Weapon Balancing

[Longknife]

I loved the weapon balancing of New Vegas. I love that there was actually reason to use Lucky over the Ranger Sequioa and that the best weapon was subjective, depending highly on your character's build. A character with high luck would find Lucky or That Gun amazing, whereas a character without high luck would consider them both bland, useless pistols for end-game. A character with high agility would enjoy using the Medicine Stick and it became his bread and butter, whereas a character with low agility or Trigger Discipline might find the gun fires too slow or reloads too slow to be worth using in combat. And again, a character with Fast Shot may use the AMR, but a character with Trigger might find it too slow to be useful, opting to use a Sniper Rifle variant instead. On the other hand, a Fast Shot user would be confined to an Assault Carbine or other highly-accurate SMG or shotgun whereas a Trigger Discipline user could enjoy anything from an Automatic Rifle to a 12.7mm SMG.

 

 

This, for me, gave New Vegas a lot of replay value. I replay it over and over and over trying to design characters around certain weapon concepts, figuring out what they can and can't do when put in the right hands. It was interesting to see which weapons could do what in the right situation, and this truly made two characters that both utilize guns manage to feel different from each other in playstyle.

 

Please, more of this. No "this Steel sword is 20% cooler than this iron sword" and gear that simply levels up with you with little to no variation at all. Give us variety, give us reason to experiment and give us reason to try and use different weapons as our main weapons, and have them perform differently in combat, of course.

[J.E. Sawyer]

This is important to me and I will do my best to pursue it. To me, the realistic purpose/function of a weapon in the real world (assuming it exists) is the foundation for determining its place among peers, but realism should not dictate a weapon's overall value. I don't believe in designing "junk" weapons just for the sake of having them. I like the idea of having types of weapons with distinct strengths and weaknesses that the player can analyze for tactical application. If a player looks at a type of weapon and instantly realizes it will never have a place in his or her arsenal, I feel that's a failure on my part.

 

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

[Leferd]

 

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

This is especially encouraging.

[IcyDeadPeople]

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

Wow, very glad to hear your thoughts on this. Leveling up and progressing in an RPG always seems to be the most fun when you really need to pause a moment to think about the various paths or future perks and how they relate to your concept of your character, instead of simply going with the +2 longsword, or some sort of obligatory generic "class gear" with a passive boost.

Edited September 19, 2012 by IcyDeadPeople

[Shadowstrider]

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

Along those lines, have you given thought to designing a "legacy" system for weapons/armor? By that, I mean a system that allows for equipment to evolve beyond the usual systems of enchanting. As a brief example, let's say you've used the same longsword to kill 500 goblins, goblins come to recognize and fear the blade (regardless of who uses it). When using that weapon against goblins you could gain effects, ranging from the standard "+1 vs goblins" to special effects like causing fear, or special dialogue options.

 

It's something that I've thought about for awhile, and that I think could go a long way to making the player grow attached to both the player and defining their character mechanically through equipment. Taking it a step further and allowing players to rename a weapon would, in my mind, go a long way to making the game feel inclusive of the player and reflective of his actions without without showing showing a meta-game achievement for their deeds. Plus, it encourages my nerd fantasies, and I am imagining a future game that actually detects signature weapons from save game imports, and adds it to loot tables based on stats... but probably asking too much!

[Longknife]

This is important to me and I will do my best to pursue it. To me, the realistic purpose/function of a weapon in the real world (assuming it exists) is the foundation for determining its place among peers, but realism should not dictate a weapon's overall value. I don't believe in designing "junk" weapons just for the sake of having them. I like the idea of having types of weapons with distinct strengths and weaknesses that the player can analyze for tactical application. If a player looks at a type of weapon and instantly realizes it will never have a place in his or her arsenal, I feel that's a failure on my part.

