There is one thing that skills and perks cannot accomplish very well that attributes can and have done in previous games. I boost my strength (or any of the other attributes) either by an item, potion, spell, using a related skill then leveling up. How many things does this change effect. Weapon damage, carry capacity and so on. How many different rings/potions/spells will I need now to get the same result.
Attributes allow for skills and activities to be related to each other in a sensible way. If I do something that makes me stronger, then everything that ties to strength gets a boost. Same goes for Wisdom or any of the others. Attributes are different from skills, and while perks might be able to cover some of these holes, it is a clumsy (and less realistic) patch at best.

Attributes did more than simply create 3 status related values (Health, Fatigue, Magicka) and these side effects should have been expanded on to create more realistic characters, not abandoned. The claim that they were redundant does not hold water. It may have seemed like a good idea at a glace, but any action will have unintended consequences that should be considered. Was losing the realism of interrelationships created by the attributes worth it?

It would have been best, in my opinion, if the attributes had been left in (and visible), but our ability to directly pick which ones go up was removed (perhaps a specialized version of waiting available in some locations such as working out in training rooms (for strength) or reading in a library (for wisdom or intelligence). If they are really still there as hidden values (dig deep enough in the construction set and you will find them for instance) then please let us know. That would be a good thing as opposed to completely removing them from the game system.

The 3 listed "attributes" (Health and so on) are not inputs, they are outputs. They do not serve the same role as the 8 that have been removed.

Why is everyone making such a big deal? I never would have thought that the whole attributes thread would escalate into something huge like this, where you get multiple threads every day with 2 sides nit-picking over a game mechanic that's essentially staying the same.

Even if it's different a little bit, WHO CARES. You'll still be able to play your thief character, your Mage will still feel like a Mage, and your warrior will feel like the strong brute he/she is supposed to be. Why are we making such a big deal? It's like complaining whether a porsche should have dark green or a light green paint, IT'S A 'FRIKKEN PORSCHE! Be happy!

Seriously, seeing attribute threads plague half of these forums gets tiresome to the eyes.

Well spoken and valid to the core.

Just take a look at some other titles going down this road. How about Diablo III? Now its pretty much clear at this point they are aiming for a console release either at launch, or soon after. they too have removed attributes for their toons. again you have to wonder why? to make a "better game" or to make a game easier to apply to consoles? Time will tell.

Thanks for your well-written post.

The anology isn't the same. Your saying that if you deal damage in 2 different ways one is redundant, but this is not the same argument used for attributes.

In your scenario we have to ways who meet at the same goal. In the attribute example you have two roads where one is connected to the second, and only the second reaches goal. Attributes are redundant because they really do nothing but make the road longer. The difference between raising intelligence, which then raises magicka, and simply raising magicka, is the difference between going into the backseat of a car, and guiding a inexperienced driver, and simply doing the driving yourself.

I'll take a crack at the "big 3" arguments. Mostly because I think it's too soon to say whether the removal of attributes will ultimately be good or bad--we don't have all the information necessary to make that call.

I agree with this one. I think what requires clarification (which you touched on in an earlier point): in Oblivion, if you used your Blade skill regularly, you could get good Strength bonuses every level. Once you had high strength, you could pick up a blunt weapon, and even though your Blunt skill was low, your damage would still be decent. However, I'm not convinced the Perk system necessitates losing such complexity.


Here is where I will disagree in a major way. Todd is throwing numbers like 200-some-odd Perks. I seriously doubt that every one of these Perks will be unique, specialized snowflakes. There's bound to be 'generic' perks--say, for instance, an overall "brute strength" perk that increases damage with all weapons. In this case, you might be faced with a decision at level up to, say, choose between a "brute strength" perk to increase your overall weapon damage by 5%, or a "finesse" perk to increase your damage with short blades by 10%. To me, this is a more meaningful choice than "I increase Strength by 5." You have to choose yourself whether you'll focus on improving your character in a way that increases general performance, or greatly increases performance in a specific area.

