Fallout New Vegas and Speech Checks

M

MessedUpPro

First time out of the vault
I love Fallout: New Vegas. It's my favorite of the games I have finished, and I find myself coming back to it frequently.

However, some of the people on this forum have an unhealthy obsession with it, and that's where all of their opinions of what Fallout "should be" are coming from. Specifically, Walpknut, but he's not the only one. I saw a discussion over Fallout 3's percentage chance in speech checks, and they were hating all over it. Yet, that's how skills worked in the old games. There was a percentage chance to succeed, like D&D-type games. It's all on the roll of a dice. This is a good system, and New Vegas threw it out the window in favor for just brick walls in your face. "Nope, you can't even try to get away with saying this unless you have 60 Speech, and then you automatically succeed."

Where's the fun in that? Where's the risk? This is boring, and just leads to me taking no chances in dialogue when playing the game. I loved in Fallout 3 how you could chance something anyway, despite it being a 25% chance to succeed. If it DID succeed, I felt fucking awesome for it, because I took the risk and it paid off.

How can anybody prefer brick walls to percentage checks? This leads me to believe that many on this forum just have an unhealthy obsession with Fallout: New Vegas, rather than actually being a fan of classic game design. It boggles my mind that the same people that complain about not having consequences in the new Fallout games are also the same people that like having straight checks to percentage checks. Doesn't that make the game more fun? Or does that not follow your Bethesda-hate bias?
 
That skill checks in New Vegas are simply a matter of meeting a threshold is a matter of recognizing how video game RPGs differ from tabletop RPGs in a meaningful sense. There are two important differences here specifically as relates to skill checks. In a tabletop game, the idea that you can always succeed or always fail if you're sufficently (un)lucky works because the GM can always improvise a scenario coming out of each outcome. A diplomacy check might result in combat if failed, or no combat if succeeded. But the issue is that the limiting reagent in a tabletop game is ultimately how much time the players can devote to it, not how much was prepared. In a video game RPG, since all content has to be prepared before the discs are printed, on the other hand, it's basically a function where failing on the check simply denies you access to a finite amount of content in the game. So no one wants to fail these checks in a video game, ever.

The other difference is that a tabletop RPG is played with other humans, who can keep each other accountable for the outcome of dice rolls. There's an ethic of "letting whatever the dice say happen". In a single player video game (particularly one with quicksaves and multiple save slots), though, there's very much an ethic of "whatever the game allows to happen, that I want to happen, will happen if I am persistent enough." So having a 25% chance of passing just means that the person willing to savescum (and there's no reason not to really, since it's a singleplayer game, and you should play it whichever manner most amuses you) has to reload ~4 times before getting the desired result.

So everyone is better off when the things like "can you impress Jules in North Vegas square in order to get the recipe for .44 SWC" are less a function of getting lucky with rolls (since you could then pass it whenever) and more a function of "have you invested a sufficient amount of your skill points in guns and survival." So absolutely Fo1&2 had random chances for skill checks, but it wasn't really a good idea then either.

I think legitimately the best way to do random skill checks is to simply not tell the player whether they've succeeded or failed (since only the computer sees the dice) or even whether or not there was any kind of random check being done at all.
 
Last edited:
Speech checks didn't work in Fallout 3 since the dialog was horrendous and the skill was barely used. There was very little reason to even bother since your responses were so damn bad. New Vegas actually gave you an incentive to pick the skill. Whether the percentage system is right or not I won't argue.

New Vegas is heralded around here since it is the perfect example of a good developer turning a bad situation (Gamebryo engine) into something better than what Bethesda can provide. We praise the game because many Bethesda fans are too dense to realize it is more faithful to the originals. It bears repeating especially when people come in repeating the same thing over and over.

Obsidian not only one upped the people who own the license - proving they could make a better Fallout game in LESS TIME - but they stayed true to the source material. They made the game better in almost every way. Sawyer even offered post launch support with a personal mod. They actually used material from the canceled Fallout game that the hardcore fans really wanted. So New Vegas did speech checks better. That is why it gets a pass.
 
@Cabbage: I disagree completely. I think it's more rewarding to pass a rolled check, as everybody makes mistakes, in real life. Having the ability to make mistakes, despite how good your character is, adds flavor to the game. It adds more challenge.

