Fallout 4 - Video Breaks Down Character Development @ Gamespot

[Pessimeister]

Any RPG fan that wants to be taken seriously will simply have to admit that he or she enjoys getting new powers when they level-up, and I simply refuse to believe that getting a perk every level is that much worse than getting a perk every two levels.

I think you're making too heavy an assumption here and I'd agree largely with Thrasher. Seriously, just considering the idea of obtaining a perk every level in a game without any level cap, does that not slightly take away the potential impact these choices have? If I'm leveling faster and getting perks all the time - where's the need to be concerned about character building when I'm being inundated by super-powers?

If I'm getting a perk every second level on the other hand, I have to be much more considered about making my choices count overall when building my character simply because perks are meant to be valuable and not dime-a-dozen.

 

[DArtagnan]

I think you're making too heavy an assumption here and I'd agree largely with Thrasher. Seriously, just considering the idea of obtaining a perk every level in a game without any level cap, does that not slightly take away the potential impact these choices have? If I'm leveling faster and getting perks all the time - where's the need to be concerned about character building when I'm being inundated by super-powers?

I'm not talking about a fabricated rate of level-ups and a fabricated power-ranking of perks.

I'm talking about the system in itself.

I have no idea why you assume you'll be getting levels and perks "all the time" - but I don't have such insight into the game. There are MORE perks, yes, but I have no idea how fast you'll level up.

More perks doesn't mean less impact of choice to me. That's about how they've balanced and implemented perks, not the frequency with which you get them.

What I'm saying is that I find it questionable to call out getting perks every level as non-gradual and "magically appearing super-powers" - considering the old system had them every two levels instead. Having them every two levels is less magical? Getting one every level is not gradual? Perhaps not, but that doesn't mean you'll be getting super powers every 2 seconds.

Going by Bethesda, the perks are supposed to replace the progression of the skill system - so I don't know why they can't be reasonably "gradual" - depending on how powerful the lower ranks are.

I guess the big problem is that you get tangible upgrades instead of small incremental upgrades that you hardly feel.

Yeah, that's terrible.

If I'm getting a perk every second level on the other hand, I have to be much more considered about making my choices count overall when building my character simply because perks are meant to be valuable and not dime-a-dozen.

I don't follow this in the least.

Assuming a perk is actually useful - and I don't know why anyone would assume it's not - then I don't understand why it's less important every level than it would be every two levels.

That would just mean every two perks would be just as important as one perk used to be - with the added bonus of having a lot more toys to choose from.

If your logic was sound - then surely the best design would have just one perk choice in the entire game, right? That would make it so important that the game would automatically be ten times more fun, right?

Then again, I don't automatically assume the worst- which is really what we're talking about here.

Let me guess, you think they're all superpowers that "blow shit up" - because Bethesda make cool but stupid games for stupid people - and bla bla.

No, I expect some perks to be what skills used to be - only with more significantly felt upgrades - and some perks to be what the old perks used to be, which would include both useful powers and "super powers" for the highest SPECIAL stat perks.

That said, I don't go into a Bethesda game expecting truly tough choices in the character system. They're not good at that - and they never were good at that.

But that's 100% separate from the concept of the system itself.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

The point is that with skills, you can have a more "cohesive" and gradual character design that works well with perks...improve your skill and then receive first basic, then more advanced perks that improve it, tied with stat requirement this gives you more "natural" sense of progression and better "feel" of your character. It's similar with overhauls like Arwen's that have far more harsh requirements compared to vanilla F3...as a result you need to plan ahead and end up with a more dedicated, specialized build.
Sacrifice your character progression in one direction, to excell in another...isn't that the whole point of this system?
I'll reserve my judgement until I play it first hand, but this seems far too open for pick your favorite perks on level up, one that's even more streamlined than in Skyrim...there were very few interesting choices when it comes to character building, precisely because of unbalance and the number of perks. Seriously, who would waste any points for +20 % lesser prices/easier lockpicking?`
And it's far better to receive less, but more active, game play changing perks, than a system overflowing with + x% passives that we've seen so far.

 

[DArtagnan]

The point is that with skills, you can have a more "cohesive" and gradual character design that works well with perks…improve your skill and then receive first basic, then more advanced perks that improve it, tied with stat requirement this gives you more "natural" sense of progression and better "feel" of your character. It's similar with overhauls like Arwen's that have far more harsh requirements compared to vanilla F3…as a result you need to plan ahead and end up with a more dedicated, specialized build.
Sacrifice your character progression in one direction, to excell in another…isn't that the whole point of this system?
I'll reserve my judgement until I play it first hand, but this seems far too open for pick your favorite perks on level up, one that's even more streamlined than in Skyrim…there were very few interesting choices when it comes to character building, precisely because of unbalance and the number of perks. Seriously, who would waste any points for +20 % lesser prices/easier lockpicking?`
And it's far better to receive less, but more active, game play changing perks, than a system overflowing with + x% passives that we've seen so far.