I'm not saying this is what's going to be in the game; I'm just proposing that neither side can argue with the assumption that perks will be "better than" or "worse than" just because they've removed attributes. Hell, I reckon the attributes will even still be there, but will be hidden and only used so NPCs know when to compliment you on your bulging muscles and/or intellect.

As for realism, I never really found statistics like Strength, Speed, and Intelligence to be particularly realistic. Fast-twitch and slow-twitched muscles mean that you could have two people with roughly equivalent "strength," one of whom can carry larger loads, and the other of whom can hit harder. Sprinting speed and running speed are distinct, but in both Oblivion and Morrowind you could only either walk or run (or sneak, I suppose). How is my ability to recover from a heavy blow (Agility, in the sense of being nimble) related to my ability to fire a well-aimed arrow 100 yards (Agility, in the sense of dexterity)? If realism is the goal, we'd either require double or triple the attributes, or...Perks that can handle all of these abilities individually.

Your posts seem to assume that Perks will be locked to Skills and serve super-specialized functions. I posit that we might have generalist Perks--like a Perk that only requires X amount of any magic Skills and increases your Magicka regeneration rate, or the aforementioned general damage increase Perk. I haven't read any statements that contradict the idea of generalist Perks, though if they're there, kindly point me their way.


Wish granted. (Sorry, I couldn't resist. I agree, that argument doesn't really hold water.)


I'm posting this more as a mental exercise than an attempt to change your mind. I'm certainly used to games with attributes, and the first RPGs I think of that lacked attributes (Fables 2 & 3) were abysmal, in my opinion. I think what rubs most of the posters in this thread the wrong way is the rejection of a different approach out-of-hand, before we've even seen exactly what Bethesda is putting on the table.

A health meter is a health meter. A meter displaying your magicka reserves is just that. Same with stamina. These are not attributes even if the dev's try to pretend they are.

No. Our argument is that the system no longer exists. Attribute "effects" still exist but they exist within a new system, this tech tree called perks. Perks are not bad. They just are not a realistic depiction of attributes. Which with the previous attributes, except for luck, were all fairly reasonable descriptors of real-life humanoid characteristics. While they are not always easy to quantify they are undeniably present. Though the previous system was flawed it was incontrovertibly more life-like than a tech tree for governing character base value. I have strength. I do not have a perkolator to go get a +1 bash harder perk. And until someone here on this site can point out where the perkolators exist in real life that give me my strength increases then you can mindlessly repeat that perks are an evolved system when the exact opposite is true. You are free to remain in uneducated on this. It matters not. I am sure the game will still be fun for you.

An evolved system would have gone to a more behind the scenes "the more fight the stronger you are, the less you fight the weaker you get" type system. But, if strength, endurance, etc don't exist anymore this evolution of character building cannot happen. The perk tree will limit the character to the pre-packaged and pre-defined fakery. To steal from the Starcraft field, you'll have lots of fun choices: +1 armour. +2 armour. +1 attack. +2 attack. While Beth will add some pretty neat bells and whistles your character will still be stuck in the same pre-packaged fakery regardless of the number of fake choices you get.

Please know I am not at all arguing against perks. I am very much for them. But perks, as a system, are best left used as tech trees are made to do which is unlocking skills and abilities. An attribute system cannot do this very well but perks can.

I consider myself an hardcoe RPG player, but this post, by far, was the most reasonable and made me agree with Bethesda view.

Yes, my critique assumes that all perks are bound to skills. I would really like general, independent perks, but sadly no information we got so far suggest that they will be in game.
We know that there are roughly 280 perks, and every skill has 12-20 perks. Just by doing the math with that information, you will see there is no room for general perks.
What I think could be possible would be perks that belong to several skills, but again, we have no information to assume that will happen.


Nah, that's fine. This thread is supposed to clear up misunderstandings, and so far I think we did a good job by simply stating the views of the each side, and not getting too much into the argument itself.

