Fallout 4 may not contain a skill system

If SPECIAL can survive on a 1-10 point scale, then so can Small Guns and Medicine. From what I've seen, the perk system will basically function like this. As PossibleCabbage said, the difference between 60 and 70 sneak isn't a huge one, and you aren't going to lose much by having the same difference, only between the 6th and 7th perks in the sneak tree.

No problem with melee damage being scaled with melee weapons skill, that makes sense. If they get rid of insane damage scaling based on skill for guns, and replace it with greatly increased gun sway at lower levels of skill, I'll be happy.

Basically, since there are plenty of mechanically deep tabletop games that get by with 5, 10, or 20 point scales (or any number less than 100 point) scale for your competence in the various skills, that having skills on a less than 100 point scale in a video game doesn't mean you're giving up something sacred or incredibly valuable.

The reason a 100 point scale is used in tabletop games (which is probably why it's in Fallout to begin with) is "roll d100, and see if you get less than the number" is really quick, simple, and easy to do. Something like "add your skill to your attribute plus modifiers, and roll that many dice and compare them against a target number" is every bit as valid, but it's something that takes a lot longer for humans to do. For computers though, "rolling dice, adding, subtracting, and comparing numbers" is nearly instantaneous though so you lose very little that way.

Not all simplifications of a system are bad, since sometimes there are bad or inefficient rules. If your game had DT be something you rolled for, instead of a static value, making it into a static value would be a reasonable simplification.
 
The reason a 100 point scale is used in tabletop games (which is probably why it's in Fallout to begin with) is "roll d100, and see if you get less than the number" is really quick, simple, and easy to do.
That's just 1 part of the equation. There's more to it than that.

Think of skill points as currency. If there's less of it, the currency must be quite valuable. This is where the aforementioned "difference between 65 and 70" would come into the picture. That 5 points wasn't very valuable in those games. But in a 100 point scaling (300, actually) the disparity was much more pronounced if you were off by a few points. Each roll of the invisible d100 was critical, so every point was precious. More importantly, in a system where stat points had to govern the relationship between your abilities and your capacity for growth, a likewise "currency" system was necessary to establish how your character could progress. Compare the HP formulas from the original games and the modern games; they're completely different formulas. The originals place an emphasis on your SPECIAL stats determining your HP (and everything else), meanwhile the modern games place no emphasis at all on your SPECIAL stats. Under the original system, with every point being precious, 1 HP could mean the difference between life or death during a single combat round. So it also was the case with your skill points. Each was precious.

If the system was revamped and a different number of points were around AND their relative value was kept intact, then all would be well. The problem is when their value does not match their abundance. See FO3 and FONV for an example of what happens when skill points and their value don't match. Too many skill points, not enough purpose, all skills maxed, boring character progression, etc.

If it's 5, 10, 20, 100, or 300, all that matters is that the SYSTEM as a whole works. One tiny alteration is irrelevant in the face of the entirety of the game.
 
When i saw it being announced, i couldn't believe there could be a game where you can adventure in a big, beautiful world with other people.
Uh... WOW came out AT THE END of the MMO Golden Age... EQ had been out for almost a decade at that point. EQ2 was out. The Star Wars MMO was out. COH was out. L2 was out. The FF MMO was out. MMOs had been a thing for a long time by the time WOW came out. So if WOW was the first you'd heard of being able to journey in a vast and seamless world and interact with hundreds+ of other players who all existed on one game world simultaneously, then... you missed the MMO train, I guess. XD

I got my first pc 10 months before wow came out, and an internet connection 6 months before it. Before that, all the games i knew were the ones installed at an internet caffe near me. The only mmo i knew, was L2... Coincidentally i knew it was shit, while wow, made me go - "wow"! All mmos are shit to me know, but i still remember wow with fondness.
 
