For Fallout to use the Elder Scrolls system, it would need enough opportunities to use each skill enough to grind at it. It would be hard to level up Science with only finite computers to hack. Also how would you level up Medicine (in its current incarnation)? Use chems on yourself?
Five Lessons Fallout 4 Can Learn From Skyrim
- Thread starter WorstUsernameEver
- Start date
I agree, and although it could take some more imagination to make use for the skills, it'd be possible to include it in Fallout.warsaw said:
Just that I don't like that idea.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Speaking of grinding, particularly when it comes to crafting...warsaw said:
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
So you people would prefer a system that forces you to repeat the same exact thing over and over again to get anything done instead of distrubuting skill points from doing Quests? One thing I don't like about Skyrim is how completing Quests doesn't seem to matter at all, you get gold, but you don't progress in levels, definetly not what I want in a Fallout.
I disagree. It's easy to see that actually.
Tell me, how many of you actually used any ranged weapons in close combat without the use of VATS?
It's to darn shitty considering how some enemies can run and move fast. I'm not talking about killing them, I'm talking about how much ammo you need and how the authors add better weapons to cope with that. We all went for sniping. Melee players and unarmed had only to button mash and use VATS for funs. And that's stupid, because it's Fallout and not fantasy hack and slash game. But it's something at least.
Unlike in Tactics where we had automatic real time aggression on enemies, where it was still skill based, in F3 mostly and a little less in FNV it was just the players FPS skill.
So imagine real time TES Fallout now. Actually don't, just go back to F3 and replay it. You will never use any skill, you just don't need it besides the limit of lockpicking and computer hacking. Are there enough computers in the wasteland to hack so you can grind your skill? There ain't enough ammo even to shoot till level god mode. That's not Fallout. Fallout was always good investment and planning. Skills were crucial, not the actuality of getting them.
If Fallout 4 is like Skyrim then it will be the worst they can make. We would grind to get to god mode skills forgetting the main storyline or any at all, there will be abundant ammo, weapons, armors...why not create character editor and use it for 50 hours or more? I'm not saying that Skyrim is bad, but trying to combine it with Fallout is plain wrong.
I would wear one handed pistol and then change to two handed axe just to level myself more. Why the hell would anyone do that? Why the hell is it avaiable in the first place? So that we could finally learn some magical Armageddon skill to level the whole map?
If we do not need VATS, then we do not need ranged weapons at all. And because Beth is like that to make some uber skills like uber stone skin, we would not need to run from bullet fire at all, least of all from dragoned deathclaw speed hawker eye critical attack. We could shout at them and people would make videos of how they hit them close range and dance on their skulls like hippies. Like in Skyrim these days. Don't forget the bugs also, those ragdolls need to turn and twist around with all the smashing to their head.
Is that Falllout?
No. That's fantasy game. Fallout ain't about uber heroes, it's about survival. It's about visiting inhospitable places, it's about enemies that will always be hard to kill. It's about skill system, not mouse pointer or button mash. But Beth will fuck up with it again, that's for sure.
Tell me, how many of you actually used any ranged weapons in close combat without the use of VATS?
It's to darn shitty considering how some enemies can run and move fast. I'm not talking about killing them, I'm talking about how much ammo you need and how the authors add better weapons to cope with that. We all went for sniping. Melee players and unarmed had only to button mash and use VATS for funs. And that's stupid, because it's Fallout and not fantasy hack and slash game. But it's something at least.
Unlike in Tactics where we had automatic real time aggression on enemies, where it was still skill based, in F3 mostly and a little less in FNV it was just the players FPS skill.
So imagine real time TES Fallout now. Actually don't, just go back to F3 and replay it. You will never use any skill, you just don't need it besides the limit of lockpicking and computer hacking. Are there enough computers in the wasteland to hack so you can grind your skill? There ain't enough ammo even to shoot till level god mode. That's not Fallout. Fallout was always good investment and planning. Skills were crucial, not the actuality of getting them.
If Fallout 4 is like Skyrim then it will be the worst they can make. We would grind to get to god mode skills forgetting the main storyline or any at all, there will be abundant ammo, weapons, armors...why not create character editor and use it for 50 hours or more? I'm not saying that Skyrim is bad, but trying to combine it with Fallout is plain wrong.
