Well,you have a point,actually.I think I would be furious if that happened.

But,I have to say this.Perks are only statistical changes mainly.Bows getting %60 more damage and Marksman level 30 for example.Now,why not let this be governed by the skill itself ?
Bows gain %2 damage every time you level marksman up.And further,what is the purpose of the skills right now? They do not change your hit rate as in MW,they do not change your damage as in OB,so what are they now? Only limitations for unlocking perks? I really wonder now.And if that is the case,it'll be Attiributes+Skills for perks.

I understand how people would want to have stats but I really don't see how it adds depth. Typically depending on how you will play your character always judges how you prioritize attributes anyways.

I like the new levelling system. In oblivion and morrowind I lost count of the amount of times I had to restart the game because my class didn't feel right.

It was also annoying that I had to keep track of what skills I had raised just so that I can get a +5 bonus to attributes at level up.

Now it's perks and I much prefer deciding what perk to buy than worrying about getting a +5 bonus

+1

Flaming and nagging is fast & easy (:

imo i think the rpg leveling, stats & attributes system from fallout 3 would of been better. it was loads better than obs system. and the perks could of been similar to those from fallout 3.

I was hoping that since they were clear from the start that they were making.conversations more unique like in fallout series, we could see some dialogue options that changed the world around me. that incurred consequences and altered the actual shaping of the world.

so far im level 21 and all change ive managed to make with my dialogue is to let an old orc live or die. or accept a quest or not which in the end does nothing accept giving me some item and gold reward+same responses from npcs when i pass through them.

also on companions. they said theyd make companions more unique. why did they make every companion just a different posture, six and combat type to bring along with? i think every gamers wouldve enjoyed a lot more if there were much less number of companions and they each had unique quest line that preferably interacted with the world. man this wouldve been nice.

Ok a few examples of how stats can add depth to the game (and note that when I say stats, what I basically mean is numbers as used to define your character; not necessarily just the labels that are visible to the player):

- If I make two characters, and both of them walk into the same ancient dungeon and find a really old book written in some kind of ancient language, one of those characters might possess the knowledge to read it, while to the other character it's just nonsense. How does the game determine whether a character has the knowledge? Through numbers / stats.

- If I go and hit an NPC, leave town for a week, then return and speak to the same NPC, will they remember and take a hostile attitude towards me? Again, stats are necessary to determine this.

- If I make several characters, and all of them need to break into the same castle, each one might try and enter in a different way. One might bribe the guard, one might try and climb the wall, one might overpower the guard and take his key, one might sneak in through a back entrance, etc. Stats determine what your character can and can't do, what their strengths and weaknesses are, etc. Which in turn has an impact on their actions.


In an ideal RPG, i'd want everything the character can possibly do to be determined by stats. Every single thing about them should be uniquely defined to make them as complex as possible... and to make their interactions with the gameworld as complex as possible.

Once you said that, you completely ruined what was at least a well worded opinion.




I like this. I wish everyone would stop complaining and just play the game, or don't play it. Bethesda made decisions and choices. Whether we like them or not, the game is what it is. And at least PC users will get tons of cool mods. I'm on a console, so I will always have to deal with the things in the game that I don't like or wish were different.

I love Skyrim overall, and so do many other people, so yay for us, because that's all that matters, really. We're happy with the game. I'll be playing this for years.

And the playerbase will complain or commend Bethesda based on the job they did.



Seriously?

No but I really dont like the puzzles in the dungeons. The dumbest puzzle I've seen had six of the spinners with the answer to which setting for the spinner right behind the spinner on the wall. Now this is really dumbing down the game.

:D

I don't feel that it has been dumbed down. I think the series has "evolved". The swap of attributes for perks is one of my favorite new things. It also removes some unfortunate implications of racial stats. (Redguards with less intelligence seriously bugged me in Oblivion. A Redguard mage was a challenge.)

Yeah, that really bugged me too man. Unfortunately, in Skyrim the different races look different. Hopefully in the next Elder Scrolls they fix that, because I don't like the racial implications of different races looking different. The very idea of races is racist.

:lol: That is utterly absurd. Redguards having less intelligence is understandably insulting, however, each race is different for a reason. If we just had "humans" it'd severely limit the ability to create a human character who you'd like to play. Same with elves. Beasts are rather limited in their selection, both being pushed toward the stealth style of play, but if you're going to play a beast you're going to play a beast - simple as that.

They added things they call smithing etc. And in doing so told you that any smith in the game is an incompetent moron not worth his money because given that he focusses on smithing full-time, you should have no chance whatsoever to come even close to his abilities.

lmao yeah dumbeing down tes by adding perks instead of jsut aprentice adept and master is dumbeing it down you serious? and i agree some of the mage perks svck however u didnt have any perks in oblivion and morrowind also they shudnt have taken out spellmakeing and brought back the morrowind spells levitate mark and recall especially

The question is:

"Are RPG elements being stripped away from the Elder Scrolls Series"


And then there's a list of game mechanics changes

Firstly, being "dumbed down" has very little to do with how complicated the game is, and "dumbed down" has been the rallying cry of TES players who equate complexity with quality for YEARS, and mostly it's because Morrowind had all sorts of tiny detail. Being complex doesn't mean good or smart. It can mean dumb. The UI is pretty needlessly complex for PC since you're stuck with a console system, and it's not very good or smart, now is it?

