Fallout 4’s Character System

[Mohamed2001]

But why is an assault rifle a small gun?

Guys, get rid of the skills.

I can't understand it.

ASSAULT RIFLE IS BIG! BIG! AND LONG! AND HEAVY AND HARD!

MUST BE HEAVY GUNZZ!!! [even though the vault boy picture has a minigun as heavy guns]

---

I think Wasteland 2 did it good, Pistols, ARs, SMGs and Heavy weapons and Sniper Rifles. BUT!, ARs for some reason dominated everything else and heavy weapons were useless. Also, misleading picture. [I mean, it has the picture of a RPG-7, yet it has no effect on RPG damage? guys pls]

I do get that ARs IRL were very good, etc etc, but come on.. they shouldn't be THE weapon type.

 

[raynor009]

I think Wasteland 2 did it good, Pistols, ARs, SMGs and Heavy weapons and Sniper Rifles. BUT!, ARs for some reason dominated everything else and heavy weapons were useless. Also, misleading picture. [I mean, it has the picture of a RPG-7, yet it has no effect on RPG damage? guys pls]

What the frack are you talking about mane? Miniguns was great. I had 3 BG characters in W2 and the other 2 chars with anti material rifle. The BG'ers always did the killing.

 

[MercenarySnake]

Hey, I got this necklace, do you want to get married?

"Did you clear that cave of draugr?"

"Yes"

"Then let us be wed!"

I always thought that was comical and you're very funny haha, have you seen that one Skyrim YouTube video where the dead body ruins the wedding?

 

[Radiosity]

But that requires READING! Can't have that, at least not without some sort of eject button so you can shoot something in the face.

*sigh*

And yet, Skyrim was mostly a reasonably pretty 100 hour long book-collecting simulator.

They even gave you bookshelves to keep your books on.

 

[Mohamed2001]

I think Wasteland 2 did it good, Pistols, ARs, SMGs and Heavy weapons and Sniper Rifles. BUT!, ARs for some reason dominated everything else and heavy weapons were useless. Also, misleading picture. [I mean, it has the picture of a RPG-7, yet it has no effect on RPG damage? guys pls]

What the frack are you talking about mane? Miniguns was great. I had 3 BG characters in W2 and the other 2 chars with anti material rifle. The BG'ers always did the killing.

I always found them inferior to ARs myself. The only exception is that end game minigun you find at a safe in the end.

 

[thenightgaunt]

Lockpicking should be turned into the "infiltration" skill, remove Hacking from the Science skill, add in the Lockpick kits of the first 2 games, add in a bunch of other uses for item either crafting items and such. Leave the Minigame for characters with low lockpick skills (and restrict their access to lockpicking the more advanced doors) while the high level players just go around with their auto lockpicking kits and viruses that only they can craft.

There's a lot you could do with reworking the skills plan. Here's what I personally think would work:
- Add a new skill for "Marksmanship" or something like that, because aiming a laser rifle and aiming a hunting rifle aren't that different.
- Combine "Guns", part of "Repair", and Lockpicking into "Mechanical" a skill that measures how facile you are with simple mechanical devices like guns and locks.
- Combine "Energy Weapons", the other part of "Repair" and "Science" into "Science" a skill that measures how facile you are with high tech devices.

This way you could keep the 25/50/75/100 thresholds for bypassing security because the other levels of the skill will do something.

Then you could have your skills be Barter, Explosives/thrown, Marksmanship, Mechanical, Medicine, Melee, Science, Sneak, Speech, Survival, and Unarmed. I think 10 is the minimum number of skills for a good Fallout-ey system, but 13 would be better so invent two new mechanics and make those skills.

EDIT: I suppose you could make a "Heavy Weapons" skill distinct from marksmanship that serves the same purpose (determining accuracy, and critrate say) since aiming a missile launcher is sort of fundamentally different from aiming a rifle.

I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's preferences towards a style of gameplay here. I'm just talking through the other side of the argument. Figuring out why go in a different direction.

Here's what i'm thinking:
Why keep science use a % skill? What use are you putting it to in the game? Look at the overall gameplay and you've got 3 or so real uses for the skill. One is to open up dialogue options, the other is to bypass obstacles (hacking and etc) and the third is crafting.

You could base the dialogue tree options off of Int (which has been done before) base crafting requirements on Int as well (assuming that there's something worth crafting for once) and then just make hacking a minigame to increase player agency.

