Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #420 on: August 08, 2015, 06:24:44 PM »
Wait, so Saddam actually wants the game to end after completing the main quest? He actually wants what was considered one of the worst things about Fallout 3?

What sucked about F3's ending was how terrible and abrupt it was, not that it was an ending in the first place.  There was no huge backlash over the endings to F1, F2, or NV, because they were handled much better.  Blanko mentioned in IRC that he'd like to see the consequences of your actions play out in-game, and while that would be great, we all know it isn't going to happen.  You'll just complete a quest and that's it, quest over.  Move on, nothing to see here.  Skyrim with guns.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #421 on: August 08, 2015, 06:45:48 PM »
What sucked about F3's ending was how terrible and abrupt it was, not that it was an ending in the first place.  There was no huge backlash over the endings to F1, F2, or NV, because they were handled much better.  Blanko mentioned in IRC that he'd like to see the consequences of your actions play out in-game, and while that would be great, we all know it isn't going to happen.  You'll just complete a quest and that's it, quest over.  Move on, nothing to see here.  Skyrim with guns.

But.. there was a huge backlash over NV once again ending at the main quest, in fact it was one of the only criticisms that still stuck around despite New Vegas being better than F3 in nearly all other aspects.

Additionally, why does having an end matter in an open world? Poking at Blanko's desire for visible consequences and then saying "well that won't happen" isn't really a good way to support a permanent ending, since it definitely won't happen if you make the ending anyway. If the main quest has a permanent ending, you're basically forcing players to ignore it entirely during the late game, which doesn't make any sense in the world. If, for example, dragons were trying to destroy the world, would it make sense for the only person who can stop them to just ignore the problem entirely, instead just gallivanting about the world as if nothing is happening?

In New Vegas there is a war. A WAR... going on around you, and you're forced to pretend nothing is happening because attempting to solve the crisis results in a game over. That, to me, is pretty terrible gameplay. What would be different in Skyrim if it ended after the main quest? Right, we'd have the only dragonborn savior pretending nothing is wrong and just ignoring the dragon devouring everyones soul and trying to end the world. He would instead run around trying to become the Archmage of the guild or some shit which won't matter because the world is ending.

Forced endings are bad for games with open worlds and don't make sense in the overall lore of the game. There's no good reason to have one.
« Last Edit: August 08, 2015, 06:47:41 PM by Rushy »

*

Offline beardo

  • *
  • Posts: 4505
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #422 on: August 08, 2015, 06:57:16 PM »
New Vegas was going to have post-game play, but Obsidian didn't have time to implement it because Bethesda was breathing down their necks telling them time's up.
The Mastery.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #423 on: August 08, 2015, 07:39:37 PM »
New Vegas was going to have post-game play, but Obsidian didn't have time to implement it because Bethesda was breathing down their necks telling them time's up.

Also true, the entire upper portion of the Lucky 38 is mapped and modeled, including a helipad, but they never had the chance to use it.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #424 on: August 13, 2015, 08:25:02 PM »
But.. there was a huge backlash over NV once again ending at the main quest, in fact it was one of the only criticisms that still stuck around despite New Vegas being better than F3 in nearly all other aspects.

Additionally, why does having an end matter in an open world? Poking at Blanko's desire for visible consequences and then saying "well that won't happen" isn't really a good way to support a permanent ending, since it definitely won't happen if you make the ending anyway. If the main quest has a permanent ending, you're basically forcing players to ignore it entirely during the late game, which doesn't make any sense in the world. If, for example, dragons were trying to destroy the world, would it make sense for the only person who can stop them to just ignore the problem entirely, instead just gallivanting about the world as if nothing is happening?

In New Vegas there is a war. A WAR... going on around you, and you're forced to pretend nothing is happening because attempting to solve the crisis results in a game over. That, to me, is pretty terrible gameplay. What would be different in Skyrim if it ended after the main quest? Right, we'd have the only dragonborn savior pretending nothing is wrong and just ignoring the dragon devouring everyones soul and trying to end the world. He would instead run around trying to become the Archmage of the guild or some shit which won't matter because the world is ending.

