» Sat Jan 16, 2010 10:47 pm
I've played many pure characters and many hybrid characters. There's always a way to work things out and no - I don't mean exploiting - I mean playing the game as if the character is a real person in a real world, who just happens to be a pure mage or thief or fighter or hybrid of any of them.
Pure mages, as a matter of fact, are tremendously easy to play. Probably the toughest part of playing a pure mage is the Leyawiin MG recommendation quest. Once you get into the AU, it's pretty much a cakewalk.
Pure thieves are not only easy to play, but I can't really see much point in playing one anything other than "pure," other than for roleplaying purposes. Most of my thieves are "pure" - light to no armor, short sword or dagger, bow (often not even a bow, since with sufficient sneak, they can get in enough sneak melee attacks they really don't need one).
The toughest one to play is probably a truly "pure" warrior, and that only because you have to work around healing. If you include only the ability to cast healing spells then I've played lots of those characters. Without the ability to cast healing spells, the only one I've played is Hale (from my sig). And yes - that is a hassle, but in spite of the rhetoric quoted here, I'm sure it would still be a hassle in Skyrim. I don't believe that when Todd sings the praises of specialists, he means a warrior completely lacking the ability to heal himself. I believe that, just as in previous games, every single character will start the game with the ability to cast the basic healing spell.
And speaking of the rhetoric quoted here, for me, this just reinforces my concerns about specialization vs. generalization. Yes - generalist characters arguably had at least a bit of an advantage in previous games. Not as much of one as many seem to believe, and bluntly I attribute that primarily to simply a lack of skill and/or imagination. That's something I see all the time on the Oblivion forums - players who want to try to play a mage, in particular, but they insist on putting him in armor and dragging along a sword, no matter how many people tell them that that's really not necessary and actually sort of counter-productive. They're convinced that it's not possible to play without armor or weapons, in spite of the fact that it absolutely is, and I think that misperception is a lot of what's driving the current specialization frenzy. There just weren't enough people who figured out that it was always possible.
But anyway - what I'm seeing in all the rhetoric surrounding this issue so far, including this interview, is the implication that instead of making sure the game is balanced such that neither specialists nor generalists have an advantage, the game is being designed, and deliberately so, to punish generalists and reward specialists. I think that's a bad move, since all it's going to do is make it imbalanced in the opposite direction. As I've noted before, it could simply be that the emphasis on specialization is to drive home the point that generalists won't have an innate advantage, but I remain wary that it's because the game really is being designed so that specialists WILL have an innate advantage.
And more broadly - I don't think there's anything that discourages me more about this game than listening to Todd talk about it.