I agree with the op, but in the end wait , watch the reviews if you don't like then don't buy it or simple wait one or two years for the mods to mature enough and buy it then it's all good.

Or at least the our choices in how we build our character will actually matter.

Why are you people afraid of change? That is, IMO, what defines a good game series. It changes and doesn't sell the same product with a new layout many times, like Fable and CoD have done. On the other hand I can uderstand that change doesn't mean good change, just look at DA2(they tried to change the bad thing, but endede up changing the good things).
I support change in this case thoug.

The reason why most of these posts look like copy&paste is because they are. Pretty much everyone who has posted so far have a file on their computer with all these arguments and counter arguments already lined up. Every few weeks we pm each other and stage out these debates so we can increase our post count. It's one big scam, no one actually cares. :shifty:

Contrary to what hardcoe RPers here tell you, Skyrim seems more complex than Oblivion in every aspect, but still simpler than Morrowind in some aspects.

No, it's just that arguments on both ends are pretty damn simplistic and most of the arguments arise from different schools of thought regarding what roleplaying is and what the merits of attributes and a class-based character system are. We have people claiming that there will be no thought put into character development in spite of the fact that perks will have prerequisites that extend beyond simply having the prior perk in the tree, and you'll be able to see every last one of them from the start of the game and plan your development accordingly. People are disagreeing about [censored] on a fundamental level and it's honestly starting to resemble a political/religious debate, in which everyone thinks they are right and everyone else is a [censored] idiot. Logic does not factor into people's thoughts nearly as much as personal preference does, and I see the same people entering these threads and expounding the same damn arguments with the same damn self-important "everyone look how right I am" attitude. I'm done with these threads, personally.

The problem was exactly that the amount of the picked attribute was determined by usage. You could pick the +1 strenght but that hardly means anything compared to the +5 strenght you could get. Guess, why so many people who wanted to raise their health ran around with shields...

And again, character creation happens only at the beginning, it's hardly a major feature of a game. Character development on the other hand happens during the entire game, and that is the main reason of RPGs. You can still plan out your character, what they will do, what they will become, which factions to join, you don't need attributes for that. Things may not work out the same way how you've planned them, but the same could happen with classes too (if not, then it's because it's a linear game).

I'll wait for the game to come out and play it before I start complaining on the forums.

This. Bethesda is improving the TES series with Skyrim, not weakening it. Too many people don't understand that.



Not the point he was trying to make, I'm afraid. The application of Occam's Razor in this instance is to point out that one can achieve the proper explanation, or answer to an equation (i.e. calculating Magicka via Intelligence) with a simpler version of the same procedure.

The "simplifying" or "dumbing down" that so many people argue about on this forum amounts to the simplest answer by Bethesda: Todd and the team want a game that functions just as well as (if not better than) the previous titles, but without unnecessary procedure and titles for those game functions that create the enjoyable experience Bethesda, (and by extension, us, the fans of their games) have come to expect.

thanks to you i just corrected a typo

what noob spells magicka as magica

I never wrote that MW & OB were perfect, but they did allow me to create a unique character who had some inherent strengths and weaknesses that lasted through my games. In Skyrim, being able to create a unique character at the beginning of the game, is no longer possible at all or has been greatly simplified, where any differences will be very minor.


IF the character build / attribute system had been improved instead of mostly being removed . . . so that the attributes actually followed the definition of the word (A quality or feature regarded as a characteristic or inherent part of someone or something.) . . . THEN your character creation would be a MAJOR feature of the game.

There are two main ways of doing a character build (for this debate):

1.) You begin the game with the EXACT same abilities each time (no matter what type of character you are playing this time). And then your skills rapidly develop as you play the game.

2.) You begin the game with the the inherent abilities that you want your character to have (depending on the type of character you want to play). And then your skills slowly improve as you play the game.

In both cases your character has lived 20 or 30 years (or whatever) before the game begins.

With method #1, your starting character has NO inherent abilities at all. They haven't learned any skills (or at least not improved any) in their entire life, up to the point where the game starts. Then, over the 1 year or so that the game takes place, they suddenly become VERY skilled in many things. How realistic is THAT? [200 real hours of game play at the game's 30 Timescale = 6000 game hours (6000/24 = 250 game days; or less than 9 game months).]

With method #2, your starting character is a mage, or a warrior, or whatever you have decided on this time. . . with the Attributes that match that type of character. These attributes determine the skills your character begins the game with (how the skill points are distributed). As you play the game, you level up slowly, and at each level up you are awarded a small number of skill points to distribute . . . so your character's skills slowly improve (exactly as you decide . . . not as the game decides).

I MUCH prefer method #2, because method #1 is not at all realistic and removes the importance of the initial character build, which is a big part of what makes RPGs special to me.

