"Learn by doing, unless it's running or jumping, or carrying stuff."

So... now running speed and carrying stuff is moved to skills that don't advance by running?
When players wonder why their character is so slow is the answer going to be "because you didn't level up your blade skill"?

I'd like to see some sort of coherence here. I don't actually care what the gameplay mechanics are called. As long as it's still there and makes sense in the way it's put in. But I also don't want to be the guy that mods back in athletics just so people can play a fast character without leveling a skill they don't care about. Sometimes you don't need an interesting decision. Sometimes just "progress" and "my character is getting stronger!" will be enough to get someone to have fun.

By the way, people liked Fallout New Vegas more when things like skill checks were added, so all there skills were useful and there were more ways to play the game. Someone explain to me how "we couldn't get it to be fun so we're not trying." Is the better option?

Oh look, this thread again.

Attributes are getting replaced by the perk system, effectively a talent tree system. This system (a few hundred perks to choose from IIRC) will lead to far more unique and fun builds than "100 str, 50 agi, 40 int, etc etc".

Spreadsheets and number crunching=/=role-playing. A lot of people on these forums don't seem to get that.

How can I take this serious after the first paragraph? This has been debated so much already anyway.

Im confused too...
The only thing that makes sense to me is when Todd said the fan base changes. I think that was more of a suggestion of wanting the fan base to change. I was the target of Morrowind and somewhat Oblivion, im last year's fan. I don't like it, but as long as bethesda knows they are abandoning some fans...
Nothing else makes sense to me. Sure perks can be fun, but they can't appropriately model a character's base traits as well as attributes. Then again maybe this is like level scaling in Oblivion, they think its better, but it will blow up in their face?

It's called "natural evolution". Simple as that.

Your last statement.


Well, its not a better option, your points are sixy by the way, but expect peoople to restate Todds statements as a form of assurance and that things will be alright, and that because its their game they couldn't possibly do anything wrong.

personally I don't see how that kind of thought even works

theres nothing Organic, the Oblivions Philosophy about keep doing something and you'll get better at it no longer applies, all you gain -automatically- are Skill points and increases to HP Magicka and Stamina as your level rises, everything else is picked on the fly, um...I think the interview released today had an instance where Todd says/implies that you can pick perks at anytime? not sure can't find thread, compeletly forgot title.


Look if your tired of these types of threads then don't participate? I for one enjoy the discussion.

So the question is...what does a character have to do in order to increase running or jumping abilities?

Thank you haha

It's already been stated that you stop gaining perks at a certain level (I think it was 50). If you didn't gain perks on a level up, why would they put a level cap for perks in in the first place? Sounds to me like another instance of people picking apart something Todd says and ending up with something that was nothing like what he meant.

Pick the appropriate perks.

based on doing what? shouldnt perks be availble based on how much or how good a character does something?

because the way you answered the question is that the character is going to pick a perk.

You don't need to gain perks on level up to get cut off from them at level 50

Actually, to a great many people, both on and off this forum, "spreadsheets and number crunching" are a fundamental part of role-playing.

Who are you to tell them they're wrong?

Not necessarily. It's what we call "bonuses".

It's not a make-or-break thing, for me, but I honestly don't see why they had to abandon attributes. They could have still prevented the whole efficient leveling problem by just allowing attributes to be chosen (as in Fallout 3) from the beginning of the game and simply add a few perks to increase those attributes even further, if one wishes to do so. They could have also had attributes be raisable at a level-up by a set amount of points.

So a "bonus" perk is not based on a skill, correct?

The "natural evolution" thing at least makes sense, because if you use a one-haned weapon a lot, and that skill increases, naturally you will get the opportunity to choose a perk based on that skill when you level up.

No, it's because you didn't level up your stamina (one of the 3 attributes). The attributes have just been folded into the 3. They haven't gotten rid of them.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/116/1164074p1.html

And I would completely lose faith in Bethesda if that were the case. Penalizing you permanently for hitting a certain level isn't something I think Bethesda would be stupid enough to try. At least not twice at any rate, if you count Oblivion's level scaling.



Several things can define a role-playing game, not just statistics. Choices make Mass Effect and Dragon Age role-playing games. Character evolution makes the Fable series a role playing game (flame me all you want for how shallow Fable 3 is, it's still an RPG) A massive, living world where you're free to do whatever you want makes the TES series RPGs. All of the games I noted have varying degrees of character development. Two of the games I mentioned don't have attributes.