Forced endings are bad for games with open worlds and don't make sense in the overall lore of the game. There's no good reason to have one.

The fact that you're talking about Skyrim at all goes straight to the heart of my problem.  Fallout is not TES.  They both have large, fanciful open worlds as settings and RPG mechanics that encourage extensive character-building, but their themes, stories, and roles of the player characters are very different.  For example, your comparison between the main stories of NV and Skyrim is unfair.  The bulk of NV's main story is you picking a side and then making preparations for a key battle that you know will happen at some point in the future.  There's no hurry.  Nobody is pointing to you and saying, "Only you can save the world, hero of destiny!"  It just so happens that the battle is about to begin by the time you've completed your preparations.  If you feel that there's any kind of urgency hurrying you along the main quest, then you're simply mixing up the gameplay and story.  Obviously the battle at the dam won't begin until you get there, because a video game is hardly going to shut its main character out of the climax - but that doesn't mean that your allies are sitting at the dam, going, "Oh, man, where's the Courier?  We are so fucked without him!"

Furthermore, while the central conflict of any TES game is essentially a hero who has to save the world from a supernatural threat, Fallout's general scope is much more political and societal in nature.  In a TES game, little that you do really matters to society and its population (with perhaps a few exceptions, like the civil war) beyond whether or not you saved the world.  But Fallout is about the choices you make and the world that you leave behind.  To put it another way, the real star of the series isn't the player character, it's the setting itself.  Even F3, to its credit, kind of got this, at least with quests like the one in Megaton and the one with Harold.  To just turn this into TES with guns, a shooter where you skip across the wasteland and blow shit up and nobody really cares what you leave in your wake because it's all about you - well, that's not really Fallout.  Not to me, anyway.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #425 on: August 13, 2015, 09:35:23 PM »
Your first point again notes that you think the only defining feature between TES and Fallout is the fact that the main quest should end the story in Fallout. I'm not going to continue a discussion with someone who thinks that's the only difference. Your second point is a nonsensical opinion because you seem to not understand neither TES nor Fallout. Don't argue just for the sake of arguing, Saddam. It apparently makes you grasp so hard for straws you fell off the ass end of sanity.

Ending the game is unpopular, so Bethesda removed it. I'm sorry you're such a pointless contrarian that you actually liked the single most unpopular feature in the entire series.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #426 on: August 13, 2015, 09:42:13 PM »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

I forgot who I was talking to.  How silly of me.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7061
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #427 on: August 13, 2015, 10:07:40 PM »
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

I forgot who I was talking to.  How silly of me.

You're reasoning makes no sense and doesn't come close to supporting your main point. It came across as a "I don't believe this but I'll argue it anyway" word soup which I'm just not into dealing with anymore.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #428 on: August 14, 2015, 02:32:58 AM »
The fact that you're talking about Skyrim at all goes straight to the heart of my problem.  Fallout is not TES.  They both have large, fanciful open worlds as settings and RPG mechanics that encourage extensive character-building, but their themes, stories, and roles of the player characters are very different.  For example, your comparison between the main stories of NV and Skyrim is unfair.  The bulk of NV's main story is you picking a side and then making preparations for a key battle that you know will happen at some point in the future.  There's no hurry.  Nobody is pointing to you and saying, "Only you can save the world, hero of destiny!"  It just so happens that the battle is about to begin by the time you've completed your preparations.  If you feel that there's any kind of urgency hurrying you along the main quest, then you're simply mixing up the gameplay and story.  Obviously the battle at the dam won't begin until you get there, because a video game is hardly going to shut its main character out of the climax - but that doesn't mean that your allies are sitting at the dam, going, "Oh, man, where's the Courier?  We are so fucked without him!"

None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

Furthermore, while the central conflict of any TES game is essentially a hero who has to save the world from a supernatural threat, Fallout's general scope is much more political and societal in nature.  In a TES game, little that you do really matters to society and its population (with perhaps a few exceptions, like the civil war) beyond whether or not you saved the world.  But Fallout is about the choices you make and the world that you leave behind.  To put it another way, the real star of the series isn't the player character, it's the setting itself.  Even F3, to its credit, kind of got this, at least with quests like the one in Megaton and the one with Harold.  To just turn this into TES with guns, a shooter where you skip across the wasteland and blow shit up and nobody really cares what you leave in your wake because it's all about you - well, that's not really Fallout.  Not to me, anyway.

