Yosharian
Arcane
Ahhh. The image wasn't showing on my mobile. Now it makes sense, haha.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Time for another fallout 3 discussion
- Thread starter deama
- Start date
Okagron
Prophet
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 753
I actually ended up getting caught by that in my first playthrough of Dead Money and i had to kill him because there was no way to convince him. Yeah, i don't mind having visible skill checks if it means i have to actually read them if i don't want bad shit to happen to me. Basically forces the player to read the actual check and tells the player that passing a skill check is not always a good thing.
Black Angel
Arcane
They were. Let's take an example from Fallout 1: in Shady Sands, you can talk with a farmer and have an option to tell him to apply crop rotation (or something like that) to gain better produces. To get the option, however, you need high enough Science. With insufficient Science, the option wouldn't appear at all. This, IMO, is exactly what you said about 'if my character supposed to be smart, then as a player you should know what the smart option is'. Basically, if I make a character with high Science, then the game should react accordingly and provide the options exclusive only to character with high Science. But if I'm not playing a character with high Science, and not even planning to make a scientific character at all, then I will not expect the game to, for some reason, list scientific option, and even options I won'tbe thinking of choosing anyway, which is exactly what New Vegas did. Although, to be fair, the real problem with New Vegas is that they wanted to show off those goofy dialogue lines your character will be speaking when they don't have sufficient skills but they try anyway. I assume it's their way of trying to please both hardcore and casual audience.
Also, I disagree that "thinking for myself before choosing the dialogue options" means "pretty much defeats the purpose of having high Intelligence to unlock dialogue options if a player can still fuck up and make the wrong call". If an RPG is designed in such a way that you *can't* fuck up just because you have high enough stats and skills when navigating dialogue (or even any other non-combat options, honestly), then people will start calling it CYOA. More RPGs needs to make their NPCs not so easily convinced with one or two dialogue lines. I agree with Yosharian here
Hence, why I'm looking forward to Colony Ship RPG. Even though they seemed like they'll still tag the dialogue that's checking relevant stats/skills, *at least* the most obvious options that's available to characters with sufficient stats/skills wouldn't guarantee that players will get exactly what they want. Instead, there will be different degree of success (and failure). It's not 100% what Yosharian talked about, but they're in the right direction. Oh, and also Disco Elysium.
Depends on how you define RPG, really. I find the idea that character skill always trumps player skill 100% to be misguided. It's more of an interplay between player and character. After all, you come up with the combat tactics, you pick the dialog options, you choose which quests to do and which not to do. In a pen and paper session, a good DM will make you play out the persuasion skill check by having you actually try to persuade the NPC, and maybe even give you a bonus or malus to your roll depending on how well you argued, rather than just saying "ok make a roll and if you succeed, you convince the guy". After all, RPGs are games and should be fun. If you reduce the player-driven gameplay all the way to the point it's pure character skill, the game would essentially run on autopilot.
In pen and paper RPGs the DM doesn't hand you 3 dialog options and tells you "ok, the first one has the highest chance of success, followed by the second one, and the third is only available to you due to your high int". He says "all right, try to persuade this NPC then and try to keep the persuasion attempt in character".
Proper RPGs involve plenty of player skill. Playing your character properly is a skill, too.
You think you like it but you actually don't. Reinstall it and go play it for a week. I doubt you'll last.
I won't last, but that's because I've replayed it 3/4 times already.
RNGsus
Self-Ejected
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2011
- Messages
- 8,106
See? You couldn't even finish it.
Black Angel
Arcane
I would argue that, whenever people are talking about character skills always trumps player skill 100%, or at least from my personal argument, we were talking within context of Top-Down|Isometric|Turn-Based cRPGs vs. FPP/TPP Action-RPGs. When we say 'character skill', we really meant literally the stats and skills listed in the game. And more importantly, the 'player skill' we talked about were something like twitch reflex, hand-eye coordination, player's real-life dexterity, etc etc. It's more within context of comparing how one RPG is more RPG than the other, with the primary example being Fallout 1&2 vs. New Vegas.
