again, greater point.

alot of things are getting better and are different from previous games

Spell combinations, Shouts, Dual weilding etc etc


why Can't attributes be revamped, new and improved from prior games?

Actually attributes is a given in role playing games, and I admire them for looking at them closely this time and trying to figure out a new system, it's not bad to try a new system, you're asking yourself "How it can be done?" but I'm pretty sure that if it didn't work they wouldn't have implemented it, take Todd's grasp on horses for example. Todd said that they won't implement horse riding unless it's done well. So what does that tell you? They could always do what was in Oblivion, you know... the HORRIBLE HORRIBLE horse riding system...

As for your first statement: Attributes didn't do it just fine, and that's why they got rid of them. You have to admit it was a pretty bad system they had with the attributes in Oblivion. If they looked at it closely and told themselves that in order for it to work they have to remove them, then it probably fits with the game and the rest of the game. Like I said, if it didn't work well, they wouldn't have implemented it.

Another thing Bethesda admitted to was that they made mistakes. Not only in Oblivion, but in Skyrim too. They said they used the new radiant story system for almost anything, but then they took a step backwards and saw that it doesn't fit. Now they're using in a good, controlled and measurable way. It's obvious they're thinking HARD about this game, you can't deny it.

As for your second statement: It's obvious they're a different company, that's a given too. But making a statement like "hmm we are undoubtedly sixy, lets bring in more and put in as many cliche things as possible because..you know...it never fails" has (like I already said) absolutely no grounds at all. They changed, but I didn't see them making even ONE game that lacked depth and originality (except for Oblivion a little bit, but you saw what happened in FO3 all of a sudden), see my point?

They failed to disappoint me, although I did like Morrowind better, but when you actually see all the depth they're putting into this game, changing all the systems, trying new things, going to risky grounds (let's face it, they probably expected to have a wave of rage throughout the community after they'll publish they got rid of attributes), so why would they get rid of something that is known to be solid, and is already a known and popular system in RP games just so they could make money? Your statement has absolutely no logic at all, because if they did that only to make money, they wouldn't have gotten rid of attributes as it's an easier system to implement rather adding details gathered upon details gathered upon details of character development options. They'll have to think HARD to make each character unique if they would've gotten rid of attributes. Plus, they would've needed to create a whole new system for it, and nonetheless, a system that WORKS.

Fact is, you can't say that removing attributes is a move towards simplicity or making money because it's easier to implement attributes and they would've known it would create a killing frenzy amongst all their old fans (me included).

They are, just in a format that is not traditional.

It was improved by being removed.

Ruder? Idk about that lol. Maybe more Frank. but high elves are much more condesending, and that makes me think they're bigger d bags than orcs lol. Besides, you can just say which ever character has more magicka is the more intelligent one.

whats being bashed here is a tried and true system that virtually no one was adverse to until it was announced that there was a change. I am defending attributes from mindless fan boyism that declaires any thing that was in a previous game but is not in SK was horrible and worst ever because SK will be the best game ever. I have never said the new configuration won't work for other people, but it won't work for me and people who play the game in a style similar to me. previously TES had been about accomadating just about every one's style of game play, which with the CK it still might for me and so on, but this change is one of the first times other than the drastic cut back on weapons and armor that the devs have completely excluded a demographic.

You know, back in the day when I started playing D&D, the first thing I've learned is that when I introduce my character to the others I shouldn't say "I'm a level X wizard with Y Intelligence, and I know the Z spell". Roleplaying was about telling who my character is, where he's from, what's his favorite food, not his statistics. Did I played him like how I played him because he had a high intelligence stat? No, I played him like that because that's the role I came up for him, I set his intelligence in that in mind, not the other way around. I only used the stats for skill rolls, and other bonuses, not to decide whether or not he read a lot.
Would I have a problem playing the same character without attributes? No, because the attributes didn't made the character, the character made the attributes.

I typically don't share my characters with other people so it doesn't matter how I define my characters since it is solely to suit me. I play the game the way I enjoy it most, if you want you can tell me that I am not allowed to play the game in a manner that I enjoy. but don't be surprised if it doesn't affect me in the slightest.

