The reason im glad attributes are gone pt.2

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 7:14 am

Who would? I was quite specific in that I was talking about opinions, which is all we really have at the moment whether negative or positive. If you were complaining about people being too judgemental I wish you would have made that clearer in your original question rather than twisting my reply out of context.


It looked to me as if you were accusing me of blind faith. if thats not what you meant perhaps you should choose your words more carefully. I don't feel I took anything out of context.
User avatar
Life long Observer
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 12:27 am

No more grinding for +5 +5 +5 :)


Just as long as you understand that you were making a choice to do so. I've never strove for +5s in TES beyond what was fun for me - not necessary (and for the record, I svck at games ;) ). I would warn those expecting that Skyrim's new systems will free obsessed power gamers and grinders from their self-inflicted misery, to lower their expectations.
User avatar
saharen beauty
 
Posts: 3456
Joined: Wed Nov 22, 2006 12:54 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 7:19 am

What I want to know is why are you anti attribute peeps so opposes to a revamped attribute system with perks and skill? That's the common stance I'm seeing. Barring the fact that no one has played the game...


Because so far no one from the opposite camp has come up with any firm ideas on how it could have been fixed. You all say that removing them is bad but you've never bothered to offer any viable alternatives. Plus the fact that attributes originally were in the game yet Bethesda dropped them in the end indicates to me that they tried to do something with the system and weren't able to come up with anything that was satisfactory.
User avatar
Mélida Brunet
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:45 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 4:24 am

Heh... I used nGCD in Oblivion and GCD in Morrowind, so your stats only went up proportional to what skills you used. Specific attributes increased depending on your class, race, and what skills you improved in a consistent and predictable manner without the need to tune for modifiers at level up. That, imho, is the smarter approach to skill-based levelling, and one I'm surprised that Bethesda doesn't use.

As for the loss of attributes, I think that's VERY significant due to how attributes and skills work in most RPGs:

Attributes defined general ability. For instance, Strength: You have high Strength, you hit hard. You have low Strength, you don't hit so hard. It doesn't matter what you're hitting with, you'll hit harder. Likewise, with Agility you tend to hit with more accuracy. Doesn't matter what you're swinging with, you'll be more likely to hit than someone with a lower Agility, if skills are not a factor.

Skills represented aptitudes in various actions. For instance, a Sword skill: You have a high Sword skill, you hit with high accuracy and well. You have a low Sword skill, you hit with low accuracy and don't get the most out of your hit. You aren't better at hitting with anything other than a sword with a high Sword skill.

The important part is how attributes and skills work together. With a high Strength and Agility, you can pick up any weapon and do something with them even without having skill with the specific weapon. That won't make you better than someone with a high Sword skill when using a sword, but it definitely puts you head and shoulders above someone else with low (or even some) sword skill due to natural ability to swing hard and accurately.

The way atttributes and skills work together add depth to a character... and by chopping out attributes, that depth has been lost. In Skyrim all one handed weapon users are identical in their one weapon (as they'll all pick perks for their weapon of choice), and none of them can do anything useful with two handed weapons despite both involving swinging a blunt or sharp object.

Note: My examples aren't really fitting when considering Oblivion and Morrowind. I found that both underutilized and inconsistently used the attributes they had. Attributes definitely needed an overhaul... but removal is a little too extreme, imho, and destroys an entire level of flexibility in character design.
User avatar
Rex Help
 
Posts: 3380
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:52 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 9:53 am

Funny. Morrowind's gameplay hinged on trial & error. You didn't receive much help for character creation, and you didn't receive much help for the starting quests. Make your char, get a package, get pushed out the door. Good luck! Is this character build good? Who knows.. try it and see if a mudcrab kills you. Can you go along this path? Who knows.. try it, and if you run into monsters that kill you in one hit, that's a no. That's the epitome of trial & error gameplay.

Both Oblivion and Skyrim are moving towards making sure the player is better informed when character-threatening choices have to be made, and that it's harder to irrepparably screw up over an uninformed decision.


