Disclaimer:
Firstly, I don't mean this to be a huge Morrowind vs. Oblivion debate (wishful thinking right?). I am honestly curious on how people's reactions to new info relates to their prior opinions of past games. If this thread turns into a huge MvO flame war then may the Mods use their discretion in locking it.

Secondly, sorry to restrict this to MvO (thus feeding into what I hope to avoid). I only do this because a good portion of the community has not played Daggerfall or even more finely aged TES titles. Also, considering there is a fairly definite distinction between fans of both and general complaints of either I believe it would give an interesting insight into how people react to different changes between titles.

As a general note:
I am MOSTLY talking about loss of attributes, skills, and overall streamlining of the leveling/combat system. As an aside, I also ask poll takers to keep in mind the flavors of each world. If you vote the way you do for other reasons feel free, nay encouraged, to note the reason as a comment. Please keep discussion civil :tes:

Personal opinion:
I am excited by new info. As for simplification, I believe that it will not negatively affect the gameplay experience. Mostly, I think that Bethesda is going to create a more unique world, which is the main reason I love TES games more than other RPGs. Also, I believe perks will more than make up for loss of attributes and skills

EDIT: Sorry for the misspelled title. It's "gauge" not "guage" :banghead: Stupid non-phonetic words

Enjoyed Morrowind more than Oblivion. Excited by new Skyrim info.
Excited about smoother leveling mechanics.
Excited about a more unique presentation.

That's my general feeling. Call me a blind Todd faithful, but I am convinced by his arguments for removing attributes and some skills

Your poll has an issue:

I am neither excited nor distressed by the Skyrim info, as I had already figured out what was going to happen far before they told us all of this. Most of this info was heavily implied before (like how attributes had not been mentioned AT ALL. In fact, if I recall, I was the first person to mention that many months ago when the first info was released).

So I liked Morrowind more than Oblivion and am indifferent about the new info.

I actually processed that. I was beside myself over whether to say "new" info or just "info". If I change the poll it will still be in the title so it can't be helped now. Just vote how you feel regardless of the freshness of the info

I actually don't think the game is being simplified; instead, I think they are developing it with a shift in emphasis, which could have a very positive effect on the handling of the game.

In Morrowind and Oblivion there was a big emphasis on numbers: numbers make you stronger, numbers make you smarter, faster, luckier, ect. In Skyrim, however, they appear to be shifting emphasis to the actual actions of the player. Instead of relying on a high agility to avoid staggering, there will likely be more emphasis on positioning and blocking appropriately, for example. Magic will likely involve using the right spell at the right time, as opposed to having a high intellect. And so on and so forth. I hope it works out in this way.

I don't care either way. I play what they give me and enjoy it.

I
AM
SO
EXCITED!
OH
MY
GOD
SKYRIM!
NO
ONE
CAN
HATE
SKYRIM
BRO
GOOD
BYE

Honestly, both the gameplay trailer for this game and the new race model screenshots both brought a tear to my eye. I feel like this game is going to break my top 5

Ever since they took a random variable (dice rolling) out of the game the attributes became useless. In Oblivion they had to find a way to make them useful without variables and it ended up destroying the leveling system.

In a pen and paper RPG attributes are necessary to simulate your control over variables. The Elder Scrolls has come to a point, technologically and in a design sense, that this is no longer necessary. Do not fear the future, friends.

i've have grown up with these games and i am nothing but excited to play

I'm very happy with the changes so far and I can't wait until 11-11-11.

OB > MW. Excited about everything about Skyrim

It's really hard for me, because I prefer Vanilla Morrowind to Vanilla Oblivion, but I prefer modded Oblivion to modded Morrowind. But then the poll gets too confusing. Will be interesting to see the results though

Excluding mods, I just barely like Morrowind better than Oblivion, and it's purely for subjective reasons (preference for atmosphere, story, etc) whereas I view Oblivion as a better overall gameplay experience, and is the reason for spending a good 200-300 more hours on Oblivion than Morrowind.

That said, I am still just as excited for Skyrim as I was when I first heard it announced. When I looked at the Elder Scrolls series (Arena to Daggerfall to Morrowind to Oblivion) I see nothing but improvements every step of the way. Every new game is something to behold, and everything I've heard about Skyrim has done nothing but reassure me of that. I feel comfortable in saying that I think Skyrim will be the best TES game yet.

The only thing that concerns me is the story, and I'm trying to stay positive about that.

I agree.

The D&D d20 system is probably the classic attribute based system (derived from pen and paper models). I think the point at which it and TES diverge is in skills. In TES EVERYTHING is really derived from your skills more than your attributes. In D&D your attributes play almost an equal role in your character's abilities as most everything else. So I agree, it really isn't that necessary

no preference both morrowind and oblivion where good games

excited about mechanics and presentation

this game will be a huge hit

I liked Oblivion better though I loved both. I'm excited by the new information!