The problem with % skills used without repercussion is that they become an obstacle to game immersion. Dialogue works as long as you make conversations one-time only (like mass effect and dragon age) so the player can't just spam the attempt to get the right option. But lockpicking fails. If you turn it into a random number check, then the player spams it until they win. So you do like F1 or F2 did and set it so failure can destroy the lock and make it impassible. But that only results in players saving and loading constantly because there's no indication that they can't win. They try for that 1% chance.

You can put in limits like F3 did where certain locks can't be popped unless you're skill is high enough. But then that's not really a skill check is it? You don't have a 30% chance of success. This is something they tried to deal with in tabletop gaming as well. The idea behind a player "taking 10" on a skill attempt is that given enough time trying, that player will roll a critical success at some point. But all this rolling and rerolling and saving and loading slows the game down. It takes the player out of the game to the point that it annoys the players.

One solution is to make these things a minigame (bioshock, F3, FNV, and TES game, Risen, Thief, etc). But at that point, where does the skill % come in other then as a barrier to accessing certain levels of locks?

Then take that argument and continue to apply it to the % system as a whole.

I'm simplifying the hell out of this and it's not a perfect argument at all. But the big question is, which aspects of gameplay within a system are key to the experience and were put into place because of the limits of technology and game design theory at the time?

 

[Walpknut]

I came up with an idea on how to fix some of that, is in the Future Fallout subforum if anyone wants to read it.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Point is, it doesnt need changing. Not for a game like Fallout. Why change it? The Developers of F1 and F2 chose that approach for a reason. It was no mistake. If the player decides to exploit it - which doesnt work for all situations by the way! - than this is your choice. If that is really so bothersome than why playing the game at all? You chose to play a combat oriented character. Now you have to live with that choice and that your character cant always "save-load" his way trough the game.

The problem with % skills used without repercussion is that they become an obstacle to game immersion. Dialogue works as long as you make conversations one-time only (like mass effect and dragon age) so the player can't just spam the attempt to get the right option. But lockpicking fails. If you turn it into a random number check, then the player spams it until they win. So you do like F1 or F2 did and set it so failure can destroy the lock and make it impassible. But that only results in players saving and loading constantly because there's no indication that they can't win. They try for that 1% chance.

That's because this system was never meant to invoke immersion.

It's not the failure of the system if someone has wrong expectations from it. For example I would never play Mass Effect and complain that it doesn't work like Fallout 1. Because it was not designed to work like Fallout 1 or your typical PnP game. I can see why someone doesn't like it. But than I have simply to say, well than the system isn't meant for you. That simple. It is a niche. RPGs have been once a niche in gaming also. The dumbing down of games has lead to casualisation of mechanics and gameplay up to the point where people that like such systems are seen almost as an afront to gaming. Without the intention to attack you, but you will hear this quite often from a specific group of players, because reloading is really boring and it sucks. But that's not the intention or original idea behind it. It's simply an system that is easy to exploit in some situations because of what people see as dices working in the background, but that is the players choice.

Games like Fallout 1 and let us say the Witcher or Mass Effect follow completely different principles as role playing games and both have their pros and cons and are equall in their quality. But Fallout as game was never meant to play like Mass Effect. It is Bethesda which had this ultimate decision to change it to that more cinematic/direct approach where the player literaly can't fail anymore.

 

[thenightgaunt]

I came up with an idea on how to fix some of that, is in the Future Fallout subforum if anyone wants to read it.

I saw after you posted this comment. It's an interesting take on it. I want to give your write up a more indepth pass later though. One of the reasons why we got other gaming systems when D&D first came out was because people looked at it and said "I think this could/should be done differently" or "I think I could make a more fun version of this".

Point is, it doesnt need changing. Not for a game like Fallout. Why change it? The Developers of F1 and F2 chose that approach for a reason. It was no mistake. If the player decides to exploit it - which doesnt work for all situations by the way! - than this is your choice. If that is really so bothersome than why playing the game at all? You chose to play a combat oriented character. Now you have to live with that choice and that your character cant always "save-load" his way trough the game.

...

That's because this system was never meant to invoke immersion.

