edited, now #111.

I'm sure that has nothing to do with population distribution and cultural factors within ethnic groups at all. Tell me about how they've got more "fast-twitch" muscle fiber now.

True but if your strength attribute was high that additional damage was based around the bleed damage or mace ignores armor. It's basically just diluting the situation even moreso than attributes, I call it a sham. I will definately be avoiding these perks as much as possible this game. I don't mind the concept but I need tangible onscreen benefits. I don't want my mace to "ignore armor" I want want the enemies frakkin armor to crumple when he gets bashed. Bleed damage should have some visible hemoraging effect rather than some damnable DOT healthbar BS. I dont want WOW.

Just think my way is better. I don't mind that attributes have changed. Without some change the game would become stagnant. I am just concerned they are pulling a switcharoo shyster act with the perks. The system isn't a bad concept. It's Bethesda's implementation that concerns me. It definately has no creative spark. Hope I am pleasantly surprised.

There was no bleed damage in any prior games and no weapon ever ignored armor. Higher strength = more damage. That's the extent of it. Hell, strength never even factored into your attack equation in Morrowind, it was your skill and nothing else.

Hmm. Tired. maybe I didn't type it correctly but that is exactly what I said.

(checking again)Yep definately what I said.

not for the way I play the game, magicka doesn't replace intellegence in the slightest for how I role play. its how I play the game, deal with it. but don't be surprised if I don't let some one tell me how I am supposed to play the game and how much I am obligated to like it.

Most things that affected stamina also affected other things. Endurance determined health, willpower determined magicka consumption and resistance, strength determined carry weight, starting health, and damage. I'm seeing plenty of meaningful distinctions here. The reason that so many attributes would influence fatigue is still due to the fact that fatigue played an integral role in the effectiveness of every character.

In any case, if the argument is one of not enough distinction then the solution is to make attributes more distinct, not cut them entirely. That's called laziness.

I haven't heard anything like this. I've heard That most attributes apparently did things that skills already did, but nothing saying, "Yeah, we still have attributes, but they are invisible now." This would be something I am totally in favor of. Cutting the multiplier grind would be an unequivocally good decision. But this doesn't sound like what they are doing, and it does not excuse excluding attributes from character creation.

This has nothing to do with perks. At least, I highly doubt it does. Unless Beth sat around and said, "Okay, we can have an attribute system or a perk system," then the removal of attributes will always lead to less variety.

You shouldn't have to develop a character in game before they become unique. My character has a history, past accomplishments, dangers overcome, a particular genetic stock. I want these things reflected in game. I want my character to be distinctive from the first step. I shouldn't have to abide by a few levels of generic character ability simply because some people would rather play an arcade game.

And yeah, they are gifted in magic, but I think Dunmer and Bretons are also gifted in magic, and they aren't any dumber than Altmer...

Going off topic: I really hate stuck-up people, especially Altmer

So the way you play the game is to ignore the fact that Intelligence determined how much magicka you had and effectively nothing else? Roleplaying is meaningless if it has no effect on anything. It's the difference between playing D&D and rolling dice alone in your bedroom.

I think the core of what the OP is saying is that without attributes a part of feeling recompense and achievement is missing.

2nd: GENETICS

Did you hear that explosion? That was your argument being blown out of the water. My school's first fifteen rugby team consists of a mix of something like 60% Polynesian, 30% European, 10% other (there's one Somalian, one Asian).

But let's let the pictures do the talking, shall we?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_origins_of_New_Zealanders

http://rugbyworldcupstream.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/all-blacks-vs-australiahaka1-live-picturer.jpg

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/multimedia/photo_gallery/1007/pistons.1989.photos/content.1.html sorry for the age.



I thought that point would come up, hence why I did the editing.
It actually doesn't. At my school, about 70% of people are of European descent. About 20% of the school play rugby. Rugby is FIRMLY ingrained in the hearts and minds of the population.

That picture says it all. There you have the New Zealand All Blacks playing the Australian Wallabies. And look at the physical SIZE of the all blacks compared to the wallabies. It's clear from that that in the same amount of time they have developed more muscle....

It is like when people heard there won't be classes anymore. They just want the labels in the character menu so they can look at them. I understand that... but I am not fixated on them myself (I used to be back in the day).

