I've argued in previous threads that statements like this are just opinion. What you're essentially upset about is that it seems that Beth has taken away roleplaying aspects. I don't see it that way, and if roleplaying aspects have been taken away, it's in name only. Todd is correct, that is what the intelligence attribute was for, that was its function, that was its bottom line purpose. Just because some choose to roleplay with it, doesn't mean that it was any less "put points into intelligence, raise magica."

As for the merged curiass and greaves, the technical advantages from doing so are not false, and have been thoroughly explained in another thread. Unless you are a game designer, and frequently work with meshes and textures and know how the creation engine renders and other intimate details, to say that merging two meshes into one will yield no performance increase is completely outside your realm of knowledge. That coupled with combining them being a design choice on the part of Bethesda, their reasons for doing so are perfectly logical to me. At the end of the day, its their game, they can design it how they want, and don't have any reasons to make excuses.

And this is not me being "faithful," this is me choosing to withhold judgement on something until I've actually experienced it first hand. I don't know if any of the new systems will work, but that doesn't mean I am going to condemn them.

Your skills...

Actually if you had high strength but you used swords mainly, then switch to maces, you were just as useless with them.

So again, unless all of your skills will raise at the same time, there will be differences between characters.

If a customer isn't in the position to tell Beth what s/he wants included, who is?

This isn't a charity. We aren't just standing in line, waiting for Beth to deign to dole out to us whatever it is that they choose to dole out to us. It's a business. Their job - their ONLY job - is to create a product that pleases their potential customers. It's therefore right and proper that the potential customers express to them exactly what they want that product to be.

I disagree. To them, at least from my standpoint, and my experience as an artist, they're creating a piece of work, not a product. It just so happens that the piece of work is popular enough to have become a product by virtue of so many people liking it.

It's not Bethesda's job to cater to what anyone wants. If they want massive profits, yes, but that's not what their function as a group of designers is. It's my understanding that Bethesda cares less about how much of a profit they turn, and more about how they themselves feel about how the game has come together as a body of work.

So from that standpoint, no, I don't feel it's my place to tell them how to make their game. If I like the game, I'll play it. If I don't, I won't. Will I be disappointed? As a longtime fan of TES, yes. But in the end, I really don't feel like I have the right to blast Bethesda for how they're making their own game.

Pretty much this. I had a stint as a classical saxophonist. I didn't create recital programs with an eye to what would rope in as many people as possible. I created them based on how I felt about the pieces and how I would feel as an musician about creating them. I also wrote songs for local bands, and it was the same deal there. I could have written songs that were pure pop fluff, but I chose to write things I could be proud of. Todd has made it very clear that they made Skyrim because they wanted a game in a rugged country that is the birthplace of men. They put in dragons because they wanted to see dragons done correctly in a game. He has said repeatedly that they make the games they've always wanted to play.

Yes, they get paid for doing so. I got paid for putting on recitals and for writing songs. But it isn't that making money was my motivation. It was just necessary so that I could support myself well enough to keep doing what I loved. You can accuse Todd and Bethesda of not listening to your requests, sure. That's fair. But to accuse them of being sellouts and uninterested in their work as an art is unbelievably insulting. That's the kind of attitude that makes an artist feel even more alienated by their fan base.

I'll say what I said in the last thread:

They likely make a change, decide it plays better and is better for the direction. But wait, the PR!
How will the fans understand? They'll just imagine our previous title with x feature removed!

So they tell you it's redundant. Why? So you'll shut up and keep judgement until you play the game




It's clearly not working.


Honestly I was hoping this subject would stay dead.

Customers often don't know what they want. They sure are very vocal when they tell you what they want.

The game designers job is not to give what the customers want. It's to give them what they need which for a game means what they will enjoy.

Bosh. Sure - I have absolutely no doubt at all that there are designers working for Beth who care passionately about what they're doing and who do it, as much as possible in the modern world, ars gratia artis. And I guarantee you that there are other designers who are just dragging themselves in in the morning, punching the time clock, putting in their hours, and dragging themselves home. And everything in between the two.

And even that only has some partial bearing on the product. Over those designers are layers of supervisors and managers and leads, and over them is a layer of executives with a full set of market anolysts and accountants to provide them with context for their decisions.