I'm trying hard to correlate that statement with the rest of your post

Apparently, getting to pick between 270 perks is less about sacrifice than picking what skill you want to level-up this time.

Makes a whole lot of sense…. not

As for Skyrim, I greatly enjoyed character building in that game. But it's true that you could end up with a very powerful jack of all trades - if you really wanted to keep playing the same dude for a very long time.

I prefer starting over and trying something new, once I've made a powerful character and I've done what I want to do with him.

One thing is for sure, the character building in Skyrim was MUCH more fun to me than it ever was in Oblivion, Morrowind, Daggerfall or Arena.

Precisely because of the abundance of perks.

But, ok, cool - I love perks and toys. I'll just have to accept that some people really do prefer trivial incremental upgrades through skills.

My mistake

 

[Wisdom]

Frequency of rewards play a part in the overall satisfaction of the process.
Human nature. You give too much of something to someone, its not an incentive or a reward anymore. No goal, no feeling of achievement.

But, ok, cool. I'll just have to accept that people really do want easy upgrades thrown at them with no thought required without a skills option.

 

[JDR13]

I have no idea why you assume you'll be getting levels and perks "all the time" - but I don't have such insight into the game. There are MORE perks, yes, but I have no idea how fast you'll level up.

He's probably just going by Bethesda's past games which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
There's no reason to assume it's going to be vastly different from FO3 or TES where the player character is usually godlike before you're halfway through the game. I don't see Bethesda changing that aspect much if at all.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

I'm trying hard to correlate that statement with the rest of your post

Apparently, getting to pick between 270 perks is less about sacrifice than picking what skill you want to level-up this time.

Makes a whole lot of sense…. not


My mistake

Because, when you have a char system with more dependencies and corelation between different attributes, it gives a better sense of progression. What part of that don't you understand?
And wisdom has a point...as a result, Skyrim of F3 required almost no character planning, because of abundance of perks and how majority ended up being useless or straightforward passives.

 

[DArtagnan]

He's probably just going by Bethesda's past games which seems perfectly reasonable to me.
There's no reason to assume it's going to be vastly different from FO3 or TES where the player character is usually godlike before you're halfway through the game. I don't see Bethesda changing that aspect much if at all.

I don't see why perks rather than skills would change that, is my point.

No one in their right mind would expect a balanced and challenging game from Bethesda.

What I don't understand is that people actually and honestly prefer being godlike through incremental skill upgrades instead of perks.

But again, that's just me

 

[DArtagnan]

Because, when you have a char system with more dependencies and corelation between different attributes, it gives a better sense of progression. What part of that don't you understand?
And wisdom has a point…as a result, Skyrim of F3 required almost no character planning, because of abundance of perks and how majority ended up being useless or straightforward passives.

In the real world, no TES game (or FO3) ever required much planning to succeed.

You don't seem to understand that I'm not saying this will require much either.

I'm saying there's no visible or tangible reason perks will make what's already weak, weaker.

 

[DArtagnan]

Frequency of rewards play a part in the overall satisfaction of the process.
Human nature. You give too much of something to someone, its not an incentive or a reward anymore. No goal, no feeling of achievement.

I agree, but why assume that these rewards are too frequent and too much of something without playing it first?

It's possible, I agree - but why ASSUME it is the case?

In the past, you were rewarded with skill points - now you're rewarded with a single perk. Why MUST that be worse?

But, ok, cool. I'll just have to accept that people really do want easy upgrades thrown at them with no thought required without a skills option.

Yes, because the TES games without perks required a massive amount of thought

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Then why not improve it, if this was one of major design flaws in both previous games and all game play overhauls made by modding community did a far better job at it than the developers?
And this is certainly not a move in the right direction, for a lot of people.

 

[JDR13]

What I don't understand is that people actually and honestly prefer being godlike through incremental skill upgrades instead of perks.

But again, that's just me

Well that doesn't come as much of a surprise. You've never been very understanding when it comes to people liking something that you don't.

 

[DArtagnan]

Then why not improve it, if this was one of major design flaws in both previous games and all game play overhauls made by modding community did a far better job at it than the developers?
And this is certainly not a move in the right direction, for a lot of people.

Yeah, you're definitely reserving judgment

That's what people are really good at around here.

I have no idea why they don't improve it, but that's not what we're talking about.

