Fallout 4 - Video Breaks Down Character Development @ Gamespot

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.

I don't follow. Fallout 3 had a relatively rigid level cap and you were overpowered from level 1.

No level cap doesn't mean you'll be "more" overpowered sooner - it just means you'll never end your progression.

If they scale the challenge in a smart way, you'd theoretically be able to meet challenging encounters indefinitely.

No, I don't expect that from Bethesda - but the omission of a level cap and the nature of getting perks has nothing to do with that.

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! :)

But isn't the assumption that one perk every level - without really knowing how they change the game/challenge - is automatically "too many sunday roasts" a bit rash?

I mean, in many other great RPGs you're getting perks/powers/spells every level - so why not in Fallout?

Again, why would you NOT be concerned with perk choice?

If each perk adds something - why wouldn't it be prudent to pick the one that adds to your playstyle and your plan? Sure, you might eventually end up with most of them - but by then the game will be more or less over.

Why not pick the best ones while the meat of the game is going on?

I don't understand that at all.

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.

You fail to get my point. I didn't say you claimed that - I said if we followed your logic. Was that so terribly rude and uncivilised?

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't follow your logic. It's not about trying to attack you or be uncivilised.

So, if fewer and rarer perks are better - which you still haven't explained except for some arbitrary limit about 1 each level automatically being too much - then why wouldn't just a single perk be best?

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.

Again, why wouldn't it be even better with a single perk - if that was the case?

Don't you see it has nothing to do with rarity - but with how powerful and game-changing the perks will be, which we don't really know yet?

After all, in past Fallout games (all of them) we got skill points EVERY level - which means we got more powerful "all the time".

Is it ridiculous to theorize that a single perk is circa as powerful as the X amount of skill points you'd normally get?

Why assume they're all super powers?

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. :)

I'm perfectly ok with predisposed dislike.

What I sometimes struggle with - is when people aren't just honest about being emotionally involved - which almost always clouds their judgment.

I'm sure you won't believe me, but I actually WANT people to enjoy their time with games.

I also COMPLETELY agree that Fallout 3 and TES games have many weaknesses.

What I don't believe, is that you understand what they're trying to do - and why they might just be worth playing if you just swallow that they're not exactly what you want them to be.

The very fact that you enjoyed NV so much is telling, as it suffered from the exact same mechanical problems and overpowered characters.
 
Last edited:
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.

If every perk is a superpower, and you knew that for a fact - I'd completely agree.

However, if most perks represent around the same power as the X amount of skill points you'd otherwise get, then your statement makes no sense at all.

I guess the difference is that you assume they're all superpowers - and I don't.
 
I don't follow.
Think about the idea of no level cap and a perk every level. Where's the limitation on perks? At what level does one stop receiving them or could we conceivably obtain them all? Where's the distinction in character builds under this model?

I'm simply suggesting that no level cap in combination with a perk every level has the potential to give rise to a character being overpowered much sooner, unless of course as you say, the balance is scaled intelligently to reflect these gains. But that is indeed a huge hypothetical if. :)
But isn't the assumption that one perk every level - without really knowing how they change the game/challenge - is automatically "too many sunday roasts" a bit rash?
No, because it simply anticipates a nasty case of indigestion. I didn't say it automatically makes that the case, I said it potentially does. Again, I don't want my level rewards to be so saturated and regular. If leveling as Bethesda indicates is faster than in F3 (which was already much too fast in my opinion) then I'm going to need to go on a serious diet. :) Modders will help me lose the extra weight, I suppose.
I mean, in many other great RPGs you're getting perks/powers/spells every level - so why not in Fallout?
I shouldn't need to answer this. I mean, its Fallout! :) The SPECIAL system, the perks and traits of the original games were very unique and give rise to so many different individual character builds and approaches. Why risk diluting that uniqueness by turning perks into such a regular occurrence? Less = more, make the player feel anticipation for something, don't shower him in rewards unnecessarily.
I'm sorry, but I honestly don't follow your logic. It's not about trying to attack you or be uncivilised.
You attempted to associate my perspective with throwaway lines calling Bethesda gamers stupid (bla bla bla) and then rhetorically made a false conclusion which tried to reduce my point (the strawman). That's not cool, man. Just ask me to clarify a position, rather than jump to a false conclusion. I appreciate your candor and consideration in future on this matter. Cheers.