I would wear one handed pistol and then change to two handed axe just to level myself more. Why the hell would anyone do that? Why the hell is it avaiable in the first place? So that we could finally learn some magical Armageddon skill to level the whole map?
If we do not need VATS, then we do not need ranged weapons at all. And because Beth is like that to make some uber skills like uber stone skin, we would not need to run from bullet fire at all, least of all from dragoned deathclaw speed hawker eye critical attack. We could shout at them and people would make videos of how they hit them close range and dance on their skulls like hippies. Like in Skyrim these days. Don't forget the bugs also, those ragdolls need to turn and twist around with all the smashing to their head.
Is that Falllout?
No. That's fantasy game. Fallout ain't about uber heroes, it's about survival. It's about visiting inhospitable places, it's about enemies that will always be hard to kill. It's about skill system, not mouse pointer or button mash. But Beth will fuck up with it again, that's for sure.
W
WelcomeToNewReno
Guest
rehevkor said:
It isn't wrapped. You can expect at least 4 DLC's before "Fallout" 4 is released.
Walpknut said:
You just gave me the one most compelling reason why I never want Fallout games to adopt the Skyrim skill leveling system.
I honestly wish others would get this as well.
I agree with LinkPain, this argument was on my mind all the time but I couldn't form it into words.
archont
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Nawwww, you're all too harsh.
The idea of having skills level separately really makes sense. The classic skill-points system permits situations where a character who's using guns constantly would have absolutely no skill in using them. Or the other way around where a character becomes an expert at a skill he's never using.
But we're talking about games here and games don't need to be realistic, fun is the measure of success. The system works very well for combat skills. Killing stuff is fun. Destruction magic, archery, melee skills, heavy and light armor - I had no issues with how that worked in Skyrim.
The system falls apart though when there are hardcoded limits on how skilled you have to be to do a given thing. Levelling crafting in skyrim was a huge time waster with no satisfaction to gain from it. It was pretty minimal too - given the ingredients power-leveling all the crafting skills to 100 was a matter of.. 4 minutes? 6? So crafting was essentially all about farming ingredients, finding the fastest way to gain skill points.
The problem with crafting in skill-based systems is the binary nature of the result. Being less skilled with a sword makes your strikes less effective, fine. Being less skilled with lockpicking makes it physically harder to pick locks - and I loved it.
I'd much rather have a system where low skill doesn't mean the inability to create an item - at worst prohibitive difficulty of doing so. Lockpicking is an example of this being done right.
Then again who am I kidding, this is Bethesda. If they'd go with skill-based systems then they'd just reskin and rename the ones in Skyrim. If it sells why fix it.
I'm convinced that skill-based systems can be better than any level-based ones, just that they're inherently much harder to do right.
The idea of having skills level separately really makes sense. The classic skill-points system permits situations where a character who's using guns constantly would have absolutely no skill in using them. Or the other way around where a character becomes an expert at a skill he's never using.
But we're talking about games here and games don't need to be realistic, fun is the measure of success. The system works very well for combat skills. Killing stuff is fun. Destruction magic, archery, melee skills, heavy and light armor - I had no issues with how that worked in Skyrim.
The system falls apart though when there are hardcoded limits on how skilled you have to be to do a given thing. Levelling crafting in skyrim was a huge time waster with no satisfaction to gain from it. It was pretty minimal too - given the ingredients power-leveling all the crafting skills to 100 was a matter of.. 4 minutes? 6? So crafting was essentially all about farming ingredients, finding the fastest way to gain skill points.
The problem with crafting in skill-based systems is the binary nature of the result. Being less skilled with a sword makes your strikes less effective, fine. Being less skilled with lockpicking makes it physically harder to pick locks - and I loved it.
I'd much rather have a system where low skill doesn't mean the inability to create an item - at worst prohibitive difficulty of doing so. Lockpicking is an example of this being done right.
Then again who am I kidding, this is Bethesda. If they'd go with skill-based systems then they'd just reskin and rename the ones in Skyrim. If it sells why fix it.
I'm convinced that skill-based systems can be better than any level-based ones, just that they're inherently much harder to do right.
Read the piece of junk, it's stupid. Here's a short version of what the guy says:
1. Please remove all significant choices and consequences.
2. Make us grind to level. (OK, fair enough, I shouldn't really diss this one, it's a matter of preference, but I personally hate the incremental leveling system that has you use something over and over to become competent.)
