And this is how the terms are actually used:

Disagreeing with the removal or change of features = Dumbing down

Agreeing with the removal or change of features = Streamlining

Well maybe you could build a character around Luck but how many people do you think did that? I think people probably increased the attributes that actually had a more pronounced and immediately useful effect. You could increase it by 1 every level and that's it. It essentially made no sense at all to me to be able to become luckier either.

Whether or not speechcraft and personality could be mutually exclusive attributes are not in the game. Your point was that you couldn't imagine how personality cuold be handled with perks to which I responded with it can be handled in speechcraft. I'm not talking hypothetical situations I'm talking how it can be handled in speechcraft.
How about a speechcraft perk that grants a disposition bonus when talking to elves or any other race or grouping of races or ages? A perk that to get better prices? I don't know you don't have to be terribly imaginative to come up with ways it can be done.

Its not hypothetical, its two mutually exclusive parts that become simplified when merged. You could have attributes and 'affable' perks in speechcraft, but neither are redundant. They represent two different entities.

Yes it is hypothetical. There are no attributes in skyrim. You asked how personality could be handled in perks I answered, I can't help it if you don't like the answer :shrug:

The answer is incorrect since they are two exclusive entities. Merging them would mean simplifying. Simplifying or dumbing down is not good. Especially since they are not hard concepts to comprehend.

In this case there is no choice attributes simply aren't there. I'm not taking a stand on whether or not it's simplified. Again you asked how it could be handled with perks I answered I think it works perfectly fine, personality wasn't really all that complex or anything to start with so I don't find a loss of complexity there.

And thats simplifying, saying that all builds that are good at speechcraft are personable, or vice verse. That may not be what your talking about, but thats what this thread is about. Merging would mean simplifying refining aspects of character creation.

and what about luck? Where would its perks be? Its not a skill, it doesnt need perks, only an attribute.

I understand that thats the way it should work, but in TES games other Characters reacted to your Speechcraft skill and not your personality. Personality acted as a modifier to the speechraft skill, and thats what made it redundant. You could build a Character with a high speechcraft and low personality, but that didnt translate to the game world. You could pretend it did, but then it just becomes larping.

Does that make sense?

Edit: The luck perk can be a general one. It could be offered when you hit a certain level, or if you complete a certain quest, or maybe if you do something inherently lucky like winning 5 games of dice on the trot, or survive a long drop.

K but you might as well be talking to dead air because I couldn't care less I was just pointing out how personality's effects could be handled through perks which you said couldn't be done. Personality offered a disposition bonus, and by extension a discount from merchants through disposition. Easily handled well enough for me through speechcraft/mercantile perks so I see no loss of complexity.

But it did have differences, a high personality, regardless of speechcraft gave you a higher overall disposition to all races, get better prices and have less hostile encounters, less aggressive NPCs that are more willing to yield etc. speechcraft basically made you better at the conversation mini game. Where as personality gave people a natural affinity towards you.


If its dead air I speak to, then why a reply? :biggrin: Maybe you just didnt know what personality/speechcraft effected throughout ES games?

I reply because you keep replying...see

edit: Naw I know what they can do full well, and I covered everything in my post before (about personality anyway) speechcraft is pretty straightforward although I admittedly forgot about yielding but I never used that much which is why I forgot about it.
I still don't see anything perks couldn't do that they could. Care to point out what exactly they can't?

Aye, but higher disposition essentially translates as better Mercantile and Speechcraft. Sure a higher personality front end loads the benefit, but the end result is exactly the same. Now if a higher Personality gave other benefits, and skillchecks like New Vegas, I'd be sold - but it doesnt.

It does though, its about choice. If Im highly personable, but dont decide to invest in speech, Ill still have some benefits of being charismatic etc. Or I could be cold and calculating, who nobody likes, but is able to talk his way in and out of things. Both of which were in OB, Morrow and Dagger.

Alright, i gotta call you on that one. No, you could not have ANY skill higher that it's governing attribute. Skills were capped at their attributes level. Train any skill all you want but you'll never get any better at it until you raise it's governing attribute. Further testament to reason for removing them.

