... go back to your thread.

It was their design choice that they wanted people to start out as blank slates rather than slight molds. I respect it and I understand it.

Many people will like this method, I know I do. Its fresh and won't effect most of the game, only the first few levels.

looks like some people need a dictionary.


Attributes: an inherent characteristic

Perks: a privilege or gain


FO3 and NV did not shaft everyone by basing the entire character around perks, you worked for the perks and you got the reward for them, perks inherently have no stark downside, Attributes hold both strenghts and weaknesses, why people believe this is -better- than having a Symbiosis of Attributes/Perks/Skills is beyond me

Yes and I'm sure that gameplay mechanics will work exactly as the dictionary explains them.

Or maybe they'll work in whatever way Bethesda intends them to, which appears to be a very similar fashion.

you make two different characters: Ug the Smasher - http://image.jeuxvideo.com/images/x3/t/h/the-elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-xbox-360-1303134797-032.jpg and Mitzy the barmaid - http://elderscrolls.com/skyrim/media/screenshots/tavern/

The idea is to make a character, someone partly/semi defined that you take on the adventures to come - hence the Role-playing-game genre.
Without anyway to differentiate the two characters physically or mentally beyond something so abstract as health and stamina - I am not playing a character - I'm playing a cardboard archetype I can play in any First person shooter.Giving them a perk of +5 damage for x,y,z skills or whatever does not a character make as what you're essentially saying is Ug and Mitzy are equally strong, fast, smart, wise, able to endure physical and mental hardships, etc. With only health, stamina, and perks to differentiate characters - the characters aren't going to feel very different at all. Look different, but nothing more substantial than that.

Correct me - please. you define them using health plus stamina plus perk.

They're probably going to have very different skills and starting perks. That's my guess. I doubt Bethesda is going to drop every character into the world 100% the same. But, for about the 5th time, we don't know yet because they haven't given us any info on this regard.

Or they will work as well as that idea from Oblivion of level-scaling everyone and everything. That went over real well. Does anyone play un-modded Oblivion to adjust the scale issue on the PC? I'm sure there are at least a few out there.

"They're probably going to have very different skills and starting perks. That's my guess. I doubt Bethesda is going to drop every character into the world 100% the same. But, for about the 5th time, we don't know yet because they haven't given us any info on this regard. "

Which is my point. Two people so vastly different should have.. wait for it.. differences! If they both were equally skilled with say.. bows as they are both the same profession (hunter). Skills are things people know learn. They have no effect upon the basic person - i.e. lose all your memories - you still have base qualities to expand upon. Are you are right, we don't fully know. But then again, all those saying "it will be some much better and so much more complex" I am respectfully agreeing on the complex part for the reasons so stated and have no idea of the "better" part as that is extremely subjective based upon pleasure/happiness. Everyone who posted in this thread not only has differences in learned skills, but they all have base measurable characteristics that exist as part of the human experience and not a learned trait. I.e. Quantifiable aspects of their base physical and mental capabilities.

Please go over my last 2 or 3 posts and answer them. I've been trying to move our little debate but I think you're missing my posts.

...Or ignoring them :cryvaultboy:

didn't todd say that we will still essentially get the effects of attributes but from perks and the 3 stat selection?


so basically the same thing but we end up with cool stuff like axe bleed and sniper zoom slow down?



Why the QQ?

I understand that you would prefer to define your character more before you begin playing- and I respect that, though it is not my preference. However, it is unfair and inaccurate to insist that all RPGs have attributes, or that characters without them are cardboard cutouts from an FPS. Please read my post above. I really don't think the absence of attributes implies that all characters are the same- merely that the game does not express these differences through attributes.

You seem to be saying that health (your character's ability to endure physical hardships), magicka (the ability of your character to cast spells), and fatigue (how much your character can exert himself) are not important characteristics, and it's self-evident that you're dead wrong. These and your skills always, ALWAYS had more of a direct impact on gameplay than the attributes ever did. You know what the difference between those characters is? Their race. With that comes starting skills (orcs would be better at Two-Handed Weapons than Speech) and various other important attributes. The magicka resistance of an orc has always one of the big reasons to pick one.

