Does it really matter? The assumed eventuality is that they would merge down to three skills because that's all that the eventual players would be expecting, or appreciative of. This is hyperbole.

On the flip-side though... If the majority of gamers were clamoring for an RPG with 50 viable skills (with appropriate reactions to their use), then (I think) they would probably see about trying that. :shrug: You make for what sells.

The problem is that roleplaying has set features that decide whether it is roleplaying or not, it's not a point of view, it's a determinable fact. The difference is how people decide to go about RPing. People don't decide whether something is an RPG, that is able to be judged by what is in the game, but people can decide how they go about RPing. TES is RPing in it's grandest form, the only thing that is missing that could make TES RPing to the max of any other game is adding in the ability to side with the bad guy and doom the world to destruction (which you could do in Daggerfall) but we have seen what happens when you add in that factor, we have to have the warp in the west to be able to make sequels. Thus there is a limit to how pure RPing can go and TES has RPing freedom to the max with the only thing missing is the ability to join the side of the main antagonist. Think about it, TES has the most freedom out of any RPG video game, so no one should get sad, people just need to realize the true extent of the game.

I'm only expecting to see what the game is like and play it for what it is.

If I think it's great, I'll love it. If it svcks, I'll hate it. But I won't hate or love based on what I expected, because that's a dike move. I can't wait to see the game, not to see if it's what I was hoping for.

So according to you the definition of an RPG is D&D.
That may have been the inspiration for classic fantasy RPGs, but that is not what an RPG is. An RPG is a game that allows you to RP. Unfortunately that could mean minecraft, or CoD if you really want. A good RPG is one that allows for several different roles, which is why CoD isn't considered an RPG, because it doesn't allow for any role other than one defined.

So TES could take away all of the RPG elements and still call itself an RPG. Like many others have said, its such a touchy and subjective term.

But to clarify what a good RPG is to me, its a game that allows playing of various roles with several options, provides character growth, and achieves all of this well.
But its possible Skyrim won't do that for me and it will still be an RPG, it just wouldn't be the RPG we all expected.

My take is that Bethesda don't really care too much about opinions or market research on such an abstract question as "How many skills should a TES game have?" I think they're more likely to think about what sorts of things your character can do, the leveling system, and design a skill set around that - at least, that's the impression one gets from Todd's interviews. They'd care more about opinions and market research on what those skills govern and what they allow your character to do, rather than the raw number of skills.

There are all sorts of people clamoring for 50 viable skills. The problem is that BGS is trying to get a system that is perfect as they can that is incredibly fun before they can go around adding in more skills that may or may not overshadow other skills or get out of hand in resonance with other skills. Adding in 50 viable skills is fine and dandy until you realize what a mistake that can be in relation with each other. It's something that is better in theory than in practice.



It's possible but it WILL have all those aspects like all the other tes games did but also, it wouldn't be the RPG YOU were expecting. Frankly I don't know why people have to stress themselves out with such things when no main TES game has every taken away the main aspects that made it the best RPG, why would Skyrim be any different? Adding in some player skill to replace some of the old dicerolls doesn't mean that all the aspects that made TES the RPG it is will magically disappear.

I cannot believe that; Look what they did with the Fallout series... I remember Todd Howard's explanation for why Fallout 3 had perks every level. I also remember the Perk contest, and the winner they chose out of 17,000 entries (less duplicates).


I don't see it as a mistake, I've played RPG's that did it, and they were often my favorites.

The contention of some about dice-rolls for skills boils down to this... Two players create new PCs the first has base (or even zero) skill at picking locks. The second has maxed lock pick skill.
The first player works as a professional locksmith and finds the minigame trivial. Her PC picks every lock like a pro. Player 2 has a two broken fingers and is playing with splints. He can't get the right clicks to pick locks in the minigame. His PC never picks open any locks.

Why should this be? Why should the 2nd character need player skill to open a lock if they have max lock picking skill, and why should the 1st character get by on the player's skill?

In every RPG besides TES and Hillsfar, (that I've played), the PC that knows nothing of locks cannot pick locks, and the PC that is skilled at lock picking ~doesn't need any help; just choose the lock and they open it if they can, and do not open it if they can't.

