Skills in Fallout 4: What We Know

[Oppen]

List of lists. Loved by CS people, hated by most. I find them practical.

I guess they are not prefered by some, visually speaking. As graphic designer you have sometimes to deal with the same issue when someone picks an obviously bad choice purely by the looks. And I feel it is very similar with the idea to make Dialogues in some kind of wheel that allows you no more than 4 choices, because you have 4 buttons!

I am fully aware that practicality is not always the only concern in design choices. I only stated I find them practical. I don't see that as a necessarily good or bad choice, but it's certainly its pro, for big lists, maybe encapsulating them in lists that represent categories, for example, would keep you from going one by one until you find the one you want. Can look bad, and certainly too many nested context menus in Windows and other OSes do look like crap.

 

[Walpknut]

I just can't wrap my head around someone who would be so agressively bored at something as simple and clean as a list. Do they need to have it FAST! PRESS BUTTON! NOW!!!! to keep interest? Is it the Mountain Dew? I suffer from mild ADHD and I still can't understand these people.

Makes me think of this:



The future of the game Industry.

 

[Oppen]

It depends. Does giving it faster come with detriment in quality? If the answer is no, then there is no reason not to make it fast.
I don't like the dialog wheel, because I don't think it's justified. I'm just saying having lists of lists and other variants is not necessarily crappy design.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

I just can't wrap my head aroudn someone who would ge so agressively broed at something as simple and clean as a list. Do they need to have it FAST! PRESS BUTTON! NOW!!!! to keep interest? Is it the Mountain Dew? I suffer from mild ADHD and I still can't understand these people.

The real thing I'm confused about is why the conversation options are mapped to buttons and not directions followed by a button press. "Hold the direction of the option you want to choose then hit the 'A' button" is a completely sensible conversation interface for people who are using a controller. It gives you up to 8 options naturally (the four cardinal directions and the 4 diagonals), and even Planescape: Torment rarely used more than 7. Having 1-8 options in a line and having 1-8 options in a circle is basically the same thing except the former is easier with number keys and the latter is easier with an analog stick.

Bethesda bragged about "you can walk away from people or even shoot them while you're talking to them" as a potential argument for their interface, but you can't do things that require one of the four face buttons while talking to someone with they way they've done it.

 

[Oppen]

Seriously, that piece of "you can shoot them while you're talking to them" sounds aimed to a dysfunctional ADHD sufferer.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

Seriously, that piece of "you can shoot them while you're talking to them" sounds aimed to a dysfunctional ADHD sufferer.

There's this weird tendency for open world games to brag about how you can kill all sorts of people and commit lots of crimes if you want, and then fail to give you a reason to do so. There was literally a loading screen in Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning that said something to the effect of "don't think that commoner is giving you enough respect? Hit [button] to enter aggressive mode and teach them a lesson and go on a crime spree" despite that the game has some of the flattest, blandest characters I've ever seen so there's no reason whatsoever to do any of this beyond "it's possible" and "perhaps you are roleplaying a psychopath."

Who is this supposed to appeal to? Like what either actually is the audience for these sorts of games, or what do the people making them think about their audience? I just don't get it. The stuff I want in open world games is "ways to deal with obstacles or antagonists other than killing them."

Then again, there was that article on all the gaming blogs last year about the guy who spent 7 months killing every NPC in Fallout 3. So maybe I'm the outlier.

 

[Walpknut]

It's funny how AAA videogames are turnning into what people in the 90's thought all videogames were, mindless carnage simulators.

 

[Hardboiled Android]

The thing is there's nothing really wrong with a carnage simulator. They're great fun, and they're "awesome", but when I want an actual story I want to be able to play an RPG.

 

[Oppen]

I think the problem is everyone wants to become GTA. GTA is fun, yes, but it's far from being the only way to have fun, or even the best one. It's great to kill time murdering civilians with little to no consequence, but, you know, I like the missions better even while playing GTA, I don't want every single game to be GTA.

 

[Big No]

That's pretty much why I couldn't get into Crackdown. To much focus on carnage, not enough plot.

 

[Walpknut]

I enjoy a fun violent romp game too, but just like Oppen says the problem is that every single game is turnning into this, it's quite worrying.

 

[AgentBJ09]

There's this weird tendency for open world games to brag about how you can kill all sorts of people and commit lots of crimes if you want, and then fail to give you a reason to do so. There was literally a loading screen in Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning that said something to the effect of "don't think that commoner is giving you enough respect? Hit [button] to enter aggressive mode and teach them a lesson and go on a crime spree" despite that the game has some of the flattest, blandest characters I've ever seen so there's no reason whatsoever to do any of this beyond "it's possible" and "perhaps you are roleplaying a psychopath."

Who is this supposed to appeal to? Like what either actually is the audience for these sorts of games, or what do the people making them think about their audience? I just don't get it. The stuff I want in open world games is "ways to deal with obstacles or antagonists other than killing them."

Then again, there was that article on all the gaming blogs last year about the guy who spent 7 months killing every NPC in Fallout 3. So maybe I'm the outlier.

R.A. Salvatore has a way with making his characters sound natural for the world they inhabit, even if they come off as bland in the process. It works for what it does, I'd say.

As for the multiple options/paths for quests and characters, Bethesda would be well served to take some notes from Eidos Montreal and all of the Deus Ex series.

