Morrowind and Oblivion are night and day different. Morrowind actually allowed you to explore and use your head for something other than a hat rack. Oblvion handed everything to you with the GPS compass. There was no role playing.

Role Playing is more than just leveling up and picking stats. Role Playing means you immerse yourself in the game, into the role of the character you create. How can you immerse yourself when the game gives you everything?

I can understand why some of the changes in the "new direction" seem questionable, but we really won't know how good or bad such changes are until we play the game. So far, my only big concern is the console to PC direction Bethesda took this time around. Why am I concerned with this? Because after seeing how bad Dragon Age 2 and Dungeon Siege 3 turned out, my skepticism is slowly growing.

I used Two World 2 sarcastically - I meant that there are no quality titles like Oblivion. I too disliked Two Worlds 2, but I admired its ambition. Also, you assume that changing the formula is dumbing down. Why? Take a look at the FPS genre. Halo introduced the regeneration and two-weapons -only. It seems like giving the player less to worry about, yet this decision really moved the genre forward (No, I do not want TES or any RPGs to be ANYTHING like shooters). And I too want it to be full of lore and replayability. That is the essence of an RPG, not stats. I juts think that the modern hardware can help us move beyond simple numbers - they were there becuase there was no alternative. I think the best example is how the series handles skills - you do them to level them up. That is the sort of control and RPGing that I want,

Are you arguing that Skyrim doesnt allow for "role playing"? It seems that they have only made the RP side easier with this title. For instance character development over character creation, better animations & jobs.

Your arrogance comment is unfounded, he wants what he wants, just like you do. The reason you see a lack of "complex rpgs" as you call them is because of the market. The better they sell the more there would be.

Its very easy to move foward and make a big pile of poo. Its difficult move foward and make a great game that honours your roots while trying to break new ground.

I find it amusing that so many people seem to think that a mechanism that is utlimately composed of NOTHING BUT numbers can somehow "move beyond numbers."

Axes as blunt weapons = dumbing down

He is simplifying his case. But your comment was funny though.

Ah, I see now what you did with Two Worlds. I am not assuming that changing the formula is dumbing down. From the information we have been given (i.e. no more classes, attributes) we can reasonably say that content is being taken away, whether you want to call it "streamlining" or "dumbing down" is your choice. If Bethesda implements a new system that works well I will be incredibly happy, but at the same time it sets a dangerous trend. At what point will they stop streamlining? I cannot call myself a true elder scrolls fan like many on these forums, I have only played Oblivion. And I have never wanted another game as much as I want Skyrim. In my opinion, many of the things that have been taken away probably won't take away from the game at all. For example, I don't mind the merging of the cuirass and greaves, especially since it looks like we will be able to customize armor with the smithing skill. Even without smithing, I really won't be dissapointed. There were many times in Oblivion where I only had the cuirass, or only the greaves, and my armour was mis-matched. Sure, it was kind of fun looking for the last armor piece, but taking that away won't be a huge blow to the game or anything.

I am not worried about Skyrim, I think it will be an incredible game. What I AM worried about, however, is the trend. If Bethesda keeps on wanting to make its game more accessible to casual gamers, will the effect really be desirable? What about the more hardcoe gamers that have followed TES since before Morrowind?

Stats are there because they show how your character has gotten better at a certain skill, what alternative is there?

Let us compare RPGs to action shooters.

The amount of games and the variety of action shooters out there is just amazing. From first person (Half Life, COD etc etc) to third person (Uncharted), from fairly realistic (Battlefield) to fantasy (Halo). There are literally thousands of games, with wildly different game systems.
From simple games where you carry a single weapon, to games with intricate systems for customization (look at games like Modern Warfare and Bad Company 2) and toooons of weapons and equipment.

In fact, the genre in general have been heading towards MORE complexity in the game systems (even RPG-like systems). This is actually really impressive, they have explored the genre so well that the only way they could create variation is by adding complexity. Something that is almost never done in gaming.


RPGs on the other hand, is moving in the opposite direction. Less actual role playing and simpler systems. Voiced characters instead of characters actually having anything worthwhile to say. Awesome button. Alien six. Single unit armour. And so on.