IMO this applies to all skills and stats. A PC with minimum charisma should be an annoying nuisance to any companions, and leave a bad impression with anyone they speak with. (The consequence of choosing low charisma.)

I didn't play Fallout 3, nor follow its development. What did Todd say?

And I guess I'm not following the point about the perk contest. ?

I agree with this generally, but the senario with the guy playing with broken fingers and with splints should be reading a book rather than hammering on a keyboard.

As I recall... they had it setup closer to the original games, and when their playtesters leveled up, they (loosely ) said, "Where's my Perk!?". In the series prior to FO3, perks were intentionally sparse and came every 3rd level, unless you had a certain trait, (which made them come every fourth).

As for the perk contest they just picked the one that gives back all your APs if you kill something in Vats. APs were already devalued to begin with IMO,
and [ I should say 'some of' ] their top 5 and honorable mentions seemed far better choices to many.

:shrug: It was my 2nd choice; I thought it was better than saying he had a palsy.

i would mostly blame the causal gaming community.........bethesda is trying to sell as many copies as possible. however, im convinced that if casual gamers experienced games like STALKER, Amnesia (dead space is for sissies) Mount and Blade Warband etc. that many of them would clamor for more challenging games. at some point dont people get fed up with the constant hand holding and quest markers and fast travel from anywhere with no costs? dont people get tired of having the game aim their guns for them?

:lmao: (Please don't take this wrong) I agree with you on some of it, but I just had to laugh at my history here... Because I absolutely want my PC to aim the gun for me.

Skyrim is what I expected, and unlike the OP, I do not believe that Bethesda's taking steps away from anything. When I think of the RPG genre, as whole, I think of character stats, progression, and the obtaining of new/better armor and/or weaponry. That's the one thing I've found to be a universal component of all games considered RPGs... and the RPG genre is a very broad one. The freedom to do whatever one wants is not something that I believe is part of the definition of an RPG as very few RPGs allow that. If the OP believes being unable to kill every single NPC makes a game more of an action game, then the OP is flat-out wrong. You can openly kill and attack more people in Oblivion than you can in many other RPGs (BioWare games and Square Enix games, to name the genre's titans), yet buy an action game and notice how they allow you to kill pretty much anything walking. RPGs typically allow less of the freedom to kill whomever you please than action games do. Many sandbox action games and shooters typically allow more free-roaming ability than many RPGs, as well, and TES series is perhaps the only series I can think of that allows a person to join side factions and explore. Therefore, I get my conclusion that an RPG's base is merely character progression.

If someone disagrees, that's their opinion and I respect it, but I swear RPG fans are some of the strangest people I've ever met because different fanbases of the RPG genre seem to believe their favorites are the only RPGs and then go on to dismiss all other games factually labeled as RPGs as action games or shooters. Arguing against a game's genre is like arguing against a word's official definition, in my opinion. What I expect from Skyrim is an amazing sandbox RPG with the real-time combat I've always wanted in RPGs. The skill-leveling and perks already have my hopes very high for what I consider to be a great character progression system and Bethesda gameworlds rarely cease to amaze me, so voila, I view Skyrim as an RPG with a great, open world that's actually a bit uncanny for RPGs. I guess I would consider myself a hardcoe role-player because I love RPGs of all types and it's my favorite genre and I don't blame Bethesda for a thing.

I can, but i hope i wont have to.

http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1167047-three-skills/ is my take on the three skill arguement. Its long, so I gave the thing its own thread. I hope people read it, and take into account what I'm saying.

I wont be blaming Bethesda or Todd Howard or anybody, Because Skyrim is going to be exactly what I expected, something familiar, yet unique. It will have different qualites but will amke me think Im still playign an Elder Scrolls game and an RPG.

