|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Fallout 3 - Full Skill List

Default Fallout 3 - Full Skill List

July 9th, 2008, 15:53
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
Fallout 3 = Stalker Clone.
I wish but I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Steal was incredibly unbalanced too, especially in FO2.

Instant non-cheating godmode in FO2:

(1) Tag Steal and Big Guns.
(2) Trek to New California Republic.
(3) Steal a Big Gun from one of the guards in green camo.
(4) Profit!
This might be true, but how many people actually discovered this on their first or even second playthrough of the game?
doctor_kaz is offline

doctor_kaz

Keeper of the Watch

#41

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 622

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 17:00
I did. I like to play stealth-types, so I had tagged Steal. Once I got to Vault City, I noticed that I could steal the socks off shopkeepers, and got some steel armor and pretty good weapons. A little later I made it to NCR, and stole stuff off the guards. At that point I noticed that my STR was too low for the Big Guns, so I started over with a burly guy built as described, and proceeded to waltz through combat for the rest of the game.

The irony is that when I decided to do another play-through, several years later, I decided to "play it right" — tagged Small Guns and Speech, and played as a woman. And… I can't stand the combat. It's unbelievably tedious, random, boring, and time-consuming. And I die all the time. And I can't avoid it either.

IOW, *entirely unlike FO1*, I had much more fun playing FO2 with a big dumb munchkin. In other words, it's severely unbalanced and suffers badly from "dominant strategy syndrome."
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#42

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 17:03
Originally Posted by curiously undead View Post
exactly. when in reality is killing a child acceptable under any circumstances or anyones moral code?
Never.

why should it be in a game.
Because one of the fun things of role-playing games is that you can play a role. Some of them let you play the role of a villain.

Think of Keyzer Sze in The Usual Suspects. There's the one scene where he comes home to see his rival gang raping his wife and holding his children hostage. He coolly shoots everyone: his wife and children first, the gangbangers second, only he leaves one alive to tell the story.

Is he a monster? Absolutely. That's rather the whole point of the scene. Would it be interesting to play such a character in a (computer) role-playing game? I certainly think so.

i guess for those who want it, we shouldn't be supprised when an mmo comes out where you can go on 'raids' and gang rape a bunch of six graders. its just a game…uhhuh
You know, that's exactly the same type of argument as the "first they train for killing on their X-Boxes, so the next thing they'll go shoot up a school." It's called the "slippery slope fallacy."

tormenting spirits of children is just about the same as blowing a childs brains out or 'ripping their spinal cord our'?
No, it isn't. But you said that any and all cruelty towards children should be strictly off-limits for games and movies, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a sick fuck. I took slight umbrage at that.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#43

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 17:13
What does balance have to do with role-playing anyway?

A thieving git gets a easier existence in the wasteland. Is that not role-play?
woges is offline

woges

woges's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team

#44

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,110

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 17:29
Originally Posted by woges View Post
What does balance have to do with role-playing anyway?
Not much, but it has everything to do with game design.

A thieving git gets a easier existence in the wasteland. Is that not role-play?
Sure, sure.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 17:32
Originally Posted by Maylander View Post
I still don't see why people want child killing in a game. Involve kids in some dramatic quest, sure, but random killing is just plain.. wrong.
Yes it is. And so is killing any human being for that matter, particularly if they are innocent. So why do people want people killing in a game?

Also, as far as I'm concerned it's not really about wanting to kill children (like Mike I'd defend them to the death), it's about irrational gameplay mechanics. You can do all sorts of things to all sorts of objects, but due to some obscure, external moral code there's one type of object you can't interact with like the others? That makes no sense and destroys the carefully crafted and otherwise perfect setting of a game.

"Mystery is important. To know everything, to know the whole truth, is dull. There is no magic in that. Magic is not knowing, magic is wondering about what and how and where." ~ Cortez, from The Longest Journey
Arhu is offline

Arhu

Arhu's Avatar
Feline Wizard
RPGWatch Team

#46

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,309

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 18:11
I can easyly understand why they have made sure that you can't kill children in the game.
Can just imagine one of those screenshots we have seen where a mutant is getting its head blown of. Imagine that to be a 8 year old girl with a wornout teddybear in her hands.
Would most likely create alot of problems for Bethesda.