You can still make people weaker by using potions; just because it says "Target is weakened for x seconds" instead of "Damage Strength by x for x seconds" doesn't mean the "attribute" strength isn't in the game. It will still be in the game, just not represented by a number. Or do you think swinging a huge battleaxe around and chopping someone's head off wil not make you stronger?



Really? So ticking boxes when the perk fairy visits is more realistisc than, well, ticking boxes (because that's what it was) when the attribute fairy visits?
Let's assume that I want to create an Orc warrior using big battleaxes exactly like the one I had in Oblivion. My Orc in Oblivion was very strong, obviously he needed massive amounts of strength to be able to swing his axe. This was represented by an attribute with a number; Strength.
My Orc in Skyrim is very strong too, and enjoys swinging his axe. Instead of this being represented by an attribute with a number, this is represented by perks. Perhaps I will pick a perk that allows me to do a powerattack, or a perk which allows me to swing my axe a bit faster. Or even a perk which allows me to move carry more stuff, who knows?
All of these perks would be directly influenced by my Orc's strength. So while strength is not actually represented with a number, it is still in the game, this time however it is represented (in a way) by perks.

So instead of saying "My Orc is strong, he has a strength attribute of 88, which allows him to inflict more damage and carry more stuff." you will be saying: "My Orc is strong, he can carry a lot of stuff and swing his axe around like a beast."
All Bethesda did was remove a number. The attributes are still there.

Not to cast aspersions on anyone or how they get their enjoyment, but when it comes to "realism" and "role-playing" in a video game, I'd rather form follow function and these ideas be represented in the game itself rather than having to overlay my own imagined meanings and interpretations onto what actually occurs in the game. I've done a small bit of D&D and I think furnishing more of the setting with one's imagination works better in the context of interacting with other people. As far as realism goes, and I'm sure this will sound trite, I already live a life in which completely mundane skills and achievements are hard-won, and really I want to escape from that from time to time. It's not to say that I want my video games to be hilariously easy, but I also don't think realism is the ideal every game should strive for.

You thought your High Elf was intelligent because she or he had a high Intelligence Stat, which in reality reflects the amount of Magicka you have at your disposal. Now, in Skyrim, you believe she is more intelligent than another Character, because she has a high pool of Magicka, she is highly skilled in several schools of magic that open up the possibility to perform more advanced spells, AND you can individualize these skill sets by selecting a perk that reflects that character type. You now have many different things to role-play off of. You now have more depth to your Character. It's no longer about the numbers or the amount of magicka, it's what you're character is capable of doing within the actual game. What spells can she perform? How are they performed? AGAIN, This will depend on How long YOU WORK a skill, how much Magicka YOU BUILD up , and what perks YOU DECIDE to use.

Now, how the other Attributes are carried within the game is unclear. How they are spread throughout the three remaining attributes, the skills and the perk system is not yet fully understood, but we know they are presented to us through that system in some way or another. All of the things the attributes represented are still in the game. We will just have to wait and see, but I'm pretty sure most of us will enjoy it; it will just be a new role-playing experience. Will it catch on? We don't know yet, because we haven't experienced it yet. Let's continue the discussion in 6 months, shall we?

I have absolutely no idea why people continue to conflate attributes with roleplaying. Maybe I haven't made it clear enough yet.

The point, to me, of attributes re: roleplaying is to define a basic trait of the character (this character is strong, for instance), then be done with it. "Strong" isn't roleplaying. "Strong" is just a characteristic, and it's in large part because I don't want to muck around with all of the assorted derivations of "strong" in order to define the character, but would prefer to simply set him as "strong" and be done with it and let the game handle all the rest of that crap that I would prefer a system with attributes intact.

