Sorry for being this late to reply to this topic, since the PC were getting maintenance, but here we go..
@Black Angel er...walking simulator is a poor term to use. Unless every open world game is a walking sim for letting you go anywhere.
Well, if we're to talk about open world games, then games like Gothic series, Risen series, ELEX!, GTA series, even Witcher 3 comes into mind. Or maybe we should compare the games we're talking about as open world to Morrowind, Daggerfall, Arena, etc etc. Or hell, let's not go that far, and try to compare Fallout 3/4 to Fallout: New Vegas as open-world games. As an open world game, New Vegas definitely fared better than Fallout 3 (from my experience, since I haven't played Fallout 4). There are a lot of high-difficulty spots scattered across the map, in a way that makes sense, which is basically separating the map into 'low-level content' and 'mid to high-level content'. First playthrough, you're kind of railroaded from the dialogue to go around the map so that you can get to know what the game is about and what it has to offer, and then for new playthrough you can have an idea on where to go first and where to go next, or if you're up for it you can attempt to bypass the hard spots so early since the game made it clear that there are place meant for high-leveled characters.
Meanwhile, Fallout 3. I wouldn't deny the arguments made by Many A True Nerd about how the game railroad you to find Megaton at the start of the game, since that's literally what I experienced at my first playthrough, but trying to play a new game was such a chore, not only from the fact that they had that dumb intro sequence, but also because there were a lot of stupid shit scattered here and there across the map that in the end I just go with what seems good for now or whatever. Since most of the enemies are level-scaled to your characters, and the map wasn't designed in such a way like New Vegas does, there's little-to-no incentive to attempt anything like going north of Goodsprings or attempt to take a shortcut to Sloan, because there's nothing like that in Fallout 3. Especially since, like I said, you play for an hour in Bethesda game, you have experienced most of the content that the game has to offer; or seen one dungeon, you've seen it all; or that the games were literally designed to so that you get to experience 99% of the game's content in one single playthrough, that there's zero incentive to try and make a new character.
Heres how to judge a game by its own merit. You played it without any biases or personal opinions in mind? Did you enjoy the core experience? No? Thats fine then maybe it isnt for you. yes? Great. I took this approach in regards to bioshock. I HATED how crappy of a spiritual successor it was. Played it again trying not to keep that in mind. turns out I liked it more and could appreciate its strengths. Did I significantly like it more? No not really hardly the second coming of Christ its hyped to be but if I got more out of something I bought is that so bad?
This is fine and dandy, but if we keep on going with this mindset, we're literally being okay with mediocrity.
Think of how Fallout 1&2 give their players alot of freedom and agency on how to solve a problem. How you can use many applicable skills, like Traps, First Aid/Doctor, Repair, Science, etc etc, and apply them where it's possible by using your own wits and comprehension. Only a part of that ever got transferred into the new first-person/third-person template of 3 and NV. And you're telling me to accept this mediocrity offered to us in the form of gamebryo's piece of shit of an engine?
You can spam it in casinos for almost infinite cash if its high enough. Thats why I called it cheating.
Except you forgot to consider one thing: you have to invest into the skill. In Fallout 1, I'll concede that you can use it to get infinite cash, simply by putting one or two leveling ups worth of skill points or just one tag into it, until at least it hits 40%, for the skill to start giving you infinite caps. But in Fallout 2? Nuh-uh. You HAVE to sacrifice a tag when that tag could be used for a more applicable skill, or put ALOT of skill points into the skills before it start to actually gives you shitton of money. This is because the devs changed the formula for players to win, and rightfully so, into such a way that having only 80% Gambling would allows you to bet $5 and win consistently, and only when you reached 120% Gambling that you will start winning consistently when betting $50.
Oh, and not to mention that you forgot the fact that Gambling skill is just one of the many other skills that's meant for characters to gain resources easily, the others were Lockpicking, Steal (although the implementation of Steal sucked), and Barter. Complaining that Gambling is cheating because it gives you infinite cash is like complaining how Lockpicking allows you to break into people's safe and get all the good shits to sell for infinite cash; or how Barter tilts the goods pricing into your favor that buying stuff is dirt cheap and selling stuff is like selling chunks of gold.
And if you didn't get what Gizmojunk meant with Gambling meant to detect cheating, it was actually how it meant to be with the GURPS system; in GURPS, Gambling was meant to allow characters to detect cheating in casinos, or when your character are getting involved in a game of chance; New Vegas should've been an opportunity to implement this feature properly, especially since ALOT of content in that game could've used a skill like Gambling, but alas.