I have no idea what your experience is as an artist, but mine is strictly commercial. I'm a painter and picture framer, and I've worked everywhere from exclusive galleries to art factories. And in all those places - even in the most exclusive galleries - there's at least one person who's charged with keeping things on schedule and under budget, and that specifically because artists, left to their own devices, will follow their muses wherever they lead, and that's not good for business. In a company the size of BGS, you can be certain that there are a number of people charged with that task, and the way that they accomplish it is through deadlines on the things that have to be done and cuts on the things that they decide don't have to be done. That's just the way it works.


Yes, and my new laundry detergent makes my colors brighter and my whites whiter.

That's PR hokum. No company is as successful as Beth by sitting around, reading Sylvia Plath and following their muses. They're successful by establishing a business plan and carrying it out. That they have to employ artists to accomplish that is beside the point. The artists are harnessed to the business - not the other way around. It's just good PR to make it sound like it's some sort of vidya boho.


Eh. I do. Just as I'd blast a musician for putting out a garbage album. I don't care if you want to stuff it under the banner of "art" - if it's junk, it's junk.

I'm an actor and musician, and have been for over a decade. Practicing and performing.

While I understand there is a business aspect behind it, obviously, I don't think that it is their duty to simply become their business. That would be the same thing as telling a musician or a painter or an actor to just come in, punch in, and shell out the same thing they always have. That way, there would be no progression, surprises, or new content. Everyone would be happy, comfortable, and secure with their copy of Morrowind 5, or (as we see in Hollywood) Transformers 16: Under the Hem of Megan Fox's Shorts.

Yes, there is business to be done. But the long and short of any development of any kind of creative body of work is the creation in and of itself. This is why I don't think Bethesda has to answer to anybody's mewling about what features are taken out or left in. If people stop liking the game enough, Bethesda will lose money, and go back to what works. As it stands now, they're still making oodles of cash doing exactly what they've always done, and that's put out a game they design to their standards.

As for blasting artists that put out supposedly shoddy work, the old addage "one man's trash is another man's treasure" comes to mind. I may not like the direction Artist X went with their latest painting/album/whatever, but if that's the case, I'm not obligated to purchase it. Someone else may feel differently. I have my opinion and you have yours, you don't have to like mine, and I don't have to like yours.

Your mistake was assuming they were giving you excuses. They arnt because nthey didnt need to.

They simply state the fact they want this and why they want it.

And that is why your getting nowhere. Because your trying to tell them what they should want. Thats also why all this is going nowhere because everyone is telling everyone else what they should want.


The game will be what todd and gang want. That is all. And nothing you say or do will make it what they dont want.. only realy icky bugs can do that.

Yep that’s right, Bethesda is lying to you. Lets switch out fact with my own reasoning because I disagree where Bethesda is taking this game and it should be Morrowind 2. That’s pretty much what I see every time I read one of your posts.
Combining armor pieces, maybe the sole reason wasn't to get more NPC's on screen, have you ever though of that. Maybe it might of partly been because of that and partly of the other reason they stated in the fan interview, like less clipping maybe. There also is the fact of the Nordic design played a large part in the design of the armor and in the end they found it looked better to combine the two pieces. Here is another point you completely ignore just to make it seem as you actually know anything, smithing. If we just go by the screenshots it looks like there is going to be much more customization than in Oblivion, like pauldrons.

No spellmaking I’m fine with. I’ll definitely take what we have now over spell making. What we have now is spells that behave differently and look really good. You can hold down the trigger to have a flamethrower like spell (only with the *fire* kind of spell), you could just press the trigger for a fireball, and then you can make it a trap. So yeah, just an excuse, and what’s that I’ve heard, like 80 DIFFERENT spells, what?

Attributes. You say that instead of gimping them they should have made them better. I can’t think of a way to reasonably argue that but what if, now just follow me with this, Bethesda decided they wanted to do something different. Insane right? They did something you didn’t want in your copy of Morrowind 2.

Prety much you just convince yourself that Bethesda is lying to you just to get your money because businesses are evil or some bull crap like that. Ever thought of accepting as what it is and not what you want it to be. Morrowind 2. It’s been stated that they like to do different things in each game. The elder scrolls aren’t sequels as we normally see them but they aren’t reboots either it is just an elder scrolls game (can’t believe I had to explain this to you) ofcourse they are going to try different things otherwise stagnation steps in. You may not agree with everything but you don’t need to whine. As I’ve already said, Try accepting it for what it is, on it’s own merits.