None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

Great, you just wrote two paragraphs about nothing. Despite Rushy's blatant rushing, I'm going to have to agree with him. Did you just spontaneously forget what we were talking about?

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #429 on: August 14, 2015, 04:47:04 AM »
None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

I was replying to Rushy and the specific points he made.  He made an argument that relied on a major mischaracterization of NV's main story and an unwarranted comparison to a different game, and ignored key differences between TES and Fallout by lumping them together as "games with open worlds."  I felt that such a flawed argument deserved a response.  The fact that I didn't also expound on a different point does not make my post off-topic.

Quote
None of this has anything to do with whether the game should have ended with the main quest.

I was replying to Rushy and the specific points he made.  He made an argument that relied on a major mischaracterization of NV's main story and an unwarranted comparison to a different game, and ignored key differences between TES and Fallout by lumping them together as "games with open worlds."  I felt that such a flawed argument deserved a response.  The fact that I didn't also expound on a different point does not make my post off-topic.

Quote
Great, you just wrote two paragraphs about nothing. Despite Rushy's blatant rushing, I'm going to have to agree with him. Did you just spontaneously forget what we were talking about?

I was replying to Rushy and the specific points he made.  He made an argument that relied on a major mischaracterization of NV's main story and an unwarranted comparison to a different game, and ignored key differences between TES and Fallout by lumping them together as "games with open worlds."  I felt that such a flawed argument deserved a response.  The fact that I didn't also expound on a different point does not make my post off-topic.

I can unnecessarily repeat myself for extra condescension too.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #430 on: August 14, 2015, 04:55:21 AM »
So you don't actually have an argument in favor of forced ending. Got it.

In fact, you appear to be (unintentionally) making several arguments in favor of not having a forced ending, while you're blatantly misconstruing Rushy's arguments.

The fact that you're talking about Skyrim at all goes straight to the heart of my problem.  Fallout is not TES.  They both have large, fanciful open worlds as settings and RPG mechanics that encourage extensive character-building, but their themes, stories, and roles of the player characters are very different.  For example, your comparison between the main stories of NV and Skyrim is unfair.  The bulk of NV's main story is you picking a side and then making preparations for a key battle that you know will happen at some point in the future.  There's no hurry.  Nobody is pointing to you and saying, "Only you can save the world, hero of destiny!"  It just so happens that the battle is about to begin by the time you've completed your preparations.  If you feel that there's any kind of urgency hurrying you along the main quest, then you're simply mixing up the gameplay and story.  Obviously the battle at the dam won't begin until you get there, because a video game is hardly going to shut its main character out of the climax - but that doesn't mean that your allies are sitting at the dam, going, "Oh, man, where's the Courier?  We are so fucked without him!"

Not being a "hero's story" gives the story more urgency, not less. That's because the pace of the story is dictated by outside forces, not the player character. There's no reason why the primary factions in NV are waiting for potentially several in-game years for you to arrive, but because they are doing so regardless, it inadvertently turns the game into a "hero's story", which you claim it is not. The fact that nobody in the game speaks in urgency is nothing but sweeping the issues under the rug. Their actions speak for themselves, or in this case, their inaction.

You say it's "simply mixing up the gameplay and story", which is exactly what a good developer should do. Failing to meld the gameplay and the story into an internally consistent world is a failure in game design. There's even a term for it, it's called "ludonarrative dissonance". Allowing post-game play would solve this issue, because with it the player is allowed to pick their own pacing. You can either respond to the urgency necessitated by the factions within the game's story and do optional content after the main quest is over, or you can choose to stick fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la while not giving a fuck about it and make them wait for you forever. Both of these options are fine, because they allow the player to choose how invested they are in the story; with a forced ending, the game is essentially telling you to not be invested at all, unless you're willing to sacrifice a massive amount of optional content.

