How so?

I would assume, just off the top, that a perk based skill system would be the one that was limited, and the one you could not do "new stuff" with. Perks add an effect, but its a constant... Its never a new one is it?

With a numbers based system, its entirely up to the designer how to apply those values. I've made [Item construction] mods where the PC had to have sufficient skill (in addition to the components) in order to attempt it; I could have even made it a skill roll, (implying a margin for error, but as it was... I just used thresholds ~for familiarity sake with new players). In Fallout 2... in a certain military lab/base location, (http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Chimpanzee_brain :chaos:) the PC can use a machine to extract the brain of one of his NPC's or retrieve a brain from a storage area there, and It is the PC's skill in science that determines what brain they retrieve. A higher science skill implies a... well... a higher understanding of science? (In this case, Biology.)
IMO this is better [for role playing] than the option for the player to just pick one on whim. The former method reflects what the character would do based on their understanding and education; the latter would require obvious hints for the player.

While its true that this could be done in a PERK/skill system, IMO it would be inherently more limited, or might actually require ranks in the perk ~and that's basically simplified skills or stats. Three ranks in a perk vs. 1 to 100 values in a skill. These values allow for far greater granularity in quest design than simply checking for a perk, (or even the number of ranks in that perk).

Actually, considering the main point of this entire topic revolves around the game world, a large part of it being it's size, what I posted is something people should care about considering it points out how misinformed his post is. And yes, it does make a large part of his rant invalid.

You ask for more intelligent posts, but then look at what you post. Just a little hypocrisy there, I believe.

All I can say is that the skills in daggerfall are simplu like perks, so basically skyrim has over 280 of daggerfalls skills in it, because the skills were not big at all.

Skyrim will be an open world, free-roam game and not like redguard. It'll be pretty much like Oblivion.

Note that morrowind was the spin-off of the series and they didn't even try to "capture the fantasy feeling of morrowind".

thanks for sharing, Im going to go ahead and just say right now


The Cake is a Lie.


But in all honestly Gp, that really sounds like Complaicancy (CANNOT SPELL) I understand the anology honestly even though he's forgeting stuff the eater doesnt seem to be content where as the TES series is more along the lines of I have frosting, but not cake, or the cake was 2 layers and now its one but look candles!

I agree with BootySweat, in that its unreasonable to use Arena and Daggerfall as starting points for Oblivion, and that its too soon to judge Skyrim. I think that on the whole Oblivion has problems, and BGS has acknowledged those.

BGS tries new things not just because they can, but because they believe they will make the game better in specific ways. If something doesn't pan out, the answer isn't just to backpedal, its to try something else. If the experiment was a total failure, then the 'something else' should probably be radically different. If it was a partial or qualified failure, then it should be tweaked to address the problems.

Basically, we're told that parts of the sandbox have been changed. We know that old sand has to be removed from those parts of the sandbox, but we don't know if the new sand is a greater or lesser quantity than what was removed. Its supposed to be high tech and snazzy sand tho, so we'll see.

Wait a minute... To experiment away from what's known to work and when it breaks... to then just try something new (and not revert to what worked)... How is that a good thing?

*Upon leaping from a stone to a lily-pad (and finding that it sinks), shouldn't one paddle back to the stone first? (before jumping out at another lily-pad)?

Imagine the fourth and fifth (and perhaps even the third) weren't really the product of a master pastry chef, but the product of years and years of market research. Trying hundreds, perhaps even thousands of different recipes on test audiences.

The result? A cake especially developed for the average consumer. Which is great of you like McDonalds burgers, Starbucks coffee and James Cameron movies. Not everyone has average taste, though.

That is what many Elder Scrolls fans have been arguing for years.

You forgot an important thing...

This baker based his cake on another one made by another very successful baker.

That is pretty much the same thing I've been thinking about the game. There are obvious improvements, but will those improvements come at the cost of other features? I'm anxious to get my hands on the game and try it out. Luckily I'm getting it for PC, so if there are some immersion breakers I can edit them out or change them. Which hopefully I wont have to do.

That's the thing when companies start using market research to dictate their design decisions: all products start to look, smell and taste the same.

Then these cakes were the same from the very beginning...

Okay, so I read the first page, so don't shoot me if I missed this. But, please don't ask tons of questions in your post and refrain from answering, its a really bad way to make points and absolutely made me hate you, sorry about that.

I understand that many folks don't like the changes that have been made. There is still tons of complexity to the game, and many new features have been added to increase the PC interactions with the world. Some stuff got axed and some things have been put into the game that are much more important to your ability to have fun, imo.

If you are going to bother to RP, then not having classes and attributes literally has no effect on your ability to do that. I could pretend that my character was a slow but incredibly strong alien from the alien franchise in any of the games, and no amount of skills would make that really what I was. I could still have fun pretending if I so choose.

I'm not sure which particular cakes you are referring to.

Arena was basically a mix of the mainstream ultima titles and Ultima: Underworld

skyrim certainly seems more sandbox than oblivion. especially with the lack of restrictive classes, less restrictive changeable birth-sign replacement, more of a "living world", more living "towns", radiant story, and more role-playing options - freedom ftw.