Personally, the only part of the Elder Scrolls that should end up in Fallout is how skill points are gained. Comparing how you gained points in Oblivion compared to Fallout 3 it was easier and more natural in Oblivion. Granted that game had its own issues, that's not my point. It makes sense that if I use small guns, that skill increases with use. Its slower, but I don't have to allocate a finite number of skill points. It does grind on for a while, but that forced me to explore Cyrodiil and it had a worth while map to explore, given when the game was made. I was not a fan of choosing 10 health, magic or stamina points at level up, oh well one step forward off a cliff. Thanks Skyrim.
 
Oh please no, leave that skill proression system in TES, not more poison to Fallout, it's bad enough as it is now....
 
Personally, the only part of the Elder Scrolls that should end up in Fallout is how skill points are gained. Comparing how you gained points in Oblivion compared to Fallout 3 it was easier and more natural in Oblivion. Granted that game had its own issues, that's not my point. It makes sense that if I use small guns, that skill increases with use. Its slower, but I don't have to allocate a finite number of skill points. It does grind on for a while, but that forced me to explore Cyrodiil and it had a worth while map to explore, given when the game was made. I was not a fan of choosing 10 health, magic or stamina points at level up, oh well one step forward off a cliff. Thanks Skyrim.

While it does make sense, it takes a lot of strategy and planning off the game. Also, it forces you a certain kind of characters, for the simple reason that you are always more likely to use combat skills in these kind of game, SPECIALLY in the way Beth does them. It also tends to a self-fulfilling prophecy if you think a bit about it: the way your character starts will almost necessarily be the way it ends, no second thoughts. You created a stealth character? It will be stealth focused 'til the day it dies! Why? Because you'll be using that skill much more, because you can't rely on the other skills. I don't say it's objectively bad for role-playing, but I certainly prefer the flexibility of choosing which skills to improve.
 
What did the old fan base expect when Fallout 3 was launched, Fallout with Civ 5 graphics? Games have been largely heading in the TES direction for years. I'm not implying that's Bethesda's doing, but the market for modern games to day prize TES like features. A game like Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics wouldn't be as viable if they were released today. I could live with some better writing. Writing could can save a game even when the graphics are crap and the game glitches a lot.
 
What did the old fan base expect when Fallout 3 was launched, Fallout with Civ 5 graphics? Games have been largely heading in the TES direction for years. I'm not implying that's Bethesda's doing, but the market for modern games to day prize TES like features. A game like Fallout, Fallout 2 and Fallout Tactics wouldn't be as viable if they were released today. I could live with some better writing. Writing could can save a game even when the graphics are crap and the game glitches a lot.
that's because the modern generation of gamers have the attention span and critical analysis of a gnat. I'm pretty sure you could release Monkey Shitting Simulator 2016 and with good marketing it'd still get 6/10. The only reason people even vaguely listen to more critical/self aware online game critics is if they insert a shit ton of humour and cult appeal into their articles/videos a-la Zero Punctuation. The whole culture is 10-20 years behind every other art form. Only recently The Stanley Parable is released and the very fact it wasn't repeatedly given shit for parrotting an old, overdone idea only goes to show that it as a medium is only just exploring modern philosophical ideas in any thorough mainstream fashion, as opposed to other mediums which banged that drum decades ago. (not to say TSP isn't good, it's very good, but it is older hat than a pre-war business hat worn by mr house himself)
 
Last edited:
The whole CONCEPT of skill points at level up is the idea that you have spent time learning, and now (rather arbitrarily) you will see the fruit bore from that time and effort. Putting points into Small Guns versus the skill going up as you use it means that you're simulating (read: ROLE PLAYING) the act of learning a skill, versus simulating (read: simulating) a process and enforcing a grind on players. The rewards of leveling up come as a consequence of you playing the game; talking to people, asking around, offering help, getting into fights- WHATEVER. You're playing this ROLE PLAYING GAME, assuming the ROLE of your character, and going through the steps as if you are actually them. The closer the system gets you to simply going about your business as that character, the better of a job it has succeeded at of being a ROLE PLAYING GAME. There is no value in role playing of going out and firing your gun as much as possible. People don't do that. Just think: In a post apocalyptic world, a cut-throat place where survival is everything, and resources are scarce, WHY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD would you deem it a good idea to go outside and just pick fights (or worse, just fire off as many shots as possible)? It doesn't make any sense.

