• As part of the relaunch of Skullheart, ALL previous threads have been archived. You can find them at the bottom of the forum in the Archives (2021) section. The archives are locked, so please use the new forum sections to create new discussion threads.

War changes occasionally, aka The Fallout Thread

BTW on removing skills, I noticed a requirement for a Science skill in the weapon mod window (example here, on the far right).

Since it's "req. rank 2 Science!" rather than say "req. 30% Science!" I'm guessing skills might be not so much removed but redesigned? Perhaps in F4, rather than with character points, they are improved with practice, or received training. Or instead of 10-20 character points per level, we get more like 1-2 and invest them to boost the rank of skill? Dunno, thinking out loud here.
 
How much does this affect the hope of Obsidian doing Fallout 4: The Better Version?
 
How much does this affect the hope of Obsidian doing Fallout 4: The Better Version?
Id say quite a hit since he was one of the main guys for FO:NV, planescape torment, and PoE

You know...the really, really, really good games.

And skills are gone? That sucks, at least give us traits.
 
Is anyone else worried the writting might take a hit due to a voice protagonist?

I mean, with a voiced protagonist there's the chance Bethesda will focus less on writing and more on making sure the protagonist doesnt sound like shit. Since he/she/it will probably talking more than probably any other character in FO4.

Also, who's not going to buy FO4 Day One due to Bethesda's Anti QA testing policy?

Seriously the only tester there is Goulesh, the hunchback they keep in the basement.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Dave
Can someone explain where it was stated that Skills are no longer in the game? Worse case scenario someone will mod them in a week later.
 
How much does this affect the hope of Obsidian doing Fallout 4: The Better Version?

Chris Avellone was also the initial lead designer of the canceled Fallout 3 project that Black Isle studios was working on some time back. Many of the elements and characters from that project were recycled for use in New Vegas.

Videos of an early tech demo are out there and I believe it’s still available for download somewhere, but I don’t remember the details.

J.E. Sawyer replaced Avellone till the project was shut down and they both ended up at Obsidian some years later. Sawyer eventually became the project director for New Vegas and Avellone later took a larger in development and became the lead designer for most of the following DLC.
J.E. Sawyer is still with Obsidian so far as I’m aware.

Worse case scenario someone will mod them in a week later.

Worst case scenario is that it becomes a major PITA to implement because there’s nothing you can really hook in to and all items you want to interact with skills need to be added and adjusted one by one. You probably wouldn’t get anything like the older systems in that case.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ktulu
Im guessing they made the Skills like they are in Skyrim, streamlined to the point of being overly casual.
 
Last edited:
Guys Fallout 4 is shaping up to be the best Elder Scrolls game yet!
 
Guys Fallout 4 is shaping up to be the worst Elder Scrolls game yet!
*Fixed it for ya pal
 
Im guess they made the Skills like they are in Skyrim, streamlined to the point of being overly casual.

Well that's diffrent you said there are no skills and you are guessing they made it like Skyrim but have the shown anything that supports this? Or are you just making a guess?
 
Well that's diffrent you said there are no skills and you are guessing they made it like Skyrim but have the shown anything that supports this? Or are you just making a guess?
If the skills level by Ranks then its exactly the same as Skyrim, maybe we'll look to a irradiated starry sky and pick out perks that way.
*shudders*
 
I'm just saying don't assume something is bad until it has been proven that it is bad. Since skills were not shown off at the E3 at all there's still a chance that it remains unchanged.
If they did change it I would think they would've shown it off like all the other changes.
 
If the skills level by Ranks then its exactly the same as Skyrim, maybe we'll look to a irradiated starry sky and pick out perks that way.
*shudders*

If skills have been rolled into perks as the image @Muro posted may suggest, then FO4‘s system could be quite a bit more simplified than Skyrim’s. Skills in Skyrim still at least have their own uses aside from meeting the requirements for perks and manipulating them can have a significant impact on gameplay.

Reducing skills to ranked feats/perks like toughness or swift learner could potentially work out well if they want to focus even more on strategy and building elements than they initially wanted to in Skyrim, but I’m not holding my breath. The worst thing that they could do is make them essentially meaningless by automatically awarding skill themed perks to the player for killing so many enemies/crafting so many items.
 
Im guessing they made the Skills like they are in Skyrim, streamlined to the point of being overly casual.
when is being casual being a bad thing?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magma442
People are already saying Fallout 4 is going to be bad? Whatever, the game looks amazing and I can't wait to play it.
 
FALLOUT 4 SUCKZ! MORTAL KOMBAT'S BETTER!
 
