And yet it is not. How can a game like this exist and not be ashamed of itself? There are games that have come during or otherwise before Skyrim, that have evolved complex RPGs. So many people praise the game and then when people bring up other games, people get upset and say that it isn't fair to compare these games. But if they come from the same genre, and if they are doing what Skyrim should have done shouldn't it be compared to those around it? I'm going to bring a few RPGs here and how they have updated the RPG world and that its sad that a game like Skyrim is doing well, when the real RPGs out there are doing lackluster.

New Vegas. Obsidian took what Bethseda did in Fallout 3 and updated that system. That game came out in 2010. I'll bring up things New Vegas did well, Attribrutes, Skills, and Perks. Now a lot of complaints and arguments say that we're past the age of Attribrutes, Skills, and Perks. And yet New Vegas made it fun. New Vegas updated, attribrutes, skills, and perks. It made it stragetical, thought out, and well designed. Not only that, but they spent a great effort into making it part of who your character is. The beginning of New Vegas reminds me of Morrowind. Where they asked you all those quetsions and then it suggested skills for you on what you answered. The ink blot test, the great detail in questions about what kind of person do you run in and just kill, do you find the back door, etc. Attribrutes and skills and perks are not number pushing, its how to define your character. Not only that, but Attribrutes, Skills, and Perks are separate of each other.

I do not like the Perk System in Skyrim. Perks are not skills and Perks are not Attribrutes. In the way they were defined and used in Fallout 3, Perks are ways to enhance your Skills and Attribrutes and do things you were not originally able to do. For example, let's go back to Oblivion you had Attribrutes Willpower, Strength, Intelligence, Agility, Endurance, Luck, Personality, and Speed. Now let's pretend if we did have a NV or even a F3 system with those Attribrutes. You chose a rogue. Now your Rogue has the high Attribrutes of Agility, Speed, and Luck. Your skills are like Archery and Acrobatics. Now then the Perks you combine with all three of your abilities, such as a Climbing Perk which would increase your Acrobatic skill and allow you to climb. Perks were enhancements to your skills, they were not the Skills themselves. The Perk system in Skyrim, I think tries to combine Skill and Perk together, and I feel it doesn't work and its clumsy.

Next thing New Vegas did, in 2010, is actual meaningful companions. Okay so their stories weren't exactly the most amazing. But at least they were human beings. With arcs, and emotions, and they their own moral systems and values. The first guy you meet, whom lost his wife and unborn child. You can choose the wrong person to kill, but he won't be happy about it and there is I can't remember, but you can do something where he won't even be your follower. Skyrim kind of went in the right direction with their Dawngaurd DLC, but this should have been in the game to begin with. Not on add on, not a something they put in the last minute. Companions and followers should have arcs, should have quest, should be humans. Not killing machines that follow me and are so bland and boring with no personalities or moral values themselves.

The last thing of New Vegas is the Fame and Infamy system, the one Skyrim doesn't have. Actions have consequences, Actions affect how the world sees you. Not in Skyrim. In New Vegas the factions you choose, the factions you villify, etc. Everyone has an opinion of you. Everyone thinks of you in a different way. And its when you get directly involved in the world that they have an opinion. The Powder Gang villifies you because you seek to kill them and have joined factions that are against them, etc. The way cities view you in this world depending on who you help, how you help, they villify you, view you as a hero, etc. Not in Skyrim apparently.

These are things that New Vegas updated of Fallout 3 in 2010, 1 year later amd Skyrim takes a dump and takes RPGs a step backwards. Now I know the other argument, oh that would be copying another person's idea. But that's not my argument, my argument is if someone has done something that is unique, and has evolved the system. Then competition would state that you would do something leagues above that, update their already evolved system. Not take two steps backwards or five.