Even though I work full time and don't have as much time over for gaming, I would LOVE a story-driven RPG, that would take HOURS of learning to get into. Something that I simply cannot pick up and play, but that forces me to learn new things and take my time to explore the system. While shooters are fun (and I do play them a lot) I'm just missing the awesome feeling of actually learning how to play a new game.

Better animations.

How do you know someone is better at a skill in real life?

Depends on the skill, although for most things skill is determined by the quality of whatever is produced. Performance skills are more subjective.

same here otherwise great game all the elderscrolls games have there awesome parts and there bad parts

You claim I'm selfish, yet you say you deserve more than I? I'm hardly on some "high horse". Your insults and arrogance are hypocritical.

That plus the world felt dead

In morrowind you had the 3 houses and there conflict, also there relations to other factions.
Slavery and the factions related to it.
the Empire and there relation to the 3 houses, minor factions and religious groups.
the religious groups and there relation to each other and the other factions.

Everything was so interconnected in morrowind, so many story lines so many quests.

I regret never finishing either of the religious faction quest lines, same with the morog tong.

In fact time to mod and play.

Leveling doesn't have to be ridiculously complex to be done well, honestly. More important than that is the writing, which Bethesda has been getting just flat our -wrong- in the past couple games. Hopefully they'll give a rat's ass, this time. I doubt it, sadly.

But I don't understand how improved gameplay is dependent on removing attributes or classes. Honestly, I couldn't care less about removing classes (I usually made a custom one anyway. But would still like to put in my own name for a class to describe my character) as they were largely irrelevant in the later game. But I think they could have kept attributes without sacrificing improved gameplay. How is dual wielding impossible if you have stats? Or what about the new spell system? If you have an intellegence stat does it really keep them from implementing the new spell system? I don't think so. Does removing weapons that you can use to personalize your character and his/her fighting style really increase gameplay satisfaction?

Just because you use swords and bows while fighting mythical type creatures does not make an RPG. You can make an FPS shooter in this setting (wasn't there a game called Heretic that was a Doom type game with magic? I think I remember something like that) but it doesn't make it an RPG. You don't necessarily need attributes for an RPG, but they have historical roots to the genre. Kind of like starting in prison at the beginning of Skyrim. It follows a tradition from MW and OB (as far as I know as I started playing TES games with MW)

I, for one, am pretty fine with most of the changes that have been made though as I stated I don't see why it was necessary to improve gameplay. And I will be playing the heck out of this game when it comes out on day one.

Better is SUBJECTIVE already.

Still, I am asking a general question. How do you know someone is better at a skill in real life? We all make judgements on this all the time. How do we know? Or perhaps, what makes us believe that someone has gotten better at a skill over time?

Ignoring the previous posts(how dare I?) I will summarise my view on the perks, classes and attributes dilemma:

Attributes: In most old-school games such as D&D and TES 1&2 attributes are used to define your character, and I support that. Limited points can be divided among the different stats and must be carefully chosen according to the class/archertype you play, such as Strength and Charisma for the Paladin in D&D, or Intelligence and Willpower for a mage in TES.
TES3&4 on the other hand made it possible to max each attribute, but more importantly: beneficial. All characters will benefit from having a high endurance(AKA more health) and strength(AKA more carrying capacity). Speed and agility follows in the same path. Willpower gives higher reistance to disabling magic(MW) and increased fatigue(OB) and are there for quite useful to everyone. Intelligence and Personality are the only stats that benefit only a "limited" number of character types. I say "limited" since a major group of the archertypes will benefit from having an increased magica amount, and in MW Personality was quite powerful if combined with a high Speechcraft skill, and once again beneficial to most characters.
I would support keeping attributes if they used the old-school rules about limitation, but I favor removing them rather than keeping the flawed system from OB and MW.

