[mkreku]

One of the aspects I like about roleplaying games is the feeling of accomplishment when I've managed to create a powerful character from the choices I've been given. To suggest that I should remove that aspect of the game to artificially enhance the difficulty is therefore out of the question.

 

But we had a discussion about quicksaves on this forum a while ago. I distinctly remember some people using the same "self restraint" argument when someone argued they should put a limit on quicksaves.. Fess up, little hypocrites!

[Amentep]

One of the aspects I like about roleplaying games is the feeling of accomplishment when I've managed to create a powerful character from the choices I've been given. To suggest that I should remove that aspect of the game to artificially enhance the difficulty is therefore out of the question.

 

But we had a discussion about quicksaves on this forum a while ago. I distinctly remember some people using the same "self restraint" argument when someone argued they should put a limit on quicksaves.. Fess up, little hypocrites!

 

But - in theory - if you tag lockpicking, stealth and small guns and can still max those out, and be able to complete the game, you've made a powerful character who is expert in those three skills (and maybe marginal to okay in others).

 

I don't think anyone is suggesting not being able to be great in how you build your choice, but to not be able to have maxed half the skills by the end of the game (although from another vantage point, if you never use those skills, does it ultimately matter if they're maxed out?)

[HoonDing]

I found that FO3 is very easy, until two Deathclaws suddenly pop up out of nowhere and rape my level 30 character (with all but two skills maxed out) in seconds before I know what's going on. Or even worse, albino radscorpions.

 

That said, giving a perk every three levels + making perks harder to achieve would make the game more challenging for a while. Especially perks like Sniper or Better criticals... those perks effectively end the game combat-wise. And maybe the Grim Reaper Sprint perk (aka Win Button) should be removed from the game altogether.

[TwinkieGorilla]

I don't think anyone is suggesting not being able to be great in how you build your choice, but to not be able to have maxed half the skills by the end of the game (although from another vantage point, if you never use those skills, does it ultimately matter if they're maxed out?)

 

Of course not...and even further, all that is really being suggested is not allowing us to become super-human so quickly by regressing back to the way skills worked in 1 & 2. Things got really boring for me in Fallout 3 really quickly after I was able to do a little too much a little too early. Overpowered perks every level also contributed to this in-game, as-programmed originally by the developers, reverse-gimping.

[Syraxis]

But we had a discussion about quicksaves on this forum a while ago. I distinctly remember some people using the same "self restraint" argument when someone argued they should put a limit on quicksaves.. Fess up, little hypocrites!

 

really? I remember the exact same argument, 'cept it was on the bsoft gorums and those in favor of it were troll(s).

[Slowtrain]

Let's see:

 

I'll put all my stat points into charisma and perception, lower my endurance and agility to 1, not raise any weapon skills, and run around with the .32 pistol for the whole game while not wearing armor.

 

Wow, FO3 is now so challenging.

 

Unfortunately, roleplaying the village idiot in order to create a challenging experience isn't my idea of a fun or balanced gameplay.

 

Actually that's not the village idiot, its a attractive, eagle eyed sloth, innit?

 

 

lol. I suppose. But none too bright.

[Oner]

But we had a discussion about quicksaves on this forum a while ago. I distinctly remember some people using the same "self restraint" argument when someone argued they should put a limit on quicksaves.. Fess up, little hypocrites!

 

really? I remember the exact same argument, 'cept it was on the bsoft gorums and those in favor of it were troll(s).

There was one (two actually) on the Alpha Protocol forum.

[Wombat]

It would be nice if tag skills went back to the way they were in FO1 and 2 as well.

In FO3, are they different? They worked as a device which made the three paths more distinct in the context of skill system. Now thinking of that, I think Bethesda is not good at mixing the factors of skill system and those of their class system counterpart...

 

Yeah. "Don't use stims, don't pick up ammo, don't wear this or that. Fallout is supposed to be about choices.

It is not totally pointless. In fact, it seems that hardcore mode basically shares the same philosophy at that it involves putting a certain limitation on available resources.

 

That said, character advancement seems to be designed for casual gamers. Will Obsidian go for overhaul of the system or try to cover it with other aspects such as hardcore mode and re-balancing equipments including weapon modification and/or more detailed characterization of them? Considering fixed abilities of characters are founded on the stats of characters + those of equipments, the latter may work to some extent. However, ideally, both stats should be gradually updated, rather than one of them reaching quickly to its limit, forcing the other to balance the whole game-play.