@Rayne: So basically, because New Vegas had some of the original team with them, and they knew Fallout's world better and therefore had better writing, any faults with New Vegas are moot. Is that the gist of what you are saying? Because I find that to be absolutely asinine. Yes, it's a great game. No, it's not perfect. Taking away random checks is not a better system. Good games don't get a pass on their faults just because they are mostly good. I know for a fact that if Bethesda had combined Small Guns and Big Guns into one skill in Fallout 3, this place would have lost it's shit, but because Obsidian did it, then it's suddenly okay. No, that's called bias, and it makes you look like an asshole. All games have flaws, and just because it's better than another game in the series does not make it perfect. You sound like the guys that act like Todd Howard is God, except on the opposite end of the spectrum.
 
MessedUpPro said:
@Rayne: So basically, because New Vegas had some of the original team with them, and they knew Fallout's world better and therefore had better writing, any faults with New Vegas are moot. Is that the gist of what you are saying?
Click to expand...

No.

MessedUpPro said:
Because I find that to be absolutely asinine. Yes, it's a great game. No, it's not perfect. Taking away random checks is not a better system. Good games don't get a pass on their faults just because they are mostly good. I know for a fact that if Bethesda had combined Small Guns and Big Guns into one skill in Fallout 3, this place would have lost it's shit, but because Obsidian did it, then it's suddenly okay. No, that's called bias, and it makes you look like an asshole. All games have flaws, and just because it's better than another game in the series does not make it perfect. You sound like the guys that act like Todd Howard is God, except on the opposite end of the spectrum.
Click to expand...

I don't think any poster here has stated New Vegas to be perfect. I said in the post above it was the best of a shit situation. I think it was better than Fallout 3, made in less time, and has received less praise. It seems it makes some Bethesda fans butt hurt that Obsidian made a better game.

Combining certain skills like First Aid and Doctor made perfect sense to me. All games have flaws? Gee thanks for the valuable insight. Next you'll tell me that this is just my opinion.
 
Using phrases like "butt hurt" now, huh? Very mature of you. Listen, I see this game held on a pedestal around here, and while I agree it's leagues better than Fallout 3, I can recognize Fallout 3 is a decent game. You literally just told me New Vegas gets a pass on it using a cheaper system, because it is better in most other departments. Sorry bud, that shit doesn't fly with me. That's blind bias, and again, it's no better than the guys that hold Todd Howard as a God.
 
Last edited:
5545Trey said:
Elaborate on how it adds more challenge when you can just reload the latest save slot in the game.
Click to expand...
You must be one of those guys that is in support of immortal NPC's, since you can just load the latest save slot when they die, right?
 
MessedUpPro said:
Using phrases like "butt hurt" now, huh? Very mature of you.
Click to expand...

I could think of quite a few other words to use, but that seems the most appropriate. The older you get the less you give a shit about how random people perceive you. Especially people with an axe to grind.

MessedUpPro said:
Listen, I see this game held on a pedestal around here, and while I agree it's leagues better than Fallout 3, I can recognize Fallout 3 is a decent game.
Click to expand...

Fallout 3 is a decent game. True. Not as good as Fallout 1, 2, Tactics, or New Vegas, but decent. Somewhere near POS on the shit scale. It is about as good as Oblivion which isn't that great.

MessedUpPro said:
You literally just told me New Vegas gets a pass on it using a cheaper system, because it is better in most other departments. Sorry bud, that shit doesn't fly with me. That's blind bias, and again, it's no better than the guys that hold Todd Howard as a God.
Click to expand...


It gets a pass as far as this discussion goes, pertaining to that particular aspect of the game. It inherited all of it's problems from Fallout 3. The speech checks and the mechanics behind it are better in New Vegas. That is why it gets a pass so to speak, meaning they did the best they could with what they had.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MessedUpPro said:
5545Trey said:
Elaborate on how it adds more challenge when you can just reload the latest save slot in the game.
Click to expand...
You must be one of those guys that is in support of immortal NPC's, since you can just load the latest save slot when they die, right?
Click to expand...
Nice try, but no. This discussion has nothing to do with immortal NPCs, and that is a completely different topic, so it does not solidify your argument.
 
Last edited:
@Rayne: Well, at least you are a little less arrogant than others I have seen on here. However, you have the same bias and elitist attitude as the rest of them. Comparing Fallout 3 to POS? Seriously?

5545Trey said:
Nice try, but no. This discussion has nothing to do with immortal NPCs, and that is a completely topic, so it does not solidify your argument.
Click to expand...
You used the same argument that was used by Bethesda to justify making companions immortal, but no, this is somehow different. Right, makes sense. Good job, mate. You're right though, this is a different subject.
 
