There are games that deal excellently with attributes and there′s nothing wrong with liking such systems, however the older TES system was horribly crippled. And I don′t see a future return for attributes if we want to maintain the skill progression system. Perks is new and fresh and to me more fun because it hasn′t been done a million times already.

Attributes don′t really translate into real world terms that well either, it′s just that we are more used to them from a rpg background. Strength is a very wide term, it can measure ability to lift weights, or throw objects or hold a handstand and being good at one of these things does not natually translate into being good at the rest so such a number is just as abstract and "unreal" as the functions derrived from perks.

At least Fallout skills meant something, regardless of the perks you'd choose. In Skyrim skills are mostly meaningless except to unlock perks that do have an effect. Which still means that grinding enchant may well net you the perk points you needed to invest in armsman. Any way you try to spin this, you still end up having to face the reality that Skyrim also lets you improve your ability to do A by practicing at totally unrelated B for a long time.

What one can argue is that the system should be dynamic. No moronic perks, no attribute points to distribute, just do what you want and as your skills level up, you'll gain attributes automatically. Cast a lot of destruction spells and your willpower goes up. Do a lot of alchemy or enchanting and your intelligence goes up. Wield a sword for a long time and your strength goes up. That's dynamic, fluid, organic, and whatever else you might want to call it.

If you've ever played Dungeon Siege then imagine that but in a more elaborate version. Modders implemented such a system for both Oblivion and Morrowind, but they obviously can't do that in Skyrim, since attributes are no doubt hardcoded out of the game. Consequently, thanks to BGS and Todd Howard, you can't actually get a dynamic system in Skyrim, even though PC gamers have had that in TES 3 and 4 for years. That's textbook "utter failure" to me, but then of course it's not a problem if you're simply looking to give your toon different roles. If you're simply looking for different styles of play in your "deep action game" then Skyrim's system is perfect.
Just please be so kind as to refrain from referring to that as "role playing".

Attributes translate to real world terms far better than perks exactly because they have a much greater scope. To use your example about strength: Someone who is strong can lift more weight and throw objects farther and get less tired by running and and... To do this through perks is a royal pain in the ass because by definition they have a much smaller scope. Each attribute is meant to be used in a lot of calculations behind the scenes and its a tool primarily for the game to understand what kind of character the player is playing. Taking away attributes cannot possibly mean a smoother more organic world, only the opposite. In Skyrim I felt that some perks tried to do attribute work (the several 5 level perks were exactly that).

I'm not saying to remove perks, I'm saying to place them on their proper place in the hierarchy which is (from wider to narrower):
attributes->skills->perks

You are really contradicting yourself here...the issue with the attributes in relation to skills and leveling was that if I worked on picking locks for three months I would suddenly be very good at dodging? In Skyrim if I spend three months picking locks, all I am actually good at is...picking locks...go figure...logical evolution just like you are talking about...without the contradiction.

Pardon me for saying this, but the difference between Skyrim perks and Diablo 2 skills is pretty minimal. Divine Divinity had that sort of skills too. They're new in a TES context but the concept isn't new at all, and using them without having any alternative way of describing who and what your character happen to be is not elegant or even particularly effective.

Of course strength is a generalized term. There's leg strength, upper body strength, arm strength. There's peak strength and there's "strength over time". That's not the point. The point is that when I say "I'm stronger than you are", you know what the hell I'm talking about and you can think of ways to figure out whether my claim is true. Which means that "strength" exists as an attribute for humans, even if it's hard to measure or categorize. Just like I can be stronger or weaker than you, people can belong into categories. Your average linebacker is "strong". Your average heavy weight boxer is "strong". Your average librarian or electrician or computer geek are all "not strong". Mind you, I'm talking about the stereotypes so please don't ridicule yourself by pointing out exceptions.

What I'm getting at is that you do have a level of strength, regardless of how you wish to categorize or represent your level of stength. Same thing with your intelligence. A relatively popular way of representing intelligence is IQ but even that has some severe limitations. Even so, you can measure your IQ and compare it with my IQ. Your IQ can be higher or lower than mine. That's in the real world. In Skyrim this is not so. The dumbest Orc and the smartest Altmer all have the same IQ, because nobody have an IQ. It's not just hidden from view, it's entirely non-existent as it is simply not part of the model used in the game.