3. Point Lookout was the best of FO3, so FO4 should also be all about fantasy and no sad post-apocalyptic stuff or anything.
4. "there's nothing more non-linear in all of gaming than titles like Fallout 3" /facedesk I dread what "more nonlinear" in this guy's mind would look like.
5. More looks over practicality interface. Because we all love spending hours looking for the one item we need.
When will sandbox arcade fans stop pretending they're playing RPGs?
1. Please remove all significant choices and consequences.
2. Make us grind to level. (OK, fair enough, I shouldn't really diss this one, it's a matter of preference, but I personally hate the incremental leveling system that has you use something over and over to become competent.)
3. Point Lookout was the best of FO3, so FO4 should also be all about fantasy and no sad post-apocalyptic stuff or anything.
4. "there's nothing more non-linear in all of gaming than titles like Fallout 3" /facedesk I dread what "more nonlinear" in this guy's mind would look like.
5. More looks over practicality interface. Because we all love spending hours looking for the one item we need.
When will sandbox arcade fans stop pretending they're playing RPGs?
archont
It Wandered In From the Wastes
No, he's saying remove the binary morality system. I agree with him. Having a good/bad morality system means designers have to create quests that neatly fit into either the good or evil category. With the black and white system you get to either volunteer for elderly care while helping the needy or do a snuff film involving a school bus of children.* Megaton's Burke situation was an example.
When gray choices are involved like Tenpenny tower the morality system seems lost.
I consider it a limiting factor. I don't think the morality system is important enough to justify it's gameplay cost.
* I jest, we all know that in the post-apocalyptic wasteland all children wear Legendary +10^255 Tattered Rags of Infinite Protection
I too found Fallout 3 to be both sad and depressing though I believe I found it such for different reasons than the author of the article.
Skyrim is a crime against user interface design but then again so is Fallout 3. Comparing the two is kind of like comparing whether it's better to get run over by a truck or a bus. Both games have a user interface so horrible that they render the game significantly less playable. I really can't understand how someone who has sufficient technical skill to create an interface at all can botch the job up so badly. Modders have been known to fart out a vastly superior interface in days - if only because making it any worse would require a genuine effort and creativity. Like having to whistle at specific frequencies to scroll the item list.
As long as the capability to replace the inevitable trainwreck of a UI F4 is going to ship with is there, I'm happy.
archont said:
No, that's something what I'd agree with. What the guy actually says:
"Skyrim makes you pay for doing the wrong thing by putting bounties out for you if you get caught wantonly stealing or murdering. But you're never locked out of parts of the game just because you went on an ill-fated killing spree or stole some potions when a shopkeeper has his back turned. It's not to say that a morality system shouldn't be in Fallout 4, but rather that it should be grayer, more nebulous, and a little more open-ended. "
The bolded phrase is pretty much a jab at FONV. The guy would probably also hate the way the Witcher series did C&C. He's basically saying, make reputation irrelevant so I can go kill and steal for shits and giggles and still be a paragon of purity. Let me get everything on one playthrough, even if it means laying waste to the world while simultaneously saving it. Or having the option to side with the Legion after killing Caesar. Not that FO3 didn't already have that, but it seems like he's complaining it wasn't easy enough.
I'm not too sure how Skyrim does it - bounty hunters are a fine idea and all (iirc also present in FO3) - but it's not nearly enough. If the NPCs don't react to your actions in a non-combat manner, the C&C pretty much failed.
Yeah, but the guy basically says he wants a PA game in a non-PA setting. I'm not even sure how that makes sense.
archont
It Wandered In From the Wastes
I have no idea which parts of FONV he's referencing. I never honestly locked myself out of content and regretted it. Do you know what he's specifically talking about?
Maybe it's thanks to Skyrim's genericness but I don't see how a general karma system would improve the game. Since a multitude of decisions influence the floating point value of morality it's essentially vague and useless. Is your extremely low karma because you stole a lot of food and water? Is it because you got crossed in some quest and exacted bloody revenge on the NPC who crossed you and his family? Is it because you went on a psychotic genocidal killing spree for the lulz of it? Is it because you finished a quest with a net loss of karma points?