Well said. In Morrowind, I have Conjuration as one of my main skills even though I don't use it. Since the first few fights can be dangerous due to lower agility, I thought I would need it. Guess I don't though.
User avatar
Lauren Dale
 
Posts: 3491
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2006 8:57 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 12:22 am

IMHO attributes should be more or less set at character creation and then only rarely increased. That would force the player to decide what their character really is. not a new concept - PnP D&D has been doing it for over 30 years.
:tops:


So why add another layer here that only adds some minor effects?
The question is 'why not?'. Any RPG should be able to hold its own on mechanics alone.

Great graphics and bad story & mechanics make a terrible game; Great story, and bad mechanics & graphics, ruin the story, and make a terrible game; Great mechanics can make bad graphics and story tolerable; and can make even a lacking title into a decent game. ~The truly great games have two or more of these attributes [:P] set to a pretty high bar, but always, mechanics is one of them.

If Intelligence only effects magic, then why not have the ability to increase the magic pool directly? If Endurance effects hitpoints then why not just go to hitpoints directly and cut out the middleman?
This is a flaw in the game, and not something to extrapolate from. Intelligence should be fixed (repaired); Its absurd that it only affects Magic.


*** Attributes in RPG define the character. Those against them nearly always point out the physical and carefully leave out the intangibles. Graphics can show you a musclebound opponent, but they cant show you that she is brilliant unless she is has picked up spellcasting and uses it. By having that extra layer of depth to the game; magic can be derived from intelligence, but so can a host of other aspects and situational options, and dialog ~things that don't make sense to base purely from the PC's Magic level. A magician with more magic power than another mage, is not necessarily smarter than them; but that's how a lot appear to see it.

In addition to strength and appearance, attributes describe the intangible aspects that make a character unique. An RPG with decent attributes can allow for more than just Mc-Hero PCs that specialize in one weapon over another. They can allow for PCs that are eccentric, or exceptional in some way; or ones that are critically flawed in some way (These are the best kind of characters IMO).

The beauty of Black Isle's RPG's was that the attributes affected quite a lot in the game (as did the skills). All of their stat-specific redundancies made for an interesting game no matter how you built your PC.


But it is not possible for you to get an exact strength number of him. It is trial and error. Your 67 strength number is meaningless unless it is related to Omega like 1:3 ratio but to have this info you need his stat beforehand. As a dungeon master, I don't let you that information. And I won't roll dices at all. I will show you the picture of Omega and you will have to look at the veins on the his arms and decide if you're gonna hit or not.
If I were playing that game and the DM was close mouthed except for a picture ~I'd quit.
User avatar
Tha King o Geekz
 
Posts: 3556
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:14 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 10:45 am

They would have raised strength to 100 just as likely as they pick all the weapon perks...

Only now you can spread inventory perks over alot of skills instead of just melee weapons skills....

And you can do things that are more interesting then plus 1 damage plus 5 inventory.



And you can try all sorts of new things.
User avatar
Yama Pi
 
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 3:51 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 12:55 am


If I were playing that game and the DM was close mouthed except for a picture ~I'd quit.


But that's exactly how computer based RPGs work. You don't have a DM to give you that information and no stats of a creature appear when you encounter them, you just get their visual representation. Your only option to find out what they're capable of is to either play the game and engage them, or quit and look up those numbers on the internet. I'd much prefer to take my chances and continue playing the game. When I first started playing Oblivion and came across an Ogre, I had no idea what they were or what they could do. It didn't take me long to figure out that they could kick my butt if I wasn't careful. And I certainly didn't need a bunch of numbers to come to that conclusion.
User avatar
Brian Newman
 
Posts: 3466
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 3:36 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 5:46 am

:tops:


The question is 'why not?'. Any RPG should be able to hold its own on mechanics alone.

Great graphics and bad story & mechanics make a terrible game; Great story, and bad mechanics & graphics, ruin the story, and make a terrible game; Great mechanics can make bad graphics and story tolerable; and can make even a lacking title into a decent game. ~The truly great games have two or more of these attributes [:P] set to a pretty high bar, but always, mechanics is one of them.



Planescape Torment. Mechanics were, at best, boring as hell. Way too easy to beat enemies, especially if you roll a mage. Graphics, well, let's just say I first picked that game up in 2007, so they were, for me, at that time, horrible.

