Yes. No. It depends.
Video game criticism is not yet developed enough to judge games without bias, based solely on their merit as a work of art - or on their influence on gaming in general, because let's face it, most games don't deserve to be called art.
Arguably, Skyrim doesn't bring anything new to the table, so it's not revolutionary. It's a very good game, but not a breakthrough and definitely not the best game of all time, as some are so keen on saying. However, it provides hundreds of hours of entertanment, which is more that can be said about 99% of other games. What's more, it's moddable and this will keep it alive for years to come. On the other hand, it's riddled with bugs - more so than is acceptable even for an open-world game of this size. It has weak writing, bad pacing of several questlines and balance issues. Overally it improves on its predecessors, but it also took a step backward in certain vital areas (magic and UI come to mind).
Is it overrated? Decide for yourself. If you loved it, then it's rated just right for you, isn't it?
As I see it, Skyrim is not perfect, but it's one of the better games that came out recently. Despite all its flaws, I sinked 300 hundred hours into it and will probably spend another 200 once I get all the DLC.
but is it really amazing, or is there just no competition to point out it's flaws?
One could argue that TES series is a genre in itself, but even then Skyrim has competition in form of its older brothers Oblivion, Morrowind and Daggerfall. Haven't we spent endless hours comparing Skyrim to previous TES games?
Then there's Fallout 3 and New Vegas, Bethesda's own open-world games that Skyrim inevitably ends up being compared to (yes, I know Obsidian made FONV, but it's still labeled as a Bethesda game).
I wouldn't worry about lack of criticism, at least here on BGSF - and this is where most fans dwell.