Fallout 3 did not ruin the lore established in previous games.

[SajuukKhar]

Except as I described earlier, DT wasn't worthless.

DT is worthless because it turns the game game into a constant stagnation.
-In Fallout 3, leveling up, getting new armor, and getting higher damaging weapons, MATTERED. DR imposed a progressive leveling system were after getting higher enough level you were actually able to negate low damage attacks.
-New Vegas's DT on the other hand imposed constant stagnation, getting better armor was worthless because 95% of enemy NPs used low damaging weapons meaning you would max, and stay maxed, at your damage negation forever, never being able to advance past that. It made armor pointless, and imposed character stagnation.

How about the less balanced skills or less important SPECIAL?

SPECIAL, like all attribute systems, are BROKEN fundamentally. Attribute systems need to be pulled from games entirely. Do you know what the difference between a character that has 10 in all SPECIAL and 100 in all skills is? almost nothing besides the minor bonuses perks provide. Attribute system always have, and always will, force conformity upon character, and limit play style options. Skyrim has the right idea when it comes to leveling, strip out attributes and make perks the main source of character diversity. Stripping out attributes in Skyrim gave it nearly 10X more diversity then any other past Elder Scrolls game did, and indeed then any attribute system game did.

Imposing conformity, making all character with similar SPECIAL stats pointlessly similar, preventing people from being able to advance their character in meaningful ways because you forced an arbitrary permanence in the main defining characteristic of that character at the very beginning of the game, that Special system gave us SOOOO much.

How about the fact that you could make a perfect character in Fallout 3 in skills and SPECIAL stats?

Oohh god being able to game the system to make perfect character a SINGLE PLAYER RPG? You SHOULD be able to make a perfect character, if you want, making a perfect character will always be your choice, and people who want to make a perfect character shouldn't be denied that choice if they wanted to.

Complaining about being able to make a perfect character is the same as complaining about fast travel, no one makes you use it, and just because you don't want to use it doesn't mean everyone else should have it taken from them.

How about the fact that there were hardly any skill checks for skills other than Speech in Fallout 3, and of those that there, most of them were so low that you could pass them without specialization and they weren't important to completing the quest regardless?

Skill checks should NOT be important to beating quests, skill checks should be there, and give small bonuses that you otherwise wouldn't have. Making skill checks important only forces players to raise skills not important to their build and enforces conformity amongst playthroughs.

Like how in New Vegas if you wanted to beat any quest even half-assedly well you HAD to have nearly max stats in science, lockpick, and speech, forcing people to always level up those skills and making almost every person's character the same by doing so.

How about the lack of a low intelligence character playthrough in Fallout 3?

Low intelligence playthroughs were an Easter egg, and pointless, that Bethesda did not put in your favorite Easter egg is not a sign that their RPG was somehow worse.

How about the lack of weapon strength requirements?

Weapon strength requirements are idiotic on all levels, they are almost idiotic to the level of Fallout's lockpicking and hacking mechanics. Just because I am one point of strength below whats normal required to hold a weapon doesn't mean that it should work like shit, it doesn't make sense, and only imposes arbitrary, and entirely unnecessary, limitations on characters, and only forces players to put special points into STR, even if they didn't want to, in order to be able to use half the guns i nthe game.

Imposing conformity, and forcing players to have only one viable path, is NOT good RPG mechanics, it s the exact opposite of it.

 

[MaulYoda]

*snip*

1. Actually, I could negate low damage attacks from the moment I started the game. Hell, I could negate high damage attacks. It was called VATS; automatic DR of 90. And hell, you said it yourself in an earlier post: heavy armor DT negates 80-85% of damage. The most damage that heavy armor in Fallout 3 negates is 50%. Armor, by the way, is not "character stagnation." If anything, it's item stagnation, but I don't think that was the case in either game. But DT was more useful throughout while DR was only useful at higher levels, and even then, VATS was still the most effective

2. Oh yeah, Skyrim forcing you to go down a linear perk ladder and only focus on one or two skills really went hand in hand with allowing you to make the kind of character you wanted. By "less balanced," I meant that there wasn't as much diversity in the skills as New Vegas. Fallout 3 merged a few skills and rightfully so, sure, but they also removed a few that New Vegas either added back in or incorporated elsewhere. As for "less important," there were way fewer SPECIAL checks in Fallout 3 than New Vegas, most of them required no more than an average SPECIAL level, and they didn't affect your skills that much (New Vegas had this problem too, but at least it did the other things well). Nor were your SPECIAL stats tied to as many other aspects of gameplay. They were vastly, vastly streamlined. And there should be a difference between SPECIAL stats and skills in what you can do