In my personal opinion, New Vegas is much less of an RPG in the face of Fallout 1&2, and I don't mean it just because Fallout 1&2 had turn-based combat gameplay. In New Vegas, you have to go through those shitty lockpicking/hacking minigames with their outcome largely influenced by player's skills instead of character's skills influencing the outcome of such attempt like in Fallout 1&2. In New Vegas, you as the player have to be vigilant to spot traps like landmines, wires and pressure plates on the ground, instead of character's Perception noticing such things and relaying the information to you so that you as the player will move your character more carefully (and also, disarming landmines is only a matter of quickly approaching the mines and click on it as soon as the crosshair is within the vicinity of the mines, instead of disarming it being dictated by character's skills). At least, in case of noticing traps, iirc there's companion perks that lets you do that, and any other traps other than landmines DOES requires character's skills, but still.... they are lacking when compared to Fallout 1&2.
The only Action-RPG gameplay that I will approve of that the game is as much of an RPG as any other would be that of the Gothic(s), and to a lesser extent, V:tMB. The Gothic(s), especially, since despite of still needing player's twitch reflex and hand-eye coordination to play, the stats and skills plays such a significant role that they managed to suppress player's skills to the point that we, as the player, have to play to the 'rhythm of the gameplay mechanics'. In case of V:tMB, while you can still just play them like any other Action-RPG, the gameplay mechanics still largely involve character's skills, much more than New Vegas I'd say despite of the whole mechanics seemingly simplified to accommodate the transition from P&P to computer format. Oh, and both have no shitty minigames when it comes to lockpicking (and also hacking in V:tMB), so it was big plus for me.
Having said all that, all those things you written that I underlined and put in bold, at first I don't exactly agree that they, individually, count as player's skills, and more like our intellect and wits when getting involved with the gameplay. Then, I read your last line, and concluded that all those things combined DOES amount to 'playing your character properly', and thus, 'player skill'. Hence, the
from me.I still holds the view that any proper RPG will have character's skills trumps player's skills, but not 100% anymore. More like 10% player's skill (of playing the character properly) + 90% a mix of character's skills and gameplay system (like the background mechanics (in cRPGs) or DM's creativity (P&P), and dicerolls in both).
There's one thing I really like about D&D 5E - at least I think it's in 5E, it's been a while since I played it. Might have been GURPS or even Numenera instead. Anyway, doesn't matter which PnP system it is from exactly.
The system I'm thinking of had a rule that allowes the DM to give the player additional XP or points he can use as a bonus during some actions, as a reward for playing his character right. That's pretty damn great as a mechanic since it greatly encourages playing your character properly. Usually, there's nothing really stopping you from using an objectively smart tactic as a low int character, or using a tactic that is slightly devious as a lawful good character. But this encourages players to play their characters in a way that fits them. The berserker charged the enemy in an almost suicidal frontal attack when the party was ambushed, and the rest of the party had to adapt their tactics to his spontaneous attack? Get a point for playing the character properly. The female bard spends half an hour flirting with and seducing the guards so the party's rogue can sneak into the building and steal whatever the party need from there, drawing out the scene for long enough to let the rogue get out again without the guards seeing him? Get a point for playing the character properly. Etc.
Something like this could be great in a cRPG too, but would require a system that recognizes when the character acts consistently or inconsistently. Usually there's no penalty to a player acting wildly inconsistently during the game. Maybe there should be something to encourage consistency. That would be great.
Cael
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2017
- Messages
- 22,449
RP XP has always been around. Even 3.x had it.
DraQ
Arcane
This. Would brofist seven times if I could.
The entire player skill vs character skill crowd needs to be ran off a cliff.
RPGs are all about player skill - it says so right here:
That they are also all about character skill is pretty much unrelated given the natural bottleneck of the interface separating one from another.
