Interview GamesRadar interview on Fallout 3 quests, perks

[DarkUnderlord]

Tags: Fallout 3

<a href="http://www.gamesradar.com/f/fallout-3-post-play-interview/a-2008072113277590042">A Fallout 3 interview over on GamesRadar</a>:
<br>
<blockquote><b>PCG: So you tried to make it so that even if you take a few people out of the equation, the quest is still solvable?</b>
<br>
Todd: As much as possible. It’s not always the case. You might kill someone and it will tell you “You can’t finish this quest anymore, this person has died.” Pretty much 99.9 percent of people in the game can be killed.
<br>
Emil: Yeah, even the quest-givers. They give you a quest, you blow their head off, that’s your decision. It’s simply more fun for the player where you might close off branches of the quest, but other branches are still open.
<br>
Todd: And the other answer to that question is that we don’t want players to have the expectation that they’ll be able to do every quest any style. Pretty much, Super-Duper Mart, there’s no way to talk your way through that. We get the question a lot, “Is there a non-violent path through the whole game?” No. I mean, you might be able to, I guess, but it’s not a goal.
<br>
Emil: I guess technically, because there’s a Stealth Boy, and because there’s a Protectron [security robot] in the back room of that Super-Duper Mart, if you could sneak in there and hack that computer, you could activate that Protectron, he’ll go and he’ll kick the s*** out of all of those raiders.
<br>
Todd: There are probably too many for him to kill every single one of them.
<br>
Emil: But enough to whittle them down so that science-boy could definitely get through there.</blockquote>
<br>
That's the good, here's the bad:
<br>
<blockquote><b>PCG: Why the decision to give a perk every level instead of every couple of levels like in FO1 and 2?</b>
<br>
Todd: Well, here’s another thing: there’s that progression, you step out of the Vault and you hit level two and people would level up and do their skill points, and they get to pick a perk. And then they’d hit level three, and they’d get their skill points, and… where’s the perk? They don’t even understand. It’s like “I thought you get a perk when you level up?” “Yeah, every other one.” And then we decided that the most fun in leveling up, the absolute most fun, is picking a perk. It’s so fun. So we decided to balance them so you get to do it every level. It makes leveling up. That’s what leveling is about.
<br>
Emil: Definitely not something we planned, but as we played it, it was like that carrot on a stick thing. “Man, level three and five suck, I want a perk!”</blockquote>
<br>
To recap: Perks are the most fun thing about leveling up and people don't understand a fairly simple "you get a perk every 3 levels" concept. Bethesda should stop using the local kindergarten as their play-testers. Doesn't a "mature" rated game also assume some kind of, oh I don't know, actual maturity? Houses were also added because "everybody wants it" and "The butler used to be something you had to buy, but he’s so cool we said OK, because when you went in and there’s nothing there, it’s like “Who cares?”". Who cares indeed.
<br>
<br>
Spotted @ <a href="http://www.gamebanshee.com">GameBanshee</a>

 

[Micmu]

:facepalm: material....... Definitely not something we planned, but as we played it, it was like that carrot on a stick thing. “Man, level three and five suck, I want a perk!”

By Retards For Retards is our motto.

 

[entertainer]

The absolute most fun.

 

[thesheeep]

I'd understand reducing the distance between perks to 2 instead of 3. 3 always annoyed me

But making it happen every level just because thinking that players are too stupid to grasp "every two levels" is just.. wow. I mean, that's one of the most stupid game design decisions I've heard of in some days/weeks.
A simple window telling the player "this happens every two levels" would be enough o.O

 

[Mr. Teatime]

TO be honest this interview wasn't that bad. Things we 'hardcore' want in FO3 aren't there, things we don't want are there, but, thinking about what could have been done with the franchise and game (albeit maybe not titling it a direct sequel), there's still cause for optimism with the game.

 

[entertainer]

TO be honest this interview wasn't that bad. Things we 'hardcore' want in FO3 aren't there, things we don't want are there, but, thinking about what could have been done with the franchise and game (albeit maybe not titling it a direct sequel), there's still cause for optimism with the game.

Are you Pete?

 

[Mr. Teatime]

TO be honest this interview wasn't that bad. Things we 'hardcore' want in FO3 aren't there, things we don't want are there, but, thinking about what could have been done with the franchise and game (albeit maybe not titling it a direct sequel), there's still cause for optimism with the game.

Are you Pete?

No. I just think there's a point where the hate goes OTT, and starts to lose its justification, especially when potentially positive things are said (eg. multiple quest paths, together with some proof of this).

Just as the game journalists heap mindless praise on the game, I sometimes feel that the hardcore FO fan does the equivalent from the opposing perspective. But anyway. Kind of drifting off topic.

 

[mondblut]

To recap: Perks are the most fun thing about leveling up

Well, that's true. By far more fun than getting whole 3 hitpoints and 15 skillpoints.

