Athletics/Acrobatics (and indeed the Speed attribute, to a lesser extent) were the kind of game mechanic I initially liked as I began a character, and -- once I'd raised them above average -- quickly began to hate. I like the control over character speed and mobility, but I dislike equally the lack of control when those skills continue to increase. I'm pretty indifferent about them being removed, and I do like the idea of the sprint ability. I wonder if character movement (and sprint specifically) is affected by any of the perks?

Attributes are a trickier question. They held most value for me as a [metagame] point of comparison, being the fantasy tabletop and card game geek that I am ("hmm, a giant spider's Strength is 70 and a Mountain Giant's is 85..."). In actual gameplay (and certainly in roleplay!) they were essentially non-entities, although they could be useful to reference with scripts in user-created scenarios (eg, can the PC push the boulder?).

Looking at it objectively, the streamlining makes perfect sense. Here it's very distinct from "dumbing down" - Skyrim's character progression can range from almost mindlessly simple, to ludicrously complex, if I'm understanding the scope of classless skills and perks correctly.

Okay I'm still not seeing the problem or "dumbed down" effect, maybe someone can make it clear. This is how I see it:

Instead of choosing 3 of 8 Stats on level up, you are choosing 1 of 3 Stats and 1 of 280 perks on level up.


Todd and Pete already said you end up with basically the same "Attribute" effects.

Only with the new system, you get the added benefit of cool effects(Axe bleed, Zoom slow, etc.), more specialization (Perk Trees, 50cap), and fixes the crappy Oblivion +stat leveling system all in one shot.

It's possible there will be higher discrepancies between races for hidden/unalterable attributes and the general stats. Speed could be broken down further to the higher your stamina the longer you can sprint, which accomplishes the general goals of a higher speed anyway. As I noted in my earlier post and you echo here, ranged damage is derived from your marksman skill (as always) and weapon damage is derived from your weapons specific skill. People's attitudes will be derived from your Speechcraft skill. These were all highly redundant anyways. The only reason I ever increased strength in the first place was to up encumbrance, why would I need it for damage when I already have a skill dedicated to that?

Crying for attention are we? Well I'll give you some. The attirbutes were ridiculous in both MW and OB, especially with the leveling they had. Skyrim will be unique, fresh and entirely different from the series, I do not want to playa MW V.2.00 or OB V.2.00, I want to play Skyrim. Thank you.

but this is why SK IS dumbed down from previous titles. the purpose of A may be to get to B but you shouldn't automaticly go straight to B. the Point of the transition from A to B is the great feeling that you Earned B rather than effortlessly being given B from the start.

this is what is meant by mainstream. most potential gamers like the magic, graphics, and story of an RPG world but don't like the hard path of earning success and progression. the removal of the perk system makes progression effortless. I guess it comes down to whether you believe that the challenge makes the journey worth while, or if you believe that the progression should be asteticly apeasing but not challenging so that you can casually recieve the result why cake walking the journy (I tried to not make the latter sound less lame, but my whole stance is that if its not a challenge or requires strategical thinking its lame so...)

That is the main reason why I hate Athletics and Acrobatics. They had useful effects but the unpredictability on when you level up the skills is just dumb :brokencomputer:

Oblivion leveling was fail, this seems like a case of "fear of change" and "nostalgia", i'm glad Todd and Pete noticed and changed how it works.




Well thats your opinion, last thing I want to do is level my minor skills to get the proper +attributes on level up. Thats lame.

I'm also glad they're not going for the 'Call of Duty' route. I see this as they're actively trying to improve the game rather than make a quick buck. After all, these are things they've been thinking about since at least FO3 released in 2008. Most likely before that in 2006.

Worse comes to worse, ESVI will fix anything we dont like .

Meh. Roleplaying doesn't need stats. Be atributes under the hood and linked to races, or mixed in with choosing health, magicka, and stamina among other things, it still works for me.

I can roleplay with no menu's or stats, just a pen and paper is fine. So removing stats doesn't dampen on the roleplay value. Its the multiple paths and the option to create your own story that makes it a role playing game. Stats merely fasilitate the feeling of gaining power as you work hard to get stronger. If it were up to me, it would all be under the hood. Perks, health, stamina, magicka, skills...everything would be under the hood. You'd just learn and get better by doing. No need to see levels, they'd be there, but you wouldn't be able to see it.

At any rate, removing atributes could be bad or good. Its yet to be seen because we haven't played yet. Im willing to try it. Its still an rpg if there are options and multiple paths to take, and TES does a great job on the open world part...and is working on the different paths part, kinda...so I'm not worried.

