maybe a few things were worse, but at least the gameplay wasn't boring. in Morrowind all you did was spam the damn attack button and hope it hits

And anyways THAT WASN'T MY POINT AT ALL.
I said I'm sick of the TERM (it's the damn phrase, not what happenned with it) "dumbed down", not sick of older games.

But seriously dude, why are you even on those forums? you seem to hate Beth

I don't think many people (actually, I can't speak for others, I just know that I'm not) are arguing that Beth is indending to "dumb down" the game in any way. I fully believe that Beth designs the best game that they can. I believe they think this new system will be better than their former system. I sincerely hope it is. But as they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

But I think, especially considering some of the outcomes from the evolution from MW to OB, that it's more sensical to remain skeptical about these changes until proven otherwise.

More respect for the dead, please.

I'm not ignore the gameplay additions to the game. I like the Perks.

I talking about Character Creation in a RPG: No more Birthsigns (even you have one too from birth, right?), Attributes and Classes.

About "Classes" in a RPG, is was like http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Classes in 2006, not to long ago...


:tes: Always in my mind

A quick question for all those who are asserting that those who oppose the removal of attributes are "afraid of change" or "just want what was in past games" or whatever the scornfully dismissive characterization du jour is -

Do you - the person sitting there right now, reading this - have a different amount of strength, intelligence, agility, willpower, speed and so on than other people? Can you think of people who have more strength than you do? Less strength than you do? More intelligence than you do? Less intelligence than you do? More endurance than you do? Less endurance than you do?

Just a simple "yes" or "no." That's all. Yes or no.

To your first point, you're assuming that perks are complex enough to make up for losing 5 attributes (net loss) plus a few skills. I understand your logic completely, but you have to first justify the premise that perks have lots of complexity. The default position is clear: Beth dumbs down TES games. Daggerfall to Morrowind, dumbed down. Morrowind to Oblivion, dumbed down. That's the empirical evidence we have. What we have regarding Skyrim is PR talk. That's literally all we have.



Level scaling was the only issue? Are you [censored] kidding me? How about less quests, less factions, less skills, less towns, less freedom of movement, less spells, need I go on?

That is what I got From when Todd Howard did that interview with Game spot .. Saying Perks will give your play style more Depth and Define who you are in the RPG world ( Not his words per se but it is along those lines )... In my personal opinion I think this will give the game a more in depth feel of your character and give you the option to add on to your character as you wish.. That is what I got from the Interview

Here's the link Of the Game spot interview ( it's 7:min long )http://www.gamespot.com/pc/rpg/elderscrollsvskyrim/news.html?sid=6308882&mode=previews&tag=topslot;thumb;4

Yeah not sure what other people's people's arguments are against it, haven't read many of them due to caps lock and excessive exclamation points.

At the end of the day, it's just a bunch of fans hoping the game lives up to thier expectations.

Easy fix. Make it so an attribute can never reach 100. Only allow 1 attribute increase for 1 point every few levels. If someone got to level 100, that still would only be about 15 attribute point raise spread between a few attributes.

but can you say FOR CERTAIN that they were removed from the game? THAT'S OUR POINT!!!!

Hell, even the developpers said that THEY'RE THERE, JUST NOT THE SAME WAY *cries out of desperation from the sheer amount of bad arguments this thread already has*

Yep, because you can please some of the people some of the time but not all of the people all of the time. What alot of people don't realize is that attributes had run their course and several of the attributes turned out to be useless or nearly useless. So, they made a new system that would still get the attributes job done and more. People say "Why not just keep in attributes and fix them?", well because firstly it takes development time to fix things, which takes away from the rest of the game to just make a redundant system when there is already a system that has been added that does the same thing and more. Also, people need to realize that if they did spend the development time to fix them and put them in the game, piling the same system on top of another system is just an imbalance waiting to happen. It doesn't make since to have two systems that do the same thing when you can cut the system that does less (attributes) for the one that does more (perks and 3 attribute system). Just because something has been around longer doesn't mean it should stick around when it isn't needed anymore.

I liked Fallout's attributes being relatively fixed and rated 1-10. That was way better than Oblivion's system.

By using those parameters, then Morrowind was a bigger step in the wrong direction from Daggerfall than Oblivion was from Morrowind.

Oblivion had better quality quests. Most of the factions in Morrowind were moot and Oblivion still had many factions. Oblivion technically only had one less skill, spears, the rest were still in the game. Technically, Oblivion had more towns but as for cities, Oblivion had less cities but they were also bigger. I don't even see how where you got less freedom of movement from :bonk:, barely less spell effects and I mean barely and only because the ones removed were either heavily exploitable (levitate and lock) or they were not seen as needed because other spells were similar. I would go on to compare how many more flaws Morrowind had compared to Oblivion but that isn't what this topic is about.