It's not the failure of the system if someone has wrong expectations from it. For example I would never play Mass Effect and complain that it doesn't work like Fallout 1. Because it was not designed to work like Fallout 1 or your typical PnP game. I can see why someone doesn't like it. But than I have simply to say, well than the system isn't meant for you. That simple. It is a niche. RPGs have been once a niche in gaming also. The dumbing down of games has lead to casualisation of mechanics and gameplay up to the point where people that like such systems are seen almost as an afront to gaming. Without the intention to attack you, but you will hear this quite often from a specific group of players, because reloading is really boring and it sucks. But that's not the intention or original idea behind it. It's simply an system that is easy to exploit in some situations because of what people see as dices working in the background, but that is the players choice.

Games like Fallout 1 and let us say the Witcher or Mass Effect follow completely different principles as role playing games and both have their pros and cons and are equall in their quality. But Fallout as game was never meant to play like Mass Effect. It is Bethesda which had this ultimate decision to change it to that more cinematic/direct approach where the player literaly can't fail anymore.

(Sorry, I cut out my part on the quote to save some space.)
I would argue though that immersion of some sort is the goal of RPGs. You're trying to balance the rules with the flow of gameplay, and moments that take the player out of that kill the game. The long overland travel bits of the first Assassin's Creed game for example. Some limitations that draw away from games were in place because of things outside of the developer's control. (correct me on the details if I'm wrong here) Fallout 2's enemy base was originally planned to be a mobile fortress but they couldn't do it, and the car was severely limited as well.
So when those limitations are gone, the question comes up "do we change it?"

Look at X-Com for example. The original game was selling pretty well on Steam and other platforms but it was a niche game and remaking it exactly the same wouldn't work these days. The audience has changed and it's desires have grown with it. The new XCom was a very very different beast but it still worked and was true to the soul of the original. But, you can dumb down games too far, or take them too far from their origins. The pile of shit that was The Bureau: XCOM Declassified is a great example of that.

Let me say where I'm coming from on this to show my POV a bit. Personally, IMO, the Fallout 1&2&3 systems were crap. That is, the rule systems being emulated within the software were crap. The first never gave a clear enough (for me) indication of the impact your skill levels had on the game, neither 1 or 2 could handle combat at long range or on huge maps all that well, and years ago I really wanted to punch Todd Howard in the face over the atrocity that was the level balancing system in Fallout 3. Which funny enough led to a looong 5 minutes of internal debating when I walked past him near NYU in NY (he was wearing a big blue Fallout 3 shirt and everything), but arrests aren't worth it and I'm not really a violent person so I did nothing. But I played the hell out of 3 because in the 10 years after the release of 2, I'd replayed every one of the old games over and over and over again until I just burnt out on them.

But it's not the system that keeps me coming back to Fallout. It's the setting and the tone. It's why I couldn't get into Wasteland 2. It just didn't feel the same. It lacked that slight silliness that made Fallout 1 stand out. It wasn't that it took place in a post apoc setting. It was the protest signs and the corpse the same outfit as my character being eaten by rats outside the door to Vault 13 that first grabbed me. The dark humor. I'm less worried about how the dog can't technically die in a fight and more worried about when power armor will show up and how difficulty in the game will scale to build a decent tone. I don't think that dramatically changing the way skills and interactions are handled will ruin the game (no, Brotherhood of Steel did that). I am however, worried that Bethesda won't be up to the task of taking full advantage of the system that they have created. Fallout 3 was fun but a bit of a mess (no forgiveness for the awful setting design though) and it took Obsidian to finally build a game worthy of that system.

And it's in that last part you wrote that I really do agree with you in part. I don't think that it's the shift to a cinematic approach that is the danger, but the creation of a system where the player "literally can't fail anymore". That has nothing to do with playing with the skills though or nerfing this perk or that. For me that hit in Fallout 3, when I took on 2 super mutants armed with miniguns, at level 2, armed only with a pipe rifle, and won. That broke the game for me. I still played it, still had fun, still modded the ever living crap out of it. But that challenge was broken for me. It didn't come back until I got to play a New Vegas demo at Quakecon and got murdered brutally by a deathclaw just north of Goodsprings while one of the Devs tried hard not to laugh. I honestly don't think that Bethesda can pull that off though.

I get that, from your posts, you feel that the mechanics of the system are an intimate part of the whole experience of the game. And I agree with you on that, but I disagree on the level of correlation between the two.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I would argue though that immersion of some sort is the goal of RPGs.