3. Who says I'm complaining about fast travel? That was indeed a choice. Creating a perfect character really wasn't. You had to take one perk and your SPECIAL stats could be maxed, and you could max out all of your skills by just playing the game; that's not a choice. That's either purposefully create a shitty character that is underpowered, or play the game normally and create a demigod. At least in New Vegas, there was a TRAIT (and I know that's a foreign term to Fallout 3 fans) that allowed you to set the level cap at 30, meaning you could either create a balanced character or make a demigod

But you know what? RPGs are supposed to be balanced. Characters in RPGs, like in real life, are supposed to have strengths and weaknesses. Your character shouldn't be perfect, and they should be able to do some things but not others. That promotes replay value. That promotes playing the game in different ways. That promotes character builds. That promotes making your characters distinctions feel important and, well, distinct. And if I'm just going to make the same character every time I play Fallout 3, then what's the point?

4. Um, yeah, skill checks should be important in solving quests. You should be able to beat the main quest with any build (which you could), albeit with different options open to you depending on your skills. The same goes for side quests. It's a consequence of your choices in character building. For instance, I never focused on Explosives, so I couldn't blow up Vault 19. But then again, I had maxed out Speech, and someone who didn't couldn't peacefully resolve the ending of the game (or at least have a debate with either the Legate or Oliver). Same goes for SPECIAL. They're not just mechanics that affect certain stats or weapons, they're tools for resolving situations. But in Fallout 3, I could just kill everything, maybe with the occasional Speech check. That's not really role playing

5. In a way, it kind of is, and it's just the most profound example of SPECIAL stats being less important. Yes, it was an Easter egg, and no, there wasn't much point to it beyond amusement. But it allowed me to play the game in new and enjoyable ways. It counterbalanced the lack of skill points with something fun. It actually made a character of low intelligence feel like, well, a character of low intelligence. It was something done well in Fallout 1 and done very well in Fallout 2, and many fans appreciated it. But Bethesda pulled it, save one example in Roosevelt Academy. Was it an essential part of the game? No. But the fact that New Vegas includes it shows Obsidian's attention to detail, to what made Fallout fun and unique, and to depth in RPG mechanics. And yes, having something like that does make the game deeper

6. It doesn't make the weapon work like shit. It means that the weapon is less accurate since you can't keep it steady. Very realistic, no (and most weapons had a Strength requirement of 5 of less)? And it wasn't like in Fallout 1 and 2 where I believe the weapon Strength requirements actually prevented you from holding a weapon. The skill requirements for each weapon were also nice, as someone with minimal training in Guns is not going to be able to wield more sophisticated weaponry correctly. Plus, it made putting points into Strength and the various combat skills more important and made players more specialized

As for the hacking and lock-picking, I agree, but that was Bethesda's decision. You could lockpick any door or hack any computer in Fallout 1 and 2, but your chances of succeeding depended on your skill level. And at least New Vegas gave you more than three tries if your Lockpick skills was above the lock's difficult requirement (and Skyrim further improved this but letting you try and lock regardless of skill level, but just making the lockpicks more or less durable)

But look, the bottom line about all of this stuff is that it comes down to character skill (which is for RPGs) vs. player skill (which is for an FPS or action games). And in the conversion to action RPGs, its important to keep that character skill stuff alive. Otherwise, you're just playing a shooter

 

[MaulYoda]

my biggest issue with fallout 3 was that it felt out of place time wise. it felt like it should be set a decade or two after the war not 200 years.

WHAT! Is that how long they were supposed to live in a Vault for?

How many people is how many thousands of square miles to self-sustain for THAT LONG! I mean 20-50 years makes more sense and they jsut lied about the 200 years part.

200 years sounds so implausible. Even with nuclear reactors may have in theory an indefinite fuel supply the fuel reprocessing (vital for the reactors to continue functioning) needs vast amounts or resources.

I mean the effort taken into getting EVERYTHING you need for 200 years underground is so great it would be easier to just live on the surface. I mean radiation from a nuclear war would have fallen adequately after even 20 years to mostly live on the surface, definitely factories and mines. See all the materials you'll ever need cannot be mined all in the same place. You need copper, you need to travel to where copper is, dig it out of the ground and process it.

200 years seems implausible. 50 years makes sense, long enough to COMPLETELY WEAR OUT everything and expend all vital resources yet long enough for most memory of the pre nuclear-holocaust world to disappear from living memory except for a few elders.