 

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

[Sinistas]

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

Along those lines, have you given thought to designing a "legacy" system for weapons/armor? By that, I mean a system that allows for equipment to evolve beyond the usual systems of enchanting. As a brief example, let's say you've used the same longsword to kill 500 goblins, goblins come to recognize and fear the blade (regardless of who uses it). When using that weapon against goblins you could gain effects, ranging from the standard "+1 vs goblins" to special effects like causing fear, or special dialogue options.

 

It's something that I've thought about for awhile, and that I think could go a long way to making the player grow attached to both the player and defining their character mechanically through equipment. Taking it a step further and allowing players to rename a weapon would, in my mind, go a long way to making the game feel inclusive of the player and reflective of his actions without without showing showing a meta-game achievement for their deeds. Plus, it encourages my nerd fantasies, and I am imagining a future game that actually detects signature weapons from save game imports, and adds it to loot tables based on stats... but probably asking too much!

 

This is a really fantastic idea - it really allows for a character's equipment to become "iconic" without it being so because the game tells you so. Take Skyrim for example, even if you want to dress like the Dragonborn does in the trailers, you're going to outgrow it pretty quickly.

[Gurkog]

Attack speed, fatigue damage, damage variance, durability, 1 or 2-handed.... Arcanum had a pretty nice system for distinguishing weapons even if the combat system was kind of clunky. Perhaps attack range and armor piercing capabilities could be a factor as well when choosing between a burly 2-hand sword and a club.

[Longknife]

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

Along those lines, have you given thought to designing a "legacy" system for weapons/armor? By that, I mean a system that allows for equipment to evolve beyond the usual systems of enchanting. As a brief example, let's say you've used the same longsword to kill 500 goblins, goblins come to recognize and fear the blade (regardless of who uses it). When using that weapon against goblins you could gain effects, ranging from the standard "+1 vs goblins" to special effects like causing fear, or special dialogue options.

 

It's something that I've thought about for awhile, and that I think could go a long way to making the player grow attached to both the player and defining their character mechanically through equipment. Taking it a step further and allowing players to rename a weapon would, in my mind, go a long way to making the game feel inclusive of the player and reflective of his actions without without showing showing a meta-game achievement for their deeds. Plus, it encourages my nerd fantasies, and I am imagining a future game that actually detects signature weapons from save game imports, and adds it to loot tables based on stats... but probably asking too much!

 

New Vegas sort of touched on this aswell. There were challenge perks that were unlocked when a certain weapon type was used enough.

 

The challenge perks were tied to the character however, not the weapon. If they would simply tie the challenge perks to the weapons or armor instead, you're right, that might be a fun feature.

[dlux]

About junk weapons: I would expect an Ogre, for example, to use a very crude club in many circumstances. The reason being that he probably does not have access to superior weapons, or just prefers using it for some reason (lack of intelligence). He will of course still do a lot damage, because of his pure brute strength.

[GhostofAnakin]

Along those lines, have you given thought to designing a "legacy" system for weapons/armor? By that, I mean a system that allows for equipment to evolve beyond the usual systems of enchanting. As a brief example, let's say you've used the same longsword to kill 500 goblins, goblins come to recognize and fear the blade (regardless of who uses it). When using that weapon against goblins you could gain effects, ranging from the standard "+1 vs goblins" to special effects like causing fear, or special dialogue options.

 

It's something that I've thought about for awhile, and that I think could go a long way to making the player grow attached to both the player and defining their character mechanically through equipment. Taking it a step further and allowing players to rename a weapon would, in my mind, go a long way to making the game feel inclusive of the player and reflective of his actions without without showing showing a meta-game achievement for their deeds. Plus, it encourages my nerd fantasies, and I am imagining a future game that actually detects signature weapons from save game imports, and adds it to loot tables based on stats... but probably asking too much!

 

I actually really like this idea. It could make the decision to toss aside a "weak starting weapon" that much more difficult if it had cumulative benefits to continuing to use it.

