When I found out about the perks, I thought it was awesome. Add a new dimension to the character system. Then you remove attributes:



Why do you do this to me Todd? Why would you remove an aspect of character progression that defines what you are so you can have two aspects that define what you know? I know the skill system is now seen as a staple of the elder scrolls series, but the truth is that Arena worked much better despite having no skills at all. If attributes, skills and perks were too much, why not remove skills? You could still define how well you know how to use a sword or an axe or a realm of magic via perks. The solution to the shallow attribute system from previous games would be to add some depth to it. Alas, bethesda has chosen to take the easy way out and fix something by removing it from the game.

Personality and luck.. Are they really needed?

Can't wait to see how this one plays out/ sarcasm

Sometimes change is for the better. Wait until you actually play the game and then worry about it.

I'm not even going to bother answering because you will never change opinion anyway. I'm sorry :shrug: :confused:

If done well, they could be useful. Nothing should be "needed" in an rpg, it should depend on your chosen play style.

There's plenty of active threads discussing attributes.

makes me wonder if in tes 6 they'll just reduce skills to perks that you choose in the start of the game and thats all you get to work with.

Don't we already have a similar topic on this and the attributes being gone is a good thing.

I don't think they would do that. Addition by subtraction.

Is the vernacular "simplify" that blasphemous of a word on these parts of the forum that we have to sugar coat it as "addition through subtraction?"

watch this. http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/711916/elder-scrolls-5-skyrim-todd-howard-interview/
"everything those attributes did, are still in the game, they are just in other places."

I don't know why some people are making a bid deal out of this.

Exactly.

Someone should pin that link

I'm sure if Todd came out and explained how a number attached to your "skills" didn't effect what your character used, so aren't needed; half of the forums will be like yeah skills are pointless! I mean speechcraft, one-handed? Lolz hows dumb we were in thinking they were vital!!

lol is it just me or did anyone find A LOT more sense and merit in todd howard's quote than the actual OP?

Yes, this obviously means that future RPGs won't have any numbers at all... blah blah blah... Skyrim is not an RPG anymore... blah blah blah.

Now with that out of the way, I'd like to ask, why are attributes so important you can't live without it?
You ask why is it removed, I ask why not.

... and no, "it's traditional rpg tool" and "it has been working so well until now" is not a valid reason (mostly because the second is not entirely true)

It sounds to me like they are bringing out the RP in RPG. This I am fine with.

Because it's nonsense. I can't wait to see this in action. Get 5 perks that increase how much you can carry but despite your obvious enormous strength and constitution your health/damage/speed do not grow with it. No, attributes are the best way to represent some things and they killed them.

It is quite clear you have no idea what the terms even mean. How does it increase role playing to remove the ability to define basic physical and mental attributes?

Community overreaction will always follow the release of new info. You just got to take it in stride and not put so much emotion into things until you know all of the details or can see it in action. :wink_smile:

Because a real RPer doesnt need to deal with a menu.

/thread

Attributes were totally superfluous because they never should have raised on level. They should have raised on SKILL level. As I swing around my huge warhammer, my strength should raise as well. Well, once you take that step to have them level at the same time, doesn't that effectively make strength = weapon skill (or whatever skill you had that was governed by strength). Then what's the difference between having your perks emulate as IF you HAD high strength. For instance, once you reached a certain point in Two handed weapons, you might get a blunt weapon perk that lets you strike an enemy hard enough to throw them back several feet. That is a REFLECTION of the strength that your character WOULD have as a result of the all the hard work raising that skill.

Its the difference between raise skill -> raise strength -> get perk based on strength that knocks enemies back OR raise skill -> get perk. You're just cutting out the middle step, its just that strength is now IMPLIED by ones skill level. Having a 100 in two handed weapons heavily implies that I am a heaping ball of muscles, because it would follow logically, and would be no different as if I did ACTUALLY have 100 strength.

Absolutely no doubt. There is no shortage of people who kiss the ground Todd and Bethesda walk on and who believe any feature removal is a gift descended from the very hands of God Himself. If Bethesda decided to turn TES into a get laid simulator disguised as a romance story with bucketloads of repetitive boring combat (a bioware game, in other words) you and others like you would be cheering it with all your might. Hell, if Bethesda got hit by a meteorite and there was nobody left to make TES games anymore you guys would be cheering Todd's vision and proclaiming how the TES series revolutionized the RPG genre by not having any more actual gameplay in their now non-existent games.