Classes: In most games with classes(D&D, Dragon Age, WOW etc) the one you chose will make a major difference in how you experience(A Paladin will play different from a Rogue), but in TES(at least MW and OB) they have been more of a guide rather than a restriction. All skills are possible to lvl up and give you equal efficency in them as someone who uses them as a major skilleven if it is a minor. While I don't have anything against that I agree with the Bethesda team when they say that classes are better left out. I think classes like they are used in games like DA are great, but they are just extra bagage in TES(once again OB and MW, I cannot say I have played enough DF to make a statement and I haven't played Arena).

Perks: Gives a limited number for how many you can chose and will affect your character in a major way. Yay more stuff that follows the old-school rules of character building.

I don't understand this "I can't roleplay with or with out this one feature"
Seriously, if you need to have or not have something to imagine (which is required to role play) what your character is like, then RPG's are not for you.
The taking out of attributes doesn't bother me. Why, because I am an old school RPG'r.... I don't need any verification on who my character is. I can do just fine using my RPG skills and my imagination. I don't need a attribute to limit what I can do, because as an old DM I do fine managing what my character can do just fine, all by myself. My character won't be acting like a muscle man, not because his strength is low... but because I've made my character an agility based character. I didn't need attributes to tell me that...... I told myself that......

Attributes are for people who can't imagine and can't role play their character without some outside force telling them what to do. Is this a problem?? NO, I don't mind people like that. That is why we have DM's with pen and paper RPG's. But Skyrim is for those of us who played RPG's before they got popular. Back when you had to make the stuff up, and self restraint was a requirement.

Not everyone likes to leave everything up to the imagination. If we're going to do that we may as well skip the game and imagine whatever we want and be perfectly content.



Right. But some of us like having this restraint actually appear in our games. Anybody can say "This Orc hates restoration magic" but that doesn't really change the fact that he can easily just go around to the local Mages Guild and pick up a Salve spell and use it. Yeah, restraint, but it feels much more legitimate when you can't just go and do that when you've set your parameters.

LOL!

I roleplay when I play FPSs. Ive never needed a bunch of numbers or stats to tell me who I am. :shrug:

Perhaps its has to do with how long youve been playing games. Or what you got used to when you first started really getting into gaming. Hell I remember as a child RPing while playing pong. I guess I just got used to adding a story or adventure to my games when I was a kid, since there wasnt exactly much more than a gaming mechanic in early games.

This is why I am hoping that in the future more advanced animations will help us all meet in the middle.

I'm sorry if I came of hypocritical. However, I stand by my original point, simply because we have less choice in the type of RPG we like (More like Oblivion than Morrowind), and i think the old-schoolers can be a little bit more accepting of the new direction instead of judging the developers decision before they play the game. And let me make one thing clear - I do not want an action game. I simply want one where the numbers that have been so frequently associated with RPGs take a back seat and let the players action drive the game. Like one person has pointed out, even though it is difficult to achieve, it would be great if we could tell the stength of an enemy through his animations. This would add a whole new layer of complexity and immersion. Oh well, I can dream.

It's a really difficult question to answer, when "skill" could mean anything from ability to read or being good at video-games.

My only disappointment with the direction of TES games (since it seems they did learn their lesson on level scaling) is the shrinking pool of options from game to game. Morrowind had a robust list of skills, NPCs, clothing, weapons, and armor (I really miss clothes with armor). You used to be able to play most fantasy archetypes: knights, monks, wizards, pikeman, thieves, archers, even a bar brawler (never quite there on Bards). All of those options had skills that you could work on to make your character better.

At this point you get to play Warrior, Wizard, Thief, and Archer or a hybridization of those four. Sure, they've invested time into making each of those playstyles better, however anything else is out to dry. No more running around in a robe and destroying enemies with my bare hands or a big stick.

Well I can honestly say it's a pleasure to agree with you for once. While TES provides the perfect worlds for pure imagination role play, that has to be reflected in the mechanics. While there is debate as to how much, numbers, or at least some form of parameter, are required to define that role. I would say there are three things which define TES, the Lore, the World, and the mechanic of increasing skills by use. Whatever else is removed or added, take out that mechanic and one third of TES is gone. If the Op asked for an action game on Nirn, fair enough, but to say completely remove the role play system, and imagine the role play, in the TES series, is nothing short of a joke.