I see no problem handing out the perks every level, as long as there are appropriately more of them and they are balanced enough not to give away Slayer at level 5. I despise bethesda's Failure 3 as much as the next guy, but complaining that they try to make every levelup useful instead of every third one, is a miss.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

No. I just think there's a point where the hate goes OTT, and starts to lose its justification, especially when potentially positive things are said (eg. multiple quest paths, together with some proof of this).

Just as the game journalists heap mindless praise on the game, I sometimes feel that the hardcore FO fan does the equivalent from the opposing perspective. But anyway. Kind of drifting off topic.

Here's the problem about the good: It's a requirement. Multiple quest paths in a Fallout game? If they're not there, ur doin it rong. It's like getting excited because Ford's latest car has four wheels and a steering wheel. Wow! They got the basics right! Let's all praise the Ford Motor Company! Meanwhile, we'll conveniently ignore the fact they reduced the size of the gas tank down to a size which makes the vehicle worthless.

thinking about what could have been done with the franchise and game (albeit maybe not titling it a direct sequel), there's still cause for optimism with the game.

You don't get brownie points just because you didn't fuck something up as much as you could've. "Sure I raped her officer but it was only once! I could've raped her fifteen times and bashed her head in but I didn't! Can you let me go now?".

I despise bethesda's Failure 3 as much as the next guy, but complaining that they try to make every levelup useful instead of every third one, is a miss.

They didn't do it to try and make every level up useful. They did it because people "don’t even understand" why they don't get to choose a perk. Incidentally why wouldn't more HP and skill points alone be useful? Unless skills and hit points are useless?

 

[treave]

Todd: … where’s the perk? They don’t even understand. It’s like “I thought you get a perk when you level up?” “Yeah, every other one.”

Wow. Is this game for retards or what?

 

[Shoelip]

That was a surprisingly good interview. One of the few that actually tried to get some answers rather than just heaping on mindless praise. Consequently it was extremely painful to read.

 

[Darth Roxor]

I don't even *mind* the concept of having a perk every level, but the explanation why that was implemented just made me: head -> desk.

 

[Deleted member 7219]

If they've dumbed it down enough to make every quest solve able/perk every level, then I expect to see the quest pop-ups will make a return too.

The annoying thing is, it wouldn't actually be that HARD to make a faithful sequel to the first two Fallouts. The formula is already there. I don't know about you guys but I consider the SPECIAL system from F1/F2 to be the most polished and enjoyable out of all the systems i've played in roleplaying games. The 'disappointment' of not getting a perk only made you strive harder to reach the level where you do. And it also taught you to choose each of your perks very carefully.

All Bethesda would have to do is transfer it to 3d. That should NOT involve dumbing down! Sure, I'd expect the combat to change, but not much else. I wouldn't expect dumbfuckery of this magnitude.

Once again they are targeting the console crowd, the 'Anything I have to think about is boring, giev me master cheif' crowd.

 

[mondblut]

They didn't do it to try and make every level up useful. They did it because people "don’t even understand" why they don't get to choose a perk.

Heh, that's kind of sad indeed. But a perk every level owns a perk every third level nonetheless.

Incidentally why wouldn't more HP and skill points alone be useful? Unless skills and hit points are useless?

Minor increments like "10% more hitpoints" or "15% (out of 300) more skill" matter very little per single level up. Very small reward giving a little of sense of achievement. On the contrary, the "rule-binding" perks each represent major increase or expansion of abilities.

Compare leveling up a fighter and a mage in an old AD&D game - which one is more fun? For mage every level up means increase of power (memo slots) and every second level up gives a new ability (a spell), for fighter... "weee, i can now damage that goblin once out of 20 more often! and he would need one hit more to kill me than before!"

 

[themadhatter114]

They didn't do it to try and make every level up useful. They did it because people "don’t even understand" why they don't get to choose a perk.

Heh, that's kind of sad indeed. But a perk every level owns a perk every third level nonetheless.

Incidentally why wouldn't more HP and skill points alone be useful? Unless skills and hit points are useless?

Minor increments like "10% more hitpoints" or "15% (out of 300) more skill" matter very little per single level up. Very small reward giving a little of sense of achievement. On the contrary, the "rule-binding" perks each represent major increase or expansion of abilities.

Compare leveling up a fighter and a mage in an old AD&D game - which one is more fun? For mage every level up means increase of power (memo slots) and every second level up gives a new ability (a spell), for fighter... "weee, i can now damage that goblin once out of 20 more often! and he would need one hit more to kill me than before!"

What more does a fighter want besides being better at hitting things and harder to hit?

Do NWN2 players get confused because they expect to be able to pick a feat every level?

 

[mondblut]

What more does a fighter want besides being better at hitting things and harder to hit?

What fighter wants is irrelevant. What matters is what player wants. And player after a couple of such games will want to play pure fighter no more.

Do NWN2 players get confused because they expect to be able to pick a feat every level?

I don't know how often feats get available in NWN2 yet. But I am sure getting a feat is more fun than getiing d10 hp, and the more often these feats come by, the better.

