Having attributes govern your conversation choices, a la Fallout, would be amazing.

It would, Bethesda simply made attributes pointless however by removing the RPG aspects that required them. Are we really saying that it would be "amazing" for an RPG to have choices depandant on attributes? Wow...

So then if you have to pretend that the high intelligence "stat" in game has an effect, why don't you just pretend that you have it in the first place? I certainly don't think Bethesda needs to waste time including features that have no function when we are all already asking them to include so many more that do have functions. Developer hours are a limited resource, you understand.

I've already explained how attributes do have a function. They govern how good you can be at your skills. With no attributes, you can truly be a master of everything because you don't have them to govern how good you can be at something.

So then, does intelligence raise the maximum level that your destruction skill can go? Say to 120 instead of 100? Or does it increase the speed at which you get to 100?

I hear you saying that they govern how good you "can be" at a particular skill. What I'm asking is what in the world does that mean? What is the actual effect?

Funny, because Skyrim is the first Elder Scrolls game where you can't truly be a master of everything in the endgame. And yet that's because of the absence of attributes, not in spite of it. Weird, huh?

As I said, Bethesda basically simplified the game to the point were stats were no longer necessary; you don't think that a bad starting point for an RPG series?

That would be a good idea, yes. One thing that bothers me about Skyrim is the inability to increase my character's speed or jumping height. If you run or jump a lot, you're going to get better at it over time. It's a given. That's also why I want Athletics and Acrobatics back, but that's another conversation.

My thoughts?

This forum has turned into RPG-hipster Paradise.

"OMG'z the RPG is popular now, Bethesda sold out, the game is "dumbed down" for the "casuals"."

It's some of the worst logic I've ever had the misfortune of reading on an internet forum.

They aren't right.

Starcraft 2 is a good example of a game that does the opposite. It's simplified in a few small ways, but the complexity is definitely nearly the same as the original, and some new stuff has been added too that isn't gimmicky (well, I guess the mothership is gimmicky...). And the game sold tons of copies and there are tons of people playing it still. I consider myself a "hardcoe gamer" and I'm pleased with the game, I've played about 800 hours of it. I think it was definitely more worth the $60 than Skyrim was, because they kept 99% of the mechanics that made the original game great. There are some people who dislike it, but it's really not even close to how many dislike where TES is going. If it was close, the majority of "pros" would still play SC1. But they mostly play SC2 now.

This is completely untrue. Just because I can't fill up all the perk trees doesn't mean I can't be a master of everything. My first character in Skyrim was a master of everything, 400+ armor rating, over 300 magicka, a pickpocket skill of 100, a sneak skill around 90. Not 'perfect' at everything, but completely skilled in everything. I've seen this argument time and time again, and it just isn't true.

Yeah, those would be the hall-marks of a game where your character couldn't just become the master of everything through grind. Where the player had to make difficult choices and specialist characters. But Bethesda decided that attributes confused all the new folks or whatever and decided to scrap them; it's not exactly an unimaginable prospect is it? That having a higher intelligence stat makes someone more suited to the role of something that would require a smart guy but because they had to put points into Intelligence they couldn't say be as physically strong because they lacked the points to put into Strength?

I don't complain about Skyrim because it's popular, I complain because it's merely a shadow of what the series once was. And no, I am not a hater, I've played Skyrim more(!!!) than every other Elder Scrolls game. I just see a lot of room for improvement here. You may not, but everything in life can be improved upon.

Again, because developer hours are limited and there's only so much you can do before a game's release, what feature of Skyrim would you like to sacrifice in order to have more dialogue options? Keep in mind how much time and effort it takes to record all these lines of dialogue, pay the voice actors, and then code them into the game.

So... just saying "a 2d map would be fine" isn't enough. That's not a 1 to 1 trade.


It is a good idea, but I don't think you need attributes to do it. Plus, we both agree that there needs to be athleticism and sport-like skills and abilities that can increase. You and I are on the same page, mate.

What I'm saying is that attributes are not necessary in order to make characters deeper. There's nothing that you simply can't do without an attribute. More skills, more perks, more spells, more weapons.. whatever. You name it. It would be great if Skyrim had more of everything.

However, i don't think it needs a "new" thing. I don't think it needs attributes, and I never have thought they were neccesary, not even in morrowind.

If your definition of "mastery" is "100 in all skills", then that's totally possible, and it's also completely possible with attributes. That hasn't changed.

However, a character with level 100 Illusion with all perks in the tree is exponentially more powerful in that school than the same character if they haven't perked Illusion.

I actually agree with this statement. I've merely been using attributes as a frame of reference for all the character development aspects that Skyrim is sorely missing. Bringing back attributes is just one solution, though.

True, but it doesn't matter much, given that every character, no matter their perk distribution, will be pretty powerful by the time they're around level 50. That's an issue of balance, though.

Layers for the sake of layers is a bad thing, because they are there for the sole sake of being there.

Attributes do not add extra layers of depth that aren't covered by perks. Adding them just for the sake of adding them can very well be a bad thing. It's needless tedium.

Wow really? I don't have to take any sneak or lockpicking perks, with about 40 sneak I already breezing past people with no trouble at all. Perks don't make you better at the skill, they improve your abilities to use it and make it do whole new things, I guess like attributes might have done before - so there's some creedance there at least.

Really? Because I don't see any perks that can increase my jumping height or the speed that I run at.


I agree.

But they removed attributes. So it's okay to add perks just for the sake of adding perks?

It actually matters quite a bit, especially in comparison to prior games in the series. In Oblivion or Morrowind, it was completely possible to become a demi-god who was a total master of every single skill set in the game. This is no longer possible in Skyrim.

How many points have you put into your strength this week? Does it stop you from becoming more intelligent?
Attributes are fictional and nonsensical. Want to be smarter? Go to a university and learn something. Want to get stronger? Hit the gym.

There is no such mutual exclusion in the real world.

The only point that I conceed is that some people are naturally exceptionally intelligent. I'm not saying that isn't true.
Likewise, some people are born huge and powerful. I'm not saying that's not true either.

However, plenty of people are very strong and very intelligent. Not only that, but you can always increase either one.

And yet, without attributes, Skyrim forces the player to make more decisions, and become more "specialist" than Morrowind or Oblivion ever did...

They had years to make Skyrim, they made Fallout 3 - bearing in mind that they had to make radical changes to their engine to accomodate changes in gameplay - in the same amount of time and as pitiful as some of it's black-and-white moral choices, plot-holes and deus ex machina's are they at least proved Bethesda was fully capable of writing dialouge trees, of having both skills and attributes affect how far/much you can get from talking to people.