Skills in Fallout 4: What We Know

[fred2]

Copy pasting from quake con, what I gathered on perks:

• You choose a new a perk each time you gain level (and probably quest rewards\etc)
• They gave each perk several skill levels.
• They removed level requirements, but keyed all perks to specific attribute, making your character selection more important. (Presumably intelligence is no longer the one attribute to win them all)
• Having specific high special attribute means having bigger\better perks selection in it.
• There is a intimidation perk tied to charisma.

It makes sense for Fallout 4 though, since the skills had almost no use in Fallout 3. I mean outside of hacking and lock picking and such stuff. So they could as well remove it. Because they sadly never played a role in dialogues.

I agree that it makes sense for FO4, but not because I don't expect perks to have no impact. I think its the new system is better suited for FO4 for all the reason mentioned on the first pages and I see no reason why it can be used in a complex way. (not saying that Beth will use it in such way, but if they wanted to dumb down this it doesn't matter what system they use)

Also there is an intimidation perk, so there are conversation related perks. And hopefully this will offer more reasons to try different character builds, as oppose to previously obvious stat dumps\picks.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I really struggle to see how a wheel is better than a list. The only advantage I see is that it may or may not be prettier, but from technical and utilitarian standpoint, a list seems to be just much better.

How is it better from technical and utilitarian standpoint for games like action-RPGs, built or casual crowd and offering limited number of actions/interactions ? ( e.g. good/natural/bad or aggressive/professional etc )

Also lists has been used in the same capacity before. But wheels does the same thing, a bit more intuitive and less error prone to pick marked, especially on consoles and gamepads where they correlates to controller keys placement.

I don't know how many situations I had where the answer I picked really didn't feel much like what the character actually said. Prone to error? I say the error is often enough already build in by default ...

Part of the problem actually isn't even so much the wheel or list. Both can work, if you do it right. I will give them that much. But the reall issue is that they try to pander more and more to people that actually don't enjoy RPGs or what makes RPGs actually Role playing games. Let us be stereotypical, I am talking about the ADHD crowd that can't be arsed to go trough a few sentences because they have the attention span of a goldfish.

 

[PossibleCabbage]

Copy pasting from quake con, what I gathered on perks:

• You choose a new a perk each time you gain level (and probably quest rewards\etc)
• They gave each perk several skill levels.
• They removed level requirements, but keyed all perks to specific attribute, making your character selection more important. (Presumably intelligence is no longer the one attribute to win them all)
• Having specific high special attribute means having bigger\better perks selection in it.
• There is a intimidation perk tied to charisma.

It makes sense for Fallout 4 though, since the skills had almost no use in Fallout 3. I mean outside of hacking and lock picking and such stuff. So they could as well remove it. Because they sadly never played a role in dialogues.

I agree that it makes sense for FO4, but not because I don't expect perks to have no impact. I think its the new system is better suited for FO4 for all the reason mentioned on the first pages and I see no reason why it can be used in a complex way. (not saying that Beth will use it in such way, but if they wanted to dumb down this it doesn't matter what system they use)

Also there is an intimidation perk, so there are conversation related perks. And hopefully this will offer more reasons to try different character builds, as oppose to previously obvious stat dumps\picks.

One thing I'm curious about is whether there's a way to increase your SPECIAL as you play, or are you tied into never getting the perks that require very high SPECIAL if you don't minmax at chargen.

If I'm reading this right there are 70 perks, each tied to 1 of the 10 levels of 7 SPECIAL stats. So if the SPECIAL array carries over from the immediate predecessors (40 total points) then you're automatically cut off from 30 perks at chargen. This is fine, but the presence of perks that require a 10 in something sort of encourages people to minmax.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Not to mention the fact that Bethesda seems to really like the concept of base stat increases for perks.

I for one don't like having to use perks that could utilized for interesting effects on just maintaining parity for my ability to deal or absorb damage.

They did this in Skyrim, where you'd have to waste 5 of your perks per skill on just simple 20% damage or armor increases.

I mean, you'd think they'd just leave it to the skill increasing by their standard "increase by use" system to boost something as simple as increasing numbers, but nope.

Now that skills are perks, there's no way it isn't going to be irritating.

 

[Crni Vuk]

I expect it to work very similar to Skyrim.

