"The Elder Scrolls’ relationship with combat has always been an interesting one – it’s never really been an action game, yet the fact that its combat is physical and reaction-based is one of the main things that sets it apart from the more dice-roll and turn-based RPGs."

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/03/18/elder-scrolls-v-skyrim-preview/


Dice rolling debate permanently over.

"being stat-based" and "having the player know of those stats" are two very different things. just because a game can make it seemless doesn't mean it's not an RPG

TES has always shown stats. Contrary to what you think, stats is one of the hallmarks of RGP's. You call it making it "seemless", I call it dumbing the game down.

I like a bit of a range. Maybe the strike penetrated the armor better or what ever. Adds a bit of fun randomness and if you have done contact sports you know that similar strikes never yield the exact same results, the same punch to the diaphragm can result in pain or the air being knocked out of your opponent. A lot depends on timing and what the other guy is doing. So I say you hit them you hit them but the resulting damage should vary some.

What "debate?"

The debate we've been having since the thread was made about dice roll systems being in TES. They're NOT in, debate over.

They could always implement it in the game though ~it doesn't have to be dice-less, (and wasn't always that way).

I see nothing in the phrase "role playing game" that precludes using a system other than dice-roll stats based. This is your PERSONAL bias that has nothing to do with the definition of a role playing game.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Role-Playing+Game



where in this case the game Master is the software itself (indirectly Bethesda). Nowhere do I see "stats based" in the definition of RPG.




But again, TES hasn't been a traditional RPG in forever. It has been an ACTION RPG, indicating that it is reaction based.

For the first time... I agree with Discount_Flunky. An RPG is supposed to be stats based, because those stats represent the various aspects of the character, and ideally, the game is supposed to restrict play to what the character can actually accomplish. Not all RPGs do, but then not all RPGs are ideal.

This. :thumbsup:

Of course they are in. There are just not as many dice rolls in TES as there are in turn-based RPGs like Baldur's Gate or whatever. That has always been the case, and will always be the case.

I could be wrong but I don't believe Oblivion's system was "this weapon does this much damage, period." I think that was just the base damage before the dice roll was made for how much damage the attack would do. If I'm wrong then it seems it should have a range. You're not always going to swing the sword the same way and hit the same place and cause the same amount of damage each swing, of course.

And I'm pretty sure that Skyrim, much like Oblivion, will still be stat based.



You are restricted by your stats in say, Oblivion. Maybe not to the varying degrees that you'd like, but fortunately, you're in the minority. I highly doubt that Bethesda will do backwards progression and implement things like miss to hit chances.



To each their own. Live and let live.



It is highly probable that dice rolls will indeed be included, just not to the varying degrees that you may like. For example, in Oblivion, they were included in power attacks. Skyrim might do something similar, but honestly, I disliked their inclusion of dice rolls for power attacks. I like things that are more consistent, personally. Power Attacks quickly became obsolete due to them being chance based and due to them being easily overshadowed by the great power of magic.

Why is that 'Fortunate'? (or 'Backwards' for that matter?)

So what is an RPG then?... A game that maintains a fictional playground for the player to help (or kill) whom they please?
(Or a game that maintains a fiction, around a main character, and lets the player see what is possible for that character within that fiction?)

*The former does not need character stats (or even a name for them ~really); The latter MUST have character stats, because it sets up the character as a defined entity (whose stats, and skill levels represent the boundaries of their own potential); Meaning that the highest spells shouldn't be unattainable without the highest intellect, and that the heaviest armor & weapons, should be great hindrance without the highest strength & stamina (and training). ~and that it is a one or the other affair, or a compromise between the two for a lesser extremes at both.

**It goes without saying that a stats based [character based] RPG needs to enforce character limits, based on their stats. If they aren't strong enough to lift something, then it says in can't be lifted; If they are strong enough then it says that they can; Similarly.... If there is a skill at sword fighting, having it be ridiculously low, should have it mean that they aren't much of a challenge to other sword fighters ~right? (could it ever mean otherwise?)

