Much better solution would be not using stamina to sneak...


Fine...

Thing is skills covered the majority what attributes did.
Raising damage, armor class, spell effectiveness, speed...

The 3 other stats cover most of the other doings, like health, magicka, stamina and encumberance, and others can be put under perks like magic resistance, probably speed.

The main thing is there's nothing that is potentially lost by removing attributes, it is possible to put them under a skill, a perk or anything.

And going back to the pokemon argument, skyrim too has health, two attack stat, two defend stat and 14 more other stat to cover other kinds of playstyle.

EDIT:

Well that pretty much proves the core of the problem...

ignoring the skills existence and importance...

Regardless of how many more skills he has, a character defined by 3 attributes is less complex than a character defined by 6 attributes.


I don't know about ">", but a skill affected by something else is more complex than the skill alone. :ribbon:

You've gone too far to backpedal out of this I'm afraid, no one is going to believe this from you at this point.

Not really, because that removes complexity, which is the crux of this whole argument. Besides, if sneaking does not require fatigue then how the hell is a stealthy character supposed to stat himself out, anyway? Fatigue is used by warriors to attack, and even archery is a warrior skill now. What we have is a system that neglects an archetype. Why the hell should a master thief be able to carry more than a meaty warrior?



I do.

There's a sneak skill :mellow:

... and their perks.

Raise those.

You're missing the damn point. Warriors have health and fatigue. Mages have magicka. Thieves have... what, exactly? A suite of skills that do not consume any resources at all. You don't lose fatigue for picking a lock or for sneaking around or for convincing people or by buying and selling stuff. I still worry about how they handle Speechcraft now. They say there are specific dialogue choices you can make to convince people, like in Fallout, but how the hell do you raise the skill?

Point is, it makes it so that a thief will be able to have the same stats as a warrior and not suffer for it at all. It's an inherent imbalance and it removes character variety, a sin in an RPG.

pretty much i still dont understand whats the problem with removing some useless atributes

PERKS do not replace attributes..they replace what skills did for attributes....Skills and perks do not completely replace attributes. how hard is this to understand? and enough with the "how would you do it then stop complaining and actually give a solution" its been done to death since Jan and doesnt even involve the removal of Perks and even then when stated Im still met with blunt ass statements like "well I like bethesdas version better, Good riddance to attributes" like at any freaking point have attributes restricted anything in the terms of role play, which even if that was the case would be the point and would actually have your character actually be a character with Faults and strenghts, but from what I've read in this undying gripefest Attributes should go so that people could Imagine.....seriously


Its as if you people would buy anything, the 3 bars have been there since Arena, but all of a sudden they are NOW attributes :facepalm: and apparently clicking a box for skill bonuses and clicking a box asking which one do you want to raise is more "dynamic/fluid/innovative" than those being handeld by the Characters Attributes and Perks on the scale of what was done in FONV based on Kills, NPC training, and character experience.

Do thieves just whack people with uh... sneakiness and never get hit? I see no reason for a thief not to use stamina or health - they use weapons, and they're likely going to spend some time in melee. And of course they might use some magic for utility/support if not for damage.

The idea that they will be a warrior+ just because they use the same 2/3 of the very basic stats is also absurd, they will be taking different perks and different skills. They'll sacrifice combat skills/perks to be more effective at stealth and infiltration related skills and/or perks. They won't just get their thief-like abilities for free on top of being as effective a warrior as a, well, warrior.

The problem is that a pure thief is literally not a viable option now, not unless weapons work on a fundamentally different formula in sneak mode. It pretty much reduces the archetype to utility, a way to supplement your character rather than define him. Combat has always been an integral part of TES so unless they've really ramped up the non-combat gameplay it shows neglect of a particular character type.

I'm pretty sure all three is going to be needed for everybody.

The main thing about those three stats is that they're not doing the same things as skills.
Everybody needs health, some amount of magicka and stamina. A pure thief would probably go for stamina only, as they don't need health because they would be hiding.
Then again talking about pure classes is only good in theory as these rarely happen, some, even if minimal crossfading will always happen.

Yes, the combination of the three stats are limited, but as I said, those don't matter compared to the combination of 18 skills.
EDIT:

They never were.
If one would pick thief only skills in Morrowind or Oblivion, the main idea there would be that they would just sneak past everything and if they attack they could instantly kill anybody with a sneak attack.