When you move from one system to the other for the same of "more logic", you're actively abandoning the logic of the game it comprises. Yes, we as human beings don't suddenly become minutely more proficient at skills in regular intervals. Yes, we practice and we practice and we get better at a thing as we practice. But then THAT would be the role you'd play if you wanted to play our CURRENT, daily lives. These games just aren't that. We're not role playing guy who wakes up and 5 days out of the week has nothing to do so he spends his time watching TV or deciding it's about time he sat down at his computer and drew some pictures an hour a day while listening to nightcore. We're role playing a survivor in the harsh environment of a post apocalypse (or a knight in a dangerous medieval realm, or a little girl journeying into his surreal dreams, or whatever) and that entails going through this story. That doesn't entail tedium and grinding and repetitious, pointless "makes more logical sense" boredom.

Every time you give a little something, you have taken something else. You have to keep that in mind.

EDIT:

In regards to the IMMEDIATELY above 2 posts... you're both wrong. Games have not been progressing into a "more like TES" direction over the years because they sell better or are better, nor have they been doing so because players have somehow regressed and become dumber over the past decade. They've done so, again, because of observed market trends, and clueless CEOs attempting to replicate golden gooses, which doesn't work.

Were either of you awake and cognizant at the beginning of the 90s? Back then, games were VERY diverse. Then Wolf3D came out and it was a huge hit, because it was different. More games began replicating it because they wanted to enjoy that same success. BUT do we ever hear about Nitemare 3D at all (which I've played)? No. Then Doom came out (same peeps behind W3D) and it was a MASSIVE hit, and suddenly we started seeing MORE copies of this burgeoning genre. Do we ever hear the term "Hexen Clone" thrown around? No. Tons of games were made based off of replicating a successful game's format, and they didn't succeed because that's NOT how art works. But publishers think that's how you do it, so they've been doing that this whole time. THAT'S why more and more RPGs are moving away from being RPGs and more towards being shooters. Not because it works, not because people want it that way, not because people are so stupid that they accept it easily without critical thought. It happens because the orders are given down from up on high, and those orders have to be followed.

In short: A game gathers a HUGE audience because a specific freak set of criteria happened to be met at a specific freak event time and it became a success, so publishers THINK if they just repeat those circumstances, somehow they'll repeat the same success. It just doesn't work that way.
 
Last edited:
Personally, the only part of the Elder Scrolls that should end up in Fallout is how skill points are gained. Comparing how you gained points in Oblivion compared to Fallout 3 it was easier and more natural in Oblivion. Granted that game had its own issues, that's not my point. It makes sense that if I use small guns, that skill increases with use. Its slower, but I don't have to allocate a finite number of skill points. It does grind on for a while, but that forced me to explore Cyrodiil and it had a worth while map to explore, given when the game was made. I was not a fan of choosing 10 health, magic or stamina points at level up, oh well one step forward off a cliff. Thanks Skyrim.

There are two problems with this approach. One, XP in Fallout games tends to come more from completing quests than using skills; you gain some from combat, lockpicking etc, but most of your leveling is done by completing quests. This makes sense because it's assumed you'll be using your favored skills during completion of those quests so you can allocate points to whatever skills you want because you'll be using them anyway, though in more varied ways. Two, the system itself is far from perfect in either game. Oblivion has a completely obtuse skill mechanics coupled with the level scaling fluff. Unless you strictly follow a guide like the one from UESP, you could quickly fuck up your game completely. That is, if you played the game like a normal person, and chose as major skills the ones you used most often, you'd get shitty stat gains and fall behind as the world leveled around you. To get the most out of each level, you had to choose as majors the skills you would use least. Want to play a stealthy archer thief? Better major in Blunt Weapons, Conjuration Magic, and Heavy Armor. And of course, if you figured this part out yourself, and decided to make sure all your majors would be unwanted, you'd later realize that minor skills accrued points more slowly. Because you never used your major skills in the course of normal gameplay, it would take ages to gain any levels at all, and you'd have to send your mage enchanter to bareknuckle boxing camp just so he could gain those last couple points in Block and Hand to Hand. It was all about striking just the right balance of real majors and fake majors, to level slowly when you needed bonus credits, and quickly when you didn't.

