I agree with the OP but fear it is already too late. :sadvaultboy:

Seconded, *sad face*

You know what else is silly? Complaining about losing complexity that never existed in the first place...

I'm not even trying to imply that the old system was complex, it was actually rather simple...but what do you call something that is more simple than simple?

from what ive seen Skyrim will have a lot more depth than oblivion. the only difference is the depth comes from playing instead of simply picking what you are at the biggining which is fine with me.

to me more skills usually equals alot of "fluff" thats not needed. sure there are some skills that i think they should have kept from morrowind to oblivion but either way i dont think they could make it any simplier than oblivion.

Accessible and attention to detail are not at all mutually exclusive. Just because you don't need to spend days or so just learning what is going on in the game mechanics doesn't mean there will be no challenge to our abilities or our minds. It just means it's a mostly self-explanatory system that is easily accessed. It can still be intricate and detailed. It's just not complicated.

Simpler in what way? Less skills? Perks made single skills more complex and deep. No Classes? TES never had real classes, only restrictions. The same thing is done with, again, perks with more freedom. No birthsings? How are they any different from perks, or any other powers you could get during the game. No attributes? Skills did nearly all the things attributes did (this is probably the most debatable)

What else we've got? An economy system, unscripted dragons, deeper, more unique combat system, possibly a way to use the environment...

Simple... sure.

1. TES4 already started to dumb it down (stat/skill system was already good in TES3)
2. Removing attributes can't be described as toning down a bit
3. It is better to have too complex game, than to have oversimplefied one. In first case there is possibility of growth, but in second case there is no progress of gaming skills
Example
X3:Terran Conflict vs. Freelancer

If we just want to go by the amount of skills, then Morrowind cut back far more of the series' depth than Oblivion. What DOES annoy me, however, is Bethesda's tendency to cut things they can't get right instead of trying to fix them. Personally I feel as if Todd loves having each game's mechanics take a step "to the side" instead of trying to expand upon what they've already done. I know he's said that starting over with a clean slate is good for the series, and I guess it is, but are things like Skyrim's new combat system really better, or are we just getting caught up in the hype of how new it is?

Here's some better examples. Instead of merging axes into blunt weapons, how about you actually MAKE axes interesting instead of having them handle like slow-moving swords? Levitation is out because it was overpowered in MORROWIND, well that's great - rework it so that it drains your magicka over time, or you can only float a certain amount of feet high relative to the ground beneath you, or you can't attack whilst levitating. Why can't Bethesda do that instead of going "well it was bad in Morrowind and it'd be bad again because we'd obviously not make ANY effort to re-invent it like we constantly pride ourselves on doing with other parts of the game"? :stare:

All in all though, I think that the perks in Skyrim, if they are indeed as comprehensive as they claim to be, will help to make those previously underdeveloped weapons like axes slightly more rewarding and justified to use. They just decided to have this additional depth manifest itself in the form of perks instead of bringing back the skill. So I think at worst Skyrim won't be any more simple than Oblivion, and at best it could be comparable to Daggerfall/Morrowind.

But only if all the perks aren't stupid gimmicky things like "durr hurr ignore armor" or "set things on fire whenever you punch them".

:P

Complexity simply for the sake of complexity does not a good game make.

1) skyrim has less skills but more perks (and you can decide which ones to take)... seems like more depth to me.
2) Attributes didnt really do anything other than increasing health, mana, and stamina... o wait skyrim is goin to let us do that too just more direct about it.
3) i agree that complex is better than oversimplefied but to me skyrim is more complex than oblivion already

Uh, what's wrong with those perks? Those actually do something.
What everyone is afraid of are the +X on other skill perks, those would be dumb...

I think Beth is focusing more on the aspect of each playthrough being unique rather than only your character. Instead of focusing on remaking a character 9 times to change classes, they're making it so that you adapt to your playstyle and are not shackled to your decision in the first 15 minutes of the game.

The other features they've added play into this, radiant AI and story for example. In this case, the game is a 'lot' more complex than it ever has been, as any aspect of your game can be replayed and will turn out differently. So now it's not just how you made your character, it's how you play as that character. One could play the game multiple times with the same archetype, but a different mindset and have a totally different experience.

They do affect each other on some levels since an intricate and detailed design would require that you experiment with it in order to understand it. I have nothing against accessibility when it comes to interface/ surface game mechanics but I wouldn't complain if they made at least a few of the game mechanics complicated just because the reward is greater.


Neither you nor I have played that game so our opinions on Skyrim's system is void. I was referring to the difference between Daggerfall, Morrowind, and Oblivion. It has been simplified and I'm not sure if all of it was entirely necessary.

Perks and skills add diversity. Attributes add depth.

Maybe for those who feel some connection between attributes and roleplaying. For me, perks and skills add diversity, and attributes didn't really add diddly.

As much depth as skills and perks add, really they both do the exact same thing.

And no, perks, skills AND attributes wouldn't add more depth either, unless they gimp skills more, so there would be more things attributes alone do.

Attributes are a layer of numbers between the things that actually matter in the game . . .

Yep, this.

Attributes add kinda the same thing skills add.

Yes things are changing, but I don't know if we can actually call it simplified. To start with, they are adding a lot of new stuff. Expanded crafting and economics to name just two. You can name some more such as public transportation returning. Also a lot of the things we are losing are really just being shuffled around under new names.
Attributes are gone, but all they did was function as an intermediary from what you really wanted. (Someone is going to jump in and say they used them for role playing, but they are wrong. Yes attributes can be used in role playing ,see fallout 3/NV, but the attributes in TES weren't used in that function.) The skill mysticism is gone, but the spells are still around just under different skills. Did we really lose mysticism? Same with athletics and acrobatics. The skills are gone, but the perks of the skills have been shifted under new skills.

Well this sums up a lot of my points. Thanks for reading my mind before I was even thinking about it.


As for people who say the weapons skills in Morrowind were redundant, I'd like to know how. A claymore is used very differently than a longsword which is used very differently than a dagger. A mace is used very differently than a warhammer. An axe is used very differently than a mace or a warhammer. Each weapon strikes the target in different ways, used in different manners. Even though it might appear that a mace strikes the same as a battle axe, they target different points on the body. Daggers are for thrusting, claymores for chopping and slashing, longswords do both but are gripped much differently and require different skill to manuever. The only similarities i've heard are how the body adjusts to the weapon, which was previously modeled by attributes, although it could have been modeled better by those attributes if they raised multiple attributes automatically rather than a multiplier.

Eitherway, we have a history of simplifying things, some of them warrented, many unwarrented. Skyrim im sure will follow the pattern, and I personally don't think they will make the reduction justified.

I like his name. He sounds like an interesting character to meet in TES. Probably from some unknown land banished and preparing to return to overthrow the lords who banished him in the first place. His avatar wreaks of revenge, gazing off into the distance, as if planning his assualt.

so TC would rather do a ton of micro managing than play the game?

Yes, those weapons were different, but how did it showed in Morrowind?
It didn't.

My point is, I don't know why people are talking about removal of depth when there were no depth to begin with...