Removing attributes is a mistake. : V - Skyrim

» Tue May 03, 2011 10:13 am

Okay, I will explain further, although this has been said a few dozen times too often:

You have a warrior with maxed 1-handed weapon skill and a pure mage that never touched a melee weapon.
Now both pick up a 2-handed weapon.
In reality, one would expect the warrior to be better with it from the start, but this is not the case without attributes. Both characters are equally good or bad with 2-handed weapons, although the warrior is a melee weapon master.

And this doesn't even take hand-to-hand combat into account, which might get its own skill again because acrobatics and athletics have been cut. A boxer that picked up a sword would be just as helpless as a wimpy Bosmer hunter.

Well, I know this isn't a very good rebuttal, but what are the odds that if your a warrior, your never going to pick up a two-handed weapon? Its pretty slim, sure its possible, but slim. A mage will probably never touch a two handed weapon, but a warrior is much more likely to.

I see your point, but I really don't think we can assume this is the case just yet.

» Tue May 03, 2011 6:43 am

Removing attributes is a mistake.

Yep

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:16 am

Okay, I will explain further, although this has been said a few dozen times too often:

You have a warrior with maxed 1-handed weapon skill and a pure mage that never touched a melee weapon.
Now both pick up a 2-handed weapon.
In reality, one would expect the warrior to be better with it from the start, but this is not the case without attributes. Both characters are equally good or bad with 2-handed weapons, although the warrior is a melee weapon master.

And this doesn't even take hand-to-hand combat into account, which might get its own skill again because acrobatics and athletics have been cut. A boxer that picked up a sword would be just as helpless as a wimpy Bosmer hunter.

I was just arguing semantics. I don't think "complex" is a word that describes the new system correctly.

How are you coming up with that?
If the warrior focuses on one-handed then in turn blade,he'll still be good at holding a two handed blade,because he has perks/skill in blade. He'll still be better focused in one-handed ,but will also have a slight bonus when holding a two-handed blade. If you look at the system properly it works really well and makes sense.

Also,if you pick one handed and pick blades thats you mastery focus,but because your good at one-handed overall,you'll get a little bonus to one handed axes and maces etc. But your better at blade type weapons,which you would naturally use against tough enemies. But say your blade breaks,because you have a good one-handed skill,you could pick up an axe and be ok at it,just not as good as with a blade,but not as bad as knowing how to hold and use a one handed axe

» Tue May 03, 2011 3:56 am

snip

» Tue May 03, 2011 7:46 am

Okay, I will explain further, although this has been said a few dozen times too often:

You have a warrior with maxed 1-handed weapon skill and a pure mage that never touched a melee weapon.
Now both pick up a 2-handed weapon.
In reality, one would expect the warrior to be better with it from the start, but this is not the case without attributes. Both characters are equally good or bad with 2-handed weapons, although the warrior is a melee weapon master.

And this doesn't even take hand-to-hand combat into account, which might get its own skill again because acrobatics and athletics have been cut. A boxer that picked up a sword would be just as helpless as a wimpy Bosmer hunter.

And I'm sorry, but even with attributes, it didn't make sense (at least with the names they had).Strenght =/= fighting ability, NOT AT ALL. I've seen "tanks" getting their ass handed to them by guys as strong as your grandmother.
I mean, YES, you'll strike harder, but for it to actually make sense dodging should be implemented better, and blocking should cut off more damage (maybe even totally remove it)
And honestly, what you said could be adressed by simply merging the 2 weapon skills (which I KNOW you don't want)

besides, who tells you there's no perks to make the warrior stronger? after all, theu said that skill will have a MUCH smaller impact this time, and that perks will definitely make your character.

And to end this argument, there is NOTHING in common between handling a longsword and a claymore. These might look like slight variations of each other, but if you use a claymore like a longsword, you're probably gonna break your wrists, fail to block in time, and attack just way too slow

Also, I'll say it once and for all, ATTRIBUTES ARE STILL IN, THEY'RE JUST MANAGED DIFFERENTLY

EDIT: ninja'd!

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:49 am

How are you coming up with that?
If the warrior focuses on one-handed then in turn blade,he'll still be good at holding a two handed blade,because he has perks/skill in blade. He'll still be better focused in one-handed ,but will also have a slight bonus when holding a two-handed blade. If you look at the system properly it works really well and makes sense.

I know I've been debating with him, but hes right. One handed and two handed are different skills, and with no attributes to govern them, we really don't know if/how you will be any better with two-handed weapons if your focus is one handed.

