Not that redundancy always a bad thing, anyway.

I think that attributes have been merged to the 3 attributes.

Streght = streght, endurance
Magic = intelligence, willpower
Stamina = agility, speed

Luck probably has been removed completely, which could be good.
And personality is affected by your speechcraft.

:facepalm:

What I seek is definitely gone. I want to be able to create a unique character with inherent strengths and weaknesses and I want the game to acknowledge my characteristic and traits. They didnt even put all of the things attributes handled somewhere else. Most of them are probably covered by perks and the three bars but attributes wouldve been a far better solution for that.

The main thing that pisses me off in the removal of attributes though is that it really limits role playing. The game wont recognize my characters strenghts and weaknesses anymore and the three bars dont really make up for the lost possibilities in defining your character. Also all characters are pretty similar in the beginning and I cant make unique characters from the start anymore. If I want to make an intelligent character I cant do that anymore. Nor can I make a strong or agile character. I can only make a character with lots of magicka or stamina. I'll have to pretend that my character has the traits I want him to have instead of the game acknowleding and recognizing it. Simplifications like these dont serve rpgs well at all. If an adventure or fps game had attributes then this wouldnt matter because role playing isnt the point in those. Rpgs need complexity and seemingly redundant things like these (theyre not really redundant as I explained). They are a bit of a middle man but an important one and this kind of simplifications really damage rpgs and role playing possibilities.

Removing luck removes builds and variables, which would be a terrible thing. And putting personality perks in speech craft lose the previous depth of being able to be personable without having a high speech craft or vice verse. YEah, there really wasn't a reason to remove attributes other than to appeal to newbs.

"who makes a character who can't run?" It's a video game, I don't care about the difference between running. I just wanna get there.

Okay, you guys seem to mistake what I've been saying. I'm not saying only perks will determine damage bonus. It's the skills themselves that determine the damage bonuses. If you have 50 points in 1h, then your "Strength" swinging one handed weapons is better, meaning damage is increased. This bonus from the skill level has always been there, in what used to be "blade" or "blunt". When they decided to get rid of strength, they made it 1 handed and 2 handed. As in, the strength of your attacks with one arm or using both arms. This makes it more complex system for "Strength". Where your 1h=single arm muscles effectiveness and 2h=muscle groups used for wielding with both hands and swinging. It compounds raw physical fruition with expertise. Just because there isn't some other stat doing the EXACT SAME THING doesn't mean that the depth is lost and it is clunky. It just means you don't get it. Apply this argument to magic and stealth skills, it's all the same.

Okay, simply stating that is nice, how about a constructive argument for your point? Because to me it is wrong. Simply stating it won't change my mind.

Nope. Strength as a separate variable obviously adds more depth than just a skill variable. 2>1. And attributes, skill, and perk wold be even more varied. And yes run speed matters, you can create whole build types around it.



If you know about ES, you dont need explanations. http://www.uesp.net/.

I have a feeling athletics, Acrobatics and hand to hand were taken out because they just didnt want to spend time. i hate when they take something out instead of improving or making it fit into thier new engine/graphics. My guess is dodging and hand to hand looked awkward with thier new graphics so they took it out. its a shame they could have made some good perks for hand to hand and even some extrodinary weapons like brass knucks or w.e. I was hoping on a mage that dodged instead of blocking with a shield.

Oh I didn't know that strength, Magica?, and stamina would be the 3 "attributes". I don't think you're right about attribute placement, agility and speed have nothing to do with stamina...stamina is more endurance: the product of physical conditioning. How could strength be an attribute, do you mean health? Magic makes more sense, however. Ok so I'm a little confused now. Someone please explain to me how the "3 bars" will function!

:facepalm:

You argument is basically you want to define your character before you play, not have to do any work and just be something already. How about a game that starts at the beginning? before you are defined, oh wait, that's what's happening. You claim it limits role-playing when it actually enhances it. As opposed to putting more numbers in, what you character does makes things happen. Honestly, I feel like I'm a broken record here. What is so hard to get about this? You do something, game rewards you. Not you do something, you gain a level, then you put numbers into something. If you don't want to be something, then why play like it? Quit claiming like you understand how the system will work when you do not understand it.

I get it, you want an old school rpg styled game. This is actually something new that may very well change rpg's forever. Making it not a game of lists, but a natural role-playing experience in it's purest form. less rolling the dice, more the dice rolling for you. More no dice at all it's just natural.

Your attributes aren't gone. You want an intelligent character, practice your magic skills and put your points into magicka. Seriously.

...so before the events of Skyrim, you should possess no abilities, and know nothing? What's wrong with wanting to be familiar with magic at the very start? Skyrim is the start of your epic journey, not the start of your life.

