An RPG for me means a lot of choices and AnC.
Do we get a lot of choices in quests? Nope.
Do we get a lot of choices in dialogue? Nope.
Do we even get branching dialogue? Nope.
Do we get to be pacfists? Nope.
Can we make peace with the bandits? Nope.
Any bandit? Nope.
Any vampire group? Nope.
Any necromancer group? Unless College and DB have Necromancy I'm gonna go ahead and say 'no'.
Can I kill anyone I want to? No.

Skyrim does not have the crucial parts for me to roleplay, it's all linear and way WAY too emphasized on combat.
For this, Skyrim is not an RPG to me and I cannot roleplay in it.
It's an adventure game with RPG mechanics. But Borderlands is an action game with RPG mechanics, so... Yeah.

Just my 2 cents on it.

I just don't see any reason to consider it an RPG, just cause I have skills and can do quests doesn't mean it automatically becomes an RPG.
Borderlands is as much of a True RPG as Skyrim is IMO.

Are you saying that player skill in button pressing should not be involved, because I can agree with that but player skill and creativity in decisionmaking should definately be the deciding factor in determining success. My first RPG was before the computer age, playing AD&D (first edition) now known as pen and paper D&D. For me AD&D was the epitome of roleplaying, at least the way we played it back then, complete with our house rules to rebalance the glitches and unrealisms we felt Gygax left in the game. In that type of a game, you were limited by the abilities of your character, but you skill at decisionmaking and deriving creative solutions to complex problems made all the difference. To me that is the defining characteristic of an RPG, computer or otherwise.

In a video game it can be hard to seperate player skill at button pressing from player skill at creative decisionmaking, unless you go to a Morrowind style system where everything is dependant on a computer generated dice roll. I kind of like that type of a system but most people don't, and once you eliminate that, it is pretty hard to eliminate player skill at button pressing as a factor. Even in a Morrowind style system, there is not complete seperation between player skill at button pressing and player skill in decisionmaking. Two players may make the same creative decision to hide behind a tree and jump out and attack when the bad guy approaches but one may be more successful than the other simply because they are better at manipulating the controller, even in a Morrowind sytle system.

In Skyrim, the lockpicking skill is the easiest to criticize because anyone with a modicum of skill can pick a master lock at low level with a handfull of picks. Combat is generally going to be a lot easier for kids with crazy flipper fingers (that's actually a compliment for those of you who are too young to know who The Who is), than for old dudes with failing hand-eye coordination. But your success at alchemy, enchanting and smithing is entirely character skill dependent. So, Skyrim is a blend of RPG and action.

You are probably right that we are not going to get any more pure RPG's because they won't sell as well as the action RPGs. But I hope that future Elder Scrolls Games will incorporate some of the elements that are discussed on these forums that will at least make their games more RPG friendly, such as more in game directions so that people who wnat to play with quest arrow off have the ability to complete quests solely from information derived from the game world. That is probably my biggest pet peev with Skyrim when it comes to roleplaying. That and the essential tags that stops me from killing whomever I damn well please.

I agree. Yeah the writing is weak as hell but to go as far as to say "it's not even an RPG" is over the top. To me that statement screams "Look at me, I'm a hard core gamer".

Maybe I'm being unfair. Perhaps if I played D&D in high school instead of, you know, interacting with the opposite six, I'd be saying the same thing.

Uh, just recently Uncharted 3 and DE: Human Revolution, both shooters, have involved far more problem solving and creativity in regards to how to deal with some encounters than anything Skyrim can offer even on the hardest difficulty. There is a such thing as dynamic problem solving.

And that is what I liked about a game like Gothic 3. There were choices to be made. You mainly knocked enemies out, unless you wanted to take sides then you DBed them to piss off the opposite factions. Even the combat had a choice to it. No graphically it wasn't perfect buy 2012 standards, but it was a darn good RPG IMHO.

I don't think so...I was a dork who played D&D in high school instead of...that other stuff, and I don't say the same thing. Though by my standards, even games like the Sims and sports games where you have a career player mode are role-playing games, they are certainly a cross-breed.

Yes, absolutely.
I meant how well you mash a button. For me that will always remind me of donkey kong or mario 1, where you had to jump at just the right time.
Creativity in decision making skills I think is paramount to a good RPG, and thats what I liked about Morrowind.
You were given all the tools to have full control over the world. I for instance permanently pacified the hostile Ashlanders on my diplomat Nerevarine by calming them, and then getting their disposition to 100.
This is one of a million things you used to be able to do, but not anymore, either because the mechanic has been entirely removed or because it has been put behind the scenes and can no longer directly be influenced.

