Fallout 4’s Character System

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

Nothing concrete, from a PR monkey.

You are right, the director of the game doesn't know what its own game actually is like. I'd understand skepticism if he said that the game is 100% designed to be beaten without violence but why would he lie about a missing feature?

These perks are hilarious:
*snip*

So first of all, why does the "no chance to get addicted to alcohol" perk have three levels? There doesn't seem to be that much depth to that concept; I suppose maybe the next level affects harder drugs but three?

Also, they've nerfed Animal Friend... I have no words.

Well, in FO3 you had the "no addiction" perk while in New Vegas you had a perk that gave alcoholic beverages healing properties, and one that gave extra DT.

I assume by "pacify" they mean "it won't attack you". So the new Animal Friend (at level 1) works by:
- point a gun at a single animal, then if they're lower level then you, maybe they will become non-hostile.

Contrast the old Animal Friend perk, which at level 1 has the effect:
- animals won't attack you unless you attack them first.

So they've nerfed Animal Friend of all things.

If the Intimidation Perk is any indication at level 2 you can command the animal to attack someone else and at level 3 you can give them more specific orders. If it really works like that the "aim your gun" part is kind of needed for it to work.

Yeah, a "point a weapon at someone and they have a chance of becoming non-hostile" would be an interesting perk when applied to humans

There is.

 

[GarouxBloodline]

Nothing concrete, from a PR monkey.

You are right, the director of the game doesn't know what its own game actually is like. I'd understand skepticism if he said that the game is 100% designed to be beaten without violence but why would he lie about a missing feature?

Putting words into my mouth - I appreciate that. You will notice that I never stated that Todd Howard does not know nor understand; I specifically made the observation that nothing he said was concrete (which is typical of Bethesda/Zenimax PR). And while Howard does have a reputation for lying (big time during Skyrim's production), I am not all that inclined to seriously get into that tract of discussion.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

What do you mean with "not concrete" exactly? What kind of misunderstanding there can be on the subject of a pacific build? There are pacific options but they haven't designed the game around it, so if a 100% pacific build is viable is purely incidental. What could he be lying about? Why would he lie about it? This isn't a selling point like Radiant AI.

 

[Mohamed2001]

This isn't a selling point like Radiant AI.

Meh, wouldn't say that really.. it is one for the hardcore shooter people.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I'm going to repeat myself, but such system makes much more sense for the real-time FPS game. They got rid of the skills, which they haven't been utilizing properly. Such games are more dependent on the players skills than on nnumbers. You can reduce damage made by a gun if the character has like 10% gun skill, but it doesn't affect the gameplay much. If the player is good at shooters, he will only be irritated by having to shoot more bullets at the target. You can add some more bullet spread too, but that also will only add frustrarion for trigger-happy guys. And Bethesda is aiming to create a FUN game. The system, which only rewards players for levelling up, not punishes them for being low level makes more sense in such a paradigm.

Don't get me wrong, I hate what Bethesda turned Fallout into. But this is one of the best things they did to their game (let me stress: THEIR game). They just stopped hanging on the things that don't work in their games just for the sake of legacy (yeah, Bethesda, legacy, sounds pretty much like a joke). That's not a Fallout game as we know it, it's just a different game. Action game with RPG elements with Fallout logo and some familiar fiction.

I see what you mean and I agree. Basically they stopped pretending at being good at real Fallout depth RPGs and have just decided to dumb it down, like how they know it. If anything the combat and house building will be fun but the actual role playing elements shallow and stupid. The only thing that keeps up the illusion of depth are their fan base.

 

[thenightgaunt]

What do you mean with "not concrete" exactly? What kind of misunderstanding there can be on the subject of a pacific build? There are pacific options but they haven't designed the game around it, so if a 100% pacific build is viable is purely incidental. What could he be lying about? Why would he lie about it? This isn't a selling point like Radiant AI.

I think the intent of GarouxBloodline's statement, please correct me if I'm wrong, was more akin to "you can't trust a salesman". Howard's role in these videos and announcements isn't to show us how the game will really be, but to get the PR machine up to speed and get the customers hyped so that they'll buy the game the moment it's out. It could be the most bug-free, perfect Fallout game ever and they'd still want to get everyone riled up and ready to buy.