But the STORY!!! Oh, I had never been so focused in a story before. I tried to make all the characters give me their back stories, and role playing was awesome in that game, so many choices... So I reject your point. Mechanics are not what makes a game, especially an RPG.

This is a flaw in the game, and not something to extrapolate from. Intelligence should be fixed (repaired); Its absurd that it only affects Magic.


And it should affect what? I already dislike THAT IT AFFECTS magic. My alchemy using warrior shouldn't have any increased magic ability just because he can cook herbs...

*** Attributes in RPG define the character. Those against them nearly always point out the physical and carefully leave out the intangibles. Graphics can show you a musclebound opponent, but they cant show you that she is brilliant unless she is has picked up spellcasting and uses it. By having that extra layer of depth to the game; magic can be derived from intelligence, but so can a host of other aspects and situational options, and dialog ~things that don't make sense to base purely from the PC's Magic level. A magician with more magic power than another mage, is not necessarily smarter than them; but that's how a lot appear to see it.

In addition to strength and appearance, attributes describe the intangible aspects that make a character unique. An RPG with decent attributes can allow for more than just Mc-Hero PCs that specialize in one weapon over another. They can allow for PCs that are eccentric, or exceptional in some way; or ones that are critically flawed in some way (These are the best kind of characters IMO).

The beauty of Black Isle's RPG's was that the attributes affected quite a lot in the game (as did the skills). All of their stat-specific redundancies made for an interesting game no matter how you built your PC.


First, this system allows for a greater specialization AS WELL as a big generalization of skills. The way skills contribute to the character's experience is made in such a way that you can easily level up your lower level skills without worrying that it contributes too much for your experience.

Second, your "I'm strong and agile, I should be able to use two handers after using one handers" argument is bogus. If you have the habit of only using one hand style, it's hard to use two hands unless you have previously practiced. Tennis comes to mind here.

And no, believe me, a big and strong guy with no combat skill won't do anything against someone with even a minimum amount of skill. I did taekwondo, I have amusing memories of this fact! :D
User avatar
Rodney C
 
Posts: 3520
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 12:54 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 1:51 am

Note: My examples aren't really fitting when considering Oblivion and Morrowind. I found that both underutilized and inconsistently used the attributes they had.

Right, but that's really the fundamental issue here. The attributes in MW and Ob were not designed well. Bethesda saw this early on in Skyrim by how redundant they were, and went about doing something to fix it. The disagreement comes in what they did. None of the attributes' functionality been lost, that's been made clear. People like me can see how the function of the old attributes system can be replicated and improved through skills, perks, and the 3 main stats. People who want attributes kept seem (to me) to want something new and different to come out of them.

Neither of these choices are inherently bad. They both can work, probably even in tandem. Bethesda doesn't have an infinite amount of time to implement all good features, though. They have to choose what looks good and what's worth the time to invest in, and go with it.

The arguments come over the complaints that removing the concept of attributes is somehow destroying TES as an RPG. No one is saying that the game couldn't still work with a revamped attribute system, but there's a number of people saying that the game somehow can't work (as an RPG) with the new implementation of the attributes' functions. That somehow, keeping the old broken system would still be better than spreading attributes over skills/perks/stats in an attempt to make it leaner while being no less funcitonal (if not more functional). They're not understanding our point of view and/or we're not understanding theirs, and that's a well-known recipe for constant bickering.
User avatar
Lily
 
Posts: 3357
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:32 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 7:24 am

But that's exactly how computer based RPGs work. You don't have a DM to give you that information and no stats of a creature appear when you encounter them, you just get their visual representation.


Most unfortunately don't, but I prefer to have the information even if I have to go look it up.

Some do though :)
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/NWN.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/witcher-1.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/D3a.jpg

Planescape Torment. Mechanics were, at best, boring as hell. Way too easy to beat enemies, especially if you roll a mage. Graphics, well, let's just say I first picked that game up in 2007, so they were, for me, at that time, horrible.

But the STORY!!! Oh, I had never been so focused in a story before. I tried to make all the characters give me their back stories, and role playing was awesome in that game, so many choices... So I reject your point. Mechanics are not what makes a game, especially an RPG.
Combat wasn't the point in that game. You got far more experience from conversation. Combat was a last resort, nuisance sort of affair.

