There have been several threads this week in this forum discussing Skyrim's character development and how the game should deal with different races/classes from a game mechanics perspective. Obviously, I over simplify, but the argument basically boiled down to one side desiring complete control over their characters development, while the other side advocated a more strict set of criteria that remained consistant with TES lore and traditional fantasy game archetypes.

I myself was in the latter group. It's not that I'm against the idea of complete character control, but I prefer min-maxing my character within a character system which has set rules.

TES V has no such rules or constraints. Everything is much too fluid. The closest thing to a constraint really is the number of perks the player can spend verses the number available. One character is able to sneak as effectively as a pure thief character, while protecting themselves with the strongest heavy armor and large weapons as any warrior, and rain down destruction with spells as a pure wizard/mage character.

I'm not saying you can't have characters cross specialize, but I've always believed that "jack of all trades, master of none" was incredibly balanced. Skyrim let's you very easily be a master of everything. So, what is the fix? Is it possible to design a character system that allows you to build a character around any play style you can conceive, but is rigorous enough to limit your success to adhering to that style? Would such a game be popular? There is no denying how successful Skyrim has been in its current state.

Is it possible to create a perfect game?

I play with 'self-imposed' rules all the time when I role-play in TES games. I even did this in DF, MW and OB. I just have to do it a lot more now in Skyrim.

I can understand why many people want the restrictions built into the game, but when they are not there I have no problem adding them myself. What Skyrim did do however is give us some more options in other areas, while making the gameplay easier. I am all for playing smarter and not harder.

My biggest gripe has been that my level one skinny female Breton can carry just as much loot as my huge male Orc. Once I got past that though, all's good, though there are things I miss from the prior game (like lock bashing (DF) and open spells).

i suggest you take this to the tes 6 topic

First: no, it's not possible to create a perfect game. People will always whine about something.

However I completely disagree that you can be a master of everything in Skyrim. A character with 100 points in Illusion and the full perk tree is always going to be significantly more powerful than a character with 100 points in Illusion and no perks. The perk system has pretty well ensured that you can no longer truly master every skill in the game and become a thief-mage-warrior-thai-massage-therapist hybrid demigod.

^ This. If people want to become a master of everything, let them. If you don't want to, don't do it.

I'd disagree with your basic premise, that its easy to be a master of everything. That was much easier in TES II-IV where I could reach 100 in all skills. In Skyrim I can do that too but without the perks the skill itself means less than it did in the previous games.
My only real problem is the lack of differentiation between characters at the start of the game. Be it attributes, an advantage/disadvantage system, birthsigns or prior experience I'd like there to be more than race to define the character I create.

It's not that I begrudge other players their idea of fun, it's more of a lamentation over simplicity of it all.

Exactly. I think Bethseda made a game that caters to both casual players that have not played an RPG or barely played an RPG by making simple. SOmeone can turn the game on and "beat" it. ON the more RPG style they didn't limit us all the way. I wish there were more differences to race (traits, comments from NPCs, etc.) but in all we can impose rules on ourselves. We could in fact, NEVER play the MQ and if you like to explore, then do it.

Define perfect.

In my opinion, no ... for the very reason you identified in your post and is quite apparent even after a brief time on this forum.

Different players have different opinions and are looking for different things from a, in this case RPG, game. There is no consensus as to what a "perfect game" or RPG is. And what one person may feel is a "requirement" for a "real" or "traditional" RPG may be the same thing another person saw as "annoying" or "pointless" in "traditional" RPGs.

And there will always be limitations on the "resources" a developer can devote to game development and still hope to turn a profit.

So choices have to be made re: where to focus those resources ... and not everyone will agree with the choices that are made.

In my opinion, the best a developer can hope for is a game that satisfies most players in most ways and doesn't piss off the majority of players in any particular way.

The concept of perfection varies from person to person. The most important thing is that Skyrim offers the tools for you enjoy the game as you see fit. It's entirely up to you how you use those tools.

Perfect for who?

Maybe for one specific person you could, given enough information, time and access to that person.

For two or more people? No. Our expectations are way too varied.

Caan you get close to perfect for a large segment of players for just one sppecific style in one genre of games at a given point in gaming history?

Hell yes.

Is Skyrim that game, modded or otherwise?

No. For me it's damn close, but many many people beg to differ.

Ok, perhaps it was a poor choice of words. How about, instead of perfect, a game that would satisfy both the casual and the veteran player?

As Daenlin said: "A perfect arrow flies forever, and that's impossible. I'm Daenlin, and I have no perfect arrows." Same applies to games. It is a laudable goal and something to be strived for but like the end of the rainbow will always lie just out if reach. It's the Archer's Paradox.

This I think could be done by basically designing a relatively easy to play game like Skyrim and then including all sorts of things for veteran players that could be unlocked and customized through a very complex "options" menu. (eg, dark dungeons, directions in the game world, better difficulty sliders, immersive HUD, etc). Instead of doing that Bethesda just punts that sort of thing to the modding community, which ignores all the console players. This is unfortunate because console players can be just as serious about their games as PC players.