If you mastered acrobatics then you'd be strong and agile regardless. No one trains for years to be an acrobat and ends up as a tub of lard. It's redundant. I did enjoy how you questioned the intelligence and value of console players though, classic move. How's it feel having every game you love made with consoles at the forethought? Stop being the fun police and try thinking abstractly about how the changes will affect or not affect the gameplay instead of hurr durr'ing about how anything being cut is objectively bad

How were attributes not rewards?? You got to increase your strength as a reward for using swords, for example. Which in turn makes your attacks with swords do more damage, and you also get to carry a bit more. This time you get a reward in the from of a perk for using your sword. You pick a perk that makes you do more damage with swords. Perhaps there will be perks related to how much you can carry. How is that any different (in terms of playing the game), except that in one system there is a menu that shows your strength, and in the other there is a menu that shows your perks. But in terms of playing the game, and to paraphrase, "not looking at a spreadsheet", what has changed?? If anything it's more realistic, because this way if you practice with using a one handed sword, you don't magically get better with claymores and axes. Because sword play is more about skill than pure strength.

the first you have to work to make it the best possible out come, with perks you just select a perk from a list every time you level up, the only challenge is based on having to pick crap perks to get good ones, which is a classic rpg cliche and TES was better without. Perks already existed in OB, but you had to level your skills up by increments of 25 to get them (some of which like block could take alot of effort and there fore are more rewarding) the new implementation of perks is, oh you leveled, here have a perk. and thats what they are replacing the strategy of selecting attributes with.



thats your opinion, alot may agree with you. but there are just as many who do not agree. bgs is having a habit of only paying attention to those who agree with them and its having a negative impact on the development of their games. they lump any one who critisizes their decisions with the people who hate TES because it doesn't have guns or something stupid. They are ignoring a whole demographic because its easier to please the people who love the game no matter what rather than make concessions to give options to please the people of the oposite disposition.

Wait, what? :blink:

In one case, you "earn" points of A, which boost the derived value of B.

In the other case, you "earn" points of B.


How is the second case "you didn't earn it". :ermm:

^^^This guy is BOSS.

Not really, almost nothing he said made sense. Stats make an RPG, that cant be debated. Another guy who thinks a thousand pointless choices=an RPG. Before anyone tries to refute that, name me one RPG that didnt have stats in some way. all I see is a bunch of people that apparantly dont care what Beth does to the series. Instead of fixing it and keeping the depth, they just cut.

This as minor skills shouldn't be more important then Major Skills I mean you pick Major Skills to be good at them not oh I don't want to pick both Blade and Blunt because I won't get a +5 Strength, or Block and Heavy Armor with Endurance, etc.

Technically dynamic progression makes an RPG, but that's just semantics. I agree

well thats true, my opinion is that there should be a challenge in rpgs, leveling minor skills to get proper attributes on level up is strategy. if thats lame so be it, its better than one long thoughtless game play.




the reward of getting better stats by leveling attributes is that you used your brain to make your character better. oposed to perks reducing the process to picking the reward without having to put much effort into earning it. its like paying some one to level your character for you and then bragging how great your character is, it may be a great character but you did not put the effort into it that equates to the reward.

The fact is BGS pays attention to these forums in general and considers every imput equally. I know for a fact you were heard as I've seen a few devs pop in to this discussion. They have a reason for keeping the game the way it is, maybe your statement will cause them to take a second look. Ultimately they do listen. Playing the 'they don't listen to me' card is childish.

Many of the changes to ES over the years are of a direct result of the community. They listen.

This. Seriously people. They wouldn't have gotten rid of something unless they had a reason too. We know this by now.

Diablo3 is taking a similiar approach, they made it a fixed attribute on level and merged some attributes.

But in the end there is more Differentiation in characters through Skill Runes. Just like Skyrim has more differentiation through Skill Perks.

Flat numbers aren't as fun.

Forget it. Misread.

No, read his statement, then read mine.

Oh, sorry. Then I must agree with you. But what I see is replacement and addition, not dumbing down.

I'd say Amber: Diceless Roleplay, but it still technically had four stats - they just weren't numbers, they were "I'm stronger than you, I'm weaker than him". Each stat was bid on during character creation (all the players had to make characters at the same time), with each person being ranked as to where in the hierarchy they ended up. Third smartest, second strongest, first in warfare, etc. Of course, how you then roleplayed would effect things - second place in warfare could beat first, if they gained advantage somehow (trickery, alliance, using terrain to the advantage, whatever.)


Still, it wasn't quite the "Ok, I've got 15 strength. I can carry 120 lbs, get +2 melee damage, and have 28% chance to force open a door" that the average RPG does.