I want to type something in caps soooo bad. but won't. your are missing the point completly, you guys keep ignoring when I say the following: its not about whether its more complecated or simpler, the fact is that its still attributes governing skills (the difference is what those attributes are, so techinically attributes aren't gone, there is just three of them now) and devs have done nothing more than reinvent the wheel. when they could have spent less time improving some of the problems with the old system and still have enough time to have perks. we could have both attributes and perks and every one is making it out to be either or and thats what I object to.



my whole point with the weapon thing is that we could have only one weapon, it could be the best in game item ever made, and it still would not be as good as if we had a variety of items to choose from. I guess it may just be a philosophical disagreement on whethor or not Variety is a quality or not. that is a situation in which less is not more, and I believe that it directly applies to the current discussion about attributes.

Sorry but I have to point this out:



That was the OP from your other thread.



That was a random post of yours from that thread. If I looked more I'd probably find more. We're not putting any words in your mouth that you haven't said yourself (well, at least I'm not anyway).

This.

well I am not going to argue that you won't have fun. but my stance is that the game should be fun for every one, I believe cutting attributes splits the community in two and some people will feel left out, that happens sometimes but in this case it was not necessary. its not a deal breaker to me as much as I simply won't buy the game until there is a fix for it.

All I know, Im going to mod the ***** out of Skyrim get some spell creation in, bring stat edits to the forefront since im not privy to the fallout3ish aspect of certain attributes being hidden behind a curtain and made static but now its even more profound (I.E Jump height, running speed)

Well there you go, at that point I don't have any argument, I just have to disagree. I see Daggerfall as being packed full of unnecessary things that detract from the overall gameplay experience.


But again, that misses the point. I don't mean that the less there is--so long as its of the highest quality--the better it'll be. I simply mean that certain things could stand to be removed or folded into other existing aspects to improve the overall product. Removing all weapons except one does not do that. It is detrimental to the overall product. Just because attributes have been removed doesn't mean it has to be detrimental, with the addition of perks and tweaking of other gameplay elements, it could easily be vastly superior.

There is a way to spin it.

I think you're missing the point of this thread. By changing things the way they have they don't need any attributes.

the words you bolded were I have said nothing about dumbing down in THIS thread, refering to the thread we are currently on rather than the other one. I have said it was dumbing the game down before but Velorian was not addressing that post.

plus I was pretty riled up then, my second post on that thread was that I was going to log off and take a break, I did, and I have been more compossed.

Everyone is saying that all derived stats from attributes are being addressed here. I still see quite a few missing. Back in Morrowind and Oblivion, the stats also gave more things than fatigue, health, and magicka. They also gave extra damage, speed, your max encumbrance, resistance to magic for Willpower in Morrowind, and how much people like you(Although I'm of the opinion that Personality was useless anyway). So I would personally like to see 5 things to upgrade:
-Health
-Fatigue
-Magicka
-Speed
-Damage

This would be much better in my opinion. Encumbrance isn't here, which I see as I big problem, but I would like it to be worked into Fatigue to make it more useful. Damage isn't really a neccesary one, but I thought it should be included. Also, my main problem with the original solution of just health, fatigue and magicka was that a thief that never touches magic would put points into fatigue and health, probably more into health. Then, a warrior that never uses magic would also just get health and fatigue, but since he/she is in a long hard fight, he/she would get more fatigue than a thief. So I would end up with a thief that has more health than a warrior. Thats definitely not how I want to play the game. My thief should be quicker and do more damage than the warrior, but I am of the opinion that perks alone can't do that.

And thats the Devil.

responds to both: the point, once again, is not that the change is detrimental, that it is unnecessary. I am not opposed to this because I think Perks are bad, I am opposed because we could have the same quality, perks and more content with the time saved by not doing what they have done. Its done now so this is all hindsight, but my belief is that variety in content is a quality. so at this point I guess we are at an impasse.

If streamlining and reworking attributes to do the same thing but in a different and more efficient way is unnecessary, or 'reinventing the wheel,' then program maintenance guys who spend weeks or months trying to turn 1000+ lines of code into a consolidated 100-500 lines are just as equally reinventing the wheel. (And fyi, the latter is most certainly not reinventing the wheel, it's doing much-needed optimization and maintenance). This system is giving attributes the user-workover they deserve. It's a more elegant solution that provides the same (or acceptably similar) root functionality.

And frankly, saying we could have had a fixed old-system w/ perks over a new system w/ perks implies that the new system will have all or most of the flaws of the old. And again, that's something that we just don't know as of this point.

Aside from the attribute argument.

You got someth'in to say against my Fallout?

Grabs scrap sword. Do' ya Punk?

It does have everything to do with this thread. Because in the other you were arguing that it was a bad thing the changes dumbed down TES and made things too simple, but in this thread you're using the arguement that the new system is more complicated than the old system so we should revert back to attributes. So how can it be a bad thing in the other thread that it's dumbed down, and you'd rather the attributes, yet in this thread it's too complicated and doesn't solve any problems so we should use attributes??

