So until a few weeks ago, I've never posted on these forums. I enjoyed the series, I've played Arena through to Skyrim and I loved Redguard. I rank Morrowind as one of the top 10 games I've ever played. I browse these forums and I see swathes of topics like "Why do people like Morrowind so much" and "What skills will we lose in TES VI?" So I've compiled a pile of opinions on the main elements of Skyrim with thoughts on the other TES entries and called them the truth. Enjoy, if you have the patience to read them.

1. Level Scaling

Level scaling isn't inherently a bad thing. I mean there were levelled lists in Morrowind, and most people were barely aware that Ordinators and guards were scaled to their level. It isn't a problem, because it didn't interfere with the game at all. The big problem people had with level scaling is in Oblivion, when it came in HARD. It wasn't subtle, it was bull-headed and as obvious as obvious as a Suranese [censored]house in Weynon priory. You'd hit a certain level and suddenly your average bandit came dancing in with daedric armour. As a result you felt like there was no progression. You were never going to find the great armour or weapons, and by the time you did everybody had them anyway. When you hit level 40, fur armour was harder to find than a White Guar. It's much, MUCH less obvious in Skyrim in terms of bandits. Although I've been subjected to the odd Dunmer-in-Ebony-armour random encounter while on an evening stroll, I don't feel like I'm fighting an army of Divayth Fyrs in every camp. That being said, I'm still subjected to the same ugly level scaling that was present in Oblivion in Skyrim in terms of loot. The enemies scale a tiny bit better than they did in Oblivion, but it's still obvious. I've never walked into a cave filled with Dragon Priests at level 1. And when I fight through a cave of draugr and get to the beautiful ornamental chest at the end, I'm still subjected to it filled with 52 gold and a potion of stamina.

The main difference between Morrowind compared to Skyrim and Oblivion is that in Morrowind the areas are all done by hand. Sure, the ancestral tombs might all feel the same, but there's a sense of pride when you find the arrows behind Thirsk, or the Mentor's Ring, or the Sword of White Woe in Balmora. In Skyrim and Oblivion there's none of that. The dungeons are very impressive in Skyrim to be sure, but they're filled with procedurally generated lifeless NPCs and rewards. I can certainly understand the technical difficulties of doing this. Morrowind even had the advantage of having a huge area on the map that you might aswell have just called "Don't-go-here-land". When I pick up my maps of Cyrodiil or Skyrim I've never looked at them and thought "That place was a real ass to finish", and I played on the hardest difficulty. Standing back and looking at it, it isn't that much of a problem. I mean there isn't any REAL problem with NPCs in a cave being nameless, it's unnecessary. They're just filler, you kill them and move on. But when you look at TES as a whole, it has a benefit that (since the fall of the Gothic series into mediocrity) no other RPG series on the market has. The main selling point of TES is exploration. It's open world. You can go in and do whatever you want. The problem with level scaling introduced in a way it was in Oblivion and Skyrim makes that point moot, however. There's never any point to exploring because you will never, ever find anything special. The cases where this isn't so are few and far between. Knevel the Tongue, the Legend of Red Eagle and the Gauldur amulet fragments being the most obvious examples. It's those examples that deserve to be cherished and welcomed. Silenced Tongues isn't that deep a quest, I won't try and make that claim. You go in, kill the bad guy, take his fancy swords. But it's things like that make exploring actually fun. The developers put this fun little part in a dungeon that you wouldn't otherwise find unless you WERE exploring and it's unique, it's different, it reminds you why you started exploring in the first place.

One of the things Bethesda tried to do was give people incentive to explore to find new shouts. It's one of the parts of Skyrim I liked. The walls weren't randomized, that particular shout was placed in that particular dungeon. It's a great feeling to go into a cave and find something that maybe nobody else whose played Skyrim has found yet. Like "Oh sure, everyone has killed some draugr here and there, but I've found the Tomb and Helm of Yngol." It's that sense of discovery like something out of Jules Verne. It's that something that level scaling kills. The Pale Lady in Frostmere crypt might just be another Wisp Mother, but it's something that has depth. In the context of an RPG, imagination is king. It breathes life into the adventure, creates backstories for the people you meet, but it's infinitely harder to do that when NPCs feel, look, ACT generated and lifeless.