But that's a whole load of bullshit and the entire idea that in practice there exists a tradeoff between player and character skill is fallacious and leads to worse games.I would argue that, whenever people are talking about character skills always trumps player skill 100%, or at least from my personal argument, we were talking within context of Top-Down|Isometric|Turn-Based cRPGs vs. FPP/TPP Action-RPGs. When we say 'character skill', we really meant literally the stats and skills listed in the game. And more importantly, the 'player skill' we talked about were something like twitch reflex, hand-eye coordination, player's real-life dexterity, etc etc. It's more within context of comparing how one RPG is more RPG than the other, with the primary example being Fallout 1&2 vs. New Vegas.
In my personal opinion, New Vegas is much less of an RPG in the face of Fallout 1&2, and I don't mean it just because Fallout 1&2 had turn-based combat gameplay. In New Vegas, you have to go through those shitty lockpicking/hacking minigames with their outcome largely influenced by player's skills instead of character's skills influencing the outcome of such attempt like in Fallout 1&2. In New Vegas, you as the player have to be vigilant to spot traps like landmines, wires and pressure plates on the ground, instead of character's Perception noticing such things and relaying the information to you so that you as the player will move your character more carefully (and also, disarming landmines is only a matter of quickly approaching the mines and click on it as soon as the crosshair is within the vicinity of the mines, instead of disarming it being dictated by character's skills). At least, in case of noticing traps, iirc there's companion perks that lets you do that, and any other traps other than landmines DOES requires character's skills, but still.... they are lacking when compared to Fallout 1&2.
The only Action-RPG gameplay that I will approve of that the game is as much of an RPG as any other would be that of the Gothic(s), and to a lesser extent, V:tMB. The Gothic(s), especially, since despite of still needing player's twitch reflex and hand-eye coordination to play, the stats and skills plays such a significant role that they managed to suppress player's skills to the point that we, as the player, have to play to the 'rhythm of the gameplay mechanics'. In case of V:tMB, while you can still just play them like any other Action-RPG, the gameplay mechanics still largely involve character's skills, much more than New Vegas I'd say despite of the whole mechanics seemingly simplified to accommodate the transition from P&P to computer format. Oh, and both have no shitty minigames when it comes to lockpicking (and also hacking in V:tMB), so it was big plus for me.
Having said all that, all those things you written that I underlined and put in bold, at first I don't exactly agree that they, individually, count as player's skills, and more like our intellect and wits when getting involved with the gameplay. Then, I read your last line, and concluded that all those things combined DOES amount to 'playing your character properly', and thus, 'player skill'. Hence, the
I still holds the view that any proper RPG will have character's skills trumps player's skills, but not 100% anymore. More like 10% player's skill (of playing the character properly) + 90% a mix of character's skills and gameplay system (like the background mechanics (in cRPGs) or DM's creativity (P&P), and dicerolls in both).
For most abilities it is trivial to isolate player skill from the game when necessary. Combat controls are naturally very limited and abstract in a computer game, so even in an action RPG with FPS-style controls there should be no problem making a clumsy and unskilled character clumsy and unskilled even when played by a pro - after all the player only tells the character where, when and what they want them to do - how they actually do it can fully depend on the stats.
Another example - perception, finding traps and all manner of small details - even in a highly detailed FPP game it's a matter of flagging whether or not to render something based on a stat check - voila, noticing things skill is now both 100% player skill and 100% character skill in your game.
Ironically, the one stat that cannot be isolated this way is intelligence, so it's not twitchy games that are the problem here, but the fact that in a cRPG you have no way to stop a player playing retarded character from playing them as tactical genius. For that reason I argue that intelligence attribute has no place in cRPGs, because it's either going to be broken or the entire game will suck as a game.
Have an "Eloquence" stat if you want a difference in general ability to conduct dialogue, have all manner of specific stat checks in your dialogues whenever they make sense in given context, have magical affinity for spellcasting, but intelligence, as an attribute, needs to go.
Sigourn
uooh afficionado
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2016
- Messages
- 5,768
JarlFrank Black Angel
We talk about visible stat checks being a problem since they remove the need to think things logically, and yet skills, ultimately, affect everything else without our say. Lockpicking and hacking determine our ability to unlock a safe or hack a computer, and there's 0 player involvement in that: just character skills.
