Im ascerbic and emotionally explosive, sue me.
I have this avatar for a reason, you know.
Meanwhile I adhere to the forum rules and therefore will post whenever I feel I have something to say.
And that something has been said. Im fed up with you pretending that black is white and left is right with your 'indisputable facts'
Try increasing your running speed in Skyrim. You cannot, because there is no speed attribute.

No he wasn t he just worked on the project, and thats why its so wonderfull and so superior in tale and world consistency.
In that times there were game designers, story tellers and no mediocrity at the project head.

Don t blame Todd son... Most changes came because even advlts couldn t understand the mechanics.
But perks they can...at least that...

I think I understand what the OP is getting at. Why had Bethesda not attempted to take some elements of FO3 and incorporate it in Skyrim. Here's an example

The Speechcraft skill would have gained a lot if they had brought in the dialog system of FO3. Branching dialogue has been a mainstay of the FO series, but so far has eluded the TES series. Why? Would it have screwed with the Radiant system, a system that has yet to reach it's full potential?

Or how about the stories in FO3? They could have made the quests in Skyrim more than a glorified fetch quest. Again, is it because they wanted to incorporate the Radiant Story system?

I love Skyrim. Still do. I just have a feeling that both series are just attempting to deliver very different experiences

Where in Morrowind can I increase my sprinting capabilities - oh wait...

Nope, Skyrim doesn't have a run speed variable.

Instead, you just sprint, and can increase your sprinting capabilities through - get this - an ATTRIBUTE!!!

You may prefer run speed to sprinting distance, hey, that's your prerogative. But to argue that depth has been removed when it hasn't, and choices are gone when they aren't, is wrong and absurd. The choice is still there, it's just a different shade of choice.

Deep complex RPG ? Huahahahahahahahahahah Not even Morrowind was near that and you cant handle it ... Huahahahahahahah!

What?

Who said I can't handle Morrowind?

It's my 2nd favorite game of all time, behind only Skyrim.

I've been playing it since it was released on PC in 2002. I have 2 copies of it on PC, 2 copies of it on X-Box, along with both expansions on PC, and one of my 2 X-Box copies being Game of the Year. I've spent my fair share of time in Morrowind, including both downloading and creating mods, and that game single handedly redefined the RPG genre for me. No game has ever even come close to replicating the joy I had with Morrowind - except Oblivion, which came close, but fell just short, and Skyrim, which is close, and slightly surpassed it.

So sorry then i mistook answear, but weren t you the one not willing to come back to the old system and willing to stay with this stupid diablo 1 isometric action game designed and less than impressively implemented perk sytem ?

Can you proove your statement, last number showed that console were merely around 45% of sales.
This due to migration to PC to try to correct the many (PPW) piss poor work done in skyrim by modding it.

TES would have been dead after Daggerfall if it werent for Todd Howard so I think you owe him some respect. He was also project lead on Morrowind, so saying Morrowind was better because he was not in charge is false.

Smithing is "just a menu", but Spellmaking isn't???

How is jumping like a floating frog more realistic than a floating statue on foot in front the other ?

I fail to see the realism here

I think things like Attributes and skills that only rank 1-100 are a regression at this point.

*Yes, I realize that skills in Skyrim rank 1-100, but I feel that perks offer far more variety and versatility than Attributes and plain 1-100 skill levels ever could. I can make more unique characters this way than I ever could before.

There is nothing "Diablo" about Skyrim.

Fallout 3 was great. Even after you get all your skills to 100, you could still DIE. There were areas such as the Dunwich Building or the Capitol Building that can still give you a run for your money. Yeah, the samller areas are easier but still, that's good as it gives you a sense of progress.

Skyrim needs to be like this: There should still be areas that are very difficult even if you're at level 80. I'm level 34 right now and the only dungeons I have ANY trouble in are the places with Falmer and even then, being a thief, I could just sneak past them.

There needs to be a select few dungeons or areas that have lots of baddies or a few really strong ones. The giant camps are a threat at a low level but at a high level, the Giants should be more afraid of YOU. I don't mean leveling like in Oblivion because that was very stupid. I mean having select areas that are unbearably difficult from the get-go. For high level players.

You've lost plenty of arguments on here to people who have much better points than you.
I'm sorry, but there is simply no way that you can justify Skyrim having more depth than Morrowind without grasping at straws.

I've enjoyed all of Beth's game enough to be happy with their products. Morrowind remains the favourite, but they did get things with Fallout and made what may have been a difficult choice in letting Obisidian improve on their formula with NV. Skyrim is great fun for me although I still have my complaints - I think you advance to quickly and spend too much of the game at super levels. They said that when the DLC come out they will take place after the MQ has been finished so I'm hoping for a Broken Steel of Skyrim, with new monsters that are more challenging that will exist from day one in the game - something to run away from, maybe some new armours etc.
I miss everything they took out of the game, but I love all the new elements - dual wield, the perk system (even if it has its faults). If only the game was harder without simply upping the stats on the enemies. I'm hoping that some talented modders will emerge to add in more enemies (not just new ones, but fighting ten bandits instead of four). Midas magic has already shown up. There will be more. Sorry to the consolers, but Beth does seem to rely on the modding community to make their games the epic adventures they should be.

Skyrim, no DLC, 100% completion = 250 hours.
Fallout NV, no DLC, 100% completion = 100 hours.

You might argue about better quests, story, quality time etc etc. But less content is less content. Don't argue a point for the sake of arguing.

His other major credits include Project Leader and Designer of The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind (2002), Producer and Designer of The Terminator: Future Shock (1995) and SkyNET (1996), and Project Leader and Designer of The Elder Scrolls Adventures: Redguard (1998).

Source: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Howard

http://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/elder-scrolls-iii-morrowind/credits

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0314015/fullcredits/miscellaneous

Note that as a executive producer in Skyrim, his involvement might actually be more towards business and marketing than actually micromanaging the project, compared to full-time hands on as a project lead in Morrowind. Not everyone is a Steve Jobs.

Less content means more FOCUSED content.

Quality over quantity. Allow for enough leeway in player choice and make the game engaging and fun, and he's going to play it again to see the other side that he previously did not see. That almost doubles the play time. I'll side with another faction this time around, maybe do these quests differently to see the other outcomes.

Branching paths reduce the number of quests in the game, but it gives multiple options to complete one quest at the same time to make up for it.

Skyrim takes the approach that people are only going to play it once and be done with it. New Vegas takes the approach that people are going to play it more than once.

Once you factor that in, the playtimes even out.

Straaaawww maaaaaaan da da da daaaaa

I had to sorry lol.

That is a completely bogus claim. most people on here have completed Skryim several times over by this time in less time than that.

I have 160 hours into skyrim and i have done the main quest three times now with different archetype characters along with the guild quests and all the side quests a couple of times that I could find in every city and town i discovered. Im sure i missed some here or there but at most that might add an extra few hours or so. In fact i was pretty much done with the game 120 hours in and that includes alot of just random dungeon diving and collecting loot, my last 40 some hours is mostly just messing around with cheat characters and trying to figure out what i want to change with mods.

Well said. To complete a quest once in Skyrim is to complete it entirely. To complete a quest once in New Vegas is to see between 1/2 to 1/4 of the total options available to the player. This makes New Vegas have great replayability and deep, engaging quests.

Yep. I've put 160 hrs into Skyrim and I've experienced just about every major questline. Only thing left to do is wander around aimlessly exploring dungeons and killing more draugr, dragons, bandits. *sigh*
Whereas I've put in the same amount of time (if not more) into Morrowind and the only guild questline I've finished is the Fighters Guild. I have about 10 other guilds that I've barely even touched.

Exactly. I had four seperate playthroughs you can do just by either helping the NCR, Legion, Mr. House or Yes Man on the main quest alone. Granted they share many of the same questlines but enough of them are different that you end up using different characters for them, especially if you start early in your game. On top of that you can help Goodsprings or the Powdergangers. You can help the BoS or blow up their bunker. Do I help the Fiends or the NCR? Each casino in New Vegas even had multiple ways of doing the quests and you could decide who you wanted to help. Do I help Cochino or do i help the other guys?

Skyrim is just one long monotonous series of fetch quests where i have no input on how i want do the the quest other than sneak or zap or bash. The most complicated choice i had was when you can wipe out a certain faction if you kill a certain person. The irony is that if i want to wipe out the Thieves Guild playing as some Overzealous Paladin of Justice I can't do it cause half of them are essential. And of course the Daedric quests which seem to follow the kill someone and you get some useless trinket which usually isn't nearly as good as something I already recieved or made myself.

Ok, a couple of things.

First, just because they add something, that does not make up for what they took away. It's like having someone give you a fork after they took away your spoon. Yes, a fork is nice, but it's no spoon. I'd really like my spoon back.

Second, sure, many of the effects of attributes are still there, but it's really not the same thing. Attributes are what you could call general level stats. You put points into attributes and it has an affect on multiple aspects of gameplay. Put points into strength and you can carry more, hit harder with your one-handed weapons, two handed weapons and unarmed. Skills, on the other hand, are more of specific level. After you use attributes to create the general shape of your character, you specialize them with skills. Many of the affects of attributes were felt through the skills, as well as through derived attributes.

So what they stripped out was the general level, leaving only the specific level to work with. To get the same effect as putting points into strength, you no have to put points into Stamina for encumbrance and perks into One handed, two handed and heavy armor (for the improved unarmed). It is not the same thing and does not allow for as much flexibility or variation.