Flaky posted:

ugh bet those Mirelurks dont even have 1000 lines of personalised context specific dialogue remind me why would I want to even play this game???

7c Nickel posted:

I read this and it sounds like exactly what I would want. Weren't people bitching earlier that Bethesda sucks because every character can do everything at once and characters don't feel different enough?

FronzelNeekburm posted:

Well, you don't need to be able to pick everything, but if you have, let's say, 50 perks per game to dole out, and each perk has four levels, just filling them out from top to bottom would let you max out the first tier, then half of the second. Apparently there are something like 270 levels of perks total, so unless you get a LOT of perks, you'll need to specialize pretty heavily.

Like, say you go for any sort of gun-based build. You probably have 4 for Gun Nut, 4 for Repair, 4 for Commando, 4 for Gunslinger, 4 for Sniper (which is 8 PER, so throw in another few points for that), and that's 24-ish just for weapon maintenance and damage. That's half our hypothetical perks over the whole game.

So basically, it depends on how quickly you gain levels this time around. Plenty of people modded New Vegas to give a perk every level instead of every two; I wouldn't be surprised to see something similar here.

ImpAtom posted:

I mean... you're basically saying "If I want to be the literal best at guns I have to heavily specialize." That doesn't actually sound like a bad thing to me.

FronzelNeekburm posted:

That depends on whether anything else in the perks menu looks interesting. If you want to just punch everything to death so you can max out "dog sings along with me around the campfire," cool. But usually Fallout uses a lot of guns.

frajaq posted:

oh hey thats me in every Bethesda game ever, the stealth archer sniper

C. Avellone posted:

"If you ask me, these 'stealthy-sniper' builds have no place in a modern RPG like Fallout...it's a duplicitous playstyle that undermines the game's mechanics and the developer's intents. Truthfully, we've spent a huge amount of effort building a compelling world for all kinds of players, and it's frustrating to see that many of them choose to creep around and hide behind rocks and run away when they're discovered. That's why Old World Blues has all of these respawning enemies: It's my way of saying to snipers, 'go away, you're not welcome here.'"

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

In the Fallout: New Vegas DLC "Old World Blues", Chris Avellone addressed what he had described as "The 'Jewish Question' of the Roleplaying world"--specifically whether accommodations should continue to exist for tired stealthy-sniper builds--by blessing the world of Big MT with approximately a dozen omnipotent, immortal, invisible "NPCs" that would constantly follow the player around and materialize as various enemies. When the player "killed" the enemy, the invisible NPC would be temporarily unable to respawn and attack the player again. This is why it is virtually impossible to sneak around Big MT for any prolonged period of time, why it seems like opponents literally materialize from areas that were clear a moment earlier, and why you can never actually kill all of Big MT's enemies.

ImpAtom posted:

I'm still not sure why this is a bad thing. Like if you want to choose to focus on non-combat perks so you're good at talking or crafting or whatever but have a harder time in combat that is only a bad thing if the game doesn't actually offer you valid options to get around your lack of combat skills. Just in theory this sounds more engaging to me than the previous SPECIAL skill method which amounted to "take high INT or else you're intentionally gimping your character for no real reason and once you do you're effectively going to end up the best at most things."

Trapezium Dave posted:

Looking forward to seagulls being the Cliff Racers of New Boston.

Pwnstar posted:

The main issue people are having with the skill system is that the primary way you interact with the world is by killing things. So investing points into gun skill or whatever can be considered a necessary cost as opposed to a specific character choice.

Back Hack posted:

You mean like every Beth game since Morrowind?

Flaky posted:

ugh bet those Mirelurks dont even have 1000 lines of personalised context specific dialogue remind me why would I want to even play this game???

Dongicus posted:

JackBadass posted:

Sorry, I guess they're turtle people. Close enough.

Nuebot posted:

And there's only like two or three dungeons with those in them. Compared to fallout 3 where several more and a DLC were full of them. You can't really poo poo on one game when the one you're trying to imply is superior does the same poo poo worse.

JackBadass posted:

There's several with those in them, plus they're everywhere in the lovely overworld. I can easily poo poo on NV for that.

My god, the stupids sure come out of the woodworks when you bash NV...

Man Whore posted:

JackBadass doesn't even bait his hook and he still has people bite.

Flaky posted:

NV creatures sucked period. Blue Supermutants. Browner Supermutants. Less-interesting raiders. Men in suits. Spore-men.

"Hey you know what would save us some time, just add small versions of creatures yea yea if prompted just say its for realism the nerds love that this is gonna be great"

Flaky posted:

NV creatures sucked period. Blue Supermutants. Browner Supermutants. Less-interesting raiders. Men in suits. Spore-men. Dogs. Dogs with snake heads.

"Hey you know what would save us some time, just add small versions of creatures yea yea if prompted just say realism three times this is gonna be great"

Delsaber posted:

Fallout 4 can't come out soon enough.

Man Whore posted:

JackBadass doesn't even bait his hook and he still has people bite.

Walrus Pete posted:

Yeah, but try using a gun in Fallout 3 or New Vegas without investing skill points into guns. You'll have a hell of a time hitting anything, and when you do it won't be for much damage. I'd be surprised if FO4's guns work any differently.


Maybe. But how do you balance stuff like Confirmed Bachelor, or Terrifying Presence, or Bloody Mess? Those existed mostly for flavor, and when they cost the same perk point as +25% gun damage or whatever, they become a lot less appealing.

Dongicus posted:

im just pretending to be a huge retard XD

Boogaleeboo posted:

You spend some of your very limited time on this Earth posting in this thread.

You aren't pretending.

Boogaleeboo posted:

You spend some of your very limited time on this Earth posting in this thread.

You aren't pretending.

Pwnstar posted:

A cool thing about Skyrim was that it wasn't designed to be played at 60+ FPS so if you do the physics engines freaks out and objects literally start floating away because gravity doesn't work anymore. CHIM.

Kurtofan posted:

what if posting extends your life.

Cream-of-Plenty posted:

Chris Avellone posted:

We didn't set out to make Dead Money a Survival experience - we set out to make a Horror game that put Survival second. In terms of horror, I don't feel we succeeded, although it was a conscious effort to try and shake things up a bit with the enemies you faced to scare the player, definitely. The enemies are not only tough (which is easy to do with numbers, so I don't feel that's a real challenge), but also intended to be unpredictable when they fall, so you couldn't always count on shooting an enemy until they fall as being a guarantee that you're safe. The original hope was that the enemies couldn't simply be headshotted continuously - this is a selfish reason, as I get tired of watching people play like that non-stop (it doesn't feel like they're experimenting with limb-targeting tactics, despite the array of weapons), although the non-headshotting tactical diversion didn't turn out that way (it's just as easy to decapitate a head as a limb with the right blasts).