[^~LIL B0NE5~^]

Wait what!

It wasn't plausible in Fallout 2 you mean. The tribal village with spears, you remember. Fallout 3 was the one with you growing up in a vault (kinda like Fallout 1).
Sure they made quite the story of your time in the vault, but they condensed those nineteen years in to three (four counting your escape) small sections none of which lasted longer than one day.


I guess you'd have to ditch tag skills and allow you to come across each skill early on to make yours work.
If you get the chance to learn small guns (sniper rifle) early on, while energy weapons comes long after, than it isn't really a choice now is it. The game forces you to use the skill you "learn" early on, since other skills don't come available later and you have no way of knowing when and how you fair without the other skill.
No one is going to say I'll just keep pilling up a third of my skillpoints per level because I'm going to for a skill I find late in the game.

EDIT: Spending time to develop your character like you suggested is quite okay, though it is essentially the same thing as the character screen in the original Fallout(s) or starting from leaving the vault in FO 3

[Peetay]

Wait what!

It wasn't plausible in Fallout 2 you mean. The tribal village with spears, you remember. Fallout 3 was the one with you growing up in a vault (kinda like Fallout 1).
Sure they made quite the story of your time in the vault, but they condensed those nineteen years in to three (four counting your escape) small sections none of which lasted longer than one day.

FO3 as based on FO1. I liked FO2, but it was already straying from the ideal.

I guess you'd have to ditch tag skills and allow you to come across each skill early on to make yours work.
If you get the chance to learn small guns (sniper rifle) early on, while energy weapons comes long after, than it isn't really a choice now is it. The game forces you to use the skill you "learn" early on, since other skills don't come available later and you have no way of knowing when and how you fair without the other skill.
No one is going to say I'll just keep pilling up a third of my skillpoints per level because I'm going to for a skill I find late in the game.

I would if it let me :rofl:
I never put skill points into Small guns (for instance) until its maxed out by books.

EDIT: Spending time to develop your character like you suggested is quite okay, though it is essentially the same thing as the character screen in the original Fallout(s) or starting from leaving the vault in FO 3

Actually I can see having general skills, and "Perk skills" acquired through experience and exploration... Like learning tailoring from a craftsman or an old library book, and it giving you the ability to put points in it to repair & modify cloth/wind sails/ jackets and sacks... ~or learn Gecko skinning (and not just the ability to loot skins, but where higher skill % equates to higher [potential] sale prices.)

[WYatt REed]

Should it be?
In Fallout [1 & 2] your PC is the next guy the Overseer/Elder picks to send out for the chip/GECK. Your PC is a typical vault guy/tribal with a past that has undefined specifics; By contrast, in FO3 your entire life is laid out, your family, friends, school, aptitudes, and even your experience with firearms. In FO1 the PC may plausibly know just about anything, while in FO3 the PC is overly defined, and the idea that they can tag energy weapons, or big guns is kind of absurd.

Personally I was happy that this was put into Fallout 3. One of the things which annoys me the most about almost every single type of game is the fact that the PC is usually someone with no past, no family, no ties, no friends, no nothing. He/She is someone who has an absolute aptitude to master whatever skills/traits/knowledge the game has to offer, usually starting out as the rookie, especially when compared to companions and enemies who have had years of training over the PC but are somehow inferior in their abilities.

The Chosen One complex I understand for the pure sake of gameplay, the PC has to be an uber-god when compared to everyone else; but it really grates my nerves this continued background of "The mysterious stranger". It feels unreaslitic to me to always portray a character with no ties to anybody at all and with no defined past. Of course some RPGs remedy this to an extent by putting companions and romances, but I do not like to portray characters who are simply blank canvases to which I have to add every last bit of color with my own imagination which will never be represented ingame anyway.

Course that's just me

To my knowledge all the Really big mayor cities. Like in the originals San Fran and La where leveled to the ground basicly. So I'm guessin most if all cities of that size and concentration would have been hit too.

Well it all depends really on just how much Las Vegas was considered a military target at the time of the bombs dropping. In the original Fallout you can clearly see that Necropolis still has plenty of large buildings standing (In ruins but standing); while Tactics isn't considered overtly canon you can also see an enormous amount of buildings still standing in the ruins of Chicago and they have still huge skyscraqers reaching for the skies (Not to mention that Chicago might be a higher value target than Vegas).

