Fallout 76: E3 Trailer

[Gizmojunk]

games have always even in series where the developer is shared changed mechanics and styles. Some people view it as experimentation. What if deus ex one day become a XCOM like game? Would I care? If it was good then not really no. And settings can more less be used with absloutley needing to the same as before.

There is such a thing as the wrong kind of good. Altering Lemon Meringue Pie to taste like bacon does not make it a better lemon meringue pie —it makes it something utterly else; whether it tastes fantastic or not, doesn't matter... It doesn't taste like lemon meringue pie.

Altering Halo 6 to play like Halo Wars, or like Mario Kart —is not the right kind of good for a Halo sequel. Neither was altering Fallout to play like Oblivion. It doesn't matter if the resultant game was even considered superb—unmatched by the original... it's still the wrong game for the name; and needs a different one to distinguish it as a separate product apart from the series.
_________

Its the same problem with the 3 speech skills in wasteland. Its redundant and serves no purpose other than forcing over specialization. Why do we need 2 medical skills or 3 speech skills? What does it add?

I mentioned reasons in the post. Unlike FO3, in Fallout, the PC is limited to what they develop with the character, and developing the Doctor skill is their option if they want the option to cure advanced injuries... and if they don't want it, then they don't get that option; and have to seek reliable medical treatment for serious injuries. Basic First Aid, can be easily pushed to 91% at no cost to one's main specialty skills—but it's no substitute for the Doctor skill; (which itself cannot be advanced but at high cost to the development of one's other skills).

This goes for the other mentioned skills as well.

__________

You can spam [gambling] in casinos for almost infinite cash if its high enough. Thats why I called it cheating.

So did I.

 

[mef]

developing the Doctor skill is their option if they want the option to cure advanced injuries... and if they don't want it, then they don't get that option; and have to seek reliable medical treatment for serious injuries. Basic First Aid, can be easily pushed to 91% at no cost to one's main specialty skills—but it's no substitute for the Doctor skill; (which itself cannot be advanced but at high cost to the development of one's other skills).

it sounds good but actually this skill is hardly relevant in the game. let's be honest, fallout's system is not perfect, many skills and most perks are useless. sure, you may pick them for role-playing but the game shouldn't punish you for role-playing

 

[Cobra Commander]

I also don't like it. Unlike Fallout 3, members are almost never damaged in old games. And I remember the last time I played FO1, Ian broke both arms (getting into a fight was pretty funny, he kept running like a fag on the map screaming "I'm out of here") and I healed him with a first aid kit, although not have invested any point in doctor.

 

[Gizmojunk]

it sounds good but actually this skill is hardly relevant in the game. let's be honest, fallout's system is not perfect, many skills and most perks are useless. sure, you may pick them for role-playing but the game shouldn't punish you for role-playing

I thought it relevant; combat injuries aside, it also was used in dialog. I don't see what punishment you mean. I didn't see any useless skills. I did see that the Traps skill was under represented in the games, but where it was useful—it was useful, and not having it, meant not benefiting from its use.

The PC who could not disarm traps, could not interact silently with a trapped object. For instance, in Mr. Bishop's bedroom there is a trapped safe. If the PC just opens it, then it alerts the guards, and combat ensues. If however they can disarm it silently, they can rob the safe and possibly even leave the casino without combat; (requires sneaking).

I also don't like it. Unlike Fallout 3, members are almost never damaged in old games. And I remember the last time I played FO1, Ian broke both arms (getting into a fight was pretty funny, he kept running like a fag on the map screaming "I'm out of here") and I healed him with a first aid kit, although not have invested any point in doctor.

Healing him does not allow him to use weapons with crippled limbs. They are set to run when they cannot attack. Blinding also happens, and First Aid cannot help that either.

As for the First Aid Kit, and the Doctor's Bag—as well as the pliers, motion sensor, stealth-boy, and the lockpicks. These items grant a 20% skill bonus for using the appropriate tool for the job.

 

[mef]

I don't see what punishment you mean

by wanting to role-play properly you may invest in useless skills and pick useless perks, that's what i've meant

The PC who could not disarm traps, could not interact silently with a trapped object. For instance, in Mr. Bishop's bedroom there is a trapped safe.

okay, so we have that and doctor morbid's basement. so there are two instances (neither of them very important) where this skill may be useful. aside from that, there are a few places in the game where by having high traps skill the player can avoid getting hit for 9 hit points! a truly must-have

 

[Cobra Commander]

Nah. The only real use for the trap skill is to tag it along other stupid skills like steal and doctor, with the aim of interpreting the worst progonist in the history of the games.

