View Single Post

Default 

July 8th, 2008, 15:20
Originally Posted by jdhfoqwzr View Post
There were lots of ways you could abuse quests/game mechanics in FO(2) if you played it before. Tag Outdoorsman, go to Navarro, get powered armor + big amounts of exp. The rest of the game is a cakewalk. That is no argument for removal of skills.
I disagree. I'd much rather have fewer, but better balanced and better fleshed-out skills than more, but crappily balanced and superficially implemented ones.

Which isn't to say that this is what Bethsoft is doing with FO3, of course.

Less skills means less options, less options mean less RPGing, imho, less RPGing in an RPG = Bethesda.
OTOH unbalanced skills = dominant strategies = fewer *viable* options = less real choice = less RPGing in an RPG.

Having lots of badly-done skills *reduces* choice in a game. Either they're useless (i.e. nobody chooses them, so they might as well not be there) or they're overpowered (i.e., nobody chooses anything else, so the other skills might as well not be there).

Very few games actually manage to balance skills well enough not to fall into one of these traps. FO1 was exceptionally good in this respect, but FO2 was as bad as most games out there.

IMO, though, the gold standard in this respect is Deus Ex: every skill in it was useful without any of them being unbalancing; you could develop your character in several different ways (heavy weapons/sniper rifle/melee-with-infiltration, etc.), and the game experience was exquisitely balanced, but completely different every time.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#26

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540