I'm not saying Morrowind didn't have this problem. But the people were always named, you could always imagine stories. You'd stumble upon threads of the webspinner all the time. People like Umbra waiting for death north of Suran. Sorkvild's tower next to Dagon Fel. You'd free slaves or help escaped slaves just because you thought it was right, and then you find out about the Twin Lamps. Vampires had to stick together, because they couldn't talk to anyone else. But in Skyrim there's frightfully few random encounters of significance. I mean truly scripted encounters that aren't necessarily thought through, but things that are there just because the player deserves better than a randomly generated reward after fighting their way through hordes of Falmer. With Skyrim they really tried to alleviate this problem with daedric quests however, and it turned out great. You'd meet Barbas on a road somewhere, or shrines out in the middle of nowhere.

2. Voice Acting

Voice acting provides us with a wide morass of problems in terms of Bethesda games. I'm sure most people have noticed by now that Bethesda is not Bioware. Even with all their faults of late, if there's one thing Bioware excels at, it's voice acting. I know Bioware makes linear games. I know providing high quality voice acting for an entire sandbox game with hundreds of named NPCs is very difficult. But during Oblivion I get subjected to cries of Patrick Stewart and Max Von Sydow acting in the games, only to have all the voice actors who AREN'T these people with the most stale and dry voice acting I've heard. NPCs will change voice actors mid-conversation. Characters in impassioned speeches remind me of playing Moonbase Alpha. Entire races will be confined to one voice actor, breaking immersion and having it seem like you're talking to the same person for the fiftieth time this week. It's like a whole budget gets blown on these big name Hollywood voice actors only to have Bethesda interns fill the rest of the spots. This might all seem subjective, but I've seen better acting from Keanu Reeves.

The real problem isn't how stale and lifeless the voice acting is, however. It doesn't even have anything to do with the fact that there are too few for too many. It has to do with the restrictions that voice acting creates. TES is one of, if not the most in depth video game universe ever created, and yet every dialogue option only ever seems to leave 2 or 3 lines of dialogue. In Morrowind Yagrum Bagarn would lend you his theories on the disappearance of the Dwemer and you would get a sense of real information being conveyed. I'll be the first to admit that Bioware and CDPR have done wonders with voice acting. The simple act of having a voiced protagonist adds a whole new sense of depth. But Skyrim and Oblivion are sandbox games. It's nowhere near feasible to have voice actors for the majority of the NPCs. Voice acting adds a whole new middle part which is completely unnecessary. It costs time and resources to create and implement, instead of simply having the writers write the dialogue and having it done. Those are parts of the budget that could just as easily going into fixing or improving other parts of the game.

The second major problem with voice acting is one of the largest appeals of the TES as a series. The modding community is one of the largest ever assembled for a single series, but voice acting halts it like a brick wall. There are fantastic Oblivion mods out there like Ruined Tail's Tale, but it's unnerving and immersion breaking to go from a fully voice acted game to a completely silent mod. There are those of you who might make comebacks under the pretense that modders are just as capable of voice acting as the average fetcher, but I'll wager that you've never heard a modder do voice acting. 90% of the time it's some of the most awful drivel you've heard. There are stellar exceptions like Nehrim or the Lost spires, but those are few and far between. Voice acting limits the potential of the depth anyone can put into the game, modder or developer alike. It also means that the quest compass so many people are so against becomes a necessity. Having the descriptions of areas laid out in the same way that they are in Morrowind simply cannot be done with voice acting, because with the amount of quests and "lost" artifacts and shrines it becomes an insurmountable task.

3. Combat System

The combat system in Oblivion and Skyrim have actually been more or less the shining points of the sequels. It's one of the few things that have come out better for the advancement of the series. Not that there was anything particularly wrong with Morrowind's combat system, it fit quite perfectly into a WRPG context. If the game was Arcanum or Planescape: Torment, nobody would have complained about Morrowind's combat system. But Morrowind was first person, and people consciously connotate that into an action/adventure genre. What Oblivion and Skyrim have done is manage to create some sort of middleground. The combat is nothing special, certainly. But nobody has ever written or remembered any sort of RPG for it's combat system. The speculation that Arkane would be working on a combat system in conjunction with Bethesda was nice to dream about, certainly. But it wouldn't have worked. In something like Dark Messiah which has quite frankly a brilliant (and often hilarious) combat system, it doesn't work in terms of an RPG. The reason behind this is that there needs to feel like there's some sort of progression. Advancement in character skills. Otherwise you're left with an action/adventure game. One of the core elements of RPGs are skillsheets and conversely your characters skills NEED to fit in with how your player interacts with the world.