And again, your argument is predicated upon the fact that the removal of attributes is somehow a huge, huge step down in starting character variety, and I've already shown that it's not. Ignoring birthsign bonuses, a male orc barbarian has these starting attributes:

50 Strength
50 Willpower
50 Endurance
30 Intelligence
35 Speed
30 Personality
35 Agility
40 Luck

A level one male orc monk has the following attributes:

45 Strength
55 Willpower
50 Endurance
30 Intelligence
30 Speed
30 Personality
40 Agility
40 Luck

Not exactly a world of difference. If we were talking about major skills then your argument might hold water, but not for attributes. The races themselves are supposed to be quite different, with different starting skills and stats. I imagine Altmer would start with more magicka, Nords with more health and encumbrance, Redguards with greater movement speed and fatigue, etc. but none of that has been revealed yet.

I hit the nail on the head earlier in this thread, I think. It's not about attributes. It's about you wanting to start out different rather than develop into something different, no matter how much more the difference will be pronounced in this system than the previous one.

Ug the Smasher is most likely a fairly well levelled adventurer who is probably going to specialize in melee combat and heavy armour. Mitzy the barmaid is probably level 0 or 1 with no abilities whatsoever, she probably just stays in the tavern all game and never does any fighting. They are completely different characters. Whatever point you're trying to make is utterly and completely lost on me.

And how on earth is "giving them a perk of +5 damage" mean they Ug and Mitzy and equally strong? If Ug has the +5 damage perk he's obviously stronger. He does at least +5 damage more than Mitzy for crying out loud.

What you're basically saying is that two characters with different perks are still the same because perks just don't seem to count for some reason.

While I'll always love to play whatever Bethesda puts out, it does feel that streamlining and removing these attributes takes away the core mechanics behind RPG's and the TES series that I've grown to love. Stats, to me, was the information that required a bit of thought into developing my character and play style. I'd have to think for a moment where my investments were going. When you're building a model or even a house, you consider all your options and how those choices will lead to your final product.
With some of these mechanics removed and other features, like perks, being added, the game seems to be moving from a 'information to get results' to a 'interacting to get results' type of system (not necessarily bad, of course). I'd hate to reference another game, Skyrim somewhat does similar to a "Dark Messiah of Might and Magic" fantasy action game.

Nonetheless, I welcome the changes and Bethesda's work and can't wait for Skyrim.

And Quit Drooling at the mouth and think. :thumbsup:

I don't think we've quite gotten to the bottom of this yet, and I should like to think about this more, but here are a few comments on the discussion up to this point.

1. One argument against using perks/skills to replace attributes has something to do with attributes being "inherent" characteristics, whereas perks/skills are "learned". I think there is a respectable argument in the vicinity here, but this is not the right way to put it. The problem is that the innate/learned distinction is a conceptual mess - there's no biologically interesting and useful way of dividing up traits into those which are innate, and those which are learned. A better way to think of this argument is that attributes are more general traits which are put to use in a wide variety of behaviours (skills/perks). Notice that this cuts across the innate/learned distinction. Let me give an example to make this more concrete. One might think that the amount of damage you do with a melee weapon is a more general trait, and it is put to use in a variety of different behaviours (one-handed weapons or two-handed weapons). This is the motivation for having a Strength attribute in addition to weapon skills/perks. It seems a little odd that a character with a high skill and lots of perks in one-handed weapons would deal little damage when using a two-handed weapon. Of course, there are ways to do this without introducing a Strength attribute, and, of course, there are other debates to be had about what is the best way. But the point here is just to clarify this motivation for having attributes in addition to skills/perks.