With it all boiling down to 1 value it's hard to have a satisfactory response. Sure, low karma should make characters more wary and cautious but with Bethesda's writers having the subtlety of a thrown brick I can't see how that would end up good.
Instead I'd rather have characters respond to significant if hard-coded events. The other way out is having a system that quantifies the player and what kind of person he is in-game based on a multitude of factors - but that's something way too complex for Bethesda to handle.
Edit: And I forgot that FNV had a separate system for good and bad things so that doing a little holocaust wasn't offset by giving 30 bottles of water to a bum. Then again I don't remember it having a big influence on availability of content.
Since I don't recall karma ever making just about any difference in FO3 (except when hiring companions), I'm pret-ty sure the guy's hating on FONV, where faction reputation determines availability of certain quests. And some of that can be triggered by randomly killing faction members.
Then again, maybe that's not what he's referencing. But even the basic idea that game feedback system shouldn't allow your actions to affect the type of quests you can do is ridiculous.
well that is what happens when you throw Fallout and TES (Elderscrolls) in to the same pot.
Because both games have been made with completely different ideas in mind. Remember. In Fallout it was not so much about to get the biggest plasma rifle and shining armor. Though In Skyrim/Elderscroll games this is exactly what you are usually going for. Doing random shit and killing random people.
Nothing bad with that. As long the game is doing it well. And as open world game here Skyrim does not disappoint. But it does not mean Fallout 4 should be like skyrim or take to much inspiration from it. I hope Fallout 4 will be as far away from Skyrim as possible. But I doubt it. Not when you consider that Skyrim sold like hot-cakes. And that is what I find extremely worrisome. If skyrim would have been clearly a really bad game they might have tried to get away from it with Fallout 4 (who knows). Now I would not be surprised if the skills in Fallout 4 work exactly like in Skyrim. But I guess we have to wait and see.
Because both games have been made with completely different ideas in mind. Remember. In Fallout it was not so much about to get the biggest plasma rifle and shining armor. Though In Skyrim/Elderscroll games this is exactly what you are usually going for. Doing random shit and killing random people.
Nothing bad with that. As long the game is doing it well. And as open world game here Skyrim does not disappoint. But it does not mean Fallout 4 should be like skyrim or take to much inspiration from it. I hope Fallout 4 will be as far away from Skyrim as possible. But I doubt it. Not when you consider that Skyrim sold like hot-cakes. And that is what I find extremely worrisome. If skyrim would have been clearly a really bad game they might have tried to get away from it with Fallout 4 (who knows). Now I would not be surprised if the skills in Fallout 4 work exactly like in Skyrim. But I guess we have to wait and see.
Because I recently had Skyrim experience, which was surprisingly good, I just wanted to add some things.
The only type of that leveling that could work for newer type of real time Fallout games is sneak skill, or healing or even survival.
But anything else is impossible. Because Skyrim is in general action RPG, throw Assassins Creed 2 and add RPG elements to it. It's good, yeah, for a fantasy game again. But imagine firing .50cal Anti-Materiel bullet, surviving it and doing the same thing again to gain more levels. Problems? Yeah, because it wrecks you apart you would have to be going up 15 levels, which would add harder opponents if there was level scaling. Or try letting Super Mutant hit you 100 times in the head, add more skill points to armor. Hurrah! Then get killed by radscorpion poison because he got to level 150...
The game mechanics are inherently different. It's impossible to change it to the core. Else we would get 1000 tons of ammo in Wasteland, which is very stupid. On the other hand, I can go and do smithing and craft a sword or an arrow. But I can't quite do the same thing with a full caliber weapon if I was born in a world where I wouldn't know what the hell toilet paper is.
Also whoever wrote that IGN text seems to have forgotten Gothic 3. Patched game can par with Skyrim easily with the massiveness. And it used a rather different RPG system, which was good in the end, which was transferred to Risen. Their type of a game, not "bought licence haxoor i best rule, make it fun" type. Again, I specify G3 patched version, official product was a fail because of the bugs.
But it's not like everything was so spectacular we have never seen it anywhere like in Skyrim. Beth just have their own way. Works for them, we know it works for TES games, but don't force it on others.
