Not sure what you expect, theyre a business out to make money. Also i dont believe you responded to my question previously.

You said


"Which could have happened had they retained much of what they cut out. Indeed, retaining a lot of what they cut (which had no good reasons to be cut anyway) and coupling them with what Skyrim has (perks, etc) would make a system better than either one."

i responded


The system in skyrim from what ive gathered sounds like it will allow for infinitely more uniqueness to each character ESPECIALLY the jack of all trades types as this time around every single jack of all trades wont end up amazing at everything....they will be how jack of all trades naturally are....good at many but great at none.

And they'd make it whether they continue to peddle mainstream or go back to their roots and improve on them.



The point of a mystic, in my eyes, is to be like this:

Blade
Mysticism
Light Armor
Sneak
Athletics
Acrobatics
Block

Not like:

Alteration
Conjuration
Enchant
Restoration
Illusion
Blade
Light Armor
Sneak
Athletics
Acrobatics
Block

The Mystic Warrior and all derivatives of it (as well as the pure Mystic Mage, which only exists as a shadow of itself, due to reliance on multiple unneeded skills) are not possible in Skyrim in the same way they were in past games. To put this in perspective, look at the pure Destructor:

Destruction
Blade
Heavy Armor
Block
Armorer


Now, look at him how he would be in Skyrim:

Destruction
One-Handers
Heavy Armor
Block
Smithing

See the issue?



Actually the system is going to be fairly finite, just as the past systems were. What I'm advocating here is the best of both worlds. Lets have even more options with which to make our characters unique. Not less.

Yes, they are treading the borders a little bit, but unfortunately, I believe that is necessary for the good of the company, and thus, the good of the continuation of the series.

Am I the only one who find this sort of mentality hubristic? We were exchanging our money for their craft, time, distribution and resources spent for that particular product that we bought at that time, not making a [censored] investment for some other prospective future products.

I don't think so. Honestly, I sincerely doubt Skyrim wouldn't sell well if they went in the exact opposite direction they went with much of the design choices we're discussing here.

I mean really, Bethesda has established themselves as a great game developer and they have literally no reason to continue trying to appeal to a greater audience then they already have.

I mean really, just look at Skyrim's advertisemants. Virtually none of them hint at the issues we've been discussing here (beyond ones I think we can all agree are good anyway) and you'd just be lying if you think Skyrim wouldn't attract more and more people anyway if it went the opposite direction of mainstream.



Sure, but you would think they would listen a bit more to their core fanbase, the ones that have consistently paid for their games, as opposed to the people who likely don't even know what TES is.

Pretty much this. Some people need to stop being so hipster and get over themselves.

What do you think they used that money for?

Sure, they would attract people, I agree on that, but not nearly as many as they do if the do "tread the border a bit".
And think ahead, and not only one game: What if they made Skyrim like Arena and Daggerfall, only appealing to hard-core RPG fans; then others would possible find it utterly boring and wouldn't care about Bethesda's games anymore because they know they are hardcoe RPGs and wouldn't appeal to them.
That they already have established themselves as a great developer doesn't mean that they can suddenly start making games that don't appeal to people, because if they do, those people wouldn't buy the next game.

Do you honestly believe that Bethesda could live purely on the hard-core fans? If you do, you'd be lying to yourself.

This assumes that hardcoe RPG's cannot possibly appeal to casual gamers. (lets just be honest, this is who we're referring to here)



If they keep putting the same amount of money and pointless voice acting into the game? No. But if they stop trying to keep up with COD or whatever else then I think they'd do just fine. And whats more, it isn't just hard-core fans or casuals who don't know what the game is. There are many many degrees of gamers between those two extremes. And really I think the vast majority of those people are going to be the sort that will buy the game simply because it looks epic as all hell.

As I illustrated with the advertisemant example, the mere fact that the game looks epic will attract people. And if the game is actually good, people will stick with it regardless of whether it tips towards the hardcoe side or the mainstream one.

So really....your main issue is that you dont have the titles you had in the past to look at with your eyes. Your unable to just use the same spells/weapon types you used in past games and realize its the exact same style? Also your example at the end im confused about...


are you saying that its a bad thing to go from blade --> one handers....because one handers actually specializes deeper into just blades, so there is really no difference there i do not see the issue. And youre also saying the change from armorer to smithing is bad? i still dont see the issue there because you could i dont know, just use smithing for armor?