And you would be wrong with that guess - in my opinion. Only the designers of the game know what the goal is of their RPG. Immersion - let us ignore that it's just a buzzword - is first a matter of perspective, for me F1, Baldurs Gate or Jagged Alliance was always immersive. Second, the intention of such skill systems as like in Fallout 1/2 and similar games is not about to immerse the player. It's about to guide the character you create trough the world with the skills you chose. That's one of the reasons for playing a low inteligence character who's getting a whole different set of answers. It is in some way about role playing and emulating PnP rules on the PC. I have no clue how I can make this even more clear. I respect it when someone doesn't like it. I can understand that, not everyone likes it. But I will not argue about the intentions of the system. SPECIAL as how the original Fallout devs realized it was not a mistake and it was a choice they made. And they made it for a reason - see the history of Fallout.

Look at X-Com for example. The original game was selling pretty well on Steam and other platforms but it was a niche game and remaking it exactly the same wouldn't work these days.

See the various kick starter projects following the exact principles of many old games. The same target audience which enjoyed those games 15 years ago is still there. Updates with the visuals and mechanics are always welcome. But I don't see for example why a new Jagged Alliance can't follow the exact same rules like the previous games. And I don't see why a new Fallout game could not work on the same but of course updated mechanics of the previous games. Would it sell as much like Fallout 3? Most probably not. But who ever said that Fallout was for everybody?

But it's not the system that keeps me coming back to Fallout.

Personal preference. Again. I respect that. But some of us believe that Fallout can't be sepereated that easily from its mechanics. The developers chose the mechanics and the setting for a reason.

That has nothing to do with playing with the skills though or nerfing this perk or that.

In some parts it is though. There are certain design approaches that are simply more accessible for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It is much easier to get in to a "shooter" than the typical RPGs based on stats like in the old Fallouts and similar games. And this will influence the whole design process. Not just the way how skills work. When you never have to worry about skill checks than you can never fail in a conversation with NPCs, it comes down to just the choices and in many cases binary choices. As much as I love the Witcher the game really offers you for most situations 2 or 3 paths, do you ask the Rebells or the Order of the flaming rose for support? Do you work with the Witch or the Villagers? The dialog and the outcome changes, which character survives, which one dies etc. But it limits the role playing that is available to you. Characters with high whisdom would deal with situations differently compared to characters with high inteligence. It was not just a dumb stat where one is only important for clerics and the other for mages.

 

[TorontoReign]

Bethesda games don't let you fail. That is the key problem to me. This new character system does not allow you to fail. I feel like most characters will be able to do every single thing in Fallout 4 unless you purposefully gimp yourself. Which is nonsense. Somewhere along the way RPG's declined into a state of hand holding.

I can't see much to be excited about as far as Fallout 4 is concerned. Even a few of their hardcore fans are turned off by their stripping of the character system. It's "dumbed" down in every sense of the word. Obsidian added traits. Bethesda clearly saw no need to further the customization of the characters choosing to not implement it in their game as well. For a developer that is praised for customization it is a bit disappointing.

It really is a sign that more and more people consider Fallout to be a FPS with light RPG mechanics, not that much unlike Borderlands. Which makes me wonder. How long until multiplayer is implemented?

 

[generalissimofurioso]

I like how 1 is the new baseline for average.

Because hey, we don't want the player to feel as if they could be bad at anything.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I like how 1 is the new baseline for average.

Because hey, we don't want the player to feel as if they could be bad at anything.

It is? Oh things are worse then I thought...

 

[thenightgaunt]

I would argue though that immersion of some sort is the goal of RPGs.

And you would be wrong with that guess - in my opinion. Only the designers of the game know what the goal is of their RPG. Immersion - let us ignore that it's just a buzzword - is first a matter of perspective, for me F1, Baldurs Gate or Jagged Alliance was always immersive. Second, the intention of such skill systems as like in Fallout 1/2 and similar games is not about to immerse the player. It's about to guide the character you create trough the world with the skills you chose. That's one of the reasons for playing a low inteligence character who's getting a whole different set of answers. It is in some way about role playing and emulating PnP rules on the PC. I have no clue how I can make this even more clear. I respect it when someone doesn't like it. I can understand that, not everyone likes it. But I will not argue about the intentions of the system. SPECIAL as how the original Fallout devs realized it was not a mistake and it was a choice they made. And they made it for a reason - see the history of Fallout.