 

[Shoelip]

If the player doesn't want to play a fighter they should play something else. Have the fighter changed because someone would prefer to play something else is stupid. Just add what they'd want to play and leave the thing others want to play alone.

In 3.5 a fighter gets a new feat every three levels just like every other class, plus bonus feats at levels one and two and every two levels after.

 

[Texas Red]

FAIL

You get a perk at 3rd level, not at 2nd. When was the last time the Toddler replayed FOs?

 

[Lumpy]

I thought that was only when you took Gifted?

 

[themadhatter114]

What more does a fighter want besides being better at hitting things and harder to hit?

What fighter wants is irrelevant. What matters is what player wants. And player after a couple of such games will want to play pure fighter no more.

Wow, you missed the point entirely. When I say "What more does a fighter want?" I'm talking about the player who is using the fighter as his character. What more does that player want, as a fighter character, than to hit harder and more often and to get hit less often and be able to take more hits?

Do NWN2 players get confused because they expect to be able to pick a feat every level?

I don't know how often feats get available in NWN2 yet. But I am sure getting a feat is more fun than getiing d10 hp, and the more often these feats come by, the better.

Yes, obviously getting a feat (which is every 3rd level in general, and fighters get an extra feat every other level) is more exciting than getting more hit points, but that's not really the point. Playing the game is about playing the game and if you think that the entire time you're playing as a level 5 character is boring because you didn't pick a feat at your most recent level-up, perhaps you should be playing a different game. Most character builds don't need more feats than they have because the feats that they didn't have a chance to pick up are irrelevant to the build. Beyond that, if you got feats more often, you'd be even more ridiculously overpowered in high levels. And if you play a fighter beyond level 12, you get so many feats that you have to pick ones you don't even care about.

Sure, if they balance perks in such a way that getting them every level isn't overpowering, and if they have enough perks so that you can't just pick up every single one along the way, that's fine.

Actually, in a classless system, picking a new ability every level among a very broad selection of them would be a nice way of really defining a unique character. But if they're overpowered, and if you're just doing it because the players are too stupid to figure out why they're not getting a feat every level, then it's lame.

Personally, I think that in D&D 3.5, getting more skill points, more hit points, better saving throws, and increasing power of current abilities is fine. I don't whine because my paladin is only getting feats every 3rd level because I'm becoming a better fighter, my turn undead ability is getting more powerful, I can Lay on Hands more often, etc.

 

[DarkUnderlord]

I thought that was only when you took Gifted?

On gifted you gain a perk every 4 levels as well as receiving less skill points per level. Normal Fallout is a perk every 3. It's why they're rare and super awesome.

In Fallout 3, I think perks are mostly going to suck. EG: A level 12 Fallout 2 character would have 4 perks. A level 12 Fallout 3 character will have... 12. That means Fallout 3 will have to have at least 3 times as many perks as Fallout 1 or 2 to ensure there's enough real choice. Given you get them every level, they'd also have to be pretty weak. Meaning perks won't be so awesome.

 

[MetalCraze]

M rating you say?

 

[pkt-zer0]

That means Fallout 3 will have to have at least 3 times as many perks as Fallout 1 or 2 to ensure there's enough real choice.

Fallout 3 is supposed to have "about 100" perks if you count multiple levels. Fallout 1 had 98 (or thereabouts) if you count multiple levels. Add 16 to that since Fallout 3's perks contain traits as well.

Given you get them every level, they'd also have to be pretty weak. Meaning perks won't be so awesome.

Indeed. See: 5% less radiation from drinking water per level of Lead Belly.
The skill bonus type perks in the originals were one-level at least. More filler, yay.

 

[muds_animal_friend]

It's possible that many of the perks are incremental, e.g. marksman I, marksman II, so the number of unique perks could be relatively low (and individually underpowered).

 

[Kingston]

I thought that was only when you took Gifted?

On gifted you gain a perk every 4 levels as well as receiving less skill points per level. Normal Fallout is a perk every 3. It's why they're rare and super awesome.

In Fallout 3, I think perks are mostly going to suck. EG: A level 12 Fallout 2 character would have 4 perks. A level 12 Fallout 3 character will have... 12. That means Fallout 3 will have to have at least 3 times as many perks as Fallout 1 or 2 to ensure there's enough real choice. Given you get them every level, they'd also have to be pretty weak. Meaning perks won't be so awesome.

I'm pretty sure with Gifted you still get the normal amount of perks, but less skillpoints. Skilled gives you extra skillpoints but less perks. I remember in my first playthrough of Fallout 2 I took Skilled. Halfway through the game I realised it was kinda shitty not getting as many perks so I used the Mutate perk to change it to Bloody Mess. That was pretty cool, pretty HC.

I do agree on perks sucking. Most will probably be "Do 5% extra -insert weapon damage or skill here". Many Fallout perks were like that too, I which they had made more unique ones.