Skyrim is the "jack of all trades, master of none" in the sense that every single race can be the best at every single build or archetype combination or creation possible in the game.

That is something I don't agree with, because there is little point to having a large selection of something, but yet every single item is the exact same thing.

This.

I never quite understood people who make this arguement about Skryim and its character development. In my opinion it is the first game that actually results in unique and different characters. 100 in a skill with no perks is significantly different then 100 with a full perk tree. Like nerevavarine mentioned, the Illusion skill is a good example. With no perks there are many enemies that are too powerfull even for the master spells, but with a full perk tree you can manipulate almost any enemy. (dual weilding expert spells are more powerful then the master spells). You can actually make the OP's arguement for every TES game except Skyrim.

With that said I would like to see some limitations to things like guild acceptance. Acceptance should be skill and reputation based. For example, in order to join the mages guild you need at least one skill above X and it should have advancement skill requirements like Morrowind. Also it would be nice to have reputation limits as well. For example, if you are the master or a high rank in the thieves guild (yes i know they scrapped ranks), then the companions guild would not accept you, or boot you out, or make you choose.

I don't see any reason why Beth couldn't develop a game that meets the needs/wants of so-called "casual" players while also providing functionality that would allow players seeking a more "hardcoe" experience to turn off what some might refer to as "dumbed down" features.

But then, I'm not intimately familiar with all aspects of game development within Beth, so am not aware of all the factors that may come into play in attempting to build a game that meet all of the needs and expectations of most players.

In my opinion, tthe reality is that if Beth doesn't get an indication from a large percentage of Skyrim players that they really miss certain functions and/or that they found the game too "dumbed down" or "streamlined" for their taste, Beth isn't likely to change their current "vision" for TES or move resources from aspects of the game that are important to most players and reallocate those resources to areas that may be of importance to only to a small minority of players within the current market.

And as is the case for any company, if Beth seriously misreads what the majority of customers really want, they'll eventually be out of business.

Well, to be fair, Illusion is the most extreme example of perks making a real difference to your skill in Skyrim. At the other end of the spectrum is Lockpicking You don't need a single perk in lockpicking to be a really awesome lockpicker.

Even with Illusion, you do not need a full tree. You only need 9 perks in Illusion to do what you describe. The other four Illusion perks are made superfluous through enchanting.

You have got 18 skills in Skyrim and most of them require fewer than 9 perks to be really good at them. Because of this, there are a lot fewer meaningfully different builds in Skyrim than you might think.

Yeah, you are missing the point of the argement. Perks, whether you pick a few from a tree or all of them, results in a different character build then in past games where 100 in a skill was the same outcome regardless of you character construct. Illusion isnt the only example. I agree lockpicking is a useless tree and I have yet to pick a perk from it but pretty much every other skill, its the perks that determine the strength of a characters skill ability not the skill number. For the sneak skill (100), having the dagger 15x damage multiplier makes the difference between being an assassin and just a guy who can walk really quietly.

Sure, but it only takes four perks to get 15x in sneak. My point is that on paper having a maximum of only 81 perk points to spend and something like 280 perks to spend them on sounds like a huge number of different builds, but in practice there are only a handful of meaningfully different builds.

Regarding your point about prior games having all characters be the same by the end, sure that was theoretically possible, but in practice that only happens if you level every minor skill to 100. That took a lot of work because minor skills went up so slowly. Plus, if your roleplayed a particular role for your character, then they would not use certain minor skills and would never get every skill to 100.

The issue is not as black and white as you make it sound.

EDIT: Past games also had more meaningful racial distinctions and birthsigns, which could make a big difference to character. A mage with Apprentice birthsign for instance, was way different than an Atronach mage even if all skills on both mages were at 100. Now you can change your sign at the drop of a hat.

It was quite easy to get everything to 100 in MW with unlimited training, a little harder in Oblivion but given how many skills could be spammed to increase them not that hard.
If you RP a character in Skyrim they won't get every skill to 100, won't get 80 perks and suddenly there are more meaningful builds by your logic.

Why is that, exactly?

Yes, you could spam training in Morrowind, if you took the time to find the Master trainer for each skill. That in itself could be a challenge and a rather timeconsuming task if one did not take the easy way out by looking it up on the UESP. Certain skills in Oblivion took a lot of effort to level, even when spamming. Blade, Blunt, Block, Marksman, Security, and Alchemy all took a fair amount of effort if they were a minor skill outside your specialization. Not that it couldn't be done, mind you but it did take some effort.


Okay, so two handfulls of different builds in Skyrim if you roleplay a particular role that only uses certain skills. Prior games had more meaningful racial distinctions and birthsigns, which distinguished characters from each other even if you did level all minor skills to 100.

First off, I never said anything about leveling every skill to 100, I was making the point that in past games a 100 level skill was the same for every character regardless of how you were playing him. Regarding your comment about role playing, well you can apply it to Skyrim as well so it is moot.

Lastly, regarding the birthsigns, you are stretching it here man. So you are saying that in Oblivion a mage with the appretice birthsign, which gives him 100 more magica points and 100% more weakness to magic, creates a far more diverse mage then the perk system in Skyrim? Not even close.