I'd love it if Bethesda started caring about challenge and finely tuned mechanics.

But as long as they're not, I'd rather have more fun when being "godlike" than less fun.

Again, because I really love perks and toys more than incremental upgrades.

 

[DArtagnan]

Well that doesn't come as much of a surprise. You've never been very understanding when it comes to people liking something that you don't.

I'm not quite the master you are at it

 

[JDR13]

I'm not quite the master you are at it

Whew.. No way I could possibly recover from that reply.

I surrender.

 

[Thrasher]

There's no master in kindergarten, just a lot of crying.

 

[Thrasher]

Back on topic, I do like variety and evolving gameplay. Receiving superpower perks regularly is one of the simplest ways to achieve this, but kind of fails in the sense of accomplishment somehow. It feels too artificial, perhaps. You don't feel better, just different.

 

[Pessimeister]

I have no idea why you assume you'll be getting levels and perks "all the time" - but I don't have such insight into the game. There are MORE perks, yes, but I have no idea how fast you'll level up.

Let's read the actual article then shall we for words from the horse's mouth:

But levelling speed is closer to Skyrim, and not as slow as Fallout 3. This means you’ll be getting more opportunities, especially early on, to level up and select a Perk. Additionally, whereas Fallout 3 had an initial level cap of 20, Fallout 4 has no level cap.

The main additional question I get from reading this again is for how long under this infinite leveling system do we obtain perks? Some kind of limit is surely necessary to prevent players creating overpowered characters too early in the game, if leveling and perk selection is more frequent, as the above implies.

More perks doesn't mean less impact of choice to me. That's about how they've balanced and implemented perks, not the frequency with which you get them.

The second point you make is a good one, those are certainly contributing factors, but I think Wisdom's post supported my point on this matter as well. If I can level to my hearts content and get perks each time I do level, why should I be concerned where my perks go? I'll have another one before you know it. It's a veritable cornucopia of perkiness! On paper at least, that doesn't make me want to stop and make a considered choice. It has the potential to make me apathetic and lazy if I'm honest - as if I'd consumed too many sunday roasts!

If your logic was sound - then surely the best design would have just one perk choice in the entire game, right? That would make it so important that the game would automatically be ten times more fun, right?

Nice strawman. Please don't try to misrepresent what I said or put words in my mouth and we'll be able to have a more civilised discourse. Cheers.

Put simply, if this is a Fallout game - I expect to be able to make impactful, meaningful choices. Under the traditional character system, (one perk every third level in the first two games…one per two for F3/NV) I'm much more pressed to make those choices count. That fact alone, makes those decisions more weighty than what is proposed under this new system.

Whilst I naturally agree that we'll see the truth of the matter when the game finally comes out, in theory and on the surface of it, I don't especially like the gluttonous nature of the proposed system. But that's just me - we all enjoy fun and reaping rewards in diverse ways.

 

[BoboTheMighty]

Yeah, you're definitely reserving judgment

Are you underlining my comments to prove some point here? I'm not sure if that's funny or disturbing... seriously dude, you really need to loosen up a little.
This is a harmless discussion with a lot of subjectivity coming on either side...you don't need to prove to everyone your own view is the best here.
And I'm sure you understood what I'm try say here...my experience with Beth games that they're simplifying rpg mechanics while adding elements from other genres for greater appeal to wider public. This could work out well if Bethesda enforces more strict restrictions in a system that requires more character planning, but it would mean doing a 180 from how they've been designing their games in the past.

 

[DArtagnan]

Are you underlining my comments to prove some point here? I'm not sure if that's funny or disturbing… seriously dude, you really need to loosen up a little.
This is a harmless discussion with a lot of subjectivity coming on either side…you don't need to prove to everyone your own view is the best here.
And I'm sure you understood what I'm try say here…my experience with Beth games that they're simplifying rpg mechanics while adding elements from other genres for greater appeal to wider public. This could work out well if Bethesda enforces more strict restrictions in a system that requires more character planning, but it would mean doing a 180 from how they've been designing their games in the past.

I'm not sure if you feel people must be tight when they point out things you say that obviously aren't true.

Why claim you're reserving judgment when you've already claimed it inferior? I don't really get that.

But that's ok, let's just forget about that part.

Why wouldn't it be a harmless discussion, though?

I'm just trying to understand what it is about these perks that irks people so much.

I'm afraid I still don't.

Still seems to me to be about a predisposed dislike - whilst ignoring that the balance/mechanics weakness inherent in Bethesda designs was always there.

They were always laughably easy and prone to exploits. You might not have been aware of it - but I remember it all the way back to Daggerfall - which was just a broken mess of a game.