Skyrim is not an RPG

[Epona]

You don't need to compare Skyrim to RPG's from other companies to determine that it's not an RPG, just compare it to Morrowind or Oblivion. Skyrim traded attributes and skills for perks. Oh sure, there are still some skills left but they are powerless compared to perks. You could max out a skill and still have less proficiency in that skill than if you got a couple of the perks.

Outside of being something you don't like, what bearing does that have on whether or not Skyrim is an RPG?

I would love to weigh in on Oblivion vs. Skyrim but I think we better save that for another thread.

I think attributes are important to an RPG. Without them you may as well call it an action adventure like Zelda.

 

[Epona]

I'm basing it off the ORIGINAL rpg which derived from traditional wargaming. Designed by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, first published in 1974, D&D. Nuff said.

Ummm...you do know that D&D was originally written to be a set of skirmish level wargaming rules, right? All because Gygax wanted to simulate battles from Fellowship of the Ring.

Ummm... Do you know Gygax said himself he wasn't even huge on Tolkien & LotR. His favorite writers were guys like Abraham Merritt, Fritz Leiber, Jack Vance, Robert E. Howard and Edgar Rice Burroughs.

And ppl, stop using Oblivion as a example as a good or real RPG. You're just making your self's sound foolish.

So says you. Oblivion is more of an RPG than Skyrim is. Skyrim is an action adventure. BTW, it's "yourselves".

How about they're both action adventures LARPing/Hiking sims.

Well ok, but Oblivion is more RPGish than Skyrim and Morrowind was more RPGish than Oblivion. The next TES game will be a life simulator, the one after the dreaded MMO.

I think back to this time last year when everyone was saying that Skyrim would be the Game of the Year and how it would be so awesome because it had DRAGONS!! I wonder if those people feel stupid now. Not only was the game not worthy of GOTY but the dragons were the worst part of the game.

 

[Atmos Duality]

The argument is nonsense, if only because it relies on an arbitrary form of the definition of "Role-playing-game".

And as usual, it boils down to whether the RP is mechanical (number-driven), or story-driven.
Either form is perfectly valid, and the two frequently overlap.

 

[Smeggs]

I was going to post an image of, "OH LOOK, THIS THREAD AGAIN."

But then I realized somebody has just necro'd this from almost half a year ago.

Are we still going to argue the semantics of what someone feels makes an RPG? It's quite subjective really...except for those who are wrong and want to be stubborn and confrontational.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I think attributes are important to an RPG. Without them you may as well call it an action adventure like Zelda.

Skyrim does have attributes, or 'stats' comparable to what other RPGs have. They are just called 'skills' or they operate behind the scenes even though they are functionally the same.

Well ok, but Oblivion is more RPGish than Skyrim and Morrowind was more RPGish than Oblivion. The next TES game will be a life simulator, the one after the dreaded MMO.

I think back to this time last year when everyone was saying that Skyrim would be the Game of the Year and how it would be so awesome because it had DRAGONS!! I wonder if those people feel stupid now. Not only was the game not worthy of GOTY but the dragons were the worst part of the game.

Oblivion is "more RPGish" than Skyrim in the way long division is more "RPGish". Oblivion is more impenetrable, limiting and tedious, while Skyrim has more meaningful choice and variety. Ironically, it has more variety despite having fewer skills and getting rid of attributes. Attributes had to go, by the way. I used to effectively cut them out of Oblivion by making them raise automatically and linearly with my skills. At the time it didn't occur to me that they just shouldn't be there at all but now it all makes sense.

Skyrim was the best contender for Game of the Year in a year which was not without strong competition. The dragons are very well done indeed, even if they do eventually lose the 'awe' factor.

The way they implemented marriage, boring chores and now adoption does bother me though. I hope they realize that's a bad direction (at least the specific way it was done) before their next offering. If I needed a boredom simulator I would play Fable.

I couldn't help myself lol. I need help.

 

[Epona]

I think attributes are important to an RPG. Without them you may as well call it an action adventure like Zelda.