I personally refuse to acknowledge "in New Vegas, hacking and lockpicking depends entirely on player skill" for two reasons:
We talk about visible stat checks being a problem since they remove the need to think things logically, and yet skills, ultimately, affect everything else without our say. Lockpicking and hacking determine our ability to unlock a safe or hack a computer, and there's 0 player involvement in that: just character skills.
I personally refuse to acknowledge "in New Vegas, hacking and lockpicking depends entirely on player skill" for two reasons:
- First, because there are skill checks in place to see whether or not you are able to engage in the lockpicking/hacking minigame. A better example would be Skyrim: there, unless I'm mistaken, nothing stops the player from lockpicking any chest on the game, short of the amount of lockpicks you have.
- Second, because as DraQ has mentioned, nothing stops a dumb character from being played as a tactical genius by players. Player skill is inherently present in this games: we can't do without it, and this is especially obvious in what's arguably the most lauded and memorable feature of the Fallout (and Arcanum, as an extension) games, which are the low Intelligence runs. But these are rendered moot when you approach battles as chess games. Why is it that a hacking minigame, which requires a minimum skill level to access it and is reasonably easy to beat any worse than low Intelligence runs in games where playing a low Intelligence character doesn't mean the player will behave as a retard?
Black Angel
Arcane
Yeah, but where is the cRPG that we all waited and hoped for to implement all that? Before, I falsely mentioned that in New Vegas, we can be granted companion perk to spot traps, when in truth it was from a mod, and I vaguely remember it doesn't even use perception to spot traps. Also, like I mentioned, the Gothic games made your character clumsy at combat until he's trained to wield one-handed or two-handed weapons, and even when you've trained your character the players still need to be completely engaged with the gameplay by playing to the rhythm of the mechanics.
But other than those games, where? Until a cRPG product is made that implement all those solution you mentioned to make the gameplay completely rely both on 100% player's skills and 100% character's skills, I still stand by my argument that any proper computer-RPGs will always rely on ~10% of player's skill of playing the character properly + ~90% a mix of character's skills and gameplay system (of which the influence of the gameplay system can be tilted to player's favor as character's skills increases).
You know idiot savant is a thing, right? Take a look at one of character background in Arcanum
It's not a direct example, but let's go ahead and use it anyway. In case of Arcanum, an idiot savant character are 'brilliant with a keen grasp of numbers and mathematics', yet they talk as if they had much lower Intelligence and, thus, can only spoke unintelligible words barely understood by anyone. Now, let's turn this example around and take a look at actually playing a retarded character. If it's possible for idiot savant to be a playable character background, who can only talk in unintelligible manners yet for some reason excel at working with numbers and mathematics, why is it a problem for players to play an actual retarded characters that can manage themselves in a combat situation like a tactical genius? Also, what if players want to play as half-ogre characters whose intellect and reasoning are designed by devs to be stunted compared by other race? They'll have brute strength attribute that surpasses all of the other races, and with whatever possible growth they can muster, they can gain experience in combat skill like melee and become dexterous. In time, this kind of character can simply approach an enemy and beat/hack/cleave them to death and survive many combat situation, and while not exactly coming out as tactical genius, isn't it possible for such characters to be played for fun?
But what if one wants to play as a mad scientist? Or just plain scientist who make all of their equipment by themselves? Can an 'Eloquence' stat substitute an attribute that act as a stand-in to intellect and reasoning, that are required to learn and master advanced skills like crafting your own energy weapon?
If your problem is still, 'a retarded character can still be played like a tactical genius', then simply away with Intelligence attribute will not solve the problem of not having a proper attribute that can act as the main stat for super-smart characters. Instead, one can propose to create a system where 'Intelligence' is divided into several sub-stats, corresponding to different type of intelligence that we know of in real-life, but I'm not sure if the product can be fun to play.
