That seems like a personal issue to me. I find the exploring, looting, and story to be interesting enough that gaining more levels isn't necessarily that important.

Fallout 3, for instance... my first character hit the level 20 cap before even getting to Galaxy News (did sidequests first), finally got around to "finishing" the main quest at around 25 hours of play, and I then continued to play that character for another 50+ hours. Not getting XP from unlocking locks, and not getting more skill points & levels really didn't mean much. There was still plenty of interesting stuff to do.

:shrug:

If Skyrim is a good open-world game like Beth has made in the past, there will be plenty of "incentives" other than leveling to make you want to continue playing.

This....i agree with all of this....im glad we're limited and HOPEFULLY we cant respec. please lol

people seem to be thinking it will be like wow where they made some minor decision that messes up their max possible damage per second......and seem to be forgetting this isnt some mmo and you just have to play how you enjoy playing and your perks are reflected by that.

there is limited progression after level 50, just no more perks. You still get health/stamina/magicka, and the mathematical limit is only about 70 because that is when all skills reach 100.
Also you will only be raising lower skills by then, which count less toward levelling, but these lower skills will still be quite high numbers, so each skill level will be taking longer ( takes longer to get from 90 to 91 than 25 to 26, but 90 to 91 counts less toward level if some skills are already 100 ). So the higher levels will take longer to attain.
You could end up with all skills maxed, getting more rounded and getting more health etc. but your character will be fully defined already at level 50 as far as perks. They said the world was levelled 1 to 50, so higher levels will be getting into 'god mode' territory.

I wonder how you even made it past level 1 in morrowind since they didnt have any perks....you dont enjoy exploring? progressing through the game/quests/storyline?

I think its great perks are limited....that limit adds much uniqueness to each persons individual character.

Having the limit there also gives more weight and importance to the decisions you make giving you that feeling of risk/decision/consequence....and i think that adds IMMENSELY to the feel of the game making it exponentially better.

I wouldn;t want to have seen every perk in just one playthrough. Moreover I wouldn't want to have the feeling that my character is some kind of superman.

I guess in my case a big part of the fun is all about progressing.

If I ever get to a point in a game where my character is so wealthy that I can easily buy anything in the game, it instantly becomes boring because there is no more point to looting enemies and accumulating wealth.

If I ever get to a point where there are no more challenging enemies, it also becomes boring because there is no point to accumulating more XP, skills, perks, spells etc. in order to deal with challenging foes.

Hopefully Skyrim has fixed the leveling part and included some powerful enemies that will still kick your ass on level 70 or 80, etc., when you play on the hard difficulty setting.

The economy problem, on the other hand, is something that is in almost every RPG released in the last 10 years. It is usually way too easy to become rich. Almost certainly I will have to install an economy mod to make all the merchant prices a lot more expensive, just so that there is always at least something new to save up for, some outrageously expensive and cool magic item I want to buy but can't afford, etc.

If there are no perks in a game, of course, who cares about perks. But I think after playing skyrim for a long time, I will get accustomed to choosing a new perk at each level up and I will be bummed if I reach level 51 and don't get a perk. In FNV, it wasn't a problem that there were perks every 2 levels, but it's more about the feeling of looking forward to something, that makes the progression fun.

It's certainly possible I could play for 300-400 hours and still never reach level 50, in which case, obviously it wouldn't matter.

I agree with you on the economy part...in MW when i found the mudcrab for the first time i set my recall by him and would just sell everything there....soon i had so much money i didnt know what to do with it....was kind of ridiculous.

But i definitely wouldnt say progression will automatically stop after level 50 because thats when you get your last perk. Your skills will still be able to be raised higher...there will most likely be more quests/storyline/exploration left so you have that as well which technically also progresses your character by adding deeds/personality(based on how you carry out things)/experience(in a traveling sense of the word) to him. So the way i see it your character will still be progressing either way after you obtain your last perk.

I've been playing RPGs for years, but I never felt reaching max level is somehow the end of the game.

Yes, it's a part of it, to make a character who is as powerful as possible. But there is also the part with questing, and shaping the world. And the collecting of rare artefacts. And being the master of as many organisations as I can. Being powerful is just means to an end.

It would be good if Bethesda give us even more things to keep us busy in the late game. Like building a library perhaps. But in general levelling is only something you do out of necessity, not fun.

I mean, what's the point of getting as strong as you can if you don't then go on a rampage genociding dragons?

To be clear, you can still master any and every skill in the game. You just cannot get all of the perks. I.E. You can be not only a jack of all trades, but a Master of all trades. . . You simply cannot be an extraordinarily gifted genius, savant at all trades/professins/skills etc.

That said, I DEFINITELY think you should be able to gain all of the perks under one Archetype (constellation in this case).

I.e. A hardcoe Wizard who devotes most of their energy to the arcane arts, should be able to gain all of the perks for The Five Schools of Magic, a war champion should be able to gain all of the warriors perks etc.

i dont want to be master of everything and i want a somewhat specific character. but i hate being handicapped when playing. having only 2 perk trees will leave me with too many what if's and needing to make way too many characters. the first one in oblivion had 300 hours alone. i dont have time to make multiple ones of that. just dont have the time. simple as that. i hate missing out on oppurtunities.