But as I posted above, it shows that there is nothing wrong with the change and it's for the better as it creates exponentially more customization and freedom of choice.

We all understand the logic. But the problem is, you are basing this on PR. I am using empircal evidence, namely, the dumbing down of MW and then further dumbing down of OB. I can 100% guarantee you, without a doubt, that Todd said that each of those games had more depth than the last. I guarantee he said that.

damnit will you stop saying they were dumbed down. I'm sorry, but I didn't feel dumber for playing Oblivion than I did for playing Morrowind (which is, not at all)

And seriously, remember that TES doesn't stop at your skills and quests. most people RP, and that's probably the biggest fun of the game. and on the RP side, it definitely was BETTER each time

EDIT: but seriously, I'm outta here. an attitude like that will get you nowhere, and I'm not the one who'll change it

Perks aren't new though. They've been there since Daggerfall (IIRC). All they changed was the way they're distributed.

I'll repost what I've been reposting:



So, yeah, the way a character is defined will be no less complex than it was in the past, perhaps more so actually. Regardless of where you stand on the issue, the fact remains that with perks character variety will become much greater, not lessened, because progressing up a perk tree requires focus and specialization, and you're limited to 50 of them, plus whatever racial or quest reward ones you get. (I imagine you start at "level zero" and level up at the end of the intro so you can pick your level one perk). Anyways, the system is still there, it's simply been turned on its head. All of those characteristics I listed are now determined by other things. Essentially, character building is now top-down rather than bottom-up. You define your character as you play, not at the outset. That's really it.

It's exactly identical to the Oblivion development cycle. Something gets shown, some people complain, some people defend, either way there's an increasingly blurry line between "mentioning the game at all" and "flamebait."

Like I've said, if it had just been the removal of attributes, I'd have an issue, but with everything else that they've changed and added I think it'll wind up being better this way. But that's just me, and I am aware of the fact that it is merely my conclusion and that playing it may feel different.

Except that isn't empirical truth that "the games have become dumbed down", that is just a phrase people use instead of looking at the whole truth. Requiring the player to have a bigger role in playing isn't dumbing anything down, it's making things require more thought on the players part, so not dumbing down. Also I've justified it in countless threads over the months, it's a numerical fact that it is more complex as there are Septillions of different combinations available for your character in Skyrim compared to billions in Morrowind and Oblivion. That is empirical evidence to the contrary of dumbing down, especially now that we have even more player skill needed in Skyrim.

As for how losing 5 attributes is a net loss (especially since the attributes are still in the game in a different form) but we "lost" 5 attributes and we gained 280 perks with multiple levels each. That is a net gain by a long shot.



Yes, I tell people all the time that perks have been around since Daggerfall but it is still a new system. It's just like how there is a new leveling system. It basically is the same system in every way but it no longer has major skills, it's been in TES since the beginning but it is still a new system.

I don't believe that. Please post your calculations.



You misunderstood me, perhaps intentionally. We lost 8 attributes and gained 3. That's a net loss of 5 attributes. Now go read the rest of my previous post before replying. Yes, read ALL of it.

People are always going to be skeptical of change. I usually am too but not this time we can't have Oblivion 2. Even though Oblivion is a great game it has it's flaws and Beth not fixing them makes no sense money wise and gameplay wise.

The only people who are treating this as an "either/or" issue are Beth and Beth's defenders. I haven't seen one single person who opposes the removal of attributes argue that the game should use attributes instead of perks. We want the game to use attributes in addition to perks.

Explain, precisely, how perks alone could ever possibly give the game "greater variety" than perks and attributes could. That latter - having both in the game instead of only one - is the position for which we're arguing, so that's the position you need to address.

Oblivion lost six skills over Morrowind, not one.
Cities were not bigger in Oblivion. For a compare, see inhabitants of Vivec city to Imperial city.
Levitate was not removed because it was exploitable, it was a cell thing.

I do actually sort of share your view that Skyrim might work out great, the whole new way of levelling seems organic and natural to me.

I just dont think you should use fallacious arguments to prove your point, especially because these have all been pointed out before.

280 perks is more greater variety then 8 Attributes and the perks can do the exact same things that the Attributes can do.

Atributes and Perks. Done deal, happy camper. Perks and health, mana, stamina? 5 stages of coping with calamity.
PS. On Denial now..

Pretty much, we've been losing things since Daggerfall, but now Sleighn thinks that this has magically turned around. Even though all we here about is cut, merged, or streamlined features, he thinks it will have more content, depth etc. I doubt it.