I guess i can kind of see where youre coming from with the smithing standpoint if your argument is that you want to specialize in armor as opposed to armor and weapons among other things....people would tend to reply to that with "dont like it dont use it" and say just use the armor aspect of it.(i hate when people reply with this argument and i think its ridiculous). Other than that though i still cant really see whats restraining you from just using the exact same skills/magics you were before.

I still dont see how adding in class selection could possibly result in more uniqueness at all unless of course you mean add in class selection along with blank slate, and if that were the case who would ever choose to start the game with zero increased stats. And i dont see how locking you along with others into a set path results in more uniqueness...that would mean that youre beginning characters would be far less unique until much later stages....when with the blank slate style your beginning characters would be far more unique far earlier on.

I DO agree with you a bit though in that much of the adding magic/skills to other categories was a bit uneccessary but i think they most likely did it for the perk trees...having them grouped like that allows the perk trees to be much deeper. Which this imo is a great change for the better. I love the idea of limited perks.

Rofl....i think you can safely assume hardcoe RPGs DEFINITELY dont appeal to casual gamers....take a look at fast travel, quest markers, points of interest on compass, everything like that.

You missed it.








Right. But I've seen former casuals convert. Hell, I've seen casuals simply pick up the game, have fun, and be done with it. Just like they do with every other game.



Someone who wants a challenge. Someone who wants to start as a peasant know-nothing. Someone who wants complete, in-game control of how their characters level and what they level. Etc.



This assumes that classes shouldn't be made dynamic and changeable at will. You may argue "well, whats the point" and I will respond that the point is having the best of both worlds. Let those who don't care ignore it and let those who do care use it.



Nah, they wouldn't. Every character of the same race would start out EXACTLY the same.

ZZ's point is something you missed in that example. It's not just the fact that the classes are gone but also the fact that with the removal of mysticism, mysticism class players will be forced to spread their perks around a numerous amount of skill trees. Opposed to just spending it in 5 trees, they need to spend it in almost 11 trees in order to be just as effective as an Oblivion/Morrowind Mystic.

ZZ's second example is actually in support of the new system because nothing much about the original class has changed except that players are given more diversity in the weapons they can use and the crafting option.

Why is it you wont reply at all to my posts?o.O So youre saying you refuse to use the same skills/spells as before because of their different names and thats basically it? All you care about is the name/category of the spells you use and not the content?

I only used Skyrims versions of the skills because I was talking about the Skyrim equivalent. Crafting and weapon diversity are not relevant and I picked the skills at random pretty much.



Again, you missed the point. Look at what I bolded. Look REALLY hard. Now, add in perks. See the problem?

Cmatian explained it well too. Not to be a dike but that wasn't really hard to understand. I also responded to the rest of your post as well. I just posted too early and you must've missed my edit.

You know how deep each perk tree is and assume he cant fill them all? and you also know that they split mysticism 11 ways? i appologize i mustve missed this info, unless youre just assuming mysticism is split so far you cant master its trees. Or is it all assumption at this point?



Sorry i mustve misread i thought he was asking for class title choices to be in, which would sort of eliminate the blank slate that we have in skyrim? Where was he supporting the new system?

The scope of the problem is not just class removal but the removal of skills (mysticism) for example that further complicates the skill build procedure. Rather than spend in 5 trees, you're placing points into 11 trees to get the most out of trying to play a mysticism.

I'm arguing (not asking) for both.



Look at what I posted. Look at how many skills I have to put perks in to get the same sort of mysticism character compared to the destruction character. 50 perks spread over the destruction character is going to result in a character that is massively more powerful than the one who has spread those 50 perks over alteration, restoration, illusion, conjuration, and wherever else they put mysticism's former spells.

If the perks are unique (which I think they will be), rather than re-packaged skill percentage improvements, class creation through playing will be more complicated than either OB or MW because these perks will really define you against another user of the same skill.

Making classes simplified would be to say: "lets let everyone choose all the perks in one playthrough".

Precisely. And having a class will further define you in this regard.

I'm not assuming. TH has mentioned before that Mysticism would be cut and the spells that pertained to Mysticism would be branched into the other magic skill trees. How deep into the trees are they? Who knows. It'll be all fine and dandy if they're the first perks in each skill tree but what if they're not, and there are some in deep parts of the branches? Mysticism players are effectively cut because they need to make a decision on what they value more in the class they love the most. I normally don't support ZZ, but in this case, he's right. What is the point of removing classes, more specifically, Mysticism itself?

Unless YOU have some sort of outstanding information that can confirm that the perks are not deep into the trees than I guess some players can rest easy. But for RP players, they won't even be able to title their class, it'll just be known as some hybrid abomination that's trying to be a mystic but just isn't quite there yet.