Hes talking about overall speed, so no Stamina doesnt really effect how fast I am, just how long I can maintain a certain speed.

The lack of attributes is an odd change from the standard RPG model, but I cannot say it is too unwelcome. In Oblivion, strength was used to calculate melee damage, carrying capacity, and part of fatigue. Obviously that isn't a lot of uses. If Skyrim is going to turn out to be more of an action simulator then it isn't quite needed.

From a Dungeons & Dragons player, attributes are really important for games with broad uses for said attributes. Strength has unlimited uses in D&D and it helps define what your character is capable of. But then, D&D is powered by your imagination and infinite in scope. cRPG's, on the other hand, can only do so much within the static programming that they had upon release. If the uses of certain attributes are small enough, then taking them out in place of another system shouldn't affect the game too much.

In any case, I'd say that attributes are not as important to the ES universe as it is to other games. If they found a system that will work just as well if not better then we should just wait and see how it will play out.

There has to be stats to make a game working even if it's video game but you didn't suppose to look it up. You are admitting checking stats of creatures and such from CS or UESP. That's effectively cheating. You should have been content only with the information accessible in game. UESP has other purposes for researchers and mod developers. It is not for players. I am sorry to say but you're not playing it right, anyways you only ruin it for yourself unless if you like it that way then more power to you. I'm sure there will be info regarding creatures and NPCs for you to look up.

Morrowind was trial and error for the most part for all non-cheating players, was it the worst selling title? I enjoyed it a lot.

No, you are admitting to looking at the UESP. Look up at your post, you said you looked up at the UESP. I know what they do by playing the game and seeing what they do to me. Just because you cant understand somthing doesnt mean we cant. Not to mention that has nothing to do with who the PC is. We know what we are capable of through displayed stats.

You cant have an all visual stat RPG without it being a linear Fable type experience.

Faster doesn't necessarily have to be an issue if you can sprint for longer periods, it will amount to the same thing in the end. You end up further away from your opponent. Take a look at some of the world records for running speed and you'll notice there's an extremely slight difference between the top speeds of trained athletes. The winners of those racers are typically people who can maintain their top speed for a little longer than than their competition, nothing more.



Of course not, but weapon skill will. You keep carrying on about how higher Strength is more important than skill when it comes to damage, but just try putting a weight-lifter into the same ring as a trained light-weight boxer and see who comes out on top. You only have to look at someone like Bruce Lee to see that being strong doesn't necessarily mean being able to inflict more damage. You can be lean and still be mean.



Say what? That makes no sense at all. If I have higher health, of course I'll be able to take a blow better. Not that this is really an issue in these games anyway since it's your armour skill that determines how much damage you suffer.



That's what racial perks are for.



Well that I'm not too sure of. Though like running, there's a very slight difference in best performance with trained athletes.



You mean walking? Why should one character walk faster than other? That's where the Sprint function comes in.

So again, whats wrong with a simpler Fallout style attribute system that you choose at the beginning? Nothing.

What is the difference between attributes and skills? Attributes which are few numbers that each affect a lot of stuff and skills are a lot of numbers that each affect very little stuff individually.

Attributes are generalization, skills are specialization. Attributes are about lack of variety, skills are about having a lot of variety.

You say : don't remove attributes, improve them and make them matter more! But that goes contrary to the goals (well, implied goals) Bethesda aims in the TES series. They want you to be diverse and they want you to be good at what you do. The first is something desirable everywhere it can be applied, the later is kinda something all TES since Daggerfall have in common and that makes them very different from all the other RPGs around.


They want you to be diverse. With attributes, you have less diversity than with skills (8 attributes vs 18 skills) : either you are a strong one, or a nimble one, or a smart one etc... If attributes matter a lot, a strong one is also automatically good in every weapon type at once. If attributes matter a lot, all Nords will be good fighters and really bad mages which is contrary to diversity. If attributes don't matter too much, well you get Oblivion then.

They want you to become good at the stuff you do. Corollary : it seems they want you to become good ONLY at the stuff you do. This gives us the more or less uniform state all players will start with in Skyrim : they don't want you to be forced into some skills from the start, they don't want you to be inept at some skills from the start to the end. All that matter is that with enough time and dedication you'll become a Master in a skill if you desire to do so and no amount or race or class or birth sign, ie starting attributes, will get in the way.

Attributes add variety.

I only looked maybe a 1% and that was for modding research.





That information is not available in the game. If you think the game must be played with those information opened to you, then obviously you don't see this as cheating. Then it doesn't matter really. All I can say is, visual cues and trial and error are better for roleplaying, at least in Morrowind/TES. Give this way of playing a chance, you may like it.

We're not in a game, you gave me a hypothetical question about If I could kill another forum member. my strength is 67, so what? I cant hit Omega through the Internet. I can determine how effective I may be against him based on my stats. Stats that I would need displayed unless I was going to play I Spy on my character to see what he can do. Which would be a waste of time and is the direct reason we have displayed stats.

You have just contradicted yourself. You say that with attributes there is no variety. But "they" want all players to be more or less uniform so that is why "they" took out attributes. So it seems that WITHOUT attributes, players are the same. What use are the different races then?

Two methods of thought about attributes. 1. People who don't mind them going or cheer their departure. They don't want to see the numbers and want the system to take care of things for them. All they want for choice is their 'Perks'. 2. People who want the inclusion of attributes. They want to be able to see the numbers and manipulate them to their needs. They are willing to accept the responsibility and to live or die by their consequences and feel the more choices the better.

