Why not just remove them all? : V - Skyrim

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:45 am

And on the fewer skills, Todd specifically said he didn't like every player spamming jump and running in circles in the last games to get a few cheap levels.

I have to agree with his opinions lol. So there is 18 skills, but they are extremely more fleshed out than TES3/4...10-20 perks each...which the few we have seen are awesome and not just "+1% dmg" per lvl crap.

I agree, I think that this is a nice intelligent change to the game.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:38 am

As others have said, characters will be soooo much more unique than they were in Oblivion. I can't say with certainty that it will be great, but I'd guess so. Perks will add a ton of replay value. I just hope that they're all useful and fun.

Edit: The only thing I'm not sure about is speed and jumping. I'm sure there will be perks to alter speed and vertical leaping. I'm wondering where they'll cap it. Though I enjoyed outrunning horses and leaping over rooftops in Oblivion, I wouldn't be opposed to a slightly more realistic direction.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:52 am

Please don't take this the wrong way because you do a pretty good job of explaining things the way they are but don't skimp on the details. Oblivion removed more than one skill so just say it like it is and don't leave these things out or incomplete because it just damages your credibility.

No, it didn't remove more than one skill. All the skills that were "removed" were still in Oblivion except spears. That's the truth and I could care less if I lose credibility because the only ones I'll lose credibility with are those that want to make Oblivion look like a terrible game by chocking up a list of "removed" things and will use every skill "removed" even though they still existed in the game in all their glory, just without them being their own skill. That's not lying or me being wrong, it's just the facts. If stating the facts is going to lose me credibility, then so be it.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:55 am

You sprint. Not sure why you should get faster over time. I walk all the time, I don't get any faster in real life.

I think I read somewhere that they have perks for sprinting and the character's athletic abilities.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:36 am

10-20 perks each...which the few we have seen are awesome and not just "+1% dmg" per lvl crap.

Unfortunately for the guys who, quite rightly as it's all opinion until we've played the game, bemoan the loss of attributes, +1% damage is just the kind of effect they did have.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:24 am

I think I read somewhere that they have perks for sprinting and the character's athletic abilities.

Except what skill would these perks be under though?

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:27 am

"Bethesda's ditching the eight main attributes you may remember from Oblivion. Intelligence, Agility, Speed and all the rest are out."
"In Oblivion you have your eight attributes and 21 skills. Now you have 18 skills and three attributes."
"Howard says it's a natural evolution,"

http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1164053p1.html

Obviously, the removal of skills and attributes is controversial, but I fail to understand the slow progression.

If the objective is to phase out unnecessary skills or skills in general, why not lob them off entirely and stop pretending it's an rpg.

I get that it's their game, and they can do what they want with it, but I don't understand why they're being so slow about it.
It doesn't make any sense to me to drag it out, as it just isolates the fanbases of the individual games.
If they just went and did it, and it fails or doesn't do what they want it to do, they can simply return to an stronger rpg form.
These half formed gameplay styles, fail from what I've seen to bridge any gap between hack-n-slashers and rpg players.

What do you think?

So basically what you are saying there's only black and white? I personally believe in the gray.

TES has always introduced combat, and combat has always been a huge part of the game, as you can't escape it.
What you are saying is that because they removed some features you liked it's slowly progressing towards being a pure action game.

Well, guess what, you are in fact role-playing in Skyrim, with new systems for loads of things you can't even imagine.

The way I see it: 1 for gray, 0 for black and white (games that combine features rather than stay pure genre).

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:15 am

Except what skill would these perks be under though?

Hard to say since we don't know all 18 skills.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:15 am

Except what skill would these perks be under though?

yeah, I thought the same thing. It could have been them talking about the concept, and not about it being in the actual game. Like Dragonborn1 says, we don't know all the skills yet

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:38 am

Attributes getting cut did bother me at first too, like 2-3 months ago (why this was news to anyone is beyond me), but ultimately it's not a huge deal.

Perfect characters are no longer possible, nor are they needed.

Mages and thieves don't need to work useless skills just to make sure there health isn't gimped.

My only beef is, even though the perks make many unique characters possible, we can't guarantee characters will be drastically different. As long as races get sufficient physical traits (background attribute buffs) there is hope.