Another thing might be that, depending on the timeline of New Vegas, after almost 200 years following the war the people of New Vegas actually began to rebuild the city higher than the 1 level buildings which dominated the original series.

I would have to say, "that's too bad... Your PC became a big-gun rocket & grenade specialist before you ever saw an energy rifle to study or learn to be good with... That's just tough".

No amount of debate can convince me that crafting a game so you can "recover" from previous commitments is a good thing; As I see it, it is the game industry's equivalent of, "Everyone at the softball game gets a trophy, and no one goes home a loser". This kind of insanity goes counter to biological brain development and fosters a fantasy world in one's real life.

If I make a character in a game that finds a sniper rifle and commits to mastering it completely, and then finds an energy weapon and can't use it... that makes sense and I'd not have it any other way ~If the guns were reversed, he'd be an expert in laser weapons that are not affected by wind speed at 500 yards (and not be very good with a sniper's rifle) :shrug: ~this is normal no?

Fallout let the player tag whatever they wanted and within context it was plausible that the PC could know these skills before hand; Its not plausible in FO3, and a change in the mechanics might have been warranted if it worked smooth and showed good results.

In FO:NV if the PC again has a fully defined past, this mechanic again won't make reasonable sense; Though if you start in a vault and spend an hour or two defining your PC, then perhaps something like visiting the vault archives (library) could allow the PC to unlock certain skills (or discover new skills entirely).

The best option I can find for this sort of mechanic is the adding of trainers or experts with these sort of skills, like existed in Oblivion/Morrowind. Also tying somehow how many skills you can learn from trainers with the skill point limit the game gives the PC so that you can't simply learn every single skill via a trainer and know everything.

Basically what I'm saying is that the ingame world would have npcs/books/holotapes/etc which can then give the PC the ability to learn a new skill or use a new weapon as if the PC was trained by this and therefore learnt how to use it.

[lolli]

FO3 as based on FO1. I liked FO2, but it was already straying from the ideal.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.
My point was that in Fallout 2 it made less sense that your character knew the things he did and Fallout 3 actually made the same sense as Fallout (both grew up in a fallout, who's educational system and information library has to be better then what's available out there)/

Actually I can see having general skills, and "Perk skills" acquired through experience and exploration... Like learning tailoring from a craftsman or an old library book, and it giving you the ability to put points in it to repair & modify cloth/wind sails/ jackets and sacks... ~or learn Gecko skinning (and not just the ability to loot skins, but where higher skill % equates to higher [potential] sale prices.)

I would say it's better to have these things as Perks that are tied to already existing skill. Perhaps with follow ups getting available on level ups afterward, though there has to be some limiting factor in taking all skills.

The point is that the character creation is essentially showing what you're character learned during his earlier live. In Fallout 3 all they do is add a bit of story and characters to that so it's a bit more personal, but it is essentially the same.

[maya papps]

Nothing about your character in FO3 is predefined other than the fact you were born and made it to age 19 before your father left the vault. Oh and you had a birthday party at age 10. Quite the stretch there! You even get to tailor your backstory when you take the GOAT. If you opt to skip the test you can divulge what type of person you are and get appropriate results.

There's a lot of things that could be done to have it make more sense, but since it's already engraved in stone for some people it's too late. Any deviation from the established system would only herald a massive welling of tears. FO3's minor changes, such as not getting 2 points for tag skills, already create enough strife in some peoples' lives as is.

I wouldn't be opposed to more of a 'skill tree' type system that lets you raise a general marksman ability that represents aiming and general gun use, then later you can specialize in ballistic or energy weapons. You'd still be fairly competent with either with a high general skill, but specializing would bring benefits and unlock more abilities/perks.

But that would probably result in a jihad on Bethesda's corporate office.

[Toby Green]

Personally I was happy that this was put into Fallout 3. One of the things which annoys me the most about almost every single type of game is the fact that the PC is usually someone with no past, no family, no ties, no friends, no nothing.

Double edged sword...This is the guy that makes the best RPG hero; He has no past, no family, no ties, no friends... Nothing to lose and no one to leave behind ~But its also not much of a role.