**If Skyrim is the former, then I don't want to play. :shrug:
And I would greatly appreciate it if someone would (or could) explain the significant difference between the former game style, and 'Postal 2'.

Stats/skills will still matter in Skyrim, except the to-hit roll, because there won't be a to-hit roll. Most of the calculations will be in the damage and other hindrances.

And it could be made that they could wear the best weapon/armor but not to their fullest potential on low levels.

I guess it's fortunate for those who are not in the minority. Maybe not so much fortunate for yourself *Shrugs*. Can't please everyone? If you're having problems realizing why it is backwards, well, ask yourself this question ... Do you really think Bethesda is going to go ahead and implement a feature from Morrowind that was highly hated by the majority of players? They've progressed from those days, and it is highly improbable that they go ahead and perform backwards progression. In other words, regression.



A role-playing game. You can argue in semantics all day long, but at the end of the day, it's quite obvious that you're in the minority and that the game is not headed precisely where you'd like it to go.



Stats can be anything. Limits can be anything. It doesn't have to be pigeonholed into anything in particular. Now a days, limits can come in the shape of less damage, or less special moves(Perks). Limits can be extreme, or they can be light. You seem to have the idea that limits are an absolute. That they should govern everything about a modern action role-playing game. Well guess what? They don't. It's quite possible that you've failed to see the direction they've been heading for a while now, maybe The Elder Scrolls is no longer your cup of tea? Quite possibly.




It could mean otherwise easily. Fighter A and Fighter B engage in a sword to sword duel. Fighter A has more stat points in sword fighting than Fighter B. Fighter B is the player, however. Fighter B will have a more difficult time fighting Fighter A than he normally would if Fighter B had more stats in sword fighting. Believe it or not, you bring a piece of yourself when you're playing a game. Not everything is automated and predetermined before it even starts.

An RPG is not necessarily stat based.
All you gotta do To make an RPG is make a game intended for role-play.if 343 industries made a Halo RPG, it could be similar gameplay to the regular Halo games, however, they may assign you positions in the UNSC and give you scenarios and missions.
That's still an RPG because it is intended for role-play.

Sure you might be in the majority of people who play video games, and that might be what Bethesda is targeting. But the majority of people who prefer to play RPGs especially open world stat heavy style RPGs like elder scrolls I suspect you are not. Some people hated that feature in morrowind, but I don't think it was hated by the majority.

Why do you consider that 'Progression' and 'Backwards', (or as being a regression) and not just acquiescence?

But you are not answering the post, or saying what RPG means (to you). I had hoped to get your opinion. In my last post I put two examples ~which of them fits your opinion?


That doesn't sound like good game design to me though.

Fighter 'A' is the opponent; Fighter 'B' is the player. So the player would have more difficulty fighting the opponent because ~the opponent has more points in sword fighting...(than average?)

So in your opinion skill should only apply to opponents? (making them harder to hit, and take more hits?) Where does the character fit in to this?

If you believe that the majority of role playing games (for so it still is), if you believe that they feature a 'predestined' outcome, then I can only assume that you haven't played many and are not speaking from experience.

I must apologize, but I cannot form a clear thought from that paragraph. I have read it twice; It has no significant spelling or grammar issues... but I cannot clearly understand what you are saying here. Would you re-phrase it a bit?

You really don't think that the to-hit chance feature was not hated by the majority in Morrowind? Personally, I enjoyed Morrowind more than Oblivion, but I'd be lying to myself if I told myself that the combat was better. Especially with the very visible hindrance of the to-hit chance feature. Anyhow, I disagree with you on that last statement. I don't have statistics with me, but I'm highly certain that the to-hit chance feature was removed for a reason and many a times have I heard "I liked Morrowind, but the combat was terrible". I'm sure a big part of that was because of the to-hit chance.



I guess I must have been role-playing some other person when I enjoyed playing Morrowind (All expansions) and Oblivion (More so Morrowind than Oblivion).

Why you ask? Because that's how I view it. You may disagree. You are entitled to your own opinion, you know? As am I.