Another game that came out in the same year as Skyrim was Two Worlds 2. And its sad that TW2 is an excellent game because from its oirginal TW1, it was leagues better than its original. They evolved their system from their first game and it became better. Not only does TW2 have the things Skyrim should have had and they came out in the same year, but TW2 despite its semi lacking story and voice acting did better than Skyrim. TW2 has books on how to spellcraft and become a better mage, TW2 has stragety books on how to become a better warrior. A crafting system in TW2. You can spellcraft in TW2 if you can dream, you can make it. The crafting system of weapons, you can break down weapons into their core elements and then craft them into something new. Skyrim's forging is find an ingot or buy it then make a sword. Why can't we break down swords in Skyrim? TW2 allows you to use dyes to color your armor, you have pieces of armor too. TW2, which is not graphically superior[but is better than games like Origins, or even Fable or Oblivion] to Skyrim has pieces of armor. Shoulders, gauntlets, greaves, cuirasses, shirts, pants, boots,etc. And dye. Pieces of armor. Not one thing because it will "slow down" loading.

TW2 is open world and has loads of enemy types, you have Baboons for goodnes sake attacking. Ostriches, rhinos, etc. In Skyrim you have maybe an ice wraith, a wolf, a troll from time to time, draugr, and that's it. TW2 has a large variety of beast in their beastry. Not only that, but you're actually crossing different little islands and each beast has its own unique feel to the environment around it. Not only that, but TW2 has three ways of opening locked chest. You can break it with a sword, but it damages items inside. Magically open it with magic. Or you can lockpick it. Why doesn't Skyrim have this? IDK.

Not only that, but TW2 added in a multiplayer, and its the best multiplayer for console RPGs.

Now, again I have some people whom I know are going to say that if you like TW2 or New Vegas so much go play it. But I am not bringing these up to say they are better. It just makes me so livid that Skyrim wants to prance around with a crown, and say its King. When there are RPGs in the dark, that have kept to a core RPG elements and have evolved the system to make it fun. To be fun. And it makes me mad that there are games like TW2, or New Vegas, or even Witcher 2 that I haven't even touched base on that have done something inovative, and yet Skyrim is lacking in all of this inovation. Instead of saying "Wow they really evolved the RPG elements of those games, let's try to do better" they went, "Wow look at all those amazing shooters that make a lot of money, let's do the bare minimum of that".

The only thing I'll bring up about Witcher 2 is that it treats the player like an advlt. It doesn't hold your hand with the breadcrumb quest marker, it doesn't have an arrow above the item you're suppose to pick up. The companions are well thought out and unique. The voice acting is better, the characters are unique and I actually feel for them. The game is visually stunning. You can fail quest which lead to consequences of other quest. You make choices and they matter, you have choices in the game. And those choices affect the game. Now I'm going on a tangent.

I just feel like Skyrim is not the holy grail of RPGs as it wants to be and as it is praised to be. I haven't played it, but the demo of Dragon's Dogma it has the customization Skyrim should have had. I could make an advlt, a child, an old man, etc.

I don't think one game will ever be the end all game that has every single thing that every single player wants in it. No dev team would ever be able to finish programming it to release it.

Inanimate objects (even games) do not feel shame (or anything).

That isn't my point. My point is that Bethseda, did not evolve Skyrim. They made it minimal and basic. And look at the leaps and bounds that New Vegas or even Two Worlds 2 made.

I am satisified with Two Worlds 2 because of its content, the fact that I have spellcrafting, the meaningful quest, the large beastiary. It reminds me of Oblivion, how it could be lackluster, but the large world made up for it.

By comparing Skyrim to Two Worlds 2 you have made your entire topic a joke.

Lol too long didn't read.

Excuse me? Two Worlds 2 is the perfect example of how a sequel should improve.

Actually, the Witcher 2 does have quest markers. Quest objectives that Geralt could easily pin-point on the map, friends or known locations for instance, were marked. There were only a handful of quests that didn't have markers and encouraged exploration.

...I quite like Skyrim...

I don't remember that. All I have seen is a quest marker to the point, to where I was going. Then when I walked in, it disappeared and I had to find my own way.

OP, you seem to rant rather frequently.

How could they not have improved from the first game. It was utter garbage. Doesn't make the sequel a great game.

Sorry, lost me at the title. Roughly 10 million people obviously disagree with you, making every roundabout point you've made, at the very least, only one person's subjective and unfounded opinion.