 

[Crni Vuk]

To be clear though, Deus Ex are pretty good shooters first and mediocre RPGs second. At no point have I ever seen Deus Ex and all the games which followed it as RPGs. What realy seperated Deus Ex from the rest of the games in its genre was the fact that it had excelent and mature writting and plot. Something that a lot of games could use and learn from. Including Fallout 3 and Fallout 4. But, even if they do that, following the footsteps of Deus Ex in the sense that they give you a great plot and excelent writting, it still doesn't mean that it offers you more of the role playing experience which Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are famous for. Having a deep and engaging plot is a good start. But it doesn't end here. For example in Deus Ex, you're always playing the character of JC Denton and now Adam Jenson - Deus Ex 2 is an abomination that doesnt exist for me. And while the game offers you a lot of freedom, which I really welcome! The framework of the game almost never allows you to step outside of that role. And when ever you do, it is rather comical than really a part of the game - albeit I would say it is not necessarily something that makes the game worse.

 

[TheGreatCornholio]

I think the problem is everyone wants to become GTA. GTA is fun, yes, but it's far from being the only way to have fun, or even the best one. It's great to kill time murdering civilians with little to no consequence, but, you know, I like the missions better even while playing GTA, I don't want every single game to be GTA.

I like GTA also but rampaging does get boring after about 10 minutes, the missions and story / cut scenes make the game.

 

[Walpknut]

When people saY "DIALOGUE WHEEL WORKED WELL IN X!" they usually ignore that both games aren't ANYTHING alike. You know?
Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex have VERY different focuses and design goals than Fallout. And no, changing the game to a different genre to accomodate a design choice that doesn't fit well with the game in the first place is not good design. Crippling the game just to accomodate elements of games of other genres is the epitome of bad game design....

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well, I would not be surprised if the current evolution of Fallout with Bethesda is leading us simply to an open world shooter with a few dialogues. And most probably it's the same way for The Elderscrolls, at least if you're looking at the changes from Morrowind, to Oblivion and now Skyrim.

 

[woo1108]

Bethesda is leading us simply to an open world shooter with a few dialogues.

It's more like linear shooter with open world thanks to linear dungeons.
playing scream for 100 hour and I realized that there is no notable dungeon in scream.
they are all same: following linear dungeon.
and all the quests in scream are all same too: leading player to repeat crawling linear dungeons.

so, what can we expect from failout 4?
it will be linear shooter with MMORPG-like quests.
no hope from them.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Eh? you know what's awesome. People already now praise Bethesda for more or less removing the skills - granted we have no clue how it will work in the end! But still, doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy in your heart as RPG gamer ...

You can read comments like "They have been superficial in F3/Vegas anyway! Glad they removed them for a better game" and so on. And the really bad news is ... they are right :/, it might really be the better game, compared to F3.

 

[woo1108]

Removing skill itself isn't bad idea unless they have other decent content.
beside, skill system of both failout 3 and NV sucks.
problem is, they don't have any decent things to replace skills.
perks are.. just born to make player invincible.
what's left for failout 4 is just boring shooting and lootings.
same as failout 3 and scream.

people already praised failout 3 and scream for dungeon.
I'm not surprised at all.

 

[AgentBJ09]

To be clear though, Deus Ex are pretty good shooters first and mediocre RPGs second. At no point have I ever seen Deus Ex and all the games which followed it as RPGs. What realy seperated Deus Ex from the rest of the games in its genre was the fact that it had excelent and mature writting and plot. Something that a lot of games could use and learn from. Including Fallout 3 and Fallout 4. But, even if they do that, following the footsteps of Deus Ex in the sense that they give you a great plot and excelent writting, it still doesn't mean that it offers you more of the role playing experience which Fallout 1 and Fallout 2 are famous for. Having a deep and engaging plot is a good start. But it doesn't end here. For example in Deus Ex, you're always playing the character of JC Denton and now Adam Jenson - Deus Ex 2 is an abomination that doesnt exist for me. And while the game offers you a lot of freedom, which I really welcome! The framework of the game almost never allows you to step outside of that role. And when ever you do, it is rather comical than really a part of the game - albeit I would say it is not necessarily something that makes the game worse.

Right, which is why they're considered ARPGs. F3 and NV fell into this same vein, since your Skills made a difference during play, despite direct player input like aiming, lockpicking skill, etc. (I never understood the hate for Deus Ex: Invisible War; never considered it a bad game so much as hobbled by a heavy leaning towards graphical power.) If all Bethesda took from those games though was more ways to reach/achieve objectives, I'd be pleased.

RPing on the other hand has to be a design priority throughout development, and most of Bethesda's TES-influenced/designed games are hobbled there by default; Arena set the formula of the series to be heavily based in dungeon-crawling akin to D&D. Morrowind did change things a bit, but it didn't stay that way once the series went mainstream. Skyrim didn't change it in any meaningful ways, and in fact, it plays like a step backwards. (I have seen mods that introduce multi-pathed dialogue chains with most NPCs in Morrowind, a-la Planescape, so it can be done, if Bethesda made the effort.)

If what we get from F4 is a Shooter with RPG Elements...ugh. Really don't want to fathom the implications of such a thing.

When people saY "DIALOGUE WHEEL WORKED WELL IN X!" they usually ignore that both games aren't ANYTHING alike. You know?
Alpha Protocol and Deus Ex have VERY different focuses and design goals than Fallout. And no, changing the game to a different genre to accomodate a design choice that doesn't fit well with the game in the first place is not good design. Crippling the game just to accomodate elements of games of other genres is the epitome of bad game design....

My thoughts exactly on how the shooting is being given the most attention and change, while the newer elements seem like ideas cribbed from modders and Hearthfire. That said, multi-solution gameplay is not something Bethesda does very well; if they insist on making the series more into a shooter, they should compensate by trying to offer more ways to approach objectives that don't entail pulling a gun. (The Dialogue Wheel was hated in DA2 by Origin fans, myself included, and even in Mass Effect, it is not well liked. It doesn't tell you exactly what you're about to say, which, I'd imagine, is a pet peeve of many for RPG design.)