As for certain attribute being lost, and their replacements not being clear, I can only guess their nature in Skyrim.

Speed- Raise fatigue= sprint longer, also there could be a sprinting skill.

Willpower- alteration perks could provide passive magical resistances, but ultimately magical resistance should be achieved through enchantments and spells, not through attributes.

Strength- I got nothing, but skill progression and perks should make you stronger than your enemies.

Luck- ??? I guess it's out, though it's merit as an attribute was always questionable.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:51 am

"

Obviously, the removal of skills and attributes is controversial, but I fail to understand the slow progression.

If the objective is to phase out unnecessary skills or skills in general, why not lob them off entirely and stop pretending it's an rpg.

I get that it's their game, and they can do what they want with it, but I don't understand why they're being so slow about it.
It doesn't make any sense to me to drag it out, as it just isolates the fanbases of the individual games.
If they just went and did it, and it fails or doesn't do what they want it to do, they can simply return to an stronger rpg form.
These half formed gameplay styles, fail from what I've seen to bridge any gap between hack-n-slashers and rpg players.

What do you think?

I think that the primary function of an RPG is to ROLEPAY, not micromanage a bunch of stats. I would point out to you that the BEST RPG SERIES EVER....namely the Ultima series, provided 3 attributes. That's all. Three. Besides, if you look at the Prima guide for Oblivion, it's true that many of the attributes are derived.

This move doesn't bother me at all.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 11:43 am

Strength- I got nothing, but skill progression and perks should make you stronger than your enemies.

Strength was replaced by perks straight up. Instead of it being Strength and weapon skill that decided damage, it's not weapon skill and weapon perks.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:03 am

for all that is holy stop it with the skills and attributes thing

its just a a system, every rpg has one gothic had less skills and attributes than OB and MW and its still a great game.

game play is important the rpg system is just a system, and I just don't have the energy to make a long post.

less, more, different names ...etc who cares as long as its engaging and makes it possible for many variations

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:21 am

Actually, Morrowind was the only game that cut massive amounts of skills. Oblivion only cut one, spears and Skyrim is adding a ton of content and much more customization than was in the previous two games. Delegating weapon specialization to perks is a much better system and actually works out to more differentiate weapon types then just being different weapon skills.

well, there was also enchanting skill, that was cut too so your already spreading misinformation, there was also unarmored, medium armor, blunt weapons, short blades, along with half of the weapons in the game were scrapped. they cut several spells from the game as well which made skills like mysticism nerfed, and now people say good ridence it was useless any ways. it was useless because they cut what you could do with it.

so of the top of my head I can recall 6 skills they cut, I think there was one more but maybe not. and adding perks to replace content they cut from the game to begin with is not more customization. THAT, is what is redundant.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:23 am

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's an intelligent man with amazing sword skill.
He's a strong man with amazing sword skill.

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's a man with amazing sword skill.
He's a man with amazing sword skill.

No rhetoric - no fallacies - no diversions - just answer the damned question. I dare you.

There is a difference between the first two. There isn't a difference between the second two, you wrote the exact same thing twice. But that's not an accurate comparison anyways. That "amazing sword skill" for the first guy could mean he has taken 3 perks for levelling up damage with 1 handed blades, and the "amazing sword skill" for the second guy could mean he has taken 2 perks for levelling up damage with 2 handed blades and 1 perk for increasing attack speed with 2 handed blades. Depending on what perks each character chose, they're totally different characters. Just because you have removed attributes doesn't mean that all characters are the same, because they're going to have different perks and that is what is going to differentiate them.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:00 am

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's an intelligent man with amazing sword skill.
He's a strong man with amazing sword skill.

As far as the game is concerned, we have two guys with amazing sword skill, one has more magicka, one does a tiny bit more damage, can carry a bit more, and has a bit more stamina/fatigue. Whether these extras come from strength and intelligence, or something else such as perks or choosing to level stamina or magicka instead of extra health, the results are pretty similar.