I'm sure those games were considered mainstream in those days, which kinda fits my argument. It's indicative of how much more mainstream gaming as a whole has become. The games industry has changed a lot over the years. Twenty years ago, most games cost less than a million dollars to make. Ten years ago 5 to 10 million was still typical. Nowadays some games have a budget in excess of $100 million. Every "triple A" title has to be the equivalent of a James Cameron movie. If the game doesn't appeal to the masses, it flops.

China called...they want their wall back...

I think it's going to be fine.

In my own "dream system", I have 55 skills based on attributes, like a traditional RPG. But not enough imagination to make up 6 perks for each of these skills (330). 100 skills would require 600 perks (skill based abilities). MW had 27 skills with 4 "perks" (linear rather than selectable), giving 108. The folks here have already deemed that everything should be player skill centric rather than character, so having fumbles and flukes, which is an important part of all other systems I've played, makes dice rolls completely replaced with always successful. So in most cases, a pure number based skill system doesn't make sense as the system doesn't allow for dice rolls. Tons of skills require pure number system, which in turn require dice roll checks.

Yes I guess it's constant. In most cases it makes sense. In others where it doesn't, it greatly complicates the underlying coded system and makes difficult for player to control. In dice RPG, you just state your intentions to the GM, and that's that. Like, "I'm gonna hit him with my axe but not cause bleeding". You can't do that here, and what would be the point? Or jumping skill. In dice game, I can attempt to jump exactly 3.15m, and dice roll based on my skill determine how close I get to that. Here I would likely get a perk that allows me to jump twice as long as normal, hooked up with "air control" to make it more player centric but chance is completely lost.



Some exploits may not be fixable. To me it was the underlying system of especially magic that allowed the exploits. I'll say it like this; In order to comply with new standards, they had to remove an old V8 petrol engine in order to put in a far more efficient R4 diesel engine, but it can't have both. The V8 might have had the max effect at max RPM, but the torque of the R4 over the whole RPM curve make it far more attractive.

Not sure what the SP argument is all about, really. What SP racing games allows infinite Nitro, without at least pressing a cheat code? Why would any game designer want to create a flawed game. Casting a 400pts feather spell for 1 second that allows you to fast travel to any visited location. Not a GM in the world would have allowed stunts like that. I played main campaign at hardest difficulty, and I didn't even have to fight just about anything (except Camaron, and I had to lower difficulty) because of invisibility. A flexible GM would counter stunts like this easily, a game can't. If such things are allowed because designers failed to see the consequences, that's just bad design and has nothing to do with freedom.



100% chameleon would be easily countered by a living GM. Here it just made you invincible - not good. 100 athletics was actually never optional, you got it no matter what. The two last statements contradict each other. The options we had had the potential to take away the challenge completely, where is the challenge in that? You might have had 3 ways to do things before, where 2 of them materialized themselves as exploits. What if we still have 3 ways of doing things (2 removed, 2 new), but none are exploits? Doesn't that add to the challenge?

as is pretty much everything in life currently, whats your point? is a series to derive influence and then make something of itself to become unique ONLY to revert back to the same mass appeal thats evident in every other game to date?

There is Trying to appeal to the masses

and then

There is Doing as you wish independent of what the masses think and getting atleast so originality, not clipping the game because you think your game isnt accessible enough.

saying whilst doesnt make you smarter

Totally agree, people can still roleplay but it's not forced defined on you like in Oblivion. That's one of the things that's going to make Skyrim great the ability to develop our character how we wish to develop it without it hurting gameplay or being restricted based on what some moron told you at the beginning, "I think your a acrobat, what do you think of that", my respone to Baurus, go [censored] yourself I want to be X Character class. I couldn't do it in Oblivion, If I neglect Strength my characters going to svck in 20 levels, that's not how it should be. Skyrim will be much better in this department and a better sandbox I'll add.

And still the "appeal the masses" argument...

So you think the devs there cry to Todd to add certain features in but he says "NO, the poor people wouldn't understand it", or something?

Can't they simplify things because it might make things (gasp) more enjoyable?

They can, but do they? You don't know. Neither do I. And more enjoyable to who? The average gamer?

What precisely is roleplaying in what you state? And what of it precisely are you getting from Bethesda? If roleplaying for you is making up things in a world, I'll point you to the fan fiction section - you don't need to pay Bethesda a single dime to do that. Incidentally, however, if you are going to neglect physical training, you deserve every bit of punishment in 20 levels - that's actual roleplaying: Making choices and living with the consequences. Choices that have no consequences are meaningless and no real choices. And a game that allows you more choices but doesn't present you with consequences for them is NOT offering better roleplaying.

Actually, that's less roleplaying options. If being born on a certain day has certain consequences in the world, then that's a characteristic of the world you'll have to accept. Wanting to change that is bad roleplaying, because you refuse to accept the laws of nature of the world. Roleplaying is not about freedom. It's about having choices. Picking a birthsign is already more of a choice than people in a living world usually get.