Edit

about your argument about how the consumer should decide what in a game or whatever nonsence you were typing. I completely and whole heartedly disrespectly disagree. Have you ever heard of a band playing music they want to hear. Thats a good thing cause it means they care about their music. same thing with a game, it's not a bad thing when a game company makes games they want to play.

um strenght only had a small effect on mele damage it was your weapon skill that contributed the most to that and weapon skills are still in so no your mage still wont be very good at it if its his first time useing that mele weapon in the middle of the game.

This might be true if the artists were the ones in charge . . . but, for the most part, they are not.

As a modder, I have a LOT more creative/artistic freedom to do what I want to do, than most of the people working on the game.


It is my place as a long-time TES fan to post my concerns about any proposed changes, if I honestly feel that these changes may result in a lessor RPG. If my best friend feels that I am making a mistake, I would expect her to tell me. Doing so isn't "blasting" me . . . she is just showing her concern for me.

Since I have never even once argued that "it should be Morrowind 2," I can only suggest that you try reading more carefully.

if you don't like it then don't buy it. i'm pretty sure someone else well enjoy it more than someone thinking that bethesda turned it to worst game of the year.

Well it feels to me that id does simplify the attributes.

if there is no more agility how can i decrease the damage bows do to me? and my chances of being staggered?

if they remove willpower how am i supposed to increase the rate at which my magicka regenerates?

and now i cant improve my speed and train to run faster?

and how am i about to get better at persuading people whithout using magic?

and i guess i cant get "lucky" anymore


the leveling system was tricky and paired with the level scalin could generate a not so entertaining experience, but the attributes were at no fault.

An effort should have been made to improve this by tweeking stats gained by skills ( main, secondary ot whatever ).

removing them removes a part of the game. How are they going to replace it?


Perks maybe? wont be the same.

we will see.

Im sure it will be a great game anyway.

No one is saying this allows more diversity. Rather their taking the quality mechanics versus quantity stance.

Im saying it is providing more diversity than the previous game had .Im saying that anything that the other system had could be done without you actively selecting from those bars .They have stated those things are there.Its posssible we will see alot more diverse characters in this game which is the result everyone wants.Im saying if we get what we want it doesnt matter if its packaged in a different form.

What i want is my orc to feel bigger and stronger than say a bosmer .So camp one says ok if we had a strength attribute and when you pick it the orc gets a slight boost in strength more so than a bosmer .It creates diversity and they are right and id like it but its not gonna happen that way because strength is not a bar .But if i pick stamina and it increases my orcs ablity to lift more and hit harder more so than it does my bosmer it has the same effect .If when i select a perk for a two handed damage modifier my orc gets a bigger bonus than my bosmer it creates diversity.There's more than one way to skin a cat.

I dont know if it will be done the way id like it but i have little doubt that things could be done in either sysyem to improve so ill just hope we see a well done system and i like to think about how id like to see it done.There can be mulitiplers in about any facet of the game imo its more about how will this function and play as opposed to how could it be accomplished .But im not convinced there is anything that could not be done in this system that could be in the old one.Besides actually looking at a strength bar and actively picking it .

this
:flame: so pls no more flaming

On the speed vs. strength thing, I am not so sure. Grizzly bears are incredibly large, incredibly strong, and far faster than you would expect. They can outrun just about any Olympic runner you ever heard of, and beat the snot out of any Olympic weight lifter, wrestler or boxer you've ever heard of.

The key word in the last lines is Force. Force is essentially the antithesis of choice. Granted, they are not forcing you into which abilities you choose, but they are forcing, beyond the mere roleplaying perspective, a lot of either or decisions. And the only clear purpose for those choses is, it seems, to bar uber builds. They are not mutually exclusive choices like being an Altmer and being an argonian at the same time. They are, if former attributes like enhanced acrobatic and atheletic abilities are indeed now categorized under perks, things like not being able to be both incredibly strong and a fast runner. . . those two things are not logically mutually exclusive, any more than being very physically fit and also being highly intelligent, are neccesarily mutually exclusive. Forcing such illogical and false mutual exclusions, essentially boils down to restrictions on the choices of the player. It is a not so subtle way of the devs saying that they do not trust us to make "proper" builds based on our own roleplaying prefferences if we are left to our own devices, so they are intervening to insure that whatever choices we make do not result in a character who is "too powerful", "too gifted", or "too multitalented."