 

[Sn1p3r187]

I thought it relevant; combat injuries aside, it also was used in dialog. I don't see what punishment you mean. I didn't see any useless skills. I did see that the Traps skill was under represented in the games, but where it was useful—it was useful, and not having it, meant not benefiting from its use.

The PC who could not disarm traps, could not interact silently with a trapped object. For instance, in Mr. Bishop's bedroom there is a trapped safe. If the PC just opens it, then it alerts the guards, and combat ensues. If however they can disarm it silently, they can rob the safe and possibly even leave the casino without combat; (requires sneaking).

Healing him does not allow him to use weapons with crippled limbs. They are set to run when they cannot attack. Blinding also happens, and First Aid cannot help that either.

As for the First Aid Kit, and the Doctor's Bag—as well as the pliers, motion sensor, stealth-boy, and the lockpicks. These items grant a 20% skill bonus for using the appropriate tool for the job.

What does the motion sensor apply a bonus to? I've figured which skill bonus it gives to.

 

[Gizmojunk]

What does the motion sensor apply a bonus to? I've figured which skill bonus it gives to.

Outdoorsman AFAIK.

Nah. The only real use for the trap skill is to tag it along other stupid skills like steal and doctor, with the aim of interpreting the worst progonist in the history of the games.

Steal is an excellent skill, so is Sneak. The higher the Steal skill, the heavier (amount of) items can be stolen. It follows that the better thief can get away with taking larger items; or quantities... and you get increasing XP for every item the PC steals in one session.

 

[mef]

so is Sneak

it's not useless but wouldn't call that an excellent skill, many scripts are not even checking for it and for successful use of sneak the player is not rewarded with XP so it's not really fair compared to players who will make a combat-oriented characters. the only instance in the game i can think of when sneaking would be useful is stealing PA part from rhombus but again, a combat-oriented character will get PA in easier way

Steal is an excellent skill

past the early game stealing is not very useful, you are already drowning in cash (that's why also barter is neglectable) and non-hostile npcs rarely have items you'd really like. oh, and there's always a risk that the entire settlement will want you dead

skills like science or repair can be increased by reading books so you can really do almost everything you need to in the game without investing skill points into it. the same goes for outdoorsman but this one is not useful in the first place. don't even get me started on gambling.

sure, most of those skills are not one hundred percent useless thorough the entire game but investing in them instead of actually useful skills (combat skills, lockpick or speech) is like digging a hole with a teaspoon. i actually remember that sad realization that my role-playing character doesn't really have that much place to shine in this game.

as for perks, most of them are design flaws

 

[Gizmojunk]

it's not useless but wouldn't call that an excellent skill, many scripts are not even checking for it and for successful use of sneak the player is not rewarded with XP so it's not really fair compared to players who will make a combat-oriented characters.

If you enter combat using Sneak, and kill your target in one turn —nobody notices.

past the early game stealing is not very useful, you are already drowning in cash (that's why also barter is neglectable) and non-hostile npcs rarely have items you'd really like. oh, and there's always a risk that the entire settlement will want you dead

Have you never stolen the ammo from someone, so that they start combat with an empty gun?

It's not just about material goods. These skills also allow the PC to examine containers they were threatened not to touch. (And of course most know that you can secret a live bomb into someone's inventory without them noticing it.; you can also get them drunk before using the skills, and the rolls are easier.)

 

[TerminallyChill]

I feel I opened the hornets nest here

What happened was you made several poorly rationalized statements in quick succession, leaving yourself vulnerable to easy criticism. (It certainly didn't help that you were arguing for an unpopular opinion, either.) My suggestion to avoid this in the future would be to write less and think more.

Again it was optional (I hardly ever used them in any game simply because I didn't like the status affects) and its a minor change in an element of the rpg systems. The removal of skills? Yeah thats actually the complete removal of a whole system. The removal of OPTIONAL pro/con boosts? Not the end of the world. Sorry but that feels like such an extreme nit pick I would scarce call it criticism.

Oh, so because you personally don't use a system, that means taking it out doesn't have an impact? Traits not only give players a huge tactical choice in the earliest stages of the game, but contribute to Fallout's general replayability as a whole. They are important. I'm sorry, but this was just a dumb thing to say.

Im trying to get at that they're designed in completely different ways with different design goals. Obviously some comparison has to be made. Im just saying you shouldnt judge it too harshly considering isometric games can and have to dedicate more time and energy to extensive writing and choice.