So he's going to gloss over issues he knows about, and focus on the parts that they know shine. The trailer video showed off key locations, action filled battles, settlement building and the dog companion. It didn't show clipping bugs, long boring spots where you wander the wasteland and nothing happens, or boring inventory management. That's PR. You can believe a salesman, you can like him as a person, but a salesman's job is to sale you the product, be it a gem or a pile of crap.

And Todd Howard has enough people online who question his honesty after his claims that it became a bit of a joke.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, they did it with Oblivion, they did it with Fallout 3 and with Skyrim. They always promise more than what the game really offers in the end. Like you said. They are salesman.

 

[13pm]

There is a confirmed perk called Lone Wanderer, where you gain extra damage resistance and carry weight so long as you do not have a companion. So my educated guess is that none of the companions are mandatory - at least, not permanently.

I just noticed -- this perk is actually related to charisma stat. So you bump up your charisma to have a bonus for not having companions. Makes perfect sense.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

There is a confirmed perk called Lone Wanderer, where you gain extra damage resistance and carry weight so long as you do not have a companion. So my educated guess is that none of the companions are mandatory - at least, not permanently.

I just noticed -- this perk is actually related to charisma stat. So you bump up your charisma to have a bonus for not having companions. Makes perfect sense.

The "Charismatic lone drifter wanders into town" is a trope in Western (i.e. Cowboys, not "things made in the West") cinema. So it's not completely nonsensical.

 

[13pm]

The "Charismatic lone drifter wanders into town" is a trope in Western (i.e. Cowboys, not "things made in the West") cinema. So it's not completely nonsensical.

Yeah, I thought of that too.
It's just the memories of the Fallout 2 where the high charisma allowed you to have more companions.

 

[Stanislao Moulinsky]

I think the intent of GarouxBloodline's statement, please correct me if I'm wrong, was more akin to "you can't trust a salesman". Howard's role in these videos and announcements isn't to show us how the game will really be, but to get the PR machine up to speed and get the customers hyped so that they'll buy the game the moment it's out. It could be the most bug-free, perfect Fallout game ever and they'd still want to get everyone riled up and ready to buy.

So he's going to gloss over issues he knows about, and focus on the parts that they know shine. The trailer video showed off key locations, action filled battles, settlement building and the dog companion. It didn't show clipping bugs, long boring spots where you wander the wasteland and nothing happens, or boring inventory management. That's PR. You can believe a salesman, you can like him as a person, but a salesman's job is to sale you the product, be it a gem or a pile of crap.

And Todd Howard has enough people online who question his honesty after his claims that it became a bit of a joke.

I understand that, but skepticism is warranted when a PR spokeperson talks of positive things like "characters have life-like AI" or "the twist of this story will blow your mind" or "we made the game more accessible but it's just as deep as the previous games". Not for partially negative things like "there are pacifist options but I'm not sure you can go the whole game without violence". What is the salesman trying to sell here?

 

[No Man]

Shit, we'll be looking back at FO3 as the 'good old days' soon, won't we?

 

[Practicat]

I'm expecting it to be looked on as another blunder by Bethesda at Fallout after Fallout 3.

I was surprised by the removal of traits again. All they have to do is confirm no ammo types, only damage resistance, and this game is fucked.

 

[Dr Fallout]

I'm expecting it to be looked on as another blunder by Bethesda at Fallout after Fallout 3.

I was surprised by the removal of traits again. All they have to do is confirm no ammo types, only damage resistance, and this game is fucked.

It was fucked the first time they showed it around. Invincible companions, no skills, dump stats, etc...

 

[Eternal]

The removal of traits is weird and bad.

I kind of get streamlining skills but it doesn't feel good how they did it. Like FO1 and 2 had some clearly unneeded skills that could have been combined into one. Like First Aid and Doctor. They did serve some different purposes but really it could have been one skill. I think Obsidian actually nailed it in New Vegas in terms of how they streamlined skills.