I hope that Skyrim's combat and gameplay is greatly improved, or at least a little improved. I believe that vanilla combat/gameplay may be improved. What worries me is that if attributes are truly removed rather than just hidden, making mods to improve combat and gameplay will be severely hampered. Most of what I say below is coming from this viewpoint.

Attributes, like skills, are building blocks. I'm talking about real 1st tier attributes: such as str, int, not the 2nd-tier derived attributes like magicka. This is true even in vanilla Oblivion, though they didn't capitalize much on this. Perks are not building blocks, they are modifiers. Modifiers to building blocks. Saying perks replace attributes is like saying animations replace the need for a physics engine. It just doesn't make sense.

But there are 2 practical caveats to the previous statement:

• Oblivion didn't make full use of attributes as building blocks, so removing them is a bigger theoretical hit than what we'll see in reality. However, there were mods that made great use of attributes, so there will be a major hit to overhaul mods. You can't replace an equation that factors strength, endurance and willpower in fatigue (and weighted for different circumstances), with a check to see if an encumbrance perk exists. That's just plain dumbed down, period, and perks cannot make up for that.
  
  
• In vanilla Oblivion, all stats tend to end up around 100, which makes the above problem a non-issue. But there were mods that limited and/or slowed attribute growth to create more diversity in characters, and this resulted in attributes having more meaning as well.

So the point is: Skyrim may not be greatly effected in terms of gameplay by the removal of attributes, because Bethesda has chosen not to get much use of them in the past. Mods did make use of attributes, and will be hurt, unless attributes are still there, but hidden.

Also, FWIW, Todd's statement was sloppy, and reeked of marketing. Not counting skill or script modifiers:

• Agi 3 effects
  
• End 2 (or 3 depending on interpretation)
  
• Int 1
  
• Luck Many
  
• Per 2
  
• Spd 1
  
• Str 3
  
• Wil 2

I am concerned about the new system because its all been greatly simplified from what I can see. I don't know how deep the perks will go towards character development but I feel that dismantling the vast list of attributes and consolidating them all into three main attributes is a mistake.

They're going too mainstream for alot of people that were going to buy this game for its RPG elements. Once you make a game too simple it becomes COD with swords. Seems to me that in making the game this simple they may alienate alot of old fans that really enjoyed looking at that menu showing their class and having a spreadsheet of attributes to help differentiate one character from the next. I remember playing previous ES games thinking "finally I maxed out that attribute" and feeling a sense of accomplishment but now that will be obsolete because somebody decided to nerf the hell out of the attributes in this game.

Of course I don't know how deep the perk system will go and it may be incredibly complex but with this little information on it so far its just as likely that it'll be incredibly shallow. 280 perks is pretty big claim but this comes from a company that claimed over 200 endings from FO3. <_<

I dunno I just feel that this series has made the mistake that other series' have made like Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, and Fable 3 with overly simplifying the game to the point where it feels more like a game geared towards people with a very low I.Q. than a real RPG.

Oh don't worry, this change will probably increase the spreadsheetyness of the game so those that liked the previous system for that will be in their glory. Tracking skill increases will only be replaced with mapping the tech tree to get to those final desired perks.

I trust Bethesda, but that's a subjective opinion, I'm afraid. I have to see the new system, but my worry now is that it could be... less realistic. I mean, if I use a warhammer, I will get stronger, so if then, I use a one-handed sword, I would be able to strike with more strength than someone who has never used either a warhammer or a sword. Of course, I wouldn't have as much understanding of how to use a sword as I would have of how to use a warhammer, so I would be less efficient with the new weapon (and that is the skill), but I would be stronger (and there is the atributte).

The new system works with the change from a one-handed weapon to another one-handed weapon, but not from a one-handed weapon to a two-handed weapon. The same situation could be applied to other skills, for example, I would think that a master of destruction would be better at illusion (even if it's his first try) than someone who has focused his life in developing his sword technique.

Ok, so you want attributes, let's come up with a system that makes sense.
You start with a set of values based on your race, maybe you can freely assign a few points to represent previous training, maybe a slight age modification, lose a point or two of endurance and gain a bit of willpower with maturity.