5545Trey said:
Elaborate on how it adds more challenge when you can just reload the latest save slot in the game.
Click to expand...
I think it could add challenge in the vein of doing a playthrough without reloading saves, minus death reloads and loading saves after a break. The percentage way makes it a unpredictable sometimes even if you have a high speech, unlike New Vegas where you could just add all your points into speech and guarantee any situation to your favour. The check way might be more convenient but I just like the percentage way more, one of the few things I don't mind about F3.
 
Oh god, it's one of those Beth Kids that registered after the initial FO4 reveal, he is back to spout the same tired bullshit the other Bethkids spout everythime.

He is even using "Elitist" unironically.
 
MessedUpPro said:
@Rayne: Well, at least you are a little less arrogant than others I have seen on here. However, you have the same bias and elitist attitude as the rest of them. Comparing Fallout 3 to POS? Seriously?
Click to expand...

My ranking goes as follows although it has changed at times:

Fallout 2
Fallout 1
New Vegas
Tactics
Fallout 3 - F3 is about on par with Tactics but it can stay down here with the radioactive sludge seeping off of POS.
POS

I think arrogant elitist is a fairly apt description of me. I despise people that feel the need to have their hand held while playing games (especially a RPG) and I'm not afraid to tell someone that their taste in games is garbage. People are allowed to like what they like until they start saying it is better than something it isn't. Then something should be said. I might be condescending as well since stupidity annoys me especially in regards to games or movies. I'm also an asshole and a smartass so there is that.
 
@Walpknut: Maybe if you actually paid attention, you'd see that, once again, I praised Fallout: New Vegas, saying it's my favorite Fallout, and that you are, once again, making an ass of yourself by dismissing my entire point, rather than having an intelligent discussion about which speech check system is better. I'd love to hear your thoughts, Walpknut. I guess that's too hard for you, though. It's much easier to just dismiss somebody entirely, because around here, there are only two sides: Either you love Fallout 3 and are a Bethesda fanboy, or you hate Fallout 3 and are a classic Fallout fanboy.

@Rayne: At least you admit to. Gotta respect a guy that owns up to who he is.
 
Last edited:
The funny thing is the Codex is even worse than us and they call us pussies for not flaming the fuck out of you guys as you come in here spouting off this Bethesda shit.
 
Dude, I already read your other attempts at making a point, I have read those a million times, you also very much entered all threads with an antagonistic attitude so you get as much respect as all the other dudes who do the same here every 2 weeks.
 
MessedUpPro said:
@Cabbage: I disagree completely. I think it's more rewarding to pass a rolled check, as everybody makes mistakes, in real life. Having the ability to make mistakes, despite how good your character is, adds flavor to the game. It adds more challenge.
Click to expand...

But here's the thing, consider whether or not failing in a certain situation is interesting. If the test is simply going to be a situation where "success gets you the thing, but failure does not get you the thing" then there's no interesting consequence of ever failing, so it's not something you're ever going to want to (or perhaps be willing to) do. Having the threshold be just "have you invested enough resources in the appropriate category" is totally reasonable for these less important things.

What New Vegas did with the especially important skill check situations (like the confrontation with Lanius, Oliver, the Think Tank, and Ulysses) is require the player to both successfully navigate the conversation trees and also pass the check. That is, it doesn't matter how glib your character is on the character sheet if you the player demand they say the wrong thing.
 
@Walpknut: So, you're not going to give your thoughts. You're just going to dismiss me. Cool. Glad to see where you stand. Yeah, I'm annoyed with this place and it's treatment of Fallout 3 fans. If there were people here who didn't just blindly hate it, and I mean more that two or three, then you probably wouldn't get people like me here. Ever wonder WHY people like me come here? There must be a reason. Nah, must be that we are a bunch of casuals and idiots. That must be the case.

I feel like, as NMA is the top search when you look for a Fallout fan community on Google (in English, anyway), this place has a responsibility to accept all kinds of fans. This place runs everyone that likes Fallout 3 away, because while it may not be as bad as the Codex, it's still enough to make them feel unwelcome. Maybe that's what you all want, though. Maybe this is what you makes you happy. Great. Maybe put a disclaimer on the front of the site that says "BETHESDA FANS NOT ALLOWED", or hell, change the name.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Lets hold no illusions here. Most Bethesda fans go to their forums to talk about Fallout. Then some of them come over here to get a rise out of people. Yes, a lot of people might jump on your ass for liking Fallout 3. It all depends on how you word it. You specifically called out Walpknut in a post which is basically attempting to flame someone. So don't be too surprised at the response.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top