For instance, you spend a good deal of time comparing Skyrim to FONV. IMO, FONV really svcked, royally. I can get out of Whatever Springs, but that's about it. Frankly, I don't CARE about the numbers, stats, attributes, skills, perks in the least because, well, IMO, the story was lackluster, not engaging in the least, boring as all get out. Same's every FO before it. Then you mention TW2? Wow. Just. Wow. Yeah, TW1 svcked more, but TW2 didn't svck that much less. Again Witcher 2... unbelievable. Besides being graphically, aesthetically, a western RPG, the whole way of acting/interacting is more hybrid with JRPGs, which I can't stand. So, for me, Witcher 2 was also unplayable. The last RPGs that even approached Skyrim, for me, were Oblivion and Gothic 3. DA:O was okay, but it was too linear, to action RPG, not open world.

Right now, I'd have to say again, as I did above, that the sheer volume of people STILL playing a solo game, almost a year post release, even though they've finished it, multiple times, well those people are what MAKES THE GAME, the consumer judges whether or not the game is "the holy grail" of RPGs, not a single critic (professional or amateur).

Many of the things you complain about (like quest markers) are OPTIONAL. Don't like, don't use, simple.

You still DO have stats, they're rolled up into Magic, Health, Stamina. What's wrong with that? Too many people focus too much on niggling numbers (should I put that point here, or there). I've watched a particular player agonize for twenty minutes oer that question. And dude, that's not playing a game, I don't know what it is, maybe some kind of gameOCD, but it's NOT enjoyable. So, they removed it. You pick one of three options, they assign the points, streamlining. Why? Because fighters enhance their physical strength attributes, thieves enhance their physical grace attributes, and mages enhance their intellectual attributes. It's just plain old easier. Click, back to playing, thanks. YOU don't approve of that, but I and many others do.

I don't know if those stats effect skills or not, and what's more, I don't care, I'm having too much fun actually playing to worry about it.

http://i448.photobucket.com/albums/qq203/rex3200/didntwhat-1.gif it gets us all.

Exactly my thoughts. PacMan was an improvement on TW1.

Considering just how poor Two Worlds 1 was, the second one being better wasn't too much of a stretch. Floating quest markers got you down? Simple, deselect your quest! Now, that wasn't too hard was it?

As for lack of innovation, I fear you are staring at the details and missing the bigger picture here. Name me one game which manages to go multiplatform, provide a sandbox environ the size of this with the graphical quality it has (and can be pushed to), and still provide a staggering number of mechanics and ways to occupy oneself. More to the point, what other RPG series has had the chutzpah to even attempt molding attributes, skills and perks into a single system? None, that makes it innovative no? It has its flaws yes, but this is uncharted waters for them.

Currently, the TES series is in a league of one, there is no present day direct competitor for what this series offers.

But they also improved.

I don't think that it is fair for you to discount the fact that they improved, gave the systems of what Fable and Oblivion had, and added a cohesive multiplayer to their game.

They updated. They learned from their mistakes.

The point is Bethseda, heard of their mistakes. And instead of improving and updating on these mistakes they completely rip it apart and take away everything.

Two Worlds 2 is a great game. And it shows how a company should improve on their mistakes.

If not wanting to read a extremely long winded essay on why Skyrim svcks then consider me lazy. If he had anything fresh and new to say, it would have been worth reading.

What's the point in this? The NPC's don't give you any good directions.

I survived cancer and then got genital warts, but hey at least I improved.

They still usually mark the location on your map.

This is also true. They don't say, "Hob's cave, just south east of hear, near the crooked bend," No.

They just tell you Hob's cave and you're suppose to automatically know what it is.

@Wooley: Unless you can provide me a cohesive argument against why Two Worlds 2 is a joke and isn't a good game to compare to Skyrim and the open world environment, I'm no longer going to listen to your joke of an argument.

They mark it on your map. Seems like good directions to me. I give it one quick glance and then head out in search of the place.

i didnt like it so i didnt played it, if you dont like skyrim dont play it and sell skyrim not that hard is it? at least the part of stop playing it

If a game is crap and they update it to make it less crap (but still crap) have no merit.
Skyrim is a greart game for itself, it have its own life.
Im sad you spend your time ranting rather than playing!
But in the end is a matter of taste.