I do like though that children is still in the game vs Oblivion where there were none.

And expecially in a Fallout scenario, where its survival of the fittest and its such a rough enviroment. Seeing children there adds to the emotionel feel.
They are the true loosers of such a world. They didn't cause it and they will have to live the rest of their lives with it, with all the problems that brings with it.
Foss is offline

Foss

Foss's Avatar
Watchdog

#47

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 198

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 19:12
Originally Posted by woges View Post
Some people like their entertainment to be darker that's fairly plain to see.
Makes sense.

Hasbro released last year an action figure of the Star Wars line that was the Han Solo character from Bespin in the apparatus used by Darth Vader for torturing him.

Now, torturing as a toy ???

"What are you doing there, kid ?"
"Oh, nothing. I'm just torturing a little bit."

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#48

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,849

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 19:35
but prime junta you're talking about ghosts/spirits, which don't physically exist in reality in the first place so what happens to them into in a game is a bad comparrison.

usual suspects never showed him killing his family anyhow. the power of keyser soze anyhow was in his power of persuasion. i don't think a game would be possible in that regard anyhow as it would just be an excuse to create improbable events and heinous acts. its much easier to create unrealistic events in npcs that it is with actors anyhow.

why not create a manson simulator.
is there any rational excuse for 'role playing' someone who can do whatever unspeakable act he/she feels like?
are peoples lifes in reality that unsatisfying that we have to stoop to doing such acts even in a virtual setting. dreams and fantasies, nightamares, or thoughts are one thing that regardless of what happens in them should never be judged, but a willful simulation of such acts are an entirely different matter and justifying the 'need' for those is beyond a slipperly slope as even with a jet engine i don't think you'd be able to reach a location where you could get a majority to validate such 'virtual' behavior.


people who feel the need for these types of 'games' are going to bring about the death of gaming if they keep at is it will simply incur the wrath of those that would like to see no violence, lewdness, in gaming at all.

not being able to kill children in a game ruins the 'perfect' setting. this is so laughable that carefully crafted is used, but its a lack of carefulness that allows children not to be killed. like all habits there is a bit of social conscious/awareness that 'users' should have unless they want to be addicts. gamers, especially us pc gamers, are often looked upon as having 'anti-social' behavior, but this pushes it way beyond that, and if this becomes the norm—guess i'll have to find a new hobby or an old one…

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

he who tries to make a point
misses the point
every time
- Ariel Pink
curiously undead is offline

curiously undead

curiously undead's Avatar
tuned to a different freq

#49

Join Date: May 2007
Location: standing under everyone
Posts: 812

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 19:47
Originally Posted by curiously undead View Post
but prime junta you're talking about ghosts/spirits, which don't physically exist in reality in the first place so what happens to them into in a game is a bad comparrison.
In other words, you feel that cruelty towards children in games is perfectly acceptable if the children are obviously fantasy children. So, where do you draw the line? Torturing ghost children is OK. What about orc children? Elf children? Dwarf children? Half-elf children? Where do you draw the line, and why should it be drawn there and not somewhere else?

The children in Dwarf Fortress are real children. Same for FO1/2. Same for Keyzer Sze's kids in that film — even if they didn't actually *depict* their gory fate.

is there any rational excuse for 'role playing' someone who can do whatever unspeakable act he/she feels like?
Is there any rational excuse for role-playing, period?

As for irrational excuses, I can think of several. We can explore the hidden and forbidden through play, art, and entertainment. Playing the role of a truly heinous villain can do that. I see absolutely no ethical problems with that — it's the difference between "reality" and "make-believe."

are peoples lifes in reality that unsatisfying that we have to stoop to doing such acts even in a virtual setting. dreams and fantasies, nightamares, or thoughts are one thing that regardless of what happens in them should never be judged, but a willful simulation of such acts are an entirely different matter and justifying the 'need' for those is beyond a slipperly slope as even with a jet engine i don't think you'd be able to reach a location where you could get a majority to validate such 'virtual' behavior.
Do you believe that entertainment or art needs to be "validated by the majority" in order to be permissible? Do you believe it needs be edifying, educational, or morally uplifting? 'Cuz I don't — I believe that one of the functions of art and entertainment is precisely to explore the forbidden. I believe that anything — literally, *anything* — is permissible in art. It only becomes a problem when it crosses the line delimiting reality from make-believe — for example, if actual, real people are harmed when creating it.