Skyrim does have attributes, or 'stats' comparable to what other RPGs have. They are just called 'skills' or they operate behind the scenes even though they are functionally the same.

Well ok, but Oblivion is more RPGish than Skyrim and Morrowind was more RPGish than Oblivion. The next TES game will be a life simulator, the one after the dreaded MMO.

I think back to this time last year when everyone was saying that Skyrim would be the Game of the Year and how it would be so awesome because it had DRAGONS!! I wonder if those people feel stupid now. Not only was the game not worthy of GOTY but the dragons were the worst part of the game.

Oblivion is "more RPGish" than Skyrim in the way long division is more "RPGish". Oblivion is more impenetrable, limiting and tedious, while Skyrim has more meaningful choice and variety. Ironically, it has more variety despite having fewer skills and getting rid of attributes. Attributes had to go, by the way. I used to effectively cut them out of Oblivion by making them raise automatically and linearly with my skills. At the time it didn't occur to me that they just shouldn't be there at all but now it all makes sense.

Skyrim was the best contender for Game of the Year in a year which was not without strong competition. The dragons are very well done indeed, even if they do eventually lose the 'awe' factor.

The way they implemented marriage, boring chores and now adoption does bother me though. I hope they realize that's a bad direction (at least the specific way it was done) before their next offering. If I needed a boredom simulator I would play Fable.

I couldn't help myself lol. I need help.

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

I don't mean they are literally the same thing, I mean skills made attributes redundant. All attributes added to Oblivion was tedium. It was so bad you literally had to tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and use skills you had no interest in just to get the most of your multipliers. And if you leveled the wrong one, which happened constantly, have fun going back to your last save. It did force you to use skills that were appropriate to the attribute you wanted. But when you sacrifice so much to let the player play the way they want is that really the way to go? The same goes for Morrowind but it wasn't as big a deal because the world-leveling wasn't wildly overdone. They could have found a way to raise attributes without forcing you to play for multipliers, but why bother. Everything attributes used to do is now done better by skills, perks, races, gear, spells, etc.

 

[Epona]

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

I don't mean they are literally the same thing, I mean skills made attributes redundant. All attributes added to Oblivion was tedium. It was so bad you literally had to tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and use skills you had no interest in just to get the most of your multipliers. And if you level the wrong one, which happened constantly, have fun going back to your last save. They could have found a way to raise attributes without forcing you to play for multipliers, but why bother. Everything attributes used to do is now done better by skills, perks, races, gear, spells, etc.

I didn't play for multipliers and I never pulled out any paper. You chose to make Oblivion tedious.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

I don't mean they are literally the same thing, I mean skills made attributes redundant. All attributes added to Oblivion was tedium. It was so bad you literally had to tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and use skills you had no interest in just to get the most of your multipliers. And if you level the wrong one, which happened constantly, have fun going back to your last save. They could have found a way to raise attributes without forcing you to play for multipliers, but why bother. Everything attributes used to do is now done better by skills, perks, races, gear, spells, etc.

I didn't play for multipliers and I never pulled out any paper. You chose to make Oblivion tedious.

No, I chose to mod attributes out of the game (more or less). By not playing for multipliers and tallying up skill gains, you failed to make the most of your character and seem to admit the leveling system was too painful to fool with. You didn't say that, but if it's not true, why didn't you make the most powerful character you could?

 

[Epona]

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

I don't mean they are literally the same thing, I mean skills made attributes redundant. All attributes added to Oblivion was tedium. It was so bad you literally had to tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and use skills you had no interest in just to get the most of your multipliers. And if you level the wrong one, which happened constantly, have fun going back to your last save. They could have found a way to raise attributes without forcing you to play for multipliers, but why bother. Everything attributes used to do is now done better by skills, perks, races, gear, spells, etc.

I didn't play for multipliers and I never pulled out any paper. You chose to make Oblivion tedious.

