A Lack of Skill?

W

WarAlwaysChanges

First time out of the vault
I know there are topics dangerously close to this but let me be the first to need a thread JUST to complain about the lack of skills.

I'm not riding in the lets pee on Bethesda band wagon but my god, how did an idea this bad get implemented?!

I know part of their reason behind it was because of the confusion between things like charisma and speech and how the former effected barter and things like that.

This is how I see it. I see your special as you naturally. How you were born and how you'll die. Sure there was a perk to add to that and then later a perk that almost maxed out them all, but that was because of a dlc, and that's only because people demanded it.

I see skills as the things you learn after your birth. You progressively get better at these things as you practice. One can learn about science, speech, guns, and survival but can one learn agility? Can one learn luck?

The answer is no, and this is the crucial difference between special and skills....

I somehow (magically) ordered a few pip boy editions and will have to judge the damage done to the overall character leveling system in a few days.

Rest assured I will be back to rant once I know exactly what to rant about.

I've loved reading books since fallout 1! Without skills they take away the majesty of finding and reading a book ( besides the magic that these PAPER books last 200 years or more )

Honestly that's not the thing that bothers be about the game though. I understand like most, that after such a long period of time there would be no:

Paper
Wood
Working machines (almost everything works)
Booze
So many Cigs (didn't burn up?)
The list could go on forever

At the end of the day it's just a game and we all need to treat it as such. Though we understand the real word is much different we must remember that is exactly why we are playing a game in the first place.

You must admit that to put the timeline any closer to fallout 1&2 would be dumb and dangerous ( look in your nerd hearts and see the thuth in this: you would be even more upset ) And to have a barren fallout 3&4 would be downright boring.
 
Honestly I'd rather have seen FO 3 and 4 closer to the timeline of FO1, maybe even earlier, like maybe 20-30 years after the war. That way the lack of clean water, absence of agriculture, and barren landscape would actually make sense. I mean they obviously wanted to go for this Mad Max Road Warrior, super anarchistic feel, so why didn't they just make it take place soon after the apocalypse, when the setting would make more sense. It also would have been better if they hadn't stolen everything Interplay did, did the game really need the Brotherhood, super mutants, and Enclave? The BoS in 3 resembles the real Brotherhood so little they may as well have been an entirely new faction, and the explanation for why super mutants are on the east coast is so weak. Then it might have been a worthwhile expansion of the Fallout world, but as it is it's a decently entertaining Fallout-themed open world FPS.
 
Wood, paper, alcohol and cigarretes are replenishables, the only problem with them would arise if they insist on making them prewar things. Which Bethesda is fixated on doing like idiots. New Vegas had still for Alcohol production in some locations, you could craft Moonshine and Whiskey yourself so it helped sell the existence of those things. You could also find Tobacco plants so you would jsut need to roll it up into something and smoke it.
 
I think to be honest I would have rather gotten rid of perks entirely, and grant special abilities (or choices of special abilities) when reaching certain ranks in those skills. I'm not buying that "what's better, speech or charisma" was a problem, since it should be really obvious to anybody who thinks about it for five seconds that "natural physical gifts" and "understanding how to do something" are intertwined, but unrelated. Just because someone is strong doesn't mean they are good at fighting, just because someone is athletic does not mean that they can shoot a basketball, just because someone is really smart doesn't mean they know how to program a computer, etc. How good you are at something is a combination of how naturally gifted you are and how much you've learned about how to do it.

I just think between "attributes, skills, and perks" skills are the most important of the bunch and I'm upset to see them gone.
 
20-30 years? Wouldn't radiation play a way bigger part of the game. Make it more of a survival game and force you to constantly get healed for it? If so I don't care for the idea too much. I'd rather a game centered on exploration rather than survival, but I can see how that could be compelling for some (ie hardcore mode).

As for BoS, the outcasts were really the only ones that acted like original brother hood. I think they probibly played around with the idea of just making them new a new group but I'm sure wanted to put some sort of anchor, some sort of relivence to the games of old in F3.

If we think of it in these terms I attribute their characteristics to story. Lyons was the bleeing heart and those that opposed him left the defense of people to him.

They sort of broke BoS in half and created two factions that had slightly different ideals then that of F1.

So I guess in their own way they kinda just reinvented them a little bit and put them in the east as to not totally mess up canon.
 
WarAlwaysChanges said:
20-30 years? Wouldn't radiation play a way bigger part of the game. Make it more of a survival game and force you to constantly get healed for it? If so I don't care for the idea too much. I'd rather a game centered on exploration rather than survival, but I can see how that could be compelling for some (ie hardcore mode).

As for BoS, the outcasts were really the only ones that acted like original brother hood. I think they probibly played around with the idea of just making them new a new group but I'm sure wanted to put some sort of anchor, some sort of relivence to the games of old in F3.

If we think of it in these terms I attribute their characteristics to story. Lyons was the bleeing heart and those that opposed him left the defense of people to him.

They sort of broke BoS in half and created two factions that had slightly different ideals then that of F1.

So I guess in their own way they kinda just reinvented them a little bit and put them in the east as to not totally mess up canon.
Click to expand...

What they did was explainable. What they showed wasn't.
 
