Interview Codex interview with JE Sawyer

[VasikkA]

That's a very interesting interview. MCA and J.E Sawyer have had at least some acquaintance with the Codex so the interviews tend to have more content than bullshit. Both the questions and the answers are more straightforward. Does that style work when interviewing other(i.e. non-BIS) developers?

Despite some odd choices in game design, they came up with quite interesting additions to the story and locations in Van Buren. Corruption, paranoia and intolerance, oh yes!

 

[Claw]

However, I'm disappointed that he still hasn't answered why it's a good idea to force Diplomat Boys to diversify so they can't just pump up a single gamewinning skill while it's also a good idea to merge all the gun skills... and create a single gamewinning skill for Combat Boys to pump up.

I think he did. He wanted weapon skills other than gun skills to be more relevant, effectively reducing the omnipotence of the gun skills. Also, the gun skills really are point sinks, I believe he wanted to encourage players to invest some points into these other skills without feeling they waste points needed to pump another gun skill.
I would have preferred a system grouping skills under a superskill as compromise, but that's neither here nor there.

[The problems with the weapon skills wasn't the skills themselves, but the item availability. For example, where the starter big gun? Or energy weapon? Fallout 2 at least gave players a late game small arm, but they didn't give early big guns or energy weapons.

Yeah, that's why I always hoped FO3 would offer different starting locations and character backgrounds. If you could start in a high-tech place like Vault City, a laser pistol would be the logical starting location. I don't think I ever used a laser pistol in either Fallout.

 

[Ellester]

That was a nice interview. That said, after IWD2 and some of Sawyer's admitted "contributions" to FO3 I have to say that I don't really trust him. IWD2 was a ridiculous game and worst of all Sawyer seemed to be almost spiteful when he was making it. I remember 3-4 days after release he came on the BIS forums to gloat that no one had posted about completing the game because they had made it so difficult. To me he took what was a nifty dungeon crawl and turned it into a tedious level mill and then had the gall to be proud of that.

Actually the weird thing about Josh is he’s admitted many times his level design (Burial island) in IWD sucked, and he’s admitted IWD2 sucked, on the old IPLY forums no less. I agree with someone saying Josh sounds a little sour. He should be, he’s been in the business for a long time, but doesn’t have any credits to games he really wanted to make; like the Black hound and FO3. Heck he was taken off the Black Hound to make IWD2, something he didn’t want to do. And what happened? IPLY lost the license before The Black Hound got made. It would have gotten released if Fergie didn’t go with the IWD2 “Slam Dunk” and put The Black Hound a year behind schedule.

One thing I appreciate about Josh is he gives you a straight answer. He’ll say its good or it sucks. Sometimes I wonder what Fergie thinks of him because he can be so honest to the point of slamming his own company’s games. Obviously he implies that Obsidian is not a pure rpg company, I wonder if Fegrie and MCA agree?

Btw, two console titles from Obsidian sucks!

 

[Spazmo]

To respond to a bunch of people,

Okay, so while a merged gun skill is more powerful, that's balanced by scarcity of ammo. Let's accept that premise for now. But then doesn't that make melee a total game winning skill? If there's so few bullets, then I'll want to fight with weapons, so if I pump the hell out of that skill, I'm set.

The real thing is, I think, that any combat skill is basically a game winner if the game allows a Combat Boy path. It's easy to make Diplomat Boys diversify. Just have some NPCs who can be swayed by threats, some who can be swayed by persuasion, some by seduction and some by whatever other talk skill they wanted to include. But unless you have monster type X being immune to everything but guns, or everything but fists, or anything but a non-projectile weapon, then any combat skill can get you through any situation. So long as the game lets me pump up my melee weapons skill regularly, and so long as the game provides me with a steady succession of lead pipe, lead pipe +1, lead pipe +2 and so on, I don't need anything but that one skill.

You can, of course, make a character branch out of Combat Boy skills and into the other three (Stealth, Science and Diplomat Boys), and in each of the latter three character archetypes, some diversification is easy to "enforce", but Combat Boys will always be able to get away with just having one superskill to pump up.

And I think that's perfectly all right. Combat Boy should exist in RPGs as a no-brainer way for people who don't want to think too much about building their character. If they don't feel like thinking about just how useful a point in cow-tipping will be, they can just blindly dump points in their Hit Stuff skill and take the perks that come with that. And hey, they can play without thinking too much, either: just kill whatever stands between your PC and your objective.