More reasons why Fallout (and to an extent, Arcanum) is the best cRPG ever made. Why? Because that thing you said about skills 'affect everything else without our say'? Those doesn't exist in Fallout and Arcanum. That is because the decision to lockpick/hacking something or not is entirely up for the players to choose. Decision making, as JarlFrank said, is part of player's skills. This is very clear especially in Fallout because you as the player need to consciously bring up skill dex, choose 'Lockpick', and then choose the locked doors or containers where you want to attempt the lockpicking.
Besides, why is 'skills affect everything without our say' a bad thing? Or are you not good with seeing your characters somehow jam a lock at first try or somehow lose an entire magazine of ammo because of critical failures that occurs at the start of the game because of low skills?
First thing first, I never said anything about hacking and lockpicking 'depends entirely on player skill', instead, I said, "In New Vegas, you have to go through those shitty lockpicking/hacking minigames with their outcome largely influenced by player's skills instead of character's skills influencing the outcome of such attempt like in Fallout 1&2."
I worded it that way because I'm completely aware that the lockpicking and hacking sequence of New Vegas were divided into 5 rigid threshold of Very Easy (0% skill needed), Easy (25%), Average (50%), Hard (75%), and Very Hard (100%), and that's it. That's it with character's skills involvement in one of supposedly important moment-to-moment gameplay for certain archetype of character in an RPG. The rest of this sequence is up to player's own dexterity of finding the 'sweet spot'.
Also, gating the attempt to arbitrary numbers such as those is no fun to me because then I can't play a high Luck character who can still try lockpicking a high-difficult lock with insufficient skill, and still succeed; or failed miserably due to a critical failure that lead to the door/container being jammed (and in better games, players will be granted options to brute-force their way through the lock by crowbar and/or explosive, thus eliminate the need for save-scumming).
This is a question to you and DraQ. When you guys are talking about 'dumb characters being played as a tactical genius', what do you really mean by that? A high-STR, low-INT character who just punch everything to death? If yes, then.... is that really a problem?
Why not, instead, follow JarlFrank's advice and reward players for playing their character *properly*? If a player is playing a dumb-character with high-STR, and thus the only option available for such character is to punch everything to death, AND they can complete a run that way, isn't that in and of itself could be a reward for players who play such character?
When did I ever say that?
This?
That doesn't necessarily mean I'm saying, "your stats don't determine your chance to succeed in dialogue". In fact, I even added that bit about "any other non-combat options", which includes lockpicking and hacking.
If, in dialogue, players involvement is necessary in navigating the options correctly, then in case of lockpicking/hacking it's a matter of whether or not it's wise to lockpick/hack certain doors and terminals. Fallout 1&2 might be lacking when it comes to accommodating rogue character archetypes, but Fallout 1.5 & Nevada sure does achieved it gracefully.
Oh, and also, in Arcanum, players DOES have alternative options when lockpicking attempt failed and jammed the lock; we can simply plant an explosive or brute force the lock by attacking it.
Sigourn
uooh afficionado
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2016
- Messages
- 5,768
This doesn't make any sense. You complained skills doing things without our say, but suddenly "I'm the one who chooses to lockpick" counts as enough of a "say" in lockpicking in Fallout?
Same thing happens in New Vegas. You consciously chose to lockpick a safe when you interact with it. It's not like containers, in any game I've played, automatically unlock when you enter a room if you have high enough skills in lockpicking. The decision to do is the player's, the decision in how it unfolds is exclusively on character skill. Likewise, it is your decision to pick a skill check over other dialogue options, but the decision on how it unfolds is exclusively on character skill: in classic Fallout and Fallout 3, the outcome is random; in New Vegas, the superior way over Fallout 3 in my opinion, the outcome is either "yes" or "no" based on gated skillchecks.
You should ask that to yourself: I didn't complain about New Vegas' skill checks.