Remember, 50 years is more than enough to have groups like Brotherhood of Steel form, look at what radical changes have been seen in human history in shorter time-scales with much smaller pressures. 50 years is about 3 generations (by the youngest definition of generation being 16 years) long enough for groups to get extremely radicalised.

It looked like it was set 50 years after the Great War, but yes, it was 200 years. Actually, Vault 101 was supposed to stay closed indefinitely; Vault 13 was supposed to stay closed for 200 years, and the other vaults opened after a couple of decades

 

[SajuukKhar]

snip

1. False in entirety, damage resistance in Fallout 3 goes up to 85%, and with perks it goes up to 94%. On top of that DR is very useful throughout the game, more so then DT, because it isn't exactly hard to find armor with a DR high enough to negate most low damage attacks, while DT makes you still suffer from the bleedthrough.

2. False in entirety again, Skyrim gives you enough perks to specialize 100% in around 6 of the 18 skill trees. There are 80 perk points obtainable in Skyrim, and perk trees have around 10-15 perks in them.
80/10=8
80/15=5.3
8+5.3=13.3
13.3/2=6.65

Special stats should be removed in entirety. As I mentioned before Special stats, along with all attribute systems, impose conformity upon characters.

3. And the choice of that perk was UP TO YOU. Do you understand what choice means? People who got to max level were given the choice of maxing all their stats for the hell of it, you would take it or not, no one made you do it, it was in no way more or less difficult to take then the perk that caped you at level 30.

And unless you meta-gamed in Fallout 3, and took the 100% optional, entirely up to you perk that maxed all your special stats, you WOULDN'T become a uber-badass in Fallout 3. so again, you talking about something that ONLY ever happened IF THE PLAYERS CHOSE TO, and they have the right to that choice.

4. Role-playing comes from the choices we make with our characters, not from leveling up skills in order to bypass arbitrary, and entirely unnecessary, skill checks that stop you from being able to complete most quests in a positive fashion without them. The choice itself is what matters to roleplay, not the skills we had to level up in order to make that choice.

5. Actually it shows Obsidian attention to an easter-egg, a pointless one, if we talk about "realism", a character with low intelligence wouldn't be able to survive in the wasteland and would die.

A low-int playthrough is non-nonsensical, and considering you seem hellbent on trying to justify everything with realism, your entire point is contradictory to the points you were making before, it is inconsistent and hypocritical.

6. Shouldn't the ability to use a handle a gun be tied to the.... gun skill? if not then why bother having the gun skill at all?

Stripping critical functions out of the skill itself in order to another set of numbers is having numbers for the sake of numbers, not having numbers for the sake of improving your character. It is bad game design defined.

7. When the character is a personification of you, your skill is character skill, the difference between character skill and player skill, and that RPGs only work via character skill is something close-minded rhetoric that D&D people try to spout becuase they cant stand the fact that the world isn't as limited as it was back then.

-This isn't 1974
-Computers, and indeed the world as a whole, isn't as technologically limited as it once was
-the technological barriers that made character skill the only viable option dont exist anymore
-Trying to use a 30+ year old definition of something that only came about due to limitation on the world that no longer exist anymore as the definition of the thing today is narrow-minded, and dumb.

 

[MaulYoda]

*snip*

1. Yes, DR in Fallout 3 can be boosted as high as 85% or 94%. However, that's with perks and whatnot. The highest DR value for any single set of armor in Fallout 3 is Hellfire power armor and the T-51b power armor with 50. Look it up (http://www.falloutwiki.com/Fallout_3_armor_and_clothing). And why take those perks when you only take 10% of damage in VATS (equivalent to having 90 DR)?

2. Here's the thing though: I don't want to specialize in every perk tree. I don't want to take every damn perk. If I save my perk points, I want to wait until I have a high enough skill that I don't have to take the more useless ones. In Fallout 3 and New Vegas, I can't save perk points like I did in Fallout 1 and 2 and Skyrim, but like Fallout 1 and 2, I don't have to take the perks in a certain order. I can take the best perks for any given skill without having to take the useless ones

And yeah, let's just get rid of SPECIAL. Let's get rid of the system that helped Fallout distinguish itself from other RPGs, and one that actually works very well. Let's just keep streamlining RPGs. And hell, let's literally make Fallout 4 "Skyrim with Guns" by removing the differentiating mechanics between the two games

3. Except that most of the perks in Fallout 3 revolved around increasing your skills (which you didn't need), and of the ones that were left, you could still take 30. So you could pretty much take every good perk in the game and then it was just between that perk and some crappy one you didn't need. But okay, you didn't have to take it. However, there were enough skill points in Fallout 3 that you could max out all of your skills (save one or two, and even those could be made pretty high) by just playing the game. So yes, you would become a demigod by the time you hit the level cap (which wouldn't have been a problem if it was much higher or the game was better balanced)