[ Ninja'd and ninja'd again. ]

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:40 am

Funny how no matter who starts these threads or what arguments they present, I see the same four or five posters trotting out the same tired rhetoric and fallacies, over and over. Every one of these threads is little more than a tedious demonstration of equivocation, ad authoritarium, non sequiturs and straw men.

For instance - I've yet to see anyone advocate the removal of perks, and this OP certainly didn't, yet one can always count on a good number of the responses consisting of claims that the removal of attributes is good because perks provide more options than attributes. Aside from the blatant non sequitur that underlies that statement all by itself, these posters never seem to realize (or, worse yet, do realize but are too intellectually dishonest to admit) that that argument is only valid if the proposal was to remove perks for attributes, when in fact, that's not the proposal at all. The only way that the assertion that perks provide more options than attributes could have any bearing at all on any of these threads would be if people were requesting attributes instead of perks, yet nobody that I've seen has actually made that request. Certainly that wasn' the request made in this thread, yet that didn't stop that same tired flawed argument from popping up yet again.

Would I prefer it if there were attributes AND perks? Of course I would. It'd increase the customization options, it'd keep what's already been in the series, and it'd add new material to that.

Why, then, does it always become perks vs attributes? Because the union is not going to happen. We already know, already have confirmed, that attributes are gone. And no amount of talking or debating what attributes + perks brings to the table will change that for this game. The mutual exclusivity of perks and attributes is already solidly and rigidly established.

With that in mind, is it any wonder that the only avenue left is to debate the merits of one versus the other?

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's an intelligent man with amazing sword skill.
He's a strong man with amazing sword skill.

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's a man with amazing sword skill.
He's a man with amazing sword skill.

No rhetoric - no fallacies - no diversions - just answer the damned question. I dare you.

Sure. There is no difference between...
'He's a man with amazing sword skills' and
'He's a man with amazing sword skills.'

However, there IS a discernible difference between...
'He's a man with amazing sword skills and high health/stamina' and
'He's a man with amazing sword skills and increased spellcasting ability.'
Your example of discernment willingly ignores that which directly compensates for strength and intelligence. Whether it does a good job of it or not, it's still discernible.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:32 am

well, there was also enchanting skill, that was cut too so your already spreading misinformation, there was also unarmored, medium armor, blunt weapons, short blades, along with half of the weapons in the game were scrapped. they cut several spells from the game as well which made skills like mysticism nerfed, and now people say good ridence it was useless any ways. it was useless because they cut what you could do with it.

so of the top of my head I can recall 6 skills they cut, I think there was one more but maybe not. and adding perks to replace content they cut from the game to begin with is not more customization. THAT, is what is redundant.

No, enchanting was still in the game. Just like medium armor types were put into light armor and unarmored was always useless and thus was still useless in Oblivion. Blunt and short blades were still in and so on. Everything was still there except spears. So like I said, only one skill was removed from Morrowind to Oblivion.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 8:45 am

I don't understand what this big deal is about them removing Attributes.

What the Attributes gave to the player have be rebranded within both Perks and Health/Magicka/Fatigue bonuses. If anything, there is more customisation now to the player than before whilst races still have the same diversity they always have (if not again, even more so than before).

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:26 pm

Funny how no matter who starts these threads or what arguments they present, I see the same four or five posters trotting out the same tired rhetoric and fallacies, over and over. Every one of these threads is little more than a tedious demonstration of equivocation, ad authoritarium, non sequiturs and straw men.

For instance - I've yet to see anyone advocate the removal of perks, and this OP certainly didn't, yet one can always count on a good number of the responses consisting of claims that the removal of attributes is good because perks provide more options than attributes. Aside from the blatant non sequitur that underlies that statement all by itself, these posters never seem to realize (or, worse yet, do realize but are too intellectually dishonest to admit) that that argument is only valid if the proposal was to remove perks for attributes, when in fact, that's not the proposal at all. The only way that the assertion that perks provide more options than attributes could have any bearing at all on any of these threads would be if people were requesting attributes instead of perks, yet nobody that I've seen has actually made that request. Certainly that wasn' the request made in this thread, yet that didn't stop that same tired flawed argument from popping up yet again.

Sure - it's at least possible, arguably likely, that perks will provide more options than attributes alone. However, perks AND attributes would certainly provide more options than perks alone. Which is precisely, I believe, why those who argue in these threads studiously ignore that point.

