Stolen Pixels #41: Pick a Perk
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Well, the weapon skills are fairly useless if you don't use VATS. The increase in damage is so marginal it's not worth it. Of course you can say "Hey, if you want your RPG-Stats to reflect in the game, play it RPG-Style" - however Deus Ex already showed us ages ago how stats can be linked with third person gameplay.Grampy_bone said:
Medicine is not worth one point considering you'll have enough drugs early on in the game to supply big hospitals with it, especially since stims don't have any side effect or limitation whatsoever.
Science and Lockpicking is completly unrelated to the skills. You just need a meet the n*25 steps to play the minigame, every point off is factually wasted. Same with speech and while the exact numbers aren't shown I suspect them to be be the same.
While it's true the Fallout 2 skill tree was cluttered and needed a clean up, I never had too much skill points in them contrary to F3, where the only skills actually useful are already maxed out early on. The stats however are even worse. Considering you start with a balanced build, you have to take the stat perk 4 times and find the stupid bobble head to max it, yet the gain is practically nonexistent.
Frankly, you probably won't find that many old Fallout players complaining about the perks side (even if they're a tad useless). Ripping out Traits would make some scream bloody murder, but what finally does it is the braindead story and gameplay with about as much immersion as Oblivion, complete with cardboard NPC's and a world that reacts to your actions as if it were cast out of lead.
You have mis-stated my side of the debate, missed the point, and then... it looks like... insulted me?Grampy_bone said:
Boo.
The difference between 40 and 60 first aid is how much time you waste failing at first aid. The difference between 90 and 110 outdoorsman is the inevitable rape at the hands of an Enclave patrol or Deathclaw family or avoiding them completely. The difference between 80 and 120 science is whether Skynet gets an abnormal brain or a cybernetic brain.
By the way, first aid and doctor are vastly different skills, one is stabilizing someone and stopping the bleeding, the other is fixing them up. Just because they're represented badly in a game doesn't mean they're useless, it just means the game needs some minor touch ups.
Compare this with the useless medicine skill in FO3 when you can just use one of your millions of stimpacks to reattach a limb that was blown 4500 metres away.
If you look at a lot of people today, they've either got a mediocre amount of skill in many things or a great amount of skill in a single thing. That you're unable to hack the computer in an abandoned supply depot because you've specialized in being able to pick locks means you should find another way around.
By the way, first aid and doctor are vastly different skills, one is stabilizing someone and stopping the bleeding, the other is fixing them up. Just because they're represented badly in a game doesn't mean they're useless, it just means the game needs some minor touch ups.
Compare this with the useless medicine skill in FO3 when you can just use one of your millions of stimpacks to reattach a limb that was blown 4500 metres away.
If you look at a lot of people today, they've either got a mediocre amount of skill in many things or a great amount of skill in a single thing. That you're unable to hack the computer in an abandoned supply depot because you've specialized in being able to pick locks means you should find another way around.
On the dialogue perk: I don't think it's a shot worth taking. Fallout 3 dialogue was pretty decent, imo. All voice acted and there were quite a few fitting/funny lines to choose from in every conversation. A major step up from Oblivion to be honest.
I do agree on the stats taking a backseat, but personally, I could not have done it better, while maintaining real time FPS combat. It is hard to mix the two and I think it turned out ok.
I do agree on the stats taking a backseat, but personally, I could not have done it better, while maintaining real time FPS combat. It is hard to mix the two and I think it turned out ok.
I think another thing that was left out, is that with the 100-300% you can get the most out of your TAGGED skills - it's pointless tagging skills in Fallout 3, you can specialize in anything and everything, and they don't even level faster when you use skill points on them. If in Fallout 1 or 2, I could tag speech, steal, traps, and then maybe use the Tag perk on a combat skill if I absolutely need it, and I can get through the game with just that. Speech for...speech, Steal for stealing and planting traps, and traps so that my explosives don't botch the assassination and do the damage they SHOULD do (I mean, trying to blow up AHS-9 for the Shi is tough without a decent traps skill).Anniko said:
If it wasn't for the 1-300% stats then the whole "Role Playing" aspect is taken out, and so is the replay value. You could grind to 300% on everything, but I think only someone who has registered at NMA.com has done something that ridiculous.
Heck, even gambling was useful, especially if you had good luck, because money wasn't as easy to come by in Fallout 1 and 2 as it is in 3.
I also don't get the extremism. OMG I DONT WANT A SPREADSHEET! I WANT AN RPG! - what bullshit, Fallout wasn't a 'spreadsheet' in the first place, where is this argument coming from?
EDIT: Oh hey, I fell for it. I DO have the flamewar perk. Thanks for drawing my ire you angry angry people!
In an effort to encourage people to have a nice friendly discussion without a lot of rancor between the console types and PC types, let me just re-state the assertion for people who pulled out their flamethrowers before posting an answer:
1) Native console games aren't any simpler than PC games. Most jRPGs are quite deep, numbers-wise. They are at LEAST as dense as their western RPG counterparts on the PC.
2) But something happens when a western developer takes a western RPG for the PC and moves to consoles with it. BioShock was FAR simpler than the System Shock games. Deus Ex 2 was much shallower than Deus Ex. And Fallout 3 is more lightweight than the previous Fallout games.
The question I'm asking, is why complex PC games are getting watered down in their move to consoles, when clearly console gamers like a little depth as much as anyone?
DO be nice to each other. (And me, while you're at it.)
1) Native console games aren't any simpler than PC games. Most jRPGs are quite deep, numbers-wise. They are at LEAST as dense as their western RPG counterparts on the PC.
2) But something happens when a western developer takes a western RPG for the PC and moves to consoles with it. BioShock was FAR simpler than the System Shock games. Deus Ex 2 was much shallower than Deus Ex. And Fallout 3 is more lightweight than the previous Fallout games.