Regarding immersion, perhaps gaming jargon is getting in the way of what I'm trying to mean. By immersion I'm not trying to describe the "you think you're in the game" style buzzword that's popular in PR. Instead I mean the more literal definition of the word, to be deeply mentally involved. You can become immersed in a book, in a fighting game or even in minesweeper. So when playing a game I think of immersion as that moment when you become focused in on what you're doing and seeing. So a immersion breaking mechanic would be something that just tears you out of that zone. A mechanic that so breaks from the general flow of gameplay that it's frustratingly distracting. In an RPG the aim is to make you care about the character, the story and the world. But even the old FPS dungeon delving RPG's that were nothing but static images of hallways tried to immerse you in their gameplay.

That has nothing to do with playing with the skills though or nerfing this perk or that.

In some parts it is though. There are certain design approaches that are simply more accessible for exactly the reasons you mentioned. It is much easier to get in to a "shooter" than the typical RPGs based on stats like in the old Fallouts and similar games. And this will influence the whole design process. Not just the way how skills work. When you never have to worry about skill checks than you can never fail in a conversation with NPCs, it comes down to just the choices and in many cases binary choices. As much as I love the Witcher 3 the game really offers you for most situations 2 or 3 paths, do you ask the Rebells or the Order of the flaming rose for support? Do you work with the Witch or the Villagers? The dialog and the outcome changes, which character survives, which one dies etc. But it limits the role playing that is available to you. Characters with high whisdom would deal with situations differently compared to characters with high inteligence. It was not just a dumb stat where one is only important for clerics and the other for mages.

I think I do agree with you there though. A binary path is a rather bland one. A good skill system should reflect that as well. You could keep a point based skill system, but if it opens itself to manipulation (save & load scumming) then it has a flaw. It might not be a fatal flaw, but it's a flaw nonetheless. Without penalty or a real cost for failure, the reward looses it's appeal. A skill system is there to act as the gateway to a choice and maybe its a random chance modified by a skill % or it's based on a primary stat like SPECIAL, but either way it's just a barrier to be overcome. Randomness can be used as a way to determine access, but I think that relying upon a set barrier condition would make players feel more in control and more part of the game. A high wisdom should lead down a different path then a high intelligence or a high charisma. Whatever it's form, the choice to put 50% or 4 ranks, or to by the perks should act as a way for players to feel that they have made a solid contribution, or made a real impact with their choice. And that comes down to the level of work and detail the development team is willing to put into a game. New Vegas had more work, detail and hell, let's be honest here, love than 3 did and it showed. You can take a system that relies on binary options and then layer them until the result feels like real choice and like an actual RPG. But it takes time, effort and dedication.

When I write about "is this needed" or "what does this do", I think I'm trying to get that idea across. A skill that the player can invest in, but that in no way impacts the game world or does so in a very minimal way is one that I think any designer should look at and question. Bethesda does have a history of trying to find what works and what doesn't, and the result is not always that great to say the least. Look at the evolution of weapon skills in TES games. In Morrowind (didn't play any earlier so can't use them as examples) they had 5 melee weapon skills. Then they simplified them down into bladed weapons and blunt weapons, and finally in Skyrim into one-handed and two-handed. As a player I liked the simplifying as it mean't I could actually use more of the weapons, but I don't think that simplification was really needed. Having multiple weapon skills didn't take away anything from the game, so the change felt odd.

 

[Alleged Girl #9]

I like how 1 is the new baseline for average.

Because hey, we don't want the player to feel as if they could be bad at anything.

Seriously? That sounds awful.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I like how 1 is the new baseline for average.

Because hey, we don't want the player to feel as if they could be bad at anything.

Seriously? That sounds awful.

No it doesn't... because you can't be awful anymore!

 

[MercenarySnake]

I like how 1 is the new baseline for average.

Because hey, we don't want the player to feel as if they could be bad at anything.

Seriously? That sounds awful.

No it doesn't... because you can't be awful anymore!

Yeah awful just ain't in generic protagonist's nature. Plus don't forget his immortal dog that can NEVER die!

 

[Crni Vuk]

Regarding immersion, perhaps gaming jargon is getting in the way of what I'm trying to mean. By immersion I'm not trying to describe the "you think you're in the game" style buzzword that's popular in PR. Instead I mean the more literal definition of the word, to be deeply mentally involved. You can become immersed in a book, in a fighting game or even in minesweeper. So when playing a game I think of immersion as that moment when you become focused in on what you're doing and seeing. So a immersion breaking mechanic would be something that just tears you out of that zone. A mechanic that so breaks from the general flow of gameplay that it's frustratingly distracting. In an RPG the aim is to make you care about the character, the story and the world. But even the old FPS dungeon delving RPG's that were nothing but static images of hallways tried to immerse you in their gameplay.