2. Another point where people don't seem to be on the same wavelength is just a general stance regarding what attributes are supposed to do in the game. One argument in favour of removing attributes is that everything attributes did in previous games can be done with skills/perks and the 3 main attributes in Skyrim (health, magicka, stamina). This is a very functional stance to attributes: what really matters is what role they play in calculating various statistics. A different stance asks us to consider what those attributes represent. Even if encumbrance, or magicka resistance, or NPC disposition could be calculated without attributes, what attributes provide is a way for you, the player role-playing your character, to "read-off" the traits of your character. Attributes tell you how charismatic your character is - independently of how he interacts with the NPCs in the game (there are surely more people in the fictional world of Skyrim than are represented in the game); they tell you how intelligent your character is, independently of how good he is at casting spells; and so on.

Now, I'm not sure how one might do better to compare these two stances, and assess their merits. There's probably a combination of factual and evaluative disagreements here - to some extent, it's just differences in what one likes in an RPG, but it's probably also in part a dispute about the imaginative options available for role-playing a character, when there isn't a direct correspondence between a number in the game and some fictionalised character trait.

Anyway, I hope that helps clarify some of the points being made.

I didn't read the whole topic, but it doesn't seem anyone has contributed anything new.

No matter how much faith you put into your holy perks, they don't replace attributes. They are two different things.

Attributes are initial, general stats that define your character. They increase your abilites gradually. They influence several skills. Fortify attribute skills are one of the best possible enchantments. They contribute a lot to modding. They make balancing items and other bonuses easier. They can influence your rank within a faction.

Perks deepen your characters specialization in a specific skill. They increase your abilities in intervalls. They are influenced by one skill. They cannot be used as enchantments. They have to be balanced individually, which makes implementation of new items and perks more difficult.

And if you think health, magicka and stamina can make up for this differences, you just admit that attributes have been dumbed down to the incredible amount of 3.

Well-stated, but I disagree. The thing is, the amount of damage you did with a sword in Oblivion depended less on your Strength than on the weapon's base damage/current health and your character's skill. The way the attributes were utilized in past games does not jibe with the examples people are giving. They were important, sure, but less so than the stats derived from them. It never mattered how smart your character was because Intelligence only determined maximum Magicka, and had a slight influence on the potency of your alchemy. It in no way affected your interaction with other characters as far as speech or trade was concerned, and didn't give you extra options that stupid characters didn't have (e.g. automatically solving a riddle).

Attributes define your character. So can perks.
Attributes increase gradually. So can perks (like in fallout 3, you can level up some specific perks multiple times)

Attributes didn't affect your rank within a faction in Oblivion. Just because there won't be fortify attribute spells anymore doesn't mean there won't be other roughly equivalent spells in the game (like fortify skill). Perks can contribute just as much to modding (if not more) than attributes. Just because perks are more difficult to balance doesn't mean Bethesda shouldn't try. Attributes cannot be used as enchantments, thats what the spells are for, so saying perks cant be used as enchantments is misleading.

Nobody is arguing to have the exact same system as Oblivion or Morrowind. The point is that attributes had functions in these games that cannot be replaced by perks or H/M/S.
Also, in Morrowind, intelligence would give you options stupid characters didn't have because a certain amount was required to advance in some factions (Telvanni, Blades, Mages Guild, Temple, Aundae Vampire Clan).



Adding levels to perks does not make them gradual. They are still limited.
Yes, attributes didn't affect rank in Oblivion, but in Morrowind. I wanted that back.
Fortify Skill was never that useful because skill effects were capped at 100. That could change, but we have no way of knowing that.
We also don't know anything about modding perks. For all we know it could be very difficult depending on the implementation in the UI.
You enchant items by applying a skill you already learned, like Fortify Attribute. With the reintroduction of the Enchant skill, we have no reason to assume this has changed. There is no known skill like Fortify Perk, which also wouldn't make much sense because you can't increase them gradually.

I still think you are putting too much faith into perks, which we know nearly nothing about.