Notice that Baldur's Gate gives you a past, and a foster father, and a friend... but kills the father, cuts off your past (Candle Keep), and the friend comes with you. In Dungeon Siege (IRRC), everything you have gets killed or burned up ~so the Farmer becomes the man with no family, no ties, no friends... Nothing to lose and no one to leave behind.

The best option I can find for this sort of mechanic is the adding of trainers or experts with these sort of skills, like existed in Oblivion/Morrowind. Also tying somehow how many skills you can learn from trainers with the skill point limit the game gives the PC so that you can't simply learn every single skill via a trainer and know everything.

Basically what I'm saying is that the ingame world would have npcs/books/holotapes/etc which can then give the PC the ability to learn a new skill or use a new weapon as if the PC was trained by this and therefore learnt how to use it.

They did this in both Fallout 1 & 2. You could find combat trainers that could help you ~unless you already knew more than they did.

I don't think I understand what you are trying to say here.
My point was that in Fallout 2 it made less sense that your character knew the things he did...

I agree.

and Fallout 3 actually made the same sense as Fallout (both grew up in a fallout, who's educational system and information library has to be better then what's available out there)/

Arroyo was founded by the Vault Dweller (who had access to the vault and much more) ~So whose to say?.

I would say it's better to have these things as Perks that are tied to already existing skill. Perhaps with follow ups getting available on level ups afterward, though there has to be some limiting factor in taking all skills.

I would better prefer they revert Perks to the way they were in the beginning (and re-implement traits). As for what I said about skills... I can't imagine a better replay option than to play several characters that each had discovered unique skill sets in addition to the generic ones everyone starts with (Especially if they affect plot situations and add new methods of completing quests).

The point is that the character creation is essentially showing what you're character learned during his earlier live. In Fallout 3 all they do is add a bit of story and characters to that so it's a bit more personal, but it is essentially the same.

The advantage of design in FO1 was that the Player makes a PC and defines their personal skills. The Overseer calls them and sends them on a mission... They die; Player makes a new PC and defines their personal skills. The Overseer calls them and sends them on a mission... This can plausibly repeat indefinitely without getting stale. In FO3 the PC ~ALL OF THEM have a mother that died in child birth, have a mysterious father that abandoned them, get accused of being an accomplice, and must escape the vault to find their dad... This gets stale after the third viewing, and can never plausibly repeat at all.

[Rinceoir]

I wouldn't be opposed to more of a 'skill tree' type system that lets you raise a general marksman ability that represents aiming and general gun use, then later you can specialize in ballistic or energy weapons. You'd still be fairly competent with either with a high general skill, but specializing would bring benefits and unlock more abilities/perks.

I could get behind that, if done well. Perhaps add extra perquisites to the next in line (a bit of science need as well for the energy weapons skill).

Really I'd just like to see the choices you make to matter more. Are you going for a combat light character, there should be plenty of other options open to you. Skills should mean more than just do more damage or heal more points and perks should open up new ways to use your skills. And ingame choices should effect their environment.

EDIT: I'll give you that Gizmo, there is little you yourself can change about your back story, which does get kind of stale.
Still my main point was that to part of the character creation process is choosing which skills will become your focus (what your character learned/is good at). Being able to add a select few skills (per game) found later ingame is alright, as long as you leave a group of main skills to base your character of.

[Sophie Morrell]

...The best option I can find for this sort of mechanic is the adding of trainers or experts with these sort of skills, like existed in Oblivion/Morrowind. Also tying somehow how many skills you can learn from trainers with the skill point limit the game gives the PC so that you can't simply learn every single skill via a trainer and know everything.

Basically what I'm saying is that the ingame world would have npcs/books/holotapes/etc which can then give the PC the ability to learn a new skill or use a new weapon as if the PC was trained by this and therefore learnt how to use it.

The Gothic series did a pretty good job with this problem, I thought, with their skill point and trainer idea, too. It felt organic and natural enough to me, anyway, to find some guy who could teach two-handed weapons or pickpocketing or whatever, and I could use my points to study under him.

[Alexandra Louise Taylor]

I could get behind that, if done well. Perhaps add extra perquisites to the next in line (a bit of science need as well for the energy weapons skill).

Really I'd just like to see the choices you make to matter more. Are you going for a combat light character, there should be plenty of other options open to you. Skills should mean more than just do more damage or heal more points and perks should open up new ways to use your skills. And ingame choices should effect their environment.