PossibleCabbage said:
I think to be honest I would have rather gotten rid of perks entirely, and grant special abilities (or choices of special abilities) when reaching certain ranks in those skills. I'm not buying that "what's better, speech or charisma" was a problem, since it should be really obvious to anybody who thinks about it for five seconds that "natural physical gifts" and "understanding how to do something" are intertwined, but unrelated. Just because someone is strong doesn't mean they are good at fighting, just because someone is athletic does not mean that they can shoot a basketball, just because someone is really smart doesn't mean they know how to program a computer, etc. How good you are at something is a combination of how naturally gifted you are and how much you've learned about how to do it.

I just think between "attributes, skills, and perks" skills are the most important of the bunch and I'm upset to see them gone.
Click to expand...

I feel the same way!

I also love the perks. Couldn't do without. And yes idk how there is a 200 year supply of bottled carbonated beverages but again I can overlook these things for love of the game.
 
I'm curious to see how the new system plays out.. I'm still not sure if it's a bad decision but it's certainly a big jump away from the old system. That and from what I read some reviews, there's very high requirements for some skills that feel like they ought to be easier to reach. It sounds more streamlined, and in this case it doesn't necessarily sound like it's a good move. Still, I'm gonna see how it works out if I get the game.

As for stats. I'd say one can practice and hone their 'agility'. Same goes for strength and endurance. Perception? Well, you might start paying more attention to your surroundings. Luck and intelligence are bit questionable though :P
Special was never perfect but then again your options to increase stats in the past were more limited.
 
PossibleCabbage said:
I think to be honest I would have rather gotten rid of perks entirely
Click to expand...

In my opinion attributes are thing they needed to drop. Its so restrictive and unrealistic. In real life people can be very strong (usually paired with endurance) and charismatic and lucky and intelligent and perceptive, maybe not as agile if they are big and bulky. In every Fallout game its somehow assumed that if you have strength and endurance you must be unlucky and ugly village idiot.
 
Dubious Squirrel said:
PossibleCabbage said:
I think to be honest I would have rather gotten rid of perks entirely
Click to expand...

In my opinion attributes are thing they needed to drop. Its so restrictive and unrealistic. In real life people can be very strong (usually paired with endurance) and charismatic and lucky and intelligent and perceptive, maybe not as agile if they are big and bulky. In every Fallout game its somehow assumed that if you have strength and endurance you must be unlucky and ugly village idiot.
Click to expand...

Well actually it doesn't. Where did you get that? With a bit of tweaking and traits you can be strong, charismatic and intelligent or tough, lucky and agile.
 
Dr Fallout said:
Dubious Squirrel said:
PossibleCabbage said:
I think to be honest I would have rather gotten rid of perks entirely
Click to expand...

In my opinion attributes are thing they needed to drop. Its so restrictive and unrealistic. In real life people can be very strong (usually paired with endurance) and charismatic and lucky and intelligent and perceptive, maybe not as agile if they are big and bulky. In every Fallout game its somehow assumed that if you have strength and endurance you must be unlucky and ugly village idiot.
Click to expand...

Well actually it doesn't. Where did you get that? With a bit of tweaking and traits you can be strong, charismatic and intelligent or tough, lucky and agile.
Click to expand...

But what if you want to roleplay as Harrison Bergeron (straight 10 in all stats)?
 
Maybe in Fallout 3 you can via unbalanced perks and those bobbleheads, but, if I remember correctly, in Fallout 2 and I presume Fallout 1 too there was only few attribute points you could get while playing. Besides it defeats the purpose of attributes being something you are born with vs. skills which you gain during your adventures.

Edit: This is in reply to Dr Fallout, forgot to quote.
 
Last edited:
Dubious Squirrel said:
Maybe in Fallout 3 you can via unbalanced perks and those bobbleheads, but, if I remember correctly, in Fallout 2 and I presume Fallout 1 too there was only few attribute points you could get while playing. Besides it defeats the purpose of attributes being something you are born with vs. skills which you gain during your adventures.

Edit: This is in reply to Dr Fallout, forgot to quote.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in Fallout 3 you could get the "Almost Perfect" perk which boosted every attribute to 9, and then you could get bobbleheads to boost every attribute to 10.
 
Dubious Squirrel said:
PossibleCabbage said:
I think to be honest I would have rather gotten rid of perks entirely
Click to expand...

In my opinion attributes are thing they needed to drop. Its so restrictive and unrealistic. In real life people can be very strong (usually paired with endurance) and charismatic and lucky and intelligent and perceptive, maybe not as agile if they are big and bulky. In every Fallout game its somehow assumed that if you have strength and endurance you must be unlucky and ugly village idiot.
Click to expand...

There's the gifted trait if you want to be so perfect. Go ahead.
 
Dubious Squirrel said:
Maybe in Fallout 3 you can via unbalanced perks and those bobbleheads, but, if I remember correctly, in Fallout 2 and I presume Fallout 1 too there was only few attribute points you could get while playing. Besides it defeats the purpose of attributes being something you are born with vs. skills which you gain during your adventures.

Edit: This is in reply to Dr Fallout, forgot to quote.
Click to expand...


Yep, responding now.

Of course there were, people don't magically become stronger and smarter. Spouting science doesn't make you more intelligent and shooting straighter doesn't make you more perceptive. Which is where skills and attributes work best, attributes are the innate bonuses that a person has, he can't learn more but can change them (drugs mainly) while skills are something he can learn. It works really well and makes SENSE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top