nice speech. Couldn't have said better myself :mohawk:

If you don't want them without effects, then what are you arguing for? Their effects still exist, as you admit, and any effect you could think to add could still be added via skills and perks.

:hugs: It's unfortunate that some people don't want to listen to our side of the argument but if they want to be sad for the next 6 months, it's their choice, we tried to discuss it and show the potential.

I could imagine a system where you can't raise your attributes actively and they would still add the extra level of complexity. And I'd be fine with that.



I want attributes with effects. And no, skill trees cannot replace attributes if you want to keep another layer of complexity. Which I do.

Gah I'm in favor of perktributes, but can we all just stop talking about it until we get more info? Redundant threads are redundant (on both sides of the arguments).
:flamethrower: :flamethrower: :flamethrower:

Assuming by "complexity" you're not meaning "redundancy"... what can you do with attributes that skills and perks can't accomplish?

Argument one: The Perks are essentially those attributes being implemented in a meaningful way. Redundancy is a bad thing, because you have one function doing to same thing another function is doing at the same time. That doesn't make it more complex.

Argument two: What is your definition of "realistic"? I could say that it's more realistic to not be able see the numbers; The argument of the skill tree not "cutting it" is pretty much speculation that holds no real water, and doesn't make for a good argument.

Argument three: Don't get what your problem with this one is......

Sir, you don't understand. The forums, no, the whole of BGS, runs off the embattled arguments of the members. If we stop now, what will we argue about, and who knows what catastrophes will occur then?

I basically just created this thread in the hopes that people will center their argument in it. I wanted to make a thread with the information about the system, so people form a proper opinion.

The only real reason I see for completely removing attributes, assuming they are "replaced" by perks, there are perks to make a stronger character, is to artificially raise the number of perks. 280 sounds better than 200, or 180. Maybe they have an even less efficient system of distributing attributes effects over perks (once again assuming this is the case), so there are more than 40-60 "attribute" related perks.

I honestly don't see why Bethesda either doesn't want us to customoize the magnitude of the individual effects we got from attributes rather than the "condensed" ones we get now, or they feel some other system (I continue to assume perks) can better model those individual effects. Seriously, what if I like playing as a mage with a large magicka pool but low regeneration? That build would rely more on potions, something many people feel strongly about, and if attributes are gone we either can't control both, or they are also influenced by a small number of perks. Whats 5-10 perks on magicka regeneration got to 100+ levels of willpower? Unless they want this to be like fable, where you only get about 5 upgrades.

You did a good job of it, now we just have to wait and see if the other side wants to join in our reindeer games :tongue:

All that is being controlled by the perks I believe.

Perks are bound to skills, so they are "only" helping to specialize your skills. Attributes are independent from that, able to modify several skills at the same time.
Let me think of an example: Let's say you have a die. If you add another one, you would argue that the second one is redundant because it has the same numbers on it. But if you roll both dice at the same time, you see that you gained many more possible combinations.




#1: Depending on your definition of redundancy, I would either argue that it is not a bad thing or that it is in fact not superfluous. And it does make it more complex.

#2: There are certain aspects you gain with another layer of complexity that makes the whole system more realistic; like increasing an attribue by performing different yet similar tasks.
The argument that the skill tree can't replace attributes is not one based on content (which we know little to nothing about, maybe 5-6 perks are confirmed), but one on the concept. We could go into detail about that, but I had this discussion several times in the last weeks and it always circles between the same three arguments.

#3: It's a strawman, that's the problem.

In any case, I think we summed up the whole discussion in about 2 posts koreankracker, lol. Whether one agrees with a point or not is up to them, but I think this show the different sides in the discussion quite well.

I think is more streamlined this way. He had a point, for the most part you raised INT for more magicka. With the new system, you jusr raise magicka and can use perks to fill in the rest.

No, all perks described thus far add extra "abilities", which are cool.
The way Todd describes the removal of attributes is, "You only increased those numbers to increase your health, so we just removed those other options for you"

Attributes used to do more than just add fatigue, health, or magicka. They started trimming it down in Oblivion, some of which was good like willpower. Some of it was stupid.