Then you have different ranges for each attributes. Your Strength is the most changeable, it's always possible to buff up.
Willpower may change, you become hardened to the horrors you face, and used to dealing with magical energies assailing you. Endurance ,agility and speed you are pretty much born with, maybe have a trade off between them based on body type, could be improved a little by training and practice.
Same with personality, you are either popular/good at lying/attractive or not, but could be improved a bit with practice ( reading Lying, Congressional Style springs to mind ).
Luck is just something you are born with, and I fail to see how your intelligence, pretty much a 'lot of nature and a drop of nurture' thing, should realistically change by more than 5-10%.

Then we need racial maximums, exceedable only by magic, and a system of improving them that not only rewards you for using particular skills, but doesn't overly penalise you just for playing the game and having fun, rather than writing out plans telling you which skills you are allowed to increase each level, and forcing you to use skills useless to your rp build.

If we were offered a system like that, I would be shouting for joy about the improved attributes, and the possibilities of this combined with the perks. As it is, I'll quite happily take just perks, this system at least offers meaningful choices, and offers diversity of character builds.

The more I hear about the new system the less apprehensive I am
Of course we really need more info before we can tell how well the new system can work but I'm hopeful there will be several benefits

1. No chasing after +5s at level up
2. No more having to raise inappropriate skills eg having to raise magic skills for a warrior to be determined
3. Wide range of perks allowing for more customisation eg rather than high personality and speechcraft have high speechcraft and perks that determine what types of situation your character excels in
4. Getting rid of redundent complexity. Some people seem to love complexity for its own sake. I feel game mechanics should always be kept as simple as required

The attributes were shallow and one dimensional to begin with, removing something which practically at best functions as a middleman, and at worst is simply cosmetics, cannot be counted as simplification in a bad way. If old fans feel will get alianated because they liked to look at something with next to no influence on the gameworld, and something which all characters could achieve the same power in, i.e. not really something which can differentiate your character from the next, then I feel they were going to get alienated anyways. Attributes were already practically obsolete.



Okay, we really have to tackle this IQ thing, you are not smart because you play rpgs. Games aren't IQ tests.

We should also probably tackle this COD thing going on as well, COD now hasPre-made classes, custom classes, primary/secondary weapon slots, equipment slot, primary/secondary grenade slots, xp levels, ranks, prestiges which unlock abilities, weapons and equipment customization, weapon attachments, appearance customization, 174,636 different combinations of titles and emblems, 3 perks per character, 15 perks (black ops), 20 perks (MW2), deathstreaks (death ability) 9 weapon classes, about 60 weapons and attachments.

So please, can stop saying that [censored] is simple?

Just to add to this:

I think there are a couple of things to notice here. One point could be: there is some value in giving the player a wide range of options where the differences are purely aesthetic. Axes, maces and swords all do the same thing - they do melee damage. So why have all these different types of weapons? For aesthetic purposes. It contributes towards the "immersiveness" of the game (that's an elusive concept in its own right, but this seems like an instance of it).

A different thing to notice is that this seems to highlight a certain consistency of purpose by Bethesda. Axes, maces, and swords all did the same thing. So what did Bethesda do? They made them different - the different types of weapons have different perks.

We can think of this as contrasting responses to redundancy arguments. The first point says: the different weapons aren't redundant; the role of different weapons is not just how they are used to calculate damage stats, there are also aesthetic roles. The second point says: the different weapons are redundant, so if we want to keep them in the game there needs to be differences in how they are used to calculate stats. Both responses seem to accept the basic thrust of the redundancy argument, but whereas the first response denies one of the premises, the second response takes the conclusion on board and uses it to guide design decisions.

Even though well communicated by the OP, with the limited information we have I cannot say how I feel about it.

Put simply the information available does not explain how things like the variable mana regeneration rate from willpower, or the variable movement speed from the speed attribute, would or even could be implemented via perks.