In reality, there's no dexterity involved in New Vegas' lockpicking minigame. At all. This is because the minigame has nothing to do with dexterity: it's literally "move your mouse to select a spot" and then "turn the lockpick" (which is done with a single button). New Vegas' lockpicking minigame works just the same as it did in Fallout 3 and as it worked in Skyrim (and probably Fallout 4): you choose a spot at random, and based on the result you get, you make an educated guess as to where the sweet spot actually is. As you keep failing, hopefully you will have deduced the correct location of the sweet spot.
The only dexterity "involved" is that of a healthy human being and not someone with Parkinson's who can't even direct their mouse to a certain spot (at which point pretty much all mouse-based cRPGs ever made, like Fallout or Baldur's Gate, "demand" dexterity). I'm guessing you were simply talking about the lockpicking minigame, because the hacking minigame is somewhat similar but with more logic involved.
This is a valid complaint. I don't think the lockpicking and hacking minigames are perfect, or even close to perfect. That's why I installed Immersive Minigames: it basically changes the system back to how it was in Fallout and Fallout 2. And I did that because the minigames were so easy to solve that I pretty much never failed them.
No, a tactical "genius" (a rather grandiose term in Fallout) is someone who can outsmart the opponent, especially when we are talking scenarios of one character against ten. I would expect a dumb brute to just fight all opponents and once, and die pretty quickly as a result.
The criticism stemmed from New Vegas' highlighting the "winning skill", and people being "forced" to do that. I say "forced", because as JarlFrank himself said
apparently knowing which one is the better option simply "forces" you to pick it, which is simply not true. It is your choice, as the player, to pick the "winning" option. If we lockpick a safe to access its contents, why wouldn't we pick the best option in dialogue? Like it or not, in Fallout there is always a "best option" to pick in dialogue, the only differences are:
1. We don't know what that option is (despite our stats unlocking that option to begin with, meaning we should be immediately be drawn to it).
2. The chance to succeed is completely random, which is twice as stupid because even though we unlocked the best option, it is still up to chance.
If you ask me, it would be better to simply have a system where:
- There are many options to pick from.
- All of them are potentially valid, depending on our stats.
- We do not see the chance of each option.
Yes, this is possible with Project Nevada, with the added consequence of destroying most of the contents inside containers depending on a random chance.
I can ask myself "why am I okay with failing in combat but not in dialogue?". I would say the answer is "combat is everywhere and you can never be sure whether you aim at a guy's head or the shot slips past him", but "dialogue checks are few and far between, and you always end up saying the same thing but sometimes it magically works and others it doesn't".
That said, I think Fallout and Fallout 2 got it right by not showing you the odds to beat the skill check.
RRRrrr
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,314
I can't believe I watched through these videos.
Fallout 3 was just a generic Bethesda game. It was not something specific that it did-no amount of skill-checks would make the game more fun or a better RPG, nor being able to use force in Little Lamplight would have had any effect on the overall experience. This is just nitpicking.
The game was bad, because it was a Bethesda hiking simulator full of mediocre storytelling. You did not have to sacrifice anything when creating your character or leveling up. You could be perfect in everything, without having to stick to a particular playing style due to the skills you picked. Combat was obviously bad-it is impossible to have good combat with this engine.
So this is why Fallout 3 was bad-it had nothing to stand out and in the end it was not even rewarding, because you didn't need to sacrifice anything.
And then Obsidian came...and they made a lot of mistakes as well. Am I the only one who hated how abundant caps and ammo were in New Vegas? Nothing was ever a challenge. As bad as Fallout 3 was, as least resources were not as abundant. In New Vegas, nothing was ever a challenge. The game suffered from the same problems as Fallout 3-you could make whatever build you wanted without any drawbacks. I feel like you did not even need to level up. Again, you could be perfect in every way. You did not need to sacrifice non-combat skills in order to have a better combat character. You did not need to do anything to have the best ending to almost any quest. And God, just how boring everything was.
I never understood why New Vegas is regarded so highly here, when it failed to fix most of Fallout 3 issues. Yes, it was not as cringy as Fallout 3, and yes, it some better quests, but it was just boring and completely unrewarding.