Yeah, it would depend on other things. Perhaps having 80 in marksmanship and 50 in science would allow you to take the Energy Weapon Specialist perk while a 50 in repair or something else would unlock the Ballistic Specialist perk. You could have SPECIAL requirements as well. Something that just prevents either hogging skill points or feeling like you are placing them just to place because it's not benefiting you in any way. Sure, you could always dump them in barter or something generic that has minimal use, but you should never feel forced to do so. If you want to be a loner that hoards everything, never visits a shop and is a deadeye marksman with a laser pistol then you should be able to be so and every level up should in some way help define you as such.

[[Bounty][Ben]]

The Gothic series did a pretty good job with this problem, I thought, with their skill point and trainer idea, too. It felt organic and natural enough to me, anyway, to find some guy who could teach two-handed weapons or pickpocketing or whatever, and I could use my points to study under him.

Agreed :thumbsup: ~(But that's Atreides you quoted.)

I always got a kick out of the guy John (in Klamath), that seeing you're a Tribal... Offers to teach you magic spells

Yeah, it would depend on other things. Perhaps having 80 in marksmanship and 50 in science would allow you to take the Energy Weapon Specialist perk while a 50 in repair or something else would unlock the Ballistic Specialist perk. You could have SPECIAL requirements as well. Something that just prevents either hogging skill points or feeling like you are placing them just to place because it's not benefiting you in any way. Sure, you could always dump them in barter or something generic that has minimal use, but you should never feel forced to do so. If you want to be a loner that hoards everything, never visits a shop and is a deadeye marksman with a laser pistol then you should be able to be so and every level up should in some way help define you as such.

That could be really good.

[Scarlet Devil]

I think people are (possibly) over-thinking the Tag skills thing...

There's no reason a Tribal couldn't concievably have Big Guns, Science, etc Tagged from the get-go. It doesn't have to represent previous knowledge or experience. I always thought the general idea was that it represented your character's natural affinities. So if you've Tagged Big Guns, it doesn't have to mean that you grew up with a Missile Launcher when everyone else was running around with spears and rocks. It's just that you're a "natural" at that skill.

Not to mention that at least with me, I always picked my Tag skills according to what skills I wanted to be able to raise doubly-quick; not for the little skill boost it starts you out with (which is pretty much meaningless anyway - especially after the first couple of levels...)

Even if you've tagged a skill that your character wouldn't have concievably had any experience in; it just represents that the very first time you actually do pick up a Bazooka, you find that it comes very easy to you. That you're a "natural."

[Rachael Williams]

Indeed thats how I looked at Tag's too.

[FLYBOYLEAK]

Agreed :thumbsup: ~(But that's Atreides you quoted.)

Sorry 'bout that. Not sure how it happened.

[Arnold Wet]

While I'd like New Vegas to be more RPGish (and bring traits back), it's probably going to be Fallout 3 but in a new place with some variations (like how Vice City was just GTA3 but better - not a true sequel).

[Avril Louise]

I wouldn't be opposed to more of a 'skill tree' type system that lets you raise a general marksman ability that represents aiming and general gun use, then later you can specialize in ballistic or energy weapons. You'd still be fairly competent with either with a high general skill, but specializing would bring benefits and unlock more abilities/perks.

This is exactly what I wanted to fix Oblivion's blade/blunt weapon problem...in regards to fallout, I always felt like the imbalance of starting skill values evened out (at least a little bit) the "tribal knowing how to use laser guns" conundrum...of course, I don't think this is even a problem with FO1/3 and was a necessary evil for the second game

[Connie Thomas]

Well you tribe's ansestors where Vault dwellers, perhaps you had a scientist or security guard in your family tree and passed down the know-how?

[STEVI INQUE]

Well, if a tribal got his hand on a weird lookin' rock with wires in it that shoots intense red light, I'm sure he'd spend his time figuring(?) out how to use it to keep an upper hand on those with the weird shaped rocks that shoots smaller weird shaped sharp rocks from it.

But if you go too far with the logic then everything just falls apart.
I fail to understand how one can repair a poolstick with another poolstick, it's like what? 5 parts?

[OJY]

don't you hear the sound effects? With tape and a hammer ofcourse! cheese man!

