Pure Genius.

....
[/b]There is, however, a difference between being ALLOWED to make a very specialized character who excells in a limited number of skills, versus being FORCED to make a very specialized character who can ONLY specialize in a few skills. You remain able to roleplay your character in virtually any way you like. . . as does everyone else. The fact that some people cannot resist the lure of being allpowerful, and cannot stick to a pure character of their roleplaying ideal because they cannot say NO to being able to do everything, is nobody's fault but their own. The player who wants a highly restricted build should not be able to veto the rights of a player who wants an unrestricted build, just because the afore mentioned player fears that they won't stick to their restricted ideal, if the restrictions are not forcefully imposed by the system.[/b]
...

The players who want unrestricted builds shouldn't able to veto those who want realistic limitations in their games,
PS. BTW, you are amazingly convincing. Sneaky holy one.

Btw, for an excellent understanding about what's wrong about the quest compass, read this: http://kotaku.com/5828760/youve-been-playing-gta-iv-wrong

AinurOlorin, I agree with every sentence in your post, except bold part. The restrictions are imposed by the system which makes your points before the "if" moot.

First, there is no difference because there is no forced specialization. The limitation is natural. A "jack of all trades, master of none" is natural. Limitation provides that. Also, the faulty one who wants to be all powerful is the one who wants the removal of restrictions for that, YOU! The players who want unrestricted builds shouldn't able to veto those who want realistic limitations in their games, and especially shouldn't be able to accuse them for not having the willpower. Why design a game where matured characters are "meaninglessly" powerful? Why design an RPG where your game wouldn't give a unique experience for players but everything in one plate. The willpower is needed for developers, so they don't lose to those who want the removal of any restriction in the game.

And what exactly are the realistic limitations to the protagonists in games centered on messianic heroes of mythic stature prone to divine ascension?

And what exactly are the realistic limitations to the protagonists in games centered on messianic heroes of mythic stature prone to divine ascension?

with the new addition of allowing more perks i just seem to be losing more and more interest in the game.....whats the point of having to make choices if they have no consequences.....if we were also allowed to reset our perks holy crap that would be ridiculous.

i was under the impression that the perks would be a way to specialize your character...so say....going deep into a few trees would make you awesome at those few....and going into many trees would make you jack of all trades, good at all but great at none.

being able to keep getting perks on and on and eventually getting a third of them? of course its just my opinion but i dont like it at all....being able to get so many with no downside sort of ruins to whole thing for me...it takes away much of the importance and weight of the decisions early on in the game, which is a large part of why i like tes games so much (choices having consequences)

so the exploration is severely cut with forcing us to use quest markers, compass pointing out points of interest and all that and not being optional....ive seen many say that this aspect actually makes exploration better for them....but really it is the exact opposite of what exploration is....knowing where things are before you find them actually is 100% opposite of exploration in every way

zero directional dialogue(this is an assumption as i dont see there really being any with the radiant story addition, if quests can take you to different locations through each playthrough i dont see them taking the time to add voice acting directions to everything for those of us who dont like quest markers.....if im proven wrong when the game comes out i will be completely blown away and most likely love it)

3d map so you dont even get a bit surprised when you walk into a new geographical area as youve already seen it on a miniature scale model

hopefully no quests being designed around the use of fast travel again

hopefully wont be able to become master of all guilds at once/experience 100% content on a single playthrough.


I was so psyched about the game at first but lately as more and more info comes out i seem to be losing a lot of interest in it......exploring the huge gameworld is a hugeee reason i loved the games so much....i actually hated fallout for all the crap that gets shown on compass/map that you pretty much have to rely on because there is no other way...i would much rather figure out how to get to the destination on my own based on geographical landmarks and directions given in conversation rather than say the fallout method of like listening to a holotape...then a quest magically pops up that says find vault #xx and then that vault magically appears on your map....that seems to be the case here in skyrim now as well.

Another huge part of the game for me was the choices actually having consequences....this seems to be getting less emphasis but i guess i could be wrong.

One thing that could completely reverse it for me would be if as you upped the difficulty, the compass icons and quest markers dissapear as well as other things....but again i dont see it happening with the shift to all voice acting along with radiant story.

again these are all just my opinions i guess, am i alone in thinking the games arent moving in a great direction? I dont want the game to hold my hand all the way through pointing me to every destination, point of interest, anything actually, do they not think i can do it on my own. Or is everyone else psyched about all this new news? Dont get me wrong im still going to get the game, it looks good visually i guess, and the combat is probably a bit better....but with big hits to a lot of my favorite factors if not the only reasons i play the games im not nearly as excited.