This is where Skyrim and Oblivion come in. The perk system actually does quite a wonderful job of making the person feel like they're progressing. In Morrowind your characters levels in weapon skills determine how often you hit, something that worked quite well for the technology at the time. You can see the same systems implemented in games like Deus Ex, Mass Effect 1 and Arcanum, among others. When we progressed onto Oblivion however the clear problem of how horribly this system worked was presented. People didn't like it. It was tedious and monotonous. Unless you set your character up perfectly with the right race correlating to the right major skills you'd start off not being able to hit an Ogrim stuck in a barrel (Not that this is inherently a bad thing, once upon a time players were supposed to read manuals before they played a game, you know). In Oblivion it was put forward that you'd always be able to hit what you were aiming for, but the damage would be altered as the skill progressed. It's somewhat a more realistic system, but that's not the important part. The important part is the benefits that were awarded upon skill promotions. Things like being able to shield bash and disarm others. Dodging and rolling. Paralysing strikes. It was a relatively seamless integration that achieved something marvelous: A merging of player-based skill and skills of the character you're playing. The combat wasn't particularly complex at the beginning of the game, and 99% of all melee fights could be won by simply blocking and the striking twice. As the game progressed however, so did the complexity of the combat system. Getting better skills opened up more possibilities and strategies for us and that's half of what an RPG is about. Your skills actually DOING something. Your skills not simply being "numbers that go up", as it were.


In Skyrim we lost some features and gained some more. Dual-wielding was introduced. Shield bashing that we could control (though no confused turtle). The ability to put down magic runes and shouting. In return we lost the ability to roll and we lost spell-making. Was it worth it? No, I don't think so. The new magic system looks flashy but is ultimately unnecessary. All the effects that were gained by it were just as easily created by using spellmaking in the first place. In removing spellmaking (which many have complained about being overpowered) they've replaced it with an even more overpowered version through use of perks. By the time you reach level 10 you've probably gotten hold of the perk "Impact" which turns every fight into the game into a joke. It allows you to constantly stagger opponents rendering them as impotent as Magnus on Kalpa-eating day. All the combat complexity focussing solely on melee combat means that all you need do win a fight is keep an opponent away from you: A task that is preposterously easy considering the horrid pathfinding in Bethesda games. The marksman(archery?) skill in Skyrim remains so basic and banol that it holds no depth to it whatsoever. The archery perk tree is the most unoriginal in the game because that's exactly what the skill boils down to: Archery. There's no additional ranged weapons available besides the bow and arrow, so it's impossible to create a complex perk tree or ranged system.

4. Skills and Attributes

The loss of skills and attributes are possibly the most argued about topics in the TES community. Seems like every week there's three new threads about how TES VI isgoing to have "sparkly things, pointy things and sneaky things" as the only set of skills. If you look at Skyrim it's not that much of a problem, however. The introduction of perks is a nice approach. Every iteration of TES Bethesda seems to be trying something different and if you ask me, I think that the idea of breaking skills up into subskills is an idea to run with. One-handed and two-handed are grand enough ideas, and you could even combine the two if you really felt the need to. The problem is that the subskill seperation in the area of things like One-handed isn't that clear at all. I don't envy Bethesda's job of thinking up new perks. Certainly seems difficult, because the only real idea of specialization we got was "You do more damage with this". The idea of specialization needs to be clear and defined for an RPG to work. Roleplaying becomes obfuscated and ambiguous if you can't put your skill points into something that's objectively clear. It's one of the problems I had with not being able to choose major skills or pick a class anymore. It wasn't so much of an issue of major skills, but your character was presented as a blank slate. Thrown into Helgen with nary more than a slap on the ass and seemingly no life experience whatsoever. The advantage that Tag skill selection or class selection presents is that you go into the game with an idea of who your character is going to play as. It's not that this isn't available in Skyrim of course, but it's not like Fallout 3 where you literally DO start as a baby. It's probably just personal preference, but a choice of skills at the beginning of the game allows the player to conjure up some sort of slapped together backstory.

