I actually find the easyness to be...boring. And the scaling of the entire world and fake difficulty slider (hey now you do less damage and take more, DIFFICULTYYYY) is just blah. Morrowind had great difficulty, running away as I get my ass handed to me, training on some tough rats and going back to defeat that angry Bandit who attacked me on that bridge for no reason is how I like my games. I like not being strong enough for everything. Killing a dragon in 2 shots is stupid. Remember the end of Skyrim? How anticlimactic. (no spoilers)

I'm fine with the Skyrim "dungeons" and combat.

If I wanted to wander around in pitch black dungeons designed with no apparent rhyme or reason, I'd still be playing the games from the 1980s that offered these.

But, I didn't care for those then and am not interested in playing them now.

As for combat, I'm a real basic combat person so the TES implementation suits me fine.

I disagree with that big time, but tell you what. Name a game that does it better. Has to be as big as Skyrim is as well.

This right here^

I'm sorry Morrowind's dungeons svcked. All the hand placed loot in the world could make those interesting. Oh look another Dunmer tomb that consists of 3 rooms and a couple ghosts.

It's not like they used their time to not make their game a glitchy mess. Honestly I enjoyed Skyrim's combat, so I really dont have any quarrels with it. I think it fits on a high enough standard to match other games anyway.

So you want different encounters...like lurking assassins, ambushes, giant slaughterfish in pits filled with water, etc?
Oh ok. I thought you meant a dungeon made you get a shout to be able to complete it.

Fallout 3.

No.

This is off topic but I have to say that my favourite part of this is how you justify lieing to get free contnet. It was an agreement where beth held up their part and you decided you could not do the same. I have to laugh at this otherwise I would be pissed

Fallout's not anywhere near the size of Skyrim. Neither is NV, and that's why they can fit so many little details into the games.

Bethesda gave me these high expectations with phenomenal games like Fallout 3, Morrowind, and oblivion (all mods included), but that doesnt mean these games didnt have their own little nit picky things or problems that some people disliked. I just felt like Skyrim didnt have a many pros to the cons as the other games did. Something about this game doesnt click as much.

If you really believe that, then I have nothing further to say to you. A game this big with this much content will NEVER be glitch free or even close to it. And for the most part, my game is pristine.

More like there is more to RPGs than combat and killing things.

To each their own I guess, but Dawnguard was excellent for its size. A comparable dlc would be knights of the nine, and DG blew that out the water.

Only if you count "size" as a larger map with less to do in it. I actually much more enjoy Fallout 3 (i couldnt tell you about new vegas because the game repeatedly crashed my xbox). I'd gladly take a slightly smaller map (let's be honest fallout 3 is still huge) and have it more detailed, varied, and fun, than a larger, less detailed, blander game that over uses the copy paste buttons.

My game is pretty glitch free too. I love how people complain that Skyrim is the glitchest game ever, and I haven't had that many problems with it

The combat just gets better and better. I don't think I could go back to OB just because of the combat. That being said I expect really good combat at around TES VII

I would too. That's why I love Skyrim.

Lucky for you then? Honestly when the fanbase is better at fixing your own glitches than you are, there is no excuse. What's it take, a few weeks and an unofficial patch comes out? It's almost to the point that Bethesda RELIES on this so they dont have to worry about it. And one of the more interesting quests that had me hooked was broken, so I was pretty butthurt over that. I was so into it and then BOOM glitch says you need to make a whole new character if you want to play this quest. -grumbles- The smaller glitches are less annoying than game/quest breaking ones.

I'm sorry but Fallout 3 didnt have nearly as much stuff to do and explore than Skyrim. And to your original point about Skyrims dungeons design looking the same...Fallout 3 was waaay worse with that.

3rd. I've not experienced one game breaking bug in the game.. and a handful of quest related bugs in 600 hours of gameplay.

Mount and Blade does have first person as for War in the North... honestly don't remember been a long time since I played the game. At any rate surely you see the point? I was giving examples of RPGs with great combat systems. I'm sure you can find a lot of first-person ones that do. A game being first-person does not automatically rule out great combat.


With the time, money and resources being pumped into a title as massive as TES, I can expect a good combat system. Both games I mentioned happen to be made by small/medium-sized studios. As for your last point, it makes no sense; there are different types of RPGs. For example Skyrim and Mount and Blade are open world while War in the North is not. It's different genres. Combat however applies universally; it's either good or it's not. And the amount of "detail" in Skyim can be argued (though I prefer not to pick at this aspect of the game).

So Skyrim is less detailed? I fail to see the logic behind that post

People said that about New Vegas also, but my game crashed every time I got to New Vegas. Every. Time. Some people just get lucky. I literally could write a novel about my NV glitches, and i'd say a short story about skyrim ones. It just hurts so much more when interesting quest lines become unbeatable. I end up just reading the guide to see what i could have experienced.