Allow me to clarify for you the difference between a valid criticism and an ad hominem attack:
Valid criticism: "The dialogue is repetitive and gets annoying."
Ad hominem: "Developers are lazy, sloppy and bad designers."
The second is not valid criticism and shouldn't be brought up at all in a discussion about game design. You have no idea what the developers are actually like as people or the challenges they face when developing a game like Skyrim. It's pure, subjective speculation based on a need to feel superior. I can talk about design issues without attacking people. It's not hard. Ad hominem attacks are just lazy, sloppy, and badly designed arguments.
Ok I think I understand.
Ill try to hone my debating skills so Ill get better at it.
Im not trying to attack anyone by the way, its just my opinion. Maybe I assume that as a given too much.
But you see, when I try to explain to myself
why the dialogue is repetitive and gets annoying I can find no imaginable reason.
Clearly anyone who has played the game more than once or more than lets say 50 hours will find these issues.
It seems to me that these kind of things are or should be equally obvious at the design stages.
What am I supposed to think, that the game is deliberately designed to last only a single playthrough? I get that impression sometimes with other parts of the game and its not one I like very much.
I really cannot come to any other conclusion than that they just did not bother. That it wasnt a priority.
I qualify that as lazy.
Harsh? Yes. Could I be wrong? Of course.
But I just cannot for the life of me figure out why the dialogue is the way it is without thinking that they just did not bother to make it better.
It really has nothing to do with superiority or anything like that, as I said its just my subjective opinion.
Im not a gamemaker, but I have seen them perform better at this in the past.