|
|
Traits removed from Fallout 3
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 9th July 2008
Fallout 3 has had a complete overhaul to the perks and traits system.
Most notable of all the changes to Fallout 3 is that the traits and perks system has been completely over-hauled. In the original two games, players could choose optional traits when designing their character and could later choose a perk once every three or four levels.
The two were always very closely entwined, but roughly the traits would usually define basic aspects of your character - a tendency for critical failures in combat, increased resistance to radiation - whereas perks would showcase character development over time and the appearance of new abilities, such as being able to find random encounters more often.
Now though, Bethesda's Todd Howard has confirmed to Joystiq that the traits system has been completely removed from the game. Instead, the traits have been adapted into the perks system and players will instead get a new perk every level.
"That was a hard decision for us, and one that took, literally, years," said executive producer Todd Howard, who also said that if ranks were included then there were about 100 perks available to players. There's a levelcap of 20 in the game too, so you'll be able to pick up 19 of them on any given play-through.
If you want to hear more about how Fallout 3 is shaping up then you can check out our own preview right here.
Bethesda has also released new screenshots of the game showing the megaton bar, a robot fight and an image of the Pip-Boy skills menu. Take a look at them below and let us know what you think in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (51)
That's utter crap. How the hell does a level cap of 20 sound even remotely like a good idea in a game that's supposed to be as big as Fallout 3?!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the original Fallout had a level cap too. I think a patch later removed it from Fallout 2, but in FO I dimly recall that you could only reach level 20 there too.
TBH, I don't care if there's a level cap of 5 - the key will be making player progression feel tangible and providing solid gameplay.
They'll charge you for expansion packs which increase the level cap by 20 each time probably.
Worked good for WoW
Honestly, I haven't played the original for so long, I can't remember.
But in this day and age, a level cap of 20 just feels horribly backwards. I'm not saying they should have a level cap of, what, 206 like Sacred, but something a bit more meaty than 20. I'd have been happier with 50, to be honest. It's not for the traits/perks/whatever, hell, I wouldn't care if you could only take five. It's the fact that once you hit the cap, you're left with nothing other than the story to keep you playing, and well, that would have to be one damn good story. It may not be an issue for someone who doesn't grind well, but I could grind the shell off an armadillo coated in Teflon.
Ahaha, yeah, that did work startlingly well for WoW, didn't it :D
Not sure how well it'd work for a predominantly SP game though :B
True, but the game could be well structured like the first one in that it takes you the entire game to get to level 20 and you'll only likely to get to level 17 or 18 on a first, normal playthrough. If the levels are spaced properly then I can definitely believe that.
I can see where you're coming from, but spacing levels is no easy task (Took my boss and I a while to agree on anything >.>), which brings me back to Oblivion. The level system in that was really difficult to get on with. The 'progress as you use it' may work well for some games (Crackdown, WoW.. Those are the only two that come to mind instantly), but with Oblivion it felt like it removed a lot of the 'character development' that is so key to RPG games. Anyway. Back to the point. If Fallout was to use anything like that, for anything, it would fall into the unforgivable pit of frustrating games that feature less immersion than an empty lake. How are you supposed to get into the role of the character if (s)he is, thanks to the level system, able to do anything and everything?
I will eat my words if it turns out to be good, though, I will still dislike the cap at 20. Another thought on the level spacing - Unless it's in the region of hundreds of thousands of exp. between levels, I would honestly not be surprised if I made my way to 20 before I got half way through the story, unless they do something mad like forcing you to go to a specific 'section' to be able to hit the next level.
I bought Oblivion (CE edition even) purely on Morrowind's feats. I'm not going to do that mistake again (well this time I'd be buying it on Oblivions 'feats' so kinda hard to do).
The Pip Boy is really cool, from what I've seen they've done it right, although it doesn't look as damaged as the ones in Fallout.
And it's looking good to me.
*SLAP*
GTFO.
I'm sorry, but I'm only a young pup...
NO EXCUSES!
*slap*
Congrats, you'a re the type of gamer bethesda aims for, the ones who do not know any better. Mainly the Xboxers.
WOW, talk about ignorance. You have no clue. For one, the number of levels is irrelevant, it is how theya re paced that matters. NWN2 has a level cap of 20, and by 20, you are very powerful. There is more to gaming then instant gratification console gamers are used to. Leveling up to much makes leveling much less important IMO. There are many ways to make a game, having a lot of levels is not better then a game that has only 20, it is how they balance it that is key.
*Commits to buying Fallout and Fallout 2 in order to feel less left out.*
I hit the level caps in all NWN games before I even got half way through the main story, and the story wasn't good enough to keep me playing frequently enough to remember what the chuff was going on last time I played. Some people have become, over the years, very good at grinding, regardless of the 'balancing' systems implemented.