Ultimately, this is where we digress because to me, a model without any representation of humanoid uniqueness is a bizarro world model. If I am to make a character then that character has to be defined relative to other actors in the world who are not me. That definition is simply not there. Don't talk to me about perks filling that gap because they obviously don't, since they have no real world equivalence whatsoever. Number-based attributes are perhaps overly accurate and fairly abstract but at least there is a connection to reality that I can relate to, even if it's imperfect.

Don't get me wrong, I totally agree that it's a simplified concept that intelligence refers to all forms of intelligence or strength being a term for all things that require any form of physical strength or agility being both dodge and accuracy with all kinds of weapons. Those are not great terms but at least they're a start and they're much better than having nothing whatsoever.

Except for the fact that raising your Skill level is pretty arbitrary now as Perks have the majority of weight in them, so you can spend forever picking Locks and get better at swinging a Sword...

First of all, security is governed by intelligence. Agility did play a role in determining success, but it wasn't the primary attribute. So no, picking locks does not suddenly make you better at dodging. And in fact, the idea behind natural evolution of character abilities is that you are never suddenly good at anything. You steadily improve, higher levels of skill are more difficult to attain, but eventually you get there. Each step of the way is important, because they always contribute to success. Further, your attributes only improve if you select them, just as you only attain perks if you select them. So, using security substantially in either game results in the exact same thing: you are good at picking locks. Any other improvements (whether they be attribute increases or perks) are selected separately and are largely optional*.

Perks, on the other hand, are sudden arbitrary improvements. You could use swords for hundreds of hours, but only see substantial improvement after selecting a perk. You don't improve through practice, you instead have these apparently stunning realizations: "Oh, I'll just cut his head off! Why didn't I ever think of that before?" Like I said, it's stilted. You don't steadily get better at your skill of choice. You leap forward, and then slow, and then leap forward again. It's like 300's camera work. This is not organic progression.


*insofar as any important character improvements are optional

If you pick that many locks and get that many improvements to your lockpick skill then you'll gain character levels. Gaining character levels nets you a bonus to either health, magicka, or stamina as well as perk points that might be invested in dodging perks or really any perk that doesn't have a thing in common with lockpicking.

Effectively, you work on picking locks for three months and end up with a stronger health, improved ability to cast spells, better fitness, and you've possibly also learned how to dodge or how to brew better potions or how to create a suit of armor from the bones of a dragon. All by picking locks. Please don't tell me that this makes more sense than you improving the precision of your movements through months of careful precision work with a lockpick, and in doing so you also improve your ability to deflect blows.

Actually no...as you don′t unlock any new perks in any other skill...

This. So very this. Thank you for putting words onto my thoughts better than I seem capable of myself.

Again...no, if all I do is pick locks I can′t pick perks in other skills because I haven′t unlocked them...

Which is not true because the beginning perks are mostly unlocked from the start. And if you've formerly unlocked the perks but haven't invested perk points in them yet then the problem persists. Are you saying that it makes sense for lockpicking to make you a better runner and suddenly give you new insights in how to barter with people?

That said, you're also refusing to actually relate to the core issue, and I can't help wondering why that is. You and I know that most people unlock a wide number of perks fairly quickly and grinding lockpicking would indeed give you perk points that most people aren't going to even consider spending in lockpicking, because spending perks in that tree is a waste of points anyway. YOU KNOW THIS! So why are you pretending otherwise? What do you hope to achieve by denying the obvious?

I wouldn′t call that particularly smart character management, leveling up in lockpicking will punish you because of level-scaling. However, other skills, such as crafting, can be used in such a manner yes.

But this was never the core issue...when did you make it into that? Character development and customization for role-playing purposes was the core issue, wasn′t it? I find that allowing me the freedom to choose a range of skills and build my character around develioping those skills and perks is a very elegant system to allow for individual character development, removing the need for an obsolete attribute system that never worked well in the first place. The perk descriptions and their direct effect on the game mechanics provides me with all the background I need - "skullcrusher" says way more about my character than "strength 85".

Reminds me of Dungeon siege.

"If you need titles telling you who your character is then open up a notepad and type it out in there. Some of us have this little thing known as imagination. We don't need the game to constantly tell us what kind of character we're playing."

