Knowing how a gun works =/= "Skill" with a gun. The only way to get skilled with a gun is practice. Sure, you can get pointers from what you read, but that doesn't improve your skill until you actually try it out and commit it to muscle-memory.

And that right there seems to be why RPG fans are so restless and unhappy: they changed the genre, now it svcks.

I hope you do realise that you can successfully fire a gun without holding it. You can completely bypass your personal hand-eye coordination with knowledge on how a gun works.

Ok here's another example since you don't seem to get what I'm talking about. Say your an expert shot you fired off millions of rounds and know your gun. Now say your near sighted so wear glasses. Take the glasses off and try to shot at stuff far away. You will miss hence this is an Attribute effecting a skill in an RPG.

You can still do it, as shocking as that may seem.

Also, nearsightedness is a defect, not an "attribute".

I always find class and attribute based games heavily restrictive. By giving players a blank slate upon which to plan out their characters, the developers are giving them more freedom and the resulting characters can better fit their players' visions. Of course, they might never be perfect, but they'll be better than they were.

I never said it's impossible, but you will miss.
as for it not beign an "attribute"
IE having a poor perception rating in Fallout.

Yes TES doesn't have this level of effect wit hit's previous stats and skills thats why I'm arguing for theyre return and upgrading. It's makes for deeper character definition.



whats "restrictive" ? In most cases you are the one that defines the initial scores.

The primary basis of every gun is the same. Pull the trigger and it shoots.

Level 1 Marksman achieved!



How was this helping your argument again?

Well, with Oblivion you were stuck with that class. Now it's been removed, hey, you can now change class halfway through the game. In fact, it allows you to roleplay even more. For instance, I really wanted to be a thief on one of my characters, I hung around with the thieves for a while, and during one quest, I had a change of heart. My character had developed, and it no longer suited them to be a thief. So they changed direction. After wandering around for a while, chopping wood, and mining to get over what they could have become. It was this change of heart that allowed my character to become a peaceful person, fair, and honest, who would always chose the right path, the honorable path, to get them into sovagnard.

exactly, sheo.

skyrim is one of the simplest rpg's i've ever played. the depth of character customization is gone. a lack of attributes and meaningless, generic perks means unsophisticated blandness.

i basically MUST roleplay in this game that has fewer character defining mechanisms or else it becomes boring, since, travel, quest, fight is tedious when the gameworld doesn't change as my character changes. it's almost entirely played in the mind.

the less i get to decide, the shallower it gets.

the skyrim "system" is simplicity itself: with no restrictions at all, i become what i do. that's it.

I've enjoyed some class-based games in the past, but it takes me a long while before I'm able to attach myself to that character. They don't grow organically, they merely grow into their pre-defined role.

And there's never a bloody counter-class! Save for GW1's Mesmer and GW1 has well over a thousand skills to pick and choose from too.

Attributes were poorly-implemented in Fallout too.

Case in Point:
Check out Fallout's Intelligence, Speech, and Charisma relationship:
Intelligence was the only factor to determine whether or not you could choose a certain speech option.
Speech determined the success rate of the option, but More Intelligent options generally had higher success ratings anyway.
Charisma was to be dropped to 1 and have its points put into Intelligence because it didn't do anything the Speech skill didn't do better.

Let's look at the intelligence Attribute:
Damage and ability are determined more by Skill than the governing Attributes.
Intelligence grants more Skill points on level-up.
Ergo, the nerd with all SPECIAL points in Intelligence hits more often than the Perceptive Gunslinger, avoids and disarms traps and locks better than the Agile Thief, hits harder than the Musclebound Brute, and is more persuasive than whatever poor sop thought Charisma was worth any points.

Skyrim's removal of attributes removed the biggest plagues from Stat-based RPG systems: M.A.D. (Poor fighters and monks can't do anything because they have to have High numbers in ALL attributes to be viable) and S.A.D. (My high-INT wizard does everything better than your character, despite having sub-par numbers in all other attributes. I hit harder than a Rogue's backstab, or Barbarian's berzerk. I take hits better than the armored Knight. I am more mobile than the rogue. I can carry more than the party's mule, I am faster than the scout, and I resist spells better than the wise Paladin)

Dragon Age: Origins highlighted the problem with Stats - Fighter needs to invest in Everything, while the Mage can ignore every stat that isn't "Magic", and still come out on top. Diablo II demonstrated another flaw - Not even the Sorceress invests in Energy.

Wrong, there are no classes in Skyrim, and that fact is made when there are no stat boost by being able to choose a class, because those classes have been removed. You simply choose a race, that offers its relevant attribute and their relevant active effects boost and game away. The problem, is that RPing has been taken down by the fact that you can easily level any skill you so want to level because you're no longer held to choosing the type of character you want to play. That right there eliminated the need for classes and also eliminated holding the player to actually roleplaying the type of character they want to be because of that easy leveling of all skills. Now, I'll admit Beth advertised the game as such, so I knew what I was getting, but it certainly killed any future play-throughs since I am not held to the type of character I choose as I was in previous TES games. The only thing I am waiting for now is the CK.