No, I chose to mod attributes out of the game (more or less). By not playing for multipliers and tallying up skill gains, you failed to make the most of your character and seem to admit the leveling system was too painful to fool with. You didn't say that, but if it's not true, why didn't you make the most powerful character you could?

You seem to be blaming the existence of attributes for Oblivions bad level scaling system. Morrowind had attributes too (as do most other RPG's) and they weren't the problem with Oblivion.

No, maybe I didn't make the most out of my character and maybe I used the difficulty slider as needed but I also didn't create a bad experience for myself by trying to make the perfect character. Did you forget the difficulty slider was there for people who chose NOT to game the level scaling system?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

I don't mean they are literally the same thing, I mean skills made attributes redundant. All attributes added to Oblivion was tedium. It was so bad you literally had to tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and use skills you had no interest in just to get the most of your multipliers. And if you level the wrong one, which happened constantly, have fun going back to your last save. They could have found a way to raise attributes without forcing you to play for multipliers, but why bother. Everything attributes used to do is now done better by skills, perks, races, gear, spells, etc.

I didn't play for multipliers and I never pulled out any paper. You chose to make Oblivion tedious.

No, I chose to mod attributes out of the game (more or less). By not playing for multipliers and tallying up skill gains, you failed to make the most of your character and seem to admit the leveling system was too painful to fool with. You didn't say that, but if it's not true, why didn't you make the most powerful character you could?

You seem to be blaming the existence of attributes for Oblivions bad level scaling system. Morrowind had attributes too (as do most other RPG's) and they weren't the problem with Oblivion.

No, maybe I didn't make the most out of my character and maybe I used the difficulty slider as needed but I also didn't create a bad experience for myself by trying to make the perfect character. Did you forget the difficulty slider was there for people who chose NOT to game the level scaling system?

Oblivion's scaling system really exacerbated the problem. In Oblivion an improperly leveled character was a broken character and a level one character was a god. But everything I'm saying applies to Morrowind to some extent. The difference is it didn't really matter in Morrowind if you maxed your strength at level 10 or level 40, so long as you maxed it eventually.

The only reason attribute multipliers were there at all was to reward you for using the skills associated with a particular attribute. So you can't call doing that "gaming the system". I'm perfectly aware that people could have a good time by ignoring the attributes. The question is, if we are ignoring them, why are they there?

 

[Epona]

Previous TES games had attributes AND skills. You can't claim that skills are attributes.

I don't mean they are literally the same thing, I mean skills made attributes redundant. All attributes added to Oblivion was tedium. It was so bad you literally had to tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and use skills you had no interest in just to get the most of your multipliers. And if you level the wrong one, which happened constantly, have fun going back to your last save. They could have found a way to raise attributes without forcing you to play for multipliers, but why bother. Everything attributes used to do is now done better by skills, perks, races, gear, spells, etc.

I didn't play for multipliers and I never pulled out any paper. You chose to make Oblivion tedious.

No, I chose to mod attributes out of the game (more or less). By not playing for multipliers and tallying up skill gains, you failed to make the most of your character and seem to admit the leveling system was too painful to fool with. You didn't say that, but if it's not true, why didn't you make the most powerful character you could?

You seem to be blaming the existence of attributes for Oblivions bad level scaling system. Morrowind had attributes too (as do most other RPG's) and they weren't the problem with Oblivion.

No, maybe I didn't make the most out of my character and maybe I used the difficulty slider as needed but I also didn't create a bad experience for myself by trying to make the perfect character. Did you forget the difficulty slider was there for people who chose NOT to game the level scaling system?

Oblivion's scaling system really exacerbated the problem. In Oblivion an improperly leveled character was a broken character and a level one character was a god. But everything I'm saying applies to Morrowind to some extent. The difference is it didn't really matter in Morrowind if you maxed your strength at level 10 or level 40, so long as you maxed it eventually.

I'm perfectly aware that people could have a good time by ignoring the attributes. The question is, if we are ignoring them, why are they there?

Attributes were not the problem with Oblivion, the level scaling was. I wasn't ignoring the attributes in Oblivion.