No. They're gone. The simulation of them, through the deliberate choice or omission of perks, is there to sort of take their place, but strength is gone.


I'm not talking about weapon damage in and of itself. Weapon damage was just one of the things that were affected by strength. Now it's discrete and can ONLY be affected by skill and perks. There is no strength, so there can be no character who is simply able to deal more or less damage by dint of being innately stronger or weaker. The cause has been eliminated, and all that's left is the consequnces, which have to be deliberately arranged, one by one, in order to sort of convey the illusion of what strength once did.


It's already been stated explicitly in the Q&A that starting maximum encumbrance will be the same for all characters.


First - no, I most certainly do not "act like other characters in the game will have the strength attribute. They clearly won't. And you're exactly right - that means that my character can only be the same as everyone else. That's my point.


That's the case no matter what. However, before, an aspect of my character could be that s/he was notably strong or notably weak - that would be something that contributed to who and what s/he was. Now, all s/he can be is a shapeless lump of clay that sort of comes to resemble something like that, if I go out of my way to carefully choose or avoid the correct set of perks.


No. It's gone. Some number of the effects of that attribute have been retained and spread around, but the attribute itself is gone.


No - others not as proficient in that skill will be not as proficient in that skill.


Actually, we do know what will determine your carrying capacity. Haven't you read the Q&A? It's stickied right at the top of the forum. It says explicitly that carry capacity will be determined by stamina. And I don't think it's "gone." I said, so clearly that nobody should've been able to miss it, that strength, and thus the direct and measureable influence that it had on carrying capacity, is gone. It is.


No - it's "clunky and awkward" because I'll now have to spend some number of perk choices in order to create a range of effects that were formerly determined by one single number that I chose at the start of the game. A number of deliberate choices made or withheld in order to bring about something approximating the same set of effects that were formerly brought about by one single number is "clunky and awkward."

We were apparently Chauncey the Gardner, born in the prison and let out for half a year to become god. :rolleyes: How silly is that. they did say that races would start with certain skills though, but that's not my characters, that's my race. They basically didn't want people making any choices at the beginning of the game other than race.

UGH, yes, another thing adding onto something that is already doing that thing. Thanks, that's the definition of REDUNDANT. You claim it adds "depth" but it's not needed. They can just add the bonus that would've been in strength into the Health attribute and be done with it. Why does it need to be split up? To add depth? You raise your blade weapon skill to get the bonus to strength upon level up. Why? That's stupid. Raise your bonus to damage so you can waste your attribute points to raise your damage? Do you see what I'm saying?


Once again. Your argument is not made. I get how the attributes work. I see them as redundant with the skills. You say "nope". That's all. So how about stop being a fetcher and use your words as opposed to being a lazy bozo.

No you obviously dont know the definition of redundant. Your the one looking like you didnt know what attributes did in the first place, Why do I need to explain things we already know? Learn more about the previous system. We've explained how attributes werent redundant since they announced them gone. Your just new to the party. gpstr is doing a fine job showing how they werent redundant.

You really dont get my meaning. The unique character in the start is just one of the things that are lost. Not even the biggest one so dont get stuck in that. And how is having a character that has already been in existence for some time and has certain strenghts and weaknesses a bad thing? It helps define my character and is more interesting than suddenly having my character to pop into existence when the game starts. He has existed before that.



That makes no sense. It has always been like that. With attributes it was the same. You do something, the game rewards you. You train the skills that are governed by intelligence, you get more points to invest in intelligence. You do something, you gain a level, then you put number into something. You practice the skills governed by magicka and you invest points into magicka. It was similar with attributes except now its more simplified and doesnt have the same role playing possibilities. "If you don't want to be something, then why play like it?" What do you even mean with this? Ive never said anything that has anything to do with the character type. Quit claming you understand role playing when you dont.




So what you want is the removal of all the ways to define your character and what he is like in the game world? An rpg requires something that tells you and the game what your character is like. If you remove everything in the game world that is related to your character and his characteristics and base everything on player skill its no longer an rpg. Its an action-adventure. And there are plenty of games like that out there for you to play.



So instead of having a complex and in-depth way of defining my character like attributes I should be satisfied with three bars? I want the game to acknowledge my character being intelligent instead of having to just imagine that. Magicka doesnt equal intelligence. Do you really think that three bars match the complexity and depth of an attribute system? If you wanted to make a certain type of character and be able to define him as much as possible would you rather take three bars or attributes? Does increasing your stamina really provide the same role playing experience as increasing your strenght and endurance? Three bars suit adventure and fps games but not rpgs. Rpgs require this kind of "redundancies" to get depth and complexity that is necessary for role playing.