Fallout 3 was just a generic Bethesda game. It was not something specific that it did-no amount of skill-checks would make the game more fun or a better RPG, nor being able to use force in Little Lamplight would have had any effect on the overall experience. This is just nitpicking.
The game was bad, because it was a Bethesda hiking simulator full of mediocre storytelling. You did not have to sacrifice anything when creating your character or leveling up. You could be perfect in everything, without having to stick to a particular playing style due to the skills you picked. Combat was obviously bad-it is impossible to have good combat with this engine.
So this is why Fallout 3 was bad-it had nothing to stand out and in the end it was not even rewarding, because you didn't need to sacrifice anything.
And then Obsidian came...and they made a lot of mistakes as well. Am I the only one who hated how abundant caps and ammo were in New Vegas? Nothing was ever a challenge. As bad as Fallout 3 was, as least resources were not as abundant. In New Vegas, nothing was ever a challenge. The game suffered from the same problems as Fallout 3-you could make whatever build you wanted without any drawbacks. I feel like you did not even need to level up. Again, you could be perfect in every way. You did not need to sacrifice non-combat skills in order to have a better combat character. You did not need to do anything to have the best ending to almost any quest. And God, just how boring everything was.
I never understood why New Vegas is regarded so highly here, when it failed to fix most of Fallout 3 issues. Yes, it was not as cringy as Fallout 3, and yes, it some better quests, but it was just boring and completely unrewarding.
Quillon
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 5,336
Okagron
Prophet
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2018
- Messages
- 753
This is just straight up bullshit. Several quests require high investment into a specific skill to get the "best" ending, and that would require several levels to get it. And this would end up with you not having enough skill points to put into some other skills that would allow you to do that for other quests. Several quests also didn't had a "best" ending, some had some with their own specific benefits and if you wanted a specific reward, you have to invest into a specific skill.
You could get the best ending in all quests in Fallout 3 because Speech was a chance to succeed, just requiring to save and load until you get it. Can't do that in New Vegas.
Last edited:
RRRrrr
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,314
Which is exactly what I said-"almost any quest", which is basically the same as "several quests" out of more than a hundred. Several quests too far in between is nothing, especially compared to how relatively harder it is to level up these skills in Fallout 1/2. Having these skills meant you had to make a reasonable compromise with other important skills. You need no such compromise in Fallout 3/NV, as combat skills are far less important and skill points are abundant.
Not to mention that even skill checks are not what matters most. Fallout 1/2 did not make it obvious that something is a skill check, how much points you need to pass and did not necessarily present the option without navigating through other dialogue. The skill checks in Fallout 3/NV were straight up lazy.
Saving and reloading until you pass a skill check is metagaming, it hardly counts as roleplaying. It is akin to reloading and leveling up whatever skill you need in New Vegas and then returning, knowing exactly what you need and how many points short you were of passing it.
Just play Fallout 1/2 again, you will certainly have a better time. Even as far as modern RPGs are concerned, there are better ones than NV. No mod could fix the shitty engine.
Last edited:
Quillon
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 5,336
An enemy decimates you, you go back and level up then kill it, is this also akin to "Saving and reloading until you pass a skill check"?
RRRrrr
Arcane
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2011
- Messages
- 2,314
No, because failing a skill check to get the "perfect ending" does not hinder your progress, being decimated does.
Quillon
Arcane
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2016
- Messages
- 5,336
Nope, its an enemy in a side content, completely optional, ignoring it won't hinder you from progressing through your IRON MAN game.
Last edited:
Wayward Son
Fails to keep valuable team members alive
Have... have you ever been to the DC area? It's forests and swamps. As in, great land to grow crops in.
I obviously wasn't talking about actual DC, but the DC in fallout 3.
Wayward Son
Fails to keep valuable team members alive
Except that water doesn't hold ionizing radiation very well and as such, over the course of 200 years, would have given much of it up to the soil, which can hold onto it extremely well. So the whole purifier is kinda pointless.
If it's 5E, then you're describing inspiration points, which aren't XP but can be spent the way you describe.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.