None of it worked, to the point the very first mods released for this game were attempts to fix it. Leveling enemies alongside you isn't the problem by itself, but when my level 30 warrior is getting completely creamed in fight with trash mobs when he's got end game equipment and top points in every combat stat he uses, something is wrong. The way it worked in the base game, it meant that every leveling choice from the beginning of the game had to be perfect, otherwise the enemies level up faster than you and leveling up actually makes you weaker.

Now compared to the nightmare that was Oblivion's skill system, Skyrim did a good job, but it was still broken to the core. This is a system where you can level to 100 by making 3 million iron daggers, but not receive much XP by completing important quests or dungeons. Both the Fallout and the Skyrim system have their pros and cons but it's fairly clear to me the Fallout games have a completely appropriate system for their style.
 
Now compared to the nightmare that was Oblivion's skill system, Skyrim did a good job, but it was still broken to the core. This is a system where you can level to 100 by making 3 million iron daggers, but not receive much XP by completing important quests or dungeons. Both the Fallout and the Skyrim system have their pros and cons but it's fairly clear to me the Fallout games have a completely appropriate system for their style.

Simply put having advancement tied to using your skills means that most everything meaningful that happens in your game is going to use only the verbs associated with those skills. So you've basically trivialized every activity that doesn't use those verbs or give you loot. If you want to have a game that's just about combat, crafting, and sneaking then this is a workable approach, but for Fallout there have always been a lot of minor quests that aren't great challenges or promise great rewards, but contribute flavor and characterization to the world or just offer you an opportunity to roleplay.

So with an Elder Scrolls-esque advancement system you really wouldn't have quests like "recruit acts for the Tops" or "Refuel Whiskey Bob's Still". You'd also have to tinker with advancement rates so that the clever or diplomatic skill advance fast enough in relation to the combat skills when your quest has an option to conclude either way (like in New Vegas "Bye Bye Love" can be finished with no combat if you pass conversation checks, and "How Little We Know" can be done by killing only the bosses, and these are major quests.) There's also the issue where sometimes the special solutions to quests aren't tied to skills at all, but to attributes. So if you use INT 8+ to convince Silus that you're an agent of the Legion, what skill do you get ranks in?
 
@SnapSlav -
In regards to the IMMEDIATELY above 2 posts... you're both wrong. Games have not been progressing into a "more like TES" direction over the years because they sell better or are better, nor have they been doing so because players have somehow regressed and become dumber over the past decade. They've done so, again, because of observed market trends, and clueless CEOs attempting to replicate golden gooses, which doesn't work.
Well, they must be selling quite well and considered good game, because the market feeds it and the developers continue. And it's not that they players are dumber, it's that the culture and market surrounding them has had a considerable lowering of general quality, thus making them less critical.

