And on the OP's point: what's the difference between achieving 100 strength and achieving 100 weapon skill and getting all the perks in it?

It was actually pretty fun conversation in this thread until certain people came in <_<

This "I can't roleplay without attributes" is still elude me. Why do you need a number to remind you about some characteristics of your character?

It could hinder even hinder it, for example because intelligence is mainly a magic attribute, playing an intelligent non-magic warrior wasn't really a good idea. To help your RP you could add a little bit of intelligence to your character after every level up, but you would lose some valuable points you could've spent on more important things for a warrior like strength or endurance. And why would you raise the intelligence anyway? The game doesn't care about your RP, points spent on intelligence will be wasted if you won't use magic, or any related skills, which in a Warrior's case is quite possible.

So without attributes why shouldn't Skyrim be called an RPG? What attributes do anyway? They make the characters different from each other. The same thing can be done with skills and perks. You could say that there won't be as many combinations as there would be with attributes, but I don't think that's true. Oblivion had attributes, different characters will still feel similar just with different attributes.
So if Skyrim's an "action-adventure game" then I think all TES games were "action-adventure games" ever since Arena.

And on the OP's point: what's the difference between achieving 100 strength and achieving 100 weapon skill and getting all the perks in it?

This "I can't roleplay without attributes" is still elude me. Why do you need a number to remind you about some characteristics of your character?

It could hinder even hinder it, for example because intelligence is mainly a magic attribute, playing an intelligent non-magic warrior wasn't really a good idea. To help your RP you could add a little bit of intelligence to your character after every level up, but you would lose some valuable points you could've spent on more important things for a warrior like strength or endurance. And why would you raise the intelligence anyway? The game doesn't care about your RP, points spent on intelligence will be wasted if you won't use magic, or any related skills, which in a Warrior's case is quite possible.

So without attributes why shouldn't Skyrim be called an RPG? What attributes do anyway? They make the characters different from each other. The same thing can be done with skills and perks. You could say that there won't be as many combinations as there would be with attributes, but I don't think that's true. Oblivion had attributes, different characters will still feel similar just with different attributes.
So if Skyrim's an "action-adventure game" then I think all TES games were "action-adventure games" ever since Arena.

And on the OP's point: what's the difference between achieving 100 strength and achieving 100 weapon skill and getting all the perks in it?

Skill's going to be better, it's the actual skill itself. Strength's just an attribute that makes it better. That's my idea of it, anyway.

Hey, i'm contributing to the thread. Was that directed at me?

@Faulgor
People don't really want efficiency, they want more organic gameplay

Thanks for ignoring the rest of my post.

Not my fault, i was attacked, so why are you blaming me? I think the new system is going to allow for way more diversity with the 250+ perks. Sure, putting points into attributes is fun for a while, but it becomes very redundant. It's what we call "natural evolution".

Organic is not really nailing it I think - I mean, those who want attributes to stay also want organic gameplay; but what does it actually mean when put into practice?

I'm just wondering where this term of "natural evolution" comes from, becaue it doesn't make any sense, yet is repeated like a mantra.
Why call it natural evolution when it isn't; you could say it is like the natural evolution, but then why not just call it evolution?
And what does it adapt to by evolving? Nothing evolves just for the sake of it, it adapts to a certain environment, it's a test of traits, not another step towards a defined end goal.
And why bring it up when talking about the removal of "redundant" things? Removing redundancies is not an inherent trait of evolution, it can happen when it contributes to the survival, but it's much more common to build on redundancies than removing them.
The term itself does not mean anything without further explanation. :shrug:

I'd withhold criticisms, good or bad, until the game is released. I'm not too sure how fair it is to judge dynamics of a game that you haven't played, especially when we have no idea how it'll play.

not trying to bash your post, i just disagree

In Ob I modded the attribute system significantly. In the stock game you started out weak, stupid, annd clumsy and ended up strong, brilliant, and a vertiable acrobat. My change was to set the character more firmly at game start. You started the game with many more attribute points but added to them much less frequently. You could not reach 100 in everything, or even come close, so you had to decide what your character was going to be.