In addition to this unknown gaming system, by culling attributes down to Health, Magicka & Fatigue (HMF) Bethesda have also reduced the options they and modders have in implementing dialogue options that are only available to certain character types. Think Fallout where there were dialogue choices that only opened up for high intellingence/strength/personality attributes.
Such dialogue choices can still be implemented via HMF, or via skill or perk flags, but there are now less straightforward flag types available for dialogue writers.

I think what confuses some people is at the time they dropped the atributes they likely were ONLY effecting magicka health and stamina. Everything else had already been gobbled up by perks and was gone. In effect speed was likely only effecting stamina willpower was likely only effecting magicka and stamina. Strength was likely only effecting stamina.

From a gameplay standpoint once they had perks as it right off the bat they would have made runspeed start the same for everyone and just have a limited number of runspeed perks. Because no one likes to go all that slow and frankly a set runspeed with small change via perks worked great in fallout...

Same issue with carry cap..They have been shrinking the effect of strength on carry cap and upping base carry cap and likely had already decided on a high base carry cap and a few carry cap increasing perks.. strength likely had already lost most of its old effects waay before they dropped it.

So the final step likely was a small one.

Well now you have to think of it as making your character smarter in terms of skills instead of blunt intelligence. I get how your RP style is working there, think of your character as a person with likes and dislikes. The way Bethesda have designed it seems, to me, to cater a lot more to RP. Your character likes fighting with swords, using illusion and alteration spells? Well, your character can use those skills more, specialise in them, and they become smarter in that aspect more than other stuff. However, if you want to focus on another skills, there is no penalty for doing so, and you can level those up too, but you will level up overall slower if you decide to change the skill you are focusing on. I think it gives a lot more depth to Skyrim, rather than just stats. Skyrim manages to move on from stats, and into a more visually pleasing form. So think less of your character gaining intelligence because a word tells you so, but more along the lines of they are becoming more intelligent because they are learning skills that benefit them.

Of course I can't tell you what to think or do either. But I'm just trying to help you see how it could work for you.

Well degradations of specie while adaptation to parasitism is also form of natural evolution,
tape worms for example lose their digestive system which is peculiar to most creatures but receive unique perk to absorb food particles by skin from organism of host.

Degradation of RPG is also sort of adaptation to changes in environment as you can see, so yes it's "natural evolution".

With my current character, my Luck is 85. I am effectively 14 points better in all skills, in both those I use and those I don't. Leveling everything is not a substitute for Luck, it is only what one has to do when there is no Luck. If I improve Agility through heavy use of Security and Sneak, then I have a better chance of avoiding being staggered and my bow attacks do more damage.


If you improve your Personality through heavy use of Illusion, then you get a nice boost to how much others like you regardless of how low your Mercantile and Speechcraft are, and your haggling and your persuading benefit from it. In Morrowind, you can improve your Intelligence through magical effects and through Conjuration, and your Alchemy and Enchanting will both be better as a consequence. If you use a magical boost or a skill boost or a perk to make only your enchanting better, then your alchemy doesn't benefit, which doesn't make sense if your intelligence has also improved.

Attributes permit benefits (and penalties) across a range of skills, from specific, identifiable qualities of an individual. So far, it sounds like Skyrim's perks enhance individual skills alone. Skyrim's attributes do have effects across a range of skills, but they may be too abstract. A variety of less-abstract attributes would probably allow for better complexity in character-world interaction and for stronger definition of our characters as individuals.

As pretty much everyone here should understand, we cant know if it is good or bad until we actually try it. Personally, I think 280 perks sounds more than awesome. You will be able to put more thought into how you want to build your hero, and to me it sounds like a more realistic way to develop as a character. Raising health, stamina and magicka also sounds really believable to me. More health to me means you're getting better at avoiding damage or learning how to deflect damage more, not the more direct thing that would be "survive 15 stabs with a sword instead of just 10". Raising stamina is pretty straight forward, and raising magicka sounds pretty direct to me aswell, that you're understand how magic works better and better.