 

The problem is that this kind of overhauling involves pacing. Casual gamers tend to like spending less time on each game while serious gamers tend to spend more time on their favorite games, which would make the pacing issue difficult to balance since casual gamers like to see their "achievements" in short time. The problem for serious gamers is that casual gamers paying much more money than serious gamers on each game due to their number, which makes blaming casual gamers just rants in that it won't remove the root problem. Possible options for serious gamers are whether looking for indie companies and/or asking the designers/mods for making "annexes" comfortable for them. I've gotten an impression this annex is called "hardcore mode" in FONV.

[jero cvmi]

This whole "NO U R CHILDISH AND WITHOUT SELFCONTROL!!1!" argument is very telling: We're just talking about a different perception of roleplaying.

 

In the original Fallouts, the system restrained your capabilities according to what build choices you made. Tagged skills gained double points at level up, so if you had decided you want to play a certain type of character, the game pushed you that way and you paid the consequenses. So, when you finally developed the character you wanted ant beat the game with that character, there was a sense of accomplishment coming from the fact that you were playing against the computer.

 

In Fallout 3, there's no restraint from the game itself and if you want to stick to the character build you had initially designed, it's only up to you. Hence tag skills just give an initial bonus and that's all. You're practically playing against yourself. It's just a different philosophy.

 

ps. Gotta love sawyer's style: saving it for the 500th post. <3.

[Gfted1]

ps. Gotta love sawyer's style: saving it for the 500th post.

 

His was post #501 and I seriously doubt he was just waiting around for it.

[Enoch]

This whole "NO U R CHILDISH AND WITHOUT SELFCONTROL!!1!" argument is very telling: We're just talking about a different perception of roleplaying.

 

In the original Fallouts, the system restrained your capabilities according to what build choices you made. Tagged skills gained double points at level up, so if you had decided you want to play a certain type of character, the game pushed you that way and you paid the consequenses. So, when you finally developed the character you wanted ant beat the game with that character, there was a sense of accomplishment coming from the fact that you were playing against the computer.

 

In Fallout 3, there's no restraint from the game itself and if you want to stick to the character build you had initially designed, it's only up to you. Hence tag skills just give an initial bonus and that's all. You're practically playing against yourself. It's just a different philosophy.

I generally agree, but there is a corresponding benefit to Bethesda's approach-- it mitigates concerns about blindsiding a player with unexpectedly poor skill balance, which is something the first two Fallouts did a lot of. If you started your first character in Fallout with tags in Gambling, Outdoorsman, and Energy Weapons, you'd probably be quitting in frustration within a few hours. F3's approach to allow more of the important decision-making to take place after the player has experienced some of the game makes the game more accessable to those without meta-knowledge of the challenges the game offers.

 

Now, the best way to solve this would be to have better skill balance. But skill balance is never going to be perfect, and allowing more flexibility to shift the priorities in one's character build in-game does have its benefits. (Although Bethesda almost certainly went too far in letting characters max way too many skills.)

[WorstUsernameEver]

I generally agree, but there is a corresponding benefit to Bethesda's approach-- it mitigates concerns about blindsiding a player with unexpectedly poor skill balance, which is something the first two Fallouts did a lot of. If you started your first character in Fallout with tags in Gambling, Outdoorsman, and Energy Weapons, you'd probably be quitting in frustration within a few hours. F3's approach to allow more of the important decision-making to take place after the player has experienced some of the game makes the game more accessable to those without meta-knowledge of the challenges the game offers.

 

Now, the best way to solve this would be to have better skill balance. But skill balance is never going to be perfect, and allowing more flexibility to shift the priorities in one's character build in-game does have its benefits. (Although Bethesda almost certainly went too far in letting characters max way too many skills.)

 

That's a good argument, but I think that some of this problem could be circumvented with a better level design.

Bethesda also trimmed the skills a lot, so it's not like you could do a Medicine+First Aid+Gambling (read as : absolutely totally utterly USELESS character) as in FO1.

[jero cvmi]

I generally agree, but there is a corresponding benefit to Bethesda's approach-- it mitigates concerns about blindsiding a player with unexpectedly poor skill balance, which is something the first two Fallouts did a lot of. If you started your first character in Fallout with tags in Gambling, Outdoorsman, and Energy Weapons, you'd probably be quitting in frustration within a few hours. F3's approach to allow more of the important decision-making to take place after the player has experienced some of the game makes the game more accessable to those without meta-knowledge of the challenges the game offers.

 

Now, the best way to solve this would be to have better skill balance. But skill balance is never going to be perfect, and allowing more flexibility to shift the priorities in one's character build in-game does have its benefits. (Although Bethesda almost certainly went too far in letting characters max way too many skills.)

On the other hand, in the nineties computer games had a less broad, more computer-savvy audience, so it wasn't uncommon for the player to RTFM before playing.