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
Iirc, you have played Fallout 1.5: Resurrection and Fallout of Nevada, no? If you have, then you should've seen how perfect Fallout's system to allows proper games of role-playing in computer format.
by wanting to role-play properly you may invest in useless skills and pick useless perks, that's what i've meant
This was actually discussed in some other thread, iirc started by
@TerminallyChill, of what's bad in the system of Fallout 1, 2, and New Vegas. Basically, it was something along the lines of the skills that, they were not useless, but rather under represented like Gizmo said, and how there were not enough content that would justify focused investment into the skills being discussed.
So please, people, those skills aren't useless. Go play Fallout 1.5: Resurrection and Fallout of Nevada, and see for yourself what could've been done with the system if the devs designed the content properly as to justify the very existences of those skills; and why should players tag them and invest precious skillpoints into them.
Yeah I would think dedicating points in Per is enough already but have it require absurdly high like require a Per of 7 for avoiding beartraps and 8 for mines and so on. Why does traps need to be a separate skill in itself?
That is one of the things that the FNV team did. You now need a repair skill in order to deactivate or arm traps.
I guess traps would have to be part perception (to detect them) and technical skills in order to do something about them.
Um... guys?
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Traps
As an Active skill
Characters can also actively use the Traps skill from the skills menu. The active use of the Traps skill has two functions: Primarily, it is used to disarm and remove a trap that has already been spotted. However, observant individuals can check objects for traps prior to interacting with them by using the Traps skill. Landmines and floor traps can typically only be spotted passively.
Once a trap has been spotted, the character should activate the Traps skill and attempt to use it on the trap. The game then runs a check of the Traps skill against the trap's difficulty. Success results in the trap being disarmed.
If there is a removable component, such as a bundle of dynamite or a grenade, this is added to the inventory by a script. Failure typically means that the character was unable to disarm the trap, but causes no ill effect. However, a critical failure detonates the trap or mine, usually injuring the disarmer.
Of course, you might not see much of these because, like TerminallyChill said, Fallout 1&2 were mostly about combat and dialogue, hence why you don't see much use for Traps as a skill. Hence why, I'm telling you guys, to go play Fallout 1.5: Resurrection and Fallout of Nevada, and see for yourself what kind of game we got to play if the developers actually designed proper amount of content to justify such a complex system where there are a lot of skills for what seemed as the little things in games like this. Basically, what TerminallyChill said about well made RPGs utilizing their skills in roughly equal amounts.
The 'benefit' would be a difference of 50-40 hp lost at most (plus getting to keep the trap but even then that's still a difference of a few pounds of precious inventory space).
I'm not sure what did you meant by this. Is it that traps aren't deadly enough, that not investing on the skill means you only lose 50-40 HP at most, and investing in the skill means you only saved 50-40 HP at most, or what? If indeed, you meant that traps are rare but not deadly enough, then the solution would be to make traps much more deadly, that failing to notice, avoid, and/or disarm it means death, or any other meaningful consequence to make it worth it for players to invest into Traps.
Heck even in Nevada playthroughs where traps are most common I just opt to take the hit and reload at an earlier point if the character dies so IF you go for Iron Man then there's that slight edge of being able to clear John Bishop's safe IF you didn't instead spend more valuable skill points in combat skills and cleared the place first.
I will assume in Nevada there are opportunities to use traps on enemies during combat. It's shown when that guy in Gerlach teach you how to use rat-traps on geckos, and since your character CAN get crippled by rat-traps, I think with sufficient traps you can trick enemies into walking into your rat-traps and cripple themselves. Kinda like how Underrail utilized Traps skill, but I'm not entirely sure since I haven't actually tried to make a Traps-oriented combat character, and Fallout's system kinda sucks compared to Underrail's in this regard.
Perks are not skills, or skill customizations. Perks are [technically] sanctioned cheats that bend the rules in the player's favor. Whilst traits are a balance trade off—always including a negative cost along with the benefit, which doesn't happen with the Perks; that are bonus-only... except in the case of Mutate, which changes a trait.
I agree with this.
Basically, Perks not only allows characters to specialize far more into an archetype, but also to allow those characters to break the rules in a way that correspond that archetype. Like characters that specialize in Repair in New Vegas; if Repair's 'rules' are that weapons can only be fixed by using the exact same weapon (I.E a 9mm Pistol can only be fixed with exactly a 9mm Pistol), then the perk Jury Rigging allows this character to 'break this rule' and be able to fix a weapon with a different weapon that's at least in the same category (I.E a 9mm Pistol can now be fixed with ALSO a 10mm Pistol).