My Orc adventurer is strong. That has a range of effects that I don't have to deal with - the game just takes care of them. That frees me to roleplay him as an idealist who left Orsinium to be an adventurer - that is, to gather treasure for Gortwog and thus for the glory of Orsinium. But before he even left City Isle, in the first dungeon he explored - Dzonot Cave - he came across the lonely corpse of a fellow Orc adventurer, far from home and indisputably dead. And at that moment, everything he thought he'd believed fell apart. He was terrified at the thought that that could well have been him - dead in a foreign land with nothing to show for it. And he decided then and there that if he was going to risk his neck for treasure, he was damned well going to profit from it himself, and if Gortwog wanted treasure, he could get off his enormous butt and go get some for himself. Entirely unexpectedly (I simply created him as "Orc adventurer" and had no other real notion regarding his personality), he started to morph into a surprisingly greedy and self-serving SOB who's currently in the earliest part of the Thieves Guild line and perfectly at home there. That wasn't at all what I might've expected, but that was the direction the character took, so that's that.

Meanwhile - in the background - he's strong. That means he can carry more stuff and do more melee damage and such, but I don't have to deal with any of that, since the game handles it all. I've never had to give it a moment's thought.

THAT'S the point of attributes to me. THAT'S why I keep saying that attributes are primary and the other things are secondary. To anologize - all of the details that make up roleplaying are skin and eyes and hair and nose - proportion and tone and complexion and arrangement - attributes are the skeleton. They're the things upon which all the rest of those details are hung. I don't want to have to pay attention to the skeleton. I don't want to have to arrange this and that in order to end up with something that sort of resembles what I would have with this or that skeleton. I just want to start with the skeleton, then be done with it and set about dealing with all the rest of those details, content that it's there, doing what it's supposed to do, in the background where I don't have to pay any attention to it.

You want the mechanics to be handled in the background instead of actually thinking for yourself and making a more unique character? Wouldn't that mean that HAVING ATTRIBUTES actually DUMBS DOWN the RPG experience? And removal of attributes gives more control to the players? Therefore, Skyrim is MORE of an RPG because of the removal of attributes? You want the skeleton to be built for you, instead of building it yourself?

:facepalm:

if you really need a number to justify your smartness in the game i think you miss the point of role playing. and it doesn't matter that you don't agree with todd because he's doing what he wants to do.

Uh, what? The skeleton (attributes) are already gone. They have been removed from Skyrim. It has already been simplified and the skeleton has already been built for you. That's what this discussion is about.

Atrributes should be set by the player during character creation. I want a strong Orc so I give him a high starting strength. After this, the player should no longer be able to directly manipulate attributes. It's no longer about what the character is, but about what he does. Therefore, if I want a stronger Orc I should be focusing on skills that promote strength. I.e. weapon and armor skills. Increasing these should increase my strength state in the same way that exercising and becoming more proficient at efficient, effective exercises would increase your overall physical prowess.

But without attributes this is not possible. I am not strong, I'm just good with swords. Being forced to pretend you are strong could be classified as roleplaying. But it is still a failure of the game to actually represent this ability. RPGs should foster role playing, not compel players to make [censored] up to compensate for the game's shortfalls.

Actually there are a number if systems in the market today that rate a persons attributes on a numerical scale. Some of them even a little bit insightful. Some are for athletic measurement, IQ, Emergenetics and the like that scale how your mind works on an anolytical,social,structural, and theortical levels.

Frankly I think most attributes will be rolled into some(majority) of the perks. I do think that races should have a fixed set to start. If you want to become a "smart" orc you should work towards it in-game. Following that route would allow a more open end style, allow more depth and add a bit of immersion

its not about needing some thing to define my character for me, its a stat I have controll over that I don't have to keep track of it in my head. you try juggling around the stats of 19+ role play characters in your head. I use attributes as a reference to how my characters compare to my other characters. having perks that do these things that are already done before are not only waste of perks but also don't do any thing for comparing my characters. how is having the third level of a perk tree define my the intellegence or personality of my thief compared to one that has only a level one of that "personality" perk? its is stupid to say this thief is two charisma better than that thief. it doesn't work, not for me at least.

Perks affect only skills. Intelligence is replaced by Magicka.

Tried and true? Hilarious. Tell me another one.