Its true that you can never remove button mashing skill completely, but I prefer the Morrowind style of lockpicking, which was chance based dependant on skill, attributes, lock level and lockpick level, over Oblivion and up which is much more player skill. TES has gone this route of relying on player skill more with a number of other mechanics, and for me that takes away roleplaying, because its not my characters skill anymore, but my own.

I also like the diceroll mechanism. It meant that my character was more important than the controller. I also prefer turn-based strategy over realtime, for the same reason I prefer an unrestricted game of chess to a timed one.
I know this isnt very popular, but on the other hand there are also many people that like what I like, so its a shame that part of the market is hardly provided for.
That is why Im dissapointed with the direction TES has taken after Morrowind. It used to be a bastion, a great wonder, in a sea of games that catered to a very different market.
I cant really blame em for going the mass appeal money route, especially with todays economic state, but Im saddened that I no longer have that TES haven.

i do not agree that a hardcoe rpg with character-driven mechanics will not sell millions if bethesda makes it.

Turn-based combat ftw! There hasn′t been anything released for years that have tried to re-invent the wonderful mechanics for really good strategy and thinking that such systems provide. That′s where I think attributes and stats and such truly fit in.

I think the difference between us is that I never expected TES to take that direction, I always felt it was more action-game oriented and would stick to it's fps action meets roleplaying niche and as such I don′t want them to bother with attributes and those complex mechanics because they don′t fit with the rest of the concept.

I think I see where you are going with this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way you are looking at this is , say, a skill check for a conversation option, is an RPG element, or only being able to access a certain item based on strength is another. If we are assuming that this is the criteria for an RPG, then yes, Skyrim is hardly an RPG, but that's what's awesome about personal opinions. I disagree that this is what makes an RPG. Very respectfully, of coarse.

Obviously Bethesda doesn't think it would make millions, or they would make another one.

But labels do not have anything to do with personal opinions (generally speaking). I like to consider Night at the Museum an exploitation film meant to distress and anger people, but it is a comedy nonetheless.

Ah, but my opinion on what qualifies said label to be placed on this game is valid. The definition of an RPG is inherently subjective due to its vagueness. You can label someone as lazy if you want, but that label may be incorrect, because it is your opinion that this person is labeled as lazy, therefore, it can be argued, as we are doing here the RPG label. There is no right or wrong answer, only opinions.

Dice roll mechanism I might enjoy. Turn based, not so much. It would have to be really well done. My first modern computer RPG was a game called Dragonquest VIII on the PS2. Hadn't played games of any type in years, not since college and then my girlfriend (now fiancee) begs me to get her a PS2 so she could play this game. Saw her playing it said, that looks like fun, and the rest was history. That Dragonquest game had turn based combat (and a fairly open world). It was a lot of fun, but after discovering Oblivion and then Morrowind, I don't think I would want to go back to turn based combat, although some might. But a Morrowind style dice roll system, particularly with modern graphics, so you could see the opponent dodging your sword blow when you missed, is something I could really get behind.

i understand your point.

however, when people do state their specific definitions for what constitutes a roleplaying game or rpg, you are then able to understand their points of view concerning gameplay elements that do or do not live up to their definitions.

I look at gaming like the automotive industry. When games were first developed they were complex and intricate because the medium was underdeveloped. Similarly cars were needlessly complex, liable to break down and only used by a select number of people with the time and money to actually own a car. As time has gone own the gaming industry has honed its craft so that the days of roguelikes are gone. Similarly the automotive industry has developed so that cars are easy to drive and easy to maintain.

I don't believe Skyrim was made for casual players. Coming from someone who isn't so far removed from highschool I'll say that the perception of "fantasy" games hasn't changed. CoD is huge because it's a ton of fun to play with your friends and is now the king pin in the shooter market with the decline of Halo. I wouldn't doubt if in the next couple of years we see a new "king" in the shooter market.

To me it isn't that Skyrim was made for kids, or casuals. It was made in hopes that it could satisfy both the hardcoe crowd and the more casual crowd as both crowds have different advantages. hardcoes are more fanatical and casuals have greater numbers.

IMO:

Skyrim isn't an RPG, and I realized that during Todd's pre-game marketing. That made me a lot happier when I picked up the game.

Partly it's the stats and the streamlining. Stats weren't used particularly well by BGS, but modders put them to good use, so the removal reduces some of the potential sophistication of combat mods, like fatigue effects, for example. And stats, in terms of character customization, aren't replaced by the perk system, which is largely an "add +x to dmg y" system. This is a problem, but not the big issue, IMO.