I was referring the last 5-10 years, not pre-90s, and even then, someone born in 1990 may still not have experienced too many of those. Yes, they've taken the best (well, most immediately accessible) elements of many older games and then, for the most part simplified it to appeal the the lowest common denominator, and I'd argue this has happened to the TES series if you watch how they've changed over the years, a very clear decline in depth and difficulty existing until 'normal' mode is easier than Fallout's 'wimpy'. Not to say Skyrim is as braindead as CoD, but it is very noticeable for one series. Thing is, like I said, when it comes to players thing, the market is also driven by the culture that surrounds it to a degree, and the medium is also reflected by the culture that surrounds it. As a result, the modern gamer is largely historically blind; usually only interested in the same, repetitive, generic fun, where entertainment and pretty graphics vastly supercedes creativity and the bar is so much lower yadda yadda yadda, and that's because developers didn't just copy for shits and giggles, they did it because they knew it'd sell and they pandered to certain audiences. And as I said, it's far behind the ideas peddled by other mediums, for the most part. Not to say it's all awful, there are plenty of good modern games, but as a whole the modern gamer is conditioned to and generally enjoys a very, very low bar of quality where all the sharp edges that older games often had are shaved off in the name of appealing to the largest audience, and the ones that keep them usually develop a sort of cult appeal. Hell, Alien Isolation was considered a failure by the developer even though it was one of the best games made that year, and it's because nowadays the welcoming of a challenge is usually reserved to the sort of people who like Dark Souls. I'm pretty sure that if you showed a fan of Bioshock it's predecessors many of them would get extremely frustrated by it.
 
I've been saying this for years... Bethesda should take a cue from "Reign Of Fire" film's universe and merge Fallout and Elder Scrolls franchises into one. Post-apocalyptic dragons.

It is not my kind of game, but it would be a very Bethesdurr thing to do.
 
I will be very disappoint if they remove the skill system. Come on, we all want this. Yeah it does not make sense to magically put 20 point in Energy Weapons skill and to be good at it, without even touch a Laser Pistol but WHO CARES? Also, already fight for this skill you've been near dead at least 10 times to get this so need it 1000 xp point to gain up a level. I will like to have this kind of fight to improve mechanic. But it needs to be done right. Also if there is no skill? Will this be RPG game? or FPS with little to NONE character development ? Yes will not be Fallout 1 and 2 and is not supposed to be but at least I pray Bathesta will not screw this game. Skyrim is amazing game. I dont believe that F4 will be Skyrim with guns. My point is , if F4 has no skill point in my opinion will be dumped down . :|
 
I will be very disappoint if they remove the skill system. Come on, we all want this. Yeah it does not make sense to magically put 20 point in Energy Weapons skill and to be good at it, without even touch a Laser Pistol but WHO CARES? Also, already fight for this skill you've been near dead at least 10 times to get this so need it 1000 xp point to gain up a level. I will like to have this kind of fight to improve mechanic. But it needs to be done right. Also if there is no skill? Will this be RPG game? or FPS with little to NONE character development ? Yes will not be Fallout 1 and 2 and is not supposed to be but at least I pray Bathesta will not screw this game. Skyrim is amazing game. I dont believe that F4 will be Skyrim with guns. My point is , if F4 has no skill point in my opinion will be dumped down . :|
They confirmed it, it's not. The Bethesda fans are cheering, of course because 'Heil Howard'. Bethesda can never do wrong, in their opinion. No use fighting it, all we can really do is sit and watch.
 
Believe it or not, some Bethesda fans think a rpg is a graphic japanese novel and that first fallout games were not rpgs.
 
I will be very disappoint if they remove the skill system. Come on, we all want this. Yeah it does not make sense to magically put 20 point in Energy Weapons skill and to be good at it, without even touch a Laser Pistol but WHO CARES? Also, already fight for this skill you've been near dead at least 10 times to get this so need it 1000 xp point to gain up a level. I will like to have this kind of fight to improve mechanic. But it needs to be done right. Also if there is no skill? Will this be RPG game? or FPS with little to NONE character development ? Yes will not be Fallout 1 and 2 and is not supposed to be but at least I pray Bathesta will not screw this game. Skyrim is amazing game. I dont believe that F4 will be Skyrim with guns. My point is , if F4 has no skill point in my opinion will be dumped down . :|
They confirmed it, it's not. The Bethesda fans are cheering, of course because 'Heil Howard'. Bethesda can never do wrong, in their opinion. No use fighting it, all we can really do is sit and watch.

I have seen Bethesda fans that are upset about it even over in the Bethesda forums, but you are right - the vast majority will hail Fallout 4 as the second coming of Christ.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top