Furthermore, while the central conflict of any TES game is essentially a hero who has to save the world from a supernatural threat, Fallout's general scope is much more political and societal in nature.  In a TES game, little that you do really matters to society and its population (with perhaps a few exceptions, like the civil war) beyond whether or not you saved the world.  But Fallout is about the choices you make and the world that you leave behind.  To put it another way, the real star of the series isn't the player character, it's the setting itself.  Even F3, to its credit, kind of got this, at least with quests like the one in Megaton and the one with Harold.  To just turn this into TES with guns, a shooter where you skip across the wasteland and blow shit up and nobody really cares what you leave in your wake because it's all about you - well, that's not really Fallout.  Not to me, anyway.

If Fallout were to not be a hero's story (although it is, as I've just now demonstrated), that would only give more reason for post-game play to be allowed, because a forced ending would conclude the player character's story, not the entire game world's story. New Vegas keeps existing and changing after the events of the main story, and the fact that you're not allowed to see any of it only reinforces the game as the "hero's story", because it's about the world you leave behind, not the world itself. Once again, allowing post-game play would only give credence to what you want Fallout to be, not the other way around.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2015, 10:44:17 AM by Blanko »

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #431 on: August 22, 2015, 07:27:30 PM »
Not being a "hero's story" gives the story more urgency, not less. That's because the pace of the story is dictated by outside forces, not the player character...Allowing post-game play would solve this issue, because with it the player is allowed to pick their own pacing. You can either respond to the urgency necessitated by the factions within the game's story and do optional content after the main quest is over, or you can choose to stick fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la while not giving a fuck about it and make them wait for you forever. Both of these options are fine, because they allow the player to choose how invested they are in the story; with a forced ending, the game is essentially telling you to not be invested at all, unless you're willing to sacrifice a massive amount of optional content.

That simply isn't true.  At the start of the game, the conflict is between the player and Benny.  It's entirely personal.  You decide how invested you are in going after Benny, and once that subplot is cleared up, you decide how invested you are in working for the factions that try to recruit you.  The stakes really don't become "urgent" until you're quite a bit into a faction's questline and they confirm that the battle will soon begin.

Quote
There's no reason why the primary factions in NV are waiting for potentially several in-game years for you to arrive, but because they are doing so regardless, it inadvertently turns the game into a "hero's story", which you claim it is not. The fact that nobody in the game speaks in urgency is nothing but sweeping the issues under the rug. Their actions speak for themselves, or in this case, their inaction.

You say it's "simply mixing up the gameplay and story", which is exactly what a good developer should do. Failing to meld the gameplay and the story into an internally consistent world is a failure in game design. There's even a term for it, it's called "ludonarrative dissonance".

They wait around for you for an unrealistic amount of time for the same reason that nobody reacts with shock and disgust if you start teabagging a dead enemy.  It's a video game.  There's only so much you can program into a video game to have the characters react appropriately to the endless idiosyncrasies of players.  All things considered, allowing players to hold off on the final battle (again, taking into account that only it and the previous couple of quests have a particularly urgent feel to them) is a pretty minor ludonarrative disruption.

Quote
If Fallout were to not be a hero's story (although it is, as I've just now demonstrated), that would only give more reason for post-game play to be allowed, because a forced ending would conclude the player character's story, not the entire game world's story. New Vegas keeps existing and changing after the events of the main story, and the fact that you're not allowed to see any of it only reinforces the game as the "hero's story", because it's about the world you leave behind, not the world itself. Once again, allowing post-game play would only give credence to what you want Fallout to be, not the other way around.

This is the only point you've made that I'd agree is a valid argument in favor of not forcing an ending, and if they can do what you described well, then I'm all for it.  I think that would be pretty difficult to do well, though.  Maybe if they had a timeskip at the end of the main quest, like with RDR?  But then I suppose everyone would still be putting off completing it until they finished all the sidequests.

Also, I never said "hero's story," so I don't know what those scare quotes are for.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #432 on: August 22, 2015, 08:00:42 PM »
That simply isn't true.  At the start of the game, the conflict is between the player and Benny.  It's entirely personal.  You decide how invested you are in going after Benny, and once that subplot is cleared up, you decide how invested you are in working for the factions that try to recruit you.  The stakes really don't become "urgent" until you're quite a bit into a faction's questline and they confirm that the battle will soon begin.