Yup. I do get you. And I alrady told you that for me F1/2, Baldurs Gate, Jagged Alliance, Planescape Torment and a few other games have been IMMERSIVE for exactly that reason. What is an immersion breaking mechanic? I would guess that can be very different for a lot of people. Just recently I was arguing with some how Beths games are ... not good RPGs. It doesn't seem to bother those people that the game contains a lot of nonsensical writing and dialog options. This is what breaks immersion for me - but I am not so ignorant to believe that other people don't have different standards. And not the fact that the game I play has percentage based skills working in the background. Because I know that those are just abstractions of the game world. To show that there are people, characters, NPCs with proficiences, that you have to be a smooth-talker kind of guy to actually talk your way out of things and not a situation where every schmock can avoid combat because you can not fail in conversations. And this shows the roots of the system, where it originally came from. What if I told you that in PnP games like a Dungeons and Dragons session you can not give answers to question that YOUR characte doesn't know. Fighting a Hydra is fun when your character doesn't know that fire is the way stop it, but you do.

The hydra was ranked tenth among the ten best mid-level monsters by the authors of Dungeons & Dragons For Dummies. The authors noted that, within the game, a hydra "rewards a special tactic", that is chopping off its heads, and having another character seal the stumps with fire to prevent its heads from regrowing
​

Players playing a character with knowledge in lore, high inteligence etc. would eventually know this. Or they would get a bonus to such situations. Simply becaus they have just like people in realife the necessary background to eventually know such things. Is that breaking immersion? No. It's called playing a role. In a game like Witcher or Mass Effect your hero is playing ONE role, Gerald is always acting as a Witcher. And thus he never fails in conversations. You just chose what group/NPC to support. I like both approaches. But neither of them is better than the other. They have different principles in mind. And this is supported by the choice in perspective, if you make a game mainly in first person/third person perspective or from a top down view.

I will say this again - and I DO understand what you mean with immersion - it is up to your own perspective. For me F1 and F2 are immersive. For you not. Fair enough!

I think I do agree with you there though. A binary path is a rather bland one. A good skill system should reflect that as well. You could keep a point based skill system, but if it opens itself to manipulation (save & load scumming) then it has a flaw. It might not be a fatal flaw, but it's a flaw nonetheless.

A fair point. I guess. But really, that was never ever a big problem for me in any of the games I mentioned. Definitely not in F1 and definetly not in Vegas. Do I reload sometimes? Sure I do, when the chance is 50% to success or fail. But it doesn't happen so frequently that it bothers me. And I don't see it as a flaw. Fallout 1 and 2 definetly reward you enough for specialisation. Because in many cases reloading isn't an option. But that is just my opinion and I respect the idea that it eventually needs improvements. I mean I would not mind improvements here! But, is it really worth all that trouble? The system we are talking about has proven it self countless of times, considering where it is coming from. So there is at least no reason to throw it away altogether - which I think you agree with. But this is what companies like Bethesda usually understand under "improvements" to a skill based System like Fallout 1/2 used. And it also happend with their own franchise even, the Elder Scrolls. Because people had issues with save-load-scumming and quest-relevant NCPs, they simply got rid of it alltogether by making them immortal. And removing a lot of debth along the way ...

Gosh I love this video sooo much. I wish someone would make one about Fallout 3 and 4.

 

[Tagaziel]

I actually don't have a problem with the change. I thought I might miss skills, but it's basically switching to a more Arcanum-style character development system.

 

[Radiosity]

I like how 1 is the new baseline for average.

Because hey, we don't want the player to feel as if they could be bad at anything.

Seriously? That sounds awful.

No it doesn't... because you can't be awful anymore!

Yeah awful just ain't in generic protagonist's nature. Plus don't forget his immortal dog that can NEVER die!

... know what I'm going to try (on the off chance I even buy it)? A run where I'm not allowed to kill anything myself. The dog has to do it. And I can guarantee this is probably entirely possible since Doggie Can't Die. Only potential problem would be enemies in locations the dog might not be able to reach.

Sad that the only way to get a challenge from a Beth game is to intentionally hamstring yourself with silly challenges.