[Longknife]

About junk weapons: I would expect an Ogre, for example, to use a very crude club in many circumstances. The reason being that he probably does not have access to superior weapons, or just prefers using it for some reason (lack of intelligence). He will of course still do a lot damage, because of his pure brute strength.

 

Still, it shouldn't simply be "you're an orc, +20 damage with clubs and warhammers." There needs to be different warhammers and clubs to choose from and each needs to be viable.

 

It doesn't need to be perfect, for example the 9mm pistol and single shotgun are definitely viable in New Vegas, but you still probably won't use them for end-game simply because their cons outweigh the pros by comparison to others.

 

I think Sawyer always described it as five tiers of weaponry. Typically tier 5 provided the most raw damage, but that didn't neccesarily make Tiers 1-4 useless. Tier one was more or less beginner weapons that few people would hold onto, but Tier 2-4 could be more useful for a character depending on your build.

 

Lucky is perhaps the greatest example. Lucky would technically be ~Tier 2 (maybe 3), but was very often superior to all other higher-tier revolvers and pistols simply because the ammo for it was incredibly abundant and cheap, repair costs for Lucky were beyond cheap (125 caps?), the ammo was very lightweight and didn't encumber you, and most importantly, if you had the proper perks and a decent crit rate, Lucky would crit a good 40% of the time and a critical hit from Lucky meant it just hit as hard as a Brush Gun, a tier 5 rifle.

Again, it was subjective because without the crit benefit, Lucky became nothing more than a cheap-to-use pistol, in which case Maria is better qualified as it's equally as cheap but has a higher damage-per-second. Or if weight or cost wasn't a concern for you, you might want ALSID, or a Hunting Revolver (though I personally never understood the appeal of the Ranger Sequoia or the Hunting Revolver given that they used rifle ammo, but dealt less damage. Guess those were weapons for people with perks like the Professional).

 

 

 

At any rate, I love New Vegas. And I'd attribute my 1000+ hours of gameplay invested in New Vegas to:

 

1) The storyline and general reactivity of the world combined with it's philosophical themes. I love making new characters based on different ideologies and principles and seeing how well the world turns out under their influence.

2) Weapon balance. I love seeing just how strong the

is or seeing just how well a fully modded Hunting Shotgun can snipe (pro-tip: it actually ****ing can with Trigger Discipline)

 

 

And I'm estatic to see Sawyer considers this a very important part of Project Eternity. To me, that says this game will have incredible replay value.

[Jarmo]

I principle I'd very much like if different kinds of weapons did different kinds of damage.

Historically slashing weapons were very effective against lightly- or unarmored opponents,

with crushing weapons being more effective against armor.

 

But with a full party, dunno. It's kind of a hassle to have everybody carry 3 sets of weapons and equipment.

[Longknife]

I principle I'd very much like if different kinds of weapons did different kinds of damage.

Historically slashing weapons were very effective against lightly- or unarmored opponents,

with crushing weapons being more effective against armor.

 

But with a full party, dunno. It's kind of a hassle to have everybody carry 3 sets of weapons and equipment.

 

It can be done, or as an alternative, the hinderance of slashing weapons versus heavy armor could be noticeable, but not crippling.

 

In New Vegas, it was common that a single character would carry:

 

1) A sniper or long-ranged rifle of some sort for enemies like Deathclaws that you don't want near you at all.

2) An automatic weapon, whether SMG, rifle, very fast pistol or minigun for swarms of enemies (Cazadors). Alternatively a shotgun could be used instead.

3) A sidearm (hardcore mode only) to utilize a lighter-weight ammo type, to help conserve on rifle ammo where a rifle would be overkill for an enemy and to cut down on carry weight

4) An all-around rifle; something that's capable of handling any situation decently, so you have something to fall back on should the others fail/run out of ammo.

 

It was completely doable, even on hardcore and even with 4 STR characters, and this was a game where ammo might have weight. Given that this game won't have ammo, I think being able to carry/being expected to carry a sword and, say, a mace, would be both doable and reasonable.