4. Well then you and I disagree there. Choice and consequence should attribute to both quest design AND character building. You shouldn't be able to do everything, and yes, you shouldn't always be able to take the best solution if your skills and SPECIAL stats aren't up to par. I shouldn't be able to win the argument with the Legate or Oliver with a mild Speech skill. I shouldn't be able to successfully close off the caves in Vault 19 without blowing up the entire vault with a low Explosives skill. And hell, I shouldn't be allowed anywhere near an atomic bomb in Megaton with an Explosives skill of 25 (I get that was the first quest, but come on). To me, having your character build matter by having more options open up to you as a result of your skills makes for a deeper RPG. That's the way it was done with the first two Fallout games, and that's the way it should be done with more modern ones

5. Just because you're really stupid doesn't mean you couldn't fend for yourselves. I mean, not as well as someone who is intelligent obviously, but you could survive. The super mutants in Fallout 3 seemed to do it (they did it better than they should have, but still). However, it was a lot of little details like that (along with a number of major details) that were just nice touches. It was those features that had been in the original Fallout titles and had been enjoyable that Bethesda removed because...I guess they didn't want to put in the effort or something. It was nice to have that OPTION or CHOICE. When I replay a game like this, I don't always want to make the same character or do things the same way; I want to experiment. I want to try out new things and new skills and new SPECIAL stats, and the low intelligence playthroughs were a humorous and rather game-changing way to extend replay value

6. Your ability to handle a gun is tied to the Guns skill. Doesn't mean someone who is an expert in Guns is strong enough to carry a minigun, does it? Also, I thought you seemed to be the one talking about realism (or at least pointing out idiocy)

7. Your character is a personification of you in the world, but they aren't you. If you can just do everything for your character, there isn't much of a point to skills and SPECIAL stats. I'm really not that old that I can't stand that the world isn't like 1974. Hell, I wasn't even born yet in 1974, nor would I want the world to be like that. And I appreciate games with player skill, as I'm sure do many D&D fans. It's just that when it comes to RPGs, I think character skill is a better fit, and if I wanted it to be based on player skill, I wouldn't be playing an RPG. Regardless, I think it's a divide between newer RPG fans and older RPGs. I think a lot of developers who worked on RPGs in the 90s would support character skill still (I've seen Tim Cain talk about it at times), while I think a lot who did (or are just trying to make more mainstream games) would focus on player skill

But even beyond that, there needs to be a balance between the two in an action RPG, and it should lean a little more on the character skill side (especially when its a sequel to a series that was a traditional RPG). And hell, the results can be pretty damn good (the original Deus Ex, for example). But while I felt New Vegas struck the right balance, I felt Fallout 3 did not

Also, character skill was never the only viable option in video games. Every other genre is based on player skill (albeit, strategy games have a bit of character skill if you consider the characteristics of different units to be that). So why is it so much to ask that RPGs have character skill? If you want them to have player skill, then just go play an action game with RPG elements (which, for the record, aren't bad games)

Lastly, this could go on for a while and I'm really tired, so I'll just say this: I don't hate games that rely more on player skill. I liked Skyrim way more than Oblivion, even though Skyrim was more streamlined. What I don't like is that there aren't as many options anymore for those of us who enjoy character skill based RPGs, and that many series that once featured this no longer do. There are so many streamlined RPGs, is it so terrible that just a few have a bit more depth?

 

[Falconus]

Honestly, it seems like you're taking every measure to argue against any possibilities in Vault 87 being plusable and not for the sake of logic. Instead, for the sake of bashing on the idea with great prejudice.

And you're taking every measure to justify the absurdity of the premise. Don't get me wrong, I like fallout 3. But that game was dumb pretty much right across the board. And you don't have to make excuses for it. You can like it despite it's flaws.

Here's a question for ya. Vault 87 has two entrances. One of them is so irradiated as to kill anything that comes near it that isn't a super mutant. And the other is through little lamplight. How do the super mutants get prisoners in to mutate them?

As if none of the other games had absurd and ridiculously stupid shit in them... Master getting dipped in ooze and morphing - Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle style - into a Tetsuo monster. Enclave wanting to destroy the Earth and the rest of Humanity to hop onto a space ship and live in outerspace.

I mean WTF??

How about some of you take a real good look at the original two - so and so called plot hole free works of perfection - and then tell me there was NOTHING stupid as hell about them.