The language skills in Daggerfall were not useless or pointless. They were bugged and did not work properly. They would have been nifty, had they worked.

The difference between armour types is wholly irrelevant. Its about customisation.

Ill just have to see about perks. If it is going to be fallout style perks I hardly see how that could deliver more depth. 50 on/ off switches versus 100 times 8 attribute combinations? Please.

Complexity is a good thing. I want the game to take time to figure out. That is the funnest part of any game, exploring the land as well as what the game will let you do. I do not want a bioware game where Im done after a weekend and never touch it again, and that is where complexity comes in.

It does seem like the games are being simplified. In fact, it seems all games are being simplified. Compare Dragon Age: Origins to the sequel (which I won't even bother to name it's so bad) or any of the first couple Resident Evil games to a more recent one. It's a rather worrying trend.

Even if the worries of TES being simplified are undue. The fans' worries are completely understandable.

The first method is as much realistic, as a mage, who trained all of his life to become one, only starts out with a weak magic missile and shield spell.
And for the second... why would a starting class would instantly mean that YOU will be choosing how the character will progress? This is why I questioned your Oblivion/Morrowind experience, because your problem doesn't seem to be with the lack of character creation, but with the "learn-by-doing" system that the series always had, since Daggerfall.

This is hardly about complexity or depth, this is about personal preference. You want your character to be unique at the beginning not the end.

As for not being RPG without starting, chooseable classes, I'd like to bring up Gothic, Ultima, Deus Ex, Witcher, Planescape Torment and nearly all jRPGs...

It very much is about complexity and depth.

I dont want a game where the difference between my Orc and my Altmer is only skin colour. Birthsigns were a way for my lvl 1 Nord to be able to be completely different from my other level one Nord.
There are birthsigns like the lady, for starters and there are those for advanced players, like the atronarch.
That was cool, nifty and gave customisation, complexity and depth.

And Im not sure where you got the idea that a game without choosable starting characteristics can even be an RPG. They are not, because there is no starter customisation, no way to experience the game wholly different from level one on.
Sure, it may say RPG on the box but that doesnt make it one. If it did fable would be an RPG and I just have to go now and laugh my head off at that notion.

Yeah right, Gothic was known as one of those false RPGs...

But really, why do everyone want to become unique and set from the very beginning, and if the game doesn't provide it why wouldn't be there any difference between characters at all later on?

Ugh... this is getting nowhere...

And that same mage would be equally skilled in all weapons. And a warrior, who trained all of his life to become one, would start the game with no greater weapon skills than the mage character (and with EXACTLY the same magicka skills as the mage). And this is more realistic???!!! Sorry, but your distorted logic is lost on me.


I wrote; "I never wrote that MW & OB were perfect, but they did allow me to create a unique character who had some inherent strengths and weaknesses that lasted through my games. In Skyrim, being able to create a unique character at the beginning of the game, is no longer possible at all or has been greatly simplified, where any differences will be very minor."

So please stop referring to the ways that MW & OB were less than perfect in this regard as an argument against my points. My point is that instead of IMPROVING the initial character creation process, with the character's inherent attributes . . . Beth REPLACED nearly the entire initial character build (beyond your character's appearance).

I prefer games that allow me to make the choices (not a game that makes most of the choices for me). . . and that have real consequences attached to those choices. In real life I get to pick the skills I want to improve (through the classes I take, or by training in those skills). I can even try to improve the things I'm not very good at, even when I have no aptitude for that skill (If I have no athletic aptitude, I can train at a sport like volleyball, and I may get slightly better at that particular sport, but I'm NEVER going to be professional volleyball player . . . no matter how much I train). By the same token, if I have an aptitude for playing volleyball, and I spend time training for that sport . . . I'm going to improve much faster than someone who has no athletic ability.


It is a LOT deeper than rapid leveling and Perk bonuses that allow you to increase your abilities at an unrealistic rate. With my method, you are stuck with the character that you created at the beginning of the game . . . one who has INHERENT strengths and weaknesses (do you even know what that word means?) . . . you cannot start out with a pure mage and end up with an uber warrior (after just playing the game for a few game months).


I NEVER even used the word CLASS in my last post (which is what you are miss quoting). Nor did I say that what I prefer is present in ALL RPGs. I wrote: "I MUCH prefer method #2, because method #1 is not at all realistic and removes the importance of the initial character build, which is a big part of what makes RPGs special to me." I have language disabilities, and writing is difficult for me. If you are going to keep trying to twist all my points, I'm just going to ignore you.

I'm saying that starting out like somebody who just learned their skill yesterday, while they've practiced their skill for ages, and should be more prepared and experienced, is just as unrealistic as starting out with nothing at all.

And I haven't even mentioned the OB/MW character creation...