[Giantevilhead]

There is a tactical RPG called Silent Storm that has feature called "weapon familiarity" where the more you use a weapon, the more adept you become. Implementation of a mechanic like that would make weaker weapons you get earlier in the game more viable later in the game.

[Thraxen]

Ideally, I'd love it if it were possible to use equipment you get pretty much at the start of the game throughout. It'd feel much more like a character is an actual character, instead of a walking looting machine that needs to get the next shiny object and has no other real goal.

[Gyges]

Sawyer, i just want to thank you for filling my cup of tea for this game. I've always found that ending up with a ultimate weapon, one that exceeds all others purely in dps, have been a major detractor in rpgs. Weapons that provide different tactical applications, where no one weapon is objectively more powerful than another (unless level requirements are vastly different) as you said, is what i would like.

Also, polearms and various whip and chain weapons ftw.

[Parsifal]

Sawyer, I think you're right as far as making a fantasy game goes, but I wouldn't make the "weapons are specific and unique" thing a completely fundamental value. Some weapons are just better than others. A few are unique and are either expensive or hard to earn. Most weapons are cheap, run-of-the-mill weapons for ordinary schmoes, without anything substantial to tell them apart. The games that you all worked on basically got it right. Don't try to reinvent the wheel on this issue.

[IEfan]

I don't know what the new system will be but I might as well drop some thoughts on previous IE-games just in case. Sorry if I have a demanding tone, I have written this before and not modified it as much (and it's more about commentary on previous games than thinking of making a new, working system instead.

 

* consider bringing speed factors back (from BG) and remember to balance all speeds for all weapons accordingly. Give a reason to use maces instead of morning stars, for example, or for fighter a reason to use dagger or short sword or mace or warhammer in off-hand. NWN had a problem that since you hit equally fast on every weapon and magical weapon, you really didn't use weaker-dps weapons.

 

* ...because the problem of AC and how/if the weapon bypassed the attackers armor. Since the bypass didn't occur and there were no critical hit bonuses, the reasons to use smaller weapons were nearly none. No Artremis Entreri for you, better use the largest-ass SWORD you can find, why not dual-wield two-handed blades...

 

* Add to this that certain weapontypes got all the love for magical items and even if other weapon-types tried to pick up the slack in BG2, the longswords et all favorites were got EARLY in the game as well vs others... and beated the others in sheer variety and numbers. It doesn't matter if scimitars or spears finally (forgotten in BG1) had the Killer counterparts now, you got these way too late compared to others in the game as well. The only powerful bastard sword in BG2 was got almost at the end of tha game; same for spears; there barely were any magical Katanas (don't get me started on Ninja-Tos and Wakizashis, the add-on tried to fix this...)

 

And obviously, JUST +1 and above generic versions for "lesser weapontypes" don't do like i described above.

 

* Once you've got these down, you really need to vary and balance the damages on basic X weapon type to another. Maybe touch too many 1-4, 1-4+1/2, 1-6, 1-6+2, 1-8, 2*(1-4) and nothing in between for lots of weapon types... leaving only (unpredictable) amount of magic weapons and speed factor for preferrence.

 

* Maybe weapon attack type should have a WAY bigger meaning, in case if battles are little less like BG hack'n'slash regular orcs and more akin to more tactical scenarios? Like besides "really the only type to give damage to undead"? Maybe this could become another decisive factor for buying/keeping a weapon, the strong suspectibility/resistance of different types of creatures to specific weapontypes? More tactical depth by "AHHA that guy really takes from bludgeoning, we can finish him quicker."

 

I mean BG2 already had a lot of this but in the world of elemental monsters - it didn't seem to be a decisive/strong factor against more normal enemies, no matter how strong.

 

* And maybe size should affect everything? Like short folk thinks bastard swords like two handed ones etc. I'm not sure how this would be handled apart from obvious restrictions, it's more work for designers ugh.