Sounds more like reality to me. Limits can be anything. They aren't "limited" to being something specific. Same with stats. They can be everything and anything. They're not limited to anything in particular. Stats vary from game to game. A stat can differ from how fast you can run to how fast you can swing your sword to how much damage you can do with a sword. When people deal in absolutes I always get a few giggles out of it.




You're not reading between the lines. Where does the character fall into my example? Easy. If he has higher stat points in sword fighting then the player will have an easier time doing sword fighting. Simple as that. Much like if the AI is programmed to be extremely intelligent and good at sword fighting, chances are, they still will be even if their stat points aren't so high.




Read between the lines. You feel as though someone with say, 50 points in sword fighting should stand no chance against someone with 90 points in sword fighting. You believe that in absolute. You think that it can't be otherwise. I told you otherwise. Speaking in wishy washy rhetoric isn't going to help you any.



I answered your post. An RPG is a role-playing game. There's different types of role-playing games and genres always like to mix now a days.

Indeed. We all are...
~But opinions are personal interpretation. I can't be of the opinion that a house is "blue" when its covered in orange paint.

Reality generally makes for a terrible game IMO. Games can be realistic in some ways, but to push for realism as the ultimate goal is to overpower the fun of the game.
Its like Salad dressing... There's the oil, and there is the water, and there is the spices.... but if you make it 90% oil... its not very fun on a salad it? ~at least IMO.

What I see between the lines is a lost capacity for empathy by the modern "RPG" player; and a lack of concern for the character. :shrug:
One on one? Absolutely ~that's reality for you, :laugh:

A flute without holes, is not a flute. A do-nut without a hole, is a Danish

Most RPGs I've seen lately don't qualify ~except the Witcher. [Edit: This is definitely a personal opinion.]

---

So you will not tell your opinion about the 'Former and Latter' example then. Ok. :shrug:

I don't always feel the need to repeat myself time and time again. If you can't see why I hold that opinion, that lies mostly on your inability to comprehend what I'm stating. But I'm a nice guy, lets go at this again. Look at the timeline. In Morrowind, there was a to-hit chance. To my knowledge, it wasn't liked by many. I could be wrong, but I'm not about to look up statistics just to please you. It was then removed in the next game, Oblivion. What are the chances that Skyrim will have it? I say slim to none. With technology progressing the way it is, it's very unlikely that the developers will suddenly feel the need to move the game backwards in terms of action.

You do know that the series has been heading down the action-RPG road for a while know? Not fully, but it's been taking a dip if you haven't noticed.




You're grasping at the straws now with more wishy washy rhetoric. No one is talking about "realistic games" or that Skyrim needs to be as realistic as possible. It's the mere fact that stats and limits can be ANYTHING. Keyword on anything. You say it sounds like bad game design? I say it sounds like reality. Just because you have a jaded view of absoluteness in how stats and limits should play out does not mean that it's your way or the high way. Again, fortunately, you're in the minority thus rendering most of this conversation pointless.




That's your opinion and your entitled to it. However, I'm sure many disagree with you. And those that do disagree are the ones who speak with $$$. Those are the ones that game companies care about.



Your examples are very narrow minded. I have no intention of "choosing" either.

So confused...

What lack of concern, what are you talking about?

Don't qualify for what exactly? Witcher gives you more roleplaying elements? Not really...

Witcher is more stat based? Definetly not, it doesn't even have attributes, only skills. There were definitely no to-hit rolls in this game and the damage was mainly based on your weapon...

Yes I am sure it was removed for a reason as well. And it was not to cater to the role playing market. It was an attempt to bring in other demographics. And while I have heard people complainn about the system, I have heard just as many people complain about the oblivion no dice roll system.

I am sure you played morrowind and enjoyed it, that does not make you the majority. Which is the entire point of my post. You keep throwing around that you are the majority with no facts to back it up. I can just as easily claim to be in the majority of purchasers, and that Bethesda should try to cater to us instead of engaging in a futile effort of trying to draw in the CoD crowd like Bioware does.