 

[bryce777]

"Heavy combat areas were slammed up against really complicated puzzle areas and even areas of similar types often felt really dissimilar. "

Well, I thought the problem was that they were too similar. The few puzzle were the only thing icewind dale had od any real merit.


Other than that, surprisingly good answers.

 

[bryce777]

I love his response to question 13. If you're wondering why I hardly do anything around here anymore--that's why.

However, I'm disappointed that he still hasn't answered why it's a good idea to force Diplomat Boys to diversify so they can't just pump up a single gamewinning skill while it's also a good idea to merge all the gun skills... and create a single gamewinning skill for Combat Boys to pump up.

I thought his answer was pretty good: if you have complicated combat lots of combat skills make sense, if you have complicated dialog, lots of dialig makes sense. There are already like 4 combat skills, and in the game he was designing ammo would be very limited, as well. So, it was a drain to have to put points in all those skills. I have to agree, really. I don't know that deception would be a great skill but maybe persuasion and confidence would be good skills for dialog.

 

[Claw]

The real thing is, I think, that any combat skill is basically a game winner if the game allows a Combat Boy path.

Well, I've argued before that I see RPGs as a sort of interactive fiction, make-your-own-adventure game. So I see diversification as different ways to play the game, which should each be valid in its own right, and I don't see what you want. Should I be screwed if I don't have a specific skill trained when I need it?
By the way, I ain't sure that melee can be such a sure winner anyway. How about the turrets at the Military Base near San Fran in Fallout 2? What about a bunch of Super Mutants with heavy weapons? I just don't see how it's a no-brainer to defeat them just by pumping your melee skill. I've never tried myself, but isn't there a good chance they tear you to pieces before you even get close?
Oh, there may be ways around that, but no-brainer seems to imply you can just walk up and totally pwn them.

And I think that's perfectly all right.

Wait, what was the problem again? That there would have been two diplomat skills?

I don't know that deception would be a great skill but maybe persuasion and confidence would be good skills for dialog.

Depends on what you have in mind. I wasn't terribly fond of Josh's setup either. I'd have liked to see one skill responsible for broadening your talk options, and another for telling outright lies, bluffing etc. successfully, so deception would have been fine by me, but I don't know what to call the other.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Yeah, but in those games the ammunition was being created by like 1 or 2 guys. Secondly, it would be fine with me to just act as if ammunition were more scarce in those games. Throwing out 10mm for 9mm is pretty stupid. In the thing I mentioned I was writing I added in 9mm as your starting weapon (10mm is still there, it's just a medium cartridge, IRL it's basically a more powerful .40) for a balance reasons, and because it satisfies my own beliefs that the 9mm is a piddlydink wuss cartridge and satisfactory as a starting weapon.

Ammo is only being made by the smith and chemist in Adytum, the Brotherhood of Steel(which happens to be more than one guy), and the Gunrunners(another group) in Fallout 1. So, in the first game, which is the earliest point in time in the Fallout setting we're allowed to play in, you have two entire factions making ammunition as well as two other guys just refilling casings. Flash forward a century and several score years to Fallout 3, when people are making robots and coming up with nifty sci-fi stuff, is it more or less likely ammunition is still being made?

What do you mean? You shouldn't start with a big gun or an energy weapon because both of those are far more powerful than a small arm. Why would anyone pick small arms if you started out with anything more powerful, which only got more powerful as time went on? Energy weapons and big guns are the mages of sci-fi games, they start out weak and are strong in the end, small arms are the warriors, they start out strong and top out midway through the game. Though the gauss rifles were a nice addition.

Also, I doubt rocket launchers and laser guns are just lying around tribal encampments or Vaults.

Okay, I see that point went right over your head. You know, a blunderbus would make a fantastic starter weapon for big guns. It's nice and low tech, huge, powerful, and highly inaccurate and awkward. For energy weapons, you could always start with a nice, short range zapper pistol. Low damage, 4-5 hexes of accuracy, and so forth.

The point is that energy weapons and big guns don't have any range of usefulness through the course of the game. They're not a progressively useful skill because those two ranged skills are just middle to high end for big guns, and just high end for energy weapons.

 

[The_Pope]

I'd say it would make more sense to divide combat skills by actions rather than weapons. Some examples would be a marksmanship skill for shooting when your character uses extra action points to carefully aim, a hipshooting skill for burst fire and snap shots and maybe a run&gun skill to reduce the penalty for running around and shooting (I know they look like they're standing still in a TB game, but if you move 5 hexes then fire you probably don't have time to get into a good firing position). Dividing by weapon always feels arbitrary - putting a pistol in the same category as a barret .50 while leaving a laser pistol out is kind of silly, and it makes it hard to keep giving out useful weapons in all categories throughout the game.

