I played Morrowind and Oblivion (and FO3) many, many times and now two games ever felt (or were) the same . . . BECAUSE I was able to build a slightly different character each time. And I NEVER exploited the level process, so I never ended up with a god-like character that had a bunch of maxed out skills.

Creating a character was not "tedious" in any way . . . it took at most a couple of minutes . . . which is nothing when each game usually lasted for a couple hundred hours. It was no work at all to create a character that represented me and then just play the game in the way that I wanted to. (I was totally able to do that in Morrowind . . . with Oblivion, it took a LOT of mods to get me to that point.)

I'm super stoked for Skyrim, and although some of the changes have me left with uncertainty, I am overall very optimistic that I'm gonna like what they give us. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, so to expect perfection would be to set oneself up for major disappointment. There is always room for improvement, but I will be happy with Skyrim no matter what, because it's TES. As long as it stays true to what TES is all about, that's all that matters to me.

So why can't you do that with SR? And again how is SR any more focus on combat than past games, esp Arena and Daggerfall were there was a lot of time spent dungeon crawling(because of the massive dungeons) and being in combat than more recent games.

Because there is no longer any real initial character build . . . and no inherent strengths and weaknesses in my character. If I play just as a Bosmer Female (like I always did in MW and OB). . . every single character will start out as a virtual clone.

My Skyrim Character "Build"

Race: Bosmer (only for cosmetic reasons)
Gender: Female (I'm a female, and my character represents me)
Class: Prisoner
Birthsign: None (Clones don't get to have birthdays . . . because they were not born)
Skills: None
Education: None
Experience: None

Second character (see above).

But its how you play the Character, you picked your skills based on what you waited to play I assume, so why can't you just play that anyway? And as to combat SR also is giving you even more to do outside of combat(jobs) and a less hostile world to explore in(hence even less combat).

While I don't mind the removal of classes per se, I don't like that I will not have more control over my initial character build. It takes something away from my character's back-story when all skills and attributes are even when starting off (if this is indeed how char-gen will be handled). Assuming that all characters will start off as an advlt, it seems strange if s/he will have no particular talents or weaknesses at the beginning of the game. After all, no one is a completely 'blank slate' by that point in their lives.

cautiously optimistic with a touch of skepticism and a sprinkling of trust in beth just for good measure

Yes but you define and diversify your character later on.

It's nice to see I'm not alone in my thinking



It doesn't seem that you understand the point. Every new character will have no back-story, so in the beginning, the only difference from one new character to the next will be aesthetic.

In Morrowind, Oblivion, and even in Fallout 3, I could create an initial character build with inherent strengths and weaknesses. That ability will not exist in Skyrim. There are no longer any character inherent weaknesses . . . every skill levels up just as fast, making them all essentially Major Skills (only major skills that level you even faster than MW's and OB's Major skills). Perks are merely Skill Bonuses, and unless the NPCs get an equal Perk balance, are mostly just a way to make the game play even easier for the player.

From what I have seen so far, there is no indication that Skyrim is less combat oriented than Morrowind was (Oblivion was too focused on combat than Morrowind was, in my opinion) . . . but the opposite is what I'm seeing. Removal of initial character build, Fast leveling, OB-Fast Traveling and Perk Bonuses.

I'm of the belief that we will actually have more control of our character and not only when we start the game but of it's progression all the way through the game. I think it will present an excellent roleplaying experience like none we have ever experienced before. We will choose our path by the choices we make. The perks we earn, the weapons we use, the magika we use, the armor we wear, the jobs we take will all have a much larger impact on our game now without choosing a class from the starting point. If I want to be a healer, I shall play my game and make the choices of a healer. Maybe I will end the game being called a healer if I make all the right choices. Maybe my constellation will reflect such. I'm not sure but I do like having my actions and choices actually matter in a more definitive way.