Of course in practice this won't work from the very beginning...

That's exactly how it worked in previous games though, thieves have always been lightly armored and crafty/sneaky warriors in essence - some who happen to steal things. Attributes being in or out would make no difference - strength still determined melee damage and thus affected your sneak attack damage unless you used purely archery. There's always been some overlap and always will be.

Unfortunately, it seems that the TES series is going the way of all other RPG's of old. The mainstreaming of titles has accelerated rapidly in the last few years and it seems that Diablo and Skyrim are the latest examples of that. It is a shame, as rather than taking a strong RPG base and adding to it, they are actually taking features away in the name of 'streamlining'. Now maybe I'm long in the tooth, behind the times, what have you, but I feel that things like attributes and numbers-based combat add depth and variety to games which enables you to differentiate between genres.

The sad thing is, going by the responses in this forum, it seems that most people are happy with this. Maybe it's a generational shift, but I'm unsure. While I'm sure that Skyrim will be a good game, I feel that these changes will mean less depth, less character-development and ultimately less-play-ability. While one may argue, 'you can only judge once the game has been released', these changes to the fundamentals of the game hardly bode well for the future.

You really cannot have a complex game without Attributes. You can have a fun game, sure. But in an RPG, you need variables which distinguish each character so that they are noticeably different.

And it doesn't matter if you can see them or not. I love how people argue about how it's a better game for not having Spreadsheet mechanics. There still IS a spreadsheet, you just don't see it, because in many cases, it's the same for a Mage as it is for Warrior. That's a problem. The whole game is still defined by numbers, it's just now, there are less of them, and less variation in how the are distributed.

I long for a game that uses my strength to determine whether or not I can draw this bow or swing this weapon at a certain speed. Or my intelligence to decide how many speech options I get. Or my agility to determine whether I set off that booby trap. I want to see how the character skills give each player a different experience. I don't want each game to be played by a generic character whose only different because I "pretend" he is. The essence of roleplay is choosing a particular style, AND for those choices to have consequence. Yes, I can "roleplay" a sniper in Halo by limiting my weapon choice, but I know my effectiveness is based on my own personal skill with those weapons, my characters skills with those weapons is equal. That is not what a good RPG is.

100% agree. What I think defines RPG's from other game-types is the 'builds' you can create. A good RPG is one that has many builds that you can experiment and play with, combing both gear, skills and attributes. The more generic you make these options, the less builds you have and therefore the less RPG-like an experience.

Now yes, maybe it is spreadsheety, but building a character that you can take ownership of, from his stats and the manner you approach the game is one of the most satisfying things for me. Do I really want "Call of Duty - MIddle Earth?"

Well, i learned that no matter how hard you try it is allmost impossible to conform people to your views. I got into and argument with somebody over the color of the sky, dont waste time and get angry over the impossible.

Two words : "18 skills"

Complete misconception, you can have an entirely stat-less pre-made PC and still have a good and complex RPG. If you're immersed in the game world and playing even a pre-defined role it's still an RPG and can still be complex. Take Thief or Bioshock games for example, which both influenced TES actually, both were great RPGs with complex game play despite having a pre-defined PC and no stats. At least in the conventional sense - Bioshock admittedly had a perk-like system. Mass Effect 2 was also stat-less. In all of said games, you were still assuming a role and immersing yourself in the setting, it's still role playing just without some of the mechanics some people expect from games labeled RPG just because they're so commonly associated with the genre.

It will not be the same for mages as it is for warriors, you won't be taking as much stam or as many combat perks as a warrior on a mage character, and you're obviously not going to raise the same skills either.

Three more words:

"Down from 21"

Ghotic, The Witcher. Heck even Deus Ex managed that perfectly well.

why do they hate willpower, it didnt do them any harm :cryvaultboy:

That may pretty well sum up the role-playing goal of Skyrim. At least since Morrowind, attributes grow easily. Unlike numerous other games, the Elder Scrolls doesn't want attributes to restrict you. In other games, you can have a strong and smart hero or a strong and nimble hero, but you can't have a strong, smart, and nimble hero. That is not the way of the Elder Scrolls. In the Elder Scrolls, you can have it all. So, ditch attributes. Make all characters equally strong, smart, and nimble. No one wants to be too weak, or too stupid, or too clumsy to do what he wants to do. Attributes are a hindrance.