0.O

That's part of my point. Fallout is kinda ridiculous, And there was a lot of stuff in fallout 2 that broke with the first game. And that's ok. But you are saying fallout 3 didn't break the lore at all. it did. and you're MAKING STUFF UP to justify it that assertion. That's not ok. that makes you a bad fan.

fallout 3 is fun. but it has some major flaws and there was a lot of stuff that didn't make any sense in regards to prior games that seems like it could have been easily rectified with a bit more attention and effort. and that's the problem, it feels a bit like bethesda just didn't care.

And for some people this is a big problem. Personally I didn't mind much and still enjoyed the hell out of the game (enough to play it for 300 odd hours). but you do not get to say other peoples criticisms are invalid just because it didn't bother you. you do not get to invent stuff and then say that it's not a problem because of the stuff you invented. Fallout 3 did break with some of the lore. get over it.

 

[SajuukKhar]

*Various snips in quotes to shorten length.*

And why take those perks when you only take 10% of damage in VATS (equivalent to having 90 DR)?

Because not everyone wants to use Vats? I never used VATS in Fallout 3, its a nice, fun, and 100% OPTIONAL, mechanic. Giving people choices, such a sin in gaming am I right?

2. Here's the thing though: I don't want to specialize in every perk tree.

Well its a good thing you DON'T have to specialize in every perk tree, so your point is moot.

Taking perks in a certain order ensures balance, and frankly, how does it make any sense that you learn the ultimate "I can reduce master level spell cost by 50% skill, yet your character is unable to do the same for lower level spells?

for one who constantly promoted how much DT, and Weapon STR requirements, are all about "logic" you seem to want to ignore logic when it comes to when Skyrim does similar things and then claim its bad for doing so.

And yeah, let's just get rid of SPECIAL. Let's get rid of the system that helped Fallout distinguish itself from other RPGs

Special is in no way shape or form unique by any means, it is a very minor twist on a normal attribute system by using a 1-10 scale instead of a 1-100 scale. The only thing special about special was that they made the names letters match the first letter of each stat.

3. Except that most of the perks in Fallout 3 revolved around increasing your skills (which you didn't need)

I suggest you actually look at fallout 3's perk list before you make such an obviously incorrect statement.
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_3_perks
Out of the 59 regular perks, only 6 of them raised your skills, literally only 1/10 of the perks in Fallout 3 did what you said all of them did.

Also, maxing out all your skills in Fallout 3 required that you find quite a few books, how many people who actually played Fallout 3 bothered to look up the locations of every book? Few. Most people don't meta-game, and without meta-gaming maxing in Fallout 3 wasn't THAT easy. Yes you COULD max out all your skills, which you SHOULD be able to, but the normal person didn't, and lets not forget you could max out all your skills in New vegas also.

4. Well then you and I disagree there.

All of those quests you mentioned could have, and should have, provided optional means of getting the same thing done, be it though having to get more things that are in harder areas, or having some item to bribe the character with. It should be more difficult to achieve a better ending, but not 100% impossible unless you have a skill at X high.

And the whole "the first two games did it so the next ones should as well" is a flawed argument. By that logic just because the last two CoDs had regenerating health and two weapon limits the next one should as well. That train of thought only leads to stagnation, which is something you seem to be fond of.

5. Just because you're really stupid doesn't mean you couldn't fend for yourselves. I mean, not as well as someone who is intelligent obviously, but you could survive. The super mutants in Fallout 3 seemed to do it (they did it better than they should have, but still).

The Super Mutants are also... mutants with super strength beyond any person, an immunity to radiation, and skin that's think enough to protect against hordes of bullets, all of which they have by there very nature. Your character... has none of those things, and would logically die before he got any of those things.

Bethesda most likely removed it because it was dumb, and most RPG players are focused on their stats, and getting their stats maxed, or near maxed, and thus wouldn't lower their INT, the very thing that gives them skill points.

6. Your ability to handle a gun is tied to the Guns skill. Doesn't mean someone who is an expert in Guns is strong enough to carry a minigun, does it? Also, I thought you seemed to be the one talking about realism (or at least pointing out idiocy)

A gun skill should control everything dealing with the gun, one who is truly an expert at guns would know ways to hold a gun in order to lighten the load of carrying it. Furthermore a person who is a master of guns, couldn't become a master of guns if they couldn't hold the guns they are a master of.

7. Your character is a personification of you in the world, but they aren't you. If you can just do everything for your character, there isn't much of a point to skills and SPECIAL stats.

