rangers were tolkins creation. Aragorn was the original ranger(the name ranger class name actually came from the name of the group he rode with "rangers of the north"). through time people have been slowly tryin to twist rangers into some [censored] archer class.

Perhaps, doubtful in my opinion though, still doesn't change the fact that you can create whichever version of a Ranger you'd like in Skyrim.

The viability of that Ranger, well that could be up for debate. I'd think they are WTFMEGATRONKILL though.

You just named the only mechanics that were ever in TES games.

I didn't know slowing down time, bleeding, ignoring armor, criticals, dual casting,

feel free to look it up. your opinion doesnt change facts.


http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=the%20strategic%20review%20-%20volume%201%2C%20number%202.&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdnd.ezael.net%2F%7Esnorri%2FStrategic_review_2&ei=vSA7T8W6BIjk0QGu7JmjCw&usg=AFQjCNHxDW-dfXFPlwGYJnoPcmPKvxpdqw&cad=rja is where the ranger class was introduced to games way back in 1975. there is a start for you, a little research on your own will ensure that you are better informed next time.

Bleeding, ignoring armor, criticals? Yeah that really adds diversity. Its just more "damage done", not even any tangible way to sense or see it other than the enemies health bar and some more of those dreaded 'numberz', that's it. Dual casting is a gimmick that adds nothing. Slowing time is a new mechanic, but its not a huge one, not like creating your own spells for example, or any other number of mechanics that are no longer even in ES.

I could tell you the same thing.

Define Ranger, not loosely in some ethereal sense, I don't need to defend my own definition.

Speaking of which, there is also a dodge mechanic in Skyrim for Ranger type builds in the Light Armor tree.

Please continue

I love generalizations, here let me do some :

Levitation was a gimmick to allow players to skip past the whole game.

Spell crafting was a gimmick to give players a reason not to specialize.

Attributes were a gimmick to let players cheat.

Fun, no?

Except nothing you just said made any sense. Dual casting over using just one hand to cast adds no diversity. It makes a spell stronger, you could make spells stronger in previous games by either, using a stronger spell, or making one. Yeah, dual casting adds nothing, except at the most, a bit more equip strategy (which was in Morrowind), so its not even new.

And I'm still waiting for you to eat that crow from the last page.

Umm no. Why do people always think anything fantasy came from Tolkien? You know he drew heavily upon Germanic and Norse mythology to make his books right? A ranger is a person who is trained to transverse and survive in the wilderness for long periods of time. Both of which are possible in Skyrim. Such is what a ranger is in most fantasy games. Archery most commonly goes along with ranger due to being able to survive in the wilderness for prolonged periods of time meant having to hunt or fish. This doesn't mean rangers are archers though, no they can also be swords men, but you would most likely see them using archery to hunt.

I take that back, it is totally possible that a Ranger could rely purely on trapping to catch food as well. Either way the point is they are experts at finding their way through harsh lands and surviving. So it's not far fetched to think a Ranger would be trained in Archery if for no other reason then to hunt for his food and a expert swordsman when it came to combat.

Give me a reason to, without blanket statements.

Almost had it with that second to last sentence.

Give you a reason to what? I couldn't care less what the ill informed think, or do.

Edit: A reason to eat crow? Read my post on the other page. What I listed isn't in your 'list of things no longer in Skyrim'. And if we are going from Daggerfall up to now, not just from Ob to now, I could quadruple that list easily.

But all these things were in previous TES games.

Alright then.

Aside from impact and the ability to actually equip a spell without insta-casting...

My point still stands about generalizations, they make many people who post them seem uninformed at best.

There are quite a few features that are in Skyrim that weren't in previous games... does that make them lesser games as well?

I can recreate impact with spell creation, and equipping a spell in previous ES games doesn't auto cast it. Not to mention impact has nothing to do with dual casting. They could have had an impact perk but only have one hand to cast. Nothing new there.

Yep, you seem to be pretty ill informed alright. Know more about the Elder Scrolls before quoting me again.

Were you going to eat your crow, or keep backpedaling?

Clever, there's a mirror in your house somewhere... you may want to visit it.

Not quite the same thing you would expect new game to add more content.

That's fine, they are very subtle features but they flesh out the combat allowing your character to actually feel like he is truly superior in this one area. I now have a reason to use different weapons in combat as they provide different pros/cons than they did in previous games. The same goes for magic, I now have a reason to use Frost instead of fire that isn't purely based upon resistances. I enjoy having a slowing mechanic that tries to simulate reflexes as a fighter using a sword and shield would have higher reflexes with a shield than a fighter who didn't use a shield.

If I'm fighting a big brute who uses heavy armor it is more logical to use a mace than it would be to use a sword, or axe. If I'm fighting a archer it's more logical to use a axe as you damage them over time.

If I'm fighting a brute as a mage it's more logical to use frost than it would be to use lighting. If I'm fighting a mage it's more logical to use lighting than it would be frost. I can actually use two different spells at the same time in order to achieve a unique effect. If I'm fighting a troll I'll use flame and frost to slow and do more damage.

That's why I like the new system, it provides more depth in combat. Those who claim the combat is "boring, or terrible" haven't found these subtle changes that actually make me feel like my character is a master swordsman, or a great archer. This was something previous games never made me feel.


To say nothing new was added to the game is about as bad as saying nothing was removed.

No, I'm not vain, like you apparently. No need to quote me anymore since you cant even form an argument.

The problem is it doesn't make you feel superior in those areas, at higher levels it isn't even noticeable. There are some new and unique things in Skyrim that are not in any other ES, but not that many, and not as many as some think. In the end, we had more in previous games.

A fair point, but removal of features that are redundant or un-workable in the current mechanics does not necessarily make it the casual game of which you are inferring.

They are things you can't do I suppose.

ill quote myself so i dont have to type it again. if you want to find the facts you have to go back to teh beginning. im not going to hunt down the 30+ year old quote from the guy who came up with the ranger class for rpg's, you can do that on your own, but i gave you all the information you need to get started on your search.

Still, generalizations... and the fact that you cannot even make a criticism without using absolutes only furthers my opinion that you are incapable of reasoned debate.

More is not always better, define where it is and I will submit.

Call me crazy, I don't click on links from anyone... if you can't summarize then I still stand firm in my position.

Thanks.

Come up with an argument, or stop quoting me. The only person here that has yet to try to make a point or argument is you. LOL at newbs that cant eat their crow after they were proven wrong.

Indeed at all newbs ever in the history of all time, like, ever forever and everyone for everything period.

Did you catch that?