Some things don't need to have character skill anymore. Like security doesn't need to exist anymore (and doesn't in it's own right) if we have the minigame. There are just some things that don't have to be character skill. From the way it seems, your choice is to not play the game yourself but let your character play for you. That's your choice of how to play and you had that choice in Oblivion where you could raise your Security skill if you couldn't/didn't want to do the minigame and if you did want to do the minigame you could do it that way. I would like some player skill in my games to allow for more of a challenge and feel like I actually accomplished something myself. I'm not saying that everything should be player skill, by no means am I saying that but there should be some aspects of player skill mixed in with character skill to make the game truly great.

I consider it a need, and would rather the skill check than a minigame.

My choice is that when I go to the effort of making a character, and choosing their skills, that they be competent enough to use them. I don't want to do the PC's job for it, I want (for example) to decide that in a given situation, my character would be curious about what's in a certain safe; and have them give it their best effort to open the safe, and if they fail :shrug: then they don't succeed. I want them to do their [personal] best at sneaking (say..) and have their skill at it determine whether or not they get spotted. To have their skill in firearms (or complete lack there of) determine whether they are even capable of shooting a target. If I'm playing a diplomat PC with no weapon skills, then they should not be scoring headshots at 60 yards. (They don't know how to shoot) :shrug:

That's the krux. I want to feel that they accomplished something great within their personal ability and limitations. That they made a difference, saved the town, saved the world, saved the turnip patch. It's their world and their problems let them affect it. My accomplishment is figuring out how.

When I played Fallout, I was not pretending to be born in the vault and thirsty, I was looking at the situations forced upon a person who was, and extrapolating on how that person would react within their ability. This is role playing, that person could be a John Rambo, could be a Steve Urkel, could be a Mr. Magoo, and the possible solutions should be something they would be able to do.

I think the OP's view on RPG games is tinted in rose-colored glasses. There have only been a few large-scale RPG's released at any time, EVER. There have been lots of small-scale ones that fit niche markets, and that might be where you get confused. Heck, even Baldur's Gate (which was one of the games that made RPGs popular) did not have many options for character personality types, and made it really, really difficult for less-than-good players because the stupid DnD alignment system and how guards would chase you around even if you did NOT do anything illegal (just evil). Spending time riding around on a dragon would not make it any less of an RPG as long as you still create a customized character and have the ability to choose how you interact with the game world. It might be more of a 'niche' game, but it would still be an RPG.

Hack and Slash games could still be considered RPG's, because you have the ability to create unique characters who approach the game in different play-styles. There may not be much interaction with NPC's, but you could also say TES games are not full RPGs because the combat system are extremely basic and offer little variety for combat styles. Lack of detail in combat play-styles makes those portions of the game bland and repetitive just as much as no variety in character interaction does. In that sense even large scale RPGs are still niche games.

I do not really care, as long as the stories don't make me cringe and there is a variety in combat.

Definitely my point.
I mean, basically, they like to think to to RP you need more numbers, when in fact you need less.
Having EVERYTHING governed by dice rolls and skills combined, only takes RP up to a certain point, as the actual character growth is set.
When you have more player-controlled events, not only do the skills still mater (they didn't remove them completely you know...), but you can also ADD another element of RP! --> What if your character had somekind of troubles learning, say, melee combat?
With dice rolls, you'd learn it the SAME way anyone would. but when you govern it, you can make it that your character is weak, even if his skill level is 100
which honestly is also more realistic: as an example, a friend of mine is a MASTER at handling a sword, basically if you think of a move, he'll do it without even looking. But he actually svcks at combat, even if he knows quite a few techniques that would be really useful in combat.


As for role-playing in general, without thinking skill-wise, I think it'll be even better, with the new conversation system and everything

But... you can have an RPG with no ability to create a character at all. :shrug: Do you mean that clothes (and beards) make the man? (the PC?)

Skyrim might fix the combat problem. I'm really hoping Havok behaviors play a part in the combat animations; and do away with cookie-cutter attacks.

Nah, its the choices one makes that makes the man. :thumbsup:

...And its the intelligent/anticipated reactions of the game (and it's character responses) that make the RPG. :tops:

Exactly! Its the choices and the reaction to the choices that make the game an rpg. Be there 3 skills or 300.

I'd agree with that; but I'd be partial to the 300. An RPG with 3 skills seems a bit like a two suspect murder mystery in three pages.