But even beyond that, there needs to be a balance between the two in an action RPG, and it should lean a little more on the character skill side (especially when its a sequel to a series that was a traditional RPG). And hell, the results can be pretty damn good (the original Deus Ex, for example). But while I felt New Vegas struck the right balance, I felt Fallout 3 did not

The point of skills is to simulate the fact that as you use something you would naturally get better at it and thus deal more damage with it, or know how to cast the spell using less magicka etc. etc.

The problem with attributes is that all the things that they influence could easily be integrated into the skills themselves with no loss on functions.

Attributes are the same as having one handed swords, maces, axes, as separate skills instead of one skill with sword, mace, axe specialization trees inside it.

Technically it is more "complex" to do it that way, but it is only more complex because you arbitrarily split something up into more parts then it needs to be.

In a better example, attribute systems are like taking all the keys off of a key-chain, throwing them on a table, and then telling someone ot find the right key, yes it is harder, and arguably more "deep" to make it that way, but its only that way because you made it more complex then it needed to, or should, be.

Attribute systems are deep not because they are genuinely good game design that improves the game, they are only more deep because you split something that should be one or two things, into 10 different ones.

Its having numbers only for the sake of having numbers and not game design, its bad game design.

 

[kburns10]

-The Uniforms for the Vault dwellers seem to be made of cloth when in FO1&2 it was more like latex.

/facepalm

Really? Gamer's are complaining about this? I think my answer for the vault doors can pretty much explain this.

Remember, this is the same demographic that complained about the buckles on Sonic's shoes being wrong.

Exactly. As a Sonic fan, extreme fans like that make me put my head down in shame. On one hand, those people are PASSIONATE about something and that's a good thing. On the other hand, there is critiquing and then there is criticizing. It feels like criticism for the sake of criticism.

Back to the OP, I never played Fallout until 3. The trailer alone was enough to hook and intrigue me. It turned out to be one of my top games of all time (that I personally played). I'm glad they made the changes they did, because it brought newcomers like me into the fold. It was also cool to read about some of the changes from earlier games you brought up.

 

[MaulYoda]

*snips and whatnot*

1. True, but then again, I also never wore heavier armor in either game, and DT was certainly more effective than DR with light armor. I guess what I'm saying is there are obviously choices to be made in which you ignore any sort of DT or DR progression, but we're debating about its general usefulness

2. Those weren't the perks I was talking about; in Fallout, those would be five ranks of the same perk, and that obviously makes sense. I'm talking about those special perks at or near the top of a perk tree that give you some special ability. With a lot of those, I had the skill required to take them, but I couldn't without taking a bunch of perks I didn't need first. In Fallout, there would have been a skill and level requirement for all of those perks, but once I reached those, I could take them whenever I wanted (plus, I couldn't take a perk every level). Seemed pretty balanced to me

3. No attributes system or base stats is out of 100. Maybe out of 25 or 30, but 100? Also, SPECIAL was based off of GURPS, which helped distinguish it from most other RPGs at the time that used d20 (and yes, the names were different)

4. Huh? Well, alright, I'm wrong; I probably thought there were more because each of those had several levels. Still, looking over that list, there weren't that many useful perks that I wouldn't end up taking Almost Perfect anyway

Also, vanilla Fallout 3 required finding skill books (although you still could). With Broken Steel though, you had more than enough skill points to max out all of your skills easily, and that was only level 30 (and you had to level up all the way). In vanilla New Vegas, it wasn't possible whatsoever. It only became possible once the DLCs raised the level cap to 50, and even then, you could never max out your SPECIAL stats and you could cap your level at 30

I guess you could say that you didn't have to download Broken Steel, but it seemed pretty essential to the game (I mean, how many people requested Bethesda change the level cap and the ending?). And without it, we're talking about two different level caps. But even then, there were 50 less skill points in vanilla Fallout 3 than vanilla New Vegas with a ten level difference. At the same level, 150 more skill points in Fallout 3 than New Vegas. And all that is with an Intelligence of 10 in both games. You could have an Intelligence of 1 and have the same number of skill points as someone with an Intelligence of 10 in New Vegas

5. Bribery doesn't always work (especially without, you know, a high Barter skill). With Vault 19, the Powder Gangers needed you to do it, not to mention that they're that well trained in explosives. They can use dynamite, sure, but a highly contained explosion takes skill not that all people have. And I don't think the Legate or Oliver would just give up their position without a compelling argument. But skills give you extra options, and if those extra options give you further extra options for completing them, then they don't become something unique to a certain skill and it makes that skill less useful. Or hell, if I can do everything in one playthrough, why replay the game?