» Tue May 03, 2011 4:31 am

Okay, I will explain further, although this has been said a few dozen times too often:

You have a warrior with maxed 1-handed weapon skill and a pure mage that never touched a melee weapon.
Now both pick up a 2-handed weapon.
In reality, one would expect the warrior to be better with it from the start, but this is not the case without attributes. Both characters are equally good or bad with 2-handed weapons, although the warrior is a melee weapon master.

And this doesn't even take hand-to-hand combat into account, which might get its own skill again because acrobatics and athletics have been cut. A boxer that picked up a sword would be just as helpless as a wimpy Bosmer hunter.

I was just arguing semantics. I don't think "complex" is a word that describes the new system correctly.

if health determines how strong you are/what you can carry, magicka determines intelligence/wilpower and so on, then this wont be a problem. i dont know if it has been confirmed or not, but i think ive heard/read it somewhere. id love it if it was that way, cause i feel the same way as you do about this

» Tue May 03, 2011 12:34 am

Removing attributes seems like a mistake to me too, its one of the things that make rpgs, rpgs. It makes sense that a character that only use heavy armor and weapons is stronger then a mage. To put all this into perks.. i dunno, it doesnt seem like a good idea, i think it will feel quite simplified.
But gotta see it in action first i guess, it can work if they make enough perks, and make them good enough.

For example, a character that has focus on 1h or 2h weapon skills AND heavy armor skill should be able to pick a perk that allows him to carry more loot then others, since he will obviously be much stronger.

While a character that focus on light armor and marksman could be able to pick a perk that allows him to run faster. etc.. if they make it like that, then it can work out.

» Tue May 03, 2011 11:02 am

Basically the topic description says all.

I see the removal of the attributes as a simplification of the game. I think Bethesda is doing what every company is doing. Simplifying the games. (Supreme Commander, Splinter Cell, Patrician...)

The removal of this system to allow casual gamers to simply increase their health and stamina is a mistake.

Also, consider that Bethesda has said we have 280 perks... Well, it′s a good number, but how many perks to we need to substitute the attributes? If we want to do it well, we need at least 50...

Wow get over it, seriously. All the same skills, abilities, and options are still there. They've just been moved around. :stare:

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:20 am

Todd Howard stated in an interview that none of the things the attributes did were taken out, just moved elsewhere. So attributes are still essentially in the game, just not listed and directly altered at level up.

» Tue May 03, 2011 6:30 am

This is one of the best things I've heard so far. Combat and leveling are better off. Goodbye attributes. You won't be missed.

» Tue May 03, 2011 11:16 am

Todd Howard stated in an interview that none of the things the attributes did were taken out, just moved elsewhere. So attributes are still essentially in the game, just not listed and directly altered at level up.

This. Now can we all agree to stop whining over attributes? I honestly did not like them at all in Oblivion. They complicated things needlessly IMO.

» Tue May 03, 2011 3:23 am

Well, I know this isn't a very good rebuttal, but what are the odds that if your a warrior, your never going to pick up a two-handed weapon? Its pretty slim, sure its possible, but slim. A mage will probably never touch a two handed weapon, but a warrior is much more likely to.

I see your point, but I really don't think we can assume this is the case just yet.

Well, I think we can't not assume this is the case yet.

They could work around this by introducing skills that are not bound to skills or that are bound to several skills (like a +20% Melee Damage perk that can be accessed from 1-handed, 2-handed and hand-2-hand skills).
But that would be just speculation, because we only know that perks are bound to skills and integrated into a tree.

How are you coming up with that?
If the warrior focuses on one-handed then in turn blade,he'll still be good at holding a two handed blade,because he has perks/skill in blade. He'll still be better focused in one-handed ,but will also have a slight bonus when holding a two-handed blade. If you look at the system properly it works really well and makes sense.

Also,if you pick one handed and pick blades thats you mastery focus,but because your good at one-handed overall,you'll get a little bonus to one handed axes and maces etc.

You are assuming that "Blade" perks in the 1-handed skill tree also work with 2-handed weapons. They could do this, but we have no indication that this is the case. In fact, it would make one of the skills obsolete, because they'd have the same perk tree.
But this doesn't solve the problem that the warrior will be just as weak as the mage when he switches from a 1-handed sword to a 2-handed warhammer or to hand-2-hand combat.

» Tue May 03, 2011 5:14 am

The main problem that makes the removal of attributes unrealistic is, that a skilled warrior will not be better with an unskilled melee weapon than a mage. All characters are equally "strong".

The other big problem I have with this is the removal of Fortify Attribute skills and the lack of a replacement for enchanted items. Items that added attributes were always the best. These skills were also pretty useful for certain mages and alchemists; those builds are gone now.