Bethesda, I like the perk idea and the attributes. It's not a deal breaker, but it is dissapointing. Why not both? Can't .. Can't we all just get along..

Well its done now so you might as well get use to it because It would be sure folly to scrap the system now. And this new invented system may infact be superior to the old. I haven't seen any arguement on how the new system is inferior. There is no point going on about its a waste because we don't actually know it is a waste until we actually see how the system works. You may BELIEVE that it would have been wiser not to scrap teh system for this new one but we will never know what they could have come up with if they kept the old sytem and just tried to improve it. What we can do is compare how this system stacks up against pervious titles. So far there appears to be far more customization wit hthe introduction of perks.



yet you are not getting less. Someone may say less in more but really that isn't the case with this topic. We are getting more. You have 18 skills (3 less than before) you have 3 attributes (5 less than before) yet 280+ perks . its not like they didn't replace what they took out this isn't just a straight they removed x its a case of they removed x but ADDED y. You seem to completely ignore what has been added.

But you don't know it would have taken the same amount of time to add all these new perks to the old system, whilst simultaneously fixing it and ensuring everything is balanced. You just presumed it would be quicker.

You don't know that though. Maybe once you play it and see all that they've done, then consider it all with attributes, you'd feel like attributes are redundant or are superseded by something else, and that is how I feel about it. If they removed attributes, there has to have been a good reason for it. They wouldn't just remove attributes for no reason.

The Undeniable Truth.

I'm not panicking about the removal of attributes. I do see the point. However, I think it's a mistake. In TES, I suppose attributes are not really all that important, but they are a defining characteristic of role-playing games. Some of the 'magic' is lost without attributes. I'll bet money right now that attributes will return if there is a TES VI.

In the meantime, if attributes do not differentiate the races,what does? That's the key question. For example, stamina and health for Nords and Redguards must be initially higher than for Bosmer and Altmer. For another example, starting magicka must be higher for Altmer and Bretons than for Orcs and Imperials.

But, where will the Bosmer advantage lie? How does racial aptitude for agility manifest in the starting 3 stats of Health, Stamina, and Magicka?

Okay folks, this thread's a mess. Let's consolidate some points. It all boils down to this:

Attributes: Characteristics determined at the outset that describe your character's capabilities in a rough sense.
Perks: Characteristics determined as you level that describe your character's capabilities in a more specific sense.

It's top-down character statistics rather than bottom-up. As the saying goes, it doesn't matter what color the cat is as long as it's catching mice. They wanted to change the way the leveling worked because in Morrowind and Oblivion it really didn't. It was especially pronounced in Oblivion with the global level scaling, such that picking skills you'd never use so you don't level up could lead to a far more effective character. I was one of many who had lots of false starts on characters in Morrowind and Oblivion (but especially Morrowind), so a system like this cuts down on that while allowing for better balance and greater character variety. The attributes are essentially still there, it's simply that now they are the derived stats rather than the other way around.

That's the heart of the logical argument, and it comes down to personal preference. It sounds to me, though, that the new system makes for a better game. If it's more fun then screw the old system. Although it's clear from looking at this thread that many people dislike it simply because it's different and they're not willing to weigh the pros and cons of each, they just want their old toys back.

In the skills. Bretons better at magic based skills, Orcs at swinging heavy stuff

And possibly in what perks you get to choose at the starting levels.

they gave a justyfication, but I would hardly call it a reason. todd said basicly that they felt attributes to be a middle man and they wanted people to start playing sooner so this was the solution. I agree I don't know it will be horrible but there are already huge flaws such as dealing with encumberance. people suggest having perks that increase encumberance would fix it but that causes new problems like ending up with thieve character designs ending up being tanks.

I cant trust the devs decisions when what they've basicly done is toss every thing in the air and we'll have to see where they land. I would be more optimistic if there would be a demo at some point so that I can see that it won't be as redundant as I think. but until it proves itself to not be what I fear I have no choice but to assume that it is, because on one hand I waste 50 bucks on the other I could be super elated to find I am wrong.

I'm betting passive perk-effects that are automatically selected via race-choice.



The 'huge flaws' are only flaws to us due to perspective, because we're not the ones actively affecting the entire dynamic of how the new systems will work. In other words, if we assume that Bethesda hasn't asked themselves how encumbrance or magicka regen (or anything else that attributes normally handle) will be reworked and reintroduced into the game in a balanced manner over 5 years' time, then we're doing them an extremely grave disservice.


:shrug: Then don't trust them. I wouldn't suggest taking everything Bethesda says without qualification, but neither would I recommend actively distrusting them.

And regarding wasting 50 bucks... As an example, I've spent probably 3 to 4 years enunciating my complaints with vanilla Oblivion on this board; it's been a bit of a hobby at times. But even after all the criticism I've given it, it was still immensely worth the $60 I paid for it.

The list of things that would have to be altered for me to consider $50 or $60 for Skyrim to be a waste would have to be a long and thick list indeed, going far beyond any negative connotation this forum has ever made on any of the press coverage Skyrim has ever had.