...but then again, I tend to enjoy change ups in life and games and art and activity just to keep me on my toes. I may end up hating it but again, my cup is always half full as I said before. :dance:

I based a game being combat oriented on how much combat takes up as a % of playtime. A fighting game, would be 100%, its all combat. Daggerfall you spent more than in combat than recent games. SR on the other hand has more to do outside of combat than past games, jobs and it will have less combat while exploring the world as there are now many passive creatures unlike MW which had very few passives or OB which had slightly more(mostly deer). If you don't define how much time is spent in combat as weather a game is combat oriented or not, what is your criteria for SR being more combat oriented than past games? (to be clear I don't think it will be less combat oriented, but about the same as recent titles).

Removal of Classes, Birthsigns, and most of the Attributes results in every single Female Bosmer stating out the game EXACTLY the same. How is that more control? If I am role playing a mage, my character has NOTHING that makes her a mage anymore than a warrior . . . I begin the game as a Mage/Warrior/Thief, no matter what role I am playing.

I was VERY optimistic about Oblivion when it was being developed, and I ended up being VERY disappointed in what was actually released. I've removed the rose-colored glasses this time.

I'm thrilled and extremely optimistic. I'm going to be a release day tester and by that I mean that I'm going to get the game and play it like crazy and along with everyone else, push this new engine to its limits. We're going to find problems. Bethesda will patch them, quickly I hope. We'll find more and they'll patch again. I feel like it won't be really bad though...praying to the game gods that I don't have to eat these words. It's a huge world so as long as there aren't a bunch of game-breakers in there, I'm going to be happy and probably play for years.

I just decided to not set myself up for disappointment by thinking it'll be perfect. I really like the demo and can't wait to fight the dragons and explore that world.

:tes:

The second one. No doubt in my mind that Skyrim will be a fantastic game. That said there's plenty of stuff Bethesda could have changed and solved, and they went and did the opposite.

Every TES game has been an utterly fantastic game, with a few major flaws or appointments. I imagine Skyrim will be the same thing.



I find Pessimism breeds irrational disdain. If you obsess over the small things that are wrong with the game, then you'll miss all the stuff they did right. I find I enjoy oblivion a lot less when I obsess over level scaling and whatnot. But if I just play the game then I get really svcked in because despite the flaws its a really good game.

I'm optimistic for Skyrim. I know that it will be a fun game with a big, open-world featuring many interesting things to do. The combat looks great. The environments look great. I like the way character building is handled this time around too. I like having the freedom to use whatever skills I want to use without being hemmed in by a class the game forced me to pick in the opening minutes of the game. I don't need the game to tell me I'm a Thief or a Bard or Battlemage in order to play as one. I'll just choose to utilize the same skills that I think a Bard or a Thief or a Battlemage would use. I think it embodies the Elder Scrolls "go anywhere, do anything / live another life in another world" philosophy of player freedom very well.

Over all I pleased with what I have been seeing and I don't have any reason to suspect that we won't be getting a great game.

Except for how they look, differences in gender (not in the case you sighted but when it applies, and for race. Sort of like life where we all start out with an even start and build on our own personal attributes as we age and as we gain experience. Some things of course will be better suited for a woman or a man or to one of the many races. A Nord will still start out stronger so he/she should be good with heavy armor. But as for classes, you get to choose and then play the part that you choose. If you decide you want to be good with a bow at the beginning of the game, use a bow. Why is choosing it as a bullet item better than choosing it as an actual major skill by using it?

I don't know for sure but in my head it sounds like a pretty awesome change that I am more than willing to play through once to see how it works before I decide I won't like it. I'll just have to see how it plays out. It's certainly something I would like to know much more about.

Psychic compass is a shout now. At least you are as tempted to glance at it now. Probably don't even have to unlock it if we feel too tempted by it.

First one fo shiz!

Beth knows what they're doing.

Most of the complaints I've seen on these forums seem quite minor and trivial.

Well, your wrong here. If you start as a Breton, you will be much more talented with magic than all the other races from the get go, If your a Nord, you'll have more health/endurance, if a Bosmer, more fatigue. So, as you play you can alter your character in whatever way you want, but they don't all start the same. Besides, did you really start Morrowind or Oblivion as an all out powerful mage/warrior? Sure, you can pick your class and call yourself that at the start, but you don't really become your chosen class until much later. No, you always start as a lowly prisoner with a clean slate, and you work your way up. Skyrim will be no different.