people who feel the need for these types of 'games' are going to bring about the death of gaming if they keep at is it will simply incur the wrath of those that would like to see no violence, lewdness, in gaming at all.
So you'd rather let those who would like to see no violence or lewdness in games at all win from the outset?

not being able to kill children in a game ruins the 'perfect' setting. this is so laughable that carefully crafted is used, but its a lack of carefulness that allows children not to be killed.
"Ruins" is a bit far, but it certainly harms the suspension of disbelief that's the underpinning for games. What's more, it's perfectly possible to design around the problem in ways that *don't* harm suspension of disbelief. For example, incorporate consequences into the game. Suppose that a Fallout-style game allowed the physical act of killing a child, but that act had the consequence that news of the act spread like wildfire, and you'd be met by a posse whichever way you turned, which broke all of the plot threads and quests, and let you make no meaningful progress in the game at all? That would drive home the message that killing children is taboo far more effectively than making them magically immune to bullets.

like all habits there is a bit of social conscious/awareness that 'users' should have unless they want to be addicts. gamers, especially us pc gamers, are often looked upon as having 'anti-social' behavior, but this pushes it way beyond that, and if this becomes the norm—guess i'll have to find a new hobby or an old one…
Yeah, sure. It would instantly spell the doom of the entire interactive entertainment business.

Go take a cold shower and maybe drink some camomile tea. You need to calm down.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#50

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 20:15
Haven't Bethesda or Pete said that you can use a Teddy Bear as a weapon in this game?? You just need to learn a way to throw it - really, really hard at someone.

Now, there's controversy for you…

And by that I mean that someone (the infamous jack) will find a reason to complain about anything in a game that do not appeal to them.

I, for one, don't understand why people would want to be able to kill children in any game, but I do respect that some people want to have that option. Remember it is an option in the game, not a requirement to finish the game.

Besides, many games have that option.( of killing children) I even think one of the Icewind Dale game have that option, Bioware games could have it, and at least in Star Wars Episode three, there's supposed child killing, too. We don't see anything, but we can guess what happened…

You can kill children in Fallout 1+2 - but everyone go hostile towards you and you bear the mark childkiller forever. 99% of the tradesmen won't barter or trade with you. The game can be finished but you will have a very difficult time in doing so. And that's how it should be. Let the player do what he or she wants (within reason) and then let the player feel the consequences.

At any rate, I agree, that the Bethesda probably would do better deciding not to put child killing in the game at all; games today, especially games like Fallout 3, are much more scrutinized by the public than they were 10 or 12 years ago. It seems to me that Pete said that you're free to attack the children, but they flee and the adults defend the children. I think this is a fairly balanced compromise.

As for the discussion of perks vs. traits, I don't quite understand the difference either. I'm OK with them being merged into perks and that you get to choose a new pewrk every time you level up. But 100 perks?? That's a lot. Less is (again) more, I find. 50 or less perks would have been better, I find. The skill list looks OK too, I find.

The thing that worries me a bit is that the role of combat apparently is greater
than in the previus titles; also that the game 'can be treated as survival horror' (which means we only must rely on ourselv+our dog in the desert).
There is an element of survival horror in the earlier games, but it is certainly not what the games are all about.

I do not hope this game turns out to be like the latest Might and Magic game.
It certainly sounds this way, especially since Pete mentions the most frigthening enemies in rpgs and the environments being the most destructible in rpgs as of yet. And here I thought that destructible environments were a hallmark of the FPS genre.

It does certainly sound like a game that it is much closer to STALKER than the original (previous) Fallout games…

Not, that it is a bad thing….

