People are discussing Skyrim a lot, and saying a lot nonsense in the process. Here are some arguments that are illogical or just invalid, but constantly repeated nonetheless.

First of all, here is a list of four different things:

• Number of options
  
• Complexity
  
• Realism
  
• Game quality

Just because one game scores higher in one category, it doesn't mean its better in another. Especially for complexity less can be more.
Examples:
Morrowind had 8 armor slots and about 10 different armor types, which leads to 100 million possible armor combinations. But anyway, you were either wearing a set or just the best pieces you could find. The complexity was not higher than in Oblivion, and will probably be the same for Skyrim.
Having additional skills for breathing, eating and moving your legs will increase the game's complexity and realism, but it would be nothing but annoying. It's TES, not QWOP. If you want more realism, go outside!
In the end, the only thing that matters is overall quality, which is impossible to measure, especially when you haven't even touched the game.

Don't say that it was good to remove a feature because no one used it, or it was pointless or did not integrate into the game. YOU did not use it, but others certainly did. By saying such things you are punching into their faces.
Especially, just because there are new types of spells, like traps or flame throwing, this is no reason or excuse to remove spell making. There might be other good reasons, but the new spell types are not contradictory to making your own combinations, neither is the ability to "dual-wield" spells.

On the other hand, stop whining about how your build is not possible anymore because some feature was removed. I have not seen a complete list of all features and perks yet, and so haven't you. Bethesda knows how people like to play their game and is not ignoring that. Haters to the left, please.

It is true that when you master one type of weapon, you are not automatically a master of every other weapon as well. But you are not a novice either. The basic concepts often are similar, and what you learned for one type can be applied for another. It is more like you have a basic skill of fighting experience and know some special tricks or perks for your favorite weapon. Someone really should invent a skill system that reflects that.

A list again, three different things:

• What you want from Skyrim
  
• What Bethesda wants to do with Skyrim
  
• Skyrim

Maybe you want a game that is ultra realistic, but others just want a game that is fun without having to do a degree first. And no matter what Todd Howard wants, they have to make a game that sells.
And seriously, the main reason I stick to TES are the mods and the incredible community. Wait a few months and you can have everything.

And finally, and this is the most important one, people who disagree with you are not attacking you. 50% of the message is transported with the tone, which is not available in a forum. So stop assuming the worst for every argument, calm down, drink some tea, and read it again in a lighter voice. And please refrain from intentionally insulting people who don't share your views.
Also look out for irony or sarcasm, again hard to detect without hearing the actual voice. We all are exited, the emotions are high, but we don't hate each other.

This list is definitively not complete, so please share your "favorite" argument and explain why it is faulty.

Go outside for more realism? OKAY!

(Goes outside into the woods, and gets mauled by a bear and a large wolf.)

weellll that did'nt work out so well.

There are such things in your post, but they aren't in your list....



No, it wouldn't, because these aren't learned activities in real life. Want a lecture on the autonomic vs. the somatic nervous system? No? Didn't think so.



You confuse real life with credibility.



And you, stop insulting people...



*groan*

Just because this nonsense gets repeated over and over doesn't make it true.



How about you heed that lesson yourself, first? Talking about "whining" and "haters" is not exactly calm and measured.

I see what you are trying to accomplish OP and I see nothing wrong with what you said.I'm sorry your post was already picked apart just for the sake of it.You are right about reading posts in a lighter tone.It would help lots if we all did that.

I can tell you from first hand experience that breathing is something that has to be actively learned when you want to engage in proper fighting.


Maybe credibility should have been an extra point on that list. The point I was making was that there is a tendency to complain about every change that seems to make the game less realistic (whether this is true or not), with no regards to how it affects the gameplay.


Hint: you forgot the "explain why" part (I'm not referring to the repetition, but to why this should be nonsense in the first place)

Thanks for your support. I actually have no problem with this apart-picking. If we have to talk about it, this is the best way to do it.

Wrong. Breathing itself does not have to be learned - you might not have noticed, but it happens while you sleep, too. Breathing in a certain way can be learned - but that's part of learning whatever you apply it to.



Maybe the point is rather that some people don't consider ease of gameplay the top priority?



Hint: If you don't bring any explanation other than "I claim this to be the case", you don't get more than "No it isn't". If you believe explanations are only for others, you're again not heeding your own advice.

A sword is a fencing weapon. A mace isn't. Feeling the force vector of the opponent's counter through the pressure on the blade, reacting to it, channeling it, exploiting it.... something you do with a sword but with few other weapons. Blade orientation is important for a sword and an axe, but not a mace. Maces and axes are extremely top-heavy, more so than any sword.

If all you have been using in your life is maces, you know little about point control, you know little about blade orientation, you know nothing about feeling and using the contact.

Will you be able to use a sword and make swings at the enemy? Yes, but most of what you will cause is the same that you'd cause with a mace: Blunt trauma - because you never learned how to use either the edge or the point effectively.