Here's the thing, the multipliers would apply to the skills you used the most. So I always had multipliers (only rarely a +5 though) and I always chose the bonuses with the highest multipliers because that made sense. It made sense because those were the skills I wanted to use in the first place (which is why there were multipliers). I am really not seeing the problem here between you, multipliers and attributes. I see the problem with the bad level scaling in Oblivion and I see the problem with the stupid, maze like Oblivion gates but attributes are not to blame.

Speaking of Oblivion gates, Dragons became the new Oblivion gates so I read. I never got that far into Skyrim but I did fight a few dragons and didn't really find it enjoyable. Apparently dragons show up all the time to waste your time. Dragons, like Oblivion gates are more like gimmicks and it sure made a lot of people piss their pants with excitement prior to release but after release most people seem to find them annoying.

ETA: Actually, the dragons may be worse than the Oblivion gates because the Oblivion gates could mostly be avoided, can the dragons be avoided as easily?

 

[TheLizardKing]

R = Role, yes I am playing a role in the world of Skyrim.
P = Playing, yep I'm playing it.
G = Game, yep it's a game

Hence it's an RPG

With that logic, anything could be an rpg. Even Call of Duty.
R = Role, Yes i am playing a role as a soldier in modern/past wars.
P = Playing, yep i'm playing it.
G = Game, yep it's a game.
Please think about your logic some more.

OT: The way i see it, Skyrim is more of an open world action/adventure game with Rpg elements.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Attributes were not the problem with Oblivion, the level scaling was. I wasn't ignoring the attributes in Oblivion.

Here's the thing, the multipliers would apply to the skills you used the most. So I always had multipliers (only rarely a +5 though) and I always chose the bonuses with the highest multipliers because that made sense. It made sense because those were the skills I wanted to use in the first place (which is why there were multipliers). I am really not seeing the problem here between you, multipliers and attributes. I see the problem with the bad level scaling in Oblivion and I see the problem with the stupid, maze like Oblivion gates but attributes are not to blame.

Speaking of Oblivion gates, Dragons became the new Oblivion gates so I read. I never got that far into Skyrim but I did fight a few dragons and didn't really find it enjoyable. Apparently dragons show up all the time to waste your time. Dragons, like Oblivion gates are more like gimmicks and it sure made a lot of people piss their pants with excitement prior to release but after release most people seem to find them annoying.

I know how the multipliers worked, of course. If we're hung up on the level scaling then forget Oblivion. Let's talk about Morrowind. To make the most of the attribute multipliers, you had to use skills you had no interest in and literally tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and reload if you leveled the wrong one. It was so grueling and pointless that most people just ignored it. You ignored it in Oblivion by not bothering to collect attribute multipliers. Being rewarded for using the skills you want to use is good, but doing it through attributes was redundant because skills. And doing it that way meant you were punished for not using skills you didn't want to use. Your character would have been more powerful had you done a lot of tedious bullshit. That is what attributes contributed to the leveling and it isn't exactly worth getting nostalgic over.

In Skyrim, everything the attributes used to contribute to, like carry weight, magicka regeneration, melee damage, health, and so on is dictated by other factors. Attributes were an opportunity to display more numbers but they added nothing meaningful to the gameplay. That's what matters. What I don't understand is why you are defending a system you freely admit you never took advantage of. Most people didn't. So why was it even there????????????????????? aaaaaaaaaaargh

Dragons are a fun new addition, a unique, dynamic and deadly foe that flies around breathing fire on the land. They have a lot of personality, great sound effects and great visual effects. You can usually choose when to engage a dragon. Oblivion Gates were copy/pasted dungeons with very oppressive and boring visuals that you had to do. I actually thought Oblivion Gates were OK, but the dragons are way more awesome.

ETA: Actually, the dragons may be worse than the Oblivion gates because the Oblivion gates could mostly be avoided, can the dragons be avoided as easily?

I don't know what you mean. You can ignore the dragons for the most part, but many of the Oblivion Gates were required to beat the main quest.

