The Elder Scrolls Online

Peregrine wrote:Also don't you have a mod that removes perk prerequisites, as well as one that adds perk increasing potions?

Yes I do, that's probably the reason I don't hate the perks as much as you do.

Which is actually what Bethesda should have included in the first place, a way to acquire more perk points by buying them with gold or doing a specific quest. The perks are nice, but only if you have enough perk points at your disposal. But it sucks if you are made to choose, I agree.

Cial wrote:To be honest, the perks system really did work well. For example, if they just let you use whatever you want, the game is too easy, always just pulling weapons out of your butt with the highest damage rating.

The perk system lets you develop your skills and manage your inventory. It also rewarded players for practicing your skills as much as you could. Less demigods, more specialists. Which is more realistic, IMO. If you give an archer a sword, he'll be average at best.

You're talking about realism? Your character doesn't need to drink, eat or sleep. You can wait a week in the same spot without moving and nothing bad happens. He can carry around enough items to fill a storage unit without even wearing a backpack. Yes, the Elder Scrolls games were always proud of their gameplay focused on realism.

There's no need to restrict the players from doing something in an open world game for the sake of realism. If you want to play a specialist, ignore certain skill trees. Go ahead and sleep in a bed every 16 hours. Eat three meals a day, have a balanced diet. See how realism can be terribly annoying? Just like you don't force the player to eat or sleep, don't make them choose between certain skills, because not everyone wants to play a specialist. Some of them want to be demigods and have everything maxed out by the end of the game.

i dont like elder scrolls games

Still, even disregarding realism, having players plan ahead isn't a bad thing. It adds some replayability and helps the game have more of an edge for difficulty. If you didn't have to figure out what skills you'd work at and could just master skills as much as you want, there's nothing stopping you from grinding every skill at the get-go so that you're a master at everything and you never have to specialize as a sneak/dagger character or or a battlemage or what have you. It makes each playthrough unique IMO.

Also Tim only likes games with anime chicks with no arms.

actually fables 1 and 2 are pretty fun games.

Is there ANY game that virtually everyone likes? It's Mario, isn't it?

nah plenty of people dont like mario.

Cial wrote:Still, even disregarding realism, having players plan ahead isn't a bad thing. It adds some replayability and helps the game have more of an edge for difficulty. If you didn't have to figure out what skills you'd work at and could just master skills as much as you want, there's nothing stopping you from grinding every skill at the get-go so that you're a master at everything and you never have to specialize as a sneak/dagger character or or a battlemage or what have you. It makes each playthrough unique IMO.

It is a bad thing if you want a character that is good at everything. There's nothing wrong with that, some people enjoy specialized characters and others want to max out their chars. Both would be possible if there were no restrictions on how you could build your character, in this case limited perk points. People who want to specialize could still only put points in certain skills trees and be done with it while others can max everything out if they want to. But instead of pleasing both factions, the specialists and the allrounders, we're all forced to become specialists.

I for one enjoy throwing around spells while traveling the countryside and sneaking through ruins sniping enemies with my bow. And sometimes I want to mix things up and go for the sword&shield method instead. I couldn't do that if I had a limited amount of perk points. No matter how much I'd train, I would never be a master in everything. And that kind of doesn't match up with the getting-better-at-things-by-doing-them mechanic that is a trademark of the Elder Scrolls games.

Being forced into a direction you don't really want to take doesn't add to replayability if you ask me. It leads to screw this game I'm playing something else.

Onion Supreme wrote:Is there ANY game that virtually everyone likes? It's Mario, isn't it?

No, such a game doesn't exist, for the same reason there is no movie that virtually everyone likes. Or a book.

PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE MARIO. MUST BE KILLED.

The point isn't that people may like to mix it up sometimes, it's that using the equipment you haven't honed to a deadly point will be less effective. Perks are exactly what they should be, extra abilities for the things you use most often. At least what Skyrim does adds a lot of freedom, rather than games that * literally* force you into a class during character creation. And I do think it adds replayablity. If at first I choose my race as a two-handed Orismer berserker, maybe on my next run I'll go as a dark elf dual-dagger assassin. And maybe on my first playthrough I was in the Companions, so in my second I'll do more thieves guild/dark brotherhood quests. It helps to make a different, fresher experience each time through.

Yeah but you can do all that if you aren't limited by limiting yourself, if thats what you like to do.

At least Tim gets it.

Why force the player to be limited? If a player wants to limit themselves they can do so just fine by ignoring possible options and improvements. But if you deliberately limit the options and improvements a player can have you're screwing over the players who don't want to limit themselves.

My problem was that the mechanics didn't change. Five years and almost no evolution in combat gameplay. I don't give a flying f--- about the fact that you can add perks, the actual gameplay still feels dry. I expected improvement over each class and how they work, but unfortunately the only things that seemed to change were magic getting different types of castings and sneaking allowing new special assassinations. And random slow-motion kills appeared. Other than that, it was all the same. Comparing the games today, sure Skyrim may be better than Oblivion, but based on time of release the only things that make Skyrim stand out are AMOUNT of content and graphics. These may be the things that people like about the games, but to me Oblivion felt like a short reach from amazing and that Skyrim could have been the opportunity for the things Oblivion fell short in to be improved. Instead, they reworked things that were not broken and left weak elements as they were. It just feels so un-involved.

Everybody likes Plants vs Zombies.