 

* There's already a topic talking over the Bows in IE-series here http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60299-lets-not-repeat-the-bg-bow-follies/?do=findComment&comment=1193731 , nevermind that it links to my post only, the OP is right. Maybe put a requirement that ranged weapons have high profiency requirement so that not everyone would use ranged/some heroes specifically become ranged dudes? IDK how you pull this out. It'd be nice to see a thief or a bard who prefers shields/stealth, for one thing. The bucklers had close to zero good sides and zero magical bucklers as well.

 

! I'm a little astonished how meticulously most of CRPG's have followed the above problems/rules - you barely see a fighter with just a high-spear profiency (one of the oldest weapons in all worlds & city guard or peasant guard choice n.1) or HUMAN fighters using hammer or even axe. Or BG2 fetish on favouring dual-wielding, overshadowing others styles in bonuses - tower shields and shield-wielding fighters getting the flack this time (due to non-existant big shields). Or no any good reason to have profiency in Single Weapon unless you're a weakling or bizarre : ^ B (strange, you have one arm free and without restrictions which would mean a lot in a fight of speed...).

What i'm talking about, besides obvious glaring inequality, is that you can barely vary the weapon profiencies in these games due to this in-balance and favoritism, thus inevitably leading to Only Good Choices in-game and frankly, lesser NPC or hero customization and RPG'ing. They also follow the racial cliches suspiciously clearly...

 

It's not nice that you often have to start spending on plasma weapons and heavy weapons right from the beginning of the game because other weapon forms aren't just as good. The only best way to maximize the game and playing weaker/alternatively punishes you.

Edited September 19, 2012 by IEfan

[Karranthain]

Good topic, you might find this one interesting too :

 

http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60205-weapon-mechanics/

 

We're discussing various mechanics aiming to make each weapon unique.

 

 

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

This, I feel, is especially important. Great post!

[Shadowstrider]

This also applies to weapon upgrades within "type". A longsword +2 is universally superior to a longsword +1. I think things get more interesting when an upgraded weapon is slightly inferior to its antecedent in one way. The more the player stops and makes a consideration of the pros and cons of using one weapon or another, the more he or she is problem solving and engaged in what's going on. If choices ever become no-brainers, they aren't really choices, and I think that can detract from the enjoyment of the game.

 

Along those lines, have you given thought to designing a "legacy" system for weapons/armor? By that, I mean a system that allows for equipment to evolve beyond the usual systems of enchanting. As a brief example, let's say you've used the same longsword to kill 500 goblins, goblins come to recognize and fear the blade (regardless of who uses it). When using that weapon against goblins you could gain effects, ranging from the standard "+1 vs goblins" to special effects like causing fear, or special dialogue options.

 

It's something that I've thought about for awhile, and that I think could go a long way to making the player grow attached to both the player and defining their character mechanically through equipment. Taking it a step further and allowing players to rename a weapon would, in my mind, go a long way to making the game feel inclusive of the player and reflective of his actions without without showing showing a meta-game achievement for their deeds. Plus, it encourages my nerd fantasies, and I am imagining a future game that actually detects signature weapons from save game imports, and adds it to loot tables based on stats... but probably asking too much!

 

New Vegas sort of touched on this aswell. There were challenge perks that were unlocked when a certain weapon type was used enough.

 

The challenge perks were tied to the character however, not the weapon. If they would simply tie the challenge perks to the weapons or armor instead, you're right, that might be a fun feature.

 

For me, this represents a lore more than interesting choices to the player, though that aspect shouldn't be minimized. This boils down to enabling the player to create lore, rather than just being surrounded by it, even if the lore is localized to that player's experience. Through the current generation, players have only been able to create lore through player-made mods, fanon, and developer intervention.