That's literally the criticism though. Why would direct sequels in a game series be designed in fundamentally different ways? If I was in the appliance manufacturing business, wouldn't people be understandably pissed if I suddenly revealed the next model of my washing machine was to be a pickup truck?

I understand that frustration and sympathize I really do. But honestly it may be worth letting go imo, our favorite games dotn define us as people and surely there are projects out there that deserve our attention who aim to appeal to our niches and interests yes? Hell the isometric genre is booming again and I feel if we really miss those old games we ought to give them support instead of railing on Bethesda for making loads of money who see no reason to change back to isometric at all.

Show me a new GURPS-style RPG with a choose your own adventure narrative and I will kindly shut my mouth.

I am in agreement that probably one of my biggest issues with new fallouts is the removal of a lot of these good systems. That said games are not usually static in their core systems.

Um, yes they are? Consistent systems are generally what makes something a sequel to a game. Halo 3 is a sequel to Halo 2 because you walk around at a fixed speed, jump really high, shoot aliens, and drive bouncy vehicles.

Anyway my whole point was that Bethesda can take whatever damn direction they want cuz people will probably buy and like whatever they make anyway and we as community are better off moving on the series and games that appeal to what we want.

Maybe you should have said this from the outset then, instead of publicly making yourself look foolish by using logical fallacies and misunderstanding game design. You aren't even wrong.

 

[Norzan]

Again it was optional (I hardly ever used them in any game simply because I didn't like the status affects) and its a minor change in an element of the rpg systems. The removal of skills? Yeah thats actually the complete removal of a whole system. The removal of OPTIONAL pro/con boosts? Not the end of the world. Sorry but that feels like such an extreme nit pick I would scarce call it criticism.

Oh, so because you didn't liked them, they were trivial and removing them was fine, then? Me and many others loved them because they added another layer of customization. They were a trade off, you get cool shit but you also get something negative, it balanced itself out.


I honestly loathe this mentality of "i didn't liked it, so it's fine it was removed". What's even worse is like you said, they were OPTIONAL, don't like them, don't use them. But it's extremely dumb to remove them to people who WANT to use them.

Removal of systems that a lot of people use is not fucking nitpicking and quit thinking it is.


And yes, people expect sequels to be similar to the previous game. People don't expect the next main series Zelda game to be a damn racing game. Don't know where you got this "sequels aren't static" from but you need to drop it.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

Oh it is easy Norzan, "all change is good no matter the outcome."
I have heard that repeatedly over and over in the last ten/fifteen years.

 

[mef]

If you enter combat using Sneak, and kill your target in one turn —nobody notices.

Have you never stolen the ammo from someone, so that they start combat with an empty gun?

you can secret a live bomb into someone's inventory

you can also get them drunk

doesn't the first one only work with fixt? but anyway, these are kind of cool ways to utilize these skills, i agree, but they are just not necessary most of the time (e.g. why would i bother with stealing ammo or meds if most enemies won't even live long enough to use them). i can't get myself to use these tricks being aware that i can just go in there guns blazing and get the same results.
to be sure that my stand is clear: i said it was a good idea to merge the medicine skills. if it was actually as impactful as you presented, it would be really cool but it's not. i don't think that sneak and steal are completely useless in fallout 1 (could have phrased it different) and i would never get rid of them, i would expand on them and make them more relevant choices. it was a bit better in fallout 2 and fallout 1.5

 

[Norzan]

Oh it is easy Norzan, "all change is good no matter the outcome."

I have heard that repeatedly over and over in the last ten/fifteen years.

I know what you mean by that, that a lot of people seem think any change in a franchise is automatically good. Which is completely untrue but here's i think about it.

I'm fine with changes here and there (if they actually do good though), but the core needs to stay the same. And the core of Fallout 3 and 4 and even New Vegas is not the same as the first two games.

But like i said, New Vegas is liked because it's in the same spirit of the first two games. For the most part, it feels like a genuine continuation of the themes in those two games. Fallout 3 and 4 do no feel like it.

 

[The Dutch Ghost]

I would rather have had it that Van Buren had been made and that Fallout New Vegas had been a spin off for both consoles and PC, set between Fallout 2 and Van Buren (or after it), and designed to be approachable for the regular fans and new players that would like to try out a Fallout game.

I would not have had a problem with having such a spin off series that is connected to the main series regarding lore and plot points but having its own gameplay for those who do not like isometric games.

 

[Ediros]

To add to the discussion. If bugthesda really wanted to make shitty shooter with light rpg elements in Fallout world, they could have gone with IT like Atlus.

Split the series into lighter, less hardcore Persona and the Main shin megami tensei series. It worked, fans are happy, both series are popular.