I'm doing my best to make my case clear on my preferences, which I'm hoping most Watchers are understanding. I'm not claiming one model is inherently better than the other, simply adding my thoughts to the discussion.
Again, why wouldn't it be even better with a single perk - if that was the case?
See, I need the sunday (brahmin) roast, but I need it staggered out in portions just enough so that I'm eagerly anticipating the next morsel. One portion (perk) isn't quite enough to cover my overall needs and yet I don't want to consume too much too soon (there's that indigestion again!) or have the whole thing shoved down my gullet. :)

In short, both extremes don't quite hit the sweet spot. I don't claim to mathematically know the formula for proffered perk perfection in Fallout character design, I'm simply stating my preference based upon my experiences with the Fallout tradition.
Don't you see it has nothing to do with rarity - but with how powerful and game-changing the perks will be, which we don't really know yet?
I think both factors are relevant here, the number and the precise nature of the perks themselves. I don't see it as an either/or but certainly agree that we've still more to learn.
Is it ridiculous to theorize that a single perk is circa as powerful as the X amount of skill points you'd normally get?
That's an interesting theoretical proposition when stated like this certainly, but when put into practice by Bethesda of all companies, I'm not sure that the end result will be quite as harmonious sounding.
The very fact that you enjoyed NV so much is telling, as it suffered from the exact same mechanical problems and overpowered characters.
Well, that's a supplementary (and ultimately distracting) topic in all honesty and not really that connected to what we're discussing here. Like yourself on F3, I've stated many times on these boards why I like New Vegas.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,974
Location
Australia
@Pessi

I think I will spare the thread a long cyclical debate by responding to each point in typical autistic fashion ;)

But I get the gist of what you're saying.

I think your original wording had me confused - as it seemed you were already disappointed before you've seen the actual game in action.

But your clarification makes more sense to me now.

I still can't make much sense of the leveling system being more prone to overpowered characters - or how perks every level - in itself - is more prone to giving you indigestion ;)

I think we should let it rest until the game is out - as Thrasher suggests.

Thank you for your detailed answers!
 
No, because it simply anticipates a nasty case of indigestion. I didn't say it automatically makes that the case, I said it potentially does. Again, I don't want my level rewards to be so saturated and regular. If leveling as Bethesda indicates is faster than in F3 (which was already much too fast in my opinion) then I'm going to need to go on a serious diet. :) Modders will help me lose the extra weight, I suppose.

I agree. I strongly disliked how fast the leveling was in FO3. In fact, I ended up using a mod that reduced my XP gain by 60%.

I'll definitely be doing the same for FO4.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
By the way, I completely agree that the leveling rate was too fast in FO3 - and I hated the level cap.

I prefer a very high or no level cap, personally.
 
I actually prefer a level cap, unless they set it too low. Like, for example, in Arcanum or Arx Fatalis.

A level cap hasn't really mattered in Bethesda's games so far due to how broken the balance is anyways.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,130
Location
Florida, US
My problem with the level cap in FO3 is that I stopped progressing quite a while before the game was done.

It doesn't really matter if it's a high level cap or no level cap - so long as I can keep progressing.

Obviously, in a Bethesda game - progression stops being interesting too early.

Not that they're alone in that.

Games like Risen 3 and Witcher 3 both suffered from the same problem, even on the harder difficulty levels.

I find that it's getting pretty rare to play an open world CRPG with a proper balance.
 
Oh one last dig, I can't resist it. ;)
I think I will spare the thread a long cyclical debate by responding to each point in typical autistic fashion ;)

Coming from the fellow who practically makes these exchanges an art-form on the Watch? That's surprising to hear. :)

But cool, no worries, DArt, in all seriousness, thanks for the exchange.

No doubt the Watch impressions thread will help to clear up some of our speculation.
 
Joined
Jul 12, 2009
Messages
1,974
Location
Australia
Coming from the fellow who practically makes these exchanges an art-form on the Watch? That's surprising to hear. :)

It was actually my point - and it was an attempt at self-deprecation.
 
Back
Top Bottom