My point is, people are too eager to cry doom and gloom on the RPG genre because you don't have to alt-tab to Excel every time you level up to figure out how to optimize your character. That's not what an RPG is.

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

Ken Olson, president, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp., 1977

Perks aren't Attributes.

the "Attributes" are H/M/S.

but Skyrims H/M/S is no more different than the bars in all previous TES games, or other games for that matter except for the fact that they are not effected and do not effect anything beyond when you level up.


When you see Perks, there are 280, those 280 are for SKILLS the 18 Skills Endurance, Strenght, agiility, Personality are not skills. 280 /18 is 15 and some change PER SKILL. that is, if each skill gets an equal amount of perks.

When you hear Todd connecting Perks and Attributes, he's saying Perks are supposedly supposed to do what Attributes did in past games.

Which they from what we've been told, Do not. IE 3rd Sentence In this post.


Speed is not a Skill Athleticism and Acrobatics are not a Skill, so why are you assuming there are perks for that?

Personality is not a skill, so why are you assuming there are perks for that?

Strenght is not a Skill, so why are you assuming there are perks for that?

etc etc etc.






this was only a problem for people who cared, and a result of Level scaling in Oblivion..........

Care to provide a source for that quote, if it is indeed a quote?




The problem is you're both right, in a way. The term "RPG" has been [censored]d out so much in the last console generation that it can be applied to almost anything. Borderlands and Final Fantasy are both labeled as such and they're completely different games. If numbers that go up when stuff happens are what makes an RPG then Call of Duty's multiplayer is an RPG. That's my thoughts on it anyway.

What I think really makes an RPG is how your character's role is actually implemented. The way you progress through the game is defined by your skillset and your motivations. A fighter will not have the same options available to him as a thief or a wizard and vice versa, with some obvious overlap. In a (let's be a bit pretentious here, why not) "pure" RPG your character's skills would be the ONLY determining factor of success, and player skill would be minimized as much as possible. CRPGs of this type that were more popular in the past are good examples of this, e.g. the first two Fallouts, or Planescape: Torment, or Darklands. But another integral factor of that aspect of the game is choice and consequence. There are multiple ways to solve every problem and they each yield different results. The Gothic games are a good example of that aspect. You face frequent choices, some of them quite hard to make, and different paths become available based on what you do. It had a skill system less complex than Skyrim and the first two are often lauded as excellent RPGs.

There's no reason that this can't be the case in Skyrim. A branching main plotline would be a very nice thing to have for once, with world-changing decisions made by your character. Multiple factions for each archetype, with frequently overlapping affairs and opposing goals. Alliances between certain guilds could be made, and pure Radiant Story quests could give you something to do once you've made your way up the ranks and the quest line is finished, ones that are affected by the decisions you made in the quest. If a Fighter's Guild (or local equivalent) quest interfered with a Synod one then perhaps someone connected to said quest would come seeking revenge upon you. If you made the decision to forge an alliance with the Commona Tong rather than keep the quest reward for your guild, they might be able to protect you from him. Maybe you could hire a College of Whispers mage as your personal enchanter. Who knows. All of this could make an amazing RPG, in my opinion.

Health meters and magicka/stamina reserves are not attributes.

I never optimized a character in Oblivion, if its too hard I lower the difficulty.
Although i did freeze my level at about 8-10, to keep the enemies equipment "ordinary"

Point being, Oblivion and Morrowind weren't excell with graphics, people just chose to play that way

Did anyone even read the op? Why is everyone jumping into the attribute-argument again? Just because it says "attributes" in the title?

I damn well hope there are still ways to increase running speed and jump distance, although I can't think of any skill where they would make sense - except athletic and acrobatics.
Maybe it's directly tied to the amount of stamina you have, but I think that'd be a bit odd.

Carrying capacity would most likely go into Mercantile, unless they merge it with Speechcraft (how many perks can you think of for Mercantile?). Although that doesn't make any sense either, haggling for food to increase your carrying capacity.
Or, you know, they just tie carrying capacity to stamina as well. If stamina influences too much, it could reach a point where you gimp your character when not maxing out stamina.

Really, it's all just speculation for now. The only thing certain is that even in the new system, some things just won't make any sense.

That's funny, they keep calling them your 3 attributes. They keep saying the attributes have been folded into those 3. They keep saying the attributes all trickled into those things in every interview/article I've read.... I'm confused.

They even said in the quote and link I provided that anything athletic (I would think that means things like speed, acrobatics, etc.) relates to your stamina.