Necessarily…

Please support http://www.maternityworldwide.org/ - and save a mother giving birth to a child.
Last edited by aries100; July 9th, 2008 at 20:26. Reason: added more content
aries100 is offline

aries100

SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team RPGWatch Donor

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark, Europe
Posts: 1,982

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 20:28
Games are fun! So you can't let the public fire up the dark depths of the ID in such a way and allow them the thought that child killing is fun. PJ, what classification process is Dwarf Fortress ever having to go through as a low key free enterprise? I think that most classification boards are 'concerned' with the kind of reality graphics are starting to achieve rather then the actions themselves. That's why books don't get the same treatment, they are also considered more mature of course.
woges is offline

woges

woges's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team

#52

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,110

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 20:30
Originally Posted by aries100 View Post
As for the discussion of perks vs. traits, I don't quite understand the difference either. I'm OK with them being merged into perks and that you get to choose a new pewrk every time you level up. But 100 perks?? That's a lot. Less is (again) more, I find. 50 or less perks would have been better, I find. The skill list looks OK too, I find.
From what I can remember, most Traits had a negative effect aswell as a positive. Where Perks only had positive effects.
So it wasen't necessarily a good thing to pick any Traits.
I remember I picked one called Fast Shot or something, which I foucd out later in the game, made me unable to aim, which was a big handicap imo. I was lucky there was a perk that let me switch Traits.

About the number of perks, it does include mutiple ranks, not that I know how many and how often they occur. But could be like the old perks where you could increase a stat, you might be able to do that multiple times in F3.

Though, I don't mind the number of perks, whats important is that they have some skill/stat requirements for some of them, so no matter what chr you play there will be some more or less unique perks assosiated with that.
Foss is offline

Foss

Foss's Avatar
Watchdog

#53

Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Posts: 198

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 21:25
Originally Posted by woges View Post
Games are fun! So you can't let the public fire up the dark depths of the ID in such a way and allow them the thought that child killing is fun. PJ, what classification process is Dwarf Fortress ever having to go through as a low key free enterprise? I think that most classification boards are 'concerned' with the kind of reality graphics are starting to achieve rather then the actions themselves. That's why books don't get the same treatment, they are also considered more mature of course.
That's not the point. CU was arguing that no game and no movie, without exceptions, should permit killing or cruelty to children, as a matter of principle and quite distinct from practical considerations like ratings, let alone such niceties as the presentation (symbols vs. 2d sprites vs. realistic 3d animations). And not just that, he branded anyone who disagrees with him a "sick fuck." I was slightly ticked off by that.

He does appear to have backpedaled furiously since then, as he stated that fantasy children, like the ghosts in Jade Empire, "don't count." And other similar stuff.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#54

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

July 9th, 2008, 22:43
actually i was only reffering to graphical depiction of cruel acts toward children—not an artistic expression of it. video games are more and more real in many aspects, to not add 'carefulness' in how those sentive subjects are dealt with is riduculous and that would try/want to agrue just so you can be 'right' baffles me. vouyerism though is not art, whether in film, game, or otherwise. art comes from the creating end, not the (as the case in games) the 'freedom' to do as you please.

and seriously give up on the jade empire bit. i said it was a bad comparrison not that it was okay. seriously for someone who has so much knowledge, i'm dissapointed that not only are you not only not reading what i've wrote, but also not understanding my views. i'm not saying you have to find them agreeable, but so far you or anyone has failed to justify a need for such virtual actions.
i only played Jade Empire once and i did not choose the tormenting action, nor have i played it again to try the oh so meaingful, other binary 'evil' choice for either some base craving or as some folks say "&(#$ and giggles" .


"similar stuff"—i guess someone's lexicon is on holiday

just got a postcard from your humanity too, the beach looks smashing!