 

[bryce777]

I'd say it would make more sense to divide combat skills by actions rather than weapons. Some examples would be a marksmanship skill for shooting when your character uses extra action points to carefully aim, a hipshooting skill for burst fire and snap shots and maybe a run&gun skill to reduce the penalty for running around and shooting (I know they look like they're standing still in a TB game, but if you move 5 hexes then fire you probably don't have time to get into a good firing position). Dividing by weapon always feels arbitrary - putting a pistol in the same category as a barret .50 while leaving a laser pistol out is kind of silly, and it makes it hard to keep giving out useful weapons in all categories throughout the game.

That makes sense. Also, that is basically how silent storm does it, and its skill system is infinitely better than fallout's in most ways.

I really feel skills like shooting should advance through usage, too. That is about the only way to really advance them much. Combat shooting is different than marksmanship, of course.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I know a lot of people had big problems with the system changes I was making and with the inclusion of groups like the Mormons.

I think the Mormons would've had a problem with being included in the game too. I personally think adding in any real religious group into a computer game is just asking for a beating. Not only do you offend the group in question but you also make a rather jarring jump from "game" into "reality" which can be an immersion killer in my opinion.

It was possible to play as a melee or unarmed character, but I do believe it was significantly more difficult. So I thought firearms still needed to be powerful in the Fallout world, but they should be limited in some way if people really liked the style of using melee and unarmed.

... and why shouldn't it be? I've always maintained that there are certain "givens" in a computer game. Like Spazmo, the "combat boy" way is one of them. It's not too hard to assume that a melee or unarmed character would have a more difficult time. I personally think there's nothing wrong with that, simply because people like different challenges. Sometimes it's fun to play the Gambling Speech Doctor just because it is so damn hard. You get your small arms skill up to 95% through books (bought with your gaming profits), you always uy the best equipment (also with your gaming profits) just so that you have the extra advantage and hey, you can heal yourself (though you really needed First Aid for that). Limiting the other forms of combat so that everything is "balanced" doesn't create a game where you have to make choices. It creates a game where your choices don't matter as ultimately, everything is the same anyway.

I thought the division of firearm skills in the first two games felt clumsy and effectively forced a continual point dump if characters wanted to use them throughout the game.

How is that different to any other skill though? If you really want to use speech, you've gotta keep dumping points in it. Why does there seem to be the expectation that you can just put a few points into it at the start and "that'll be okay" for the rest of the game? To me, Fallout was deliberately crafted so that you HAD to specialise in your 3 tag skills if you really wanted to use them. That does two things. Firstly, it makes the game a more unique experience for each player because they can't get access to anything and everything. Secondly, it adds replayability which makes it a more rewarding experience because you're not getting everything the first time around. There's some other stuff you missed that your character couldn't get so you start again and pick different skills and encounter another enjoyable experience. I've never been a fan of the Morrowind "be everything, do everything" thinking.

The firearm specializations would have come through perks. I didn't really want to take depth away from firearms; I wanted to make firearm depth comparable to the depth of the unarmed and melee skills.

The problem is that the depth with unarmed and melee skills is necessary because they're so much tougher to win with. You have to get close, meaning you'll want some high Endurance and Agility. You'll want extra chances at criticals because your fists don't punch through power armour, you'll want to aim for the Slayer perk and build your chaacter accordingly. You can't just pick melee or unarmed and expect to win, you really have to think about it in FO1 / FO2 if you really want to make it work to maximum effect. Firearms were the no-brainers becase they didn't need that depth. That's not a bad thing. That said, a few weapon specific perks did sound interesting as it would've allowed for more meaningful / useful perks.

I divided the speech skills because "Charisma Boy" characters seemed to have no hard choices to make during character development. One skill covered all non-Barter aspects of talking, so it was pretty much a no-brainer. If you wanted to talk well, you tagged Speech and had high IN and CH.