I couldn't disagree more.

The pen and paper attributes don't exist for hte sake of rolling dice. Even in systems where they are not directly rolled upon, attributes generally exist, because they matter, they make the difference between to characters. Imagine Lord of the Rings, with all characters being equally strong, intelligent, fast, charismatic etc. How boring would that have been?

Attributes are what makes the difference between two characters. Skills are something completely different. Skills can be learned, forgotten, and easily change over time with interest. But changing your general fitness, intelligence or strength is a very hard task and not always possible (especially regarding mental attributes). That aside, there can be a strong and a weak swordfighter, a strong and a weak thief, a strong and a weak mage. There can be an intelligent or stupid swordfighter, an intelligent or stupid thief, an intelligent or stupid mage. There can be... You get the idea. Their skills might be equal, but the way they react in different situations or the way they are built does make the difference. You could have two fighters equally skilled, with one being stronger, but the other being faster, and have two completely different characters. Or more importantly: You can have two mages using exactly the same spells, but one being a charismatic person to talk to, and the other being always silent unless he's using a spell, but more intelligent.

Attributes are not an outdated concept, because they have direct representations in real life. An RPG without attributes could as well have no skill system at all. They're not needed for killing dragons, but they're sure highly important for role-playing different characters.

Look at a drama series on television, for instance. The "skills" of the persons involved rarely matter, compared to their character "attributes".

I'm not sure I agree with this estimation. Skills may be retained long after age claims the spring from your muscles or the keenness from your mind.



Actually some of those are redundant (just like TES attributes/skills). 'Charisma' can be both natural and learned. That is the usual skill/attribute in dramas. In action movies the winner is not always the strongest, Bruce Lee routinely out-skilled stronger opponents in his films

I'm not talking about who's winning or losing. I'm talking about how the characters differ from eachother. Again, take something close to this, and go with the classic fantasy movie. Who'd all characters in such a movie to have the same strength, intelligence, charisma etc? The dwarf IS stronger, but worse with words. The elf IS very fast and elegant, but not very strong, the mage IS intelligent, but weak etc; but maybe there's a second mage who's also very charismatic? And another elf, who happens to be a bit stupid? Or the dwarf who's not that strong, but a great mechanic (a skill), due to his intelligence?
How boring would it be if ALL dwarves would be equally strong, intelligent, charismatic etc etc?

If you don't want to make a clear distinction between attributes and skills (completely understandable imo), you'd still have to consider that these things so far called "attributes" should remain there in some form, such as skills or w/e.

I'd kinda define attributes as something that's the same even if the character would lose his/her memory or somesuch. Although yes, you could argue that a good fighter who loses his memory would still be able to handle the sword well.
Anyhow: The main point is that attributes can be applied in many non-specific situations. Strength for instance. I can use it to calculate how much I can carry (who'd want to have have a skill for that?) AND how strong my attacks are (Why should my 1 handed weapon skill increase the pure power behind the attack, even if I'd want to play a character who isn't very strong, but still good at using swords?) AND how good I can run/climb/jump etc (Even the skills for this were removed!), AND how long I can keep a bow drawn (again, maybe I want to play an expert archer who sadly isn't very strong and forced to use light bows? Or maybe I want to play a strong character who isn't really good with bows, but can still use the really long ones and if he hits, causes a lot of damage?) AND how good I'd be at kicking in a door (again, who'd want a skill specifically for this?) AND how likely I am to push another person out of the way (really, really not skill-worthy, is it?) AND billions of other things. Attributes are large categories of lots of abilities not included in skills or not completely portrayed by skills.

I don't care HOW they do it, but I want two characters to have different running speeds, different carrying capacity, different intelligence, charisma, agility, and whatever else there is. I mean: Why the hell not?

Fair enough. I gather you want characters to be quantitatively different form one another. Technically you could just ASSUME that one skilled in a certain thing would have higher attributes in that. It takes great intelligence to cast powerful spells and great strength to swing an ax or sword with the deftness needed for skill. Not only that but you would gain strength from practicing swinging axes and gain intellect from studying the arcane. Honestly, it makes more sense for someone casting a high level spell to HAVE to have a high intelligence and someone swinging around a huge maul to HAVE to have high strength. I guess you are saying you don't want to just 'assume' though so it's more a matter of perspective

Of course a bit of strength is needed for fighting, a bit of intelligence is for using spells. But there should still be differences, that's what makes characters unique. Just about all characters in Harry Potter are mages of sorts, yet they greatly differ in their attributes.

The question is: Why would they take attributes out? Minimal gain for such a loss - I don't understand it. It's not like perks would be any more simple. In fact, attributes and skills could just progress in the background without the player ever noticing it, while perks require the player to think about them.

http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6686/tiapft.jpg

I liked Morrowind more than Oblivion, and I am distressed by the lack of attributes.