So now you're directly contradicting your earlier assessment that the game is about the game world and not the player character. Yes, pretty much the entire first half of the game is in fact personal, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? I don't need you to start arguing that the game is a hero's story as well, because that would just be sad.

Quote
They wait around for you for an unrealistic amount of time for the same reason that nobody reacts with shock and disgust if you start teabagging a dead enemy.  It's a video game.  There's only so much you can program into a video game to have the characters react appropriately to the endless idiosyncrasies of players.  All things considered, allowing players to hold off on the final battle (again, taking into account that only it and the previous couple of quests have a particularly urgent feel to them) is a pretty minor ludonarrative disruption.

"It's a video game" is not an excuse to ignore flaws. You might think it's a "minor" ludonarrative disruption, but that's entirely subjective; I on the other hand think it's incredibly major and reflects poorly on the game as a whole. Like I said, it's a case of subjective player investment. I fail to see how allowing post-game play wouldn't please everyone in this case.

Quote
This is the only point you've made that I'd agree is a valid argument in favor of not forcing an ending, and if they can do what you described well, then I'm all for it.  I think that would be pretty difficult to do well, though.  Maybe if they had a timeskip at the end of the main quest, like with RDR?  But then I suppose everyone would still be putting off completing it until they finished all the sidequests.

I don't think it would be difficult to do at all. A game like New Vegas doesn't necessitate any changes to landmass or new content to be made for post-game. At most NPCs would have to be moved around to reflect the changes in factions, some NPCs may have to be removed altogether, and all of them could be given new lines of dialogue. It's things a modder could do with the assets already in the game, the only problem being that a modder wouldn't have access to all the voice actors. It's very trivial in the scope of game development.

Instead of simply trying to counter my arguments, I'd like to see any arguments for a forced ending, because frankly, I don't see what a forced ending would accomplish that post-game does not. Like I said, it seems to me like all of your arguments seem to suggest that a forced ending goes against everything you think Fallout is about.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #433 on: September 10, 2015, 03:40:05 AM »
So now you're directly contradicting your earlier assessment that the game is about the game world and not the player character. Yes, pretty much the entire first half of the game is in fact personal, but that's not what we're talking about, are we? I don't need you to start arguing that the game is a hero's story as well, because that would just be sad.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  You said that "the pace of the story is dictated by outside forces, not the player character," and therefore the story is full of urgency.  That's not true.

Quote
"It's a video game" is not an excuse to ignore flaws. You might think it's a "minor" ludonarrative disruption, but that's entirely subjective; I on the other hand think it's incredibly major and reflects poorly on the game as a whole. Like I said, it's a case of subjective player investment. I fail to see how allowing post-game play wouldn't please everyone in this case.

If you choose to define this as a flaw (and I seriously doubt that you'd be bothered by this at all), then you will never be satisfied.  Like I said earlier, why don't NPCs react to your bopping up and down on your dead enemies' faces?  Why don't NPCs wander up to you if you're standing still for a few minutes and wave their hands in front of your face?  Why don't you have the option to yell "OOGA BOOGA BOOGA!" at people randomly?  Those are all just as much "flaws" as the fact that the climax of the game isn't going to happen without you is.

Quote
I don't think it would be difficult to do at all. A game like New Vegas doesn't necessitate any changes to landmass or new content to be made for post-game. At most NPCs would have to be moved around to reflect the changes in factions, some NPCs may have to be removed altogether, and all of them could be given new lines of dialogue. It's things a modder could do with the assets already in the game, the only problem being that a modder wouldn't have access to all the voice actors. It's very trivial in the scope of game development.

All right, I'll take your word for it.  Do you think that Bethesda could handle it, though?

Quote
Instead of simply trying to counter my arguments, I'd like to see any arguments for a forced ending, because frankly, I don't see what a forced ending would accomplish that post-game does not. Like I said, it seems to me like all of your arguments seem to suggest that a forced ending goes against everything you think Fallout is about.