I'm curious, why would skills working similarly to Skyrim be a bad thing? While both systems to increase the PC's skills have their charm, I always found Skyrim's "become better at sneaking by successfully sneaking" to be more logical than Fallout's "shoot molerats with a laser pistol to level up and become better at speech, somehow".
 
  • Like
Reactions: Magma442
You mean you don't become better at punching people when you're shooting Scorpions with your pistol in real life?
My life is meaningless now.

Also, I guess cause this "technique" was used basically in every single Fallout game so having it changed is quite "Unorthodox"?
Another thing, I'm guessing they will somehow make it exploitable.
Anyone can relate before "that" patch when you were basically capable of achieving 100 smithing by doing nothing but Iron Daggers in Skyrim.

Don't get me wrong though, I see no problem with skills working like that in Fallout, I'm actually anticipating for it.
 
I'm curious, why would skills working similarly to Skyrim be a bad thing? While both systems to increase the PC's skills have their charm, I always found Skyrim's "become better at sneaking by successfully sneaking" to be more logical than Fallout's "shoot molerats with a laser pistol to level up and become better at speech, somehow".

Elder Scrolls skill points: You do a thing. You suck at the thing. You keep doing it and, eventually, your character stops sucking at the thing. Once your character stops sucking at that thing, your character continues to suck at everything else so long as he does that thing that you spent the entire game becoming good at.

Fallout skill points: You suck at everything. You do anything with an XP reward, and get a chance to suck less at anything you want. This continues until you run out of XP to gain. It isn't just "Oh, I hit a mole rat with a shovel, and I can talk now!" It's "Hey, I delivered those bits and bobs to Bobbit and have some special insight I can put wherever I want."

To me, the Elder Scrolls system is "realistic" in the same way that your character periodically stubbing his toe, having to use the restroom, and watching out for tetanus is "realistic:" It's realistically tedious and dull. It penalizes specialization because, once you've maxed out a skill, you stop getting anything for using that skill. If you want to advance your character again, you effectively have to go back to level 1. It also makes quests less enticing because the only reward you get is whatever the NPC's offer you.

By contrast, the traditional Fallout skill point system rewards you for specializing, and lets you get around sucking at one skill by farming points with another. If you yourself are a lousy shot, you don't want extra game mechanics getting in the way. By contrast, use Speech enough, and you can put points into Guns so you don't have to deal with rifle sway. It's more artificial, but in a good way: Direct skill points allow more efficient player control. It also means I want to do just about every quest available for the XP. Grognar's Quest for the Mighty Mace of Masonry is frigging useless if I'm playing a longsword enchanter. (This was a bigger problem in Morrowind, where finding someone with adequate gold reserves to sell useless quest rewards was pretty tough, especially when you took into account encumbrance limits.)

Is the Elder Scrolls system more logical, more realistic? Certainly. But I, personally, find this particular realism less fun.
 
when is being casual being a bad thing?
Being casual is a terrible thing, look at how Skyrim removed Birthsigns, Races actually meaning anything and (In my opinion) added that dreadful perk system. Someone at Bethesda already said that the reason they got the voiced protagonist is to cater to the casual crowd, so I'd imagine that the game is going to lack any difficulty whatsoever, like Skyrim.
 
Last edited:
so I'd imagine that the game is going to lack any difficulty whatsoever, like Skyrim.

In before Hardcore mode gets replaced with "Advanced mode". Now, instead of suffering hunger, sleep deprivation and hydration, you must focus on....
What the "Normal mode" is in the other Fallouts.
 
Anyway, is anyone else worried about how they will implement faction relationships?
If you've played Skyrim, you already know how terrible the faction relations are basically made.
Say you become a member of the Imperials, literally help the Empire take down Ulfric Stormcloak and his loyal Nords, and I suffer no repercussion for me siding with the Imperials. And the Nords in other towns still basically don't give 2 ****s about me and take me as a regular citizen. (I literally expected to be called an Imperial Scum or something by the Nords.)

I'm worried if they add this into the Fallout 4 world the game will become even less intriguing. I found it very fun when I was part of Caesar's Legion and basically I was hated by everyone and I had to watch my back, otherwise I'd have 3 NCR Rangers up my ass. Or, if I sided with someone like Mr.House. I'd better pray there's no Centurion coming in.
Basically, how do you think will Bethesda implement the faction relationships? Will they make it as boring as Skyrim? Or will they finally realize how terrible it was and take an example from New Vegas or something?
 