I think it's my time to shout "THIS" "SO TRUE" "WHY WON'T PEOPLE READ THIS"...

Which could make it a valid skill. As you said, everyone can breathe and everyone can swing a mace, and it's the active training that makes the master.


People who do that should probably play Tetris 1d. The soundness of gameplay is a different thing. It should not be unnecessarily repetitive, or annoying because it is based on chance.


I was explaining the skill design. I did not elaborate further as this was not the main point of my post and I didn't want to make it longer than necessary.


And yet there are some things that you can reuse, like finding the right distance to strike, or the overall training of your muscles.
They are very different weapons though, that's why there are perks.

I also don't like the fact that they weren't able to reflect the complexity of the martial world with 18 skills. This weapon unification is most likely a result of balancing with the other player types, as a warrior would have had 20 skills otherwise. Yes, it does feel strange. But it's not entirely made of thin air either.

No, because it would be part of another skill.



So you'd be fine if thunderstorms in Skyrim rained tomato juice and dragons breathed lemonade, because gameplay is more important than if it makes sense?



...which you don't necessarily have at all

But I take from your comment that you consider the main goals of combat hitting the other guy as opposed to a)damaging him and b)doing so while not getting hit yourself?



So what you say is if you rob the magic-users of several skills, you have to rob the fighters as well for balancing? But in the end, wouldn't it be much easier to have four skills then? Melee, ranged, magic, stealth. Et voilà...

You're using circular logic here...although it's more of a spiral, and at it's end is something like a fantasy Bioshock.

It could be part of another skill, and it is. But it could as well be not.

If this would lead to a better gaming experience, they should at least try it out. However, I don't think it would. What was your point?
To clarify: I am not saying gameplay is the only the thing that matters, but the thing that matters most. Of course you are free to have other priorities, but I guess Bethesda believes that for most players gameplay is most important, thus making these decisions.

Please tell me where you found that.


If you want to keep the symmetry, then you would have no other choice.

No, this isn't dividable by three . But frankly, if there is a really good perk system, it don't see a problem with that.

I think it all is a matter of abstraction. Until now we had attributes for the general stats and skills for the concrete behavior. Now we have general attributes, a bit more specialized skills and perks for the details.

I don't say perks are the solution to everything. Maybe they will svck like hell, I don't know, I haven't played it yet. But I don't see people complaining about that. All I see is people complaining about missing things that have been removed from the skills, without regarding the fact that they may have been moved towards the perks and thus are not missing at all. For instance the specialization on certain weapons.

Yep! That's just how things are. People talk nonsense all the time, we've all done it at some point. The World is just filled with a lot of misinformation.

I'm excited for Skyrim, but I'm not expecting it to be revolutionary and I'm not freaking out over the things that worry me.

It's natural habit for us to assume the worst and complain even over little things. I realized it's best not to as there are ways to express concern or disappointment without being negative or complaining, but it's something we just have to learn.

As it would be skill-specific, there would be no reason to have it separate.



And I say it's silly to assume that gameplay matters most in an RPG. If you want to give the feeling of describing a different world, you have to ensure credibility of that world first and foremost - this isn't Tetris, it isn't Super Mario, it's supposedly an open-world RPG. So first and foremost, it has to FEEL like a world. It's a hallmark of the fantastic narrative that unless you are going for pure comedy/slapstick, you have to get people to BELIEVE what you are showing/telling them. It has to fit together, and even where it doesn't describe OUR reality, it has to convey that it describes A reality..



Finding the right distance to strike doesn't help you a bit if the angle of your weapon is off - you'll hit with a non-damaging part or in a non-damaging way. Without understanding how to use a certain type of weapon, just having the right distance will merely get you killed - the opponent will not get significantly hurt, retaliates, and that's that.
Plus understanding how the weapon works is fundamental to finding the right distance - hit too far out with a sword-swing and you do not have enough leverage to do significant damage. Hit too far in, and that part of the blade does not have enough energy.



Yes, you do - don't take the other stuff out, either.



I do. Perks are nice for a humorous game that doesn't have the least claim to being a realistic, as in credible, world, such as Fallout. Skill trees work for a game system that has been designed from the ground up to work with them, though even then they have credibilty issues, unless the situation is like in The Witcher, where the character in effect recovers knowledge he already had.... Memories lost to amnesia can come back in bursts... But combining perks with a finely grained skill system is trying to apply screws with a maul. It's neither sensible nor truly solid craftsmanship.



No, we don't. At least not for most of the game, as you only start gathering perks slowly over the course of the game.



Of course they are. What YOU miss is that perks is something you gather, not something you have, and that there are perks outside combat as well. The swashbuckler who desides for all his charms and acrobatics, he only has time to learn one weapon, but learns that thoroughly, is highly specialized. But his perks might be in charming, in acrobatics etc. And even IF he picks a combat perk, he will still be highly effective in a wide array of weapons.

What perks allow is NOT specialization. It's an add-on.