Without stats(and choosable skills for your class), there is far less character customization. You could come up with thousands of combinations for a character just leaving the docks in Morrowind or the Sewers in Oblivion. In Skyrim, you are pretty much the same character entering the open world with the only variables being race, six, and who you followed out of the dungeon. That is a lot of the depth people are talking about, and in an RPG, the character is probably the most important way to achieve depth.


Also, combat mechanics and dice rolling: RPGs aren't about how well you aim and hit your enemy. That's an FPS.


Third: Why do we have to choose between perks or attributes or primary skills or minor skills. Why can't we have all of it?? I like the perks system. I would like it even more if you hybridized the character creation/leveling system of Skyrim and heck, Daggerfall.(love the strengths and weaknesses).

that is blatnalty unture

RPG is a word, and like all words it has changed over time to include many thigns beyond its original set of paramiters.

So that's why people start over with saying "I'm going to play as a mage now" or how people show off what their character can do others cannot..

If you're saying there's no character differentiation in Skyrim you're lying to yourself.
Then neither of the TES games are RPGs then.

You have no idea... After killing the Emperor of Tamriel, the only [censored] that changes are NPC's commenting his death and that the possible killer was from the Dark Brotherhood. I was dissapointed.

What did you expect while he was in Skyrim?

I bet The Imperal province is [censored]ting bricks but there really isnt much that would change in skyrim. The military leaders would continue thier last order until the new emperor is crowned and gives new ones.

I dont understand this notion people have that pissing on a sidewalk should cause WORLD CHANGING EVENTS in games within 3 secnonds of it happening.

Its the same things I hear over on the Bioware forums "OMG I SAVED THIS GUY WHY DIDNT THE GAME ALTER RADICALLY?"

The character developement and guild builds in Oblvion are more extensive. the work on the NPC's may be more. The writing in Skyrim is more sophisticated, and many may call that 'deeper'.

In a RPG, character development is nearly everything. Oblivion having more of it gives it a huge advantage over skyrim with replay value. Skyrim has advantages in movement and game play, though the loss of certain abilities and skills is painful. Also the loss of the asset wheel finger pad.

Its the wrong question. The advantage Oblivion has over Skyrim is in the real differences between races and the ability to play distinct characters. Those characters then have a 'deeper' build.

Skyrim's writing is very good- many felt Oblivion was too simple. Many hate the leveling in Oblivion. Well, Bethesda fixed that, didn't they?

But you are not using the game to create a mage. You are turning your generic hero into a generic mage. How would say a Necromancer come out of the dungeon with Hadvar different than say a fireballing Wizard?? In Oblivion, you could be a warrior, necromancer, assassin, ranger, spellsword, battlemage, paladin, or whatever you choose. You get bonuses to the skills involved with that class. Different spell school choices got you different spells that you could cast as well. In Skyrim, you are simply a generic hero with the same spells no matter what your vision of him/her is.

Those bonus stat bosts meant nothing becuase at the end of the day all characters could get thier skill + stats to 100 and learn every spell

Its not a matter of how deep the hole is, its a matter of how deep you can dig the hole.

That's why I lament it from a character building/depth/RP perspective. Mechanics wise it doesn't cost anything, but it definitely takes a hit to the "RPG" aspects of the game which is why folks are upset about it.

Skyrim just needed more skills and more attributes, and most of all it needed the gameworld to show the player the changes in his/her choices.

Thats what al rpg's need. More variation in character development; skills/attributes/feats/what ever, and more impacts on the world by your decisions.

Now, when you begin to cut these things down and remove them, then its pure dumbing down.

I peronsally find having systems in a game is pointless unless they can provide some meaingful addition to said game.

Redundant systems such as having Birthsings and Birthsign stones in Oblivion should be, and thankfully Bethesda did remove them, gone and whichever is less restrctive should be in its place.

Complexity SOLEY for complexity's sake is silly.

Come on guys.
TES are all great games, they are all done for entertaining purpose, and Skyrim is a big achievement in epic feeling.

But, fighting about which one is deep or not is pointless, because none of them are "deep".
Beside, I dont know any "deep" videogames. I know "fun" or "not fun" videogames.
Nothing more.

If I want something "deep", I read a good book, or I watch something like http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0306414/.

svcks for you man, video games are the books/paintings/tv of our time, you should learn to enjoy and seek depth in the narratives

Ofc there are video games much "deeper" than books or tv shows. Some are probably "deeper" than anything you will ever find elsewhere.
Best example i can think of is Planescape torment (which i replayed recently). Doesn't get much deeper than that. Better than any novel/book i have read. And i have read many. You actually get RL experience after absorbing that game

Anyway i don't think this is the kind of depth we are looking for. I think we are interested more like for the depth of rpg elements. Such as choices, engaging scenarios, character development etc

Oblivion deeper than Skyrim? Nostalgia is something but this...