In Fallout 1&2, you also have this kind of perks, like Sniper/Slayer that allows characters to perform critical attacks 100% if you build that character right, or some other perks like Empathy that allows your characters to literally see the 'right answer' in conversations. I think New Vegas had much better arsenal of perks, and I would like to see New Vegas's system retrofitted into Fallout 1&2's system
Using a plasma rifle technically shifts the odds of combat in your favor. So does wearing power armor and having 10 perception. That's how role playing mechanics work. You get buffs as you progress. When I add skill points to my leveled up character am I cheating?
Which become mandatory mid-late game given the game puts you up against armies, 6-to-1 or more opponents with ranged weapons at the same time. Even more so for melee/unarmed in random encounters without cacti to take cover in.
Non-combat perks? Further into the game, higher rolls. I'd say those +10-20 to X skill or gain 1 [Special] are balanced enough.
You guys are missing the point here. What Gizmo said is basically this:
If you pit two characters with the exact same amount of levels, with the exact same amount of SPECIAL, exact same amount of skill points put into, let's say, Small Guns, wielding the exact same weapon (let's say a Combat Shotgun), and are wearing the exact same kind of armor (let's say T-51b Power Armor), then the perks of both characters would be the very thing that makes the difference in a combat between this two characters. To make it simplers, let's say one character has the perk, 'Action Boy', while the other character doesn't have it. Since both characters would have the exact same amount of SPECIAL, weapon skill, weapon, and armor, that means both characters have the exact same amount of AP and requires the exact same amount of AP when attempting to use their weapon (either a normal attack, aimed attack, or burst attack). However, having Action Boy means that character can attempt another burst attack or another aimed attack at the other character's eye or head; it means ALOT of difference, completely different than just having 10 in one of the SPECIAL or adding 20 SPs into a skill. Obviously, with how the turn-based combat system works in Fallout 1&2, getting to attempt another burst attack might not mean much if the rolls happens to be not in your favor, but that's beside the point. And Gizmo's point are even truer in an RPG like New Vegas, where the perks are much more nuanced and sophisticated compared to Fallout 1&2's arsenal of perks.
I still think New Vegas's perks would fare much better in Fallout 1&2's system, though, especially if the game being made would utilize all the skills properly and give them roughly equal amount of love.
Am I the only one who views Perks as things that give you new abilities and gameplay mechanics to play with? There's the one in New Vegas that lets you see enemy statistics which is awesome. How about Perks that give you unique dialogue options for women, men, and children? Or unlock crafting recipes?
Exactly Gizmo's point, perks basically adds another layer of mechanical depth by way of character's progression. Either by allowing your character to break certain rules (like with Jury Rigging) or by adding new abilities (like the Unarmed perks that you learn from NPCs in New Vegas). The problem, however, is this:
Why could the ability to detect/disarm traps not have just been made into a Perk?
When you do something like this, you basically get Fallout 4; where stuff that could've been accomplished by skills will now needs Perks, whereas those Perk points could've gone into something more important for that character. Detecting and disarming traps are something that could've been done, by those who have the skills to do it, but not everyone should be able to, for example, perform the perk 'Light Step' or 'Demolition Expert'. If we're going from gameplay perspective, on what parameter should a character that wants to detect/disarm traps get their perks from? Have it taught by NPCs? Have sufficient Repair/Science skills, or, what, Perception/Agility to take the perks? If that's how you do it, then what separates one character that only knows how to utilize Repair/Science skill for something that's not traps-related, like only knowing how to fix water pumps and other beneficial contraptions, with the character that dedicates their whole life studying how to assemble and disassemble booby traps?
I seriously don't understand why you insist that Perks don't make characters more specialized. Up until this point in my life I would never have guessed a human on this earth could even disagree with such an idea. So I get that you think they're "cheats" (despite the fact that they are officially in the rules), but what the hell line of logic suddenly makes that mutually exclusive from adding uniqueness? If somebody can move two extra spaces, I'd call that a fucking distinct quality!
I don't think Gizmo are arguing against the fact that Perks make characters more specialized. More like he's trying to explain how having a perk completely separate a character from the ones that don't. And because of that, he's disagreeing with the idea of merging certain skills (that should've been optional for players who want to make their characters specialized in those skills) into perks (when perks could've been designed in such a way that allows characters to specialize further into their archetypes, either by breaking the rules that it seemed like the character cheated, or adding new abilities that not even a character with 100% amount of skills can attempt, unless that character take the perk too, of course).
Because playing and designing are very different experiences. My point was that your perspective on some of these topics would likely change if you actually were to work on a game. No developer ever sets out to have shit like Traps or Gambling in their RPG. They ended up in a good game like Fallout as an oversight, but the skills really don't have any solid justification for being so unpolished. They exist in spite of the game's quality. Presenting arguments for the inclusion of clear design flaws in your favorite series just makes you seem like a biased, ignorant gamer. I am the first to admit when Pokemon or Deus Ex falls flat. No franchise is perfect.