I don't think perks can replace attributes. They are fundamentally different.

That doesn't mean the new system will be a total disaster, but it will be different.

Now this I agree with.

I don't think attributes should have been removed. When examining something like the attributes for redundancy, there are really three paths that a designer could take (after reaching the conclusion that they don't directly do much as currently implemented):

Remove the redundant attributes.
Keep the redundant attributes.
Implement the existing attributes in such a way that they aren't redundant.

If you ask me, Bethesda totally missed out on the third option: giving attributes more uses. Here's what I'd have done-

Streamline the attributes to: Strength | Speed | Toughness | Willpower ; Health ? Stamina ? Magicka
- Strength affects physical attacks and is used to calculate encumbrance, governs success/failure of strength feats; perk prereq
- Speed determines movement speed, jumping (capped at < ~20% increase over default); perk prereq
- Toughness determines starting Health & Stamina, and is used to calculate poison & disease resist, health regain mechanic; perk prereq
- Willpower determines starting Magicka and is used to calculate natural magicka resist, magicka regain mechanic; perk prereq
Attributes sub-categorise skill and perk groups
Attributes auto-increase as a result of (governed) skill increases
Attributes govern passive [divine, preter-/supernatural, plot] perk progressions (regen; disease & poison resistance; magicka resistance; natural armour; ...)

I like my system much better; but I think Skyrim will be fine without attributes, and most criticism of their removal seems to miss the point a bit.

» Mon May 02, 2011 9:32 pm

This. Now can we all agree to stop whining over attributes? I honestly did not like them at all in Oblivion. They complicated things needlessly IMO.

I completely agree.

» Tue May 03, 2011 2:42 am

Couldn't agree more.

Now every Nord will be a body builder, every Altmer will be a pencil with a big head, and every Khajiit will be a sleek runner. No more character variety, especially in NPCs. Lame.

» Tue May 03, 2011 1:27 am

I think overall too many of you are taking this "no attributes" thing to far to early. Listen to the G4 interview again,they've gone about a different way,and in another article it mentions we will still have encumberance,i really don't see the problem here. I think people are obsessed with numbers,it's the same with spell making ,that too was about the numbers,not actual effects of power etc.
In my opinion this stuff needed looking at.It won't be as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

They just don't change things for the sake of it or to piss people off,it to improve on things. It's just some people spit the dummy out rather than sit back and think about it.

» Mon May 02, 2011 11:31 pm

I think overall too many of you are taking this "no attributes" thing to far to early. Listen to the G4 interview again,they've gone about a different way,and in another article it mentions we will still have encumberance,i really don't see the problem here. I think people are obsessed with numbers,it's the same with spell making ,that too was about the numbers,not actual effects of power etc.
In my opinion this stuff needed looking at.It won't be as bad as some of you are making it out to be.

Some people won't accept change. They fear it.

» Tue May 03, 2011 10:58 am

I couldn't disagree more.

The pen and paper attributes don't exist for hte sake of rolling dice. Even in systems where they are not directly rolled upon, attributes generally exist, because they matter, they make the difference between to characters. Imagine Lord of the Rings, with all characters being equally strong, intelligent, fast, charismatic etc. How boring would that have been?

Attributes are what makes the difference between two characters. Skills are something completely different. Skills can be learned, forgotten, and easily change over time with interest. But changing your general fitness, intelligence or strength is a very hard task and not always possible (especially regarding mental attributes). That aside, there can be a strong and a weak swordfighter, a strong and a weak thief, a strong and a weak mage. There can be an intelligent or stupid swordfighter, an intelligent or stupid thief, an intelligent or stupid mage. There can be... You get the idea. Their skills might be equal, but the way they react in different situations or the way they are built does make the difference. You could have two fighters equally skilled, with one being stronger, but the other being faster, and have two completely different characters. Or more importantly: You can have two mages using exactly the same spells, but one being a charismatic person to talk to, and the other being always silent unless he's using a spell, but more intelligent.

Attributes are not an outdated concept, because they have direct representations in real life. An RPG without attributes could as well have no skill system at all. They're not needed for killing dragons, but they're sure highly important for role-playing different characters.

Look at a drama series on television, for instance. The "skills" of the persons involved rarely matter, compared to their character "attributes".

"Actually I disagree with you on this matter.

While it's true that people should start unevenly, the end result is that everyone ended the same way in Oblivion with your perspective. You could level up all skills and maximize all attributes and there you go, everyone's the same.

Plus, what you're suggesting is that all the races in Skyrim will be exactly the same while we all know that is not the case. Races will be different from one another. Do you actually think that the only difference between the races is their model?

Now, I'll touch a sensitive subject. Skyrim's perk system allows us to end differently. Unlike Oblivion, here we can't maximize everything and still remain the same as other characters. I'm sure we will also start differently depending on the race we choose, and now we can have the end result different as well.

Can't see a flaw here, really.

P.S: I agree with some of the people here about their perspective with the "Attributes are irrelevant with the 'dice' system taken out".

Another P.S: I voted that I liked Morrowind better than Oblivion and I am excited about every feature that has been released so far about Skyrim. "

That's my answer for a topic similar to this one, read it carefully.
NOTE: The quote is taken from the other topic.

Well I don't think morrowind was the best game ever made. It had huge flaws as well. I just think it was miles better then oblivion in all the ways that count for a game(story, character building, overall world feel ect ect)

The trend now is to stupid everything down to the lowest common denominator. It is like all game devs, not just beth but they are pretty guilty of it, think that a number in a game is gonna scare off the "frat boy" bro gamer. Morrowind was the last really good game Bethesda made, It is not wrong to hope to see them move back to what suited our tastes I don't think.

Will I buy skyrim? Not sure. I really do love elder scrolls lore, but not sure I can stomach what they are turning the game into. If I were you I would be upset that your fav game dev thinks all their customers have the IQ of snails, as that's how much thought it takes to play games like what skyrim seems to be shaping up to be today.

"Ok, think reasonably. Do you seriously believe that Beth's thought to themselves while creating this game "Well, our costumers are seriously stupid so we have to dumb down the game for them"?
I doubt you really see it that way, but instead you're just disappointed about the things that you loved about prior games now removed.
If you didn't read all the articles well, Beth is investing their soul on the details and gameplay so it can be more strategic, more fluid, and give us that Morrowind's magical world feeling that most of us been looking for since Oblivion came out.

I agree, I like Morrowind better than Oblivion in the matter that Morrowind was more original, introduced better challenge and such. But saying that because they made a compass in a huge world that you could easily get lost in is dumbing down the game, or removing attributes because they didn't fit with the new system or were useless now, doesn't mean that they think we're all stupid. It means that they think their game will either be -too hard- or include useless features that no longer fit the game or the times.

Stop being petty about losing features, instead embrace and think "They have made great games in the past, maybe Oblivion was a failure to me, but that's just one game, and I hope they learned their lesson this time around."

Dark. "

Another answer I made in the other topic.

» Tue May 03, 2011 8:12 am

Step 1: Wait until 11-11-11
Step 2: Buy the game
Step 3: Play the game
Step 4: Compare the systems
Step 5: Still have the same opinion? Shout it out loud!

Seriously, why are most of you overreacting? The loss of attributes ain't a big deal. The Elder Scrolls stand for change, and change ain't always bad, as most of you seem to think. After the change, you can improve the change.

» Tue May 03, 2011 5:15 am

The Elder Scrolls stand for change...

No they don't... they're not even an acronym!

» Tue May 03, 2011 7:53 am

Some people won't accept change. They fear it.

Pretty much sums up the disposition on attributes being taken out. :rolleyes:

» Mon May 02, 2011 8:48 pm

I think, instead of just saying it svcks, or that you have a better system, try to make something in your head that works with the system now. We DON'T know the specifics, and you're not fooling anyone if you say you do.
Now, please, work with it and think it through, how could it WORK (read as: not make it so that "it's limiting") with the CURRENT system

(I think people are too afraid of solutions, and prefer to simply see problems)

» Tue May 03, 2011 11:05 am

Some people won't accept change. They fear it.

A change is not necessarily always a good thing.
But i agree on those saying that we should wait till we have more information about it first, i want to see how they will handle encumberance and perks first. There should be ways to indicate that your character is stronger or faster, or smarter. Hopefully there are perks to do this in a proper way.

One thing im hoping for is that the character creation will allow you do adjust how strong ur character will look like, not just the head of your character.
Another thing that would been cool is if there was some perks that made your character look stronger, or thinner/faster. Thats one thing ive always missed in the TES games, it feels a bit silly that a lvl1 prisoner has the same shape as a lvl50 warrior, or a lvl50 mage.
Being able to play a fat character would also be fun, it would add much variety, also to the npcs.

» Mon May 02, 2011 10:07 pm

Some people won't accept change. They fear it.

I have had enough of this nonsense. Rejecting any criticism because you deem it emotionally induced is a fallacy, no matter how often you repeat that line.

So far, the only argument for the removal of attributes (instead of fixing them) has been that http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/6686/tiapft.jpg on their own. Sadly, this is almost completely based on faith because we know too little about the new perk system.