I did not look at the photos, but I hope you are not basing your argument on children who have not finished growing yet. People mature at differing ages and it is hard to make any arguments about final genetic attributes until people reach advlthood. Hell, I grew 2 inches in my first year out of highschool and (I think?!) 21 is the cut-off when everyone stop physically growing (not sure though).

Wasn't dismissing the point entirely, but genetics are not the only determining factor. Of course people of certain groups are predisposed towards certain body structures. Training is just as important, though.

Also, they've stated that the races will be more unique now. They've not specified how, but I think we can safely assume that Nords will make better warriors than Bosmer.

Gurkog, I would never post a photo on the internet with my school's rugby team in it...

I'm actually taking about breadth... and those men are between the ages of 18 and 31. Ish.

I could post a list of the average human height for each country on the planet, if you like?!

"I'm sure that has nothing to do with population distribution and cultural factors within ethnic groups at all" could be said to be entirely dismissing the point

I was never dismissing that myself, but I was replying to someone who believed that genetics weren't a determining factor at ALL.

There you have two professional teams that would do almost exactly the same amount of training... Look at the picture. Look at the SIZE of the guys in black compared to the guys in yellow.

I hope so.

I despise the intelligence attribute. The game tries to tell me my warrior is an idiot simply because he harbors a romanticized love for the art of the sword rather than the use of magic, and that's bullcrap.

Suppose an Altmer NPC is made with dialogue that suggests he/she is dumb? Or an Orc NPC is made with dialogue that suggests he/she is very smart? Even if you were to increase or decrease the intelligence attribute of either NPC, it wouldn't affect either NPC's "actual" intelligence (just each's magicka level).

Now that I think about it, I have the sensation that the attributes/perks system is dangerously similar to the one Dark Messiah of Might&Magic has. And that's definitely a BAD thing.

Not because of that game being bad (on the opposite, I had lots of fun with it), but for the genre it could be defined....totally action-oriented pseudo-RPG.

You also have to factor in that the people who are playing rugby are not a random slice of the population. If you round up everyone from around the world and did calculations the variances for the most part would be slight.

I'll admit, I didn't follow the entire thread of your argument, and I apologize for being a bit hasty in my response. But I do think the races in Skyrim should be sufficiently different from one another. I'd be delighted if Nords and Orcs got a damage bonus to melee attacks, or if Altmer regenerated magicka faster, or if Khajiiti just plan ran faster than every other race when all other factors are the same. That said, I do grow tired of these threads where women weep and men gnash their teeth at the loss of attributes, saying that it will stifle character variety since you can't determine what they're like at the start, which of course ignores that you could barely affect your starting stats at all during character creation. Well, apart from birthsigns. You'd have to be a fool not to pick one that increases your attributes (or your magicka, if you're a mage). But five measly points added to two attributes? Ha. Race mattered far more.

and you have to also factor in how it was not hard in Oblivion to have 100 in most attributes without really trying anyway.... which is the problem with arbitrary maximums, unless the game is well designed characters end up being pretty much identical no matter what your original purpose might be (unless you specifically feel the need to gimp your characters for the sake of role-playing which is a sign of piss poor game design).

Have you looked at the picture? This particular subtopic of the thread is about race born attributes and how in real life they do not exist. They very clearly do, and it's been a part of genetic science for over 100 years. If you look at the human height for a population, the average height for a man in Japan is 1.72 m, compared to Norway where it is 1.82m. I'm sorry, but you are now arguing against observable traits that you will observe when walking down the street. It's a stereotype that Asians are short and Nordic people are tall, it's a stereotype because it's true.

Because if someone wants attribute system they want it exactly as it appeared in past games. Yep, these are the only choices folks! No attributes at all or attributes with [censored] implementation. Choose your sides!

That would be a valid point if I wasn't seeing people constantly cite the prior games when arguing in favor of attributes. If they implemented them in a completely different way then sure, they could be good. But frankly, the decision to cut attributes was clearly born of their design philosophy for character building: you are what you do. Personally, I won't miss them. I've played plenty of good RPGs with no attributes. Hell, I just finished playing one for the night. Geralt of Rivia always starts out the same way at level one, but he sure as hell isn't the same Geralt of Rivia as in everyone else's game now.