Responses in green.
It always seems to baffle me that anyone could in any way knock Fallout 3, or even consider that New Vegas was better when it so clearly wasn't. In some aspects, sure, as it added upon the groundwork created by Fallout 3. But as an overall game, f*ck no.
Maybe because people have opinions that differ from yours? Crazy, I know. I think New Vegas had better writing, and the choices you made actually mattered, rather than "join the BOS no matter what you do". Fallout has always been about freedom of choice and how those choices affect others. People who played the older games tend to like NV better, because it feels more like an actual sequel, where Fallout 3 feels more like a spin-off.
Sure, blah blah, it's an RPG what the f*ck ever. But I felt skyrim had it bang on. It is much better to be able to train a skill just by doing it and not being restricted to a specific number value. The same goes for repair, which was a little more improved in new vegas. It was a constant annoyance but in the end I think I would prefer to keep the degrading weapons over skyrim's style of weapons and smithing. But you should be able to repair anything at any point, and attempt a hack or lockpick regardless of your level. Levels should just decide what perks you gain access to.
As far as training a skill by doing it ala Skyrim, look how that turned out. It's stupidly easy to exploit skills to 100 just by crafting daggers or casting the same spell over and over on a follower. I get what you're saying, but Skyrim's way of leveling was way too easily exploited.
But overall I think skyrim was pretty much what I want from fallout, in terms of the overall world and not setting any classes or traits before you have played the game yet. Buffing tag skills is good to start off with but I don't think we should be picking traits or classes. If they include traits again they should work as a removable and addable option, similar to the stones in skyrim.
There were never classes in Fallout except if you count the pre-made characters you *could* use in the first two games, and traits are optional (they don't even exist in Fallout 3). I don't know about you, but I don't want to play a character who's basically a master at every skill; it takes the challenge out of the game for me.
But generally the way I want it to be like skyrim is to have hundreds of locations of enemies. The main issue I always had with new vegas, though it had many gameplay improvements, it had too many factions and diplomacy options. Because let's face it, why piss off a group for no reason, you would want any benefits and unique items from them above anything else. So in the end of my 500+ hour game save the only hostile humans in the vanilla game world were fiends (who get boring fast) and viper gangs (which are in seriously short supply). The map was drastically smaller, and there were not even decent underground areas like Fallout 3 had, no metro tunnels no enemy strongholds or anything. The factions ruined that.
Diplomacy options exist because some people like doing a speech-oriented character; not everyone likes killing everything in sight.
Actually, the map in New Vegas was about the same size as Fallout 3, but I agree that there should have been more locations that weren't tied to a faction or the main story. One point I'll give to Fallout 3 is that it had a lot of places to explore just for the sake of exploring them, which I liked.
All enemy types were also drastically fenced in, you would NEVER see a randomly roaming enemy, I managed to get through the entire game only seeing two centaurs, one at close range one at long range, and though I avoid those things like the f*cking plague because they freak me out, in this instance it was a good thing, but the downside to that is that I rarely ever saw super mutants, never fought them other than a few occasions ever and the world ends up being a stagnated bore zone.
That's because scaling enemies didn't work in Fallout 3. Remember how once you'd get to level 20+, you'd start seeing Deathclaws pop up everywhere? Yeah, got a little annoying. I do wish that New Vegas added some more random enemy encounters though.
The shooting mechanics were greatly improved in new vegas, though I felt a lot of the damage had been removed, and with the inclusion of DT, it was worthless attacking any enemy that had armour with anything other than a weapon doing over 40 damage. So with that, all fully automatic weapons were made redundant. I want the feel of the chinese assault rifle back. Also the new running and shooting animations in new vegas were terrible. I am probably the only person I know that prefers playing in third person the majority of the time.
As far as DT, that's how it worked in all the other Fallout games besides 3. Also, did you ever bother using different ammo types? Because they can make a huge difference. I don't want weapons or armor to be simplified again like they were in Fallout 3.
Also, This Machine>Chinese Assault Rifle, jussupersaiyan'
So really, improvements for Fallout 4, would be to make sure the map was as large and included enough enemies and constant hostilities to keep you busy, but also to have random events just like skyrim had. I can't think of ANYTHING non scripted happening in fallout new vegas aside from a random wastelander roaming around south east of novac. Where as in Fallout 3 and even more so in skyrim, there were random spawns everywhere, and I loved that, and it kept the game fresh.
I agree 100% about random events; that's one place where New Vegas disappointed me. Wild Wasteland just didn't cut it.
I essentially want Fallout 3 but with the updates and additions from new vegas, but on a skyrim engine and using it's leveling system. But using the normal pip boy menu system and not skyrim's awfully jumbled up lists of bollocks.
If anyone can make sense of that.
Yeah, Skyrim's UI was terrible I agree, but I'd rather see a new engine in Fallout 4 rather than re-using Skyrim's. And a new character creation system would be nice, too.