Attributes however are a completely different matter. While they do contribute somewhat on a roleplaying perspective, in TES games they had a much more important use in gameplay. Not only did it not make sense, but axing them saw them replace with a system that made even less sense. Attributes had clear quantifiable effects on gameplay. It does not make any sense for every single race from any background being able to run at the same speed, regenerate magicka, health or fatigue at the same speed. It doesn't make any sense to have every single race from any background do the same amount of damage with a weapon no matter how much they can carry. I'll be first to admit that the levelling system in Oblivion was quite awful (if only because the level scaling made it so that setting your major skills as the skills you used least was more beneficial), but the one in Skyrim makes even less sense. I swing a sword all day and I can put points into Magicka as a result. At least in the previous games when you used a skill that required magicka, ALL your magicka related skills would benefit the most as a result. It's an abhorrent solution to simply axe attributes and then replace them with...Nothing.

The idea of cutting down on things seems to be all to prevalent in developerland nowadays. In Arena and Daggerfall we had towns that had absolutely staggering amounts of houses and people in them. Sometimes I go back to playing Daggerfall and think that even though we've progressed in technology, the games are getting smaller and smaller. Wayrest had what, 306 houses in it? I mean I'm not even going to say that Arena was a good game because it most certainly was not, but Daggerfall and Morrowind certainly were. It's a shame that when I go into a game like Skyrim I find Hold "Capitals" that have 30 people in them. If you're like me you probably had the same feeling of emptiness when you walked into the Imperial City in Oblivion. There were 308 named NPCs in Vivec. 126 in Ald'ruhn. No town in Skyrim even breaks 100. There's a clear trend of cutting down. We're sacrificing function over form. We lose armour variation because if Bethesda combines a cuirass and greaves, we get less clipping issues. I listen to interviews about the UI and hear Todd Howard talking about how Apple was an inspiration. Video games all have to look nice today, that's what I'm told. I'm told that if my draw distance is higher that makes it a better game. I'd be a fool to say that Skyrim looks ugly, but how pretty a game is has nothing to do with how GOOD a game is. There's a reason that it's almost 2012 and people still go back and play Deus Ex or Ocarina of Time, and it sure isn't because they look nice.

It's the same with everything else. We get an enchanting system back, but we can only wear half the items of clohing or armour we could before. We lose skills like climbing, and then we lose levitation and jump, and then we lose acrobatics entirely. To top it all off, we're thrown into a game with mountains than I care to count where all of those skills would have been infinitely useful. Talos knows how the paths through the mountains got formed in the first place because as far as I can tell nobody in the whole of Skyrim is capable of actually climbing. I understand the technical difficulties of implementing things like jump spells, levitation or climbing. Time and time again I'm told that the cities can't be open because the technology can't handle it, and it's for that reason we can't levitate because if we went over the cities walls we'd break the game. As a result of fast travel being implemented, we lose out on mysticism because spells like Mark, Recall, Almsivi and Divine intervention become useless. Skills never had to be removed because they were useless. There's no such thing as a useless skill, there's simply skills that need to be fixed. There's the obvious example of the languages in Daggerfall. They only really served in avoiding random encounters but in a game like Oblivion where we're constantly thrown into Oblivion gates being able to talk to Dremora would have been one of the most useful skills in the game. I know Bethesda aren't interested in branching pathways. It's always been apparent that they don't like the idea of multiple solutions to one problem, and that's why in Skyrim we ended up with a game that revolves almost entirely around the idea of fighting things. Not that it's ever been different throughout the series, but when I heard Todd Howard saying things like "It's time to move RPGs forward and really show how entertaining they can be." it makes me shudder. Quotes like this are riddled throughout the entirety of the development of Oblivion and yet so far the idea of moving RPGs forward consists of cutting down on customisation. There's a reason why games like Arcanum or Fallout 1 are held as pinnacles of what an RPG can be, and it's because of the options the game presents. In TES you're presented with the choice of fighting things or sneaking past them.

I don't care what TES does or doesn't become, but Bethesda keeps removing things and not replacing with anything. The RPG audience that were their original demographic is no longer the focus. I don't care about that, either. There are always more games to play. What I do get annoyed with is being told that Bethesda is pushing the RPG envelope as it were, but all I get is empty promises of grandeur while things get streamlined or issues just simply don't get fixed. It's almost as if Bethesda has leaned on their modding community as a crutch to fix all the problems that exist in the game. It annoys me when I get told I'm buying something that's pushing the ideas of fantasy and what an RPG can become but all I'm buying is a cross between an action/adventure game and an RPG of times gone by. What I get annoyed by is the same as what anyone else gets annoyed by. I simply dislike being lied to.