I don't know where this 'console gamer instant gratification' thing is coming from - I'm concerned about the length (I want things to take longer to max out) of the game in terms of being rewarded for making progression between areas (Don't know about you, but I find moving from area to area in RPG games is mostly fighting through enemies) other than the next bit of the story. Having more levels doesn't make a game instantly better, no, but it tends to ADD to the experience. If you have a large number of experienced RPG players hitting max level before you've finished telling them the story, everything between where they hit max level and the end of the main story is going to be repetitive and dull, the player won't have difficulty making progress, and what combat they take part in, they won't get rewarded for other than items and money (Honestly, most RPG games could do away with money, since most of the best stuff, and most of the stuff you need is dropped anyway :/), which is hardly a reward in the same sense that leveling is.
Oh, and having idiotic amounts of exp. to get to the next level is NOT good pacing - Even Ubisoft realised this with Rainbow Six Vegas: 2 with a recent patch that took the amount of exp down. Same happened in WoW with the first 25-30 levels, people get bored with grinding if they have to dedicated an entire damned week (based on people not being able to play the game every night, which is pretty common) to one level. They'd have to limit the exp that you could gain in a specific area - Which would mean that any backtracking quests would be met with frustrated gamers. IMO, a level cap of 50, but NOT having level requirements for gear/quests etc, above something like 40 (That doesn't mean to say that you don't get more powerful weapons/gear/whatever after 40, just that you don't have to grind beyond 40 if you don't want to. Of course, traits or perks or whatever the hell they want to call them would have to continue to be awarded. But what with it being single player, that wouldn't be a huge issue in terms of how your character would stack up next to someone elses.) would be far more appealing.
I bet that didn't make ANY sense :D
LOL, that is total BS, it is impossible to get level 20 in NWN 1 or 2 mid way thorugh there simply is not enough points. You are full of crap. Most people never even hit higher then 19 when finishing, why lie? It is impossible, go to the NWn boards and say that they will laugh you off the boards. There goes any credibility you have. Your entire argument is saying that you will hit level 20 early on in the game, which is not the case, they will pace it so there will only be enough points to get to 20 at the end, like NWn2. In NWN2, if you did every single quest, you still did not hit 20 until the last battle, so either you cheated, or are lying. Just ask the modders, or anyone who has even played the game they can tell you as much.
Once again, having large numbers of levels is no better then a level cap of 20, works great in NWn games, and it did in Fallout and many other games, get real. it is all how the game is implemented. Thuis need to large numbers of levels is assinine.
Those games worked well, as did fallout with a level 20 cap, there are other games that work well wiht a level 20 cap, none of them suffered because of it, in fact many prefer it, so your opinion is just that, an ill informed one.
I go away on holiday until the 21st, but then I'm off work until the 28th. Would some screenshots be okay? I'll need to reinstall the game, and if it (NWN) doesn't run on Vista, I'll need to drag my XP disk from the back of beyond while I'm there. I don't have NWN2 anymore, because it was absolute crap, so that one's out the window.
How many good RECENT games have had level caps, aside from Guild Wars (Which, by the way, is awful for another reason, not the level cap. Side note: That's the only NCSoft game to have such a low cap, wonder why that is..), and how many have been marked down for, and these are your words not mine, having an 'asinine amount of levels'. NWN2 doesn't count as good, either, since the game-play was fractured, the story was worse, and the support was terrible.
As for 50 being an 'asinine' number of levels, go whine about Sacred instead, that had 206. 50 is pretty reasonable by most games standards, and any that allow you to go higher than that can typically be beaten around the level 50 mark anyway, except where the leveling is the entire point of the game (WoW/Tabula Rasa/most MMORPG's).
You don't seem to have responded to anything other than the first paragraph.. I'm going to assume you didn't read the rest.
By the way, I wish you wouldn't keep editing the post, I keep having to update the quoted version I have! =P
NWn2 and its expansion were very good, how is the story fractured? The expansion wss excellent. Your opinion, not fact once again. As for hitting lvl 20 half way through, impossible, you make experience show up magiically to make this possible, you are lying or cheated. Also, you are saying it is bad in F3, a game that is not even out? BS, you are wrong. I never said it was assinine to have high levels, just that it is ASSININE to assume having high levels is better then having a cap of 20, it simply is not, it is a matter of game quality and pacing. NWN1 and 2 were fine games with a lareg following, excuse me if I don;t take much stock in one biased poster on a forum saying it is not a good game when the game continues to sell well and is now getting a secons expansion, has s large community and got good reviews. None of which say anything about level caps, which are present in many of the best RPG's around.
How can you compare levels for a MMO and D&D single player game? You on drugs?
Surely there's not a lot of difference, you kill, you complete quests and missions, you gain experience, you level up.
Single player or multiplayer is largely irrelevant.
mmo = contest to beat others, single player = doesnt matter how long it takes because you are not in a constant comparison with other players.
My god, are people here retarded? MMO's are huge games with hundreds of thousands of players, and are constantly being updated with new content online because you pay monthly to pay, surely they require more levels and are much more in depth when it comes to leveling. A SP game like NWN, Fallout does not have near the content, or is long, and is more linear and story driven, allowing the devs more control over the player experience. There is a MAJOR difference between a MMO and SP RPG. That has to be the dumbest thing I read in awhile.
Not to mention MMO"s are about other players and competing with and agianst them, not SP quests and storylines.