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

he who tries to make a point
misses the point
every time
- Ariel Pink
curiously undead is offline

curiously undead

curiously undead's Avatar
tuned to a different freq

#55

Join Date: May 2007
Location: standing under everyone
Posts: 812

Default 

July 10th, 2008, 00:23
There's plenty of sick art around, pushing boundaries and the conception of normality is one of it's pedigrees. Enjoying sick or twisted humour doesn't mean one is sick and twisted or would even consider such events in real life an enjoyable experience. The ability to laugh at the horrors of the world isn't an evil in itself.
woges is offline

woges

woges's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,110

Default 

July 10th, 2008, 01:04
again what has been discussed is not the portrayal of 'sick' or 'cruel' events in games, movies, or even novels, but the simulation of it in games.

my opinion is that games, movies, novels, etc. have and will show horrific events, even towards children. but it is not the act or simulation of the act whether user controlled or simulated on screen that has the effect to have an 'enjoyable' experience or glean some insight into who causes those events to happen. no, it is the idea itself which is more powerful. adjectives are not needy, or in the case of 'dark' or 'horror' violence in movies, slashing maiming etc. doesn't provoke the fear or the remorse, it is the fear of it happening, and or hearing that it has happened as in the case of keyser soze. this transletes into games as well. seeing a burnt out orphange and hearing stories, through a journal or npc can have an impact. do we need to see the children burning to death? and more importantly do we need to play the arsonist, or in a more fitting example, a nurse in the hospital that is trying to escape but along the way can kick a child back into a burning room instead of helping them. again what would that simulation provide. if we all can agree that is wrong, by doing something we know we should and probably would never do in reality, do we 'win' by getting to do whatever we please?

i'm all for meaningful choices ala the witcher, especially since you can't just go back and redo a choice 5 minutes later to get the 'right' response. but criminal acts in games have never really 'punished' the gamer in a way even close to what would happen so by saying the simulation is almost perfect is beyond innacuratte. if you steal in a game the worst that happens is you might not be able to talk to some npcs, or they could attack, but they will soon forget, even if they are distitue npcs who would surely need what you steal more than you do. its ingrained as the status quo though in games, and most of the time, its so common to not even think about a 'chest' as someones belongings. even if you get thrown in jail, no game is going to actually give you a true 'punishing' sentence where you can't just click a button to serve your term; escape; or reload and find a method to steal without being caught. stealing in games though, is not making a statement, which i've done in plenty of games, unlike commiting violence against an accurately simulated child.

sick and twisted can be funny, but again why should children be part of the equation?

The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism - ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.
- Franklin D. Roosevelt

he who tries to make a point
misses the point
every time
- Ariel Pink
curiously undead is offline

curiously undead

curiously undead's Avatar
tuned to a different freq

#57

Join Date: May 2007
Location: standing under everyone
Posts: 812

Default 

July 10th, 2008, 01:18
Well, I guess the fact that it isn't possible or enjoyable in reality is the very reason it could well be so in a game.
woges is offline

woges

woges's Avatar
SasqWatch
RPGWatch Team

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 2,110

Default 

July 10th, 2008, 07:25
The thing about killing children is simple.

Fallout is supposed to represent a harsh world and instill a sense of how it would be to exist in such a place. If killing children was, for one reason or another, a possibility - then depicting it would add to the authenticity and in effect add to the experience. Not necessarily the actual act of killing a child, but the realisation that such things happen and we could potentially be characters committing such crimes.

It's about immersion and triggering a reaction in you as the player.

Personally, I would never kill a child in the game, because I don't feel good doing such things - even if it's just a game. I've tried similar things in other games and all it has done is make me reload instantly because I get uncomfortable playing characters capable of those things. I always play the good guy.

However, I definitely think it would add to the experience as a whole, if I knew it was possible. It would make me more conscious of my actions and add gravity to the game.

That said, I think it would be a waste for Bethesda to implement such a feature, because frankly I don't think they're capable of creating a game or story befitting such realism. It would require genuine artists to make a game where such a feature wouldn't just be senseless and gratuitous. Bethesda are competent craftsmen and they know how to create an appealing mass-market product, but they simply don't have the talent or dedication necessary to make me - as a player - react emotionally. I'm sure that's not their goal, either, so it's all good.
DArtagnan is online now

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#59

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 13,813

Default 

July 10th, 2008, 12:47
There are too many harsh worlds in games for my taste now.

Can you imagine just *one* "non-harsh" world in recent RPGs ? I can't.


On the other hand the clich goes like this : A harsh world *needs* a hero, that's why a hero is most likely to become a hero within any harsh world, and nowhere else.

I think that's why so many game environments are so similar.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#60

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,849
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Fallout 3 - Full Skill List
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:27.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch