Yeah well, I'm sure they'll find a way to do it with the new system. I mean, We're getting ways to end the game differently this time, as opposed to every character being able to max out everything. Surely they though of a way to handle attirbute differences without us necessarily tweaking them manually.


Hell, my guess is that the attributes go up with the skills they're associated to. Example: 1-handed weapon raises strenght, Marksman raises agility (never made much sense, but that's what it's linked to anyways)




Well, your arguments seem like the same thing, but the other way around: what you say is purely pessimistic. You say confidently that it's a mistake even though NO ONE HERE knows how the new system will work. Of course, we're just speculating on how it will work, but looks, it's been a big revelation so far that this is the way it'll work, and the game is built around it. So please, try to at least keep some faith if you don' wanna try to see how it could work. Because they are NOT going to change the system now, not so close to the release date...

Also, who knows, maybe some people are just sick of the same thing and want a change for once?

If you want more a deeper explanation read my post...
Cause that is not the only argument.

Todd Howard in the http://www.g4tv.com/videos/52434/elder-scrolls-5-skyrim-gameplay-preview/:

"... Everything those attributes did are still in the game, they're just in other places ..."

This.

rather than removal, i'd say it's more like attributes are hidden from the player's direct manipulation.

to take the 1hander, 2hander weapons as an example, maybe upgrading the skill in one of them upgrades the "hidden" strength stat which would govern over general weapon damage, so a fully upgraded one handed warrior would do more damage with a 2handed weapon than a mage with a 2handed weapon.

We're not necessarily afraid of change (didn't you read my username?). And I did post my own solution on the previous page -- one based on there being no attributes, which we needn't play the game to understand most of the ramifications of -- it's just that no one read it.

I was about to do this myself,you beat me to it...kudos

"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."

Sorry, just had to do that.

But seriously, quantity =/= quality. This is streamlining, not simplification. Like they have pointed out in many interviews, your choices are not limited by this removal. Instead, they are broadened because perks are much more flexible than stat increases. Sure, any change will bring negatives, but in this case, I think it enhances the overall experience.

You might say it's pessimistic, but I'm trying to go by what we know at this time and nothing more.
I tried to say where this will cause problems, and suggested possible fixes. Of course, this might lead you to a point where you have to ask yourself why attributes were removed in the first place, but that is a different matter.
So, I can see ways it could work. But assuming everything will work out somehow ... I don't know, that's borderline fanboyism to me. :shrug:




Hooray, Dragonborn1 strikes again. I have yet to see one post of you about this topic that doesn't say "No.", "This." or "They are all wrong.".

Sounds awful.

It might be hard to see, but giving a player absolutely whatever they want is only good for initial sales, and generally produces a poor game.

*Think about this... What is it that makes an MMOG exciting? One thing is that the game world is beyond your control, and that you can find yourself in 'dangerous' situations. Why is that über sword so great? Its because you can't just get one on a whim, and having it gives a real sense of empowerment in the environment. Would it be as fun, if the game allowed every player easy access to it? If it was in the shop for a few gold? Of course not. Restrictions in a game play an unglamorous, but very important role in the fun factor.

Some of us [were] trying to make the point that the fault is that the attributes didn't do enough. I agree they were rather redundant, but my solution would've been to retain some of the attributes and make them less so.

Example:
In the previous game, claymores were badly implemented and ended up doing less damage on average than daggers. In the next game, you look again at the "claymore problem" - which solution do you choose?

• Remove the redundant claymores from the game ("everything claymores did are still in the game, as daggers...")
  
• Leave claymores as they are, redundant
  
• Change the function of claymores in such a way that they're no longer redundant

I'm not ASSUMING that it will work. I'm just telling you to not assume that it won't. Because Bethesda won't make a svckish system on purpose, just to piss off the fans

(and also, I'm a fairly positive guy in reality, it's not fanboyism lol)

When you level, you have the choice to pick magicka, Stamina, and Health...

Wasnt Antoine talking of literature there?
Anyway, I dont think a quote like that goes for all possible things in all possible permutations.
Literature, maybe sculpture, yes.
Gaming?
Mmno

Edit: While Im not a fan of mindless criticism, Im certainly no fan of unfettered fan-ism either.
Ive read some pretty well constructed and thought out concerns on here.
Attributes did things. That its potential was unused does not mean it needs to be axed, thats just silly.
For one, how about quests that require a high level in intelligence, so you can 'read' the ancient scroll?
Things like that were not in vanilla games, but modders used them to make very interesting content. Thus showing how attributes could be used better in game.
I agree that on first glance a major chunk of character customisation and character uniqueness has been removed.
Maybe perks can take over somewhat, but certainly not for 100%.

There's been at least 10 threads in the last 24 hours on attributes. How many times should I post my reasoning why no attributes are better? It's redundant already. Attributes are dead to me. They won't be missed.

I don't understand how it is giving you whatever you want. If you wanted these effects before, you increased your strength, now you increase the effects. Did you read my post without considering the context of the thread? Nothing you can do has changed, just the ways to get there.

Well, givng players absolutely everything when they want it, wasn't this Oblivion's level scaling?
I don't really see how this fits with no attributes. You're still doing the same thing anyways (seriously, who never though "oh I'll just increase my magicka... I mean intelligence")



Yeah, of course, because now you can't just max out every character you make, means that character uniqueness has gone... To be honest I think it added some

How do you make attributes less reduntant with the new system,and don't you think bethesda would have thought long and hard about this?
They haven't done it to piss us off,it's because they felt it was needed. Like i've said before,everyone could have attributes to 100,hows that unique exactly? knowing every attribute will eventually be the same,with ranks and perks it won't ,you'll have to pick wisely because we cant have all perks in one playthrough. I would like those who are spitting the dummy out about attributes,come up with a good way to make them less redundant,knowing dice-rolling isn't the same....which did matter.

Kind of like teleporting cross country instead of a road trip.

Actually, my beef with this is centered around it being classless; the rest is all side effects of that.

It does seem like the game (many games) are all just trying to satisfy player whim... To give them what whatever they want. There is such a thing as too much freedom; it makes for a bad game. It gets boring.

I'm sure they would love to, but that would require more development time. There's a lot of things they could do to make the game better, but it's infeasible to do everything. They've got more than enough on their plate as it is, and it's not like we really lost anything.

I don't think it's a bad decision, I just think there's a better way to do it. Yeah, you can do more with attributes within a perk and skill-based, streamlined progression system. Dice aren't relevant, but a character's (not a player's) ability is, or there would be no stats. So bearing in mind that Beth's designers are probably much better at it than I am, I consider it a real shame that attributes weren't worked with rather than cut; I typed this in like ~5 minutes:

Yeah, I would go with this system too.

But you know what's funny? People would still complain that they're "dumbing it down".


And the lack of attributes won't make it any less RPG. The skills and perks will still make different characters different, and I'm pretty sure races will have their own bonuses.
Skills already mattered more than attributes anyway, a warrior would be better than a mage in Hand-to-hand if none of them are trained in it, but not by much.

No, we have Todd's word to base it on...

Agreed.

A character's ability means dice; unless you are talking thresholds :yuck:.

**That is indeed a really nice Orc portrait. (avatar above)

I have, in many games.
Its a shame that intelligence only means magicka... That's not how an RPG is supposed to be.

Nahh... It has nothing to do with power-gaming, its about what the numbers mean ~how it describes the unique personage. It also aids in role playing to know your character's weaknesses.

Dice in programming terms, maybe. I mean, perks, skills, powers, and -- indirectly -- spell and magic item effects are all representations of character abilities.