Agreed. Nothing wrong with taking inspiration from other games. It'll only serve to make it better in the long run. Now if someone said that Skyrim should take its leveling system, that'd be a whole different story.

Wow, I had to stop reading halfway down the first page for the sake of my blood pressure.

Was the OP's mistake putting "like Fallout" in the title? Like, is that really it? Is that all it takes to make rabid ~fans~ thumb their ears and start barfing out non-discussion about keeping TES and Fallout separate because they aren't the same game, despite the fact that like 95% of Fallout 3 (and thus by extension New Vegas) are essentially just total conversions of Oblivion?

The trait which OP said (s)he wishes Skyrim had is, regardless of what he is comparing it to, inarguably positive, and inarguably lacking from Skyrim, which is, after all, a game that is meant to be open and free, yet every player seems to have the same railroaded experiences; The only actual freedom the vanilla game demonstrates is what order you partake of the extremely limited content in, and
If you want to keep freedom of choice, one of the absolute cornerstones of open RPG's, out of one of two very similar series simply because it already exists in the other and you're afraid that if anything one has and the other doesn't leaks over it will ruin the sanctity of your precious second-rate game, all you desire is for the game you are restricting freedom from to be decidedly inferior in a very, very basic regard. That's all there is to it. It doesn't matter if the example the OP is pointing to is Fallout, Daggerfall, Fable (which actually has laughably little choice, even less than Skyrim, in any of its iterations), Witcher or Dungeons & Dragons. The point you lot are missing, and I'm sorry if there was some kind of great turnaround in the overall attitude of the thread after the point I had to stop reading, is this:

TES V: Skyrim lacks freedom or impact of choices, and in a game that is supposed to be open-world, highly personal, expansive and an RPG, this is akin to, say, an human being that lacks an heart and a stomach.

Also wow the word filter catches some weird things

No, I said look at the way sword and shield works. Slow motion when blocking, blocking arrows, knocking enemies down, disarming their weapons. As for illusion, causing enemies to fight for you, calming your enemies, invisibility whenever you want it, Mass frenzy. Then there's destruction, and the different effects it has on enemies, like frost freezing ones low on healh and slowing down things, and causing enemies to runaway with fire. And lightning allows you to hit things easier because it's faster, and almost nothing has resistances to lightning. Conjuration combined with destruction is very deadly as well, and theenchanting system adds a lot of options too, like health and stamina drains, or simple elemental damage. Also all the armor enchanting you can do. Thu'ums are also very tactical, depending on which you use. Then you have arrows that slows time down when you aim, andparalyses enemies. Restoration magic allows you to heal yourself without the to use potions, and fight better against undead, and even restores stamina. For battle mages, having a high level in destruction causes the charge in your weapon to be higher. Alteration adds armor to yourself, and paralyze things, Also adds a lot of magicka resistance. High sneak allows you to insta assassinate people even in combat when your enemy sees you.....

And there's more but you get the point.

I get all this. I don't get why this is notably different than different weapon, ammo, armor, chem, or perk choices available in New Vegas. I don't get why frenzying someone with a spell is meaningfully different than frenzying an ant because you shot their antennae off or hit a robots inhibitor chip. Or why slowing someone with an ice spell is meaningfully different than crippling an enemy's leg. I mean, in one case you're shooting a specific spot and in another you're casting a specific spell, but that's just a difference in application. Both are using strategy and awarding tactical decisions, the only difference is in terms of how the setting informs what tools are available.

Instead of naming fallout, I should have said ES should just borrow from the bioware way of doing the dialog tree, because those games give you so much choice, be it mass effect, kotor, dragon age or jade empire

The difference is I can frenzy anyone, not just ants and robots, and I can slow down an enemy without the need to hit his leg. Thats why its more tactical. Its not FNV's fault, its kinda hard to compare versatility to a game that has magic. Less rules that have to be obeyed. And I'm not saying Skyrim is better because of this. People are quick to agree FNV is better in certain aspects, but when I mention Skyrim, they are equally as hard headed.

How is that more tactical? It's the same tactic, you can just do it everywhere. All that means is you don't need to read a specific situation because the tactic is always available. Take two imaginary games: one has an enemy that's weak against fire and an enemy that's weak against ice. The other game has two enemies equally weak against fire and ice. The second game isn't more tactical just because your fire and ice attacks are useful in more areas. It might mean you can create a more effective single-element character, but character options are different than tactical options.

Can you slow an enemy without using a frost spell? Then how is that different than being unable to slow an enemy without shooting their legs out? You're perform a specific action to generate a specific outcome. That's what a tactic is.

Regardless, I questioned the earlier poster because they seemed to be drawing a distinction between games than enable combat choice versus games that enable quest choice. Skyrim being the former and New Vegas being the latter. But New Vegas does encourage tactical combat. There's nothing mutually exclusive about this arrangement. You can have a game that is both tactically rewarding and offers multiple quest paths.

This will go on forever, so I'm ending it. If you don't see it or agree, fine. I'm not saying that its exlusive to TES, you see. I'm saying TES has MORE. Thats what the other guy was saying too, and I agree. But this conversation has nothing to do with dialogue and choices/consequences.

There's no room for creativity in gameplay

No, Trussing said that there was no room for tactical play in New Vegas:

This is only true if you are intent on being pedantic and demand that all tactics be equally viable in all situations.

I think they should keep the TES leveling system, but take traits and SPECIAL (TES equivalent) from New Vegas. For quests and story get Michael Kirkbride to do all of the writing.

How would the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. work when there's no attributes? Unless you're saying bring them back.

S.P.E.C.I.A.L. are attributes.

How would the S.P.E.C.I.A.L. work when there's no attributes? Unless you're saying bring them back. Derp moment.

I think they should keep the TES leveling system, but take traits and SPECIAL (TES equivalent) from New Vegas. For quests and story get Michael Kirkbride to do all of the writing.

ALL of the writing?... No thank you, that'll just be too confusing. Haha.

Fallout 4 should be interesting as I assume we might see some insight into changes TES may make.

Hi, i'm new to the forum. So recently i bought the ultimate edition of new vegas after playing skyrim for over a year and i can't believe how superior new vegas is in comparison to skyrim in terms of the writing, choices, rpg elements. Since playing new vegas and going back to skyrim i cant enjoy it as much now knowing how much more choice new vegas has. The only thing skyrim has going for it is the pretty graphics and superior gameworld.

I only hope they don't dumb down Fallout now. Bethesda, LET OBISDIAN DEVELOPE FALLOUT!

I'd say take the combat mechanics of New Vegas as well, but I doubt locational damage would work for TES.

No thanks. Locational damage, but they can keep target assistance.

I just like the idea of slicing limbs off, with good ole fashioned steel.

Same. Just as long as the gore isn't like fallouts.