We have horses to climb mountains :/
and we have cooking
what more could you want?




By the way i hate perks. perks like "juggernaught" because they seem to Do more than the skills required to unlock them.
I find the game's combat to be highly repetitive and enemies extremely dumb. Most things added to the game seem to be shallow and ill thought out. But otherwise i agree with you 106.4% . Very well written. Well done (*claps)

I read - most of this. when you started bashing in subject 3 I quit reading. Whether or not I agree is irrelevant. This is the one company that actually makes a huge world, non linear game where you're not forced down a scripted tunnel. Obviously, they have neither the time nor the money to do everything perfectly.

as far as voice acting - I could take it or leave it. I'd rather have more gameplay and better gameplay than have half the budget p***ed away on pretentious voice acting. I read somewhere that bioware blew over 500 million of it's 700 million dollar budget for their star wars mmo on voice acting. I read a leaked memorandum from a programmer/level designer that worked on the project leaked that there was no gameplay because so much of the budget was "wasted" on voice acting. I'd hate to see this ever happen to a bethesda game. I'm personally not a bioware fan. Do they have great graphics? Yes. Do they tell a good story? eh - so, so for me. Do you have any choice as to what you do? NO!! It is linear hell and it's their way or the highway. I feel like a monkey trained by a drunk parrot playing their games. If you like that - well, I have another leash for you. Personally, I like my freedom.

Could a bethesda make a perfect game seems to be the point to this post. Sure. With an infinite budget and an infinite amount of time. Personally, I don't want to wait until I have one foot in the grave to play the next installment.

** if bioware every DOES allow the player some actual freedom of choice - I'll consider revamping my viewpoint of their 'drag you through it' gameplay.

You've conveniently managed turn a blind eye to the fact that every TES game (aside from Daggerfall) have all been linear. There are no branching plotlines, especially in terms of the main quest. It's especially prevalent in Oblivion and even moreso in Skyrim. The games start out and the main quest is right there from the very beginning forced upon the player like a stripper from a catapult. There are never any choices. You either destroy the heart or destroy the heart. You cannot join the Sixth House. You either help Martin stop Mehrunes or help Martin stop Mehrunes. Compare this with Baldur's Gate 2, Knights of the Old Republic or Hordes of the Underdark. You're arguing two seperate points. Bioware makes WRPGs that are linear in gameplay certainly but not linear plotwise. Bethesda is the opposite. Just because a game features an open world does not make it any less linear. How nice that you seem to ignore the fact that even in linear RPGs like Fallout, Planescape: Torment, Baldur's Gate or Arcanum that there are more sidequests than buyable brides in Kiev.

You seem to have missed the post completely which is not surprising seeing as you only really managed to read just over half. There's a convenient argument put forth that Bethesda can't do half these things because they have deadlines and budgets, yet since Morrowind or arguably Daggerfall more things have been removed than added. There is a reason that Morrowind is considered to be the magnum opus of the series and it's certainly not because it's any less linear than Oblivion or Skyrim.

What folks mean when they speak of Bioware being "linear" is that a Bioware game consists, essentially, of a main quest, and that's about it. If you don't play the main quest you don't play the game at all. And once you've played through the main quest the game's over.

You have an illusion of free choice in a Bioware game in that a few chapters - visiting planets, gathering allies, ect - in the middle of a main quest can be done in any order. But after these have been done then it's back onto the rails again until the ending.

By contrast, a player can choose not to do Bethesda's main quests. I've been playing Morrowind and Oblivion for nearly ten years now and I've only done those game's main quests once each. I've played entire games where I did not do a single quest of any kind. This simply is not possible in a Bioware game.

A player can fashion a lengthy game out of doing only guild quests, if they so choose. Or they might opt to put together a unique combination of Guild/House/Town/Daedric, ect quests. Or they might spend an entire game just dungeon diving.

And if one does choose to do one of Bethesda's main quests, the game does not end when the main quest is over. The player can opt to continue playing. For these reasons - and others - people say that a Bethesda game is "non-linear" and a Bioware game is "linear."