 

[fred2]

I expect it to work very similar to Skyrim.

Lets be honestly, based on what we know Skyrim system seem complex in comparison.... And while I was expecting that Beth will streamline skills\perks, and its not that a system need to be complex in order to have real impact on gameplay depth (there are some very good examples of that) At this point I am struggling to keep optimistic about what they'll come up with. Damn PR and your info dribble, open the god damn floodgates and give us something real !

 

[Courier]

Is anyone really surprised that the game is looking like Skyrim with guns, though?

At the very least at least Skyrim proved that Bethesda is getting better at gray morality instead of blatant black/white stuff. Maybe this time they'll actually let you side with different factions!

 

[Oppen]

As long as it's not siding the idiotic way...
I mean, you can technically side with Eden in Fallout 3. You can side to basically commit suicide, but it's so kewl, I can killz the whole waztlan'!

 

[Courier]

Well I meant like, in Skyrim at least you could side with either the Stormcloaks or the Imperials and both factions were morally gray at best. It wasn't an army of Jesus clones vs Nazis led by robo-Hitler himself with only the choice to side with the good guys for most of the main questline. Hopefully Fallout 4 will be more along the lines of Skyrim.

For a lot of minor questlines in Skyrim though you could only side with one faction which was kind of dumb. Like that werewolf questline where you go fight the werewolf hunters, would've been cool to be given the chance to join them instead and fight the werewolves. I can only really remember like two quests where you were given a choice of who to side with. Hopefully Fallout 4 will improve upon that.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Sadly all of that gray you're talking about was killed by the atrocius writting and shitty quests design :/

I still don't get it why Bethesda is so incredible bad at storytelling. I mean as long as things are keept to a certain scale, it works. But than something like a Demonic Invasion has to happen! Or a Civil War! And suddenly you end up with 5 people attacking a town of 10 people calling it a siege/civil war and invasion ... Oh boy. I mean I know that people very often repeat engine limitation, engine limitation! Like a mantra ... but ... that doesnt make the situation any better or less comical.

 

[Oppen]

Probably because there's this idea that anyone can write, so they pay far less for writing than they do for graphics design.

 

[Stone Cold Robert House]

Well I meant like, in Skyrim at least you could side with either the Stormcloaks or the Imperials and both factions were morally gray at best. It wasn't an army of Jesus clones vs Nazis led by robo-Hitler himself with only the choice to side with the good guys for most of the main questline. Hopefully Fallout 4 will be more along the lines of Skyrim.

For a lot of minor questlines in Skyrim though you could only side with one faction which was kind of dumb. Like that werewolf questline where you go fight the werewolf hunters, would've been cool to be given the chance to join them instead and fight the werewolves. I can only really remember like two quests where you were given a choice of who to side with. Hopefully Fallout 4 will improve upon that.

How was the Civil War conflict morally gray at all? The game has one attempt to make the conflict appear fair, and that's in the very beggining when they have the Imperials arrest you to try to make a bad first impression for people new to the series, but everything else in the entire world is completely one-sided for the Empire. They hammer the point that the Oblivion Crisis and subsequent Aldmeri ressurgence puts the Empire into a stranglehold, and every character makes viable points as to why they have done everything they have. The Stormcloaks are, meanwhile, portrayed as nothing but xenophobic, stupid and disorganized rebels. Their main point is that they don't like how Talos worship was forbidden... even though the White-Gold Concordat only removed the worship Talos in name only, when in fact it was undoubtedly a formality held under a strict "don't ask don't tell" rule, for as we see there are numerous staunch Imperials privately worshipping Talos many years after the Concordat's signature, without being persecuted for it. Talos worshippers were not actively hunted until a certain Ulfric Stormcloak decided to throw a hissy-fit about the ban on overt worship of Talos and the principle of what he sees as surrendering to the Dominion. This, of course, leads to Thalmor forces pressuring the Empire into forbidding it in an actual sense. Which means, effectively, the Stormcloaks are the very cause of the one thing they fight against. The player's choice is reduced to siding with the stable government that only ever did something "wrong" when it was forced to, whose unity is the only chance to stop the Aldmeri Dominion... versus a band of dumb rebels who think they can push for a Nord-dominated Skyrim, to take alone on a force the whole Empire previously couldn't take on without considering huge losses, which follows the principles of racial superiority and xenophobia.