Its choice, but its (imo) a meaningless choice. You can choose either to focus on the attribute or the skills, but ultimately it wont make any real difference to the end result.

Ultimately I think that the levelling up system in TES was broken, and needed an overhaul. I'm not sure that this is going to work, but I'm glad they've tried something.

Edit: Yeah worm, you are right. Bad example. I should have said low speech and high personality.

Leveling was broken because of level scaling and the ability to rather easily max all attributes. Removing a layer of depth isn't a good thing. And different characters rely on different abilities. Some skills and some attributes. Losing that depth is simplifying. security and open lock do the same thing in the long run, should we get rid of one of them?

Nah, this was an entirely different issue to levelling (which was terrible in Oblivion). Its the problem that says you are better off picking major skills that you don't plan to use, in order to control your levelling and the bonuses you got to your attributes. Sometimes you really didn't want to level up, and carefully avoided using your major skills, which is just bizarre. Admittedly the level scaling in Oblivion exacerbated this

Yeah, I would say that if we had two skills - lockpicking and Security, then one could be dropped. But I would not merge Security and Stealth for example. Both are useful in very different ways.

I guess we disagree over the level of depth that the attributes added. I cant see me being able to change your mind, so I may leave it there. Thanks for the discussion!

Except that the perks should help define what being good at speechcraft means.
Under the old system a diplomat, courtesan and general would all have had high speechcraft and personality and been equally good at leading an army, negotiating a treaty, or seduction. Hopefully the perk system will change that.

Even if attributes were kept Luck should've been cut. Its nonsense, doesn't really exist.

I understand why people are against the removal of the attributes, but in my opinion thy are redundant, skill do better job in immersing the player in the game.
Regarding luck, what if it is there but in a different manor, when a player raise a skill he will raise the chance of using the skill effectively therefore luckier.
In my opinion system like this is more balanced then "one ring to rule them all".

If you are referring to Arwen's Realism Tweaks, overhaul mods for Fallout 3 and Fallout New Vegas, yes, those are my babies.

============================================

Are you not reading what others have posted in this very thread? Because specifics have been clearly cited . . . in a number of the posts. Is this specific enough for you?:

Yeah, they both mean simplifying, but they dont mean the same thing.

Streamlining is simplifying without any resultant loss of gameplay depth

Dumbing down is simplifying that does result in the loss of gameplay depth.

In short, you can have good and bad simplification. Streamlining is the good kind.

Look, I too finding the removal the older attributes system as an unfavorable act of squandering something with huge gaming potential that was not yet fully realized in the previous titles (though the removal of the constrictive classes system something that I'm absolutely happy with,) but there's just too much opinions stated as fact and gross assumptions in the way that you put your arguments that people might find it hard to see it your way. I'm sorry.

This was my original post in this thread:

One of the dictionary definitions of steamlining is "simplifying," and this is what it generally means when it is used in reference to video games (especially RPGs). It also means "mainstreaming," as in "brought to the mainstream for ‘everyone’."

Many gamers say that Oblivion, Dragon Age 2, and Mass Effect 2 were all ‘streamlined.’ And I'm concerned that Skyrim will be added to this list, based on some of what we know about the game.

Oblivion streamlined Morrowind's fast travel (which consisted of an entire transport network: silt striders, ships, gondolas, and propylon chambers teleports) . . . which was simplified down to a clickable map (instant free-fast-travel-from-anywhere). The result was Fast Travel without having to even walk to a transport location, and with no fees or any other consequences attached to it . . . ALL the game play depth of Morrowind's Fast Travel was lost . . . yet this is what many here seem to want in Skyrim. You can call it "dumbing down," if you liked . . . I just use the term streamlining, because it is much less offensive.

==================================================================

Ok, please provide a specific example of a when I've posted any "opinions stated as fact" or made any "gross assumptions," because there is no way that I can respond to such general accusations.

All the what now?

Bukee, I was VERY clear in what I wrote. If you have an issue with it, you need to make a counter argument, not just a sarcastic reply. That is not permitted in most debates.