Those are actually really good points. I honestly don't know how / if they're going to handle that.

I hope that those characteristics are still present.

SushiRush, it's amazing the insight that you have regarding what will and wont work in Skyrim, a game that isn't even close to be released yet. I gotta give you mad props. Either you played the E3 demo, or you ARE Todd Howard.
Tell me, Todd. Why are you implementing a system that you seem so vehemently against? You said it yourself, Todd "it wont work"! So why add it?
Todd, you are confusing me.

trying something new is one thing but completely doing away with attributes. its been going down hill since after morrowind.

"Hey we've got trouble... right here in River City... with a capital 'T' and that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for pool..."

On topic: Merging redundant systems isn't a sacrifice of depth. It's a windfall of elegant gameplay.

I hope so too. And expanded on honestly. The luck character that bumbles and fumbles his way through X quest(s) is always entertaining to play and watch unfold.

Except they didn't have to remove entire systems to streamline and fix the gameplay.

I hope this hasn't happened. It's kind of too early to tell either way. I hope that they did the 'good' developer thing and integrated redundant systems for a smoother ride toward whatever goal the player is trying to roleplay at. I hope they didn't do the 'bad' developer thing of 'chop out things that confuse new people because trying when you pursue your hobby isn't cool anymore.'

I'm hoping that most of the meat of the character building stuff is still there. I guess we're all in 'wait and see' mode at this point.

No, its pretty much confirmed. Attributes did not need to be removed. Classes did not need to be removed. Same with a lot of the skills they removed. I can understand combining athletics and acrobatics (though I think they removed them altogether, which is stupid), and speechcraft and mercantile, but its stupid to combine all weapon types into two skills. Hell, I was even fine with just having Blade and Blunt if they would've expanded how many blunt weapons there actually were that were useful. And don't get me started on mysticism.

Granted, they fixed many of the actual problems, but on the flipside of the coin they removed a lot of things that were never large problems. I always heard people complaining about level scaling and I even remember the occasional gripe about the past health system. But I never heard someone say that attributes were pointless or detrimental to gameplay (aside from endurance, but thats looped in with the health issue), only not used to their max potential.

This is my take on it.

A class is picking a set number of skills/attributes that define your gameplay from the beginning.

Skyrims system is the exact same thing, except you don't pick it from the beginning, you pick it as you GO. You define your "class" as you play, you learn your class, and you create your OWN class based on what skills you use.

Want to play a Mage? Use magic, no armor, daggers, and staves. Voila. Guess what? You're a Mage. RP and imagination required, but that's how it should be.

Want to play a Warrior? Use swords/axes/maces, heavy armor, smithing, and have a beard. Voila. Guess what? You're a Warrior. RP and imagination required, but again, that's how it should be.

never really paid attention to stats in oblivion, I just use whatever weapon and whatever armour, I don't pay attention to whether the skill is in increasing (at least not in the sense that i change weapons purposefully to get the skill up)

Only if you don't have any imagination. If you do have sufficient imagination, then a class is nothing more than a set of inclinations and talents that might or might not correspond with the skills you'll end up using.

The only people who are bound by class are those who can't think beyond whatever it is that the game gives them.


If you pick it as you go, it's not the same thing. You don't pick talents and inclinations as you go - you already possess them. You pick skills as you go, which is the same thing you did in past games. So the skills - the things you pick as you go - are there now as they were then. The rest of it - the talents and inclinations - are simply gone.


Within the context of skills, again, that's what you always did. But now your "class" won't have the added flavor of talents and inclinations. It will ONLY consist of skills.


Again, that's how it's always been. But in the past, you could play a mage who wasn't particularly talented at it and had to rely exclusively on skills, or one who had a great deal of innate talent and could coast on skills, or anything in between. Now, ALL you can do is practice the skills. All the rest of it is gone.


And again, that's how it's always been, though again, talents and inclinations are gone and all that's left are skills.

Which, I guess, is fine for the people who can't roleplay a character who's anything more than the sum of his skills. Some of us, however, can and would rather play characters who are a bit more than just an accumulation of skills.

^^ That.

I suppose a possible solution would be to grant the player a certain number of free skill ups to help define their past/character choice.

Um, and the "class" title is the only thing that just breaks the glass for you eh?
This is the EXACT same system as oblivions and morrowinds, except you just don't have the title of "mage" "warrior" etc. There is no difference.
You RP your way to a class, you do not have to have a title to make you a mage. If you want to be a mage, use mage skills and use magic. Enough said.

Gaaaahh. I didn't ever catch that, and don't remeber it. That's very sad. :sadvaultboy:

Not so much a matter of need as it is a matter of want. Which seems to be whats confusing you. No one here is saying they need to have the game tell them they're a mage otherwise they can't use magic.

Solution: OblivionXP. Oops, I mean SkyrimXP. :thumbsup:

If you could enter in a title just to see it, would that be enough?

Alright.

#1: There are more than 3 types of stones to define your class. Not just the Warrior Sign, the Mage Sign, and the Thief Sign. Todd speaks of these as the three "main" stones, but there are various other stones that help you define your character based on how you RP it.

#2: Having a title that denotes your class means absolutely nothing. Just because your characters sheet in Oblivion said "Mage", that didn't MAKE you the mage. What MADE you a Mage? THE SKILLS YOU USED. Skills>Everything. You want to be a Mage, USE THE MAGE SKILLS. SKILS is what defines your character.

^^ Precisely Aradal. In my classes topic thats exactly what I argue for. And whats more, being able to change it whenever you want to suit whatever changing interests you have.



Thats you're opinion, and regardless, being able to give ourselves a class title can DEFINE YOUR CHARACTER EVEN MORE. (caps to spite)

I don't see a problem with that tbh, it's just text at the end of the day. It makes people happy and it's not too hard to program in.

Actually, its not just a name, its a profession; calling it meaningless and unneeded, is exactly the same calling a neurosurgeon's title meaningless and unneeded. :shrug:

Imagine if anyone could call themselves a neurosurgeon simply for hacking away at it until someone survived... Class represents one's trade skill and/or education.
(It also comes with an assumption of an established level of competency... to "fake it" is to be what's called a 'Quack').

False. Giving your character a title is a backbone to support itself because you have no backbone imagination wise and can't RP inside your safe little bubble without a class title defining you.

I really don't see the big deal in a title. Nor can I really comprehend your hatred of it.

I have to agree with Aradal. Plus I find it rather interesting that you're borderline insulting me as well. Did classes touch you as a kid or something?

All jokes aside, you've continued to ignore the fact that no one here is relying on a class title in order to roleplay, but in order to help enhance said roleplay.