Except the random encounters you get can't be finished with Speech. Try bypassing a Navarro Enclave patrol with Speech alone. Speech was one skill because to survive, you needed other skills to complement it. Breaking that up into two skills doesn't make it any less of a no-brainer. It just means you tag both of the Speech skills anyway. Now, if you enforce balance in the two speech skills like JE planned with the Firearms, it'll mean you can use either speech skill at any situation. You'll have the option to either persuade or deceive someone and they'll both lead to the same result. Once again, you're back to having a meaningless choice in skills as either skill will get you to the end and if not, then you just tag them both anyway...

Now, why is "just tagging them both" such a problem anyway? The tag skills were all about your specialisation. Why shouldn't you be able to choose your specialisation and dump points into it and "just run with it"? It's like saying a doctor who's studied for 15 years to perform surgery is a no-brainer and surgery isn't difficult for him, so let's make it tougher! I mean, that's the point. You specialise so that things aren't as difficult. It doesn't mean you won't encounter challenges in other areas that you can't face, because you haven't dumped points into those particular skills. Like our doctor trying to deal with the armed organ bandits in the operating theatre.

I think any game that maintains the basic art style, mood, conversation style, and themes of the first two Fallout games can fit.

I disagree because I think "Fallout" is more than just a world. It's a specific, particular stlye of game, that being turn-based isometric. This is because people play games for the gameplay. Viewpoint and combat method are very important key aspects of that gameplay. It's like chess. Imagine if it was first-person and the pieces all moved in real-time. Is it still chess just because it's the same pieces and the goal is the same, even though the combat and skills involved are now completely different? I argue that it's not. It may well be a game based on chess but it's not chess. Calling it chess simply confuses the marketplace. "Want to play chess?", "Sure. Oh wait, I thought you meant the isometric turn-based version, not the 1st person real-time one". Different skills, different game. What you end up with is two different products with two different labels like "Original Chess" and "New Chess" so that people can actually differentate between them and choose the one they like to play.

I think both real-time and turn-based combat have the potential to be awesome or terrible.

Some people like oranges and some people don't.

Notice how that statement doesn't actually mean anything?

In Fallout 3, the theory of our turn-based and real-time combat seemed solid. By the time of our demo, we were just showing real-time combat. Without pause, it was pretty crummy.

Why am I secretly glad Van Buren died?

The disadvantage is that players can spend their skill points in a way that results in their characters being terrible at pretty much everything.

Just as an example, imagine the player starting Fallout for the first time who gives himself 4 strength, 3 intelligence and 1 luck and tags Big Guns, Gambling and Speech. With an INT less than 4, all he gets are the dumb dialogue options making his Speech skill completely useless. With a strength of 4, he now can't actually wield any of the Big Guns as they all require a minimum strength of 5 or 6. His Gambling skill is also rooted (or at least, nowehere near what it could be). I'm of the mind that sometimes, people need to make these kind of mistakes. They don't know how the system works, so of course they mess it up. It's all part of the experience and is why games are always so much easier the second, third and fourth time around. The trick is to make a game enticing enough that players want to play it again.

Welcome to hell!

I think we'll be here for a while.

You shouldn't start with a big gun or an energy weapon because both of those are far more powerful than a small arm. Why would anyone pick small arms if you started out with anything more powerful, which only got more powerful as time went on?

... because people want to. Your statement assumes that people want to play any game "the clear, best way to play". My opinion is that while that's often the case, if people can play the game in other ways, those that choose to do so, will. It's like going into GTA and just driving around normally. Sure, it's slower but it's kind of fun because it's so damn hard to stick to the speed limit. Likewise choosing driving over flying. Taking the helicopter gets you there faster but sometimes, it's just nice to take a quiet drive the long way through the countryside, with the cops on your tail.

So just as long as each firearm has a clear and viable advantage and disadvantages, people will choose between them. Sometimes it's nice to pick Big Guns because loading up your inventory with heavy rockets it's always a blast. I know I enjoy running out of rockets while I'm battling the Enclave (disadvantage) but then again, with only a andful of hits, Frank Horrigan goes down pretty quick (advantage). Personally, I prefer taking the small arms because I'm aways an aimed shot kind of guy (personal choice and play style) but I know Saint's talked about going through with Quick Shot and only pistols, just because he can (again, his personal choice). Again, just as long as they have viable differences that people can weigh up, people will choose different options. It's kind of like the way some people vote Democrat while others vote Republican. People see things differently and they weigh what they prefer to do against what they can do and usually take the style which fiits them personally the most.

In other words, there should be no "clear, best way". Each way should have it's advantages and disadvantages and appeal to a certain type of gamer.

That makes sense. Also, that is basically how silent storm does it, and its skill system is infinitely better than fallout's in most ways.