Here's a simple pair of questions for those who gravitate to these threads:

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's an intelligent man with amazing sword skill.
He's a strong man with amazing sword skill.

Is there a discernible difference between these two characters?

He's a man with amazing sword skill.
He's a man with amazing sword skill.

No rhetoric - no fallacies - no diversions - just answer the damned question. I dare you.

Funny that you claim to read. If you would have read, then you would have known that attributes are still there but its been trimmed down so it wouldn't be redundant. Attributes hasn't been taken out entirely.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 3:26 am

leving up in oblivion (three attributes +5) = crushing our own nuts with a hammer .
specially when u made the stupid minigame of speechcarft beacuse this skill is useless and only is used to raising one level (i suposed mystisim and the others easy ones have been used )

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 12:13 am

"Bethesda's ditching the eight main attributes you may remember from Oblivion. Intelligence, Agility, Speed and all the rest are out."
"In Oblivion you have your eight attributes and 21 skills. Now you have 18 skills and three attributes."
"Howard says it's a natural evolution,"

http://pc.ign.com/articles/116/1164053p1.html

Obviously, the removal of skills and attributes is controversial, but I fail to understand the slow progression.

If the objective is to phase out unnecessary skills or skills in general, why not lob them off entirely and stop pretending it's an rpg.

I get that it's their game, and they can do what they want with it, but I don't understand why they're being so slow about it.
It doesn't make any sense to me to drag it out, as it just isolates the fanbases of the individual games.
If they just went and did it, and it fails or doesn't do what they want it to do, they can simply return to an stronger rpg form.
These half formed gameplay styles, fail from what I've seen to bridge any gap between hack-n-slashers and rpg players.

What do you think?

Maybe you should wait and play the game first and experience the leveling system first hand before passing judgement, then you can get on the forums and state what you feel is wrong about it. :shrug:

Give it a shot.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:15 am

No, enchanting was still in the game. Just like medium armor types were put into light armor and unarmored was always useless and thus was still useless in Oblivion. Blunt and short blades were still in and so on. Everything was still there except spears. So like I said, only one skill was removed from Morrowind to Oblivion.

what are you talking about, enchanting as a skill was absolutely cut from the game, and the only way you could acess enchanting was at a kiosk in which you gained acess only by joining the mages guild and doing about six quests. that really put a harsh on some of my role play characters who were not mages but needed to make enchantments. medium armor being wrapped up in light armor is basicly no medium armor, the same with unarmored. they did not exist in OB, there was heavy and light. the blunt and short blades were in but not as skills so those were two skills that were in MW and not in OB, thats removing a skill if I ever heard one.

so again, six skills that were in MW, were not in OB, thats what removing skills is.

and every one allways ignores the fact that marksmen skill used to have more than just one weapon, that would be like reducing all melee weapons to just swords.

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:41 am

well, there was also enchanting skill, that was cut too so your already spreading misinformation, there was also unarmored, medium armor, blunt weapons, short blades, along with half of the weapons in the game were scrapped. they cut several spells from the game as well which made skills like mysticism nerfed, and now people say good ridence it was useless any ways. it was useless because they cut what you could do with it.

so of the top of my head I can recall 6 skills they cut, I think there was one more but maybe not. and adding perks to replace content they cut from the game to begin with is not more customization. THAT, is what is redundant.

Morrowind cut a lot from Daggerfall to. Todd calls it "natural evolution".

» Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:00 am

Okay, I'll go over this one more time. The attributes aren't "out of the game", they are still in the game and their functions are still there. The only thing that was really removed was the 8 names of the attributes and then we got perks as a nice replacement system that adds way more customization and actually makes a difference in your character. Now when you level, you choose your attribute to raise and you choose a perk under one of the skills that you used to level.

Actually, Morrowind was the only game that cut massive amounts of skills. Oblivion only cut one, spears and Skyrim is adding a ton of content and much more customization than was in the previous two games. Delegating weapon specialization to perks is a much better system and actually works out to more differentiate weapon types then just being different weapon skills.

And those skills that were cut were lets say questionable.