Honestly I find it ridiculous that Skyrim's civil war could be seen as morally gray. The story is so poorly thought out, they failed completely at making one side have any qualities over the other, and any sympathy created for it is artificial at best. That's exactly the problem which was in Fallout 3 and Skyrim which we cannot have in Fallout 4. If you're going to involve faction warfare as a major part of your storyline at all, you have to actually make each side have their own faults and qualities... not just make it seem like they do through special moments, when every single other part of your game makes the "good" and "bad" factions very clear cut.

 

[Askorti]

And then we have Fallout New Vegas, which portrays all the major factions with good and bad sides. Yes, the Caesar's legion is the "bad guy" bu even they do have their redeeming factors like safe passage for traders, no raiders, merit over birthright and good organization. On the other hand we see NCR as incompetent, decentralized and disorganized, corrupt, unsafe and in many cases just as morally ambiguous as the legion.
And this is what makes the war over the dam interesting, as both factions seem based in reality. Some would call the legion cartoonishly evil, but all things that the legion does are known to have been done in history. Compare this to Paragon Knights versus puppy kickers in Fo3.

 

[Crni Vuk]

Well @Stone Cold Robert House Now that you mention it. Playing something that is not nord ... it is literaly impossible to really side with the Stormcloacks, particularly if you're argonian/black elf and see how Ulfric and his people actually treat those races you simply have no choice but to hate him. I mean joining them at this point, that's like a Jew or Black Person siding with a Nazi faction ... well maybe not that extreme, but you get the picture.

 

[Courier]

How was the Civil War conflict morally gray at all?\

Well yeah the Stormcloaks were clearly in the wrong still, my point was just that they weren't, y'know, evil. I mean sure they were racist, but so is almost everybody in the Elder Scrolls series. The Thalmor were racists too.

They just weren't like, crypto-Nazis or slavers or anything. It proved that Bethesda can manage stories outside the realm of "army of noble pure-hearted crusaders vs. army of pure evil".

Like Crni said though, their writing still sucked regardless. Hopefully that's something that will improve with Fallout 4 but I'm not counting on it. At the very least though I hope they'll allow you to side with more than one faction like they did in Skyrim.

 

[Askorti]

How was the Civil War conflict morally gray at all?\

Well yeah the Stormcloaks were clearly in the wrong still, my point was just that they weren't, y'know, evil. I mean sure they were racist, but so is almost everybody in the Elder Scrolls series. The Thalmor were racists too.

They just weren't like, crypto-Nazis or slavers or anything.

Doesn't change the fact that they are simply wrong and foolish. There is no good reason to support the Stormcloaks and many reasons not to do it. That's why it's not very gray, as there is clearly the right side and the wrong side of this conflict.

 

[Courier]

Eh, I disagree that one side being clearly better from a pragmatic point of view makes them morally superior somehow. The Stormcloaks were kind of assholes but they weren't evil, it was just kept secret from them that what they were doing wasn't going to help anything.

Their motivations were understandable too. You can come across Thalmor scouting Skyrim for Talos worshipers to execute who will literally attack you instantly for even daring to give a neutral response when asked about Talos. Getting mad about those guys isn't unreasonable or evil.

Edit: And to be honest unless you actually read certain documents you come across throughout the game the Stormcloaks kind of do look like the good guys who are in the right, assuming you're a Nord at least.

 

[Askorti]

Eh, I disagree that one side being clearly better from a pragmatic point of view makes them morally superior somehow. The Stormcloaks were kind of assholes but they weren't evil, it was just kept secret from them that what they were doing wasn't going to help anything.

Their motivations were understandable too. You can come across Thalmor scouting Skyrim for Talos worshipers to execute who will literally attack you instantly for even daring to give a neutral response when asked about Talos. Getting mad about those guys isn't unreasonable or evil.

Yea, but the Stormcloak rebellion is what made Thalmor "invade" Skyrim with their witch hunt in the first place. If it wasn't for Ulfrick's little tantrum nobody would mind people worshiping Talos in secret. So Ulfrick is the very reason nords are fighting each other.

 

[Courier]

The Stormcloak rebellion started with Ulfric recapturing Markarth from the Forsworn for the Empire under the agreement that if he did so they'd keep allowing Talos worship. The jarl broke this promise and Thalmor started coming to Skyrim after that to enforce the Talos worship ban, then it turned into a rebellion.