I absolutely hated Silent Storm's skill system. I thought it was the most erratic, pointless system I'd ever encountered. The best way was to just solo some missions with certain characters just to get their skills up enough with a particular weapon because you made the mistake of thinking they might actually want to use a better weapon.

 

[Drakron]

Well it makes sense energy weapons to be seperated from the slugh throwers since they funtion rather diferent.

The problem with Fallout is energy weapons would show up in mid-late game so putting points on then was a waste since small arms were as good with high skill and you were using then from the start.

I think what Sawyer was thinking was unify weapons into a "markmanship" skill with perks handing weapon diferences so someone with small weapons could not just pick up a energy weapon and be as good at but not making it so when energy weapons start to show up you already been investing on small arms to survive that its a waste to pick then up.

Like like D20 handles weapons, you get a penalty when using a weapon you dont have a feat for but you can always buy the feat to remove the penalty.

 

[bryce777]

"I absolutely hated Silent Storm's skill system. I thought it was the most erratic, pointless system I'd ever encountered. The best way was to just solo some missions with certain characters just to get their skills up enough with a particular weapon because you made the mistake of thinking they might actually want to use a better weapon."

The system itself was fine, but there some bugs in it.

 

[Greatatlantic]

From the way Mr. Sawyer describes it, I think the merged gun skills could have worked. Amont other things, you'd think there would be some level of synergy between gun skills anyways. Let somebody get really good at using all types of weapons equally, but then go out of your way to make sure the high damage ammo is unbelievably scarce. I know I wouldn't be reaching for my minigun knowing I couldn't reload it unless I was backed into a corner.

As dividing speech, that strikes me as changing the persuasion mechanic significantly, but I'm not sure it would be for the better.

 

[bryce777]

On dividing speech, it just gives you more variation. Winning people over and threatening them or bluffing them are two very different things. It gives more roleplaying options because you can play either as a noble paladin sort who appeals to the dignity and common decency of all men, or a suave rogue who cons rubes with ease and can bluff his way through most tight situations.

 

[bryce777]

Also, you totallyd id not need to tag any weapons skills in fallout. At around 140 there is no point to advance them any more.

 

[J.E. Sawyer]

Some people like oranges and some people don't.

Notice how that statement doesn't actually mean anything?

It means that I don't think real-time combat is inherently great or terrible and I don't think turn-based combat is inherently great or terrible. It means something different than saying, "I think real-time combat is terrible and I love turn-based combat."

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

The problem with Fallout is energy weapons would show up in mid-late game so putting points on then was a waste since small arms were as good with high skill and you were using then from the start.

That's what I was getting at. Since there are no Big Guns and Energy Weapons early on, the system gets fairly squirrelly. It would have been better to keep the skills and make lower tech, wimpier types of those weapons for early game use.

I think what Sawyer was thinking was unify weapons into a "markmanship" skill with perks handing weapon diferences so someone with small weapons could not just pick up a energy weapon and be as good at but not making it so when energy weapons start to show up you already been investing on small arms to survive that its a waste to pick then up.

Like like D20 handles weapons, you get a penalty when using a weapon you dont have a feat for but you can always buy the feat to remove the penalty.

Well, that's what it sounded like to me, injecting d20 in to SPECIAL. Instead of class and level determining the base ToHit, you have Marksmanship and the weapon focus bonuses come from perks like they do feats in d20. Now, that's fine for a D&D CRPG where feats are predominately combat related. However, Perks in SPECIAL have a much broader focus. Perks in Fallout and Fallout 2 did a hell of a lot more than feats do in just about any D&D CRPG, so you have a much more limited bunch of choices.

Not to mention if you had a wide variety of perks just for focusing on weapons, you'd end up kinking the hell out of the balance of the system. If speechcraft is now three or four skills, how many perks would there be to hone those? Versus having to toss down several perks to get good with your energy based pistol killing?

 

[bryce777]

"It would have been better to keep the skills and make lower tech, wimpier types of those weapons for early game use. "

I disagree, because this would take away the wow factor of them. It becomes too much like ooh a laser mark VII. Yawn. Instead when you suddenly see supermutants trying to torch you with plasma guns, it has an impact on you.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

"It would have been better to keep the skills and make lower tech, wimpier types of those weapons for early game use. "

I disagree, because this would take away the wow factor of them. It becomes too much like ooh a laser mark VII. Yawn. Instead when you suddenly see supermutants trying to torch you with plasma guns, it has an impact on you.