The game had a fantastic story, and game mechanics that reacted well to choices.


Second, your "I'm strong and agile, I should be able to use two handers after using one handers" argument is bogus. If you have the habit of only using one hand style, it's hard to use two hands unless you have previously practiced. Tennis comes to mind here.
I never made that argument. :shrug:
User avatar
Bambi
 
Posts: 3380
Joined: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:20 pm

Post » Sun May 23, 2010 11:01 pm

Static attributes would defeat the purpose of the "be who you play" thingie, if you can only raise attributes in special occasions.

The thing with GCD and nGCD is that if you think about it, removing attributes nearly does the same thing. In GCD you would raise attributes by doing the skills they're connected with, so you basically raise your skill even more. The only thing that would be missing is the net effect on other skills.

Also, if it would be in my power I would remove the Intelligence stat and rename it Magicka... Intelligence mainly works in RPGs with modern settings, where it's used as a technology attribute. At most I would change personality into intelligence, and make it into a thief/diplomacy attribute.
User avatar
Kelsey Hall
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:10 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 11:32 am

I think some sort of semi-static core attribute system like S.P.E.C.I.A.L. could have been implemented.
User avatar
Manuela Ribeiro Pereira
 
Posts: 3423
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:24 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 4:53 am

Static attributes would defeat the purpose of the "be who you play" thingie, if you can only raise attributes in special occasions.
Shouldn't it be "play who you be"? (as in roleplay the character)

Taken in that light, static attributes make perfect sense IMO.
User avatar
Lauren Graves
 
Posts: 3343
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 6:03 pm

Post » Sun May 23, 2010 9:17 pm

Some do though :)
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/NWN.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/witcher-1.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj125/Gizmojunk/D3a.jpg


And even those don't include them in the game itself, you have to stop what you're doing and access a menu. While you may not have a problem with doing that, many people don't want to interrupt their battle just to find out if their opponent is tough or not. You'll find that out soon enough on your own, looking at a bunch of numbers isn't necessary. Then of course if you look at a creature's stats, then you have to take the time to compare them to yours, with the overall effect being a loss of immersion.
User avatar
Scarlet Devil
 
Posts: 3410
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:31 pm

Post » Sun May 23, 2010 10:40 pm

I think some sort of semi-static core attribute system like S.P.E.C.I.A.L. could have been implemented.


My thoughts exactly, though that would probably provoke an equally negative reaction from the people who think Skyrim is already too Fallouty
User avatar
Honey Suckle
 
Posts: 3425
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 4:22 pm

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 10:32 am

And even those don't include them in the game itself, you have to stop what you're doing and access a menu. While you may not have a problem with doing that, many people don't want to interrupt their battle just to find out if their opponent is tough or not. You'll find that out soon enough on your own, looking at a bunch of numbers isn't necessary. Then of course if you look at a creature's stats, then you have to take the time to compare them to yours, with the overall effect being a loss of immersion.

A good menu system is part of the game. Something Witcher, Baldur's Gate, Fallout (1&2), Stonekeep, Arx Fatalis, and Disciples do quite well.

*Also.. Immursion is not the same for all players. This is not meant to be a slight to anyone, but some players are not deliberately trying to fool themselves into believing they are living the game. One can be deeply immursed in Planescape and the Witcher without believing they are Nameless or Geralt, or living their adventures personally. Even Arx Fatalis (being totally First Person) still allows me to roleplay the PC without substituting myself in his place ~though I wish it were TPP. **But then... All three games share a commonality; Each PC has a life history that pre-dates their amnesia, and they slowly regain their past skills.

My thoughts exactly, though that would probably provoke an equally negative reaction from the people who think Skyrim is already too Fallouty
Then there'd be all sorts of people complaining that Skyrim was nothing more than a Fallout clone.

Turnabout is fair play. <_<
User avatar
JESSE
 
Posts: 3404
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 4:55 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 9:29 am

I think some sort of semi-static core attribute system like S.P.E.C.I.A.L. could have been implemented.