 

[Supreme Shah Ismail]

Oh, so because you didn't liked them, they were trivial and removing them was fine, then? Me and many others loved them because they added another layer of customization. They were a trade off, you get cool shit but you also get something negative, it balanced itself out.


I honestly loathe this mentality of "i didn't liked it, so it's fine it was removed". What's even worse is like you said, they were OPTIONAL, don't like them, don't use them. But it's extremely dumb to remove them to people who WANT to use them.

Removal of systems that a lot of people use is not fucking nitpicking and quit thinking it is.


And yes, people expect sequels to be similar to the previous game. People don't expect the next main series Zelda game to be a damn racing game. Don't know where you got this "sequels aren't static" from but you need to drop it.

because sequels aren't static? Like maybe its not a racing game but the newest zelda game differs quite a bit from previous entry's. Bioshock 1 and infinite are very different games. Almost like developers change over time and so do design priorities? Also I never said it wasnt a poor decision not to include them but a minor and again optional customization choice that was actually probably more interestingly implemented in new vegas than 1 or 2 isn't the end of the world. Was it a bad decision? Yeah. Was it the removal of a whole system? No, unless you consider removing gender options or a singular skill the removal of a whole system which its not.

What happened was you made several poorly rationalized statements in quick succession, leaving yourself vulnerable to easy criticism. (It certainly didn't help that you were arguing for an unpopular opinion, either.) My suggestion to avoid this in the future would be to write less and think more.



Oh, so because you personally don't use a system, that means taking it out doesn't have an impact? Traits not only give players a huge tactical choice in the earliest stages of the game, but contribute to Fallout's general replayability as a whole. They are important. I'm sorry, but this was just a dumb thing to say.



That's literally the criticism though. Why would direct sequels in a game series be designed in fundamentally different ways? If I was in the appliance manufacturing business, wouldn't people be understandably pissed if I suddenly revealed the next model of my washing machine was to be a pickup truck?



Show me a new GURPS-style RPG with a choose your own adventure narrative and I will kindly shut my mouth.



Um, yes they are? Consistent systems are generally what makes something a sequel to a game. Halo 3 is a sequel to Halo 2 because you walk around at a fixed speed, jump really high, shoot aliens, and drive bouncy vehicles.



Maybe you should have said this from the outset then, instead of publicly making yourself look foolish by using logical fallacies and misunderstanding game design. You aren't even wrong.

Poorly rationalized? That was a lot of rational, just because people dont agree with it doesn't mean it wasnt thought out. Also disregarding what I said as nonsense and saying "I need to think more" comes off as an easy hand wave that's frankly quite insulting. "Yeah im ignoring what you said cuz you cant use YOUR BRAIN LOL"
Also unpopular opinion? Really? I know what site ive been on for years and just because its unpopular here doesn't mean its unpopular in totality. Dont forget we are the minority here.

I could play fallout 1 and 2 without traits and not have the experience RUINED for me nor would it negate the value of the rpg systems. Again I dont want there to be a misunderstanding and say im anti choice in an rpg. But its making mountains out of molehills. Yeah its a nice tactical choice with pros and cons. In the grand scheme of things doesn't really change how I play the game. The skills on the other hand which was the greatest tragedy in their removal does.

Well number one the time between fallout 3 and 2 was a decade. Not to mention black isle went out of business. A game shifts hands and goes to Bethesda. Bethesda makes first person "rpgs" (at least initially or at the time of 3 anyway). They do what they do best. I get being upset van buren was cancelled and fallout will never be isometric. But that's just what happens in the industry. Im sorry if it was such a HUGE shocker and disappointment a company with completely different history and design values trying to appeal to a larger market doesn't appeal to our tiny niche.

GURPS? Uh idk wasteland 2 and underrail is pretty close. Again its a stat based RPG system and im pretty sure licensing was an issue which is why its ya know SPECIAL and not actually GURPS.

Publicly making a fool out of myself? Oh give me a break. This isnt politics this is a discussion about games. I didn't shit in your lawn. Tone down the rhetoric and stop being so hostile. The thing is I didnt even care that much about talking about Bethesda fallouts because this is a discussion that has been done to death in a million places. Fallout 76 wont be the fallout game you want and we probably wont ever get the fallout game we would like to see. Not to mention the intentions with 76 were to take the series in a completely different direction. People like different games. Your opinion is no more valid than mine. I like the old games too remember? Hell I started with them. Its just really easy to jump on this topic and scream "HE LIKES BETHESDA VIDYA GAMES GET EM"

There is such a thing as the wrong kind of good. Altering Lemon Meringue Pie to taste like bacon does not make it a better lemon meringue pie —it makes it something utterly else; whether it tastes fantastic or not, doesn't matter... It doesn't taste like lemon meringue pie.