Read the examples where I explained what I was talking about. I'm not talking about fancy laser pistol MkI, I'm talking about something like a Van De Graaff generator with a decent enough motor to create a static charge arc of say 6-10ft - and hoping the guy that's shooting at you is wearing something positively charged.

 

[kingcomrade]

Energy Weapons-
I seriously don't think you should get a better weapon just for tagging this skill. The weapons in Fallout don't exist in a vacuum, energy weapons are, on an absolute scale, better than projectile weapons. It doesn't make any sense to have a "zapper gun" or a "blunderbuss" (which, by the way, is basically a shotgun and it isn't a big gun) when the "basic" weapon in the setting is a 10mm pistol. The world shouldn't tailor itself to you.
If I choose not to tag any weapon skills, does that mean I should get a weapon that doesn't need and weapon skills to use? It wasn't squirrely it was quite fine. If you invested in energy weapons you were able to get very powerful guns about two thirds of the way through the game, and you typically had enough small arms skill to get by with more mundane weapons. Quite frankly, giving players skill-based weapons based on their skill choices rather than any sort of plot (you start with a 10mm pistol no matter what you do in Fallout, and the same in Fallout 2 with the spear) is "dumbing down."

Skill systems-
I hope, bryce, you weren't referring to the build-as-you-go part of the SS skill system. I really loved how I could go to a random map location, set it on real-time, and run my squad back and forth for five or ten minutes, and by the end of it have a huge boost in APs (you could do the same with most skills in that game). Sure, it's "training" but it's not a good game mechanic.
A tech-tree/skill-tree system, on the other hand, is something that I've been writing about and keep alluding to that I'm going to post.

Marksmanship-
The thing I'm writing, it basically states that all players have some sort of competency. You can use whatever weapons you like, nothing is grayed out because you don't have enough skill, kinda the same way you can use weapons that you don't have the minimum strength for, and then you get skill bonuses. I really need to finish that thingy and post it, I think you guys will find it interesting.

 

[bryce777]

"It would have been better to keep the skills and make lower tech, wimpier types of those weapons for early game use. "

I disagree, because this would take away the wow factor of them. It becomes too much like ooh a laser mark VII. Yawn. Instead when you suddenly see supermutants trying to torch you with plasma guns, it has an impact on you.

Read the examples where I explained what I was talking about. I'm not talking about fancy laser pistol MkI, I'm talking about something like a Van De Graaff generator with a decent enough motor to create a static charge arc of say 6-10ft - and hoping the guy that's shooting at you is wearing something positively charged.

I read your examples and they just seem contrived and lame. The whole point of it is to make a big leap, not a gradual increase.

 

[bryce777]

"I hope, bryce, you weren't referring to the build-as-you-go part of the SS skill system. I really loved how I could go to a random map location, set it on real-time, and run my squad back and forth for five or ten minutes, and by the end of it have a huge boost in APs (you could do the same with most skills in that game). Sure, it's "training" but it's not a good game mechanic.
A tech-tree/skill-tree system, on the other hand, is something that I've been writing about and keep alluding to that I'm going to post. "

You could do that early on, but there were limits to how much running around you could do and get exp for it. Also, just because you can do something tedious like that doesn't force you to do so.

For simple skills, it is retarded to have to worry over them.

 

[kingcomrade]

That's basically what I'm saying, you shouldn't have to worry about niggling little things like that, which is why that type of system is just silly. Why wouldn't someone do that if it gives them such immense advantages? Going into fights with 3x the "appropriate" number of APs certainly is an advantage.
I wasn't talking about giving you EXP, I just mean it gives you bonus APs every time you fill up that AP stat bar (kinda the same way it gives you accuracy bonuses every time you fire your gun at someone X number of times).

 

[The_Pope]

"It would have been better to keep the skills and make lower tech, wimpier types of those weapons for early game use. "

I disagree, because this would take away the wow factor of them. It becomes too much like ooh a laser mark VII. Yawn. Instead when you suddenly see supermutants trying to torch you with plasma guns, it has an impact on you.

A lot of the impact was taken away by the presence of the skill. It became a matter of wondering when you were going to get a plasma rifle rather than HOLY SHIT! PLASMA RIFLES! Arranging the skills via action or into something like pistols, submachineguns, rifles and heavy weapons then making you use science to figure out how to use the energy weapons (or maybe getting an NPC to teach you) would have kept the surprise.