The attribute system in Morrowind and Oblivion was a mess. You had to exploit the system to get a decent increase in any attribute and their effect on the game was in large part insignificant in comparison to your skills and equipment. Strength affected things most directly, since it handled your encumbrance and added melee damage bonuses. Other than that they were quite murky. Half of them determined your stamina. Half. Magicka, meanwhile, was affected by a single attribute that effectively had no other function, hence Howard's use of it as an example. And I have no trouble believing his claims that everything the attributes did is still in the game. Between skill synergies and perks you will have a warrior character who is stronger and can carry more than a wimpy mage. Why? Because he's spent a long time swinging around his heavy warhammer whilst wearing armor made out of super-heavy volcanic glass slightly softer than diamond and infused with the tortured souls of Daedra. Not because he took a nap and woke up with bigger muscles, like he's Spider-Man or something. All the attributes will effectively be there. (Except luck. [censored] luck. It was a waste of an attribute increase.)

The reason people are mad about attributes being gone is because in their minds RPGs are supposed to have attributes. Never mind the fact that there are a number of CRPGs out there that have no attributes whatsoever and still have significant character variety and complexity. This obsessive notion that a "true" RPG can only have a character who's pre-defined is ludicrous. Character variety is what really matters, and after a few levels you'll be sufficiently distinct from other given characters that the lack of attributes and classes and birthsigns will not matter. For the record, I'm sad to see birthsigns go, but oh well.

Unfortunately some of the perks will replace some attributes statistically. I.E the hidden modifier damage like "mace ignores armor" or "bleed damage" from axes. Bleh mundane hidden modifiers. :sadvaultboy:

You mean those things that didn't exist in prior games? Swords, axes, and maces all worked pretty much the same before, just with different speed to damage ratios. These perks actually give the respective weapons their own advantages.

Stamina affected basically everything. Try picking a lock or casting a spell with zero stamina, then try again with a full bar. It was very valuable for every character to have a high stamina, and so a lot factored into it.

Not to dismiss the problems in past systems, as there are many. But removing attributes entirely is just as dismissive. It's saying, "[censored] it, we can't be bothered to fix an incredibly basic system that's used in just about every major RPG out there."

Um, no they won't? I mean, if attributes are there, then we wouldn't really be having this argument. If they are there, there is no reason not to allow me to tweak these attributes at the beginning the craft a unique and distinct character. If they actually are there and I do have the ability to create my character as I see fit, Todd ought to speak the [censored] up, because he's creating a lot of anxiety over a myth easily dispelled.

I like how you're arguing that character variety is the crux of the matter and then go onto argue against character variety because probably there'll be distinctions later on. Seriously, if you actually value character variety it should be extremely easy to empathize with the concern being expressed here.

Agree with OP; it's a role-playing game; although attributes are somewhat abstract representations of the fact that Orcs are generally stupid, they still provide a tangible level of differentiation between different races and roles.
The races are more just reskinned versions of each other now, which is a bit of a shame.

You missed pretty much every point. Stamina is still there and still affects gameplay. What I was saying is that when so many attributes determine the same thing their meaning is greatly diminished. And as far as they've said, yes the attributes are still there in a sense. They're just something derived from the skills rather than the other way around, which is perfectly in line with their objective of you defining your character entirely through how you play him/her. You can still have a character who's stronger than another character by using skills related to strength, which arguably makes more sense. Want to get stronger in real life? Lift weights. Try boxing. Sprint. Same damn principle. The past two games had this to a degree, in that the skills you used provided multipliers (read: the system forced you to grind unused skills associated with the attribute you wanted to increase) but this pretty much just cuts out the middleman and lets the skills handle it directly.

And I'm confused as to how you think I argued against character variety. Quite the contrary. With the introduction of perk trees character variety will be greatly increased. Even if you max out every skill your character will be better at different things than another based on how you've distributed your perks. The fact that you have a limited number of perks to distribute does even more to increase this variety. It's impossible to get all of them, so choose the ones that are important to you. That makes a hell of a difference. How you are at the start of the game really doesn't matter. In almost every RPG system out there level one characters svck at almost everything, but if there's not a set path of development then you can improve your character in any way you wish and soon enough your guy will be unique.