Then there'd be all sorts of people complaining that Skyrim was nothing more than a Fallout clone. Obviously they wanted to avoid that and do something different. And what did the SPECIALS do really? All they did was raise certain skills by a couple of points per attribute point, and provide requirements for a few perks. Their effect in the game was pretty much just as marginal as the way attributes were used in Oblivion. The real focus of character development was with skills and perks, exactly the way it will be in Skyrim.
User avatar
jessica Villacis
 
Posts: 3385
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 2:03 pm

Post » Sun May 23, 2010 9:04 pm

Static attributes would defeat the purpose of the "be who you play" thingie, if you can only raise attributes in special occasions.

No it will not how it can restrict roleplaying if "be who you play" more relay on skills, but also in such cases perk limit is also would defeat the purpose of the "be who you play" thingie.
User avatar
Robert Devlin
 
Posts: 3521
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:19 pm

Post » Sun May 23, 2010 11:53 pm

And what did the SPECIALS do really? All they did was raise certain skills by a couple of points per attribute point, and provide requirements for a few perks. Their effect in the game was pretty much just as marginal as the way attributes were used in Oblivion.


They did not much because they were implemented as such - badly. That isn't the fault or a downside of SPECIAL or the system of TES, but those who implemeted them as they were.
User avatar
naome duncan
 
Posts: 3459
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:36 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 2:46 am

but also in such cases perk limit is also would defeat the purpose of the "be who you play" thingie.


Hardly, that's just a matter of game balance. You'd become ridiculously overpowered in no time if there were no limits on perk selection.
User avatar
latrina
 
Posts: 3440
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2007 4:31 pm

Post » Sun May 23, 2010 10:59 pm

They did not much because they were implemented as such - badly. That isn't the fault or a downside of SPECIAL or the system of TES, but those who implemeted them as they were.


So what do you propose then, that TES games become nothing but a D&D clone? It attributes can't be made to be used in a unique way in these games, then you may as well just go and play Neverwinter Nights 2.
User avatar
Laura Ellaby
 
Posts: 3355
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:59 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 6:45 am

So what do you propose then, that TES games become nothing but a D&D clone? It attributes can't be made to be used in a unique way in these games, then you may as well just go and play Neverwinter Nights 2.
Couldn't hurt. (But I think it would be better if they just allowed the player to further craft their PC with balanced attributes, and have the game take their choices into account; Have them make obvious, tangible effects on the PC's access and contributions to the story ~and in combat).

**Also what couldn't hurt, is to implement something like Witcher and Halo did; which is to ask the player their preference on a few things before creating a character (or starting in Halo's case).
Players could let the game set their default values and not even mention them again ~if that was their preference, while other players could tinker with those values to create a deeper PC in their eyes.

NWN does this with skill packages. The game works the same under the hood, but players that want to tweak the engine, can; and they get different results for their choices.
User avatar
Zosia Cetnar
 
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Aug 03, 2006 6:35 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 2:39 am

Then there'd be all sorts of people complaining that Skyrim was nothing more than a Fallout clone. Obviously they wanted to avoid that and do something different. And what did the SPECIALS do really? All they did was raise certain skills by a couple of points per attribute point, and provide requirements for a few perks. Their effect in the game was pretty much just as marginal as the way attributes were used in Oblivion. The real focus of character development was with skills and perks, exactly the way it will be in Skyrim.

Well seems you general attribute hater I see, not feature was flawed, implementation was flawed and S.P.E.C.I.A.L. is good example of GURPS like mechanic, attributes in S.P.E.C.I.A.L. actually have weight while they dont have it in last TES games.

Hardly, that's just a matter of game balance. You'd become ridiculously overpowered in no time if there were no limits on perk selection.

Indeed perks have limits and they are useful well done attributes also can be done in such way.
User avatar
Izzy Coleman
 
Posts: 3336
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2006 3:34 am

Post » Mon May 24, 2010 4:54 am

No it will not how it can restrict roleplaying if "be who you play" more relay on skills, but also in such cases perk limit is also would defeat the purpose of the "be who you play" thingie.

Not really.
The perk limit happens at the end, when your character is already evolved into what he is by your ingame choices.
You get attributes on the other hand at the beginning of the game, and if they would be static they won't change much at the end.
User avatar
Rachel Hall
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Thu Jun 22, 2006 3:41 pm

PreviousNext

Return to V - Skyrim