I tend to agree, philosophically, on the Voice Acting thing. Not because of the limted voice actors but more because of the character trade-off we get with it. With Morrowind's text based conversation, yes, there was alot of reading. But oh what a read. You could spend an hour talking to Vivec alone, thinking about what he had to say. Some characters had enough dialogue to qualify as small novels. You could really get a feel for the personalities of the characters around you through how they spoke, the the more conversation they had the more relateable and natural they felt.

in Oblivion and Skyrim, each dialogue option has a sentance or two in responce. You don't have any characters going off into long rants about how interesting immortality is, for example. Its usually just 'heres your mission, get to it."

I feel voice acting, or rather the limited mean in which is it used, has really hurt the life of the world. Unfortunately, to bring it back to where it SHOULD be, half the game would be audio files.

I'd have to disagree about the perks. They don't feel like progression to me, the skills from previous games did. Perks let you "jump" in ability, which can result it moving directly from "this is too hard" to "this is too easy". You gave one of the best examples yourself: Impact. Whatever it is, I can't call it progression.

Everything else was pretty spot on, though.

Yes perks do feel like a jump not like natural progression. SOme perks dont even make sense. SMithing for example, all of the sudden i know how to forge dadric armor? Where did I learn that? The old system felt much more natural and made sense!

Oh by all means, I agree. It feels like natural progression in something like "Do +20% extra damage with weapon X" but the problem with that is having perks becomes ultimately useless as a way of gauging progression because levels should be improving your skill in weapons anyway. I like the idea of a perk system, but it needs work, which is understandable with perks being Bethesda's first attempt at a skill tree/perk system (Fallout 3 and Oblivion not withstanding). To me, the perk system exists to provide the feeling of specialization that people complain is missing. I actually don't mind some aspects of the Destruction perk tree: There's that feeling of specializing into one of three damage types and the benefits assosciated with it.

One of the problems is that their are too few perks, but I can see the difficulty of thinking of perks that work well in context of the game and feel new and unique. The problem with there being too few perks is that in a TES game the player always levels at quite an accelerated rate, meaning that you can smash through getting whatever perks you want rather easily. You end up with too few perks, but also too many perk points. I've sat at many-a loading screen thinking "I have nothing to spend these perk points on." I think the idea of a perk system needs to be so saturated and clear-cut because the whole idea of the branches of a perk tree implies that the player should have to choose what perks they want. It should be a sacrifice. "If I get this perk, I won't have the points to get the other". At the moment there is such a saturation of perk points that the player can clear entire trees without even having to worry about running out.

I'm having the exact opposite problem - I'm struggling to find the perk-points to stay on top of all my skills. Of course, I have the same problem with cash... As far as the justification for how you "learn" new perks... In Skyrim, perks are not a gradually-developed, internally-created ability. They are divine blessings from the Aetherius. How do you suddenly learn how to smith Daedric gear? Stars align, beam the knowledge into your head, and BAM! Churning out weapons and armor styles through long-lost techniques, despite only picking up the craft a few months ago. And I love it.

I also GREATLY prefer the World-building system used in Skyrim compared to that used in Morrowind... In Morrowind, every playthrough (At least early game) was the same for me because I knew exactly where to get everything. Random encounters achieve what Morrowind's wilderness encounters did, but without the predictability (Alas, no naked, witch-robbed Nords). It also keeps the challenge, and manages to do so in a manner that doesn't make me wonder where all the Skeletons and Scamps went as I'm cutting through Winged Twilights and Bonelords.

Honestly, I never noticed Level Scaling in Oblivion until I passed level 20 - In the mid-levels, it worked great for me. Only once ALL skirmishers and Berzerkers were replaced with Goblin Warlords did I have problems.

I really like the perk system for the most part, with the exception of the bottom perk (increases effectiveness by 20/40/60/80/100%). I think those should be built-in to the skill itself, and perk points should be used for nifty abilities like slowing down time while blocking or aiming, or damage-over-time effects with axes, etc. Sinking 5 points into just 1 perk to be competitive with that skill - even if you've put the time in to learn it - kind of detracts from the freedom that we have in a classless game. Increase the amount of experience needed to level up to compensate for this (especially in the early levels).

Other than that, I'm really happy with the system and hope it evolves in the next TES, or even a DLC. More abilities, like being able to fire 2 arrows at once, or hamstring an opponent with your sword, or stun them with a mace, etc.

iv been arguing this for so long. But also with the perk lines that go From novice to master