Still today I play Fallout 1/2 more than the rest of my game collection combined.
I knew it from the start and I'm assured of it now: This game will not only ruin the good name of the greatest series ever created, Fallout, it will in no way be a true homage to the originals.
But neither of those points detract from the fact that levels are purely arbitrary and have no bearing on the game as a whole, it purely a method by which to measure yourself against another player and/or the game.
I state again, you level up based on the amount of experience you gain from questing and killing , it has no relation to the number of players who are levelling with you or not.
In fact I'm going to quote you earlier as you seem to be arguing yourself in circles.
Since when was Sacred an MMO? That is a massive piece of news to me, and I assume, the rest of the Sacred players.. Best tell them, before they continue thinking they're playing a predominantly single player game based heavily on D&D..
NWN2 felt, to me, very poorly written. There was no immersion, especially when compared to other RPG's (Not NWN 1, because that suffered the same lack of immersion). I found it very difficult to get into the game and I certainly didn't care about any of the characters. Which really is down to the writers.
No, you mistake what I'm saying, clearly you're not reading what I'm saying AND absorbing it. Looking at previous Bethesda games, and the 'leveling' system in them, they were pathetic and frankly, very out of place in an RPG. The fact that they couldn't even get THAT right, I am very concerned that they will not get the system right for F3 - Based on previous games that is a fairly well grounded concern. Previous games from Bethesda have basically allowed your character to become superman, or the equivalent there of. That's not the way an RPG should work, because it really does not help the ability to 'get into' the game, you're constantly reminded that your character is capable of defying the laws of physics, and just about everything thereafter. It doesn't help that the NPC's are stiff and poorly voiced, but that's another issue all together.
Having higher levels allows more diversity within the character development (Very different to creation), which is going to be severely cut down by this very, very low level cap. NWN combated this with the later expansions by introducing a higher level allowance and the Prestige classes - Which was very welcome, and actually made the game a lot more enjoyable from that point on.
As for level caps, yes, they are present, but most of them are due to calculation problems beyond a certain level of experience within their game code - capping this low is certainly NOT because of this, and is simply going to hinder the players character development. Especially considering the supposed amount of things to do in F3 - You're going to hit a point where you no longer care because you're getting nothing in return having hit the max level and collected enough cash to buy the globe several times over.
Thank you for that rather demeaning comment.
I am in no way offended.
Now that you mention it, yeah, I do.
Might be >.>
Hopefully they learned from the mistakes of Oblivion360. Hopefully.
More importantly, I hope they learned from the Shivering Isles snafu!
If you ask me, **** levels in ear, they're an old-fashioned, overly-linear, none flexible system that limits the infinite variations of human gameplay into predefined arbitary figures.
Personally I believe you should have a simple list of skills, and the more you use them/get trained in them, the better you get at them. And that's it. Much more flexible, much more realistic.
Agreed, go play one of the original Fallout games if that's what you wanted from this game... It is a different game...
You guys are totally missing the point. If they want to make a totally different game why even call it Fallout? This might seem crazy, but most games in a series are similar, with sequels adding new things to add life to an old formula. Yeah people could go back and play FO1 and 2, but maybe they were hoping for another good Fallout game with a whole new world and story, but with similar mechanics. I mean come on, by your logic Fallout 2 wasn't even necessary because people could have just played 1 over and over again.
I think u can balance the low level cap with LOTS of itens. Some rares, uniques and even collectibles like Diablo. But there's still the perks problem. I don't think that one level for each one of the perks is the answer - wich would totalize 100 levels.
The game would need lots of replayable time, but frankly, if you finish the main quest on ANY game, it becomes much less fun. Even if we're talking about GTA. And if u don't play the main quest, the game alway become repetitive.
The game is almost out, and i think the rule system need to be done soon enough! But i think something like 30-40 levels would be fine considering the 100 perks.
But i will still miss the blood mess trait in the begining!
They should name it something else, like Fallout: Tatics was honestly named. It's in the fallout world, with fallout elements, but it's not a "fallout game". I loved FO:T, don't get me wrong. Another example is WoW. It's not WC IV.
Why don't Beth name it FO: Oblivion?
It's starting to look more and more that way, I'll still probably pick it up and probably enjoy it too. I think it will probably be a good game, but maybe not a good Fallout game.
Haha yeah, or Bethesda's Fallout.
I don't understand the reasoning behind removing traits. They seem kinda cool, and surely this will just piss off fanboys more? Maybe they thought the fanboys couldn't get any worse, there aren't many old school gamers looking forward to this to my knowledge.
No, cos no sequal that's ever been different to the original has ever been good, has it? Was Quake 3 derided because it was hugey, massively different to Quake 2 (in that the whole point of Quake 2 was the singleplayer, they didn't even ship it with Multiplayer maps)? No? That's because Quake 3 was actually rather good, regardless of the changes. Call of Duty 4 wasn't exactly like Call of Duty 3, but it made Bit's top 10 games of last year. Games can be different, but what matters is if the game is good as a result of the changes, and that is just something we don't yet know.