"If you need numbers telling you who your character is then open up a notepad and type it out in there. Some of us have this little thing known as imagination. We don't need the game to constantly tell us what kind of character we're playing."

No, no, no. You don't get it. See I was parodying you guys. You know, you guys who are satisfied with Skyrim's new leveling system. You can't turn it around on me, because I'm being sarcastic...

Also, it's all numbers anyways. What name they hide the numbers behind is sorta irrelevant.

Haha...thank you for not needing to take yourself too seriously!

And it′s just a game right

Hey the reverse insult always is relevent!

But anywhy Attributes are better, I think because they are better yardsticks to built your rulesets off of, and offer up better character depth and development then a generic "everyone is the same" blank slate approch.

I dont see how numbers add more depth at all. They are just bounds you have to live by rather then being free to do what you want.

Everyone starting out the same isn′t entirely related to attribute or perk system. You could easily modify the initial character creation within the perk system if you want a more diversified starting character, and the other way around, you could remove all the attribute differences and have everyone starting out exactly the same within the attribute system. That′s a secondary game mechanic that can be modified within either system.

Easy, as like I said you have yard sticks to measure by, instead of "just cuz". Especially if you have everything being governed by a stricked rules system with no "cheating" like we see in all of the TES series with the scaling bonus damage. They also give you choice and concequences much better. they don't stop you from doign what you want in anyway, but you'l lhave to live with any difficiancy you create.


yes that can happen, But classically speaking when yo uhave stat systems in place you usually have racial and class variances already in place. the blank slate approch encourages adventure style gameplay over more classic RPG style game play.

You mean it's going to up the challenge once things become too easy? Oh, how nice. Why didn't I think of that? Oh dear, if only I was better at character management...

(Yes, I'm mocking the crap out of your obviously irrelevant response. Sorry. )

It's certainly closer to the core issue than whether or not you'd actually have unlocked perks in other skill trees, don't you think?

And is it sound character development that doing A for a long period gives you sudden insights in totally unrelated B? Yes or no?

It's elegant if you don't want to roleplay, yes. D2 was a very elegant action game, which is why it was and remains so popular. You can certainly develop toons in different directions but they'll never feel alive, never feel the least bit like actual people, unless you warp yourself into bizarro world.

Strength 85 tells you that your character is a strong person who can lift a lot, who can easily wield a large hammer, and that you don't want to be on the receiving end when he swings said hammer. Skullcrusher tells you nothing about your character other than that he's using an axe, since the benefit from the Skullcrusher follows naturally from the physical properties of any given warhammer. It doesn't tell you that your character is trong enough to lift a warhammer, because he may well have the same carrying capacity as a level 1 Breton woman.

By the way, you never did respond to the fact that humans like you or I do have attributes, which makes it bizarre to say the least that in-game people don't. Mind you, those attributes could be hidden or visible, they could fluctuate like they do in real life or they could be static, but they should be there in one form or another. But they're not.

In my opinion, the new system is better. The only problem I have, is that there is basically one path for certain character builds. I mean, if you want to be a Ranger, you're usually going to have the same perks as anyone who choose to build that class.

Just seems like there should be much more choice in perks. Specialization is what I really enjoy.

Maybe you could even be able to put up to 10 or even 80 perk points in one particular perk. (similar to how they often have 5/5 perk points in certain skills)

Maybe I want to put ALL of my 80 perk points in increasing Destruction damage, or even more specialized, and put it on Ice damage. Heck, there isn't even a perk for that in the first place. I rest my case.

Consolidation and homogenization means instead of the effectiveness being spread out amongst multiple stats or influences, you now have it in one or a few. For example, a player who invests 5/5 into Armsman versus one who does not each with 100 skill will deal significantly more damage. Perks are bloated. Attributes have been rolled into Perks now as well as somewhat into Stamina/Magicka/Health. This makes it much EASIER to create an overpowered character as stacking becomes trivial. With attributes, you have to make sacrifices oftentimes, but when you have it built into Perks solely, this task becomes much easier. Skills then really just become a vehicle or a pre-requisite whereas before they had the Perk effectiveness built INTO them and modified by attributes. I want to see my One-Handed go up for example so I can get my next point into Armsman. Then when you have Enchants that Fortify this, it starts to scale exponentially. This becomes dangerous for game balance.