And if perks are attributes "taken out of the game", you really have to explain. You pick perks when you level, like attributes before. They are in the game. The only thing they might not be is on the character sheet, where attributes were. And removing them from your menu doesn't make the game any more fun, it makes almost no change, other than removing our ability to manipulate our character in several ways.

The numbers that were attributes are important because they define your character better than, "your magicka regeneration is at level 3/5" (assuming this is a perk). Attributes actually represent your character far more accurately than a handful of perks.

Now perks can be great, they add unique abilities to your character. I want both, not one or the other. Perks in no way make your attributes redundant, and if they choose to model your characters former attributes with perks, then they chose a poor system because it has limited options in that area.

I think what scares people can be summed up in two words: DRAGON AGE II (that could be three words I guess). So DA:O was a great game, it's what the fans had wanted for a long time and was a great success. DA II pre-launch info talks all about how its going to be better and change this and that. Now release day comes and people are shocked to discover that DA II is NOTHING like DA:O. Its basically a console port for the pc user and should have be renamed. Now, if you're into that type of game it was good but nothing even remotely similar to DA:O at all.
It basically boils down to the fact that the PC market wasn't good enough for the DA team. They wanted to expand into the consoles, disappointing their original base of fans greatly, but with fantastic success on their part. Now fast forward to Skyrim, most things point to no, as so far their other titles (fallout) have maintained a fantastic showing for the PC. So you have to wonder in the back of your mind: Will Bethesda go the same way? Will getting the console money be more important than their core fans who have supported their game from the beginning? Is the losing of attributes merely to make it easier to code for consoles? Are dragon shout battles just a hook for the console crowd who seem to like the Asia animation/fighting/game( at least the fighting style were the toon jumps in the air to land blow or something similar)? Will November lead us to the end of a great series for the pc and the beginning of a console game?

I can appreciate your desire for a rational discussion. And, while some folks may have not have been aware of every bit of the information you've aggregated, it's all been referenced here repeatedly.

But I'm not sure you're serious. You say that attributes are not out because there remain 3 derived stats now being called attributes. Obviously, no one is complaining about attributes being out that are in fact not out. The complaint is with the removal of the core attributes (Strength, Intelligence, etc.) which are a defining feature of role-playing games. Surely, you realize that's what the hubbub is about. And you do realize that those core attributes have been removed from Skyrim. So, let's do discuss the issue intelligently.

I'm no less excited about Skyrim for the removal of attributes because I think it'll be a fun game regardless. But I say again I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them return. If not in Skyrim, then their absence may even be as infamous for Skyrim as level-scaling has been for Oblivion. But perhaps in TES VI, attributes will be back. That is, if it will be intended as a role-playing game. Attributes may not be important mechanically, but they are important to role-playing. They provide a framework for our imaginations to build upon. They could certainly be handled better than they were in Oblivion, but removing them tends to devolve what should be a superlative role-playing game towards an updated Legend of Zelda.

This is a good point, but im not scared. Im confident Bethesda is going down this path, as they tasted it with Oblivion, but thats not what scares me about the removal of attributes. I sincerely miss them. And a lot of what Bethesda is announcing seems to suggest this even more

Although, as a console gamer, I am sad to admit you got the majority of console games right. We're not all bad, I played Morrowind on the xbox, but there are a lot of them who are pretty much that stereotype.

I am sorry, I should have explained in greater detail. Basically Attributes governed certain skills right? They use perks to actually separate the skills, and this allows you to work on the individual skills by giving you a chance to add different "benefits" on the skills you want to work with it. They might have perks for willpower, but we will have to see. I say a fun way is because you will be able to do neat little tricks when choosing perks.