I think you are half right.

Initially, I think we will have less control. Again, it's not so much about choosing a class as it is about defining your character's back-story (what was his/her profession, experiences, education, etc. before the point where you enter the story). With all skills and 'attributes' being equal in the beginning, it seems like a poor way to show that they had a life prior to the point where the story begins because they are essentially starting off as a blank slate. Later on in the game, however, I think the new system has the potential to do more to define who your character 'is'. If you play as a healer by using skills and choosing perks that reflect that particular profession, then towards the end of the game you will 'be' a healer, rather than end up as a Jack of all Trades (if that makes sense).

Though I do see that some are concerned about your character starting off as "generic". Some are concerned over not haveing a class title as some way to assure them of "who they are". Rather, the new approach is to allow you to "forge your own destiny". As for the attributes and birthsigns, we'll just see how that plays out.

In OB, several classes of a certain type (stealth,magic,combat) started off different, but ended up quite similar. now each skill has a perk tree which may branch to 2 or more diffrent specializations. an example would be the destruction tree, you could follow up the fire or frost tree, and end up with a different strategy or play style.

Perhaps longtime fans of ES are worried by the loss of the visable stats that defined them (attributes, birthsigns, class names), but I would like to believe in the potential of the perk system. At first the changes may be subtle, but in time you will have difined your character into someone who is unique.

If you are roleplaying, you don't realy need a class to define you, it's your job to define yourself, the only limitations is your imagination :thumbsup:

Man I'm starting to think some people just like BSing when something good happens.

Can I please get links or something on what was officially tooken out or not put in or w/e. I'm getting confused with no skills but we have perks and then we have skills but someone states there are no skills lol.

Tl;dr STOP [censored]TING and may I please get a link to what's not in Skyrim?

It makes perfect sense and is mostly what I was trying to convey.

I always make decisions about my character prior to starting the game. I decide some basic rules for my character to follow. I build her/him in my head prior to creating him/her. I decide what weapon I want to use most and what one I would like to use as an alternate. I decide what race I will be then my weapon choices and armor type choices and if I will focus on being a thief or not. If I choose a thief I will more than likely want to be a Wood Elf for they are known to be good sneaks. Then along the way I will find birthstones and have a choice of three. If one will increase my sneak or bow (they are good marksman) or whatever the choices are, I need to really think about what choice I make. When I level up and get to choose a perk I need to carefully think through that choice and how it will effect my character build. To me it sounds much more challenging. We just won't know our complete birth sign until the end. At least that is how I pictured it in that 14 min. demo Todd did. I hope it's something like that because I find it exciting.

But in real life we don't all start out the same . . . every person has inherent strengths and weaknesses. And Skyrim leaves that out. In real life, not every person is naturally gifted in music, or in athletic abilities . . . we all have unique differences, even from a very early age. Plus, as I'm personally all too aware of, there are birth defects and injuries that can result in disabilities (which each come with their own strengths and weaknesses).

In the beginning of the game, your character is an advlt (like 20 years old or more) . . . so they would have 20 years worth of experience . . . presumingly 20 unique years of experience . . . so they should have some learned skills, along with innate abilities (they should be better than average at some things and worse than average at other things). Todd stated that an average game might last 200 real hours, during which you might level up 50 times (and gain 50 Perks). 200 real hours = 250 game days (based on a 30 Timescale) . . . which is less than 9 months. So my 20-year-old starting character would have no skills, no education, nothing they are good (or bad) at . . . yet during the 9 months of game time that I'm playing the game, they will suddenly be able to excel at any skill that they use. I'm having a LOT of trouble wrapping my brain around that kind of logic.


And if you run out of arrows and pick up a sword, you'll soon become just as good with a sword . . . even if I wanted my character to be naturally better with a bow. I cannot create a character with any inherent abilities (along with opposing inherent weaknesses). In real life, every person who picks up a basketball and practices shooting baskets does not become a basketball star.


We've already tried this out . . . it was part of Oblivion's Tutorial . . . and it didn't work very well (most players didn't keep the class that their game play resulted in).