Attributes are limited at 255 I thought? I could be wrong. If they are actually unlimited then thats a design choice I disagree with but to each their own
Attributes affecting rank is a personal preference thing, but there's no reason perks couldn't affect faction rating in a similar way (ie: you must have 10 stealth perks to advance to the next level in the Dark Brotherhood)
I'm fine with the idea of skills being capped at 100, I've posted in other threads about how I disliked the ability in Morrowind and Oblivion to create god-like characters but once again that's just my preference
I dont really have anything to say to your last two points because we just haven't been given enough (any) information about these things yet

Anyways my faith isn't in perks, it's in BGS

Pete Hines - "Effect of Attributes have been folded into skill perks and Magicka, Health, Stamina."



Sup.

Attributes weren't limited at 255 in Morrowind, but I'm not too sure about Oblivion. In either case, 255 is still way more than maybe 5 levels of a perk.
Perks affecting factions I wouldn't be too fond of, because perks are very, very specific bonuses whereas attributes still gave you other benefits. So if we make Awesome Sneakyness 10 a requirement for the Dark Brotherhood, everyone that wanted to play an Assassin would have to get that perk, severly limiting other choices.
I dislike godlike characters just as much. But I also don't like that when I maxed a skill, my Fortify Skill enchantments become useless. Also, a real added skill bonus could help to distinguish races further.

I guess I'm jut not a faith-guy.



And I tried to explain why that won't work, because perks and attributes are fundamentally different. Sup.

It seems that perks can account for all variety of attribute and missing skill effects, but the continuum won't be as great. There must be perks to change how quickly magicka recharges and for how high you can jump. How many perks can there be for magicka regeneration? How many vertical increases can they have for jumping? Three? Five? Using the attribute or skill system, there were hundreds of levels (with tiny differences between levels, whereas the perks will likely have much greater difference). That's my only little snag with the perks. It's a tiny complaint and I'm not sure the old way is better or not. It might be worse.

While perks might only be able to account for a few or a handful of points on the attributes and skills' continuums, it can do a ton of things that numbers can't do. That's why I think we are probably better off.

The only complaint I can see that makes any sense is that starting characters won't differ much statistically.

Really, bite the bullet and get over it if it's true. If anything, it's all the more impressive how unique each level 50 character will be after starting so similarly to each other.

More to the point, the concern is that reducing the number of attributes will inherently reduce the amount of perceived customization of the character. Even if you totally hid all skills, attributes and perks and only showed the end result performance on a character there is a specific group of people, old-school gamers mostly I'd suspect, who have a preference for attributes and the minutia inherent in that sort of control over my character and their development. Anything that reduces my minute control over the creation, development and advancement of my character, even if the end performance results are identical, reduces my fundamental enjoyment of the game.

Not that I think Skyrim won't be freaking phenomenal. Saying 'you won't notice the difference' or 'it produces mostly the same results' or 'it's simpler so it's better' might be true for you, it's not for me. I enjoy that aspect of the game. Fortunately I have absolute faith that before the game is out 60 days there will be mods that will add the depth of control and influence I actually enjoy in the game back in. If this broadens its appeal to people who prefer a simpler, more basic interface so they don't have to involve themselves so much in the character creation and development and thus net more sales and more money for Bethesda so they can justify in this tight economy spending $20 million+ on developing TES VI over the next 2-3 years I can put up with it. I know someone is going to make a mod that will make the game more enjoyable for my tastes and interests.

Just realize that, again, as I stated elsewhere, if you want a game that costs $20+ million to produce you need to accept that your niche-interests in gameplay (difficulty, more conventional RPG design, advlt themes, etc) are going to take a back-burner for additions that will appeal to the broad majority. Be very thankful that Bethesda games are so incredibly modder-friendly and that the modding community for them is so absolutely amazing. Don't demand that Bethesda spend production zots on your niche - demand that they spend them in the way that will make them the most money so that they can NOT do what, say, BioWare did with DA2 - tighten their belts for a sequel and produce a 'B' grade game to follow a 'AAA' original. That clearly hasn't happened with Skyrim. Unless they blow the next seven months in a haze of hokers and blow Bethesda is set to drop Skyrim on the 'Game of the Year' list like the fist of an angry god. If you're a smart consumer you want to make absolutely certain that it helps set them up for TES VI being even better.