It has never been logical to say that Complexity is what made Morrowind great. If that were true, then a video game about Corporate Accounting would be the best game ever developed. But as soon as Oblivion had changes to the complexity level, things were "dumbed down". Now Skyrim has even less trivial complexity, and so it is called "dumbed down". While I like the level of detail that complexity represents and I liked that aspect of Morrowind, complexity does not equal enjoyment.. A game can be quite streamlined and at the same time very detailed and challenging.

Secondly, game mechanic changes or simplifications change the ability to "Role Play" in Skyrim only in the players head. I would wager that many players that complain about the "RPG" aspect never actually participated in a real RPG session, in which the only limit to the player character was the player's imagination. You folks call this kind of game an "RPG" becasue you have a toon and you develop it but it's not really an RPG in any definition except the one which grew out of a need to label PC games that were about the fantasy genre.

is it possible for people to just play a freakn game and enjoy it? Apparently not.


Skyrim has two flaws in my opinion- one being the journal, which does hurt gameplay and the ability to roleplay (such as it can be done in a video game) because it is not as descriptive or organic as Morrowind's or even Oblivion's. Part of the 'feel' of Morrowind was that there were all these things going on at once and you needed a way to manage them in an indexed format. In Oblivion the need was still there. In Skyrim, the player needs to rely on the UI at times to make up for the poor Journal. If you ask me, a huge part of the so called "dumbing down" is just poor implementation of the Journal in Skyrim

The other flaw is the UI itself.

u know im wondering why everyone complaining about actions/reactions being based on the player's stats is more rpg than it being based upon the player's ACTIONS? i thought bethesda made this perfectly clear when they were releasing this game that ur charector was based upon ur actions and not throwing points at skills.

Well, since Morrowind TES has become more "consolized", more arcady, or like Beth likes to put it, streamlined. Morrowind seems to be the last game that Beth truly catered both the pc and console folks. Skyrim is fun to play but the way Beth has setup this new "streamlined" installment of the game seems kind of foreign to us pc players. Microsoft must have really given Beth a juicy amount of money to promote xbox because Skyrim is the first TES game that is a pure console port. They didn't fix not even the most basic setup like the game fov and the big ass font in the UI that was meant to be view from a distance.

"Dumbed down" is the generic response to glorify opposition to changes. I don't agree with all of the changes, but "dumbed down" is just over the top in my opinion, and using wording like that diminishes any logical presentation of an opinion that may have been made.

In terms of RPG elements, let's just say that the game is better than I feared but worse than I hoped.

"Evolved" is a nice word. When you "evolve" an air force flight simulator into an "After Burner" style game, has it been dumbed down or not? It might be easier to pick up and a lot more flashy and exciting, it might leave you with a more continuous sense of achievement because you constantly manage to finish levels, but answer honestly, has it become less intellectually demanding or not?

The "unfortunate implications" are your interpretation which is based on several misconceptions - first, a specific meaning of the term "intelligence", when there isn't even a clear definition in real life. And second the misconception that races in TES are corresponding to races IRL. A Redguard mage was a challenge. In real life, there are regions in which people have an aptitude for long distance running that people from other regions find very hard to match. The reasons are multifold, as are the reasons why some people do better at specific intellectual tasks than others. The standard IQ tests usually use topics such as spatial awareness, pattern recognition and logical deduction. But there are other aspects of intelligence - which is where the concept "Intelligence is whatever the test you are using measures" comes from. As such, a specific group of people having a lower intelligence in TES refers to them having a lower aptitude for the specific kind of intellectual challenges THIS attribute measures - they might have a better one for others.
Second, you do a 1:1 transposition of TES races to the real world race concept, despite the fact that it is rejected as a concept for the real world as having no scientific basis. You cannot simply assume the same for TES - a fantasy world, with observable divine beings which can clearly influence the characteristics of people on a massive scale - watch the changing of the Chimer to the Dunmer.

No.

Wish they didn't dumb it down to please kids and attract a wider audience from the roster of cod players and other easy stuff...
SKyrim is a very good graphical improvement over the last games but unfortunately it is seriously flawed by a too simplicistic gameplay strucutre , ( this including rpg elements , world interaction , and game rules structures) ...

Lol, good one. I guess you are back to square one :biggrin:

No it doesn't. The logic would still stand. The emotional content of a statement doesn't magically make that statement logically invalid or valid. The statement is either logically invalid or it isn't--and that has nothing to do with sentiments.