Also, I'm not a fan of stagnation. I'm open to change (I don't mind Fallout being an action RPG), but there's a difference between building off of what worked in the first two games and completely removing it. If something worked in the first two games, it should be kept in. If not, it should be changed or removed. But something that is good shouldn't just be thrown out the window, especially if people actually enjoyed it. By the way, I think every Call of Duty since the second one (I never played COD 1) has had regenerating health and two weapon limits, so I don't know what kind of example that is (but I get what you're saying). But for Fallout, I actually thought the Chinese stealth suit in Fallout 3 was a lot of fun. Obsidian could've made it harder to obtain, maybe reduced a couple of the stats, but they didn't have to remove the stealth field effect to keep it from making the game easy. Anyway, the point is, I'm not opposed to change, but I am opposed to bad changes

6. That didn't seem to stop me from killing the super mutants pretty easily, but the earlier parts of any Fallout game weren't so enemy-ridden that your character would be skinned alive. Plus, you were stupid, but not "Fallout 3 super mutant stupid." You could probably learn to use weapons, and if not, you weren't so openly hostile that someone wouldn't teach you how to defend yourself a bit. And you could have followers to help you out too (well, some anyway)

But you're right, no one is going to focus on that for their first playthrough. But in replays, what's the harm in messing around a bit and experimenting with different character builds? It was a unique and enjoyable experience that fans actually liked (I know, shocker), and Bethesda didn't need to remove it. Most newer fans probably would never notice it (and might even be pleasantly surprised if they did) and older fans could appreciate it. What's wrong with that? Because tying Intelligence to something more than just skill points might actually add some depth

7. You can still wield any weapon it New Vegas regardless of your Strength. But don't you think someone who is stronger is going to be able to hold a heavy weapon more steadily than someone who is not? Besides, Boone has a Strength of 7 and the minigun has a Strength requirement of 10, and would you not consider Boone a master of guns just because he isn't strong enough to keep a minigun completely stable? Also, as Big Guns and Small Guns were merged, the Strength requirements help distinguish between specializations in the two (and for the record, while I thought it was a beneficial merge, I didn't think it was as holistically beneficial as the merges in Fallout 3)

8. Attributes are more like personality traits though, and they're different than skills or specializations. For instance, someone can be charming, which can help them be a better speaker but that doesn't mean they're a particularly gifted orator. Or somebody can be intelligent without knowing how to hack a terminal. So there is a difference

Also, I agree that more skills does not necessarily mean more complexity. For example, Daggerfall had 36 skills, and yet the original Fallout titles had just as much depth with only half the skills. And there is such a thing as too many skills. But there is also such a thing as too few. I mean, a lot of "RPGs" don't even have one skill for weapons, you just automatically know how to use any weapon (and these are in games where there maybe four weapon classes). And since you're referring to Skyrim, I thought a better system would've been Blade, Mace, and Axe for the three classes of weapons. But it's not like the magic schools or even the weapon skills in Fallout where there are so many different types of spells or types of weapons within a skill that they could have their own skill. That is to say, there's not a separate skill for each of the spell types in Destruction, or each small gun in the Small Guns (or Guns) skill. There are six types of weapons (not included bows), and although that might throw off Bethesda's pretty little skill chart, they could've split them up a bit more (i.e. Short Swords, Long Swords, Maces, Axes; to Skyrim's credit though, I liked One-Handed and Two-Handed better than Blunt and Blade). Or for a better example, combining Speechcraft and Mercantile into just Speechcraft. I'm not saying Speech needs to be divided the way it was in Daggerfall, but there can be some divisions

But these are skills, not attributes, and attributes are entirely different. And the last thing I want to see is SPECIAL reduced into some Skyrim-esque system like Strength (for health), Agility (for AP instead of magicka), and Endurance (for Stamina). But if you like things being that streamlined, that's fine. But Fallout didn't start that way, nor is it Bethesda's series (yes, they own it, but they didn't create) to just simplify it the way they did The Elder Scrolls (and even there, I didn't necessarily agree that it was the right direction). Because if Fallout and TES have the exact same mechanics, then as I said, we're literally playing "Skyrim with Guns" or "Fallout with Swords," and I don't think that's good for the industry

 

[jackinmydaniels]

Oh great, more of this, ya know people if you love New Vegas and the old games so much just play those, I too am sick of seeing every fan of the series pop up in a Fallout related thread and immediately start slamming F3 because 'OH MY LORE! Tis RUINED oh Fallout was so deep and complicated till that evil company Bethesda ruined it! Oh the horror!'
I will NEVER understand why people ***** so much about this, would Fallout even be a thing nowadays if Bethesda didn't take over the franchise? And in effect would you guys have New Vegas if Bethesda didn't take over?