I still thank the good lord or whatever is out there for Obsidian and FNV. And you can see how Fallout 3 was easily affected with "the Scrolls syndrome". FO3 had mostly filler perks, made you a god walking machine in one minute of play and bored the shit out of the rest. FNV was careful planing, using Van Buren as a balance pillar.
The experiment to merge Fallout and Scrolls leveling simply failed. Problem is, Bethesda is going to continue using it this way. They are almost the same as Team17, thickheaded one way street...
The only type of that leveling that could work for newer type of real time Fallout games is sneak skill, or healing or even survival.
But anything else is impossible. Because Skyrim is in general action RPG, throw Assassins Creed 2 and add RPG elements to it. It's good, yeah, for a fantasy game again. But imagine firing .50cal Anti-Materiel bullet, surviving it and doing the same thing again to gain more levels. Problems? Yeah, because it wrecks you apart you would have to be going up 15 levels, which would add harder opponents if there was level scaling. Or try letting Super Mutant hit you 100 times in the head, add more skill points to armor. Hurrah! Then get killed by radscorpion poison because he got to level 150...
The game mechanics are inherently different. It's impossible to change it to the core. Else we would get 1000 tons of ammo in Wasteland, which is very stupid. On the other hand, I can go and do smithing and craft a sword or an arrow. But I can't quite do the same thing with a full caliber weapon if I was born in a world where I wouldn't know what the hell toilet paper is.
Also whoever wrote that IGN text seems to have forgotten Gothic 3. Patched game can par with Skyrim easily with the massiveness. And it used a rather different RPG system, which was good in the end, which was transferred to Risen. Their type of a game, not "bought licence haxoor i best rule, make it fun" type. Again, I specify G3 patched version, official product was a fail because of the bugs.
But it's not like everything was so spectacular we have never seen it anywhere like in Skyrim. Beth just have their own way. Works for them, we know it works for TES games, but don't force it on others.
I still thank the good lord or whatever is out there for Obsidian and FNV. And you can see how Fallout 3 was easily affected with "the Scrolls syndrome". FO3 had mostly filler perks, made you a god walking machine in one minute of play and bored the shit out of the rest. FNV was careful planing, using Van Buren as a balance pillar.
The experiment to merge Fallout and Scrolls leveling simply failed. Problem is, Bethesda is going to continue using it this way. They are almost the same as Team17, thickheaded one way street...
HyperionOmega
First time out of the vault
While I agree the method of skill leveling should stay within their perspective games (level by doing -> Skyrim, I assign-> Fallout) I find that Skyrim has had one of the best level-by-using mechanics I have seen yet. The archery skill which was one I never used in Oblivion due to its inherent ineffectiveness became a go to skill for me in Skyrim. Bethesda did it right this time, and regardless of all the crap that Bethesda has flung at it I must say Skyrim is a gem and I look forward to a Bethesda Fallout 4. Because Skyrim shows Bethesda can change and learn from what doesn't work.
Obsidian however seemed oblivious to what worked and instead seemed hell bent on "going back to the roots" when even the roots were to bitter to pay attention. F3 had a decent story line that I found engaging while the NV campaign seemed so damned generic I only finished it because I thought the great plot twist was just over the next horizon. The DLC's which I thought were going to be epitomes of writing all turned to generic crap, except Old World Blues which was ok. Then to add insult to injury you have a closed-ended open-world game
. Skyrim didn't have a mind shattering story either but it made you feel invested in it to a point.
With all that comes Skyrim with its many improvements over Oblivion and Fallout it suddenly becomes clear why this IGN guy did a mental suicide bomb on the church that is Fallout.
Obsidian however seemed oblivious to what worked and instead seemed hell bent on "going back to the roots" when even the roots were to bitter to pay attention. F3 had a decent story line that I found engaging while the NV campaign seemed so damned generic I only finished it because I thought the great plot twist was just over the next horizon. The DLC's which I thought were going to be epitomes of writing all turned to generic crap, except Old World Blues which was ok. Then to add insult to injury you have a closed-ended open-world game
. Skyrim didn't have a mind shattering story either but it made you feel invested in it to a point.With all that comes Skyrim with its many improvements over Oblivion and Fallout it suddenly becomes clear why this IGN guy did a mental suicide bomb on the church that is Fallout.
Walpknut
This ghoul has seen it all
Wait, you lost me when you said Fallout 3 had a decent storyline....