Afraid I have to disagree. You can be a mage, with a fair few perks in each magic skill, or instead max say one skill, becoming an enchanter, illusionist, conjurer/necromancer etc. Same with warriors, you max out sword and shield, you don't get to be the ultimate archer as well. I am all for this, appreciate it's just my opinion, but this way leaves several ways to play within each of the archetypes, and makes taking perks from unrelated skills ( multi-classing if you will ) a serious decision

The number of perks you get is largely a function of the time you put into the game. If you spend 300 hours on a character you will have completed more than 2 perk trees...

Also, in most elderscrolls games you level up faster at early levels and I don't think there are any level requirements for perks, only skill reqs. so restarting would actually help you experience all the perk trees faster if that is what you are really going for.

What if you looked at it as though the game is adding more entertainment value.

Each playthrough of Oblivion for me lasts around 300-400 hours or more.

With Skyrim, I can now see myself enjoying multiple of these long playthroughs over a period of several years. IMO that tremendous replayability factor, combined with features that favor marathon playthroughs, like infinitely respawning dragons and Radiant Story quests, makes this game equivalent to double or triple the entertainment value of Oblivion. In other words

1x Skyrim = 3x Oblivion = 1,000,000x CODBlops

I would like to eventually master pretty much everything with 300 hours I won't need to replay the game. ( I def will if I can have more then 1 char) So I would like to basically master everything so I can go through all the guilds with their respective talent trees!

Bethesda is doing exactly what you seem to be saying. You want a well rounded character. That's fine.

Well rounded characters: A good amount of perk trees delved into; Not much depth in each.

Specialized characters: Few perk trees delved into; Very deep exploration in each.

You've got to make a compromise. It adds a lot of gaminess to make choices like these. You cant expect to be a master of 9 skills with each tree in full bloom.

I would personally say 4 should be enough

I would max out:

Marksmen
Sneak
Illususion
Smithing or Security

I actually thought one of the problems with oblivion was the lack of specificity to any character. My own idea, bofore Skyrim was announced, was to have 1 main skill, and a few minor ones, so you could really dive into that 1 skill and people would know you for it (Ulfgar the Illusionist), ya know what I mean? I really like the way Skyrim is set up so you can only master a small number of skills. It lets you feel like you are the true master of that skill. How would it feel if all characters went around mastering like 10 skills? Would you feel unique? Hardly..

I completely agree - it could be fun to focus solely on one specific area, which was problematic in Oblivion

You can max all the skills. That has already been confirmed, at least as far as 100 level mastery. You simply cannot recieve all of the perks.

As it stands you are able to receive full perks for three out of five skill trees, at least within the wiazrd constellation.

How much of a problem this is depends on what the perks are. If they are all the basic types of things that Oblivion gave as a standard part of reaching master level (i.e. lower magicka cost in said school, being able to dodge etc.) then it could be an irritant. IF however the perks are really exceptional qualities, like the ability to long term Bind Daedra in Conjouration, or perform a sweeping blow for blade that knocks down several enemies at once, that is another story.

As long as being absent a perk does not greatly diminish mastery, but rather provides something like an untitled Grand Master capacity, it is, for me, managable.

Hopefully not going to interrupt some ongoing debate, I'm inserting my stance.

I need at least 4 full trees. 5 or 6 would be better.

Following the "stealth archtype" I'd need to fill marksman, stealth, and (likely) alchemy. Once that is done I feel I'd need points to dip into my armor skill if there are any worthwile perks there and get something for blades, no more back peddling, I also always take illusion on my heavy stealth characters.

Filling 4 while being able to grab stong early perks from a few other skills would be enough, but if I can only give myself strength in one specific direction I'm going to feel much weaker than I did with stats and classes in Oblivion.

I wont sat that the game has to have all the perks open for me, but I wouldnt mind a console code to let you get all of em either. Just to mess around in 'godmode'.

Uhh, no I would prefer to not become a god cause that is boring. I think 2 is low, but your sayong you fighter has to have 4 combat and then healing and then social.

Well he is not really a fighter anymor ehe is everyhing. Which is silly thats not what its about.



What if I am RPing someone who wants to become the master of the blade. Then I would max out blades.

Why does it always come back to the "how I want to play versus how you want to play argument." My own feelings are mixed. I don't need or want to max out every perk tree. I would like to be able to gain all the perks of my Archetype, but it looks like three out of five will be availalble at least, and I can live with that.


That said, I am not for restricting how other people play, solely for the sake of having the responsibility of discipline and restraint in my own playing lifted from me.

"I'd prefer not to become a god," is fine as a play style, as a personal prefference etc. And the games have not, do not, and likely will not ever force you to become one in order to complete the main quest, or even the significant side quests. What veers away from being okay is pushing the edict of "I don't want to play as a god, but if the option is there I will not be able to control myself enough to resist utilizing it, and so I need the game to make it impossible for me to do so, which of course will also make it impossible for others to do so, console users in particular."

Actually my first char i will roleplay as becoming [censored] amazing with just sword / shield and nothing else....so yes i think they should be uberfied....if i give up having the advantage of many different skills to focus on very few core disciplines i think i should become amazing at them, while not being great at much else...maybe just mediocre....thats why im all for perk limit....if you want to delve into many many different trees then you will be mediocre at all but great at none.

It has nothing to do with self control....if there are no limitations then there are no consequences or weight/importance to any of the decisions that you make early/throughout the game....that feeling of risk/consequence/making a choice is completely destroyed right at the start....you cant say dont like it dont do it....it would be similar to if they took magic out of the game and everyone said hey who cares just pretend you can do magic....imo that feeling of consequence and weight to decisions is one of the core aspects of TES rpg's and im EXTREMELY glad there is a perk limit and i REALLY HOPE they dont let you respec.