Haha good point. So I guess we'll be 10-year-olds in 20-40 something bodies, nice.

:facepalm: this isnt even worth the discussion people STILLL aren't listening and are STILL barking Todd PR.

we want it Old school RPG style? says who? who said it needs to be like past TES games? we're saying that dumbassed reasoning doesnt fly, and the damage control "its ok, hush baby its in there somewhere don't worry" doesn't work

It's not that you possess no abilities and know nothing, it's that the things that your character knows before this point are nothing special compared to what you will know when you realize what is your destiny down the road. I would rather have more of a road ahead of me, more gameplay ahead of me, than determining what I am ahead and getting things handed to me. Here's a secret, getting familiar with magic won't be very hard. You just gotta use it. Why is this such a big deal? Change your story a little. Maybe after the treatment of your character as he was held within prison before his execution he lost touch with the abilities he had just a little bit. Dang, every little thing with you people.

It's just the way Bethesda want to go with it this time. Build characters as you play, not define them at the start. Obviously this is gunna upset some people but then to others it's refreshing, can't please everyone. Characters will be bland at the start, I won't deny that, but at least now we will have much more varied characters (even characters with same skill sets can turn out different) after an hour or so.

I feel visual representation is better than numbers. Yeah we have no strength stat, but a character focused on two-handers with added perks is going to look and feel strong physical through how they fight than a character who hasn't. The number isn't there to say 'Hey look! Your strength is 90 you have a pretty strong guy!' but it won't change the fact you'll be cleaving through weaker enemies like butter and going toe to toe with giants, where say a more mage focused character would quickly crumble up close.

On the flip side a character (let's say a mage) who hasn't touched one-handed or two-handed weapons will look weak physically due to less focus on health and the fact that they do little damage if they do pick up a sword. Again, no numbers to tell you how strong/weak your character is, but the difference is there depending on how you've built your character as you play.

I'll agree it's not perfect by any stretch but in my opinion it beats the hell out of Oblivion and Morrowinds systems. Next game perhaps they will return with a more defined purpose but for now this system gets rid of the major problems with Oblivions system and introduces something much more organic and less intrusive to game play.

Very likely there will be mods to 'bring back' the attributes in some form along the way. Hell, knowing the community someone will probably make a system that meets best of both worlds.

There should have been attributes picked in the beginning ala Fallout. Would of solved everything, but this would entail you making an actual choice at the beginning of the game, which is apparantly a new Beth 'No, No'.

Didnt we get over attributes being gone months ago? Jeeze, get over it, its done, its been announced for months.

We have yet to see, how the new system turns out.

I always liked attributes, which influenced more than just one thing, or multiple attributes, which influenced certain things together. That way you had to think a bit more about, how you'd design your character ... how to find skills and ways to play, which would work well together and getting enough bonus from your attributes. Finding the right combinations was fun to me.

On the other hand, you could say without attributes it's better, because you can combine whatever you want now. You don't need to invest into strength just for carrying capacity, if you don't need to bonus-damage for certain weapon types. You can just only raise the things you actually want/need.
This would allow more different combinations ... but it might also make it too easy, if you can combine everything and it works.

One thing, which probably counters this a bit, are the perk-trees. You can't just select all perks seperately. You sometimes have to take certain ones, before you have access to other ones.
To be honest, I'd personally rather like to be able to pick only the perks I want (so no trees), but still have attributes, which have to be chosen wisely.
But we really have to see, how this turns out. :spotted owl:

Yes its done but that doent mean I'd have to be happy about it. If someone cuts off your leg does that mean you should be indifferent to it in a few months and get over it? It pisses me off now just as much as it pissed me off then and that wont change until attributes or a similar system with the same depth is back.

I feel like we could argue forever over this. I could pick apart every little thing in your arguments just like you have so arduously done with mine. I say what you are claiming to want is in there you're just too lazy to see it. You say I am wrong because in the old games it was different and you can't see what I am saying(ha, I know that's not what you're saying I'm just being a jokester. Your arguments are sound). We will not see eye to eye and I'd rather not waste more of this day typing up the same argument again and again in different and more detailed ways becuase you can't connect the dots yourselves. I've seen your way. I see the illusion of depth "attributes" gave you. I see your want to define yourself before the game starts. Oh well. Maybe later I will come back and say more, but I'm gonna go enjoy my sunday, and I didn't want to leave you waiting for a reply that would probably take like 10 hours to come.

Until I return to say more, enjoy your discussion gentlemen! :foodndrink: