Your counting perks not powers.

Older members have played for longer than 'several years.' You have only been active in this forum for a year, while we've been around for much longer, was my point. A year isn't that long. But, like I said, when you joined isn't really that relevant.


Shivering Isles was an expansion to Oblivion. Oblivion was fully scaled. Morrowind was not fully scaled by any stretch of the imagination. My entire point was that Shivering Isles was scaled, and that you can plow through it on any character and you'll just have opponents with weaker 'ranks,' on the leveled lists, and weaker variants of creatures, with words before their names to indicate such.

If you think Morrowind was an action RPG, you're insane. The fact that you choose to carry out this debate over Daggerfall is even more laughable.

Please provide evidence for your claims, and elaborate.

Well, first off, I corrected the Morrowind-Oblivion mix up a while before you even posted this.

Second, you can tell that all games since Daggerfall have aspired to be Action RPG's based on the core combat mechanics alone. Real-time (Non turnbased) Is the cornerstone of the wall that breaks RPG from Action RPG. (As all true-blood RPG's are based on the DnD turn based system, perhaps modified in some way like FF's ATB). As technology has reached the point where collision and hit calculations can be matched appropriately, with less strain on hardware, action RPG designers have been able to put more focus into the combat.

Also, Morrowind was scaled, all Bethesda's games have been scaled. Spend a little time in the construction set and you can see that. What type of monster that spawns is dependent on what level the player is. To be quite frank, the enemy scaling in Skyrim is almost identical to Morrowind in every way, the chief exception being NPCs (Named).

What does any of this have to do with the suggested level requirements of the Dawnguard DLC?

street creds dawg.

Word.

First off, I would like to say that I've probably spent more time in the Morrowind construction set than you have, and I know how Morrowind is built. I said, "Morrowind was not fully scaled by any stretch of the imagination." Some loot was random (keyword, not scaled), some creatures wouldn't spawn until you were around level 4-5 or so, and the higher level you got, the more cliffracers would spawn, but minor things like that are about the extent. If YOU had spent time in the construction set, YOU would know that everything in the game was hand-placed, and nearly everything has a static level. There are even some NPCs that appear to be unnamed that are in fact unique (or semi-unique), in the case of the NPC, 'http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Morrowind:Vampire.' You won't be able to walk into Dagoth Ur (the citadel) at level one and go on a killing spree (you'll likely die on the way up, or on your first encounter inside). You won't be able to walk into any tomb you want without getting killed in a few hits. MOST of the game is static and nonleveled.

Now you're speaking as if you work for Bethesda and know what their design plans were from the beginning. Many other games around the time frame were action-RPG-esque titles with good combat systems (Skyrim and Oblivion have rather lacking ones, unless you find SWING SWING SWING until it's dead to be fun - and while I admit that Morrowinds was infamously the same, at least the skills and attributes of your character were fully taken into play and you couldn't just rambo everywhere). To be an RPG, a game does not need to have turn-based combat. There have been several RPGs that provided seemingly both, but the second you engaged in combat, it became pure dice-roll awesomeness (KOTOR), and there have been some games where it's up to the player to execute his 'turn,' in the time provided to him. I would cite Morrowind as an example. You can move around (won't really help much), you can not attack (won't help you at all), you can not do anything (again, not helpful), you can attack slowly (no clue why you would, but you can - and to elaborate, I mean just taking a lot of time between swings, not holding your swing to make it more powerful), you can attack at full speed (not holding your swings back), or you can attack at full speed (holding your swings back, slower), or anything in between. Still, everything you do is controlled by a dice roll. The only thing that isn't controlled by a dice roll is your ability to activate unlocked containers/doors, and to move on a 3d plane. I wasn't talking about 'true-to-the-roots,' like 2nd edition DnD, but I would say Morrowind even still is very true to RPG roots, in that nearly everything is a dice roll and it still kept it fresh and on a modern medium.



Like I said in the reply, absolutely nothing. I don't know why you would ask me what its purpose was when in the quote I dropped the subject saying it had no purpose.


By the way, how all of this relates to the DLC is that Bethesda have had a similar strategy of how they handled DLC, even back during the time of Morrowind's prime whenever it was less expected to cater to everyone. There is no way, now, that this DLC won't cater to everyone in some way.

Hey, you're right. There might be several more.

On another note, about level. I took a closer look at that shot with the suggested level. I can't say for sure if that is 10, 19, or 40. It is just not clear enough.

OK...That cleared everything up. I am now reassured that I am totally confused.

Actually, most of the games enemies (What I'm refering to) Are dynamic. I've gone into Dagoth Ur at level 1, and I encountered nothing but Corprus Stalkers and cliff racers (Low level) as the generic enemies. Of course, the named Ash Vampires and the named Ascended Sleepers were present as well.


It's logical deduction. The direction and intent has always been very clear. Real time combat is the action in action RPG. You're hell-bent on this notion that Action RPG means it has to be dumbed down in some way to accommodate the action, and that's just a fallacy. Also, a Dice roll is independent of turn-based combat. All actions in the game still play in real-time. It's really quite simple. Real-time Control = Action RPG. (Control over the action), I don't know how to make the line anymore clear than that.

I hope some of the enemies are STUPIDLY hard. I have to purposely handicap myself to have a challenging fight...enchanted Daedric armor and weapons coupled with certain perks make me a tank, and I know many others are in the same position. It's only fun to be a demi-god for so long...

That's odd. I'm not denying that. Leveled lists do quite obviously exist all through the game, just not nearly to the degree of Oblivion, Skyrim, Fallout 3, etc.



I absolutely agree that dice rolls are independent of turn-based combat. The point I was trying to make is that the dice rolls themselves are just as important (-more- important). They directly take into account all of your character's stats, the stats of the weapon, and any other statistics that might be tracked so my character's skill with the weapon is what's taken into account. I become my character, and think for my character as far as where to move him (or, for myself, anyways, think like my character would think), where to swing/shoot arrows, etc, but the second I act in any way, my character's skills (and lots of them) are taken into account and there are dice rolls that have plenty of room for failure if your stats aren't up to par. That, to me, is an RPG.

I guess it depends on your definition of RPG. To me, an action RPG would be a combination between a Hack N' Slash or Adventure game and an RPG, predominantly the first with a few mechanics and gimmicks of the second, whereas a true RPG would take into account your character first and foremost, on everything, and not so much 'you,' the player and how skilled 'you,' are.

But, we're steering this off-topic. I just wanted you to know that before dropping it, I'm not stupid claiming to know all about RPGs without no knowledge - it's just I think I have a different idea in my mind for what the greatest RPG would need and wouldn't necessarily need - just like everyone has a different opinion on the greatest anything.

The main point I was trying to make is this - Morrowind surely did not cater to everyone, and Bethesda's focus was not on catering to everyone. After still somewhat catering to a much wider variety of characters than expected when they made their 'high-level' expansions, that's the biggest statement to me that Bethesda will do something of that sort at the most 'hardcoe.' But, even then, I don't think they'll go that far. It'll most likely be like Shivering Isles, or maybe more like Point Lookout - difficult, but still manageable at any level.

Well, then we're just arguing semantics, and this argument is going to go nowhere. Your problem is, you have a negative bias to "Action RPG", but that's about it.

I'm not really saying that Daggerfall was an Action RPG, I'm saying I see the aspirations of an Action RPG there. They clearly would have made a more "Hack 'n' slashy" combat if it they were capable of it technically.

I'd also argue that all of Morrowind, including expansions could be done at any level. You just need to exploit poor enemy pathfinding. Morrowind is also the beginning of TES's greatest sin, full level-scaling. (Gedna Relvel)