There's so much debate on here about whether Skyrim is great game or not. For the record my opinion is yes, it's a great game but it's not a great open-world RPG. I seems that most of the anger is over the fact that people feel like Bethesda pulled a "bait and switch." If it wasn't called "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim" and instead something like "Rise of the Dragonborn" (no TES) I bet people would feel very differently.

You see this sort of "bait and switch anger" all the time. Here's some examples of games I can think of off the top of my head (note I'm not saying any of these games were good or bad):

Dragon Age 2
Mass Effect 2
ArcaniA: A Gothic Tale
Ultima 8
Final Fantasy X
Civilization V
Fallout 3

The thing they all have in common is that the game(s) before them in the series were quite different and they all had a very passionate fan base. When the games on that list came out the fan base largely bought them without question because they expected it to be "like the first one only better." Some people then found out that what I loved about the previous games in the series was gone and they had a significantly different game. That doesn't mean they're bad games mind you. This isn't just limited to games it also happens in music and movies.

When a musician/band releases a new album that is a significant departure from their previous albums their old fans will often jump up and down screaming "sell out." They bought the album because they liked the previous albums and expected that if the previous albums were to their liking then the new album would be good too. I think the most drastic example I can think of is the Goo Goo Dolls. If you like their first 2 albums (garage punk/rock) odds are you hate the newest one (soft rock/advlt contemporary sort of stuff), unless you have a diverse taste in music.

Movies have the same thing happen. Every time an old classic is remade people kick and scream about it. Just look at the newest Star Trek movie. People who are not Star Trek fans generally like it. The hardcoe trekkies I know hate it with a passion. Although most say if it wasn't "Star Trek" they would like it. In other words, it's a good movie, but it's a terrible "Star Trek Movie."


TL;DR I don't think most people are saying that Skyrim is a "bad game" they are simply saying that Skyrim is a "bad TES game" or maybe just a "bad open-world RPG."

Skyrim is a good "TES game."

I don't see the bait and switch. Not at all.

I bought Skyrim because it was an ES game, I am disappointed because it doesn't feel like an ES game to me. So I suppose in a sense, I agree.

Skyrim is a "good TES game" but not as good as I'd hoped. Maybe I just hyped it too much.

Dragon Age 2, that is what you call selling out, never been so disappointed and furious in a sequel to a game in my life.

Too much change. I agree with your point, but I still think Skyrim is a good TES game.

God I hate Hipsters.

If you do not do any sort of research before purchasing a product then you only have yourself to blame for buying something on "blind faith".

Your point is quite valid and I do very much agree with it, but the general sense of "You guys/gals used to make great RPGs... why did you stop?" is also a large factor.

Games change, and that's a good thing. Except for CoD, and we [censored] about that.

Apparently, we also [censored] about ANY game actually innovating and changing. Humans hate change, but hate to admit it.

The way I see it, any game that can have me playing more than 60 hours is a success. Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 2, Skyrim, WoW, Dark Souls, Halo: Reach, Resident Evil, etc.

Maybe it's just me, but I think Skyrim is INCREDIBLE, and arguably the best TES yet. Not because it's exactly like MW with better graphics, but because it's VERY different from it's predecessors. If I wanted to play MW or OB, I'll play MW or OB. I don't need a new game that has the same mechanics with a different set of textures, I need a new game.

Sure, some people may not like all the changes, but it's still a game that can get people hundreds of hours of content, and that's an exceptional feat.

I completely agree with the original poster. Especially his examples of sequels.
I fell in love with Morrowind. I expected an improved Morrowind, but instead got simplified Morrowind.

Bait and Switch is only relevant to the individual purchase. You can't say "I bought [awesome game 2] because [game 1] was awesome" and then complain about a bait and switch because they are nothing alike.

Bethesda promoted it's game on its own merits. The game does the things they said it would do. Whether you exaggerated your expectations based on colourful hype or past experiences is your own problem actually, not theirs.

Consumers have to learn to think past commercials. They also have to learn not to rely on the Matrix to figure out how good Reloaded will be.

Not a good Open world RPG? WTF it is then...Adventure fantasy simulator in Tamriel? So far its much better RPG than what Oblivion was, and i'm at 145 hours and doubt that it will change much..

I'd probably like Skyrim much more if it was less like Bethesda's Fallouts and more like the next TES game. Never before have I had such a feeling of "didn't I already play this game?"

I absoulty love this game but I think the games not done yet. Im still hopeful that some more fixes and new content will add a lot to the game in common months.

The lack of proper content and substance for the joinable factions just screams Fallout, quite honestly... so disappointing, but the two game series, under Bethesda, now follow nearly identical formulas... RPG-lite, sandbox game with primarily first-person, real-time combat and plenty of dungeons. I love Fallout 3, although with some criticism of its own RPG-lite design, but to make Skyrim the same? Why? Heck, even the atmosphere seems to be meant to be similar... "dark" and "gritty".

I personally think Skyrim is a better TES than Oblivion (although its Dark Brotherhood questline was stellar, minus the railroading towards the end, and Shviering Isles would be the most fun I've ever had in a game if it weren't for those crystals).

Then again, I played for maybe 20 hours, ever, without GCD in Morrowind or nGCD in Oblivion, so all I notice from the lack of attributes is that I'm not constantly having to restore them after meeting bonelords/wills-o'-the-wisp.

If this was Oblivion your argument might have a bit more standing. Skyrim is a massive improvement.

My biggest issue with OP is the listing of Fallout 3 as a "bait and switch". If you bought fallout 3 thinking it would be like Fallout 1,2 or BoS you may actually be blind.

This.

Except no.

I really tend to get annoyed by this "good game, but not RPG" comments because it's just pure nonesense. If it's not RPG, or a bad one, then the rest of the series is just as bad.
No, the game wasn't a big RPG because it had to-hit rolls or because it had more weapons or because there was no voice acting.

You can still make your own, unique character, you can still mix out whatever class you want by doing those skills, you can still freely roam the world, you can still do quest for whoever you want...

If this sound like an action adventure-FPS then TES is a great action-adventure-FPS series since 1994.

EDIT:
Play Daggerfall then Morrowind, now explain the similarities.

Would you know they're from the same series without the title?

Yes, god help us with topics like "What could Fallout 4 take from Skyrim?" (Or whatever it's called) asking for perk trees and other nonsense in Fallout. DO... NOT... FIX... WHAT... IS... NOT... BROKEN. Fallout 4 is my last hope for a game published/developed by Bethesda and if it's as removed from it's roots or even it's immediate predecessors as Skyrim is... I'll light my eyes on fire... and probably never buy another Bethesda game.

Actually yes, this. That, or one of those people who ignores every single piece of information about a game once they've pre-ordered it, because they don't even want to be spoilered about the UI.

Fixed it!

Hipster post: right beneath THIS GAME IS AMAZING post.

Exactly.