I suppose, I guess. The perks in Fallout weren't exactly random, though, at least not in the same way it was in D:OS. The first Fallout had 53 perks, but only 3-4 were straight up damage and it was a very specific kind of damage (thrown weapons or hand-to-hand/melee i.e. the very unusual damage type for the setting). They also didn't have needless downsides to them. Some of them were really powerful, like Cult of Personality. Their unifying theme in this case would be "RP" and sometimes "Convenience", maybe even "non-combat" with a few exceptions. That's what I'm talking about.
The feats in D&D (and by extension NWN) didn't exist in a vacuum like in D:OS and Fallout. They were used to not only boost your power, but also unlock the prestige classes which were HUGE game changers. Yeah, you had the no-brainer ones like Weapon Specialization and Weapon Focus, but the root of D&D is in table top gaming and that is a bit different than a video game.
I suppose we just have different views on the matter. I was more thinking Fallout 3/NV perks, many of which affect combat with damage or accuracy or skill bonuses. They had about the same ratio of combat to RP benefits as D:OS did. There's little common theme among F3 perks either. I thought many D:OS talents were more interesting than F3 perks overall, though F3 had a lot more perks than D:OS had talents.
Feats in NWN were also one of the main ways many classes gained abilities, particularly warriors, where in D:OS, all classes learn abilities through skill books. So feats were more important in that regard than talents for defining classes. Even the name "feat" implies various active maneuvers, magical or physical, whereas "talents" more broadly suggests a passive trait. Of course, that's getting nitty gritty on semantics, but it's what I read into the terms.