The question I'm asking, is why complex PC games are getting watered down in their move to consoles, when clearly console gamers like a little depth as much as anyone?
DO be nice to each other. (And me, while you're at it.)
If Christopher Lee was narrating my life, I would have to act like an evil bastard. I mean, it would be impossible NOT to.Spacelord said:*Sigh* yes. God yes.Quistnix said:
Also, Bill Nighy, Patrick Stewart, and Christopher Lee.
I don't know that the broader issue is a matter of sheer numerical complexity as it is a matter of complex presentation. Porting the engine of a PC RPG to consoles is and should be approached with the mindset "Take out everything that's too tedious; anything that takes the player away from the game's core strengths for a long time is bad." They'll get a bit overzealous with it, of course, but I think it's a sound decision.
The reverse of this question would be why it seems to be so rare, especially on PC, to represent meaningful strategic depth in a lightweight manner? There's more to depth than formula-filled spreadsheets and meticulously simulated inventory limits. I always felt it to be a cardinal game-development sin to overwhelm a new player with options, especially if these options can make the game unwinnable, and double especially if this unwinnable circumstance occurs hours down the line.
PC games focus on making sure the player has plenty of options; console games focus on making sure every option has meaningful and immediately comprehensible consequences. It's a lot easier to remove the most arcane fraction of choices than it is to shoehorn a significant game-changing effect into each entry in an encyclopedia of choices. The former option preserves the mechanical essence of the game while changing its appearance; the latter preserves its appearance but by necessity alters its basic nature.
The reverse of this question would be why it seems to be so rare, especially on PC, to represent meaningful strategic depth in a lightweight manner? There's more to depth than formula-filled spreadsheets and meticulously simulated inventory limits. I always felt it to be a cardinal game-development sin to overwhelm a new player with options, especially if these options can make the game unwinnable, and double especially if this unwinnable circumstance occurs hours down the line.
PC games focus on making sure the player has plenty of options; console games focus on making sure every option has meaningful and immediately comprehensible consequences. It's a lot easier to remove the most arcane fraction of choices than it is to shoehorn a significant game-changing effect into each entry in an encyclopedia of choices. The former option preserves the mechanical essence of the game while changing its appearance; the latter preserves its appearance but by necessity alters its basic nature.
Yeah, all console ports of classic PC games aren't oversimplified - they're 'cleansed' of 'excess' verbiage/mechanics/options that detract from the playing experience. The console ports and sequels are 'streamlined' and thus 'better' versions of said classics.
Excuse me while I wretch.
No, this is just yet another problem with the drive for short-term gains at the expense of long-term vision. You have a market audience that is younger with a shorter attention span on a system that is specifically made so as not to be tinkered with and a ridiculously high bar solely in the graphics department that you reach by cutting out overall game design, storyboard writing and vision.
I'm 25 and I'm already a crotchy old coot. I hate being condescended to by the simulated 'complexity' of today's games especially when I know I can fire up an ACTUALLY deep game that I can sink my teeth into. I want to try out all the little niggling details and I want them to have real consequences, even if it means I must start from scratch. I hate this hand-holding because I as a person am looking for something more challenging than this brainless rollercoaster ride insult to my intelligence.
Case and point, the Civilization series on PC as compared to its console iteration, "Revolution."
Excuse me while I wretch.
No, this is just yet another problem with the drive for short-term gains at the expense of long-term vision. You have a market audience that is younger with a shorter attention span on a system that is specifically made so as not to be tinkered with and a ridiculously high bar solely in the graphics department that you reach by cutting out overall game design, storyboard writing and vision.
I'm 25 and I'm already a crotchy old coot. I hate being condescended to by the simulated 'complexity' of today's games especially when I know I can fire up an ACTUALLY deep game that I can sink my teeth into. I want to try out all the little niggling details and I want them to have real consequences, even if it means I must start from scratch. I hate this hand-holding because I as a person am looking for something more challenging than this brainless rollercoaster ride insult to my intelligence.
Case and point, the Civilization series on PC as compared to its console iteration, "Revolution."
This is what happens when you make an "FPS-RPG" - you get a game that cannot be criticized. If the shooting sucks, you can blame it on the game not being "your average shooter" while simplified stats, plot holes and overall shallowness can be attributed to the game not being "your typical RPG".
I agree that the "dumbing down" is annoying, but then again so was largly destroying your whole character in F1/F2 because you picked wrong stats at the beggining or during a level up.And frankly, I'd rather have Bethesda rid off RPG-mechanics altogether if only they could direct those freshly-gained resources into story that doesn't suck, dialogue that attempts to to resemble human interaction and a realistic living post-apocalyptic world as opposed to a Nuclear Wasteland-Themed Amusement Park, Capital Wasteland is in Fallout 3.
Because while spreadsheets and stats are a nice addition, the above are the things I'm looking for in an RPG in first place.
I agree that the "dumbing down" is annoying, but then again so was largly destroying your whole character in F1/F2 because you picked wrong stats at the beggining or during a level up.And frankly, I'd rather have Bethesda rid off RPG-mechanics altogether if only they could direct those freshly-gained resources into story that doesn't suck, dialogue that attempts to to resemble human interaction and a realistic living post-apocalyptic world as opposed to a Nuclear Wasteland-Themed Amusement Park, Capital Wasteland is in Fallout 3.
Because while spreadsheets and stats are a nice addition, the above are the things I'm looking for in an RPG in first place.
I don't understand the "I picked bad stats at the beggining" thing. What did you guys do to actually fuck everything up from the start? There's pretty much a way to get through Fallout 1 2 AND 3 no matter what your stats are.