What? The difference is that it just starts you as a blank-slate. You "evolve" into a class rather than get pinned in it from the start. Your class changes as you do, but a level 50 "Warrior" (High health, combat-related perks) is definitely a different class than a level 50 "mage" (High Magicka, Magic-related perks)

Heck, I have three distinctly different characters that all use Light Armor, and I wouldn't consider them to be "the same class" by any stretch.

I have three characters, all very different as regards perks and attributes (of the health/magicka/stamina variety), all allied to different factions and all with different interests and goals. My characters all sleep, eat and avoid fast-travelling (save for carriages). That's role playing to me.

for me, the whole "class" choice is meaningless, since, you were never forced to choose in any game. as well, i agree that becoming what you play is more organic and just feels right.

however, i just don't see how many of you don't realize the lack of character customization. the lack of options that really seperate one character from the next. it's blatantly obvious to many of us.

when skills are all accessible in the beginning there is really no problem. however, as our characters level-up and there STILL is nothing that seperates or distinguishes themselves from someone else then problems arise. combine that with an oblivious world around me and meaningless dialogue then the game becomes a simple roleplaying game of the mind.

a lot of this is due to the insanely poor implementation of smith, alch, ench, lock, pick, etc..

That's not the point I made. My point is that you are not held to your choice of a class, because actually, there are no classes, only races, as they were removed. Classes no longer exist (like being a Battlemage, thief, etc). You can level up any and all skills easily, making the game more action/adventure than role playing. If I choose being a mage, I should be held to that, not just cast magic, then decide to shoot arrows and level up marksman as easily as I do using spells relevant to my choice of character. Not only that, you can choose a different guardian stone to help ramp up the leveling speed of the skills relevant to that stone. Previous TES games held you to your character choices. Also, you are wrong about Fallout with Speech, Intelligence and Charisma, it isn't as simple as you say either, but that is another topic.

This^ so much

Exactly, "Previous" TES games, this is not "previous" Tes games, this is Skyrim, Not previous TEs games.

I don't think any thing is truly an RPG unless it's pen and paper!

Perks are bonuses, Morrowind gave like you said Quests Bonuses. Oblivion doesn't Oblivion makes them Automatic, Skyrim makes them all manual while keeping the "doing quests gives you some bonuses that aren't Perks" you are none the worse for picking any perks, there are no draw backs, they are all -bonuses- hence why I don't support Perks alone being the Replacement for attributes or whatever folks are chalking them up to be. Bonuses are Bonuses are Bonuses, nothing really "deep" about them to be honest, and I stand by that statement.

I desire -control- over my character, atleast when you picked speed over strenght in past interations you could move faster and run down fleeing enemies better, but you weren't better off in damage(barirng the skill) BUT you could atleast run away. there is no such dichotomy with Perks in Skyrim. I can only hope sometime soon Perks+Attributes see the light of day.... well thats not all I can do but you get my point...or do you.

That's fine, I will never tell anyone that isn't role playing as RPing means different things to different people. In all honesty though, that's more meta-gaming (not that it is a bad thing, it is a good thing and can be done in resstrictive RPGs like Oblivion, DA:O, VtMB, etc) the play style almost entirely playing it like that. SKyrim's means of choosing to play any and all skills you so plwease, makes meta-gaming a normal feature for one wanting to play many styles in the same play-through. But for me, that isn't role playing as I feel one should be held to their choice of what they play as a character.

Daggerfall was much different from Oblivion and somewhat similar to Skyrim, in that you can decide on a skill to play even after choosing your class and race. What made that game great was, if you started using a certain set of skills a great deal, they would level fast, but then choosing others would level seriously slow. So, you could choose all, level them all the same (they would all be relatively lo-level though), or a few and be the character you chose.

And what is your point, how does this counter my claim that you are not held to your choices and that Skyrim seems to play more like an action/adventure game than role playing? MY experiences in Skyrim style of gaming plays very similar to how Fable II plays, being anything I want to be and not held to any choices I make.

what i find odd is that they cut down the classes, yet kept the 8 or so races. why didn't they reduce them too?

Not necessarily. Within the context of D&D and party-based games at large, it means serving a particular role and ADHERING to it - within the context of your party's duties, as well as in how your party divides up interactions with the world around them. Apparently nowadays people think otherwise.

But as computer games are nowhere near elegant enough to accommodate for all the possibilities, let alone have the manpower and budget to add in more when there's no safe assurance everybody will replay and appreciate those different methods, they just don't even try. So instead they make the playstyles as general as possible, so that each one has an "equal" experience that the developers can meticulously tweak and polish. Dragon shouts alone, as fun as they are to use, are simply to reduce the likelihood of some characters being incapable of doing some things - because, god forbid, that's no fun!

I, on the other hand, enjoy meticulously planning my characters prior to starting the game, imagining their background, who they might do well to ally themselves with in the world, as well as planning for their inevitable weaknesses and shortcomings. It's just no fun when you can segue into any playstyle in Skyrim with complete disregard for who your character is - their role. And don't tell me that the perks system is more meaningful than the character advancement in previous TES games was - it's not. Arbitrarily increasing your spell potency/casting efficiency by 30% is impersonal - just why is it that your skill levels don't control those kinds of things, anyway?