@Huckleberry
I am aware of that, but there are people that are stating that they took at attributes altogether.....this is obviously pertaining to them. Yes it is important to roleplaying, but most people are looking for better gameplay. It would just be redundant to have two systems essentially doing to samething

Seeing all this new information makes me sad. Back in the old TES:V Ideas and Suggestions Thread days, I never saw ANYBODY want attributes removed and replaced with the "attributes" of health, Magicka and stamina. You know what people did want? Spears. Crossbows. Throwing Weapons. Complexity. Danger. Challenges. And I haven't seen too much that suggests those desires are going to be fulfilled

I hear plenty of that in the actual gameplay additions of Skyrim. That new dungeon sounds to have alot of danger and challenges, with the new combat system being more complex.

I prefer the sound of how attributes are now

Who says the Complexity is gone? I heard assumption about it......I won't promise that the complexity is still there but I am not going just assume it isn't. What is your definition on Danger and Challenges? Dragons are said to be dangerous and challenging. I also read that their will be more complex traps and enemies.

My thoughts on the matter:

I don't have a problem with intelligence/willpower being consolidated down to "Magicka", and "Stamina" being separated out from willpower as well.

Likewise, I'm completely ok with endurance being changed to "Health" - especially since it was kind of broken in oblivion, pretty much forced you to binge on endurance early on in the game if you wanted a decent amount of health in the end game. Boiling it down to "Health" actually sounds like an improvement.

As far as Strength and Agility, they primarily increased the damage done by melee and ranged weapons, respectively. IF this is adequately handled by the Skill system now, as it should be, I have no problems with it. Carrying capacity worries me a bit since Strength used to handle that - but, we know some perks have multiple tiers - perhaps there's a encumerence perk.

And Luck? To be honest, I didn't see much point to it.

RPGs have been out in tabletop format since the 70s. Quite a few include a classless character development and advancement systems. Most of the best ones, the newest ones, have attributes, skills and some sort of 'perks'. Called 'Merits and Flaws', or something similar. You start with some and generally can buy some with XP along the way. They generally also have combined concepts like 'Health, Fatigue, Mana' as well as things like your speed, defensive/offensive base scores and that are derivatives of attributes and are also affected by merits/flaws (perks) and skill level.

Attributes are a base level and generally XP-expensive thing to raise. The affect a broad range of both skill usage and activities, like damage, carrying capacity, how many spells or languages you can learn, etc.

Skills are precise and generally XP-cheap ways to influence your ability to do very specific things, like swing a sword or sail a ship.

Perks are bonuses that typically exist outside the raw numbers that skills and attributes represent. The ability to see better in the dark, criminal connections that let you find those sorts of people more easily, a resistance to poisons or something along those lines.

Derivatives like health or hit points, fatigue or endurance, mana pool, speed, that sort of thing can be affected by attributes, possibly some skills, possibly some perks.

Removing a players control over their attributes simplifies, some might say 'dumbs down', the players control of their characters development and advancement. I can see where that would be appealing to some people and that the goal of Skyrim, obviously, is to appeal to as many people as possible. I have absolutely no doubt that Skyrim is going to be an absolutely kick-ass game. I'm sure it will be phenomenal.

Trying to pretend however that removing attributes is something other than streamlining a game to suit an audience that has less interest in spending time tweaking their character and more on mashing buttons is disingenuous. I'm not new to the whole 'RPG' concept, character creation or development, or even creating a game system for that matter. I get that the goal is to make Skyrim as appealing as possible to the broadest group of people as possible while still making it amazing. I also get that in terms of console sales nudging a game a bit closer to COD is going to be a positive, not a negative. Just be honest with that. Removing my control over attributes is a negative to me. I like my games to have more of an RPG feel, when I want to play COD I'll play COD. I can easily cope though and I'm sure a mod will come along pretty quickly to cater to my individual tastes in gaming. Making allowances for that is one thing Bethesda does very, very well.

Just don't assume that because I'm not excited about the removal of attributes that I just don't 'get it'. I get it. I get it very well. Perks are not replacing attributes - they do two different things. Ideally I'd like control over both, that would give me the most enjoyment of the game. If Bethesda needed to streamline because it was a bit too complex for some people, especially for the console market, I get that and I can easily accept it. Just be honest about what and why, that's all I ask.