I agree with everyone that turning skills into perks doesn't feel right. It feels like a backwards step. Like I think I could get behind having a couple special perks that automatically unlock when you reach a certain skill level, not perks you actually select every 2 levels but a perk specifically attached to a skill. Like automatically getting one or two really basic perks attached to reaching a skill level such as Lead Belly if you get Survival up to ~60% or getting Plasma Spazz if you get energy weapons up to 75%. But stuff that can really make your character feel unique and different and doesn't feel excessively tied to a specific skill or aren't skills that specifically are always good to have should remain a perk reward you select every two levels. Skills like Solar Powered, Meltdown, Better Criticals, Night Person, or Toughness. These skills don't really feel like they'd be a natural progression of a specific skill and help you define your character.

One thing I kind of always wished was that they'd tweak the importance of Intelligence so that having low or average int isn't such a clear hamstringing of your characters development due to the skill upgrade difference. Bigger bonuses on level up for specific skills based on your other stats while lowering the skill bonus on int would have been nice. Like having a high charisma could up barter/speech noticeably on level up rather than having high int and simply using half your additional skill points in barter/speech and having extra skill points to distribute still. Still make having high int valuable but rebalancing it compared to other stats. That's just my opinion though.

Not having a level cap feels weird since it lets you essentially play out a power fantasy where you have every possible thing and decisions are meaningless when developing your character. However power fantasy type design has always been Bethesda's shtick, they don't tend to challenge their players mentally, emotionally or in skill oriented ways. That's something else New Vegas did way better.

Overall I think this is an interesting concept but it's messy and a noticeable step backwards. It could have worked but it removes a lot of the ability to create an actual unique character and removes some of the fun and interesting aspects of the game mechanics.

 

[MaulYoda]

What I liked about Fallout - even Fallout 3 - was that there weren't any real classes. Sure, SPECIAL was more set in stone, but you could make a smooth-talking idiot or a gunslinger handy with a lock pick or any sort of combination you wanted. Fallout 4 looks too confining, because you have to focus on one branch mostly at the expense of others if you want to get anywhere (and play the game a normal amount, because an unlimited level cap means you can technically get every perk). So you can be a strength person, an intelligence person, etc., but it seems like character classes. I don't want character classes in Fallout. Not to mention that I now have to choose skills as perks (which I've known for a while). Some may call those "hard choices." I call that way too confining.

Bethesda did this to create some balance and get around the unlimited level cap. But why not implement even a Skyrim-type system instead of this mess, or why not have the skills go up to 200 or something like in Fallout 1 and 2 and just dole out fewer skill points per level?

To be fair, I'm sure Fallout 4 will still be fun and I'll dump enough hours into the game to get every perk and so none of this will matter. The perk system might pan out better than I thought (at least it's non-linear unlike Skyrim), and some of the perks might actually be creative. But thus far, I'm skeptical. It's such a shame after New Vegas did so well putting the RPG elements back in Fallout, and it's even a step below 3.

 

[Dr Fallout]

Skyrim's character system was pure bull shit. It was boring, linear and overall terrible. Balance? More like becoming over powered in everything...

 

[MercenarySnake]

Skyrim's character system was pure bull shit. It was boring, linear and overall terrible. Balance? More like becoming over powered in everything...

Most perks sucked and a ton were percentage based. Speech and lockpicking trees were really useless(no useful speech options and you could have 1 in lockpicking and pick a master lock without perks) so what does that say about Fallout 4?

 

[Filterfi]

No lvl cap is a good thing. Modern open world RPGs should have either respec or no skill/lvl cap. About the immortal companions, after they get to "disabled" status in fight just take them to some remote location and leave them there. The action of dealing with companions is switched from reloading last save and pretending that they didn't die to leaving them aside and pretending that they did. Improvement for some, not so much for others. It's a personal preference thing.

 

[MaulYoda]

Skyrim's character system was pure bull shit. It was boring, linear and overall terrible. Balance? More like becoming over powered in everything...

I never said it was that great, but it seemed better than this. However, it did have a confining sense of balance. Unless you actively used a skill, it wouldn't level up, and that takes a ton of investment in the game. So no, I wouldn't say you could become "overpowered in everything" without substantial investment.