With Oblivion, if you don't want to be a great archer, then skimp on your bow use. Suppose, however, that you wish to play someone who frequently uses his bow but who never masters archery. Avoiding using archery is a dull way to prevent your character from achieving mastery. With Skyrim, your situation improves, because now you can use your bow to your heart's content you like without gaining all of archery's perks. You can easily keep your frequent bow use from cramping your style.

The Elder Scrolls could go even further with streamlining, and might even improve because of it. A problem I always encounter in RPGs is not being able to be who I want to be. Suppose I wish to play an assassin as talented as Artemis Entreri. The typical scenario is that I begin as a relatively weak and unskilled nobody. I gain experience, and grow in power and ability. Then, when I finally achieve Entreri's level of mastery, the game is over, or so nearly over that it might as well be over. So much for being a great assassin! Yeah, great game. Thanks for letting me be what I want to be. :meh:

Imagine the Elder Scrolls ditching levels, and ditching the grind to improve in skills and gain perks. Just let us set our skill levels and perks and health/stamina/magicka at the outset. If you want to be an average Joe and fight your way through the game that way, great, you can! If you want to be Entreri, then great, you can, and you do it from the very beginning!



I like your example. In a way, our skills and perks in Skyrim are nothing but weapons. We pick our weapons of choice and shoot them, and except for our weapon selections, there is nothing to distinguish one character from the next.

Its not even trying to make people conform to a view, its explaining why the PR talk doesn't work, for years Skills/Attributes/HMS were as they are, and ALL of a sudden people think Skills(lower amount, 1 added) , H/M/S(still 3 bars but without the intricacy of Attributes building them), and Perks (repeatedly stated as SKILL BONUSES) will do everything that Attributes did, and thats simply not true, but no matter how many times you explain

Speed/Jump Height/resistances/ base attack power/ etc etc are not represented by Skills their Bonus boxes and H/M/S you're told " Your heads in the 90s get with the next generation, RPGs are evolving into Stat-less games" of which I face palm and retort...so what are levels? H/M/S? skills? my imagination? did those suddenly not become stats?

I made it clear from my very first response that my entire point was regarding attributes. I shut Bukee down when he tried to drag skills into it, and stated clearly at the time that that was because my entire point was regarding attributes. I posted to Gregasaurus, "The topic at hand is attributes, and that's what I addressed."

I can certainly understand how it might be convenient for you to believe I "backpedaled," but ALL the evidence points to the obvious fact that my point all along was regarding attributes.

And my point still stands.

I haven't played The Witcher (I've been meaning to) but I'd hesitate to call it an RPG. You are given a role, not choosing one. It seems like you're always playing a specific character, for instance I know a lot of the gameplay depends on the use of one of two specific swords, a silver one for supernatural enemies and a steel one for mundane ones. And I've never seen him wear anything other than is standard outfit. There might be some ambiguity and complexity in how you complete a quest, but not in the execution of it.

For instance, you either choose to talk your way out or fight your way out of a given situation. But there's no skill check, the game predetermines whether you will succeed in talking either based on a pre-written script, or earlier events, but not the character's skill. If I'm a smooth enough talker, I should be able to convince the man who's mother I just killed that he should let me go because she was actually out to get him, or something. Once again, I'm not too familiar with the game but if this is indeed how it operates, it's not "complex" in that there are only as many possible outcomes have been scripted for.



I really don't see those as role playing games. By that definition, all games are role playing games (something I struggled with when I first heard the term). After all, in Halo, you play the role of a cyborg super soldier. "Role playing" is a very poor description of the genre, but it was originally applied to games where you chose a specific way to play which was not defined by the narrative. You are not THE hero, you are A hero.

The point is, there's only one way to play Thief. Yes, you can choose to knock people out rather than kill them. But you can make that choice on an individual basis. If you kill the first 40 people you come across, you'll still be able to knock the 41st unconscious, with no problem. Can you wear armor? Does it slow you down? RPGs are as much defined by your limitations as your possibilities. You are forced to play a certain way because of the choices you have made.

It really comes down to your definition of complexity. Thief and The Witcher are certainly more complex than Halo or NFL 2k11. But they will always be less complex than a game which differentiates characters completely based on Skills, Attributes, and Abilities, in that not every character will be capable of performing the same actions with the same results.