I suppose I fall into the second category. I don't mind being the squeaky wheel.

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.

So who cares about the enemy? I dont know what the average person on the street can do. I do know what I may and may not be capable of. You cannot know this in a videogame unless you sat there and looked at your character naked for minutes to see what he was. Face it, there will always be displayed stats in deep RPGs. Your grasping at straws now.

Not enough to make them a concrete part of the game, in my opinion. There can be a ton of uses for attributes, but in the ES series they never had beyond two or three game play effects. They help define your character, yes, but there is not a whole lot of definition to be added unless the core game play is altered to cater role playing with greater depth.

The perks are only unlocked by the choices you make regarding your skills. Am I going to kill this creature using a sword or a spell etc.?



And you only manipulate them through the use of skills, exactly the same thing you accomplish with perks. So I fail to see the difference here.



And very minor ones at that, which are also easily taken care of through some other mechanism.

they effected plenty of things. All important. you can make them more simple while adding depth to attributes like I mentioned above. Then everybody would be happy except non RPG gamers that want TES to be a linear action game.

I think what happened is up until they had to make the choice.. they had just had atributes in as before and had yet to actualy set what they did THIS TIME. And that was the problem.

In skyrim what could strength do? What could intelligence do? Endurance? I think many would be confounded to try and make those atruibutes work in skyrim under the rules the devs now have.....

How do you do strength when few will have it? Very differently from ob thaqts for sure.

How do you handle endurance when not even all te warriors much less anyone else will have any of it?

How do you tackle intelligence when only SOME casters will have it?

You have set attributes at the beginning of the game like Fallout. They are basically using the leveling system, perks and the difficulty system from it, why not attributes. It would work fine, you could even add attribute perks to make it even deeper.

Sure, I cede the point that your weapon choice goes towards raising such skills. But everyone makes a weapon choice. Skills raises are automatic though depending on what weapon you use. This is not a bad thing.

I ask for more variety then I can get from skills and perks alone. A game that is too easy for me will make me lose interest and the replay value will diminish. For me, the immersion is greatly tied to character development and the ways attributes contribute to such in RPGs.

Fallout was a different system, you leveled up using xp, and then you increase your skills when you level up.

In this game you level up using your skills, and then you increase your attirbutes when you level up.

Ok I've pulled out both Morrowind and Oblivion's manuals during this debate, so now....I'm pulling out Daggerfall's manual!

From their Daggerfall manual.....

"When Players ask what the story of Daggerfall is, I imagine Macbeth asking what the story to Macbeth is before the play begins. You are the protagonist, the hero of the game- the story is what you decide to make it."

And

"Role-playing is not about playing the perfect game. It is about building a character and creating a story. Bethesda Softworks has worked very hard to make The Elder Scrolls: Daggerfall a game that does not require players to replay their mistakes."

From the Morrowind Manual....

"The first questions people usually ask is, "What do I do in this game?" the answer we give is inevitably "Well, what do want to do?"

From the Oblivion manual....

"With The Elder Scrolls, our goal has always been to create a game that offers unlimited possibilities. A game where you can be whoever you wanted and do whatever you wanted. "Life another life in another world." has been our motto, and we want you to do just that."

And I'm sure we could take the wayback machine to Arena and get the same thing, but I don't have that games manual....

Point I'm trying to make here is this has been their goal from day 1 with these games, is to let you make the character you want to make, and do whatever it is you want your character to do.

Their not trying to "dumb the system for FPS Players." And I'm sorry that some of you feel that way. All there trying to do is come up with a system where you determine what your character is by your actions, not some character sheet with your class stamped on it. They want you to be able to play without some clunking attribute system getting in your way. Will they succeed? I don't know, but I'm pretty optimistic about the new system.

You could still use the Fallout attribute system with skills that level by doing.

And all of your manual quoting is basically defending attributes, depth and choices with consequences on who your build is. Want to be a Mage, be a mage, a thief? Go for it. It doesnt mean you go into the game like some noob trying to get the best stuff doing everything trying to be a JOAT, playing like an action game. That's not role playing. What does being perfect have to do with attributes like I propose? Its the opposite of being perfect.

I do not think of the number three when I think of the word "plenty". I understand their decision here: either they need to make the game much more dependent on role playing or they make it simpler. If they aren't going to have unique choices and situations for characters depending on their attributes, then attributes are not a cornerstone of the game.

They did say that the game was more of an action simulator now. The closer you get to first person action games, the less definition you need for your characters.

Though, on that note, I would prefer attributes stayed and they moved back to heavier RPG elements. But if that's not the game their making, then I'm not really going to fight for attributes.

Hehe, you care. Should I quote?

Technology improves and things are pointing to that direction like it or not. It is only logical progress. I expect to see some stats staying though but who knows. Right now, we have skills, HMS and perks. Which one will be removed next? :hubbahubba:

That's becasue your thinking of the number three and not melee combat. And the bolded part is the Devil.


And this would be a good thing? sound like you want a linear action game.

There was a thread about this earlier. RPG vs Action Adv and what Bethesda was trying to accomplish. If they say RPG, then give the RPG fans some attributes. If they say AA, then my voice is silenced and I need to find another top RPG to fill the void.