Sigh... damn the internet generation who learns a word and just spews it all over the forums without knowing when it applies and when it doesn't.

Depth is something dependent on a lot of factors, although dialogue tends to be the most important of all of these (quest design, environment design and interactivity are other important things). Neither Oblivion nor Skyrim are particularly deep. Oblivion may have the slightest edge of Skyrim in this regard, although not really enough to matter.

Nehrim and both the Fallout games of this gen on the other hand are both quite strong in this regard. Just as a random example from Fallout 3, look at the Republic of Dave. The Place has a back story. Dave has a distinct character. There's humor (in the school, for instance). There's a variety of ways to get in through dialogue, depending on which you feel like choosing. And you can rig the election and then follow Dave as he wonders into Old Olney to set up his new kingdom. You can't do anything like this in Skyrim (moreover, Fallout 3 is quite weak as an RPG as well). This is exactly the sort of problem that both Oblivion and Skyrim have. There just isn't the same level of interactivity and liveliness in the world.

The "better RPG" argument seems solely because it uses dice rolls extensively, even for hit rate.

at this point, they are not. absolutely not. (or maybe for people who never read/watch anything else)
but, that's not a problem at all, you know, you can enjoy videogames nevertheless.
I do

hey, to each his own, Ive read a small library in my life, but your not going to find a "deep" videogame in Skyrim, maybe pool deep, not ocean deep, try like the above poster said planescape torment, or FF7 is really good too, Ive heard of grown men that cried at a certain part in FF7, fall in love with characters and hate characters with burning passion, which is about as deep as anything gets

The only problem with that part is that, after all these years, it's rarely a secret. Stupid spoilers ruined it for me!

game play wise skyrims is the best. the game has improved from a playing point of view considerably from ob. this is the selling point of any game and this is why it is one of the most popular games on steam.

where i think skyrim is lacking is in the story of the world. see when i look at a open world sandbox game i want the game world to be the same way as i left it when i started. in otherwords you want to treat the world as a sitcom. the reason being is that even though one person can change the outcome of the world for the large majority of the population living in it were oblivious of the actions of that one person. it is only when the consequences of the actions can be seen is when the recognition is applied. so with that said the MQ did a decent job of holding the wolrd the same as you came in. obvious that dragons are out of the norm it was a selling point for the game so understandable. but where i am very annoyed was the civil war quest. this changes the game world and can never be changed back to the way it was. this is a very poor story choice as it ruins other quests as well. not to mention that the game engine cannot handle alot of actors on screen making a "war" look rediculous. based on what i have experienced in the game the story was developed before the game engine and the game engine could not cope to keep the world consistent. let me explain

this is why a story needs to made in such a way that intersection is not possible like mention or that if intersection occurs the world is changed and an alternative set of quests open up. considering the later is alot more time consuming the prior should be adopted. so considering skyrims initial state of being in a civil war this is how the game should be left in. also considering that both armies were at a stalemate it is rather stupid that the war can be won in a week after you come into the picture. more options could have been possible if the war was left open. such as sorties deep in enemy terrirtory, assisnation quests etc.

the progression in guilds and their story lines are all the same i.e the guild is in decline on the brink and you come to save it. we have the main questline where we save the world we dont need to save our quilds too. essentially we are the superman of nirn. which puts me on the next story erk. why on earth would you bestow the role of dragonborn to the player. this straight away makes the theives guild and dark brother hood seem very silly. such a role is not suited for a player. essentially what im saying is that the story made the player the epic superman which is far fetched. the player should not have such a world changing role. now especially if you consider that tiber septim established the empire and a dragon born bloodline wouldnt you think that the jarls of skyrim would vote the dragon born for high king considering how the nords are. this again is why you dont give world changing roles to the Player.

another thing with the story all the previous games were set in a small time frame then skyrim jumps 200 years. with alot of events which are game worthy missed. it just feels like a big hole was cut out and everything that we loved is gone (thinking how ripley felt when she was drifying in space for 50 + years at the start of aliens. its good becuase it allows for a mew story to be made with lore being made up on the way.

Sounds like you're assuming that the Dragonborn should be a saint. My issue with the faction questlines is having the player become the leader of them in the first place - it isn't necessary, rarely makes sense, and is a design choice that should be dropped.

Too many people keep whining the few times you don't become the leader. Even though you never "lead" anything in the first place.