Because bethesda made them.

See if anybodies on PC, I don't care about what you think is wrong with Skyrim. You guys can recreate the game the way you like it.

If somethings a big enough deal to ruin the game for you -
1. Get a mod to fix said problem
2. If a mod doesn't exist that suits your needs, then make it, and if that's too hard to do, then either learn or wait.

Players on either of the consoles don't have that luxury. Beth probaly made the game more suited for the console because we can't customize it.

No, they probably did it because they were lazy/thought it was ok. You should never make a game clunky on the PC because the players will wimply customize it.
And being on a PC is not all that great when everything is clunky and from what I've heard it's hard to mod the new UI.

I have never played stalker but the point of that post was to mention whats bad about linearity and the difference of open world and RPG to me. Their are plenty of games that I can walk and walk an walk.... and then FINALLY find a border. To me that's open world.

In a linear game you basically see what your boundries are right away.

If beth makes a game and you buy it and turn out hating it later, that's too bad. They already won. If you think they were lazy and they thought it was okay, it's because it was. It was good enough to hype it up and sell it.

And modding on the PC being difficult isn't a concern for me. You guys can still achieve customization to your video game.

Well, that may be splitting hairs because Fallout NV, although developed by Obsidian, uses the same engine as Bethesda's Fallout 3 and both were published by Bethesda, so its not like Bethesda did not have a hand in the creation of that game.

Skyrim is certainly an RPG - it's an innovative one. I like the fact that Bethesda aren't clinging to 'traditional' RPG aspects like attributes, and are keeping the series fresh by implementing new features, such as perks.
Of course, many of you 'vets' like to whine about how much you miss attributes and how much you hate Skyrim, and I doubt the likes of ME could change your minds ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LfrPq3YS9Q

Skyrim is a great open world game, but a linear rpg.

Ohh wow. i didnt even notice it.

Looks fun.

One more who belief in the Katana = imba myth xD
(pulls out a Claymore)

But back to topic... Opinions are like food taste.
If someone think it's good that it is his/her decision.

Some RPG'ers may call this junk, Bethesda calls it treasure.

Mount & Blade is a very good game but to say it's an good RPG is pretty strange, I say it's an first person strategy game with strong RPG elements. has only played the original.
Combat is downright scary, however quests and npc interaction is worse than Skyrim )

Baldurs gate and Icewind dale, will also add neverwinter night and dragon age origin. Good rpg however find icewind dale pretty weak in this setting.
Main difference is that it's an party based sideway down looking game, an totally different gaming experience, more of an rpg than M&B and also more than Skyrim or Morrowind, however based on the AD&D bordgame rules, dragon age orign and neverwinter night is better here as rules is more designed for computer games.
However an totally different gaming experience M&B is more like the elder scroll series.

Almost last I agree Stalker has some of the same feeling.
However I feel that lots of the critic of Skyrim is Skyrim against Oblivion with 5 years of mods, or Morrowind with 9 years.
Both the games has more weaknesses than Skyrim, major issues is annoyances, two guild quests is to short, npc dialogue is weak, major issue is that destruction is pretty broken and no spell making.
Major issue in Oblivion, level scaling is pretty well broken all over.
Major issue in Morrowind, no high level content, magic is pretty broken as you did not regenerate magic.

Maybe you're right about M&B, but it gives you a lot of choises, you can be a [censored] or a nice guy or something in between.

And I can agree with Oblivions problems, I'd say that vanilla morrowind is better than vanilla skyrim, if you can get pass the horrible animations and outdated graphics. I wouldn't say that magic was broken I walked into Dagoth Ur at level 2 with a mage, killed some guys, no problem at all.

I agree.


Don't know if I agree with this 100% but I do agree that all TES games have major elements that could use improvement.


I am not sure that no magicka regen in Morrowind broke magic, since you could easily craft a bunch of very potent magicka regen potions with a self made Fortify Alchemy spell.

Skyrim is a mile wide, but an inch deep.

The biggest story immersion killer is the lack of reactivity, and the linearity (at least there's no illusion of choice such as Bioware games have). You can be an archmage, and people will still tell you to go to Winterhold to learn spells. You can be the leader of the Companions and people will ask you if you polish their swords.
In fact, it's unavoidable that you'll be named leader of the factions once you do certain quests.

You can be a werewolf, and only one person in the entire game will comment on it, and similarly with being a vampire - only one person will ever mention it.

Every dungeon puzzle ceases to be a puzzle after you've been through Bleakfall Barrows - they're just doorknobs that takes slightly longer to open.

I can't think of any quest outcome that ties into another quest. For example, you can kill a very important imperial figure, and it'll be business as usual if you side with the Empire in the civil war questline. However, that important person will still show up if you helped the Stormcloaks win, and thereby turning Skyrim into an extremely anti-imperial province.

Mile wide, inch deep.

Better RPGs:

Alpha Protocol. Even if you're forced to play Mike Thorton, you can still decide his personality. Every choice you make matters, everything is interconnected, and it's nearly impossible to play the same game twice. Not to mention that you'll need to play it through several times just to learn what the deeper plot is.

Fallout: New Vegas. Your choices have consequences, which will change the desert (more than just changing the skin on the guards). Immensly well written followers, quests and DLCs. Small details, like finding out where the NCR gets their conrete and food from, makes it very immersive. Also, no radiant quests.

I really hope that the Skyrim DLCs will be really well made, rather than being more themeparks set in a sandbox.

The reason I question Skyrim's "open world-ness" is the fact that although you can trek for miles and miles in any given direction (although there are invisible barriers at the edges, thus actually 'closing' the "open world") it doesn't feel like an "open world" because little of what you do has any meaning. Just because I can roam the Sahara freely in any given direction for hundreds of miles without being stopped the world around me doesn't change much past the few moments where my footprints are still in the sand.

Sure, Skyrim is an "open world" (despite having closed areas like every other game), but leaving no mark on it makes it feel so very confined because it never changes.

Am I expected to be able to read this thread? The text is all black and blends in with the forum background.

Highlight it.

Again, I appologize for that. I don't know how it happened or how to fix it.

Well, if you disqualify FO:NV because it was released by Bethesda, even though it was actually made by Obsidian, then no, I can't think of any current games that beat Skyrim in the combined 'open world rpg' category. They definitely have the open world part down pat, and spent most of their time working on that, obviously. But remove the open world eye candy and general adventuring, and the RPG element in this game wouldn't even receive an honorable mention on anyone's 'Great RPG Games of Our Time' list. There is so much they could, and should, but inexplicably didn't learn, from Obsidian's admirable FONV craftsmanship in that area. Sad for what might have been.

Edit your original post, select all text, and use the text coloring tool on the edit menu to change font color. It's the leaning blue 'A' just to the right of the font Size changer box.

I think this is my point all together. TES Skyrim is different then other Bethesda games from before. Skyrim has less RPG elements, which svcks, I get it. Trust me I want 100 spells, spell crafting, deeper dialogue, changes in the world, better NPC reaction, and I could on and on and on but really Skyrim with what older TES games were all about. Those are RPG elements and those were cut (again it svcks). They remade into an open-world (like you said to an extent),medivalish/magical FPS action game where you level up.

What you want ( and A LOT of other people ) is better RPG aspects in Skyrim altogether. I agree with you but it isn't that way.
We can put out our opinion and hope it gets (re-)implemented in the next game.