That is one aspect of P&P D&D that I miss. When I rolled a character's attributes that was pretty much it. You had defined the core attirbutes of your character. You could in D&D gain an attribute point on a rare occasion, but not very often. The leveling part was about skill acquisition and not character alteration.

Anyway, one man's PoV. I made mods that utterly changed Ob and enjoyed the heck out of it as a result. Most people wouldn't like them and bethesda has to sell to most people. Give me a wide open world and a construction set and I'm happy.

I can understand where you are coming from, but a lot of people did criticize that gameplay wasn't organic enough. What did Bethesda do? They came up with their own solution, doesn't make it bad though. We are just going to have to see if they were right in their decision. In this world, there is plenty of roads to take to make a game better and this the road they happen to take. You can't get mad and decide that they ruining the game because they didn't take the route you wanted.

I'd withhold criticisms, good or bad, until the game is released. I'm not too sure how fair it is to judge dynamics of a game that you haven't played, especially when we have no idea how it'll play.

not trying to bash your post, i just disagree

I'd never say that they objectively changed the game for the worse. Of course, everything is just my opinion, and I still fully expect Skyrim to be better than Oblivion.


Oh, make no mistake, there will still be enough criticizm after release.
Of course nobody is speaking any final verdicts here, but what are you supposed to do while waiting for the game of the year?

Being a long-time Elder scrolls player, I really think that removing some of the attributes is a bad idea. It's sure going to give me less control over my character's strength, for example. Not gonna get that feeling of "Hell yeah, strength 100, he'll beat the living daedric souls out of anyone who tries to kill him."

Not too good, Bethesda. Not enough to stop me from buying this, though.

forgiven if gamplay is better :mohawk:

This "I can't roleplay without attributes" is still elude me. Why do you need a number to remind you about some characteristics of your character?

It could hinder even hinder it, for example because intelligence is mainly a magic attribute, playing an intelligent non-magic warrior wasn't really a good idea. To help your RP you could add a little bit of intelligence to your character after every level up, but you would lose some valuable points you could've spent on more important things for a warrior like strength or endurance. And why would you raise the intelligence anyway? The game doesn't care about your RP, points spent on intelligence will be wasted if you won't use magic, or any related skills, which in a Warrior's case is quite possible.

So without attributes why shouldn't Skyrim be called an RPG? What attributes do anyway? They make the characters different from each other. The same thing can be done with skills and perks. You could say that there won't be as many combinations as there would be with attributes, but I don't think that's true. Oblivion had attributes, different characters will still feel similar just with different attributes.
So if Skyrim's an "action-adventure game" then I think all TES games were "action-adventure games" ever since Arena.

And on the OP's point: what's the difference between achieving 100 strength and achieving 100 weapon skill and getting all the perks in it?

Ahhh please don't confuse attributes as system and flawed implementation of attributes what was done by devs, if they cant implement attributes in better way thats not problem of Attribute system, thats problem of implementation.
I mentioned some threads ago mod Intelligence overhaul what expand features of intelligence furtherer then just increase of Magicka.


First person, action role-playing, sandbox actually, and yes Oblivion has most bad implementation of attributes in series.

Difference?
Oh well don't try disassemble blocks of RPG by parts and try put them against each other, attributes skills and perks work in synergy if implemented well, its the same if some one take spinal cord and brain from organism and then say thats brain not needed at all, because spinal cord control movement also.
Attributes are natural abilities you born with them and then they grown, your skills and perks is acquired abilities you learn them, remove attributes and you remove your natural side, its that same if races was axed.

Oh, make no mistake, there will still be enough criticizm after release.
Of course nobody is speaking any final verdicts here, but what are you supposed to do while waiting for the game of the year?

Being a long-time Elder scrolls player, I really think that removing some of the attributes is a bad idea. It's sure going to give me less control over my character's strength, for example. Not gonna get that feeling of "Hell yeah, strength 100, he'll beat the living daedric souls out of anyone who tries to kill him."

Not too good, Bethesda. Not enough to stop me from buying this, though.