[entrerix]

i hope that they go the classier route and make the game more tactical and your build choices more meaningful even in the non-hardcore mode.

 

a friend of mine who only plays xbox, and only owns gta4 and left4dead bought fallout 3 on a whim and played it for a few days, at first he was surprised to find it was an rpg but he stuck with it for a while and really really agonized over what skills to pick at the beginning and how to spend his attribute points, like he got really into it and was excited about it. a week later he's discovered that it didnt matter AT ALL what choices he made on his characters first few levels and then he just kinda gave up on the game cause he felt like nothing in it mattered.

 

pretty funny considering he's a huge fan of gta, where nothing really matters at all, but i think it was the trick that the game made him think his choices were important and then he felt cheated when he saw it was a sham...

 

and like i said, this guy is NOT a serious core gamer, he doesnt play pc games and has never played any rpg's except maybe disc one of final fantasy 7 when it came out

[Oner]

Wow, that mugglelover guy is a lexicon of contradictions.

[WorstUsernameEver]

i hope that they go the classier route and make the game more tactical and your build choices more meaningful even in the non-hardcore mode.

 

a friend of mine who only plays xbox, and only owns gta4 and left4dead bought fallout 3 on a whim and played it for a few days, at first he was surprised to find it was an rpg but he stuck with it for a while and really really agonized over what skills to pick at the beginning and how to spend his attribute points, like he got really into it and was excited about it. a week later he's discovered that it didnt matter AT ALL what choices he made on his characters first few levels and then he just kinda gave up on the game cause he felt like nothing in it mattered.

 

pretty funny considering he's a huge fan of gta, where nothing really matters at all, but i think it was the trick that the game made him think his choices were important and then he felt cheated when he saw it was a sham...

 

and like i said, this guy is NOT a serious core gamer, he doesnt play pc games and has never played any rpg's except maybe disc one of final fantasy 7 when it came out

 

I think you've nailed the problem. The possibility to build a new rpg audience it's there but for some reason developers seems to want to cater more and more and more to other genres' audiences. Mind you, ultimately I'm only interested in playing a good fun game, so if the games manages that without a complicated thought-provoking character progression system it's ok, but I'd like to play a new GOOD rpg sometimes..

[TwinkieGorilla]

really really agonized over what skills to pick at the beginning and how to spend his attribute points, like he got really into it and was excited about it. a week later he's discovered that it didnt matter AT ALL what choices he made on his characters first few levels and then he just kinda gave up on the game cause he felt like nothing in it mattered.

 

not that i agonized per se, but this pretty much sums up my experience as well. it was incredibly disappointing.

[Enoch]

On the other hand, in the nineties computer games had a less broad, more computer-savvy audience, so it wasn't uncommon for the player to RTFM before playing.

I don't recall the F1 or F2 manual having anything along the lines of "Warning: the following skills are nearly useless" or "Tag Small guns and Speech for EZ Mode."

[entrerix]

"Tag Small guns and Speech for EZ Mode."

 

 

i learned this myself after playing fallout 1 for about 2 hours. i restarted and remade my character and never looked back.

[Slowtrain]

On the other hand, in the nineties computer games had a less broad, more computer-savvy audience, so it wasn't uncommon for the player to RTFM before playing.

I don't recall the F1 or F2 manual having anything along the lines of "Warning: the following skills are nearly useless" or "Tag Small guns and Speech for EZ Mode."

 

 

I dunno. It wasn't hard to figure out. Never had a problem. Never had a problem with any game along those lines actually. Maybe gamers are a lot more stupid today than 10 years ago.

 

Or maybe it's not as a big a problem as some people think.

[J.E. Sawyer]

The only way to figure it out is to tag and/or advance skills for several hours and realize (maybe) that the game doesn't really support the use of those skills.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable for players to expect that a game's content is going to actually support individual skills throughout the game (unless explicitly stated otherwise).

[Pop]

The people I knew who went into Fallout cold all report not knowing at the outset how absolutely crucial Small Guns is. Most actually figured that rifles and shotguns would fall under "Big Guns".

 

I, on the other hand, got the Fallout demo when I was 9 and I played the **** out of it. I may have also sneaked a peek at a walkthrough in a gaming mag (remember those?) and gotten the ending spoilt :[

[Stephen Amber]

The only way to figure it out is to tag and/or advance skills for several hours and realize (maybe) that the game doesn't really support the use of those skills.

 

I don't think it's unreasonable for players to expect that a game's content is going to actually support individual skills throughout the game (unless explicitly stated otherwise).

 

Especially when those skills have been amalgamated and dumbed down... like someone wanting to lump together all the guns skills into one skill or something.