Basically, how do you think will Bethesda implement the faction relationships? Will they make it as boring as Skyrim? Or will they finally realize how terrible it was and take an example from New Vegas or something?
Skyrim had absolutely no choices and consequences. Fallout 3 - maybe like 2 actual choices, with laughable if negligible consequences. Both games are open to the extreme where you can go everywhere, do everything, become everyone and don't have to worry about considering your actions - the game will be sure to not be a meanie to the baby and not lock anything because of its decisions and/or misdeeds.

F1, F2 and Vegas are examples of why choices and consequences are a good thing in RPGs, and how to implement them. But, Bethesda had F1/F2 to look at before F3, and the opportunity to draw conclusions from Vegas before Skyrim. Neither happened, and with the stated approach of appealing to the casual crowd, I'm not keeping my hopes up.
 
Don't forget Morrowind. That TES game really shows consequences very well and that the impact of your actions will be huge.
Can't they just ATLEAST add 1 thing from the F1/2, Vegas or Morrowind games that made them great? The consequences?
I feel like immortal NPCs are terrible. In Morrowind I could kill the character of the main plot and basically still keep playing, but I will never save morrowind basically. And I could be totally fine with that, if that meant my character was supposed to be a demon possessed Breton who wants to bring carnage to the lands. And seeing how they're starting to become more and more common.. Eh I think we'll barely get to kill anyone in Fallout 4. If we're looking through the Skyrim perspective, of course.
 
They did say in Fallout 4 we could shoot someone we're talking to in the face. There's people we can kill. They'll probably have some immortal enemies, though.
 
Don't forget Morrowind. That TES game really shows consequences very well and that the impact of your actions will be huge.
That's good to hear, actually. Between Skyrim and Fallout 3, I assumed Bethesda just doesn't "get" what choices and consequences are, or simply sees no need for them.

Then again, it means that they used to include them in their RPGs and at some point decided to drop them for whatever reason (casual appeal?).
 
“Broader” appeal and to cut down on the time needed to plan and trouble shoot things. Daggerfall had something like 8 different endings depending on who the player sided with and this was eventually squared into a single outcome were all of them happened at the same time through the power of timey wimey stuff.

While there were some fairly impactful choices in Morrowind, all the branching paths led to the same outcome. Multiple endings were planned at one point but were scrapped early on in part because they didn’t want to repeat what happened with Daggerfall’s ending. Morrowind also had a considerably smaller world map, cut some features, and simplified the overall skill system but things actually worked out fairly well on the whole. Morrowind was a more stable game because Bethesda wasn’t trying to do nearly as many things at the same time and what did make it was considerably better fleshed out.

Oblivion cut down on things even more without giving nearly as much back and was the most successful game in the series up to that point, so they likely saw no reason to look back. These days, they mostly put money and effort in to things they can easily market or save them dev time.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LugerSpamDouble
Being casual is a terrible thing, look at how Skyrim removed Birthsigns, Races actually meaning anything and (In my opinion) added that dreadful perk system. Someone at Bethesda already said that the reason they got the voiced protagonist is to cater to the casual crowd, so I'd imagine that the game is going to lack any difficulty whatsoever, like Skyrim.
all I got from this is "fuck" people who play games causally
calm down henny
 
all I got from this is "fuck" people who play games causally
calm down henny
You just don't get it, what if Lab Zero announced Skullgirls 2, just this time they added a block button, auto combos, removed the dark atmosphere and added Jar Jar Binks? Do you see where I'm coming from?
 
You just don't get it, what if Lab Zero announced Skullgirls 2, just this time they added a block button, auto combos, removed the dark atmosphere and added Jar Jar Binks? Do you see where I'm coming from?
That's actually quite different and a terrible example then what you're saying about Elder Scrolls and Fallout. Since when is a block button casual? Mortal Kombat? Anyone?
 
Let me ask was simplifying Skyrim really a terrible idea? I enjoyed it and if fallout goes the same way than bring on Fallout 4. Also most of your fears have not been proven so I think you are being salty about nothing Milk.
 
I didn't really mind the simplification of Skyrim THAT much. Just that the lack of consequences for your actions ticked me off the most. And making the puzzles really like kindergarten level also annoyed me.
Other than that, I am anticipating for Fallout 4, let's just hope it won't be a LITERAL Wasteland like in Fallout 3. Seriously, I think Bethesda took the term "Wasteland" in "Capital Wasteland" a bit too literally. Feels almost completely empty.
 
We have our first confirmed immortal NPC: The dog. Bullshit. The first thing I wanted to do was eat the bastard.
 
I figured it could take damage and die in combat if it wasn't careful. Or maybe you could kill and eat it. I wanted to eat it. Let me eat it.