I was all for perks, even if the amount one character could access was limited, when I thought that all of the perks would be awesome new abilities never seen before for playercharacters in Elder Scrolls, like permanent summons as a high level perk for Conjouration, or the ability to smash open locked doors as a high level perk for one of the warrior related skills. . . but if the "Perks" are going to just be abilities that used to be available through natural progression, repackaged and resold at a high "either or" price . . . well that is nothing to be happy about from my perspective.

I can make a distinctive and reasonably unique character on my own, as can many others. We do not need the devs to rope us into a "unique" build.

Nevermind for now.

I don't think the latter will be a problem. I think it is more likely that you will be much more restricted in what you can do, for the sake of pseudo "balance" beyond what is actually logical.

For example, increases in strength, unless strength is tied in with health and stamina increases, might go under a specific weapons skill, as though swinging an axe is the only way to become strong and a mage or thief who spends vast amoungs of time running, swimming, hiking and climbing up mountain paths, and possibly engaging in hand to hand combat (still a feature but no longer a skill) is going to be a weakling by default.

If certain aspects of strength, atheletics and acrobatics are couched under perks, then it becomes even worse, more restrictive and less logical. Which skill is being a swift runner or jumper going to go under? How will being good with a blade equate to me being able to turn a cartwheel? And, more importantly, why would not having mastered a blade mean I wouldn't be able to turn a cartwheel?

I hope you are wrong, but, as you often tend to be, you are probably right.

I actually think intelligence is about the only attribute removed that the magicka really could make up for, sense Intelligence really didn't seem to effect anything other than how much magicka you had (e.g. you didn't have an extra chance of detecting lies or solving puzzles more easily etc. for having higher intelligence. Mostly player intelligence dictated these things, intellience being a hard thing to manufacture. . . just look at all the stupid NPCs lol).

But things like luck, strength, willpower and magicka regeneration, speed, acrobatic prowess. . . I can't help wondering if they will all fall in line under health, stamina and Magicka, or if removing them was Bethesda's not so subtle way of making sure that the game plays at a higher semblance of difficulty by sheer virtue of the fact that the old gray mare ( in this case, YOU) just ain't what she used to be, i.e. cannot run, jump, regenerate magicka, take a punch or survive a fall like she used to. And even if she can manage one or two of these things in the same old way, if they are under the limited perks system, she certainly won't be able to manage the lot. "She might run fast, but don't worry. . . the fall from that big rock is definitely going to kill her. She gave away her ability to tuck and roll, when she opted to be fleet of foot, you see. And those things are mutually exclusive. . . though we have no idea as to why. Something about balance. A thing which she, by the way, no longer does very well. lol."

Streamlining is another word for dumping down , we all know it and it made several other sequels to fall under expectations. Removing key elements of RPG makes the product more attractive to shooter's crowd so if you like shooters you may like the new approach but if you are an RPGer then the game is probably not for you .
I don't consider shooter's crowd inferior or stupid but their influence is pushing us RPG gamers into indys , sure it svcks to be a minority but i think it is fair for developers looking after profit. What isn't fair is the hypocrisy of insisting that your game is something that it isn't.
To sum this up all those removals will make the game better to casual or different genre loving gamers but for us RPGers the only option left is look elsewhere.

The beauty of no attributes is that power is represented by three areas:

1. HP/MP/STA
2. Gear
3. Spells known/Perks/Abilities/Dragon Shouts/Skill Level

This means that the stronger we are the more HP/MP/STA which will be associated primarily with our level.

The gear we wear will provide us with benefits depending on its quality and/or enchantments.

The knowledge and abilities our characters possess enable them to function more effectively in and out of combat.

Essentially, power is not just a number. And by taking a more literal approach to a measure of ability and power Bethesda is immersing us in a higher level of realistic representation than with a numerical rating system.

This also means that the dominant characteristic of a character's efficiency in battle will not be any of the aforementioned three aspects but us (the player). Our own cunning, wit, intelligence and determination to survive and so forth will be the deciding factor in how powerful/potent our character turns out to be.