...
First, the limitation is not categorically natural. Some people are especially bright, and some people are especially stupid. Some people can excell at languages, mathematics, atheletics, astrophysics, biology, reading comprehension, music, visual arts and theatre, and have multiple doctorates, while other people can barely comprehend their own native tongue, and would be hardpressed to draw a stick figure. My point? One persons natural limitations can be and often are entirely different from another person's limitations, and it is not impossible or even unheard of for one person to be gifted in a number of very different fields.
...

To the next point, the flaw in your stance is that it offers MANDATES over OPTIONS. Mandatory restrictions may help some players maintain an idealized playstyle, in the same way that a government ban on cakes, hotdogs, burgers, and all snack foods might help overweight people stick to a diet. What you are arguing is that the developers should take options away from certain players in order to stop other players from "cheating on their diet."

Masters of multiple fields are not impossible to come by. Certainly the lore of Elder Scrolls and of many other sword&sorcery series besides, allows for their existence. Your argument, while clever, is still subjective, and remains obtrusive. It offers restrictions over options. And while the restrictions can EASILY BE SELF IMPOSED FOR ROLEPLAYING VALUE, FORCED RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE SYSTEM CANNOT BE EASILY REMOVED OR GOTTEN AROUND BY PLAYERS SEEKING GREATER VERSATILITY AND OPTIONS.

If two side hold views and prefferences that are deeply in opposition to one another, the best solution, if it can be found, is the one that allows both sides to operate as they see fit, and which accomodates both. Having the ability to choose more perks, while also having the ability to choose as few as you like (even to choose NONE if you preffer) is by far the more fair and even handed approach. Mandatory restrictions is winner take all. It shuts one side completely out of the reckoning with no viable recourse. Maximal options, to have or not to have as the player sees fit, allows everyone to play as they like, without shoving one person's preffered playstyle down the next person's throat.

That's what we should debate, without vetoing each others. I believe Bethesda decided to go 70 from 50 with that in mind, it is their game. I can't say it for sure without playing the game. I just hope the end results wouldn't lead to a meaningless state.

I haven't seen actual evidence that the player was ever actually capped or intended to be capped at 50th level. It's been said that the game was scaled for levels 1-50 and from that some players extrapolated (erroneously, in my opinion) a 50th level cap, but the later confirmation that the theoretical cap was in the 70s range didn't indicate any sort of change. It was always so.

As to the end results, I really don't see the issue. You decide when to retire one character and begin another. If you are playing a thief, and you max out the skills you actually use, you have effectively maxed out your 'meaningful' character and only you can decide to keep leveling further by training skills you were never previously interested in. If you train your character to such a maxed out state, why is it the game's fault? And why would it be meaningless relative to your preferred limits?

being able to keep getting perks on and on and eventually getting a third of them? of course its just my opinion but i dont like it at all....being able to get so many with no downside sort of ruins to whole thing for me...it takes away much of the importance and weight of the decisions early on in the game, which is a large part of why i like tes games so much (choices having consequences)

My opinion is that the downside is that it will take a lot of real life hours to get to a high enough level to get one third of all the perks. That's a pretty big downside to me.

Early in the game You still are only getting 1 perk per level and still making choices. If you choose to become a jack of trades then you really only have yourself to blame for spreading your perks like that.

I usually personally play archetype characters. Mage, Thief, Warrior etc. So I know where you're coming from. If I get to the point where I have all the thiefy perks, I think its time to roll up a new character.

You can only get a third of the perks. At most you can only specialize in a third of the skills. Sounds pretty specialized to me.

About perks:

In order to gain a third of them, you must level ALL of your skills. You must be a jack of all trades.

A specialized character of, say, 5 skills, WILL NOT get a third of the perks.

You can also choose to not use your perks.

Cool, but what's limiting a player to 5 skills?

Is this a concious effort the player has to make to avoid using the other 13, or is there some mechanic that would actively hinder us from leveling the other 13?
I'm sure we can all conciously avoid using skills, but I believe a game is far more fun if the game itself is able to hinder your advancement without your compliance.