You said two ways. You start out as a nobody, or as a predefined character. For some reason you went into the conclusion that you'll be able to fully controll your character development, so that if you start out as an archer you'll get better as an archer as well. That wasn't true in the other games, and it shouldn't be true with Skyrim either, as this it the main thing with TES, the "learn-by-doing" system.
You could always pick a skill as a class skill, but never use it. This couldn't be fixed without removing the "learn-by-doing" system or the class skills.

And if you still have worries how you won't be able to use your skill enough, there are trainers! Hope that they're useful this time...

Fine, then remove Deus Ex, and Planescape Torment from the list...

I played Oblivion and mindlessly swinging my weapon, with the exact same movement every time, is not what I call combat.

I'm not sure how this is all going to work, but in my brain it isn't much different than the creation process we had before. We can still select at the beginning but we don't have to/get to make the choices in the same way. Instead we must play and make decisions according to what we have decided we want to be. Instead of selecting major and minor skills we must play with the skills we want.

If I plan to be good with a short blade then I must use it. If I want to be a good archer then I must use a bow. Before I would pick what I planned to use most then use them. For me all this eliminates is the act of picking and the small advantage that gave me. It's still up to me what I use, how often I use it and thus how good I am with that skill. I can still build on the skills I decide to use. My character still will develop as I choose it to by making a conscious decision on what skills I want to use throughout the game. For this game my choices will be still be controlled by me, just not on a little chart that I put mark off at the start.

So, I'm not sure how I will like this change in the end but the more I think about it...it's a non-change that is moved a bit behind the scenes. :shrug:

What the ice vixen said. It appears that the game is aiming for a more open play style, moving away from the rpg genre's conventions.

It is more of an action adventure experience, like in GTA: San Andreas were you acquired skills and trained them by using the gun/vehicle.

I mostly avoided unarmored in Morrowind because it was glitched. I think the thought of unarmored is silly, though, you can train to absorb blows, but you can't train your flesh to not be cut open by a sword. Unarmored should have been replaced with Dodge or Deflect. More skills isn't depth, it's just quantity, not quality. Depth is three swordsmen playing differently because of what they have specialized in, 1handed or 2handed or dualwielding. Quantity is 6 warriors with completely different melee weapons, but playing exactly the same. In the previous games the difference between an iceball and a fireball was a label, now in skyrim fire and ice behave as an actual element. The weapons have been given depth, each having a property that the other doesn't, dualwielding in itself will bring a whole new warrior style to the table. Beth said somewhere that the easiest thing they could have done was just to add skills, because the skills of Oblivion and morrowind were just labels and numbers, no depth, and therefore no real effort to make them. I would rather have a limited number of skills with real depth, than an unlimited amount which are nothing but cosmetics, same reason why I would rather have a small world with interesting detailed places, than a world the size of a real world country, but completely repetitive. I'd rather have 200 deep and interesting quests than 500 made on an assembly line. Quality > Quantity.

I don't worry about Skyrim being simplified, because things have not only been cut, but also added. One can only call Skyrim simplified if one ignores what has been added, and if someone ignores what has been added, it usually because it doesn't help ones case. If someone ignores what goes against their case, it's because their conclusion has come before their research. They research with a given conclusion in mind, also known as Confirmation bias.

Make no mistake, Skyrim will be simplified but I don't think it's such a bad thing.

I also found unarmored was great for mages. Because you can't always run from some enemy beating the pulp out of you with a sword or hammer while you are trying to cast a spell. Unless you always used constant effect invisibility and that would be boring after awhile.

What she said....Summer always has great anologies about how the ES games are supposed to be. I also agree with the fact of if I want to be good at a short sword then I need to use it and practice with it. This is the way it sort of was in Morrowind, not completely but along those lines. The more you used a certain weapon, the more you could put points into the corresponding attribute and skill when you leveled up.

Thankfully other RPG choices were added in the way of perks.



Yep and this prevents folks from totally screwing up their character. So many folks would make choices at the beginning of their game then play an entirely different game from the choices they made then run in here complaining about their gimped character. I would always wonder why on earth they would build one sort of character then play it entirely without building upon their build. It sounds a bit crazy but yet, folks did it quite a lot. I'd be like, "why did you choose alchemy as a major skill then never pick flowers or make potions?" So I guess it simplifies it for those folks. For us who have been playing rpgs for a long time we built upon the skills we choose. I will continue to choose what skills I will use when I start my game then follow through because it's how I play and the only thing missing is the little bullets I mark at the start. I then expect Skyrim to recognize that I am playing using major and minor skills and increase those skills accordingly.

It seems they are simplifying it for those who made bad choices but leaving us who understand the mechanics to continue to make our informed choices by playing the character we have decided on from the start. The addition of perks will allow us all to continue to add appropriate skills to our character.

Anyone know if there will still be training available?