 

[Epona]

Attributes were not the problem with Oblivion, the level scaling was. I wasn't ignoring the attributes in Oblivion.

Here's the thing, the multipliers would apply to the skills you used the most. So I always had multipliers (only rarely a +5 though) and I always chose the bonuses with the highest multipliers because that made sense. It made sense because those were the skills I wanted to use in the first place (which is why there were multipliers). I am really not seeing the problem here between you, multipliers and attributes. I see the problem with the bad level scaling in Oblivion and I see the problem with the stupid, maze like Oblivion gates but attributes are not to blame.

Speaking of Oblivion gates, Dragons became the new Oblivion gates so I read. I never got that far into Skyrim but I did fight a few dragons and didn't really find it enjoyable. Apparently dragons show up all the time to waste your time. Dragons, like Oblivion gates are more like gimmicks and it sure made a lot of people piss their pants with excitement prior to release but after release most people seem to find them annoying.

I know how the multipliers worked, of course. If we're hung up on the level scaling then forget Oblivion. Let's talk about Morrowind. To make the most of the attribute multipliers, you had to use skills you had no interest in and literally tally up hundreds of skill gains on a piece of paper and reload if you leveled the wrong one. It was so grueling and pointless that most people just ignored it. You ignored it in Oblivion by not bothering to collect attribute multipliers. Being rewarded for using the skills you want to use is good, but doing it through attributes was redundant because skills. And doing it that way meant you were punished for not using skills you didn't want to use. Your character would have been more powerful had you done a lot of tedious bullshit. That is what attributes contributed to the leveling and it isn't exactly worth getting nostalgic over.

In Skyrim, everything the attributes used to contribute to, like carry weight, magicka regeneration, melee damage, health, and so on is dictated by other factors. Attributes were an opportunity to display more numbers but they added nothing meaningful to the gameplay. That's what matters. What I don't understand is why you are defending a system you freely admit you never took advantage of. Most people didn't. So why was it even there????????????????????? aaaaaaaaaaargh

Dragons are a fun new addition, a unique, dynamic and deadly foe that flies around breathing fire on the land. They have a lot of personality, great sound effects and great visual effects. You can usually choose when to engage a dragon. Oblivion Gates were copy/pasted dungeons with very oppressive and boring visuals that you had to do. I actually thought Oblivion Gates were OK, but the dragons are way more awesome.

ETA: Actually, the dragons may be worse than the Oblivion gates because the Oblivion gates could mostly be avoided, can the dragons be avoided as easily?

I don't know what you mean. You can ignore the dragons for the most part, but many of the Oblivion Gates were required to beat the main quest.

I don't remember having any problems with Morrowind either. I guess you and I just had totally different experiences. Since Skyrim is tied to my Steam account, it is mine forever so I will go back to it sooner or later.

I think you only had to go into 1 or 2 Oblivion gates, the rest were optional. Is that the case for the Dragons in Skyrim?

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

I don't remember having any problems with Morrowind either. I guess you and I just had totally different experiences. Since Skyrim is tied to my Steam account, it is mine forever so I will go back to it sooner or later.

You didn't have problems because you ignored the attributes like everyone else. This time, use a calculator to determine the earliest possible level your character will be able to achieve maxed stats assuming he always gets maximum multipliers on level-up. Make it happen and be sure to tell me how much fun you're having lol. Or ignore attributes again, it's your choice of course.

I think you only had to go into 1 or 2 Oblivion gates, the rest were optional. Is that the case for the Dragons in Skyrim?

Kind of. Sometimes you get attacked unawares and you can't get away for some reason. And there are a few scripted attacks on the main quest. But most times you see a dragon, you really can just go about your business. And all you have to do is kill one thing, not beat a whole dungeon. On the other hand, you had to go into a lot more Oblivion Gates than one or two lol. But like I said, I didn't hate the Oblivion Gates anyway.

EDIT: By the way, I hope you have more fun when you go back to Skyrim.