Altering Halo 6 to play like Halo Wars, or like Mario Kart —is not the right kind of good for a Halo sequel. Neither was altering Fallout to play like Oblivion. It doesn't matter if the resultant game was even considered superb—unmatched by the original... it's still the wrong game for the name; and needs a different one to distinguish it as a separate product apart from the series.
_________

I mentioned reasons in the post. Unlike FO3, in Fallout, the PC is limited to what they develop with the character, and developing the Doctor skill is their option if they want the option to cure advanced injuries... and if they don't want it, then they don't get that option; and have to seek reliable medical treatment for serious injuries. Basic First Aid, can be easily pushed to 91% at no cost to one's main specialty skills—but it's no substitute for the Doctor skill; (which itself cannot be advanced but at high cost to the development of one's other skills).

This goes for the other mentioned skills as well.

__________

So did I.

So companies must stick to design forever and NEVER EVER have another creative thought or....? What? "Hey were going try something different and all the people buying our game means that we probably did the right thing with that decision, lets keep doing it" Im sorry but game sequels change all the time be it big or small. Being static is frankly boring and is what happens when you get the same CoD game every fucking year.

haha yeah I felt kind of bad doing it and tried to avoid the cheat in later runs cuz it didn't feel right.

 

[Crni Vuk]

This whole 'usefull vs useless' skill debate really reminds me to an analysis by MrBtongue, games like Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity and Numnera try to be the perfectly crafted experience following in the footsteps of games like Fallout 1, Baldurs Gate, Torment and so on, just with better visuals. And when I look at it, I kinda get the feeling, when we see certain skills as useless or a system as convoluted because there are a few skills that have only a handfull of usefull applications, we might be kinda missing the bigger picture here and maybe don't even realize the greatness of those old systems and approaches to gameplay. The happy accidents, if I may say so.

To make it short, skills like Doctor, First Aid, Gambling, Traps (outdoorsman) simply add variety to Fallout 1. And yes if you make those skills your main skills to speak so and the focus of your game it can easily happen that you find your self in a situation, where the game becomes unbeatable, it is a very punishing system on the other hand if you find the right combinations though it becomes almost game breaking. However that's a part of the whole exprience, like finding ways to make those builds and skills actually work, incorporating them in your game and having enough room to play with the system and maybe geting a kick out of it to make the worst builds somehow viable after years of playing the game. If a system doesn't 'allow' you to fail, because the developers have to make sure that each and every skill gets you trough the game, then you just end up with things like Skyrim or a game that feels kinda too artificial.

This explains pretty nicely the issues:

 

[Supreme Shah Ismail]

This whole 'usefull vs useless' skill debate really reminds me to an analysis by MrBtongue, games like Wasteland 2, Pillars of Eternity and Numnera try to be the perfectly crafted experience following in the footsteps of games like Fallout 1, Baldurs Gate, Torment and so on, just with better visuals. And when I look at it, I kinda get the feeling, when we see certain skills as useless or a system as convoluted because there are a few skills that have only a handfull of usefull applications, we might be kinda missing the bigger picture here and maybe don't even realize the greatness of those old systems and approaches to gameplay. The happy accidents, if I may say so.

To make it short, skills like Doctor, First Aid, Gambling, Traps (outdoorsman) simply add variety to Fallout 1. And yes if you make those skills your main skills to speak so and the focus of your game it can easily happen that you find your self in a situation, where the game becomes unbeatable, it is a very punishing system on the other hand if you find the right combinations though it becomes almost game breaking. However that's a part of the whole exprience, like finding ways to make those builds and skills actually work, incorporating them in your game and having enough room to play with the system and maybe geting a kick out of it to make the worst builds somehow viable after years of playing the game. If a system doesn't 'allow' you to fail, because the developers have to make sure that each and every skill gets you trough the game, then you just end up with things like Skyrim or a game that feels kinda too artificial.

This explains pretty nicely the issues:

I mean I like the idea of picking the wrong skills can mean failure in an RPG. Certainly why I liked system shock 2 so much because of that tension of picking the right skills for your build with the limited points you had. But I can understand why that isnt common practice now. I mean getting 20 hours deep into an RPG only for you to hit an unbeatable point would be disheartening and you would probably never touch the game again.

heres a great video by extra credits explaining the problem.