 

[Treblaine]

my biggest issue with fallout 3 was that it felt out of place time wise. it felt like it should be set a decade or two after the war not 200 years.

WHAT! Is that how long they were supposed to live in a Vault for?

How many people is how many thousands of square miles to self-sustain for THAT LONG! I mean 20-50 years makes more sense and they jsut lied about the 200 years part.

200 years sounds so implausible. Even with nuclear reactors may have in theory an indefinite fuel supply the fuel reprocessing (vital for the reactors to continue functioning) needs vast amounts or resources.

I mean the effort taken into getting EVERYTHING you need for 200 years underground is so great it would be easier to just live on the surface. I mean radiation from a nuclear war would have fallen adequately after even 20 years to mostly live on the surface, definitely factories and mines. See all the materials you'll ever need cannot be mined all in the same place. You need copper, you need to travel to where copper is, dig it out of the ground and process it.

200 years seems implausible. 50 years makes sense, long enough to COMPLETELY WEAR OUT everything and expend all vital resources yet long enough for most memory of the pre nuclear-holocaust world to disappear from living memory except for a few elders.

Remember, 50 years is more than enough to have groups like Brotherhood of Steel form, look at what radical changes have been seen in human history in shorter time-scales with much smaller pressures. 50 years is about 3 generations (by the youngest definition of generation being 16 years) long enough for groups to get extremely radicalised.

It looked like it was set 50 years after the Great War, but yes, it was 200 years. Actually, Vault 101 was supposed to stay closed indefinitely; Vault 13 was supposed to stay closed for 200 years, and the other vaults opened after a couple of decades

Why keep the Vault 101 closed indefinitely?

Even for Vault 13, 200 years is MUCH longer than necessary to wait for the radiation to fall. Is there some other stated reason for staying underground for a time periods almost as long as the United States of America has existed.

 

[MaulYoda]

Why keep the Vault 101 closed indefinitely?

Even for Vault 13, 200 years is MUCH longer than necessary to wait for the radiation to fall. Is there some other stated reason for staying underground for a time periods almost as long as the United States of America has existed.

It was to test if humanity could stay in a vault in case the Earth never became habitable again. Other that that, ask Bethesda why that was the vault experiment they designed for Vault 101. But the point is, that is what Vault 101 is, it's not like Bethesda lied about anything

 

[MaulYoda]

Oh great, more of this, ya know people if you love New Vegas and the old games so much just play those, I too am sick of seeing every fan of the series pop up in a Fallout related thread and immediately start slamming F3 because 'OH MY LORE! Tis RUINED oh Fallout was so deep and complicated till that evil company Bethesda ruined it! Oh the horror!'
I will NEVER understand why people ***** so much about this, would Fallout even be a thing nowadays if Bethesda didn't take over the franchise? And in effect would you guys have New Vegas if Bethesda didn't take over?

The fact that people criticize Fallout 3 doesn't mean you can't still enjoy it; it's not like Fallout 3 has some "you can't criticize this game" sign slapped on it. And a ton of Fallout 3 fans criticized New Vegas and the older Fallout games and we never complained about it

 

[MaulYoda]

And a ton of Fallout 3 fans criticized New Vegas and the older Fallout games and we never complained about it

Well, we didn't even take them seriously because we knew Oblivion was probably like their first RPG or something.

I guess. It's just that it seems like this video if you substitute "Britney" for "Fallout 3"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHmvkRoEowc

Obviously that's an exaggeration, but you get my point

 

[jackinmydaniels]

I think there is a difference between criticizing and bitching. Even if you want to talk about what Bethesda messed up with the lore that's fine, but the way some people go on about it you'd think that the game had absolutely destroyed their life.

 

[MaulYoda]

I think there is a difference between criticizing and bitching. Even if you want to talk about what Bethesda messed up with the lore that's fine, but the way some people go on about it you'd think that the game had absolutely destroyed their life.

That's a fair statement, although none of us think the game has absolutely destroyed our lives, and all of us are generally criticizing it rather than bitching about it. I think most of the points I've raised are valid criticisms

 

[wrightguy0]

I think it's time that Fallout left the west coast behind. Society's been rebuilt, the factions that ran through the early post war world are dying away, Mankind is Reasserting it's position as the Dominant species on earth and the variants of man that were created are withering, from ghouls to super mutants

I think Fallout should stay on the east coast and follow their path to reconstruction


(for anyone who bitches about the technology gap, the east coast, as the center of american commerce, government and education was a primary target, it was probably heavily bombed, even more so than the west coast, which would have been harder to bounce back from)