So while the Empire is clearly still the better solution to the problem, I don't think either side is really morally in the right. I mean, sure the Stormcloaks are racist, but the Empire is really execution-happy and doesn't seem to worry too much about whether the people they're sentencing to death are innocent or not so I mean it balances out (and that's not even counting Thalmor shenanigans).

Edit: I accidentally derailed this thread a little, sorry.

 

[AgentBJ09]

Sadly all of that gray you're talking about was killed by the atrocius writting and shitty quests design :/

I still don't get it why Bethesda is so incredible bad at storytelling. I mean as long as things are keept to a certain scale, it works. But than something like a Demonic Invasion has to happen! Or a Civil War! And suddenly you end up with 5 people attacking a town of 10 people calling it a siege/civil war and invasion ... Oh boy. I mean I know that people very often repeat engine limitation, engine limitation! Like a mantra ... but ... that doesnt make the situation any better or less comical.

"Engine limitation" is an excuse the public likes to use, but all the same, it's very true for Gamebryo engines. Otherwise, it has more to do with what kinds of games Bethesda makes and where they put their focus, even when the writing calls for an epic event. (I've had Alduin sit stock still and not attack the kid in Helgan for upwards of a minute before the game remembers what its doing.)

Well I meant like, in Skyrim at least you could side with either the Stormcloaks or the Imperials and both factions were morally gray at best. It wasn't an army of Jesus clones vs Nazis led by robo-Hitler himself with only the choice to side with the good guys for most of the main questline. Hopefully Fallout 4 will be more along the lines of Skyrim.

For a lot of minor questlines in Skyrim though you could only side with one faction which was kind of dumb. Like that werewolf questline where you go fight the werewolf hunters, would've been cool to be given the chance to join them instead and fight the werewolves. I can only really remember like two quests where you were given a choice of who to side with. Hopefully Fallout 4 will improve upon that.

How was the Civil War conflict morally gray at all? The game has one attempt to make the conflict appear fair, and that's in the very beggining when they have the Imperials arrest you to try to make a bad first impression for people new to the series, but everything else in the entire world is completely one-sided for the Empire. They hammer the point that the Oblivion Crisis and subsequent Aldmeri ressurgence puts the Empire into a stranglehold, and every character makes viable points as to why they have done everything they have. The Stormcloaks are, meanwhile, portrayed as nothing but xenophobic, stupid and disorganized rebels. Their main point is that they don't like how Talos worship was forbidden... even though the White-Gold Concordat only removed the worship Talos in name only, when in fact it was undoubtedly a formality held under a strict "don't ask don't tell" rule, for as we see there are numerous staunch Imperials privately worshipping Talos many years after the Concordat's signature, without being persecuted for it. Talos worshippers were not actively hunted until a certain Ulfric Stormcloak decided to throw a hissy-fit about the ban on overt worship of Talos and the principle of what he sees as surrendering to the Dominion. This, of course, leads to Thalmor forces pressuring the Empire into forbidding it in an actual sense. Which means, effectively, the Stormcloaks are the very cause of the one thing they fight against. The player's choice is reduced to siding with the stable government that only ever did something "wrong" when it was forced to, whose unity is the only chance to stop the Aldmeri Dominion... versus a band of dumb rebels who think they can push for a Nord-dominated Skyrim, to take alone on a force the whole Empire previously couldn't take on without considering huge losses, which follows the principles of racial superiority and xenophobia.

Honestly I find it ridiculous that Skyrim's civil war could be seen as morally gray. The story is so poorly thought out, they failed completely at making one side have any qualities over the other, and any sympathy created for it is artificial at best. That's exactly the problem which was in Fallout 3 and Skyrim which we cannot have in Fallout 4. If you're going to involve faction warfare as a major part of your storyline at all, you have to actually make each side have their own faults and qualities... not just make it seem like they do through special moments, when every single other part of your game makes the "good" and "bad" factions very clear cut.

The fact that your race is barely acknowledged in regards to Skyrim's civil war, much less makes a difference in dialogue/reactions elsewhere, doesn't help. I couldn't see the Stormcloaks taking an elf, Breton or Imperial onto their side, and yet its always possible, with little hesitation.