It sounds like a very organic way to play a game and to be honest, it's about damn time a big title did it.
Skyrim Designer Defends Scrapping Class Choice
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Fair enough, I prefer the no-class systems of stuff like Fallout and Arcanum but this could certainly work too.
I like the new system. I always develop all skills along the way anyway so being a warrior that does extreme magics just doesn't seem right.
It boggles my mind when I try to think of why they insist on calling this game an RPG, because it very clearly is not. It might have RPG elements, but it is looking more like a copy of the game mechanics from Mass Effect 2. While not necessarily a bad thing, it just smacks of trying to dumb down the genre for the tards. Anyone that calls this system deep is fooling themselves.
I suppose the good ole' quest marker that holds your hand like a fucking two year old will be making a comeback also?
I suppose the good ole' quest marker that holds your hand like a fucking two year old will be making a comeback also?
I don't care for the idea myself to be honest. To me part of the point of an RPG was to try and solve problems from a certain perspective, and find a way to apply what skills you have to overcome the challenges. When you go the way of a lot of single player RPGs where the protaganist can do everything, and the big question is what order you develop the skills in and what you choose to do, I think it lowers replay value, and removes the aspect of the game of trying to apply what you have to the situation at hand, rather than simply developing whatever skill you need to bypass a problem in the way you deem most efficient.
Now, in a tabletop game I can see why people want more rounded characters as there is a lot more going on, computer games are more limited by the medium. What's more the greater depth of activity in a PnP game raises questions about how characters that are totally single-faceted can survive in day to day life, when say a regular warrior isn't likely to have the skills he'd need to repair the thatch roof on his own village hut. In a computer RPG though questions like that are never likely to come up. "Multifaceted" in this case being along the lines of making everyone a warrior/thief/mage/cleric/druid/ranger/paladin/assasin/bard/ninja with the only question being specifically how good the character is in every area. The odds of say the character not being able to pick locks (since it would require giving up other things) is unlikely to arise, thus finding ways of dealing with problems like locked doors and chests (where bashing them open can destroy items or alert monsters) are unlikely to occur. What's more it also means that the game developers can assume every lock will be picked so doesn't need to work on alternative things like destroying doors or chests.
I can understand where they are coming from, but I think character classes became a staple for a reason. One of the things that helps make a game replayable is to say beat it as a mage and then wonder if you could deal with the same situations using a skill set your not as familiar with/used to. I mean you know a Thief type can beat the game, but can you do it? Then if you've beaten the game as a mage and thief and relied heavily on sneaking/invisibility, what about playing as a warrior who doesn't have those kinds of options?
Now, in a tabletop game I can see why people want more rounded characters as there is a lot more going on, computer games are more limited by the medium. What's more the greater depth of activity in a PnP game raises questions about how characters that are totally single-faceted can survive in day to day life, when say a regular warrior isn't likely to have the skills he'd need to repair the thatch roof on his own village hut. In a computer RPG though questions like that are never likely to come up. "Multifaceted" in this case being along the lines of making everyone a warrior/thief/mage/cleric/druid/ranger/paladin/assasin/bard/ninja with the only question being specifically how good the character is in every area. The odds of say the character not being able to pick locks (since it would require giving up other things) is unlikely to arise, thus finding ways of dealing with problems like locked doors and chests (where bashing them open can destroy items or alert monsters) are unlikely to occur. What's more it also means that the game developers can assume every lock will be picked so doesn't need to work on alternative things like destroying doors or chests.
I can understand where they are coming from, but I think character classes became a staple for a reason. One of the things that helps make a game replayable is to say beat it as a mage and then wonder if you could deal with the same situations using a skill set your not as familiar with/used to. I mean you know a Thief type can beat the game, but can you do it? Then if you've beaten the game as a mage and thief and relied heavily on sneaking/invisibility, what about playing as a warrior who doesn't have those kinds of options?
You know, things can just be side-step instead of being a definitive march towards non-RPG. It's just different. The point is that you do essentially form a class, just later on once you've got used to a style of play.Echer123 said:
[sub][sub]And yes, I am very tired of people moaning about this exact thing instead of just thinking about it for a second.[/sub][/sub]
Deus Ex was designed specifically so you couldn't master every skill by the end of the game. How did they get past that hurdle? By designing every obstacle so that it could be overcome multiple ways. It seems that with the expanding size of games these days developers are trying harder and harder to railroad players into a single path of progression thereby requiring less work on their part. Bethesda can basically say that players have all kinds of freedom, but any real RPG player will recognize it for what it is: railroading character progression. Every DnD player knows that a GM who excessively railroads characters is not a very good GM. A GM who restricts player character progression has no business being a GM.Therumancer said:
In short, this game isn't an RPG, just a slightly complicated action game.
Excellent decision. I never really cared for classes in Morrowind/Oblivion myself, I just picked custom and tweaked my own stuff. But when you jump into it unsure of what you wanna do, yeah, it can suck. So I very much agree with this decision and honestly can't wait for the game 
Good, Now I can level up! I think I beat oblivion as a lvl. 4 character, because I did not use the correct skills, this'll be grand
Even though Oblivion isn't my cup of tea I can get behind the idea.
Let me play and pick skills that I want without the restraint of classes.
Let me play and pick skills that I want without the restraint of classes.
I actually think this is an awesome idea. I never liked playing through the into in Oblivion and some guy just saying to me randomly, "Okay, you're this class now", it felt so pointless and arbitrary.
Now I'll be a stealthy archer/sniper without even knowing it!
Now I'll be a stealthy archer/sniper without even knowing it!
It is a very good idea, but I will miss some of the other strong RPG things that are going away, though.
and boy were the basic classes terrible...WHY would someone need every single weapon skill in the game...yes i understand warrior...but....ok i understand that sword is better...but it will take me 7 hours to get it up to my Axe skill AND ill of found an Axe a Sword and hell probally even a fish i can beat people with that is better than that...Souplex said:
I cant wait.
I like that idea. It'll help the game just flow and your character will more directly evolve based upon how you play. Instead of within certain limits, of how you play.