 

This system, in itself, isn't that difficult to implement. It's a value that can be modified by the player (item name), and tracking the various accomplishments of a player while that weapon is wielded. If you want to get fancy you can allow that progression to track no matter who carries it (i.e. I'm done with this sword, but my fighter friend can use it now!), or allow users to write the descriptions of their items, but these aren't really necessary.

 

Anyway, I don't want to ramble too long. I'm getting too old for this ****.

Edited September 19, 2012 by Shadowstrider

[J.E. Sawyer]

Sawyer, I think you're right as far as making a fantasy game goes, but I wouldn't make the "weapons are specific and unique" thing a completely fundamental value. Some weapons are just better than others.

In reality, in different circumstances, yes, but we're making a game. I don't see value in spending resources to make weapon types (and skills/talents/perks/whatever to use them) that are designed to be inherently inferior in all circumstances. We spent plenty of time making weapons in IWD (especially) and IWD2 that no one used because they were fundamentally bad at a base level.

[Thraxen]

Sawyer, I think you're right as far as making a fantasy game goes, but I wouldn't make the "weapons are specific and unique" thing a completely fundamental value. Some weapons are just better than others.

In reality, in different circumstances, yes, but we're making a game. I don't see value in spending resources to make weapon types (and skills/talents/perks/whatever to use them) that are designed to be inherently inferior in all circumstances. We spent plenty of time making weapons in IWD (especially) and IWD2 that no one used because they were fundamentally bad at a base level.

 

So it's more likely that you'll be going for greater variation between different weapons instead of a multitude of fairly similar weapons where the chance for a clear front-runner to emerge would be greater?

[Longknife]

Sawyer, I think you're right as far as making a fantasy game goes, but I wouldn't make the "weapons are specific and unique" thing a completely fundamental value. Some weapons are just better than others. A few are unique and are either expensive or hard to earn. Most weapons are cheap, run-of-the-mill weapons for ordinary schmoes, without anything substantial to tell them apart. The games that you all worked on basically got it right. Don't try to reinvent the wheel on this issue.

 

In some cases, it was simply a matter of taste. For example, I chose the ordinary, fully modded Hunting shotgun over the unique variant (the Dinner Bell) because while the Dinner Bell did hit harder, the fully modded normal hunting shotgun had a larger clip size and less spread (more accurate). Or with ALSID, it had a sick damage output and decent crit rate, but the normal .45 pistol had both a silencer and better ironsights. Omg and Annabelle. That beautiful, homocidal woman. She was far more potent than the normal rocket launcher, but had this wonderful habit of causing explosions so large that they'd kill you too, despite the fact that you're standing 50 feet away from the target.

 

Occassionally there were weapons like Lucky and the Medicine Stick that yes, WERE superior to their normal counterparts (9mm pistol, .357 pistol and Brush Gun) in every way that mattered, BUT these unique variants were still balanced with other unique variants. All unique or fully modded versions of weapons were able to go toe-to-toe with each other simply because they enjoyed different benefits, from damage, damage-per-second, crit damage, crit rate, accuracy, the quality of the ironsights (some guns had poor ironsights, some were scoped), the durability, the repair costs, the ammo variety available to the gun, and the ammo abundance and cost.

 

It's one of the reasons I CANNOT go back and enjoy Fallout 3 like I once could: because no matter your character in FO3, you WILL be wielding Lincoln's Repeater or Alien tech by the end of the game unless you roleplay that your character likes using crappy guns...which isn't very fun to roleplay.

[dan107]

Yes, please make sure that all weapons are viable choices. When I played Arcanum I had my character use dual pistols, going for a smooth-talking gunslinger type character, and it was horrible. My character was grossly underpowered, every fight against the most basic mobs was a struggle, and finally when I got my ass handed to me by the first boss like 15 times in a row I called it quits and never finished the game. Just out of curiousity I tried that fight with a melee character and beat it easily on the first try.

 

So please -- melee, ranged, or magic -- make sure that all types of characters can hold their own in any fight.