RPGs like Underrail and Age of Decadence have Traps as a skill in them. And the skill got a LOT of use for characters that specialize in it. Especially in Underrail, where Traps are greatly relevant since subterfuge are an actual playstyle in there, and it's a viable combat option because a perk allows some characters to set a trap right in the middle of a combat encounter, and there's actually an incentive to invest in the skill because enemies have detection mechanic that can be circumvented simply by having higher and higher Traps skill.
And as for Gambling, I think Gizmo shouldn't repeat this, but Gambling from the GURPS template was meant to be used to detect cheating; e.g there should've been opportunities and content where players get to use the skill to, like, expose shady casinos and/or win a game of chance related to a quest. New Vegas should've been where they finally utilize Gambling skill like the way it was meant to be in GURPS, especially since casinos are huge part of the game, and there are a lot of Caravan players that may or may not challenge the player character to a game of chance that may or may not be related to a quest.
Talking smoothly is a learned skill that comes with experience, but that's a perk. You want to talk about double standards?
Also, "because it's like that in real life" is not a valid argument in a discussion about video game mechanics. A feature's primary function is to be fun before it is believable. These are the types of things you would learn from developing but not necessarily playing.
Well, from gameplay perspective, at least that of Fallout 1&2, it goes like this
http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Smooth_Talker
A smooth talker, according to Fallout 1&2, is a character that, for some reason, were able to increase their Intelligence by 1, for the purpose of dialogue only. This means characters with, let's say only 7 INT, can bypass an INT check of 8 in a dialogue, with the help of the perk. Can a character with 100% Speech bypass that 8 INT check, when they only have 7 INT but
not Smooth Talker perk?
Also, as for the discussion about, 'It's like real life!', I would say Gizmo meant it in a way that Fallout 1&2, as cRPGs, were meant to emulate Pen&Paper RPGs. The way Pen&Paper RPGs mechanic works, and this is just what I assume since I have literally zero P&P RPGs experience but I'm saying this based on what others been saying, is that they often tried to simulate real-life behaviors and apply them through stats and skills (and perks, if you add it) system when playing a game session. For example, let's say in a session of P&P, you're trying to disarm a trap. Taking your character's stats and skills (and perks, if there's any), let's say have sufficient amount to disarm it. However, when pitted against the dice rolls, it unfortunately happens that you roll a 1. From what I know, a roll of 1 is considered a 'critical failure'. From that point, the GM (or DM, correct me if I'm wrong) would narrate that the roll of 1 when trying to disarm the trap is described as, let's say, "[Your character] had a sudden heart attack, in the middle of disarming the trap, and it so happens that [your character] were cutting exactly the wrong wire, so it explodes immediately, blowing [your character] into chunks of flesh." Or whatever narration that a GM/DM can come up with to explain the roll of 1. Similarly, a character with low Traps skill MIGHT roll a 20, which is considered a 'critical success'. This is what Fallout 1&2 were trying to achieve with their GURPS-inspired, SPECIAL-based system.
I truly think everybody here is just so in love with the idea of certain skills that they can't judge the execution fairly. Let me reiterate: there is nothing inherently wrong with wanting to have features like traps or gambling in Fallout.
That's not my criticism. Where the game fails is the implementation. I know Risewild just listed some examples of instances when these skills are useful, but let me ask you something. Are those the rules or the exception? Can somebody please give me a similar list of situations when Small Guns or Speech is useful? I have a feeling that post would be just a tad longer. And that's the root of my point here. There are quantifiably, objectively more rewards for choosing one set of skills over another. That is non-controversial, textbook bad game design. Pretty sure anybody who says otherwise at this point is either trying to defend a nostalgic perception of flawlessness, or argue with me solely for the sake of disagreement.
And believe me, before you call me a hater, I like Fallout. Even love it. Tim Cain is literally my idol. But you have to understand that nothing is ever perfect.
Except everybody here who were arguing with you were solely against the idea of outright removing the skills. I know we've come to an agreement that a lot of skills weren't outright useless, but rather under represented in the games, that there's not enough content that utilize them, but just outright removing them are NOT the
preferred solution! What we want is that the devs make content that utilizes those skill properly, and the amount of that content is roughly equal to the amount of content that's combat and dialogue! I'm remembering some quotes by Chris Avellone, something about that if you're making a game with certain system and is allowing the players to play with a set of skills, then you should also make content that would be fun for players who play with those set of skills.
Fallout 3's lore isn't even compatible with Fallout 3, mef.