The brief slideshow lists the consequences of your actions and explains what happens to the places you've visited and the people whose lives you've affected in your adventures, which I find to be a very weighty and satisfying way to end a game.  If those consequences can be shown without needing to end the game, then I'd certainly prefer it to be handled that way.  I'm just doubtful of both Bethesda's ability and desire to implement those changes in-game.

Also, good news:

https://twitter.com/ETDellums/status/639495005220958210

What a relief.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2015, 03:44:10 AM by Saddam Hussein »

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #434 on: September 10, 2015, 03:46:57 AM »
If you choose to define this as a flaw (and I seriously doubt that you'd be bothered by this at all)

If you're just going to ignore flaws as you see them, we're never going to get anywhere. Ludonarrative dissonance is a major point of discussion in any serious video game critique. I really don't understand why this is so hard for you to accept.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #435 on: September 21, 2015, 12:25:25 AM »
I understand that ludonarrative dissonance is a genuine issue, but all we're really talking about here is the player's ability to progress through the main story at their own pace, which is such a basic (and highly popular) element of almost all open-world games that I have difficulty seeing it as a "flaw."  So, if and when this element of the gameplay clashes with the story, I'd argue that the writing is what should be amended to accommodate the gameplay, not the other way around.  That would actually fix the issue, whereas your solution would simply allow strict roleplayers to work around it by rushing through the main story.

In other news, here's something about the character system:

« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 02:20:25 AM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Offline Crudblud

  • *
  • Posts: 1588
  • A Moist Respectable Gentleman
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #436 on: September 25, 2015, 09:24:03 AM »
Oh boy, you can move your arm around while looking at the Pip-Boy! Truly, this is the Fallout I've been waiting for.

Also those noises and animations are annoying as fuck.

Saddam Hussein

Re: Fallout series
« Reply #437 on: September 27, 2015, 02:53:41 AM »
But there's a more important issue - they got rid of skills.  Why, Bethesda, why?  Why must you continue to dumb down every franchise you have?

That being said, removing the skills is probably preferable to removing the attributes, like they did with Skyrim.  I'd like to see your attributes have a more direct impact on what you can or can't do, and at least there won't be any incongruities like having low charisma, but still successfully persuading everyone due to a high speech level.  Oh, and speaking of speech checks, it looks like they've returned to the probability system of the earlier games, and as I mentioned earlier, that just encourages save-scumming.  It's funny, because Todd mentioned in a video about Dogmeat that they made him immortal for precisely that reason - if he dies, players will just reload, so there's no point in letting him die.  Don't they realize that players will do the exact same thing if they fail a probability-based speech check?
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 03:59:34 AM by Saddam Hussein »

*

Offline Snupes

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1834
  • I summon my love back to me
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #438 on: September 27, 2015, 03:41:35 AM »
Yeah, that's bizarre. I am ashamed to admit I am often a savescummer if it's something important, or something I can only do if I pass the speech check. Having a hard line is better.
Quote from: garygreen date=1480782226
i also took an online quiz that said i was a giraffe.  and i guess you're dumb enough to believe that i must be because the internet said so.

Offline Blanko

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2471
    • View Profile
Re: Fallout series
« Reply #439 on: September 27, 2015, 03:49:19 AM »
It seems like Bethesda is taking the Skyrim route with not wanting the players to specialize in anything. If you take a close look at the perk tree, the first perk in each attribute is to increase the attribute by one, with a maximum of ten ranks meaning maxing out SPECIAL is completely trivial. Furthermore, with every perk being tied to a SPECIAL requirement, some of their placements seem very arbitrary - Lone Wanderer being in the charisma tree, although the perk benefits you only if you don't take advantage of charisma? Or Lady Killer, which is traditionally a very early game perk, is now gated by your investment in a single stat (and it doesn't include the reverse-gender equivalent, confirmed for muh soggy knees)? It seems like they don't want players to build a character to match a specific playstyle, but to have every playstyle be viable regardless of the character build, given how low impact many of these perks seem to be for the investment they require. I find that disappointing, because optimal character building was one of my favourite aspects of New Vegas. Here it seems like your choices barely matter, and you'll probably be able to max out everything anyway.