[Da Missz]

don't you hear the sound effects? With tape and a hammer ofcourse! cheese man!

This is why I missed duct tape. It would be the wasteland equivalent of alien epoxy.

[Mr. Ray]

Personally I was happy that this was put into Fallout 3. One of the things which annoys me the most about almost every single type of game is the fact that the PC is usually someone with no past, no family, no ties, no friends, no nothing. He/She is someone who has an absolute aptitude to master whatever skills/traits/knowledge the game has to offer, usually starting out as the rookie, especially when compared to companions and enemies who have had years of training over the PC but are somehow inferior in their abilities.

The Chosen One complex I understand for the pure sake of gameplay, the PC has to be an uber-god when compared to everyone else; but it really grates my nerves this continued background of "The mysterious stranger". It feels unreaslitic to me to always portray a character with no ties to anybody at all and with no defined past. Of course some RPGs remedy this to an extent by putting companions and romances, but I do not like to portray characters who are simply blank canvases to which I have to add every last bit of color with my own imagination which will never be represented ingame anyway.

Well that's one of the original ideas behind Fallout; the protagonist is this mysterious stranger who comes out of nowhere and either acts as a beacon of hope, a neutral wanderer, or a harbinger of destruction to the people of the wastes. Haven't you ever read one of those books or seen one of those movies where the protagonist is down on his luck, and out of nowhere comes this mysterious stranger to assist the protagonist? That's who you're supposed to be in Fallout. Granted you can be fairly neutral or even evil, but those are just two different outlooks for the same type of character.

Fallout 3 diminished this feeling quite a bit since the protagonist's father played a significant role in the plot. In fact the main quest wasn't your character's story at all; it was his or her father's told through the eyes of your character. Sort of like how Knights of the Old Republic II is Kreia's story told through the eyes of your character. Your character still went around doing heroic or evil things in Fallout 3's side quests, but he or she wasn't particularly mysterious (mostly thanks to Three-Dog), nor all that relevant to the main story of the game.

[megan gleeson]

Fallout 3 diminished this feeling quite a bit since the protagonist's father played a significant role in the plot. In fact the main quest wasn't your character's story at all; it was his or her father's told through the eyes of your character. Sort of like how Knights of the Old Republic II is Kreia's story told through the eyes of your character. Your character still went around doing heroic or evil things in Fallout 3's side quests, but he or she wasn't particularly mysterious (mostly thanks to Three-Dog), nor all that relevant to the main story of the game.

On the other hand, if you are going around doing such big things, news of you should travel. More than likely ahead of you.
It also becomes rather stale when your parents are either non-existent or dead before the game has properly started.

[Joey Bel]

On the other hand, if you are going around doing such big things, news of you should travel. More than likely ahead of you.
It also becomes rather stale when your parents are either non-existent or dead before the game has properly started.

What? How is non-existence stale? Do you actually even think about your character's parents when playing Fallout 1/2? I sure as heck don't, so I don't see how that could get stale. Including the character's parents just for the heck of it every single time would more likely to get stale than simply not including them. Dead I can agree with since there are way too many RPGs that start out with "village destroyed, parents murdered, vow to avenge deaths" introductions.

[Manuel rivera]

Yeah, I always assumed your folks in FO 1 + 2 where still kicking around when you leave. you just never talked to them before you leave.

[Kelsey Hall]

Wouldn't that kind of be like taking Jedi and Sith out of Star Wars and trying to sell it on the smugglers and bounty hunters?

As significant as smugglers and bounty hunters may be, the Jedi and Sith are still far more significant. No matter how much you may not like them, they're a very important part of Star Wars.

Hopefully, though, with the Enclave mostly destroyed, the Brotherhood will stick to the sidelines and keep their neutral viewpoint on good and evil, yet still be readily available for anyone who admires and wants to be a part of them.

Just because FO4 follows FO3, doesn't mean that NV will be happening after Capitol Wasteland. Additionally, BOS West Coast and Enclave West Coast may not have had a final battle yet. What happens in the Capitol Wasteland, stays in the Capitol Wasteland.

[Hayley O'Gara]

Enclave West Coast may not have had a final battle yet.

There is no 'Enclave west coast' after Fallout 2 and they were not at war with BoS.