The big issue is NPC and faction interaction, and lack of quest choice (branching). Scaling is better, but still has problems (in terms of the world revolving around you rather than you existing in the world). Anyway, there's too little actual choice in the game, and too little response from the game world to your character for it to qualify as an RPG.

I've said this before, but there's a difference between "freedom from" and "freedom to". Freedom from consequence actually reduces drama, emotional impact, and immersion. Freedom to play how you want is an essential feature of the game, but has no meaning without consequences and world response. In the real world, you have the freedom to walk out into the middle of a highway during rush hour. But you probably won't be happy with the results. Skyrim allows you to walk out onto that highway, and then stroll down the road without a care in the world. That's not true freedom, IMO, and it actually reduces my satisfaction with the game.

To people who say you can't have both, I disagree, though I admit that it would require giving up some content or increasing development time. I think FO:NV did a great job with this, and yes, it was more limited than Skyrim, but they had 1/5th the time to work on it, and the talk about gameplay restriction are exaggerated.

That being said, I think Skyrim is a really, really good action-adventure game. But the RPG elements are extra, extra light.

http://goo.gl/oGcRH
It seems that peoples' opinions are, in fact, factored into labeling.

100% This ^^^^^^^^

TES games through the years have provided me with an excelent crafted world with which I can use my imagination to develop a character how I want.

As the games have changed I have had to come up with new ideas to develop the characters the way I want. As an example:

I have a Pure Mage Build that I gimp as having a muscle wasting disease, and needs to drink skooma regularly for the effects it has on slowing the muscle wastage.

When the stats were about I used to not add any points into strength and as the enemies leveled it was as if I was wasting away,

The TES games allow players like me to have full control over the restrictions I feel would be part of the role I want to play, No its not perfect but it is as dam near as anything out at the moment.

I read that article too. It was a good article, but I am not sure that most "role" oriented role players are going to mind rules that add realism to the world and limit things that are inherently contradictory to the game world itself, even if such rules do limit freedom to do things that you really shouldn't be able to do. For example, there is another thread discussing whether the game should limit your ability to spam multiple potions or change armor in the middle of the battle. You never saw Gandalf doing anything like that and it would be phisically impossible. There are several possible solutions to this problem. Once solution is just not to do it. Problem solved, at least for the "role" oriented role player. But not for the "rule" oriented role player. For them you would need something like a restriction on the number of potions you can quaff during combat or a restriction on changing armor during combat. If properly done, however, such a solution would make both "role" oriented and "rule" oriented players happy because the "role" oriented player is not going to complain about rules imposed by the game that the "role" oriented player would self impose anyway. The types of rules that annoy a "role" oriented player are the ones that restrict the "role" player from fully realizing the "role" they are trying to play. Few "role" players want to play the role of a potion spamming whirlwind that moves so fast he can change armor mid combat, but many "role" players want to role play a mage powerful enough to open a simple lock with a spell. That is where Skyrim falls short. Sure it is a great game and sure it has role playing elements. But in many ways there is less freedom than prior TES games.

This is rather insightful. Annoyingly, there's a good deal of stigma between the two groups. Few can see a happy medium and throw around insults regarding the assumed age of various players, amongst other things.

Personally, I cannot stand overly rule-based RPGs. When I find a system heavily numerical and governed by inbuilt restrictions, I feel like my own creativity is gimped and that instead of being able to create the characters in my mind, I'm left only able to play with the shallow product of a system. That being said, I don't have a great big list of 'what makes an RPG'. I just like what I like.

What?

I am very much in the latter group. As such, I love Skyrim just as it is.

To me, role-playing is about how I interact with the world: Walking and changing out of armor into regular clothing while in town, eating, sleeping, spending time in inns socializing and listening to the bards, things like that. Combat on the other hand is kind of separate from the rest of the game. I know it might not seem to make sense, but try to follow me here. Most of what I do (such as the things I mentioned above) is about playing the ROLE. Combat is different however. It's more about playing the GAME. As such, it's important to me that it is exciting and fun. Being able to quaff tons of potions doesn't really ruin it for me- sometimes it's the only way to survive, at least at lower levels. As for changing armor- well, I just don't do that. The same goes for all the other things that: if I feel it is doesn't mesh with the game and the world, I just don't do it. I don't some rules engine to keep myself from changing armor during combat, or to avoid abusing crafting (note that my current character would never consider crafting anyway- she's not an aritsan, she's criminal). Having the freedom to make my own rules and the discipline to follow them makes a game like Skyrim just that much better to me.

It sounds to me like you're describing a sandbox.

Something like say http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1OHKBcGCgg

Skyrim is an action adventure with RPG elements.

I would not be surprised to see TES evolve towards Zelda-esque qualities.